Member Info for stu485

Mr I,

Let’s deal with one question at a time shall we.

Who’s wrong you or JFH ?

I know why you don’t want to but I’m sure others might benefit from a straight answer .

Regards funding. Yep i still expect non-dilutive funding announcement within the available cash runway remaining.

AIMO

Mr I,

I’m sorry but maybe I’m being a little BHold in understanding.

Who’s wrong, you or JFH ?

AIMO

Mr I,

JFH-16:24 yesterday.

“NO APPROVAL IS REQUIRED TO START TRIALS. NONE. ZILCH. Trials can start IMMEDIATELY for AML in adults.”

Mr I- 10:29

“I would suggest the delay is because some changes they had to make in the IND application and that needs FDA approval”

Christ sake, once he’s had the difficult words sounded out to him , even BHold’s going to understand the glaring contradiction!

There’s an obvious answer to the question some have raised that you and JFH are stumbling around .

Let me know which one of you believes to be correct in the above and then upon request, I’ll answer the question properly.

AIMO

Jfh,

Please, please, stop with the avoidance !

Your words …again !

“Makes sense to wait for FDA decision before formally starting trial “

The above a reference to the anticipated FDA approval for the new indication…not the existing!

The more you avoid the statement you’ve made, the more others will question your integrity.

YOU have clearly stated the company will wait for the further FDA approval before trials .

You could actually be correct but pretending you never said what all can clearly read (maybe not BHold), is childish .

That’s my last attempt to make you understand your own statement.

Have a good evening.

AIMO

Jfh,

These are your words not mine !

They might be a little awkward for you in retrospect but that’s of your own doing, not mine !

I have never claimed the company needs to/may wait for further FDA approval prior to commencing trials as you have.(below)

I’ve deliberately used small words to explain, only for BHolds benefit.

“I am led to believe an IND was submitted some time ago to extend the use of HEMO-CAR-T. Makes sense to wait for FDA decision before formally starting trial as JUST AML or AML and ALL+Paeds.”

AIMO

BHold,

You should stop posting on an empty head!

Jfh statement

“I am led to believe an IND was submitted some time ago to extend the use of HEMO-CAR-T. Makes sense to wait for FDA decision before formally starting trial as JUST AML or AML and ALL+Paeds.”

So, in FACT it’s JFH who believes further FDA approval will be waited for, prior to trials and not me !

Unfortunately for you, most here can read !

AIMO

BHold,

I have no idea what you’re talking about !

Even the most patriotic Hemo’ posters have however labelled you “ idiotic “ .

You’re not doing your cause any favours in posting here.

AIMO

I don’t need to comment on the merits or otherwise of the Prevail announcement , all’s been debated last time around. Some consider it an investment, some as a loan only.

So what keeps the office lights on until March ?

I suspect there’s more news to follow shortly that will hopefully answer that question in full.

Not so positively , we did also learn;

The company’s statement on commencement of Car-T trials has changed from,

“ imminent “ to “soon” and now it’s….“expected to commence later this year”

Not looking likely the preliminary data from first three patients will be available as previously expected.

AIMO

JFH,

Firstly,

Can you please clarify for everyones benefit;

Do you maintain your statement that further FDA approval

Is required before trials ( any) will start?

You appear to be desperately flip flopping , a simple Yes/No will do ?

Regards funding. Yes I’m expecting non- dilutive funding soon. Why , because it’s a company stated objective. Why soon ( before the end October), because i too believe financing will be required by then and willing to extend my trust in the company until.

On previous FDA approval debate, I suggest you go back and have a read of the posts in response to my suggestion it would be needed… FUD at the time but now, perfectly reasonable and correct .

Nothing more to add.

AIMO

Ps I note you don’t want to engage Haywaine on why the new increased importance of ALL trials.

Jfh,

“I am led to believe an IND was submitted some time ago to extend the use of HEMO-CAR-T. Makes sense to wait for FDA decision before formally starting trial as JUST AML or AML and ALL+Paeds”

As much as you’d like to backtrack, It’s your words above!

As previous, I’ll stick with the company RNS statement of trial commencement being “imminent”!

