Why IMU is a multi multi bagger, page-6897

First up, thank you for your detailed and generous contributions. Always well written.

I know that in a recent post you made a couple of observations that at least questioned some aspects of IMU management's strategy.

However, you still make a number of assertions - I'd be interested to know your reasoning behind these:

"the combination trial had no bearing whatsoever on the existing development of the Her VAXX drug".

Maybe not on a scientific level (although there is now at least going to be a delay), but you previously touted the "collaboration" with Merck as validation of IMU's attractiveness to BP. Would you concede that's been damaged?

"On a micro level, Imugene’s drugs move closer to patients, week by week."

I don't understand this reasoning. Its similar to previous assertions that "the fundamentals have only gotten better". I'd argue that (at least in the case of HER-Vaxx) prescribing the drug is further away from patients than it was in November 2020. Since then, we've had clear indications that:

- there is no plan for a registrational trial (even Leslie is now saying that final O/S is basically irrelevant, since all anyone is now interested in is the action of the drug. This seems to confirm that regardless of the outcome, all we'll be doing is proceeding with the new Phase II trials);

- we've had final PFS results that did not show any increase vs SOC; and

- we've had two new Phase II trials announced (one of which has now been delayed).

With respect to the other drugs, they may have progressed against the early stages of their early-stage trials, but they are many years away from any form of meaningful commercialisation (if indeed they prove successful at all).