The NED appointment as others have suggested is clearly because...

The NED appointment as others have suggested is clearly because of a very specific skill set.
That it occurs now, I suspect speaks to the execution of a careful underlying strategy, which we have seen ample evidence of across many domains, capital management, scientific methodology, and academic credibility. My opinion is that Dr Russell’s appointment also implies a certain proximity to expected utilisation of her skills, to make such an appointment many years from needing to use her specific skill set makes no sense.
With respect to the payment for her skills, options are as others have said a way to avoid using cash, the amounts involved are likely to be what it takes to secure her expertise.

I note from the twitter feed that L.C. Is presenting at a US micro cap finance showcase in Las Vegas this coming weekend.

I expect given all the above the next few months will be interesting and eventful for IMU.

With respect to patient trial numbers, the small numbers in the trials to date is pretty typical for Oncology trials, especially those with metastatic, refractory disease. Further outcome improvements with Novell regimes in the order of 5-20% are not unusual in Oncology trials in my experience. This is quite different to major Cardiovascular trials which are powered to detect small mortality and morbidity benefits by the inclusion of very large numbers of patients.

One issue which concerns me more is the current risk environment in investing which seems to me to have hallmarks of irrational exuberance, many of the major US companies are currently uncoupled from their 5 year EMAs, many by a significant margin. If the evolution of IMUs plan were to coincide with a global financial meltdown down this may have a material impact on opportunity, as well as valuation?.

I hold, hence opinions are biased.
K