Thanks davybabyk.I agree that itincreases their likelihood of...

Thanks davybabyk.

I agree that itincreases their likelihood of success, as long as they balance foraysinto new areas with prudent cash management (bang for buck).

For context on thechallenges IMU faces, here are 2 sets of stats.

This table coversthe probability of success across all therapeutic areas:

The graph covers theprobability of success in the oncology space specifically:

As you can see, theoverall chance of success for oncology products is low. Which maypartially explain why the share price is where it is. Short of abuyout or healthy licensing deal or approval by the FDA, share pricestend not to jump in large multiples.

Despite the overalllow probability of success for oncology products, I think IMU has avery good risk reward profile. Move past the macro level stats aboveand dig into IMU a little deeper and a few thing stand out:

- firstly as yousay, they are not a one trick pony. They have multiple chances ofsuccess.

- secondly, whilethis may not have been the case historically, they seem to be movingquickly, and more importantly, carefully. 2024 will see a lot ofsignificant results, hopefully positive, announced.

- thirdly, theircommercial decisions and areas of research focus seem to make thejigsaw more complete – how many other early stage biotechs have acommercial grade manufacturing facility to complement their products?

- lastly the resultsto date have been good (the reason I'm not more effusive is thatthey’re off the back of phase one trials). Given that phase 1trials focus on safety and dosing primarily, the fact that they alsohad such strong efficacy signals at phase 1 is significant.

The above does notequate to a guarantee of success, but it is a level of risk I ampersonally comfortable with.

Cheers.