That's not how it works.

RE: skitahoe

I am hoping for some confirmation of what flipper44 talked about here. That would be kick@$$.

I would be surprised if they talked about Flaskworks in the journal, but not my area.

'Aiding and abetting' sounds criminal to me, hence my assumption. :/

It is fine to believe those things will happen, I do too, they are just not 'facts' until they actually occur. You can look it up in the dictionary if you don't believe me.

As pqr notes, and my original point, is that "clinical significance" is different than "statistical significance." One is proving a positive, the other is disproving a negative. The slide you quote does not indicate that the DC-Vax trial achieved "clinical significance." The fact that they claim the trial results were "clinically meaningful" and "statistically significant" does not mean you can mix-and-match the terms. I am sure that if they had achieved "clinical significance," that they would be saying that.

There is nothing wrong with having supportable opinions or basing investment decisions on them, I would hope everyone does that. I just have a problem when people state things as facts that aren't actually facts. Those attacking the company state opinions as facts all the time. Just look at the ridiculous Enron talk going on again right now. 'Linda Powers worked at Enron,' fact. 'She knew about (was involved in) the fraud being committed,' opinion. But both get stated (or at the least insinuated) as facts when tehy are not.

You do realize that four of your 'facts' have not occurred yet and therefore are predictions, not facts, right? Also, in fact 1, I think you mean 'statistical significance,' not 'clinical significance.' Although both may be true, I have only heard statistical significance being reported during the May 10 presentation and otherwise.

Event studies appear to be used in civil cases, rather than criminal cases, although it is not exactly clear from the paper. If you were involved in a criminal case, with 'beyond a reasonable doubt' as the standard of review, I am not sure that a 95% confidence interval would be sufficient and the article suggests that meeting even that threshold could be a challenge given the large number of things that can impact share price.

RE: Doc logic

Securities laws are not really my gig, but my thoughts are:

First: I think that would be a tough sell on its own. You really want evidence that a subject communicated with others involved in a conspiracy to fraudulently affect the price of the security or link people through financial transactions. I would not want to try to present a case to a jury in which my sole evidence was that a posting pattern on message boards correlated with a trading pattern of the stock.

Second: You probably need fraud and causation, meaning that the messages must be untrue and knowingly made with the intent to affect the stock price. In addition, they must be shown to have actually affected the stock price.

Third: Once a crime has been committed, it can't be 'un-committed.' So if someone aided and abetted a crime, future conduct will not erase that.

Dude. Which part of "authorized" (for the 1.75-2.0 billion) is unclear? Especially since it agrees with what you state: "I agree 2b (or maybe even more) is what they will ask for at the ASM."

Followed by "reasonably" meaning an estimate based on my reading of current shares outstanding plus C shares sold, plus shares to be sold after journal and before UK approval, plus discounted shares purchased by lender after NWBO sells shares.

I am making completely reasonable assumptions, which I state. Feel free to state your assumptions. Do you honestly think that the person/people on this board who stated they were buying C shares lied? That NWBO lied about selling them? That NWBO is not going to try to raise money after an increase in allocation? That the lender is not going grab some free money by buying and maybe selling discounted shares? Because any of those are nonsensical beliefs. How many shares in total will that be? I don't know, so I am tossing out 250 MM common shares as a safe guess to be used in making a conservative estimate on shares outstanding after UK approval. Personally, I will use 2 Billion when making my internal estimates as the more fully-diluted number.

As FeMike pointed out, these links are ALL brain tumors. But according to Johns Hopkins, only 33% of brain tumors are Glioma. (https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/gliomas) So unless only Gliomas result in death, then those number are high.

My original post quotes Roman516 using 1 billion shares. Not sure how much clearer I can be.

I never said all C shares will be sold. I said that since they authorized them and started selling them, that you should assume that when they increase the share authorization, it will include all sold C shares, 0 - 10 MM (up to 250 MM common shares). So the increase in authorization will be up to 1.5-1.75 Billion shares, from 1.2 Billion currently. (With 1.5 not even covering current shares outstanding or convertible).

