Why IMU is a multi multi bagger, page-13557

Great to still see some solid and sensible posts on these threads ...

Like most others on the IMU forums, I am not enjoying the sad SP level that IMU is currently facing. Who knows, without positive trial news it could sink further. Its not something any poster here can do much about ... it will be the trial results that will impact it (one way or the other).

I do though, note a couple of thoughtful posts made recently, on other treads, by @GMT2 and @Ysardine.

So, GMT2 notes that there is definitely some interest, by Big Pharma, in combining with IMU tech. As GMT2 points out, Roche has signed a 5 year (I think) deal to supply atezolizumab (Tecentriq) to combo up with our PD1-Vaxx for lung cancer. For Roche to make this commitment it means their teams have a good understanding of how PD1-Vaxx works, and more importantly, like its potential to work with atezolizumab, a treatment already approved by the FDA. A successful result, in combo with an already approved treatment, will lead to a much faster approval ... not to mention the deal we will be offered.

As for Merck and pembrolizumab (Keytruda), I am not ‘upset’ by what seems to be a “lack of any commercial deal, including the supply of drugs for the combo trial”. To be upset about this is crazy. Pembrolizumab is probably the gold standard cancer treatment at the moment, and it seems to me that I am reading, almost every second day, about a new combo trial with pembrolizumab about to start. Every small Biotech would like to be part of the pembrolizumab story, for so many reasons. Merck doesn’t need to ‘go cap in hand’, to little Pharmas asking for combos. They have the approved and very successful treatment already. Of course, they would love to extend Keytruda’s patent life (it is a cash cow), and they wouldn’t mind losing a few of the nasty side-effects. This is where our B-Cell tech steps in ... this is what our treatment should bring. As I’ve said, we are just one of many in this space.

On a different note, I see where Ysardine makes several very good points in an effort to caution what would be a rash response to the board at the next AGM. I won’t reiterate, but I certainly agree with the points raised and I would be very sorry to lose the experience that this board brings to IMU.Perhaps it will be a moot point ... when those trail results roll in ... and look spectacular. Anyway, we can only hope.

As always, opinion only.