Ann: CHM 1101 data accepted for presentation at SNO meeting, page-92

You have made heaps of posts and I'm going to try to reply to all of them (tough task) through a summarised response.

In terms of how I think the market will respond to the news, I discussed the possible reactions in the post below before the abstracts were released. Conservatively, I leaned towards a news that demonstrated safety and less emphasis on efficacy, and a share price movement that is not significant. I think that's kinda what we got today so the news and the price movement were no surprise to me. My expectations were low for this readout as it is the lowest dose cohort, if we got a complete response and a partial response that would be amazing, but that's not what we got for now and that's expected.
https://hotcopper.com.au/threads/chimeric-media-thread.6092808/page-124?post_id=57466516

The results are good - not amazing, but it does stand out because it is the lowest dose. It controls the disease (hard to do btw in recurrent GBM - the results would probably be different if this was tested on treatment naive GBM patients), no safety issues (comments on cerebral edema below), theory of CLTX as a binding target seems to work in the clinic as well (what I'm most excited about - MMP2+ is actually a secondary protein in a chain reaction that is activated which allows GBM tumours to migrate from one area of the brain to the other, if we could actually target that and nullify this reaction, we could target the cell migration mechanism that makes GBM so dangerous - fingers crossed).

In terms of the cerebral edema (inflammation), I would say this is a double edged sword for CAR-T cell therapy, CAR-T cells actually need the cytokines that are released by the inflammation as the cytokines activate the CAR-T, without it CAR-T cells become dormant. From memory, patients that do experience inflammation from CAR-T are the ones that require more tumour burden. There is standard of care for this and it is not unexpected. Adverse events that will cause a trial to be a negative are the ones that are serious (leads to death, hospitalisation, further disability), unexpected, and have direct causality to the therapy being investigated. This is expected and its direct causality is only possible so it's not a big deal.

In terms of your comments about @stockrock, I don't agree that he is bamboozling retail investors. He's provided well thought-out research, I've done my research based on a lot of publicly available data, documents, and journals, and what he's posted on all the threads have been quite accurate.

I do agree with your sentiment that we'll need the 2nd cohort read-out to have more clarity about this product. This readout didn't give us all the answers about this therapy, but hopefully the 2nd cohort could lead to some more clarity. I don't think there were much insider buying in the run up to this readout - volume was really low the past few weeks.

We are all punters (investors), but even punters can figure out which information they can extract, which will allow them to make an informed decision. My sentiments are below. If I had more money, I would buy, but probably not as rich as you as indicated from your posts