Why IMU is a multi multi bagger, page-24448

These therapies are in the embryonic stage of existence when it comes to "in human" trials and we are a long way from meeting primary endpoints in the concurrent trials, let alone determine overall survival rates.

You are saying this now after saying IMU was a buy back at a $3B MC, while IMU were reporting 80% CI for a B-cell vaccine targeting HER-2 positive cancers in a crowded HER2 market while Enhertu was dominating Kadcyla in a P3 trial.

I told IMU to sell and gave full reasoning. Why did you indicate IMU was a buy if you knew the future of IMU was in the embryonic stage of existence?

Are you simultaneously going to highlight that these studies are in the "embryonic" stage of existence AND challenge me where higlighting that exact fact is in-humane? The risks associated with new compounds are massive, which is why 97% fail and aligns with what I have been saying all along. You look at things from a position of opportunity, but it is not opportunity when the global market value for that drug class is LESS than the companies MC. It is not opportunity when roughly 95% of the patient population treated with CF33 have not responded. I refuse to sit here and spin a story that a compound failing to showcase efficacy in humans from a drug class that has consistently failed to make its mark in oncology due to lack of efficacy should be considered a massive opportunity. The RISK associated with this investment from here is massive, and helping people understand that is extremely important.

Maybe the humane thing to do is be crticial and back up what you say with evidence. Also, those who read without responding outnumber those who respond by a massive number. As such, I think using what you read as a determinant for my effect on this forum is short-sighted.