Honestly, man, I think that this is the dumbest critique of a...

Honestly, man, I think that this is the dumbest critique of a biotechnology company a person can do, as nothing pivotal is said about the programs or company and how that relates to value. Do you anticipate a wide range of holders are going to sit back in awe at your brilliance of 1 + 1 = 2 calculation on fair value? There are thousands of Australian investors that hold this company who are now deeply in the red or who did not materialise their gains when it was high, and I believe these people were heavily influenced by disingenuous reporting of clinical trial data and forward looking statements.

Fair value at any stage of clinical development is determined by comparing the unique clinical and commercial risk factors to the opportunity. For example, HER-Vaxx should have value in your model as it is a phase 2 asset, however, it is worthless. The reason it is worthless is that it failed to significantly improve overall survival at a 95% level of confidence, skewed the inclusion of female patients (who respond better to treatment) into the test arm, and was tested explicitly in Eastern European & Indian patients, with a combined cancer market of less than USD $20M. Moreover, the HER2 space is extremely competitive with literally 100s of drugs in development and many approved, which massively impacts clinical (better than competition) and commercial (can we grab market share) risk. In this instance, the clinical and commercial risk is too high and the opportunity too small for the program to continue, which is why it has been deprioritised.

Now, you can either go through the other programs and demonstrate you have the skillset to make commentary on a biotechnology companies value, or you can keep doing the good job that you are doing saying nothing.