Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
LOL. Are you not watching the mounting count that Captain keeps postings or do you think that's just business as usual? Can't make it up.
You can be certain the shares are pouring into the outstanding count.
You're all full of crap, IMO.
We haven't seen one patient come forward saying as much, so I really doubt it. I guess docs could administer it in secret but not sure MHRA could keep that a secret. My guess is it's only being done at UCLA
You'll notice the pumps are topping at a lower and lower share price. Likely a good reason for that. RS and a new trial.
Excellent research. But read between the lines and it's very unlikely MHRA will approve L based on the Plll. Not even a peep about NWBO in that PR. Had LP managed her shareholder's company right this research whould've been NWBO's not UCLA's.
So much time lost.
>>While this association was statistically significant and suggests a potential link between this treatment and improved survival rates, the study was not originally designed to measure survival rates of this treatment. As such, the authors emphasized the need for caution regarding true clinical benefits of this combination treatment.
I could see MHRA / NICE perhaps working with L to provide some subset after another trial.
>>This means we could test patients for this specific immune response, and if it’s strong, we know they are likely to respond well to the combined TLR agonist and dendritic cell vaccine therapy.”
!!!!! It is as LC has always said.
>>For DCVax with PolyICLC regulators could simply require a confirmation trial post approval
The UCLA Pll was not powered for anything but signal seeking.
Yet nobody here will ever simply post the email/ screen shot.
Has it? I missed it somehow. I thought it was more than a bit??
>>If they lose, they have to return them, which reduces our dilution a bit. IMO
Really, this has been discussed ad nauseum here.
Any word on the true up suit? Ignore it as you wish but It's incredibly important to common shareholders.
I watched PPHM investors cling to hope for twenty five years only to find through discovery there never really was much of a plan.
It does feel that way doesn't it? Who is in control of this ship?
"Happy trails!"
All good questions. You must've gotten some good sleep last night.
Hey, whatever happened to Mercidensel or whatever they're calling it?
Exactly. And now looking for funds to support Polly.
So here's what you do Sentiment, you write the company that LL told you herself and just want it confirmed by them. Post the reply here please. See how easy. Save everyone thousands of posts.
Unlike the pumpers the skeptics do need sleep. It provides clarity of thought. You should try it some time.
I can't think of any reason that Nature piece couldn't read as "ALT supplied by NW".
Like I said, I'm sure the two have evolved to be very similar but I'll believe they're the exact same when the company says so.
Seems the results of this UCLA combo trial have been known for some time, yet no partners or trials initiated.
Didn't you hear, the disciples are looking for more funding to develop Polly. Right on cue. Eye rolls.
Definitely some good signals but why I say a real Pll is needed.
Could be. Remember though, this UCLA trial is old too.
I could understand why LP might not want UCLA to use the name DCVAX as the trial was running but why not after it ended and appeared in Nature?
Silly pumper, tricks are for green retail.
>>Although this was a randomized study, it was powered for immune biomarker analysis, not for survival. As such, the clinical efficacy outcomes should be interpreted with caution. Given the noted long-term survival with the adjuvant use of poly-ICLC with DC vaccination, particularly in the grade III cohort of patients, further clinical trials that incorporate these combinations of immunotherapeutic agents are warranted.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-48073-y#:~:text=We%20and%20others%20have%20demonstrated,%2C4%2C5%2C6
>>In the GBM patient subset, TLR agonist treatment also significantly lowered risk of recurrence, but not risk of death (Fig. 3E, Supplementary Fig. 3B).
>>When we analyzed only the grade IV (GBM) patients, we observed a trend towards improved PFS (log-rank P?=?0.068) and OS (P not significant)
It doesn't mean it is the ALT that UCLA used in the trial. LL already told us that NWBO "tweaked" it for their own. It'd be better if it read "ALT supplied by NWBO". Will the regulators view it as the same? Probably. Has UCLA changed to their formula to match L? Probably.
>>which has licensed the DC vaccine technology.
Come on! For GBM maybe 40 patients should do for a real Pll.
A 4 patient Pll?? Eye rolls.
Great! Let's get some real Pll and Plll trials going!
If by that you mean the skeptics here who've said for the last ten years No deals, No Specials rev, No FDA, No dozen or so regulatory programs in the works, No large pool of survivor testimonials, No approval without more trials...I'd have to disagree with you.
>>far, not one person here has any better insight than a new born baby as to approval of DCVax-L
No it is not misplaced. In fact, I'd say the majority of politicians today not only don't do what they promised they do the opposite. The money, bribing, and blackmailing have them spitting in their constituents faces.
>>so my scepticism is hardly misplaced. Is it?
I updated to include your concern:
Hard to know why NICE would pay hundreds of thousands for a possible 5% advancement in five year survival while still needing SOC even as 87/100 patients will have no ‘meaningful’ benefit from its use, and with no pediatric data or stunning animal data. ??
It does in their book. Although when challenged, they're always unable to point to anything specific.
>>Just because you may disagree with it, doesn’t by default, make it a lie, does it ?
Precisely. And, exactly why LP will drag this out in total silence as long as possible.
>>There is a reason why Dr Liau says she hopes patients can access -L via Right-to-Try or such while waiting for trials to prove or disprove efficacy.
Stupid.
Tell us the lie please.
Why do you think? Have you not learned a thing from Cognate?
Hard to know why NICE would pay hundreds of thousands for a possible 5% advancement in five year survival while still needing SOC, and with no pediatric data or stunning animal data. ??
Or it could be...The little company that lost its common shareholders all their money while somehow building two very healthy private CDMO's.
>>GOD that’s great PR! The little company changing the face of cancer care AND squeezing the MMs!!!
I suppose if in discovery they found Intent to provide the appearance of liquidity for the mm's clients, perhaps for the benefit of those clients who hedged short, then yes. It's why discovery will never happen, IMO.