NWBO is a guaranteed WIN...

No matter what bearish, short negatively spews about NWBO, this is a guaranteed win. Even if the shorts were able to push Linda and NWBO close to bankruptcy, there will always be the option to sell the company to the highest bidder, which would be at minimum in the $30 to $40B mark, making the buyout share price $30 to $45/share.

The only reason the shorts are staying in this, is to try and force NWBO to sell rather than get to a point where it would be over $100B for any type of buyout.

The science works, the JAMA Oncology article is published, and MHRA approval will occur this year.

False! They extended the service date not the delivery date….

I get just over $1.0B not $1.8B. Am I missing something? A whole bunch of warrants?

Just show me where the SEC defines material impairment is solely a write off as it means more in legal terms. All I ask for is a link.

And that is where I believe they have up to a year, meaning they would need to disclose that on an annual report. Doesnt mean they take a year, they just have more time to disclose. Hence why some Pharmaceutical companies announce at Conferences, and through scientific papers.

If you notice IMUC;s ICT-107 Phase 2 trial failure announcement, they didnt provide much information on the study, but rather just the several keys pieces, delta mOS < 2 months, mPFS, etc.... As they had to release that information 4 days after they received it. It wasnt until much later on that they provided the white paper that evaluated sub group results, and had much more information.

Negative results would definitely change how the company operates, just because they operate at a loss, and have little revenue, doesnt mean that this wouldn't effect them.

There is a difference between of the accounting definition of impairment and the legal definition of material impairment. If you can show me the SEC definition that only includes "write-offs" then I would readily concede this. However why would they list "write-offs" in the bullet above it?

Do some reading Jerry. Please send a link that states Material Impairments are only write-offs. Funny how the link I provide includes write-offs on a different bullet:

- Creation of a direct or contingent financial obligation that is material to the company;
- Events triggering a direct or contingent financial obligation that is material to the company, including any default or acceleration of an obligation;
- Exit activities including material write-offs and restructuring charges;
- Any material impairment;
- A change in a rating agency decision, issuance of a credit watch or change in a company outlook;

See the following SEC link:

https://www.sec.gov/about/offices/oia/oia_corpfin/princdisclos.pdf

Material Impairment means a material impairment of the Company's financial condition or of the Company's ability to operate the Business as currently conducted or of the Company's ability to consummate the transactions contemplated hereby.

Negative results would result in no operations, no future for the company, and would be considered a material impairment.... Its not just a write-off.

Just to clarify the 4 disclosure day rule as there seems to be some confusion, as many shorts are trying to state that this is not true.

"Public companies are required to disclose significant corporate events to investors and the public on Form 8-K within 4 business days after the event occurs."

So what are considered significant (material) corporate events to investors?

There is a list of material events that require disclosure through the filling of 8-K Forms. Many of these revolve around financial or governing body changes:

- Changes in control of a company;
- A company’s acquisition or disposition of a significant amount of assets;
- A company’s bankruptcy or receivership;
- Changes in a company’s certifying accountant;

There is a slew of them that revolve around these types of material events. However there is no "results of a Clinical Trial" listed in these types of material events. Rather, the key criteria is:

- Any material Impairment

This means any negative material news/event needs to also be issued within 4 days on an 8-K. If the news is not an impairment but positive, then it would need to eventually be disclosed on the annual report, hence up to a year to report positive clinical trial events.

https://www.sec.gov/about/offices/oia/oia_corpfin/princdisclos.pdf

I agree and if the TLD is negative she looks to gain very little. My whole point being that she wasn’t guaranteed anything and she definitely doesn’t have $20M right now. She took a risk lending the money in the first place as NWBO has been staving off bankruptcy for years. I think it’s funny that people try and spin it that Linda has made billions when in actuality she has risked millions and has yet to cash in.

Sorry .20 or .22,, so she pays $3M, stock is presently worth $20M but she still can’t sell shares until after the TLD is out. So if results are negative she gets nothing.

I was using the numbers provided, either way, my point is still valid. She hasn’t made $20M.

Has her loan been paid back yet? If not she could be out that $5.4M as well if TLD is negative. The whole point is that she isn’t taking advantage, she is taking a big risk.

I understand that. I am saying she may have been given warrants valued at $4.3M. But she still has to exercise them, meaning she pays NWBO $4.3M to get shares. So she really pays NWBO $10M to get shares that are currently valued at over $15M. If she could sell right now.

Does that make sense?

She has to exercise the warrants, meaning she has to pay $4.3M in order to get those 15 M shares that were worth $0.15/sh on the open market. It obviously doesnt make sense to buy warrants that are more expensive than the share price.

You are saying see took advantage of this great deal, when in fact, she has to exercise the warrants, giving NWBO $5.4M to get 15M shares that she isnt able to sell until well after the TLD results come out. So even if they are worth $1.35 on the open market, she cant make any money from this unless the TLD is positive. Does that make sense?

Yes, and at the time, they were valued at $0.15/sh, which is $2.28M, AND, she is unable to sell them until after the P3 results will be provided, meaning she is taking a chance that the results are positive or those warrants will be worth nothing.

Yeah I was just trying to get a couple shorts to sweat a bit. But in actuality, if NWBO is going to sell, it would need to be in the $45B or higher mark.

DDAmanda factor is between 7 and 9 after todays volume. This could jump in a couple days.......

$45 Billion is the number being thrown around. Not sure if its Merck or another BP. That would be a share price of ~$56/share.