In addition, you should assume that they will increase the share count enough that they can issue common shares after the price theoretically jumps due to the journal article or approvals, since they flat out stated they would do so in the loan docs from last year. And once they do that, the lender will be allowed to purchase discounted shares as well. It is therefore reasonable to assume that they will authorize an additional 250 MM shares or so in order to raise cash, enable the lender to purchase discounted shares, and continue to issue stock options/warrants/shares to executives and board members. When they increased share count in 2019, they did not simply raise it to cover existing shares outstanding so there is no reason to think they would do so this time.

Thus we get 1.75 - 2.0 Billion shares authorized and reasonably 1.75 Billion plus shares outstanding as of January+ when UK approval occurs.

My last paragraph was simply noting that Roman's claim that FeMike was off by 25-40% is wrong because FeMike is using a low number for the current shares outstanding much less the total number that will be outstanding months from now.

I responded to a post claiming the share count is 1 Billion and WILL BE WHEN UK APPROVAL OCCURS.

Share count has been over a billion for more than a year, I would have to look back to see how long ago we crossed that mark, but it was a while ago. 1.5 Billion is the current (as of May) share count. Using 1 billion is 100% wrong. Using 1.5 Billion as of today is 100% wrong, although it could be quite close. Using 1.5 Billion as of 5 months from now, assuming it does take 5 months for approval and the MAA was filed when the PIP was filed, will 100% be wrong but may be close, or could be off by 100MM-250MM-500MM depending on how many C shares they sell, and how soon after the ASM they sell more shares and their lenders buy more shares.

It is usually best to make your predictions using conservative numbers rather than wholly unrealistic numbers from 1+ years ago. When I think about price projections, I use fully diluted shares so that I get a worst-case scenario and can hope that things are actually better. However, Roman516 said that FeMike's numbers were off by 25-40%, when in fact, $12-15 a share with 1.5 billion shares is $18-22.5 Billion (FeMike said $ 20 Billion, right in the center of that range), numbers doubled at the 6 months mark, $36-45 Billion, in the middle of which is $40 billion. So FeMike's numbers are pretty much spot on with current outstanding shares.

. . . which is why I state: "That brings the total shares to 1.5-1.75 billion, depending on how many they sell."

As in 1.5 Billion if they sell none, something that seems unlikely as it has been reported that at least one person on this board has or intended to purchase some, and as much as 1.75 if they sell them all.

NWBO is the ones who decided on 10 MM shares convertible to 250 MM common shares. We should assume that they did so for a reason and that any increase in authorization of common shares will cover all of those shares should they decide to sell them now or in the future.

If they authorize additional shares, 1.5 Billion covers current outstanding shares, 1.75 covers outstanding shares plus ALL C shares if they sell them, and 2.0 Billion covers all outstanding, all C, and another 250 MM for future cash raises, partnerships, and management/board awards.

I have no idea how many C shares they will sell and made no guess. Why you assume that it will be all is beyond me. It is,however, unrealistic to think that they are going to raise the allocation to less than 1.75 billion, and I am willing to go as low as 2.0 billion for the top end.

There were 1.5 Billion shares outstanding in May 2022 (3 months ago): According to the May 10-Q there were 984,247,092 shares outstanding on May 6, 2022 and 304,867,000 options as of March 31, 2022 and 208,705,000 warrants as of March 31, 2022.

In addition, they are currently selling some of the 10MM Class C Preferred shares convertible to 250MM common shares (after 3 months apparently). That brings the total shares to 1.5-1.75 billion, depending on how many they sell. David Innis allegedly claimed that NWBO will have the ASM this year. The only really plausible excuse I can come up with for holding the ASM 3+ months late is in order to vote on share increase as they are already over the 1.2 billion allocated shares. They want to have that vote after the journal comes out and the price (theoretically) goes up, otherwise, why would anyone vote for it?

Thus we can assume that the share authorization will be at least 2 billion before the end of the year. Also assume that they will be issuing shares as soon as the price goes up as they need money for continuing operations, and their lenders from last year will also be buying discounted shares once that happens.

