Member Info for Wigwammer

MBUski - one way that larger investors could purchase in volume would be through the WRAP mechanism. Be interesting to see how much (if any) gets filled… ATB

One reason the may not have informed investors earlier is because they genuinely thought - as I hoped - that a deal might be completed in the first few months of 2026. Disappointing, but that’s the nature of small cap biotech investing. It is risky space and people shouldn’t invest more than they can afford… IMO DYOR GLA

As stated yesterday, one likely reason why the company chose to raise money now is because in May they will be asked to prove at least a 12 month cash runway for the accounts to be signed off. So even if they did believe there is enough cash to get to Q4 and seal a p140 deal, it wouldn’t meet the May cash hurdle… As a consequence of the 15% dilution, they jump the accounting hurdle, secure their balance sheet, add another asset to the story, and get to continue pushing a deal for p140. And I have to disagree with a prior poster - I thought Tim looked pretty upbeat and positive. But there we are. IMO DYOR GLA

Poor rog is upset.. I only ridiculed him because he’s ridiculous. He holds 15 different opinions each week and none of them are ever correct… GLA… ”Wigwammer - you should now f..off and not post here again having derided anyone who dared suggest this could happen. With all your condescending posts ridiculing people..”

Hmm. And others show their class by never reporting a profit, never reporting a loss, never committing to any decision at all really, and wallowing around generally after the shares have fallen.. ATB

Looks like I’m living rent free in msuk’s head too. Yes I definitely got it wrong, locking in a further 200% profit earlier this morning. GLA

Msuk. They say chartists like looking at wobbly lines, because they never had the intellect to move beyond picture books. Every time you post, this seems a little more true.. ATB

I should add, this point has been clear to me for some time. But there is so much poorly reasoned negativity on this board, why feed the trolls? … IMO DYOR GLA

My understanding is the board typically approves the financial statements and provides the "going concern" declaration in May (ie that they have enough cash to last the next 12 months). So it may not be the case they don’t think they will get a deal, simply that they do not think they will get a deal and receive cash in time for the May sign off… IMO DYOR GLA

So juxta proves once again that I live rent free inside his head :) .. And why the lies from juxta? I have never said there won’t be a fund raise, nor do I repeatedly quote Tim saying they have funds until Q4… What I have suggested is IMM has a low cash burn, and if you don’t use a lot money, you don’t need a lot of money. The dilution today is 15%, and I’m happy to let other posters decide if that constitutes a large or small dilution… Like many I’m disappointed about the further delay, and have taken further profit from my 2p position this morning. I had bought a little back at the 6.5p level, so I’m down on that but no great shakes. Sorry I can’t be more downbeat just to please you, but - I’m not.. IMO DYOR GLA

I haven’t conceded any such thing, nolupus. In fact, all your reasons for suggesting that costs will be “much higher” have been answered, to a point that you no longer give any reasons. Of course, if multiple new indications are added that will be different, but also very welcome for investors because it means P140 is targeting a broader and larger market. IMO DYOR GLA

It should be very clear to all from my previous post, nolupus that the only thing that keeps twisting and turning is your reasoning. ATB

So to summarise : in the first post the main hypothesis was that “tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars” would be required because “new p140 is substantially different to old p140”. It was then pointed out that old and new p140 are actually the same chemical entity. The reasoning then morphed to “tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars” would be required because of the “change in dosing” and use of type m diagnostic. It was then pointed out that dosing trials do not cost anything like that amount, and that using type m should increase the effect size and reduce trial costs. In today’s post, the “tens if not hundreds of millions investment”suggestion is dropped, as is any reasoning as to why trial costs will now be higher, and instead we are left with the contention that trial costs must be higher because the lupus trial hasn’t started yet… I’m sure we are all aware that trial costs are likely to be higher than $25m, but/if for the simple reason that p140 is now targeting a much broader range of indications, hence potential interest from large pharma…. Regarding the conclusion “i’ll believe my hypothesis until it is proven false”. Investment is all about making decisions under conditions of uncertainty, not proof. Of course, waiting for proof feels safe, but from an investment point of view it usually means buying after the value has been repriced. Immupharma is a small biotech and obviously there are risks - people should not invest more than they can afford t - and if you like more certainty then large caps or gilts may be a better option.. IMO DYOR GLA

“Long winded” - not for anyone with a 90 second attention span

Part 2 : re P140 and FDA

4. Selecting Type-M patients actually reduces trial size and cost.. The argument that restricting the trial to Type-M patients would increase time and cost is the wrong way round. Precision-medicine trials are designed specifically to increase the probability of detecting efficacy, which has several advantages:

1. Smaller trials

• If the drug works best in Type-M patients, the effect size increases

• Larger effect size → fewer patients needed

2. Faster endpoints

• Enriched populations often show clearer treatment responses

3. Lower overall cost

• Screening adds some cost, but it’s trivial compared with enrolling hundreds more patients in a diluted population.

This is exactly why many modern trials enrich for biomarkers or responder populations. It usually reduces overall cost and duration, even if screening rates are higher.

5. The cost estimate which was dismissed may actually be realistic

The “up to $25m” figure that being questioned is consistent with:

• A mid-size Phase IIb / adaptive Phase III trial

• Possibly enriched with Type-M patients

• Leveraging existing safety data

Those types of trials are far cheaper than full global Phase III programs for completely new drugs.

