I remember hearing the comment about that onCARlytics not being...

I remember hearing the comment about that onCARlytics not being impacted by diminishing therapeutic effect over time. It reminded me of a theory I had long ago, which was that Herceptin probably killed and kept in check the HER2+ gastric cancer cells but there were probably other cancer cells that had mutated without the HER2+ protein and it was those cells that eventually became fatal rather than Herceptin losing its effect. Not sure if that's valid but it's how I rationalised it at the time.

So, the great thing about onCARlytics is that the CF33 virus travels around the body looking for cancer cells to infect and when it finds one, if it doesn't kill it then it forces it to express the CD19 protein. So, as long as the CF33 virus continues to hunt and find cancer cells, they will always become primed for eradication by a CD19 targeting drug.

I thought maybe it is a possibility there may be other factors involved that may result in any give CD19 targeting drug not being 100% effective, so during the Q&A I asked if they would be trialling onCARlytics with multiple combinations of the available CD19 targeting drugs, but it was a two-part question and that one was the second part, so when Saul answered it, I think he thought I had asked if there would be more drugs developed to be used in combo with CD19. Anyway, the answer given was still very interesting...

Apparently, there are a lot of companies waiting on the outcome of the Ph1 to see if proof of concept is achieved and if so, they will be developing new drugs specifically to work with onCARlytics. Saul indicated some companies would create CD19 targeted therapies that would be designed to target a specific cancer type. Even though onCARlytics is a broad-spectrum treatment for solid tumours, it appears there may be some advantage to continue tailoring drugs to specific cancer types (or maybe that won't end up mattering). It seems there's potentially a lot of interest in the biotech community to partner with Imugene to leverage onCARlytics. The more diversified the partnerships the better for Imugene and onCARlytics, which will have a flow on affect for shareholders. I think there's also the possibility of holders of those other companies to hedge their investment by shifting money into Imugene which would in turn have a positive effect on the share price. (A bit like buying shares in big oil in the early days knowing all car motor vehicles would need oil-based products to run.)

And to circle back to: "Some drugs lose their therapeutic effect over time"... yep, that's why low toxicity combinations will be so important. If toxicity and cost can be minimised to a tolerable level (ideally no toxicity), eventually patients may be given first line therapy of onCARlytics and a CD19 targeting therapy, along with VAXinia &/or CHECKvacc &/or HER-Vaxx &/or PD1-Vaxx &/or any of the other targets in the B Cell platform... and it's there that I think the long-term potential shareholder value lies. It's just going to take a while to see what works safely with what and what is/isn't needed and obtaining registration for the various combinations... but at least they will be able to register combinations along the way rather than needing to wait for some final point register them all at once.