DDAmanda Factor could be as high as 5 by the end of day today. Depending on if there is alot of shares sold tomorrow, this would mean a big jump is upcoming next week!! And look at that, I didnt have to pay for the DDAmanda program....

Okay so NWBO's share volume has increased exponentially the last 2 days, meaning that if this keeps up tomorrow as well, the DDAManda Factor will move towards 10 again and there should be a huge jump in price. Look at that, I didnt even need to pay for DDAmanda, and I used it's principle all on my own....

Too funny. I replied to you suggesting they changed the SAP to compare OS to SOC trials, and that is exactly what they did. It is now the primary endpoint. This is very good news, as we already know that the blinded OS data is better than any SOC control group data available.

This is huge! We already know that the blinded data is better than any other SOC trial to date. NWBO just slam dunked approval.

HOLY SMOKES!!!!!

I WAS CORRECT!!! They are comparing OS to contemporaneous trials for SOC

"The primary endpoint of this study is overall survival (OS) compared between patients randomized to DCVax-L and control patients from comparable, contemporaneous trials who received standard of care therapy only, in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma. "

I cant find any recent reference, but I recall the original OS endpoint was 2 months increase as that has been the standard comparison for GBM. Termizolomide was approved on 2 month increase from SOC. ICT-107 missed the 2 month increase in its phase 2 trial. 2 months OS increase has become the standard for acceptance as an effective GBM treatment

They did update the SAP, and I dont know what the trial design was changed to, (or if it was changed) but I wouldnt doubt that the secondary endpoint OS, was moved to compare itself to SOC data with the FDA's new approval of comparing SOC data.

If Linda Powers wanted to, the board could easily sell NWBO for $10 to $20B as is with the unblended data only. IMHO

DCVax-L TLD results will be positive no matter what:

With the blinded data we already have, and the last patient in Nov 2015, there is enough information already to show DCVax-L is a good investment. Here are my reasons:

1) We know that over 25% of the patients treated are showing a PFS greater than 15 months
2) Blinded OS results are so good that the only way the OS fails to meet the 2 months increase in OS, means that the crossed over patients lived longer than SOC patients normally do, and this could be compared to SOC for approval.
3) Both the blinded data from methylated and unmethylated MGMT patients show significant increases from Blinded Optune patients (~ 7 months unmethylated and 10 months meythlated), which means that this sub group in itself could provide an approval path with the FDA.

And lastly, if the mOS increase doesn't meet the 2 months there is enough subset data, and overall trial increase as seen from blinded results that Linda Powers will easily be able to sell NWBO's proprietary technology to the highest Big Pharma bidder, which would easily be between $10B and $20B.

ITS A WIN-WIN-WIN-WIN situation, atleast IMHO!

So why do you point it out, and then we can keep talking about this joke more.....

Sources say Sept 36th actually....

Why would anyone pay for DDAmanda? Share price, volume traded is all available data, one can just do this themselves, and watch specific stocks. Unless DDAmanda emails you when the Factor hits a 10 or above, but them why isnt all the Institutional Investors using DDAmanda? Why, because its probably not as reliable as they say.....

Yeah, the shorting started on the 23rd. So by Les stating it was another couple weeks out, the shorts knew they had more time to put pressure on the stock price, hence it has fallen. So hopefully it will veer back up. Blows my mind that it this type of activity is allowed.

It really sucks.

Interesting. Sounds like we may be a couple weeks out still, hence why the shorts may have come out this week. Probably wasnt a good idea to be on the show.

I doubt that. The last time didnt provide any bump in share price. And it is sounding like they are in a "no communicating" state as per SEC guidelines.

LOL, all warrants are tied up until months from now, so it doesnt help anyone that has legal shorts. It the price goes to high, they would need to cover at some point, so no, I don't believe you are correct on that.

There is enough short volume there that I believe will see a squeeze, coupled with the fact that if results are positive, the jump in price will squeeze the price initially enough that shorts will be scrambling. But good try!

Much of that float is tied up, so no I dont use that number. Second, the more the short volume, the more the squeeze. And when it goes from under a dollar to $10+ that will squeeze even more. I am hoping for more short volume!!!

Short interest jumped; ~16.5M and is probably close to 20M right now.

The more shorts, the bigger the squeeze!

"Headset" Falacies

1) Data criteria doesn't include "headsets" and even if for some reason it influenced the OS, it wouldn't influence PS, and it would be near impossible to prove.
2) NWBO Blinded Data was significantly better (~2 - 3 months) than Optune's blinded data.
3) The fact that >2/3 of the patients would have had to worn a helmet, in all the numerous countries to which the data and trial was run, which is literally statistically impossible.

Even if they were "using the helmet", the blinded data is better than Optune's blinded data. And with such a large sample, there wouldnt be better results than what Optune saw. You are grasping at straws....

I posted they before any P3 data. If you want to split hairs.... Either way, my point is still the same, and valid. NWBO would easily be worth >$10B, and probably closer to $20B or more.

Arguing symantics. JUNO was bought for $9B before P3 results, KITE bought for $12B after results of their P1/2 Pivotal trial. Either way, NWBO is worth a minimum of $10B, and because it would prove to be useful for not just operable tumors, but possibly inoperable tumors, it is easily worth $20B or more......

Looks like KITE still did a P3 trial for Yescarta, even though it was "approved" as you say. LOL

LOL!!!! THAT WAS PHASE 1/2 TRIAL NOT PHASE 3. Wow, thought you had something there. Read your own links. There was only 100 patients in the overall trial. That isnt enough for a good Phase 3 trial.