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.
To add to my laboring: who chose that panel of independent experts? If it is NWBio or its consultants, it shall not be called independent.
It must be a third party, and who would be the most qualified third party to define and choose "A PANEL OF INDEPENDENT EXPERTS" for the purpose of independently reviewing and analyzing DCVax_L P3 data for GBM?
I cannot come up with anyone except for a concerned RA such as FDA.
So when the next news comes, it may be TLD or actually an approval of sort.
Yes, to be approved, NWBio should first submit BLA, but how about an approval conditioned on formal BLA submission and review.
I know data is ready, manufacturing process is being certified. What else?
Not that high figures. Expect first RA approval very soon probably in UK.
I have labored on the process of review and analysis by "a panel of independent experts"
If not for the approval purpose, what's the reason for engaging a panel of independent experts" for "preparation and publication of data," it just reminds me of ADCOM. Of course it's not ADCOM which will be publicly announced, but serves a similar purpose.
Or is it required by RAs or purely Linda's idea heeding the recommendation of steering committee or advisory board?
Or is just Linda's way of bulletproofing data announcement?
And they need significant operational funds, and they cannot raise funds via issuing any shares.
The quiet period shall be broke very soon!
Yes I sensed that, delayed with my finger hitting the buy button for a while, and finally could not resist and just bought 30K more shares.
Now well over seven figures of shares waiting for TLD!
I know both primary and key secondary endpoints are significant because standard of care has not been improved for decades and the data of blinded and blended is good enough to assure positive TLD reading.
That's enough for me!
Bought one more additional 9k at 1.56, posts done for today, but buying continues
Bought additional 21K around 1.55 today so far. MMs raised white flag and retreated, remembered in the past, MMs advanced up with no resisting a long the way.
In these artificially retreat and advancement without "any" resistance where have most traded shares go?
Not the vast majority of shares to to retail of course.
As I said I am buying!
Standard of Care has no changes for decades in terms of patient survival.
Primary endpoint and key secondary endpoints are significant
Approval of DCVax-L is not whether but when!
Survey: When do you buy a stock you have done your DD:
1) When everybody is talking about it ?
2) When nobody is talking about it?
3) When the momentum is subsided with boring social media discussion?
4) When the momentum is picking up with increasing social media discussion?
I bought yesterday, and may continue buying today.
When TLD is ready, we will see a crazy market.
On google page: [where the usual place reserved for Flipper's ihub profile is replaced by] "
People also ask
Is Nwbo a good stock to buy?
NWBO POWR Grades
Sentiment is the dimension where NWBO ranks best; there it ranks ahead of 54.28% of US stocks. The strongest trend for NWBO is in Stability, which has been heading up over the past 31 weeks. NWBO's current lowest rank is in the Momentum metric (where it is better than 9.33% of US stocks).
NWBO -- Is Its Stock Price A Worthy Investment? Learn More.
stocknews.com › stock › NWBO
Search for: Is Nwbo a good stock to buy?
Where can I buy Nwbo stock?
What is Dcvaxl?
How long is the stock market open?
"
VERY INTERESTING!
Bought a pity 32000 shares today adding to an already large pool of long holding shares
This Summer will be very exciting for nwbio as TLD when it's ready it will be released regardless of any seasons or raining or snowing or sand storm.
We only know 5 October last year is the day of data lock; NWBio has been in a quiet period ever since data was unblinded shortly after; Covid pandemic disrupts operation, hindering NWBio's gathering of some peripheral DCVax-L trial data, with core data fully unblinded and known; the market has been confident for months about the ultimate success via TLD release, followed by publication, etc.
The market by now should have fully understood the standard of care for GBM has not had any significant improvement for decades, the significantly improvwd blinded, blended data can only contribute to efficacy of DCVax-L. The market has spoke!
Vacation may be ahead. I have to be fully loaded up, mostly adding. At best, a few cents of price swing, or even a few dimes of swing is nothing worse than missing a few dollars of price gaping up.
When it's ready, it's the time!
Extended or not, insiders would not exercise any shares at this price range, unless nwbio is desperately needing operational money and other holders other than insiders also are reluctant to exercise so as to inject funds to the company.
Judged by what has been happening in recent months, the slow and steady warrant exercise should be enough for nwbio to operate as long as it takes to get TLD.