6. The key point… The original thesis depended on New P140 being a fundamentally different molecule requiring a new development program. But once one accepts that the molecule is the same, the argument shifts to dose safety, and that simply does not imply tens or hundreds of millions in additional trials. Similarly, the idea that Type-M enrichment increases cost and time runs counter to how modern targeted trial design usually works… IMO DYOR GLA

Part 1 :Re P140 and FDA… So concerns have shifted quite a bit between the two posts, and that’s important context. In the first post, the core claim was that “New P140 is substantially different to old P140” and therefore would require tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in new clinical trials. In the second post, however, there is effective acknowledgement that the chemical structure is the same and concern moves to dose safety instead. That’s a very different argument.

1. New P140 is not a new molecule.. If the chemical structure is unchanged, regulators do not treat it as a completely new drug entity. Manufacturing improvements or formulation changes happen routinely in drug development. When the active molecule is the same, the existing clinical safety database remains highly relevant… That alone undermines the premise that the program must restart with massive new investment.

2. Dose-safety studies are not “tens or hundreds of millions”.. It is suggested proving safety at a higher dose could require tens or hundreds of millions. That is not realistic for dose-escalation safety work.

Typical Phase I / dose-escalation bridging studies:

• Usually involve tens of participants, not hundreds

• Often cost a few million dollars, not tens or hundreds of millions

• Are completed in months, not years

The huge costs referenced are associated with large Phase III efficacy trials, not safety dose-finding work.

So even if regulators wanted additional safety data at higher doses - certainly not a given - the cost would likely be a small fraction of what is suggested.

3. A 20-fold dose increase does not automatically require extensive new safety trials… The paracetamol analogy isn’t really applicable here. Drugs are not assessed simply by comparing multiples of dose. Regulators look at:

• Therapeutic window

• Toxicology margins from preclinical studies

• Prior human exposure

• Pharmacokinetics

P140 already has:

• Human safety exposure in lupus trials

• Preclinical toxicology data

• Mechanistic understanding of the peptide

For peptide drugs in particular, regulators often allow dose exploration within the same development program if prior safety margins support it. At most, that typically means limited dose-escalation cohorts, not an entirely new clinical development pathway.

So the assumption that a higher dose automatically triggers huge new safety trials simply isn’t how the process normally works….. IMO DYOR GLA

Based on the latest updates from ImmuPharma (as of late 2025/early 2026), the FDA is not expected to demand significantly higher investment for the new P140 molecule ("new" referring to the refined approach/patents and the CIDP indication) due to it being "different."

Instead, regulatory feedback has been described as positive and encouraging, with the new approach actually designed to make clinical trials faster and more efficient. Here is a breakdown of the current situation:

Refined Approach, Not a New Chemical: The 2021/2022 re-examination of the P140 program was aimed at a "different approach" to dosing and trial design, not a entirely new chemical entity that would require starting from scratch.

Positive Regulatory Guidance: In 2023, ImmuPharma received positive guidance from the FDA for a Phase 2/3 adaptive trial for the new indication (CIDP), which relies on existing preclinical and clinical work, rather than forcing a brand new, highly expensive, early-stage development program.

"Type M" and Enhanced Efficiency: A new, groundbreaking patent filing (September 2025) suggests the new approach will actually lead to smaller, faster, and more efficient trials by identifying the exact patient sub-type (Type M) that responds best, likely reducing, rather than increasing, the need for excessive, wasteful investment.

Strengthened IP = Increased Value: The "new" P140, with its refined Mechanism of Action (MOA) and new patents (potentially to 2045), is being presented to partners as a more valuable, de-risked asset, increasing interest from big pharma, rather than creating a regulatory barrier.

In summary, the changes to the P140 program are aimed at increasing commercial value and precision, which FDA feedback suggests is being viewed favourably, not as a cause for increased investment. IMO GLA DYOR

There are annoying people like you everywhere, rog. It’s a fact of life and people like me have to deal with you… I purchased the vast majority of my holding here at around 2p in 2024, sold a large amount around the 10p mark, and now have millions of free shares and a nice profit… I don’t need to bother with latecomers like you, but we live in a fake news world where people abuse free speech to burden their mediocrity on others. Just doing my bit to unwind the burden a little.. IMO DYOR GLA

I’m not stating it does, rog. I’m stating that with a £40m valuation, minimum 17% mature royalties on US sales, and entire rights to the rest of the world, the stock is potentially so vastly undervalued that it doesn’t really matter. Nobody is going to sell their IMM shares because they only see a ten bagger, rather than an eleven bagger. It is about keeping perspective. IMO DYOR GLA

Oh you’ve said it dozens of times rog, on repeat. And you’ve been answered dozens of times. As is, IMM get up to 17% royalties on any sales of p140 in the US made by Avion. Thats pure margin. In return IMM get milestones and trial costs covered. Beyond that, IMM retain rights over the whole rest of world. Nice situation for both IMM and Avion, especially when IMM’s market cap remains at only the £40m level. How the terms with Avion advance as a result of IMM’s new patent application - we have to wait and see. But it certainly puts in IMM in a stronger position to get more… IMO DYOR GLA