IMV Inc IMVIF

RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Great news on cancer, anyone awake out there?

[qwerty22]

Oops! I made an error there, 3 out of 4 PRs are positive and one is negative. That's less worrying.

(never trust anything I write on this website)

qwerty22 wrote:

I'm just talking about the science not the SP. You can perceive biomarker however you want but it's wrong. You can be more seduced by molecular biomarkers, don't worry so am I, but that's missing the point. This is a post-hoc analysis identifying a relationship, you need to confirm that. Whether that is done as part of a registrational trial or exploratory is what matters to the value.

One alarm bell. From the poster. 3 out of 4 partial response didn't produce any T-cell response. That's measured in the blood not tumour infiltration. That's a concern given in the past t-cell has been 100% except in the high dose Incyte drug cohort. How is dpx helping those 3 if they aren't producing surviving t-cells? Overall efficacy looks far better matched to pd-l1 than it does to the t-cell responses. Berinstein is on the call, it'll be good the hear an independent clinical researcher's POV.
 

https://www.imv-inc.com/the-dpx-platform/scientific-publications-posters

 

QM45 wrote: Fair points Qwerty to your thoughtful response. 

Few clarifications:

I DO understand what "biomarker" means, just differently than you do. I take your point  of "broader sense" as you put it and  I just perceive it "narrowly."

So yes, biomarker is supposed to distinguish one population subset from another, that is obvious to anyone in biotech research, as for molecular compositon it's of secondary value albeit important to understaning the mechanism of action. In that we agree. 

I disagree with you that bulky was such biomarker, so does the broad  analyst community when that data set came out. The "broader sense" was just not "specific" enough to move the needle.
Happy to link you the webcasts or research it yourself. 

In any case, given the data that came out of ovarian was tainted from combo with Incyte, the whole thing just did not have the same probability of success as DLBCL does IMO. 

Now, since you picked and chose few tidbits of my postings which I DO post for the benefit of general population and a few friends that have invested in IMV on my advice, I do need to clarify your mistatements:) 

1. Yes, my "crystal ball" did see Covid. Except there was nothing crystal about it, just simple analysis that served me well over 20 years of doing this for a living. 

When I said back up the truck at $1.5 which btw returned 500% plus in following months, Covid was well on the way, with shutdowns approaching.

IMV always had RSV Virus vaccine data set. That was common knowledge. Seeing Moderna, Novavax, SRNE etc. run from $3 to $100 it was not hard to extrapolate that IMV was going to get on the bandwagon. So no "crystal ball", just plain logic. 

As for my call this was going to $1.5 I never made that prediction.  You just glossed over my post and made some erroneous conclusion.

What I SAID, (please go read the post again), was if it breaks $4 we are going down to $3 US, which was 100% correct. I said if it breaks $3US next stop would be $3 with final support at 1.5US at which point you should accumulate with both hands. 

Now I think like a trader, cause that's what I do. IF THEN scenario did not materialize, IMV DID NOT break $3US, therefore accumulating here for under $3.5US on NEW DATA SET is exactly what makes sense to me. Just logic. 

Now, it might NOT make sense to you, that's OK. Your sarcastic comment on me being God like investor is a cheap shot, as I am agnostic, however since I have made and lost in a day many times what people make in a year and some of my better trades netted in a month what most would hope to save in a lifetime, I do feel I have something to offer. If I have not been told so I would not do it :) 

Anyways, we both want IMV to succeed. Your cautious approach has clearly worked for you, I just disagree with you on how market sees the datasets.

I do know that based on my track record how I SEE IT, on balance it is  closer to the market outcomes than how you see it, that is all. 

No hard feelings :)