Ann: Roadshow investor webinar with Professor Yuman Fong, page-67

@Steini it is possible for both claims to be correct.

Leslie is probably right - IMU keeps adding value to the program.

My view is based on the likelihood of Her-vaxx being commercially available to patients and offering a return to investors.

When Leslie was pressed on Her-vaxx she rued the fact that BP had preferenced a competitor's product, noting the safety profile of her-vaxx. But unless BP chooses to progress Her-vaxx, its not going to be available to patients and not going to make money for investors.

So IMU may keep adding value to the Her-vaxx program, but by the time it has sufficient data and is able to prove strong enough efficacy, it may have missed the commercialisation boat.

The real question you should put to Leslie is "based on IMU's engagement with BP, does she believe the commercial potential for Her-vaxx is stronger now vs when its interim results were published in 2020?". I'd be interested in that answer.

Mining companies always lead with safety data when they have production misses. Seems like biotechs do the same when they can't demonstrate sufficient efficacy to entice BP.