Looks like coincidence to me - not even correlation and...

Looks like coincidence to me - not even correlation and definitely not causation.

You are trying to say the variation of one healthcare startup's SP is not aligned to the average of many established large healthcare companies in the ASK 200 is because of its CEO? A very poor thesis IMO/

You may want to have a look at the records of successful companies and founder involvement. The relationship is an advantage according to the data in the links below.

https://www.ateamsoftsolutions.com/who-are-australias-most-impactful-tech-entrepreneurs/
https://milfordasset.com.au/insights/why-we-still-love-founder-led-companies/
https://www.goforgrowth.co/p/founder-led-business-part-1
https://www.livewiremarkets.com/wires/why-founder-led-businesses-beat-the-market-2021-11-25

In fact it is possible the company would not exist or be listed if Andreas hadn't completely leveraged his home and savings to get it up and running. I doubt there is anyone with more to gain and lose with the fortunes of the company than he.

This is a nascent company that to be honest has surprised me by kicking a lot of early goals. Like all healthcare and many startups, it requires some patience and realism to invest at the right moment and recognize when the SP is not reflective of the journey. The SP changes in the early stages of a listed company relate more to trader involvement and investor valuations - not the CEO. If CEOs could affect the SP as much as you infer they would all be paid in shares only.

You are going to have to do a better job of research if you want to sway opinion.