For me, it's not an issue
FORGIVE ME HAVING NOTHING NEW TO SAY SO AT LEAST I CAN WRITE IN CAPS AND BOLD:
ANYBODY IN THIS BOARD KNOWS MY POSITION AND THESIS SUPPORTED BY VARIOUS INFORMATION AND DATA, INCLUDING ADAPTED SAP, ENDPOINTS, BLINDED PUBLICATION AND FOLLOWED-UP UPDATE OF THE DATA, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY THE STAGNATION OF SOC OVER DECADES.
IN ADDITION, THE REASON THE COMPANY HAS KEPT QUIET IN A SELF-IMPOSED QUIET PERIOD IS SIMPLE:
THERE WILL BE NO CLASS ACTION LAWSUITS AS SHARE PRICE IS ARTIFICIALLY KEPT LOW BY KEEPING MOUNT SHUT; BECAUSE ANYONE WHO HAS BOUGHT SHARES EVER SINCE THE COMPANY WAS IN THE CONTACT OF UNBLINDED DATA WOULD BE A HAPPY AND HAPPIER JOE AFTER TLD ANNOUNCEMENT/PUBLICATION.
ON THE OTHER HAND, IF TRIAL HAS NOT HAVE ANY CHANCE OF GETTING APPROVED BY RAS AFTER REVIEWING THE UNBLINDED DATA, CLASS ACTION LAWSUITS ARE DESTINED ON COMPANY FAILING TO APPROPRIATELY AND TIMELY DISCLOSE, SINCE ANYONE WHO HAS BOUGHT SHARES AFTER WOULD BE SAD AND SADDER JOE, SEEING THEIR INVESTMENT THROWN IN THE TOWEL.
FOR THAT ALONE, ANYONE WHO HAS BOUGHT OR IS GOING TO BUY SHARES WILL BE A HAPPY AND HAPPIER JOE. GUARANTEED!
[NOW BEFORE TLD ANNOUNCEMENT IF THE COMPANY HAS BEEN PROMOTING ITSELF AND SEEN ITS SHARE PRICE SKY ROCKETED, THAT WOULD CREATE SOME UNPLEASANT SITUATION: FOR EXAMPLE, IF THE SHARE PRICE TODAY WERE $5, AFTER TLD ANNOUNCEMENT THERE WOULD BE A CHANCE THE SHARE PRICE WOULD NOT REACH MUCH HIGHER, OR EVEN SLIGHT LOWER THAN $5, THEN DEFINITELY THERE WOULD BE SOME UNHAPPY JOES, WHICH WOULD BE A SITUATION WHICH COULD BE EXPLOITED BY SHORTS]
SORRY FOR USING CAPS AND BOLD FONT.
I think it's probably a reason in addition to others [see my post reply to sukus]
GL, I will buy more today.
The issue of concern therewith is Linda cannot partially release information/data regarding DCVax-L 3 trial, particularly ever since the Summer 2015 when the trial was partially halted from screening new patients.
The event was negative despite a few longs suggest otherwise, with the reason probably related to "unexpected" significant pseudo-progression, which in nature was a positive thing to have indicating higher than expected immune-reaction to DCvax vaccine, but it also suggested the flaw of the initial design as Dr. Liau had explained fully shortly afterwards.
Long story short, now the issue of the initial flawed design has been corrected by extending the trial to unprecedented length enabling adapted SAP, endpoint reordering so that the trial outcomes can be appropriately measures.
So the time for a full release of information/data needs to wait until after the now-7-months locked data to be "carefully and thoroughly" analyzed by statisticians, PI, the company, Steering Committee, the Advisory Board, and and a panel of independent experts.
The good thing is for all what we have known, the trial outcomes will be significant, and the vaccine will be approved in all four countries, and beyond, which warrants an "all in" investment as of today.
For God sake, who do you think the relatively high volumes (much more than average) pf trading of the last few days come from?
Most would say, it definitely doesn't come from retails, but a fund or two.
Yes the price could be down some tomorrow, but who are going to sell tomorrow? Retail traders? or Naked short wolfpack? or MMs?
Or maybe not
Men, it's useless to guess these meaningless pitiful trends which seem to be understood by anybody? If so, it would not be called a trend!
The primary and first secondary endpoints will be significant, and nobody knows when TLD will be announced.
LL continually provides / suggests increasingly more detail analyses.
If DCVax-L is worthy of $30 a share, the patents of DCVax-D alone would be worthy at least one billion.
Thank you very much Nick. I saw progressing of DCVax-L trial data analyses from LL's evolving data analyses.
Thank for the slide. It's assuring.
