It did make me laugh! The Theranos saga was fascinating to watch and highly instructive, and I have certainly tried to step back every now and then to look at Imugene as objectively as I can and assess whether the confidence of the team there is grounded in something solid, or whether it is just a confidence as in "Con."
Honestly, the way it seems to me:
Elizabeth Holmes was a Stanford drop out with no qualifications in Science (she never completed her Engineering Degree) and she had minimal practical experience (she did a brief holiday job in a path lab in Singapore).
She came up with a thought bubble idea which sounded good - multiple blood tests from a single pin prick drop of blood - but there was no actual science behind it. It was just a cool sounding idea, but she was "charismatic" to a certain kind of investor and she managed to raise a lot of venture capital - then she employed other people and told them to create an invention that would make her thought bubble come true.
She was a good media performer and she played the Silicon Valley tech image game very well, but there was never any actual science - let alone peer reviewed publications or externally reviewed trials of what they produced. Everything was kept very secret, and she claimed success without any proof or 3rd party review - because the technology her team was working on was not in fact succeeding. Eventually, the truth could be hidden no longer.
By contrast, Imugene has a CEO who is herself a highly experienced researcher in drug development, with a track record of success. They have a Scientific Advisory Board comprised of some of the best Oncology researchers in the world. The IP they are working with covers three broad platforms, each developed by highly qualified and respected researchers from major and respected Institutions (Medical University of Vienna; Ohio University/Mayo Clinic; City of Hope) - whose reputations are based on serious scientific research published in peer reviewed journals and presented at major conferences of their peers.
All 5 of their key drug development products have been the subject of extensive detailed publication in peer reviewed journals, and presentations at major conferences. All 5 have been scrutinised by the FDA and found worthy of IND designation.
There is still no guarantee of success with any of their products, but (unlike Theranos) Imugene has never claimed that success was certain. True, they aresounding extremely positive and optimistic of late - but there are objective reasons for that based on data already released. (Clinical results for Her-vaxx Ph 2 and PD1-vaxx Ph1. Pre-clinical work for CF33. High levels of Safety demonstrated for Check-vacc and Vaxinia through to Cohort 3 in current Ph 1 trials. Clear evidence from scans that CF33 does replicate in cancer cells in human subjects as expected. Indicative evidence of cancer necrosis in the Checkvacc trial etc etc. Excellent pre-clinical data showing that OnCARlytics works exactly as predicted when paired with (so far) 3 different CD19 targeting drugs.
It actually reassures me that LC is a far less polished speaker and presenter than Elizabeth Holmes. Substance beats image, in the end, every time.
But that is a cracker off a pic you posted, and it did give me a laugh!
Cheers
Dave
PS For anyone who hasn't seen it, I highly recommend the 2019 doco on the Theranos scam: "The Inventor - Out For Blood in Silicon Valley. I'm hoping it gets a sequel that covers the court case. EH was convicted, and is due to report at prison very soon. The original doco is on Binge:
(20min delay)