Since the PIP indicates that an MAA could not be filed prior to the PIP (although they were granted authorization to file it contemporaneously), and from what I read the MAA process takes 150 days (5 months), approval in the UK is looking more like January of next year. Thus after the ASM and share increase.

So you should probably be using 1.75 or 2.0 billion as your share count, not 1 billion, which we passed well over a year ago.

Which is exactly my point. People need to stop relying on company predictions because they are not even close to accurate and they should definitely stop trying to read the tea leaves and breadcrumbs trying to guess what the company's estimates are because the company really has no idea when anything is actually going to happen.

It isn't about changing the past, it is about the past informing the future.

If you have some examples of NWBO correctly guessing the timing of future events, I would love to see them.

Sorry, but what?? What difference does it make how long someone has been on this board when discussing the events of the last 3-6 months? While I do not agree completely with Jarheef's timeline, there was a lot of buzz around early April indicating big news by early June. There was a PR from the company. Then no support and nothing but silence as the stock tanked.

That was then immediately followed by talk of how the journal was coming out very, very soon. Over three months ago it was coming out very, very soon. Still no sign of it and in fact, people have more recently been suggesting that it may not have even been submitted to a journal until after the May 10 presentation and the update of clinicaltrials.gov. Which sort of shoots down the previous narrative that they thought the journal was going to coincide with the NYAS talk when they scheduled things a couple of months earlier.

Then, in June, it was reported that David Innis stated the company's hope that the ASM would be held by mid-July. Now, rather than being held in 4-6 weeks, we are looking at a minimum of 3.5 months, assuming we get notification this week of the ASM.

Instead, the talk has turned to three months from the issuance of the Class C Preferred shares, so November. But history has suggested that betting on hints based on option/warrant expiration or stock availability is not reliable. If they are already 2 months late on the ASM, three assuming they give 30-days notice, then what is a few unauthorized shares between friends?

The simple fact is that while I have no doubt that they are doing lots of great stuff toward approval, all currently available public indicators are that they have seriously blown their opportunity to improve the share price prior to approval and it is making it far more difficult to stay afloat. Remember, the science was never going to be the weak link in the chain. We are not totally de-risked until they get the share price out of the toilet and have enough available shares to guarantee their continued survival.

RE: iwasadiver

Sorry, I did not mean to imply or suggest that *your* speculations were wild. I was referring more to talk (among other things) of how these preferred shares are a sign of an impending buyout. Something that the last several years should have suggested is not going to happen. Especially at $15 billion, or whatever low-ball figure people are throwing out these days.

I had no idea who hoffman6383 was referring to when he mentioned "Dr Z," nor had I seen the post he later referred to. You are one of a handful of people on this board who's opinion I actually value. I certainly did not mean to imply otherwise.

Hey hoffman6383,

I understand. I do not blame people for being excited. I wish I was more excited. Instead, my estimation of the longterm worth of NWBO stock has dropped since early May. What I worry about is people getting overly optimistic in the short term based on breadcrumbs and conjecture. Perhaps that is why I am so upset about May 10. The company PRs the event, hints about something happening to loyal followers, and then doesn't follow through. This leaves me to discount anything they say and certainly their estimates on anything, which have consistently been unrealistic. In the end the stock is worth a lot. In the meantime?

Well, I am a sheep in a wolf's clothing. :)

Hey hooffmann6383,

Not meant as a Gotcha, just looked like you were using some odd information. I misread your 1.5 billion as the total number of authorized shares you expected post ASM (when they need to request an increase to the share count). Sorry about that.

The thing is, the company can't have 1.5 billion shares now, much less 1.75 billion, because it is more than are authorized. That is why they need to authorize more at the ASM. So the 14.3% figure doesn't really make sense because it is based on a number of authorized/issued shares that will probably never exist (the point of my 1st paragraph response). If they request an increase in authorized shares, as they did in 2019, it is almost certainly going to include more than they need to cover existing shares. So probably at least 2 billion. In addition, as indicated by their late-2021 loan terms, they are likely to issue stock soon after 'official' TLD because they need lots of cash for a large number of upcoming expenses.

This has nothing to do with math, and I don't have any agenda here more than questioning numbers that do not seem to make sense. If you want to feel differently, that is really your problem.