Nope. Most companies in the same situation would take 2-3 months to announce TLD after data lock, involving statisticians, PI and the company alone.
Well NWBio is not a normal company, it's clearly stated the process of reviews and analyses has involved multiple groups of experts: the steering committee, Advisory board, and a panel of independent experts, along with the company and PI.
It adds multiple more stages of reviews and analyses of the locked data based on summaries provided by statisticians, aiming for higher quality analyses.
So time-wise, it would take multiple folds of more time than what a usual company would take.
It's normal to iron out any inconsistencies or problems which are certainly to occur for a 14-years of trial, thus it would be a normal process to re-visit some data at the sites concerned, etc.
In addition, it's whose responsibility to call into work of a panel of independent experts, which seems to be the company's, but there may be some chance it is called upon in consultation with RAs.
So when those multiple stages are finally achieved, the data would be pretty much in a high quality form, impossible for the short to pick a hole, and in a form ready for publication, and would be the most significant part of the future BLA.
In addition, the recent granting of a patent for DCVax-D alone is hugely significant. IMO, the patent alone would be worthy of a billion dollars.
Finally, at this stage, questing price movement would be the most stupid thing to do (not intended for you, but in general).
Let me repeat we are heading to $2 range before the string of big news.
If Linda thinks all stars are finally aligned (hint with FDA nod for the work NWBio has done regarding DCVax-L), she may release TLD in the near future followed by publication, etc -- kind of usual course; and
if she prefers to or sticks to the date of the first approval by UK RA (if not other RAs simultaneously as well or spaced in days/months) when the news will be announced -- the I called big prize event.
At least she or other Linda can present in conferences/exhibitions five-year of survival data, an update on the previous three-year data curves.
In either case above, share price will be held if not continually appreciates as there will be increasingly more investors/funds who will finally realize there is no longer a binary event facing the company. What comes next will be huge!
Aiming to the big prize, I really just say the above for fun.
But it's known to the board.
The company needs fund to get across the finish line which is commercial approval of DCVax-L, and according to what we have known so far the first RA approval may not be faraway, probably during this summer.
Until then, the funds may probably come from warrant exercising, and loan if necessary if the remaining funds go low; a couple of millions in a week would not make any significant dent in share price. Instead as we are ever close to the line, I guess the price has no way to go but up. Yesterday I said $2 may be the new support in the near future.
Aiming at the big prize which may be materialized by the news we are expecting doesn't exclude other news. For example, I don't think it would be in anyway compromise the quiet period of the company if Linda Liau could provide updated curves of DCVax-L blended up to five years in one of her presentation in the near future [although she has been unblinded]...
Increasingly people have realized this investment at this price (market cap to be more accurate) is no longer faced with a binary event, which is enough to sustain steady price appreciation before the big day despite various difficulties, including our stock is traded in OTC. etc.
Or if the pressure (new blood comes into the investment from new investors) is not enough, the price may also be hover in this range.
No big deal for me either way as I am intended to add and waiting for the big prize.
Agree wholeheartedly. Actually Les, to the despise of a lot of disgruntled retail investors, suggested in his BizBiz show last year the company would seek DCVax-L approval in UK in the Spring. According to what we have known, I think the company has progressed steadily, and it seems we may get approved in UK sometime in this summer or fall.
And the above doesn't exclude approval by other RAs including FDA simultaneously or in a short time distance as there are a few regulatory programs/passageways available for that to happen.
This is my last post for today. Thank you for your consistent and inspiring comments/insights expressed on this board.
GL!
Thank you marzan for you unwavering support as well.
I think after this news release, the market will have one more major doubt removed/cleared and will now realize this product will be approved eventually by all RA applied to.
The market now realizes there will no longer be any binary event as we shareholders already come to this conclusion several months ago: DCVax-L trail for GBM is a huge success, which just takes time to better present to the world for a much fuller effect in a manner only Linda Powers can be capable of.
Yes we have difficulty trading on OCT market, so it will take some time for this news release to settle in, for some funds to clear orders and find a way to get in big.
So I do think we will find a new support around $2 in the near future; the tightly control price around $1.4-$1.5 in the past month or so will be broke readily.
And I really don't care if the above price prediction will be correct or not. Like LP, I aim at the big prize as well!
I have been saying this for quite sometime repeatedly Linda aims at the big prize, doesn't care day-to-day price swing, doesn't read this or any message board.
As the largest shareholder, she has been working her ass off ever since the data was locked in early October, and has stuck to the goal laying out in the press release of October.
