When you say sold / licenced, you mean like all those other...

When you say sold / licenced, you mean like all those other products that are "ACTIVE, NOT RECRUITING" that get sold or licenced?


Ring ring, ring ring ...

Big Pharma: "Hello"

Monil Shah: "Hi, Big Phama, Monil Shah here"

BP: *sigh* "Hi Monil" (aside, to BP's admin assistant "I thought I told you to block his number ..."; AA "I did, he's got one of those telemarketer apps that changes his call number display every time he makes a call")

MS: "Hi, I was just following up to see if you are interested in buying HER-Vaxx?"

BP: "Well, as we told you last week, and the week before that, and the month before that, and the year before that, and the year before that, we're going to have to see more data. Do you have more data than what was announced in 2021?"

MS: "Ummm, not really"

BP: "What, neither as a monotherapy or a combination therapy"

MS: "Ummm, not really"

BP: "Do you expect to have any new data anytime soon?"

MS: "Ummm, not really. While all our HER-Vaxx trials are SUPER ACTIVE, they're not actually recruiting any patients ..."

BP: "Look Monil, why are you wasting your time and ours? We've had this conversation many times. I know you've heard what we have to say because I heard you told your own shareholders at multiple investor presentations that BP REQUIRES MORE DATA when it comes to HER-Vaxx"

MS: "Oh, its not a waste of my time at all! You see, I get paid $20,000 per week to make this call. It gives my CEO the opportunity to tell our shareholders how crazy busy I am liaising with BP!!!"

BP: "Right ..."

MS: "Same time next week then?"

BP: "Can't wait ...."


As a footnote, a special call out to all those IMU posters who berate the rest of us for "not doing enough research / not understanding biotech". I actually have to agree. Here I was having done all that research into HER-Vaxx, thinking it might be a product that could be commercialised! How silly was I not to realise that HER-Vaxx was just a $200m, one decade loss-leader for CF33?

And another special call out to the "IMU only makes positive announcements" brigade. I thought de-prioritising HER-Vaxx and stopping recruitment on HER-Vaxx trials were massive negatives. But then neither were announced, so I guess that keeps all its announcements "positive".

And a final call out to those who still delude themselves that the ASX reads any announcements made by companies let alone deciding whether they are price sensitive or not. Like in some way, the ASX employs enough staff and enough educated staff to have a sophisticated enough understanding of what every company does so as to be able to determine the price-sensitivity of every made and unmade announcement. The turfing of HER-Vaxx is the single most price-sensitive thing that IMU has done since it listed. And it wasn't announced. And not a peep from the ASX.

Granted, not announcing the death of HER-Vaxx extended the decline in IMU's SP from 62c to sub 10c a two-year exercise, rather than a 2-minute plunge. Not sure if that makes any shareholders who bought into the Leslie / Paul dance-cards-full-goose-in-the-window stories, as well as those stories from our esteemed posters about the "only positive announcements", feel any better, but at least it gave Paul a chance to divest at 45c ...