The 10-60 days in specific to ASMs. It is spelled out in the NWBO bylaws that I linked. It is the same (as you note) as in Title 8, Del. Gen. Corp. Code § 222(b):

Sorry, 'Dr. Z' meant nothing to me, as I have never heard of Dr. Z. If you had mentioned iwasadiver, that would have been helpful. As a lawyer, I am loathe to trust double hearsay from people I don't personally know. Especially when the person at the company is not identified.

I appreciate that you and many others seem to think that I am a short out to kill the company because I don't spew enough rainbows and gumdrops. Fortunately, most people's opinions don't mean much to me. What matters to me is NWBO curing cancer patients and me making a $#!&-ton of money on their stock. So, mostly I post responses to what I see as misinformation. Sometimes pro-company, sometimes anti-company. The dangers of over-optimism are almost as significant as the over-pessimism we see here all the time and making overly optimistic statements without anything but faith and speculation to back them makes the work of shorts easier. I am especially sensitive to setting dates the company has not committed to.

RE: hoffmann6383

A few random notes.

Not sure where you came up with 1.5 billion shares? Current authorization is 1.2 billion shares of common stock with (according to the May 10-Q) 984,247,092 shares outstanding on May 6, 2022 and 304,867,000 options as of March 31, 2022 and 208,705,000 warrants as of March 31, 2022. Meaning a total of ~1.5 billion shares already, not including 250 million for conversion of preferred shares and any shares they wish to sell post 'official' TLD release. So if they receive authorization for more, it is almost certainly going to be much more than 1.5 billion or 1.75 billion for that matter.

As per the Company bylaws (Section 2.4) they must give 10-60 days notice prior to the ASM, not 30 days. Of course, according to their bylaws (Section 2.1) they are supposed to hold an annual meeting within 13 months of the prior ASM, so take the 10-60 days with a grain of salt, I guess. Anyway, the ASM would not need to be held within 2 months under your logic, it would need to be announced within 2 months. Except that it doesn't.

In addition, Section 4.2 does not mention 3 months, it merely says conversion may occur "[f]rom and after the date set forth in the subscription agreement." So the Conversion Date is not set until they issue these shares to someone and anyway, the 3 months, if that was the time period, would not start to run until the shares were actually issued to someone.

While all of this could mean that the company is confident that news will be forthcoming in the next 3 months, history has not given us reason to have much confidence in the company's estimates about the timing of future events.

Lots of wild speculation on this board about the purpose of these preferred shares. and none of it backed up with anything. So we might as well consider the possibility that since they do not need shareholder authorization for these preferred shares, which can vote as 25 shares each, that they can just give them to the board/management team to offset dilution of the stock when they use those 250 MM votes to authorize an increase in share count to 2 billion. It would give them some 400 MM shares to vote with, so they only need to convince 100 MM shares to go along with it!

I do not doubt that the company believes that something significant will occur in the next three months. However, their time estimates over the last few years have been off by orders of magnitude. People consistently read into NWBO's statements/provisions/language that they signify a timeframe for something to occur and then get very upset when it doesn't happen.

That has not followed in the past. When Bigger bought in, 3 years ago?, there was language about warrants and such for 6 months or so and we are years past that now. I would not read too much into such language.

We don't disagree at all about the events. The disagreement is about the why. And we don't know the why.

I understand that the company did not officially release TLD, even though their later PRs/filings claim they did. My issue is with why they allowed a third party to dribble part of TLD instead of waiting, as they promised, to make a big show with a journal and a spate of PRs. They are not exactly in a quiet period if they release a PR about a presentation that contains TLD or if they present that same information from NYAS at ASCO or talk to people other than investors about it.

The PR announcing the talk at NYAS and the hints given to people that were broadly circulated here and elsewhere prior to NYAS set up an expectation that they were doing what they promised and instead they did something different. Just as they have been hinting for months now that a journal article is imminent. Remember those posts from MAY about the journal article being out very very soon . . . 2+ months ago? Or Dave Innis supposedly talking about hoping for the ASM by mid-July? It is now mid-July and not only no ASM but no announcement of an ASM (10-30 day notice) and no sign of the journal that will presage that announcement.