She would not release piecemeal of data, like a normal company does, first TLD followed by conference presentation or journal publication of detail data, simply because NWBIO is not a usual company, which is headed by accomplished lawyer and governmental official, who has been seasoned to the point of no wolfpack shits can have any sway in her determination to put this company in a hugely successful commercial footing.
That footing is buyout, or partnership with a major pharmaceutical company, probably Merck with a deal which will be based on how far the company's product DCVax has been developed.
She doesn't want to give shareholder profitable-but-dashed gain by releasing piecemeal news regarding to pivotal trial data, instead she wants to give shareholders a lump sum gain when time is right to both our shareholders' interests and her own.
Simply put, if you are believer and patient, please ignore daily price swing but focusing on the big prize. The deal is probably milestone based. For example,
Positive TLD: 5 billions [not in the plan as of today]
Any of one RA approval: 15 billions [most likely the plan as of today]
Four RA approval: 30 billions [in the plan as well]
We are heading to UK approval at least at this time if not the same for other RAs in the same time.
Very sorry to hear that Swegen. Hope your friend can find the strength and the best treatment available today to beat his deadly gbm!
He is talking about a moot point because of course patients of any two groups when compared ought to be matched as much as possible that's exactly what Linda Liau has done from her comparison curves. The fact a very basic concept is disputed constantly is just unfortunate and waste of anybody's time. Now he is officially on my ignore for, by vehement combativeness/enthusiasms on a moot point which indicates FUD purpose.
On the other hand, there will not be much advantage for our enrolled patient population compared to historical SOC patient population in that
In our trial both early progressing patients (with the worst prognosis) and chemoradiation responsive pseudoprogression patients (with the best prognosis) are excluded while in the historical SOC groups, both the early progressing patients and the pseudoprogression patients are included. Considering the above, the advantage is in effect not as significant as most people would think in terms of DCVax-L trial patient population compared to historical SOC patient population. Of course this will not in any way discount a matched population when compared with historical SOC patients.
No way the long and thick tail observed in our blended trial patients can be explained, which has not been seen in historical SOC patient population, and in all previous GBM trials as well as in the FDA approved optune device.
One other moot point is whether DCVax-L trial is a success, or whether the quietness from the company regarding trial outcomes suggests success or not, or whether there is a four-day (or ten-day) rule the company should observe.
If you have not yet turned the page, you should because the information we have had today indicates the trial is a success. The question is how significant the success will be.
Hint: 1) significant in comparing to the control patients of the previous phase 3 trials for GBM with painstakingly matched population, and to the historical SOC patient population; and 2) long and thick tail over five years which have never been seen.
The current price of around $1.5 is basement price
Yes this is new, and stated in a way of certainty (that's why it's new, not just new because of its appearance), and it contributes to MOA in a big way.
I quote "We and a few others (e.g., Dendreon) are taking a different approach, based on the belief that existing dendritic cells in situ in a patient’s body are impaired, and their ability to receive and process the necessary signals is blocked. Under this view, if the signaling is blocked, then no matter how “loud” the signal may be, it will not get through and will not achieve the activation needed. Our DCVax-Technology unblocks and re-establishes the flow of signals through delivery of a fresh set of newly matured, activated and educated dendritic cells, which the tumor has not had a chance to paralyze or impair to block the flow of signals."
Thanks and GL
Thanks Sojourner. As this stock is more fundamental driven than other stocks like big caps your exceptional TA skills are the best to reflect/interpret its movement, baring manipulation.
So please give us your analyses and the beautiful graphs.
Actually so close to big news, if the price were moving up substantially (though I hoped), it would worry me more than what we have endured in recent days/weeks, slow, steady, sneaky moving down with thin volume.
I feel we are real close, so I have added.
The sole purpose of NWBio at the timebeing or after datalock is to commercialize DCVax-L, and to achieve that, RAs must first approve it.
So to prepare data/analyses of unblinded data for publication and/or public announcement, etc, in whatever order or form is just the means to achieve the above goal.
Then, you have the question of how to better achieve that goal: to get DCVax-L approved in UK first, followed by other countries in serial, or to aim at getting it approved in all four countries (plus other EU countries) in parallel. Then tactically, NWBio needs to prioritize its things to do differently.
To publish the unprecedentedly rich and trial-proved safe and efficacious data in a peer reviewed journal such as NEJM or The Lancet is easy, but it's better careful to prepare "the right" content in the right form in the publication, which should be not only reflection of the trial data but in RA agreeable/approvable form, because when it is published it's the final.
