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.
As long as we’re playing Duffy guessing games, I’m guessing the multiple purposes of helping with the SAP and perhaps contacts to help DCVax-L approval and thus strengthen the position of the combination trial with Keytruda, get an intimate view of NWBO and integration/synergy potential, and to better run the combination trials from Merck’s interests. Ultimately it would make him a better candidate to run Merck’s resulting integrated oncology program.
I agree that it was “cleaner and less provocative” to have Duffy as an NWBO employee rather than on assignment from Merck. It is also possible that Duffy was enticed to work for NWBO and later the idea of bringing him back emerged, but my hunch is it was planned and that could also tie into LP and Merck’s executive being together at ASCO.
Doc, sincere thanks for your message and thank you for your contributions to society on the front line now and in general!
My soon to be son in law is about to start his third year residency in emergency medicine, and my daughter is about to complete her residency, so I know from up close how long and hard a road it is, and how hard all you physicians have worked and continue to to attend to those in medical need!
Different CCS he said tongue in cheek ???????but in a weird way I was mesmerized by it as it still represented the key parts of Whole Lotta Love while probably being a version most Zeppelin fans would not have dreamed up while not under the influence ??
Senti, thank you and much appreciated!
Easyrider1 you’re probably correct and $10+ would be great. There is a dream though that long term, as in another 5-10 years, the shares could go as high as in the hundreds to thousands of dollars effectively. I was late to Celgene getting only a 4-5 bagger, however early Celgene investors that held got something like a 5000+ times return I think.
I’m retired and waiting another 10 years or more may not be a wise thing, I mean you can’t take it with you. So if this pans out to anything like $10 I’ll probably get mostly out but keep some for the heirs. Of course that’s anticipating quite a bit considering how many times we thought we were at the goal line only to be disappointed.
Here’s to this time being for real for us longs and to make a much more tolerable treatment available to patients.
I recently lost my mother to cancer and wanted so much for her to have been able to be treated with DCVax or similar immunotherapy rather than suffer the side effects of the other drugs that each provided about 3-5 months of “benefit” at the expense of quality of life.
It’s got to be around 10 years (first started buying when ops was 2-3 before Woodford (sp?) invested and I bought up to the 12 area (was feeling optimistic) and you all know the grinding fall from there. Been averaging down but not to lows. My break even is $1 per share. I am holding for the hopefully long ride to something north of 50-100. Go big or go home - sounds familiar?
I’m confused but shares that are sold short are supposed to be borrowed from street name accounts, right? Wouldn’t a naked short be something like a fake borrow, like some type of IOU?
Assuming something like that, if the true owners of the borrowed shares were to sell their shares and if additional buyers show up wanting to buy truckfulls of shares, could that scenario cause a short squeeze that would not be possible to delay delivery of shares until November?
Or as another poster posited, a margin call situation could force covering prior to November?
It can’t be as easy as waiting to cover in November. Bigger is calling out a short squeeze and he must know how these positions work.
Doc, Flip, and others,
First, I’m a long time long and have been adding even recently.
With that out of the way, although Les’ message was positive, why is Les promoting on a paid for promo program?
What is the purpose? Attract random small speculator investors? I wouldn’t have seen the video if the link hadn’t been posted here.
Anybody else having qualms about this avenue of promo?
Thanks MB for jogging my memory, however the project I was rent erring to was Teledesic, which was invested in by Gates and McCaw among others, but never made it into service. Although I remembered a 15,000 satellite constellation network it was actually planned for 800+ and then scaled down to a bit under 300, but the project was ended due to costs and bankruptcies of other satellite network ventures like Iridium.
Iridium uses a 66 satellite (plus some spares) constellation to provide voice and low rate data services, not the high bandwidth service to support internet services that we’d live with today.
It’s not the technical feasibility that bothers me as there are existing instances, it’s more the 40,000+ low orbit satellites that I don’t like for various reasons.
If all these satellites are not in synchronous orbit (where they effectively stay relatively stationary to points on earth, with a little station keeping rocket bursts for keeping them in their assigned position) then they effectively are all moving relative to the earth’s surface.
Seems like a lot of satellites in orbits crisscrossing to keep track of and eventually a lot of space junk that will burn up in our atmosphere when their orbits eventually decay. And as was pointed out this is for one company’s project.
Maybe I’m not thinking big enough these days, but this precedent bothers me. Then again I remember another company proposing about 15,000 subsynchronous refrigerator sized satellites for worldwide internet coverage back about 20 years ago. I don’t think that network has been implemented yet. So in the immortal words of Rosanna Rosannadanna, Never Mind! (Except Elon Musk can’t ever be counted out)
Iwasadiver, I extend your idea a bit. Consider the outcomes. If an expiring warrant/option holder did nothing, the out of the money instruments expire worthless and are not available to back up corresponding short sales. If instead one agreed to extend the expiration with the constraint that redemption is not allowed until November, the backing up of short positions is not available until then. If the share price were to rise significantly before November shorts would be squeezed if they truly exist. In that scenario holders would be rewarded regardless in November and beyond.
Flawed logic or the fabled trap?
Doesn’t U of Penn have their own DC vaccine work going?
Thanks, unbelievable
Flipper44 or anyone - what would “gain of function” include?
I’ve believed from the start that this virus somehow came from the lab. Too much coincidence that the spread started from the same city. I am aware of the mitigating assessments that it was a natural mutation but don’t buy it.
Mo I’m thinking the same re Duffy having imparted his expertise and contacts/credibility, which I believe may have at least been facilitated by or possibly required to be an employee.
Kypee thank you!
Since many of us have more shares than these institutions, these current holdings appear negligible. Can anyone educate me as to where Biggers holdings are? Are they not considered institutional holder?