I am (and was) fine with waiting on the journal, I am not fine with leading people to believe that you are going to do one thing and instead doing something very harmful to investors. And I find in comical how many people on this board tell me we don't know why they did things the way they did and simultaneously tell me I am wrong about why they did it. I do not have a position on why they did it or whether or not it was a good thing until either they explain why it was done or refuse to explain it. I simply feel that an explanation is required. Why others feel no explanation is required is a mystery to me.

Whatever their reasons, I feel that the way they have handled this SPECIFIC event has hurt the company by driving away potential investors that they will need due to the position they find themselves in on the OTC with no official TLD release. As I mentioned more than a year ago, I think it would be bad for the stock if they were to still be on the OTC when approvals start rolling in. To me, that is the point of the big TLD announcement, to get the share price up enough to get back on an actual exchange. I don't think they can count on another big pre-TLD run up on expectations after losing investors $1 billion in equity last time they head-faked.

Ike: "Bananas are yellow."

hoffmann6383: "No apples are red!"

I NEVER said that NWBO was not seeking commercial manufacturing approval. I NEVER suggested that they were not doing the things necessary for approval. My question is "how does dribbling the release of TLD improve their chances of approval? Release of TLD and approval are, AFAIK, completely different processes."

You are ignoring the issue I am raising. The issue is with dribbling TLD out instead of doing what they said 30 months ago they were going to do, namely a flurry of PRs, and what they have suggested more recently that they would do, namely release the full data in a peer-reviewed journal article.

The more they make promises they don't keep, the more they put out PRs about presentations and hints about release of TLD and then don't support them, the more deadlines they miss, the more out-of-touch with investors they seem, the less people are going to be willing to buy their stock. And when they are stuck on the OTC, a lot of the big players, and even normal investors, are not going to touch them. So they can't afford to alienate the people who would normally be willing to buy.

They may have great reasons for what they do. They may be precluded from explaining what those reasons are (although I think that this latter is less likely). But until we know what happened and why, it is impossible to judge except by the results, which were not good. If there is ever an ASM, already a month late and no indication of when it will occur, then maybe we will know more.

In the meantime, it should concern NWBO when ardent supporters no longer believe what they say.

They also dropped 20% the month prior to Oct 7, 2021, so no real pre-TLD pump.

Yeah, a R/S invariably leads to a serious drop in share price.

Then if you are a dolphin, don't swim alone in the shark tank when wounded.

Maybe there were solid reasons for doing things the way they did. WE DON'T KNOW. But they purportedly knew that shorts were going to attack the stock, and they claim to have attempted to get trading halted (not that it would have really mattered I suspect). But they went ahead and put the data out there knowing they would get hammered and knowing they could not defend themselves. And not just 'not defend themselves' for a couple of days, it has been over two months with no journal and no defense. People are now saying that they probably did not even submit the article for publication until around the time of NYAS so they certainly did not plan months in advance releasing the two at the same time.

Sure, and people don't need to invest in their stock. But when you do things that hurt your investors, you limit the pool of potential future investors, which hurts financing and other things.

The thing is, how does dribbling the release of TLD improve their chances of approval? Release of TLD and approval are, AFAIK, completely different processes. I support them doing what is best long term as well but until I have an explanation for why they did what they did, I have no way of determining if it is the best for the long term. Giving them a pass on everything just because they have done a great job getting us this far is not, IMO, a good investment strategy.

The closer you get to the goal, the more likely you are to lose focus and make mistakes. The Greeks knew this (look at the story of Psyche for just one example) two-thousand+ years ago. In addition, when you are surrounded by insiders and insulate yourself from outside information and ideas, you get the echo-chamber/bubble effect and it can blind you to danger, to others' needs and points-of-view, and lull you into seeing the world myopically. Two+ years of mostly silence and many years of the same people with little infusion of new ideas and perspectives, can be dangerous. Until they start talking, we don't know if there is cause for alarm or not.

