Thank you for your well considered post. Being on a cell phone tonight I do apologise for any typos.
Firstly I must say I tend to disagree with your analogy that CF33, Vaxinia and Oncarlytics are ostensibly the same beast, and therefore if one i.e., CF33 fails, they all fail. Each therapy is distinct in terms of composition, utility and application. With all due respect I would suggest you research more extensively the constitution of each OV and therapy before racing to the conclusion they are uniform in nature. As an example Vaxinia is far more potent than CF33, whilst I note Oncarlytics works in conjunction with the infusion of CD19 and CAR T cells. Each OV strain carries with it different configurations, depending on the indication to which it is applied. That said aren't you by default insinuating if indeed they were all one of the same, that given the recent collaborative successes noted in the CF33/Oncarlytics studies (visa vie November 2022 Oncarlytics presentations), that CF33 is indeed successful?
Secondly I would draw your attention to the fact Imugene have simply presented data as at October 2022 from patients in their ongoing Check Vacc trial. The readouts pertaining to necrosis are presented as a statement of fact, as are the images documented therein. To suggest Imugene have been "cheeky" or callous in doing so is untoward, given they are purely stating the facts and relaying images as per their ingenious nHIS technology. How or why or what caused this change in histology is purely speculative on your behalf. for Imugene are simply portraying "what is".
Finally to your conclusive presumption that the "wool is being pulled over investors eyes" in essence appears to be based on your premeditated analogy that Imugene or people associated with the company, alternatively those posting on these threads, are endeavouring to deceive, delude or in some way
trick potential or existing IMU investors. I vehemently disagree with this analogy, but that is purely my personal opinion.
I would ask you await the forthcoming announcements pertaining to both the City of Hope CF33 Trial and the MAST Vaxinia Trial being administered in IT and IV format both here and in the US, before jumping to any premature conclusions. The biopsies being taken aim to reflect not only any signs of necrosis in cancerous cells, but most importantly any signs of tumour regression. By choosing to wait and digest the said results, untimely or perhaps unreasonable assumptions may not be found wanting. If not, I am the first to admit Professor Yuman Fong and Team Imugene over reached.
In conclusion to your analogy other Big Pharma's may not have the impetus to jump in on Imugene's products given they may or may not have a clinical trial in place with Imugene, is in my opinion fanciful. I know for a fact many pharmaceuticals are interested in Imugene's immunotherapies irrespective of whether they are currently in collaboration or combination with them or not. The biopharma world is awash with commercial deals concluded prior to Phase 2 trials, such as the HerVaxx Keytruda combination trial currently taking place. Put simply these interested third parties be they institutions or pharmaceuticals ultimately have privy to the same information Merck (in your example) does. Therefore they can pull the trigger any time that suits them. They are in a position to make a calculated decision on a future Imugene treatment arms potential, just as Merck is.
Having been a financial advisor for many years, like you I am cautionary when considering an individuals risk appetite, particularly when investments in biotechnology stocks are in play. Though perhaps unlike you I am extremely confident the current Vaxinia Trial overseen by Professor Fong, here and in the US, is going to bear fruit for both patients and investors alike. As Paul Kelly would suggest or indeed sing "Before too long" we shall have our answer.
DYOR seek investment advice as and when required Opinions only
Expand
(20min delay)