NorthWest Biotherapeutics Inc (NWBO)

[sentiment_stocks]

Linda never lied? Didn't she say the trial was enlarged "a little bit" and then said increased by 36 patients from 312 to 348? If you don't think that's lying I'm not sure what to say.

My idea of “a little bit” matches 36. You’re trying to say it was 108. But it wasn’t. You only thought the main arm was 240 (as it had been) and that 108 was not a little bit. And you’re right, it’s not. But Linda never told us the main arm was 240. We based that on other information - not supplied by Linda. And the clinical trial sites were showing 312. So they increased it by 36. That’s a little bit. Line up 36 GBM patients and ask them if 36 is a little bit. I’ll bet they'd agree.

I have no doubt most of those labeled rapid progressors were in fact rapid progressors.

Good. We’re getting somewhere.

But it's still possible one or two weren't.

No, it’s not. Not at 50% increase of either tumor progression or lesions of 1 cm. in size or greater from post-surgery MRI. NO, NO, NO.

And 15.3 months mOS is certainly less than Linda was going around everywhere suggesting the "sickest of the sick" were doing. All that came out of her mouth was "18 months in the sickest of the sick, who usually die in 7-10 months."

Again, as I stated before, that applied to the entire Info Arm… all of which were rapid progressors to start with. And when they ALL received DCVax-L during that two month period (which you are overlooking), and some became stable, and didn’t progress, or didn’t progress as much. So she was accurate.

She never clarified. Sure, if you happened to read the fine print of the slide you'd have seen "actual or suspected rapid progressors,”

She said they would clarify in an abstract. They have clarified it in an abstract.

and if you further had the wherewithal to figure out you were being tricked and knew what a psPD even was you'd at least know what she was saying wasn't honest. But please, don't tell me she wasn't lying. I know what a lie is.

I have the wherewithal to know I wasn’t tricked. I don't think you do. I know what a lie is too. And she did not lie.

I also know you and flipper are really impressed with these patients having had 50% growth of their lesions after 5 months, but it's just not that special to an ePD.

Yes... we are. And apparently, so are lots of other people. As are entire countries. As is one of the most respected investors in the UK.

These are not "super rapids" or whatever you want to call them. They are quickly progressing ePD who usually die from 3-15 months historically. It's a sad, sick disease.

Okay. 15 months in your scenario means the longest one could hope to live with ePD. Yet our troop of Rapid Progressors demonstrate a median OS of 15.3, well above your low of 3 months, and at par with your high. It's easy to say between 3 and 15 months. But the median is somewhere between 7 and 10. The median shown here is 15.3. And yes, we agree, it’s a sad, sick disease. And hopefully soon, with DCVax-L, these patients will have more life, more time, less pain and less suffering.

If anything this new info should make you more suspicious of how to classify the "indeterminates." But with so much confirmation bias how could you?

You tell yourself I have confirmation bias… maybe that is your way of explaining away my level of confidence in this company. I can assure you that I have vetted this subject very thoroughly and am now very comfortable that those indeterminates were rapids to start with; and additionally, as I've stated before, those patients received 3 treatments of DCVax-L (something most rapid progressors do not receive), and it stablilized these patients sooner than it did for the rapid progressors, requiring the independent medical imaging company to sort them appropriately.

You stated the criteria correctly but omitted when a patient is scanned for that criteria.

No I didn’t. But if you missed it, they were scanned for the criteria at their third MRI - the Month 2 MRI.

The fact is after 2 months either those apparent lesions grew or stayed the same or even regressed (just not more than 25%) for those labeled "indeterminates."

These patients had stabilized from what was shown on their Baseline MRI. So any “additional” tumor growth or any “additional” lesion less than 1 cm. was not enough to sort them into the Rapid group.

Well, how many regressed or were stable at 2 months post baseline scan? Most of them? Who knows!

No, we know. 25 were stable at two months or showed only "modest" progression at Baseline. By the MacDonald and RANO criteria, they were progressive to begin with when they entered the info arm itself.

These could easily all be psPD. Every single one labeled "indeterminate." If they scanned again at 6 months etc., they would have more conclusive data. They just didn't. Nothing nefarious, they were compassionate use patients after all.

Now that’s ridiculous. I already said a few could have been re-sorted at future MRI's as we know they received a new MRI every two months. Further, we know there was only one pseudo-progressor. After six weeks and intensive chemo and radiation, the baseline showed if the patient has progressed based on the standard criteria. These patients were rapid progressors by what is considered the standard for determining that. Still… the independent medical imaging company waited an additional two month for the Month 2 MRI before actually sorting the patients. Now during this two month time, the patients received at least three treatments of DCVax-L. So it should really be no surprise that some of these patients had shown stabilization by this time.

And the one pseudo-progressor’s progression… was gone by the Month 2 MRI. There's not really any other way to categorize that patient, at least according to the independent medical imaging company. If any of those in the Indeterminate Progressor group's progression had also been gone at this time, they’d have certainly joined the one pseudo-progressor patient as well.

But that’s not what happened… so the indeterminate couldn't be labeled psPD patients. That might be what you would label them as. But the independent medical imaging company did not. Are you suggesting you'd know better how to sort these patients than a radiologist whose job it is to read these scans?

These information arm data are simply unsubstantiated without a concurrent control group. It doesn't matter if the ePD mOS is 20 months, neither the market nor the greater health community will credit DCVax-L with the ability to procure a survival advantage unless such data comes from a randomized trial.

Okay… this is sounding like your latest argument for Direct. Are you using it now for L?

Aren't you all getting tired of my repeating the same rudimentary matters?

Yes I am.

Why not just learn it already instead of fighting against it constantly. Accept the truth.

My truth is more in line with those who are actually qualified to judge these criteria… your version is of the truth is whatever you want it to be that day. You have confirmation bias as well. Only your's is solely based on whatever you've decided the facts are to be at that point in time. Experts can tell you otherwise, to no avail. You've decided what they are, and no one will convince you otherwise.