Brickell announced topline results from their phase III trial at the AAD annual meeting in March 2022, right? No pump prior to meeting. No dump after. Stock at $11.25 when meeting announced. Stock at $12.60 at start of meeting. Stock at $12.15 at conclusion of meeting. Or is this some other release of TLD?

My point is that we all know there are shorts. NWBO knows there are shorts. Putting yourself into a situation where the shorts can decimate your stock without being able to defend yourself and then blaming shorts is ludicrous. It is like driving off the road into a river because it is a shorter distance and then blaming the water for stalling your car.

OK, so name a few of these companies.

If NWBO had released TLD in conjunction with a media blitz and a journal publication, with updated clinicaltrails.gov website, the share price would NOT have bombed. It would be over $4 right now as a company that has a product that can cure cancer and be the next Standard of Care for all solid-tumors.

I get that the journal article was not ready (presumably) but that does not mean you dribble the information KNOWING you will be attacked and can't respond. Knowing the shareprice is going to get destroyed. Especially after issuing a PR and sending out hints about big news coming in May/June.

All the BS about 'well the stock was at $0.70 and is back at $0.70, no loss, still beating the (fill-in-the-blank) for the year,' is just that. Do people not realize that investors bought millions of shares at $1.50+ and sold at $0.60-? Shorts ate up $millions at the expense of NWBO shareholders, increasing their supply of shares they can use to short the stock going forward.

So who is going to buy the stock up on the OTC, where we are still stuck and probably will be until approval? Not institutional investors. Not the investors you burned with the TLD headfake ('gosh, I sure would like to lose 50-70% of my investment'). Not the longs who are already fully invested. I am certainly not going to make the mistake of recommending NWBO to friends and family again.

Don't blame the shorts for something that was predictable. Something I predicted long ago. Something the company apparently predicted before NYAS. This was a management decision, one they will need to justify.

TLD WAS released, regardless of whether the company technically did it or not. We know the most significant numbers although not all of the details.

I DO NOT know why they did it the way they did, which is what I have been saying for 2 months. And I very much expect an explanation at the ASM. I am willing to accept explanations but at the moment I am frustrated that there is none. While they can't talk about a journal directly, that does not preclude them from talking about other things. And, any discussion at the ASM will occur after any votes on authorizing an expansion of shares, meaning it will be too late to change my mind about whether such an authorization is in my best interests.

I HAVE argued that. Never go halfway. Either do a full PR blitz with the journal and presentation or keep your mouth shut. I don't have as much of a problem with the quasi-release at NYAS as I do with the fact that they promoted it and then didn't follow through with support, even a seemingly simple task as updating clinicaltrials.gov, something anyone should have been able to foresee being a point of contention.

The stock rose in anticipation of TLD release, something the company broadcast through talks with/hints to investors and through their PR. Following through at that time, on top of the rise, was an opportunity and I feel that if they had followed through then it would have had a significantly positive effect on the stock price. NWBO does not, and has not historically, closely follow the broader market. It is a different dynamic.

I am more than happy to listen to their explanations but they have to make some and since they can't even be bothered to respond to my email, I am left to stew. That is 100% within their control.

I have no idea what this has to do with what I am saying.

It was clearly a successful trial in June 2018. Anyone who couldn't figure that out from the interim blinded data should not be invested here. Was it great to get positive confirmation at NYAS? Sure. Was it worth $1 Billion+ in Market Cap? No.

The betrayal is not the trial, the betrayal is blowing the release of TLD after holding out for 19 months. Now we wait on approval for a serious uptick while we are still on the OTC? When will that be? 6 months? A year? Two? Anyone's guess. It is impossible to trust NWBO to accurately predict anything in the future within a couple of orders of magnitude. You would have to be nuts to suggest to anyone who can't sit around for a couple of years to buy into NWBO or you will look as foolish as we have over this past year. So who is going to buy up the stock on the OTC?

Several people on here talking about their level of excitement for this company at all-time highs but mine is in the toilet. I can't even be bothered to check the price most days because who cares? I've got my money in, when it finally hits, I'll walk around with FU money but in the meantime, whatever. Maybe leaking info out to physicians is going to pay-off big at some point but alienating your long-term investors in the process doesn't seem like a great tradeoff to me.

