Mason might indeed be full of it but there’s a lot of playing the man when he posts. Everyone is very eager to attack him, his motivations, his occupation etc but I haven’t seen anyone make any genuine attempt to engage with his statistical analysis or try to debunk it.
Now if your response to that is why would anyone bother, that’s probably fair. It likely is a waste of time engaging with someone who isn’t an oncologist and has no direct involvement with the progress of IMU trials. But people here are often saying “DYOR” and “trust the science” - here’s a bloke actually doing his own research (and has clearly done a lot of his own thinking about cancer treatments generally) and coming at things from a scientific analysis angle, and no one wants to (or can) engage with it.
99% of the posters here wouldn’t have the first clue what he’s talking about (I include myself in that group) and don’t have the background or ability to properly consider it, but that doesn’t make it an invalid or useless contribution to the discussion here. He might have been wrong on RAC (I don’t know), he might have questionable motivations (I don’t know, but I don’t think that’s a given just because he criticises IMU’s therapies) but he has attempted to dissect IMU’s prospects in a more thorough and scientific way than anyone else on these forums.
Yes, maybe his “science” is flawed, or he’s omitting things, or it’s based on incomplete data (of course it is and he acknowledges that) but is that worse than the many posters here who just post that they “believe in the science”, whatever that means? How many of those people have asked themselves why they believe in the science? Is it because the company says it’s great science, because they are regurgitating what other posters on here say? It’s certainly not because of their own rigorous research or analysis. There’s nothing wrong with that - investing in biotechs isn’t just reserved for scientists - but Mason at least presents his case for why he doesn’t believe in the science.
AIcp likes to repeat that Mason thought the CR was an “excellent result”, as if that acknowledgement invalidates the rest of his opinions. Yes, the CR is a great result, but it is one result in one trial. It does not make a company. At this point it’s statistically insignificant….how are the other patients going, what updates are we going to get? We don’t know….but it seems that a lot of people (and maybe the company itself, judging by its prominence in anns/presentations) are hanging a lot of hats on that CR. Hopefully we will get more excellent results but let’s not pretend one CR is job done.
Expand
(20min delay)