IMV Inc IMVIF

RE:RE:RE:could be

[qwerty22]

My point would be for many investors the people steering the ship now are the same guys who were steering the ship when they invested, you can't expect them to suddenly become hotshot execs by magic. This is the team you invested in.
Most small biotech are one drug companies, their pipeline is mostly irrelevant, either the lead drug works or they go bust. That is the nature of biotech.
People have criticized them for Covid but the cynical fact is they made Covid work for themselves when if they had stayed on the sidelines it would have just been a negative.
I'm really not sure what another team would make out of the data. You need a clear path forward, they've spent 3 years trying to generate the data for that in both lead programs. What exactly do you think another team would have done with the data? They finally got there with dlbcl but it's not the done deal others here think it is. The rationale for Pd-l1+ is strong, the data fits well but it's still post-hoc nalysis. It's not proof of the concept, it just points them in a certain direction. I can see Merck stepping in, I can also see them waiting for more data that confirms this finding. At least they can talk about a path forward, I've been waiting for that since Incyte failed.

billybobmontana wrote: Thank you for your comments Qwerty but an educated and experienced management team with an experienced board including a Chairman that really doesn't care about the investors wouldn't have a company with so many opportunities in this position.  There are experienced and qualified individuals that could take this company to the next few levels.  People that have taken other companies to much higher levels of success.   So, I do care about whose steering the ship.  Merck is an important opportunity, but it should have never gotten to this point where our conversation is solely about Merck.