If being “Sad” is trusting the company and not you, then yes, guilty as charged.

The PENN question remains unanswered in any detail and despite the massive attempts to distract, some will realise the importance.

Good luck.

AIMO

JFH,

Well isn’t that strange !

When i said it’s likely an FDA approval would be needed for the new indication (months ago , still there go look!), apparently i was spreading FUD.

Now, in your opinion, it’s actually required PRIOR to commencement of trials , be that AML or ALL.

Think about your statement!

How can trials be “imminent” if as your proposing , they are dependent on a decision which is not controlled by the company ?

Effectively you’d be calling out Hemo’s “imminent” RNS statement as, inappropriate and inaccurate.

I’ll side with the company and not your twisted view, thanks very much .

Although you are wrong in your assessment of FDA approval to second indication required before trials, you are belatedly correct in that, FDA approval would be required for a new indication, ALL.

Haywain knows why conducting ALL trials is now gaining in importance, you should ask him and probably learn something of value but then it might not suit your narrative!

AIMO

Mr Jinx,

You clearly haven’t read it, had you, your nonsensical post wouldn’t have been necessary.

AIMO

Mr Jinx,

Take a look at the PENN paper I previously posted.

That was uncovered through my research!

It In itself might answer the question I’ve highlighted, i.e PENN struggling with the specialist resources necessary.

However, that might not be the reason and there are more concerning scenarios.

Although i fully expect the normal suspects to simply continue to distract from this question, I’m staggered at some genuine long term holders not realizing the importance of unearthing the answer.

AIMO

Mr Jinx,

If you believe the PENN question is trivial then of course you’re entitled to that view.

Just as I’m entitled to my view which is , it’s the most important issue regardless this stock at the moment!

The difference, my view is based or research!

DYOR…please !

AIMO

JfH,

Thank you.

I’m sure I will 😉

AIMO

JFH,

Oh dear, looks like another of your pumping mantra’s has been called out !…and your reaction?

“EVEN IF YOU WERE RIGHT you are basically attacking a company that is trying to cure cancer and save lives. What sort of human does that? Disgusting.”

It’s about time this overused defense for anything other than absolute unquestioning obedience to your narrative is also dispelled.

Hemo’s number one and legal obligation of it’s directors, is to create value for shareholders, i.e. …make money!!

Doesn’t sound quite so righteous as you like to portray now does it !!

AIMO

HappyT,

I’m sorry I can’t answer that question.

To do so may be construed as offering financial advice, which i will never do.

I do believe the answer to your question resides in the answer to the important PENN question highlighted.

The company could very easily answer with a REACH communication and reassure where necessary .

I’m now offline.

AIMO

Mr I,

Please try and stick to facts !

The recent RNS states ;

“Penn remains eager to participate in the trials at a later stage, and we HOPE they will do so, though likely not until 2025”

I’ve highlighted the key word, “ Hope”. They are not confirmed.. fact !

Were you a genuine and large stock holder as you claim, you’d be back on the special Bat phone line you have to find out , why PENN can’t/won’t be able to conduct the trials all as Hemo’ had expected!?

Regarding your frequent references to my post on non-dilutive funding.

My conclusion is based on the company stated objective made in June. You either trust the company will achieve their stated objective within a suitable time period or you don’t.

My trust extends to end October!

No significant non- dilutive funding announced by then spells big trouble for current holders, I would expect.

Fingers crossed🤞

The issue with PENN is the most important unanswered question regarding this stock. It may well be a very straightforward resource issue…it also may not !!

Were it the former why wouldn’t the company have made it clear within the RNS?

Sometimes what’s not said is far more important than what is.

AIMO

BHOLD,

You’re right !

Not very bright at all!

I’m asking, which of the two scenarios is the truth if the matter . I don’t know and neither does anyone else as the RNS does not detail and that’s why I’ve suggested the company is asked to clarify!

Not very difficult is it !

AIMO

JFH,

For the benefit of your mental health, i will not be responding further.

You might note though, all the answers to your questions are already posted and available for all to read and comprehend.

Good luck.

AIMO