So for the publication in the case of NWBio, my understanding is it's not just to publish, but negotiate with RAs for what would be published in terms of details, priorities, and conclusions.
Because we are a small developing biotech company at such critically important inflection point, and we have been attacked viciously and endlessly in the past, we ought to hide our strength, bite our time, taking an unprecedented way toward approval for unprecedented trial and data.
If you understand the goal correctly, you would understand why NWBio has seemingly missed some "ambiguous self-imposed deadlines" because every time it missed it must have adapted its operation so that it can better achieve its goal and its only goal, which is to bring DCVax-L to as many patients as possible in a commercial setting, which in turn requires appropriate strategy and tactics to get it approved in as many countries as possible.
Yesterday it's strong buy at around $1.3; today as of now at 9:51am at around $1.26 is obviously a strong buy.
What a genius! Throw those TAs to garbage bins. We are fundamental driven!
If not, they can only add to noise.
Of course what a a broken clock can do?
When I open my mouth, it's usually a strong buy!
[The manipulating MMs have added an insult to 40,000 shareholders as we are all broken, having no guts and haven't done our DDs!]
troc not saying I know the answer but feel like, saying if I were Linda Powers I would like to wait until FDA nod for approval or at least semi-official approval nod via positive conversation/response which could come in various ways and forms. It's nuts to argue whether NWBio has been unblinded or not and whether NWBio has communicated with FDA with unblinded data. Of course NWBio has been unblinded and FDA must have been briefed with the results!
In doing that, it's Linda's way to better look after the interests of NWBio investors, partly and strictly on investment front, by saving the most loyal investors from premature selling when the price is on its way up incrementally while delivering a dead blow to those who short, or to lessor extend who constantly swing trades.
Look a lot of investors would think of selling some if not significant portion to "de-risk," or to "diversify" when stock price "finally" breaks the band and appreciates to $1.7, $1.8, $2, $2.5, etc., while some investors after holding for years averaging down and up would finally feel "enough is enough" losing the last shred of patience and sell all the shares.
Instead, Linda would like to give you a substantially high share price by holding long enough getting the right time to release the big news, for example $5 versus incremental share price increases from the current $1.4 and up by incremental releases of some good news [the cost of doing so may not be worthy of it in long run].
Linda and all directors (in general insiders) who own the majority of shares have been aiming at the big prize, not day to day price fluctuation or message box chatters. So far we have not seen any insiders selling; instead they have collectively suspended their warrants and options until the end of this month.
As long as when the big news will hit is IMHO still any day now and as long as it must take to get there. For me it's no difference though I would prefer it to hit tomorrow because as the same as Linda and directors I also am aiming at the big prize.
Only thing I can do in the meantime is to keep up with new development if any, buy more shares to continually average up or simply just sit and watch, waiting for the news.
This is my last post for today. GL!
Exactly iwasadiver. The only SAP whether it's called original or revised SAP is the SAP the sponsor uses to analyze UNBLINDED data. So in essence, there is only one SAP which is the one used in analyzing unblinded data. Or one can call other previous ones draft SAP.
I guess you may be somewhat confused on several issues:
The SAP and the endpoints the analyses will use when data is unblinded will be the revised reordered SAP and endpoints therewithin, ie, the primary endpoint is
"The primary objective of this study is to compare overall survival (OS) 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. This endpoint will be assessed using 3 different analyses"
and the first secondary endpoint is
"The first secondary objective is to compare overall survival (OS) between patients randomized to placebo who received DCVax-L treatment following disease recurrence and control patients from
comparable, contemporaneous clinical trials, in patients with recurrent GBM."
Source: https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/trial/2011-001977-13/GB
As we all know, part of the reason for revising SAP (endpoints are part of it) is pseudo-progression wreaking havoc on "original" primary PFS endpoint and cross-over confoundment on "original" secondary endpoint OS."
Nonetheless, sponsors of trials may revise respective SAPs while they remain blinded according to FDA guideline, and it's exactly that NWBio revised its SAP while remained blinded. NWBio would be (has been) for the first time using this SAP to analyze unblinded data.
After all, since well more than five years have passed after the last patient in the trial was enrolled and treated, any data/analyses on PFS will be truly secondary, which may be used as an evidence support. The focus is now and should be now squarely on OS, in particular long-term survival.
It should be stressed NWBio revising SAP and endpoints are conducted to have more accurate and up-to-date metrics used to measure efficacy of the trial data, not to make up for "a failed trial" so it is not only necessary but essential.