IDH can be important in order to determine the distribution across treatment vs control arms in order to do detailed analyses that would show that IDH was/wasn’t a variable stacking the deck for/against efficacy. Like some of the earlier cherry-picking and pseudo progression assertions.
Sukus, yes that is my takeaway from the asm as well.
Yes agreed that the implication is the SAP was completed, and furthermore since LP stated that data lock and unblinding were expected to have been completed by the asm had the covid pandemic not escalated, wouldn’t that have to be premised on a completed SAP?
Thanks Jammy!
7-2-2020 for me please
Exactly! That’s what I was trying to say, but not as succinctly as you just did.
Scotty you’re back in spirited form! I’ll give you that the trust will have to be earned and LP gave us the targets to measure and we all know the targets could move and if so we’ll have to assess the validity of the corresponding reasons, like we do with any project. I’m very happy to have the timeline this specific for the first time.
In addition to the inherent value of having the additional data available, would it be a big stretch to think that lack of this data item could later be used to bring into question whether or to what degree this variable drives outcomes versus treatment?
How unrealistic or disingenuous can the points be? Would anyone truly expect any company to make statements of the type that give dates certain when any business person, manager, or spokesperson knows full well it is neither possible nor wise nor believable to anyone working in the real corporate world.
Similarly pointing to boilerplate clauses/caveats that are now standard practice everywhere including at the beginning of all investor conference calls, presentations, and documents, is also disingenuous or uninformed.
Sorry for being a bit harsh, however pulling such AF-like moves is joining a sorry club. Up your game again, don’t play in the gutter.
Requires HIPAA sign off though, doesn’t it? Also could it be that the workarounds LP referred to are utilizing remote approaches and that weren’t in place when covid impacts came in to impact the tasks and thus took some time to establish workarounds at multiple hospitals?
Really, other trials with over 80 sites in multiple countries with records going back 10+ years? I’m far from an expert in trial execution requirements however isn’t part of the validation of the data to try to rectify any and all apparent information issues in order to result in as accurate a dataset to lock and turn over to the statisticians? And isn’t that why visiting the trial sites is called for?
Yo Scotty, you’re dragging a little tonight and who can blame you given the long difficult day it must have been in the face of the interesting disclosures of the asm.
Get a good nights sleep, recharge your batteries, and tomorrow’s another day to resume the campaign against NWBO management.
I’m just playing a little, no hard feelings, although I’m a long I almost enjoy reading your posts for the endless energy and no missed angles of attack. So hopefully you can take a little good natured ribbing. After all long time longs have been waiting something like 8 years for this moment:)
All the best.... really!
One might logically think that since the asm changed to a remote teleconference the need for a retraction was greatly diminished and at least for me the providing of a timeline with some color was very interesting.
The raise was a downer I have to admit however once I calmed down I came to the conclusion that the cash needed to be raised as counting on public success to raise cash at better terms would be risky, and now we know management was aware of new delay. What I especially didn’t like about the raise was that we all weren’t privy to get in on the deal for cheap shares and options.
As for the dilution impacts what is 20 million shares and a bunch of options on top of a base of over 600 million to a billion, around 7% or so? Not insignificant but also not devastating. I was happy we weren’t voting on a new increase in allowable share creation ceiling.
The puzzle pieces are fitting together.
First the SAP completion has been confirmed.
LP’s 2 month planning notice and statement that the asm should be interesting enough to attend in person lines up at the time before covid impacts, and would be consistent with management believing data lock and possibly unblinding would have occurred.
The resulting 2 month delay impact appears believable and even better than I was expecting LP to put out there and the work arounds to achieve this limited impact indicates serious effort to move things along.
As the naysayers are quick to point out the timeline can be missed however we finally got a pretty specific timeline and an assertion that we will be informed of significant changes.
Of course none of this guarantees success of the trial, however the end is within sight.
Ex
In the strict sense of things your points are correct and I took some expedient/lazy liberties in attribution to Merck of the phase 2 combo trial, and DCVax/NWBO, however I believe Merck and NWBO nonetheless have vested interests in the phase 2 and beyond. Approval of DCVax-L would enhance
As previously established, Merck is doing a combination trial of Keytruda and DCVax-L. Wouldn’t it be desirable for DCVax to be an approved treatment in order to make the combination treatment available?
Scotty, so the distortions of the articles by AF and the attempts at frivolous law suits, and the anonymous “group 5” piece that had lots of bs accusations, were all happenstance?
Re Duffy’s coming and going, one could conjecture that trials and sales of a combination of Merck and NWBO treatments may be positioned better if both treatments are approved in their own right. Merck is there already and DCVax-L obviously isn’t quite there. Could Duffy have been made available to NWBO at a key time to help with the SAP and other approval late steps? Duffy was also privy to an up close and personal look at NWBO that might better inform Merck for M&A or other business reasons.
An optimist may imagine a scenario where Duffy successfully contributed to the cause of helping achieve approval of DCVax.
A pessimist may imagine negative scenarios, as a number of posters have offered.
We shall hopefully soon find out!
Full disclosure - I’m a long time NWBO long.
I’m being repetitive however Blacks value includes who he knows, which often trumps other advantages.
Re Cofer
I wouldn’t underestimate the value of “who you know “ especially in government/political circles.
Connections can be priceless!
And that type of behind the scenes benefits are usually not advertised.
Yes, the turboprop puddle jumpers to/from DC, home of the Nwbo ASM. LP must have something interesting to share with us to even suggest we plan to attend.
Dr Bala, I worked in Owego in the late 70’s. Broome county airport was interesting to fly in/out of in those days as you had service for smaller short distance planes, no direct flights to the west coast. I worked for the largest employer at the time, a technology company. But I digress :)