Hi DTshares,The whole conservation was about the biotech...

Hi DTshares,

The whole conservation was about the biotech landscape right now and which ones are under valued but single out IMU as not. On the conversation of IMU, there was mention of the following:

• don't understand why IMU had a valuation of $1.3B or $3B. Reasoning was IMU had no revenue, no registration, no product on market and long way from trial results and approval. He puts it down to enthusiasm, hope and special mention of IMU "fan club".
• attended IMU meeting and met some of the fan club.
• didn't agree with the Her-vaxx P-value methodology put out by IMU. There is a newsletter on their website specifically written about IMU, dated Jun 25, 2021. It goes into length about what they don't like - saying that the trial designers at IMU lowered the bar to get a positive treatment effect by the use of a one-sided alpha. It did, however, include LC response to their concern. LC commented "setting alpha at 0.1 is normal in phase II or signal seeking proof-of concept studies, while the measure is also acceptable worldwide for phase II immunotherapy studies."
• last comment was about "perhaps that could be shorted" in reference to IMU.

My opinion is he obviously has his favourites and they are disclosed at the bottom of the Biotech Daily's main page. What is interesting is he talks about companies that are well run, making profits and producing a commodity that people want. Ofcourse by investing in IMU, we holders already know that IMU does not make profit. But as for the other two, my opinion is IMU continue to fit those criteria well. Did the share price get ahead of itself? Yes, I think a little (in hindsight, right?)

Regarding concerns about the p-value, I just remind myself about the collaborations IMU have got going with industry heavy weights, rising stars. and not to mention the world renowned scientists. If there is anything fishy, then everyone would have run a million miles away from IMU, including us "fan club".

Cheers.