One other reason for revising SAP is obviously as of today it is understood any immuno-therapeutic trials must be conducted longer enough to fully capture the effectiveness of the underlying immuno-therapeutic agents/vaccines due to normally delayed effects. For this reason, long-term OS is most important relative to the median OS, or the now obsolete surrogate endpoints such as PFS. Not only has NWBio exactly done that but it has acquired unprecedent rich and extensive data for all patients in the trial.
With Dr. Liau's presentation slides, particular those comparable, contemporaneous prior trial curves as well as the blinded data of Phase 3 DCVax-L trial as of 2017 (published in 2018) and its subsequent update data in 2018, plus the information arm data presented, it should be no difficult to conclude both the primary endpoint and the first secondary endpoint will be significant when analyses of unblinded data are announced in the near future.
GL
it's better pay attention to the OS after median for long term OS where curves get wider in difference to reflect on the nature of immunotherapy.
That's great information. Thank you always for your diligence, and specifically providing Dr. Liau's presentation slides this time.
It's great information because despite obvious absence of any Phase 3 DCVax-L trial mentioning, the whole thought process of Dr. Liau in the form of her presentation slides is actually what we are expecting for the analyses of DCVax-L trial presentation in the near future. [anybody can draw the curves of DCVax-L and fit it in the slide graphs. Wow beautifully superior!]
There are some specifics on how to present the control patients from comparable, contemporaneous trials as comparison with DCVax-L treatment from the presentation.
Once again, it's almost 100% certain at least both the primary endpoint and the first secondary endpoint of DCVax-L trial will be significant, and people will be able to understand how these comparative curves are prepared from what sorts of comparable representative data.
Highly informative and positively suggestive. Thanks again.
Buyout grinding machine marches on with one more evidence to chew around. Why has the company faced with high probability of DCVax-L approvals at least in UK, Germany, EU as of now (it's also possible FDA beast may finally act like a leopard to first approve DCVax-L, which nobody knows really, but Linda's paranoid on anything or everything FDA such as having yet to simple updating CT.gov site is a clue of such possibility IMHO) not yet expanded its team, which is definitely required and a normal practice for any other companies in such situation at this stage, unless one thinks the company will be broke soon. You may think well these (see below) boilerplate languages are in last year's 10k as well, well we are one more year closer to success, and in effect success is only days or weeks away, so definitely an urgency to expand NWBio team! So why no, unless there is a buyout.
See below Item in the Risk Section of 2020 10K, page 8:
"We will need to expand our management and technical personnel as our operations progress, and we may not be able to recruit such additional personnel and/or retain existing personnel.
As of December 31, 2020, we had 18 full-time employees in the US, and one full-time employee in Europe. Of this group, only four employees are considered Management. Other personnel are retained on a consulting or contractor basis. Many biotech companies would typically have a larger number of employees by the time they reach late stage clinical trials. Such trials and other programs require extensive management capabilities, activities and skill sets, including scientific, medical, regulatory (for FDA and foreign regulatory counterparts), manufacturing, distribution and logistics, site management, reimbursement, business, financial, legal, public relations outreach to both the patient community and physician community, intellectual property, administrative, regulatory (SEC), investor relations and other.
In order to fully perform all these diverse functions, at many sites across the U.S. and in Europe, we may need to expand our management, technical and other personnel. However, with respect to management and technical personal, the pool of such personnel with expertise and experience with living cell products, such as our DCVax immune cell product, is very limited. In addition, we are a small company with limited resources, our business prospects are uncertain and our stock price is volatile. For some or all of such reasons, we may not be able to recruit all the management, technical and other personnel we need, and/or we may not be able to retain all of our existing personnel. In such event, we may have to continue our operations with a small team of personnel, and our business and financial results may suffer.
We rely at present on third-party contract manufacturers. As a result, we may be at risk for issues with manufacturing agreements, capacity limitations and/or supply disruptions, and/or issues with product equivalency.
We rely upon specialized contract manufacturers, operating in specialized GMP (clean room) manufacturing facilities, to produce all of our DCVax products. We have worked with several such manufacturers, in several different locations, during various periods of our clinical trials and our compassionate treatment programs, including Advent BioServices, Cognate BioServices and the Fraunhofer Institute.
