You constantly misrepresent me, IMU, and the industry. I said...

You constantly misrepresent me, IMU, and the industry.

I said the CR is precisely what you want to see, however, the issue is that it is only one and in a rare cancer type. Fast track designation can be granted from preclinical data, so the clinical efficacy relative to the industry is meaningless, particularly when drugs like CG0070 achieve 50% CR rate at P1 and are still not approved 12 years later. This simply highlights that the industry is tough and it pays to be unique as well as effective.

You are simply a person who is desperately trying to convince themselves that they made the right investment.

You are down 90% from your original investment into biotechnology the company doesn't include in the Annual Report yet you claim it is still worth $500M from excellent data. It failed to show benefit compared to SoC chemo despite heavy study design bias, was only ever used in Eastern European and Indian patients, and the market is crowded with competition. Only a fool would continue to beat that drum.

You are doing the exact same thing now with CF33. You can't present a single ounce of evidence to support your notion the P1 trial has been a success. The efficacy is low and the potential earning from Cholangiocarcinoma is probably as low as it could possibly get. Of course safety is going to be low if it's doing next to nothing in regards to efficacy. How is this a win?

Azer-cel is IMUs only legitimate opportunity with a reasonable chance of success, and even the earning potential there is low. With 8,500 people treated with CAR-T internationally in 2023, the market is tiny. Allogeneic is the lower cost alternative to autologous - lower cost for small number of patients.

There is little to no upside for IMU at the current MC. Why do you think short positions only continue to build and the only capital IMU can get is a rolling discount to the current SP which the CEO is against?