Hi friend Theoc
If I could explain my thoughts on the risk issue... (Apologies when I tell you things you already know about the history of IMU, dear theoc. I am repeating this in far more detail than you need, for the benefit of new arrivals).
Everyone will naturally have their own assessments of the situation, but the reason I have " always" felt the market overestimated the risk goes way way back to when I first took a position on 5 December 2013. (OMG - 10 years ago now. I should hold a party...). So when I say "always" I mean from December 2013 onwards.
This was before LC arrived, but the reverse takeover of Imugene by Biolife Science Qld Pty Ltd had just been finalised then, and I had been sitting on the sidelines watching that develop. There had already been one attempt to launch the Biolife Science IP through a takeover by another ASX shell, and that was what initially caught my attention. However that attempt failed, so while I waited to see if the listing through Imugene would succeed I read up on the science behind "Biolife Science" ...
Biolife Science - not ASX listed - was a vehicle that held the IP to Her-vaxx, on behalf of Ursula Wiedermann, Christopher Zielinski and their colleagues from the Medical University of Vienna.
Before Biolife Science, Imugene was a struggling minnow in the Biotech pond. They had failed as a veterinary science biotech, and then taken on some IP around human Pharma. Their only real asset was a sublingual drug delivery product, for oral absorption of pharmaceuticals. It was aimed at patients who have difficulty swallowing and it seemed to work but it never did find a buyer.
Then Paul Hopper came along, with Axel Hoos, looking to get the Biolife Science IP for Her-vaxx launched into an Australian Biotech company, in order to access Australia's biotech research subsidies.
PH was already Chair of IMU and IMU was ASX listed and really at a dead end. They had minimal cash but they "bought" Biolife Science by paying for it in IMU shares. Lots of IMU shares. Abracadabra, suddenly Biolife Sciences essentially morphed into Imugene, with Axel Hoos on the Board and a Scientific Advisory Board including Ursula Wiedermann and Christopher Zielinski from the Vienna team. Effectively, the old IMU disappeared and was replaced by Biolife Science under the IMU name. (Nicholas Ede is the "stayer" here. He was Executive Director of the "old" Imugene from Feb 2013 and continues with IMU to this day, in a key role as Head of Corporate Development).
But back to the IP, and "risk".....
Following the Biolife Science deal Imugene was really a one trick pony but the one trick that they had - Her-vaxx - looked like an incredibly clever trick to me. The market was rating it as a minimal chance of success, and IMU shares were trading at 1.2 cents when I first bought, then dropped as low as 0.8 cents and I bought lots more.
Why so low? Well - the B-cell immunotherapy tech was very very new, and it aimed to treat Her2 positive cancers by inducing a natural immune response. That seemed very left field at the time, and there was already a commercially highly successful alternative - Herceptin - taking over the market. Artificial Monoclonal antibodies like Herceptin were definitely seen as the way forward for immunotherapy, and everyone was jumping on that bandwagon. They still are!
And here was Imugene with a "B cell polyclonal immunotherapy"???
When I asked some science/medical background people about that idea their response was "Unheard of - high risk - will never get anywhere..."
Which on the face of it was fair comment, but when I looked closely at Her-vaxx I could see that:
1. It addressed the same cancer epitope as Herceptin. ie the target they were aiming for with Her-vaxx was already validated.
2. The Vienna team had already successfully completed a small Ph 1 trial with breast cancer patients. Her-vaxx had demonstrated near complete safety/lack of toxicity - putting it way ahead of MAbs like Herceptin, in terms of safety.
3. Her-vaxx had also shown - in human patients - that it induced exactly the immune response that had been predicted. ie. It really did stimulate production of polyclonal antibodies which address the same target as Herceptin.
So although it was "new" it was not completely "untested." It already seemed certain that that Her-vaxx was totally safe, and superior to MAbs in that respect. It also seemed highly likely that the clinical effect would be as good as Herceptin - and possibly better - because the immune response had been proven. ie. much lower risk than people thought.
Despite the various sceptics on this forum, I still think Her-vaxx is highly likely to again demonstrate its effectiveness, through the current Phase 2 trial, and is then likely to achieve a commercial deal.
The only thing I failed to take into account was the time all this would take, lol, but meanwhile, Imugene has grown its B-cell portfolio and then taken on CF-33, OnCARlytics and now Azer-cel.
Remarkably for a Biotech, they have (in my view) a high likelihood of blockbuster level clinical and commercial success across all four of their product platforms.
And yes - we could all be wrong about that. It's still speculative and there is still "risk" - but like yourself, friend theoc, I still think the risk is overstated, and the potential reward is, well, pretty much as friend
@Taureanbull has recently speculated....
As always, time alone will tell but ....
that time is definitely
in my view, now
reasonably
close
!!!!
Cheers
Dave
(20min delay)