@@davybabykGreat post. Like someone else mentioned here a bit...

@@davybabyk
Great post. Like someone else mentioned here a bit earlier, I too had thought this was Imugene becoming more active overseas with PD1-Vaxx, hence given the story about all this ending up in the UK Daily Mail, I became excited at the prospects given the enthusiasm showed by these great scientists/oncologists running it. Now I hear Imugene is not funding it. So my only questions are:

1) Why is it that now Imugene is not directly involved in a trial involving one of the treatments in their pipeline licensed to them, it becomes newsworthy media attention for someone else? That being said, was it the Oncologists themselves bringing the story to the attention of media, and if so, why can’t IMU do likewise with the media when involved and funding something direct themselves? I might be way off the mark here, and just thinking out loud, but seeing IMU on You tube videos, ‘Proactive’ investment interviews etc is all well and good, but major newspapers, television news broadcasts etc is what will IMO put Imugene in neon lights.

2) If this turns out to be quite successful, and I believe the Oncologist/scientist in charge of this in England are quite confident it could be, the expected results are due in 2025, what benefit could there be for Imugene from such a success? Not funding such a trial, will IMU still have the rights to the licensing and therefore market potential of PD1-Vaxx if granted approvals in various countries as a break through treatment, therefore the supply of the drug, or sale of it to big pharma etc.? Or is that success lost to IMU?

I am very bullish on IMU, and as I disclosed a long time ago, I am pro IMU all the way to the very end. Hence my curiosity regarding PD1-Vaxx. If it is de-prioritised, is it also a non-earner if someone else has their name in neon lights? Thoughts anyone?