We will need to enter into new contractual agreements for manufacturing at our Sawston, U.K. facility and new agreements for commercial production in any locations. We may encounter difficulties reaching such agreements, or the terms of such agreements may not be favorable. Following negotiations, if it is necessary or desirable to change our facility design and development arrangements or our manufacturing arrangements, that could involve increased facility costs and/or increased costs related to manufacturing of our products, and could result in delays in our programs or applications for various regulatory approvals. In addition, after such contracts are in place, the third party contractors may have capacity limitations and/or supply disruptions, and as a client we may not be able to prevent such limitations or disruptions, and not be able to control or mitigate the impact on our programs.
We have been in breach of the services agreements with our contract manufacturers on numerous occasions, primarily for untimely or non-payment. Our breaches of the services agreements may not be tolerated in the future as they have been in the past, and if we continue to breach the services agreements, for non-payment or otherwise, the contract manufacturers could cease providing services and/or terminate these agreements.
Our intention is for the U.K. facility to manufacture DCVax products for both the UK and other regions. However, this may not turn out to be feasible, for regulatory, operational and/or logistical reasons. It is also unclear whether or how Brexit will affect or interfere with these plans in regard to Europe.
8
Table of Contents
Problems with the manufacturing facilities, processes or operations of our contract manufacturer(s) could result in a failure to produce, or a delay in producing adequate supplies of our DCVax product candidates. A number of factors could cause interruptions or delays, including the inability of a supplier to provide raw materials, equipment malfunctions or failures, damage to a facility due to natural disasters or otherwise, changes in FDA, U.K. or European regulatory requirements or standards that require modifications to our manufacturing processes, action by the FDA, U.K. or European regulators, or by us that results in the halting or slowdown of production of components or finished products due to regulatory issues, our manufacturers going out of business or failing to produce product as contractually required, insufficient technical personnel and/or specialized facilities to produce sufficient products, and/or other factors. A number of factors could also cause possible issues about the equivalency of DCVax product produced in different facilities or locations, which could make it necessary for us to perform additional studies and incur additional costs and delays. Because manufacturing processes for our DCVax product candidates are highly complex, require specialized facilities (dedicated exclusively to DCVax production) and personnel that are not widely available in the industry, involve equipment and training with long lead times, and are subject to lengthy regulatory approval processes, alternative qualified production capacity may not be available on a timely basis or at all. Also, as noted above, our contract manufacturer(s) could choose to terminate their agreements with us if we are in breach, or if we undergo a change of control. Difficulties, delays or interruptions in the manufacturing and supply and delivery of our DCVax product candidates could require us to stop enrolling new patients into clinical trials, and/or require us to stop the trials or other programs, stop the treatment of patients in the trials or other programs, increase our costs, damage our reputation and, if our product candidates are approved for sale, cause us to lose revenue or market share if our manufacturers are unable to timely meet market demands."
It's typical boilerplate languages in both 10K. No companies on earth would have absolute certainty on things like this. At least it shows the company has not received definite no from FDA in both case re endpoints.
The market will try patiently absorb those shares bought last Thursday for a few pennies swing trade today, after that we move higher if not soon later today.
I believe marzan not only has the company applied to FDA for FT but we are now waiting for decision of FDA any day.
And yes the company might also apply for FT before, but this time things are fundamentally different because the unblinded data is available for FDA to review.
I guess any day now we may hear the new about Fast Track.
Potential buyers can have a look/review of trial data with NDA. On the other hand, the buyout or some arrangement to that effect can be milestone based.
Anyhow it's just a deduction based on the missed item in this year's 10K.
Could it be really a buyout which has been done but yet to be announced? In the past many investors have provided that the average age of the management, Duffy's mysterious short employment with the company, Cognate's management buyout, forced preferred shares conversion, etc, etc, as factors contributing to the speculation of a buyout deal with Merck, or other major pharmaceutical companies.
Now perhaps one more provision for the buyout fuel to ignite/materialize:
I compare Risk Factor section of this year's 10k and last year's 10k under Risks Related to our Common Stock and find the following (within quotation marks) exists in last year's 10k but missing in this year's 10k.
It's quite interesting in last year's 10k discussing Linda's material influence: This influence could have the effect of delaying, deferring or preventing a change in control, or impeding a merger or consolidation, takeover or other business combination or action that could be favorable to investors (see below), as if this influence no longer exists, despite Linda still being a material significant shareholder?
"Linda Powers and Cognate BioServices, each have beneficial ownership of material amounts of our securities, and this concentration of ownership may have a negative effect on the Company and/or the market price of our common stock.