Do you understand?

Every day the cost of things go up, inflation rises, real estate increases in price, there are shortages of goods. All of this increases the costs of owning NWBO stock. So getting that house you were looking at for $600K a couple of years ago now costs you $1 MM. Maybe there are materials you need to fix up the old place but you can't get them. That vacation you were planning to celebrate is now 50% more expensive due to fuel costs and labor shortages. All of which means that the value of NWBO's eventual rise is reduced.

I get it, NWBO is not in control of a lot of things. But they 100% were in control of putting out a PR about NYAS and then leaving us all out to dry. That was a serious betrayal of everyone who steadfastly supported the company for 19 months in the belief that they would get the share price up when TLD was released. Of course, NWBO did not officially release TLD but they did PR the meeting as if they were about to.

Then we got to hear about how imminent the Real TLD release and journal were. That was two months ago. Any suggestion that NWBO planned to coincide NYAS and the journal is a pretty clear indication that management is completely out-of-touch with reality. They better have some better explanation for why they either waited 20 months to semi-release TLD or semi-released TLD without ay support whenever the ASM finally arrives.

I was perfectly willing to wait on the journal article and a coordinated release of TLD. The )@#%&) head-fake TLD? Not so much.

Well, I certainly have no idea what you are talking about. What exactly you are disagreeing with is lost on me as you seem to be agreeing with what I am saying.

Flexibility, is my guess. As with many things NWBO, 100% NOT my area of expertise. NWBO at this stage needs to concentrate on their core competencies. Regulatory approval of their DC Vax products, expansion of indications they can be used for, combination trials, and the like.

Outsource manufacturing to a friendly, who can ramp up production and sell some services until the production is needed. Buy them out later if it makes more sense. The sort of thing that happened with Flaskworks.

Plus, it makes it harder to acquire NWBO in a hostile move as suddenly they have no production capacity anymore and their value plummets. All my guesses.

Whether or not it is an issue depends on your perspective.

Having control over your main supplier through your CEO is great as long as her intentions are good and things are setup that way for the benefit of NWBO. It ensures that you have continuity and no vendor issues. You can be sure that you are getting good pricing and use excess capacity for other clients but then ramp up more quickly when NWBO needs more capacity.

OTOH:

Allowing your CEO to financially benefit by paying her company leads to a conflict of interest if your CEO is acting in her own best interests rather than those of the company. Is the decision to use Advent or to pay them a certain amount made for sound economic reasons or is it influenced by personal gain? Are other, possibly more capable or cheaper, alternatives ignored?

The question all comes down to what sort of person Linda Powers is and where her interests lie. I think it likely, at least at the moment, that NWBO is far more important to her financially and in terms of her life goals than whatever income is coming in from Advent, Toucan, etc. Just my personal opinion though.

100% not my area, but how would someone from the control group, who did NOT receive DC-Vax to begin with, pseudoprogress? I thought pseudoprogression was a result of DC Vax killing the tumor and the dead tumor cells appearing to be progression? Do people spontaneously pseudoprogress?

Yes, people, as in more than one person. In the post you are now responding to I identified one, in response to your comment that absolutely no one had said there is no risk. If you would like more people, how about The Danish Dude:

https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=169128993

There are plenty more. And this pretty clearly suggests that there is NO RISK at all as we are only waiting for approval at this point according to this post.

I *never* said that risk had not gone down, in fact I specifically stated the opposite. As per the original post on this:

Emphasis added. See: https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=169232364

I am feeding into a series of posts by people who seem hell-bent on twisting a very simple, factual statement (there is never 'no risk') into some short argument against NWBO. I am NOT the one with the reading comprehension problem here.

Glad you agree with me, because that is exactly what I was saying. "That does not mean that before the data lock the INPUT of the data of the external trials was 100% known." Exactly, they could not have presented it to the RA prior to datalock because they didn't have the information BEFORE data-lock. That is what I said to someone who said that NWBO provided unblinded data to the RAs before they received it. Thanks for the advice though.

I know, that is why I said it and a whole bunch of people disagreed with me. Why? Ask them.