This post was moderated last night due to unsubstantiated info?...

This post was moderated last night due to unsubstantiated info? I have deleted my two concluding paragraphs which commented on the overall sense of the presentation, but I want to re-post as it took me some time to write. Draw your own conclusions from my observations, I don't want to risk moderation again!

As I mentioned over the weekend, I attended the Sydney presentation this afternoon. The following are my personal takeaway thoughts. Overall, the presentation was compelling. Yuman Fong, in particular, is a charismatic man and communicates scientific information with passion and in a way that is understandable. As mentioned by others, the Melbourne presentation will be recorded and made available. I will share the takeaways from each speaker as they occurred chronologically to help jog my memory.

Paul Hopper - Paul spoke first to immediately address shareholder concerns, he made it clear from the start that new data would not be presented. Paul restated that IMU's strategy is to develop technologies with compelling data, through to and including phase 2 clinical trials. IMU will not take products to phase 3. The goal is for larger companies to either acquire the products outright or license them. Much of what he stated was repeated from the recent February newsletter. Paul referenced the VLA takeover as an example of the commercial model of small biotech companies. His key quotes were that IMU is a "highly speculative" company which requires "patient capital".

Leslie Chong - I found Leslie to present in much the same way she often does. Her key quote was "we are excited to the gills" with the Hervaxx data; they were unable to say anything more substantial.

Jakob Dupont - he spoke positively about the company and gave an overview of the development of cancer treatments over the last 100+ years. The thing which enticed him to the board of IMU was the creativity of the OnCARlytics platform which expresses CD-19 on the surface of the tumour. He said it was a very creative design which had been attempted before, and now achieved by Yuman Fong.

Yuman Fong - The definite star of the show. Yuman spoke of how little of the CF33 oncoloytic virus was required to kill cancer in mice. 10^3 = 1,000 particles. Toxicity began at 10^7 = 1 billion particles. He said the space between those figures is called the "therapeutic zone". The key message here was that there's a very large buffer space between the amount of virus required to effectively kill cancer, and the amount of virus that can become unsafe and exhibit toxicity. CF33 is currently in patients at extremely low doses, lower than the optimal range, and in very sick patients who are riddled with complex cancer. And even so, the virus is exhibiting signs of killing the cancers. Yuman's takeaway quotes were "we have unequivocal evidence that CF33 kills cancer", however, before it can be publicly released it must be audited and verified. He also said that every 'i' must be dotted, every 't' crossed, to ensure the data is compellingly solid. My understanding is that CF33 in monotherapy is killing cancer. I asked Yuman if it were possible that CF33 could supersede the existing products it is entering combination trials with; in summary, he said yes. He said the CF33 virus is affecting cells which have already been treated by chemotherapy, so it is seeking chemo-resistant cancer cells and killing them. Yuman also noted that IMU acquired CF33 at the end of 2019, and has progressed extremely fast to be where it is today. Just over 3 years while facing pandemic times, he spoke glowingly of the speed at which things are moving.

Yuman also made a wonderful point, bringing the presentation back to the humanity side of the research. He said the company worries about funding its R&D runways, shareholders worry about when and how they will make money, but the real people who are waiting and playing with the highest of stakes are the cancer patients.

One inconsistency I noted was that Hopper said "62% of company funds are spent on R&D, which is a very attractive percentage for any biotech company". From memory, Leslie stated up to 88%(?) of expenditure is on R&D in the latest Small Caps interview. An inconsistency, perhaps an error on one of their behalf, just something I picked up.

Overall, very positive event, compelling presentation.

GLTAH DYOR