As of December 31, 2019, Linda Powers, our Chief Executive Officer and Chairperson of the Board of Directors, beneficially owned a material percentage of our outstanding securities. This concentration of ownership could involve conflicts of interest, and may adversely affect the trading price of our common stock because investors may perceive disadvantages in owning stock of companies with stockholders who could have conflicts of interest. Ms. Powers’ holdings of our securities could enable her to exert some material influence upon matters requiring approval by our stockholders, including the election and removal of directors and any proposed merger, consolidation or sale of all or substantially all of our assets, as well as over our business plans, strategies or operations. This influence could have the effect of delaying, deferring or preventing a change in control, or impeding a merger or consolidation, takeover or other business combination or action that could be favorable to investors. Cognate BioServices also beneficially owned and/or had a contractual claim to receive a material percentage of our outstanding securities as of December 31, 2019. Since the management buyout of Cognate BioServices in February 2018, Cognate BioServices is no longer a related party; however, Cognate’s continued beneficial ownership of a material percentage of our outstanding securities could adversely affect the Company and/or our stock, for example if perceived adversely by investors, and could enable Cognate to exert influence over matters requiring approval by our stockholders, as well as over our business plans, strategies or operations."
Last year's 10k (page 17):
https://sec.report/Document/0001104659-20-034145/#a_002
This year's 10k (the item is missing):
https://sec.report/Document/0001104659-21-044832/#ITEM1A
I share the same concern pgsd, but I think NWBIO should just continually ignore him at this stage. He will always come up with some new slanders/allegations it's in his nature. Fortunately his influence (gained from his collaborators otherwise he is a nobody) has been continually dwelling, to a point now it's almost nothing burger.
If there is a time for NWBIO to directly deal with him it would be sometimes after DCVax-L is approved.
In regard to his lying as he was falsely stating that the endpoints had been changed after unblinding, it's easy for any serious investors or potential investors to verify from NWBIO's various SEC filings that he is plainly wrong.
Have a wonderful Easter!
[this is my last post for today]
To add to this fwiw, I don't think whether the ct.gov site is updated or not has anything to do with publication in a first tier journal. The site is not in the guideline for editors to make any decision. Normally, there is Introduction of manuscript which will be enough to answer any questions that may arise from editors/readers/practicing doctors, etc. In most time, a footnote is suffice enough.
I also think strongly this trial is already successful and will be approved by all RAs involved because DCVax-L is safe and efficacious to readily exceed the Benefit-Risk requirement weighed by RAs to make decision. No companies with any clinical trials in the history have shown such persuasive long-term survival data as obtained from DCVax-L trial. None.
So I think investing in NWBIO is indeed de-risked at the current market cap of roughly 1.2billion considering its post-approval blockbuster potential and gigantic commercial implication.
But rest assured, there will continual be ups and downs in all aspects, let alone stock price.
Nonetheless, I will see that as some entertaining episode of a life changing grandeur success story.
GL
Fwiw, my email exchange with DI, cc LP and LG (this is my first direct exchange with NWBIO for months, as I have been confident enough to average up regardless, unless something fundamentally changes in the future. Honestly I am ok whether or not NWBIO updates the site):
Re Time to Update Endpoints on clinicaltrials.gov Site Now to Foil Misinformation
Dave Innes <dinnes@nwbio.com>
To:dan
Thu., Apr. 1 at 5:28 p.m.
I plan on it. !
Dave
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 1, 2021, at 5:28 PM, danxx <danxx@yahoo.com> wrote:
Thanks Dave. Have a good Easter!
On Thursday, April 1, 2021, 4:57:12 p.m. EDT, Dave Innes <dinnes@nwbio.com> wrote:
Dan
Thanks for your continued support. Will pass along your comments.
Best
Dave Innes
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 1, 2021, at 4:25 PM, danxx <danxx@yahoo.com> wrote:
Dear NWBIO management:
Now 10k is filed. NWBIO is once again attacked with misinformation mostly centered on revised SAP, spearheaded by AF via his tweet and probably collaborated with some collaborators trading/shorting in the market.
I think updating the site will serve NWBIO well as we are close to reveal TLD.
Thank you all very much for your hardworking and attention to investors concern.
Dan
My projection is DCVax-L data will be published in a first tier medical journal. The gov clinical site will be updated soon, followed by publication, as it is now officially made public of the revised SAP and endpoints from the 10k.
The only possibility for the data not published in a first tier medical journal is NWBIO cannot wait for additional months asked or requested by the journal, so instead they choose the one which can publish the data timely.
We shall see what will happen soon.