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.
-No point in buying 10% if your goal is to gain a controlling stake in the company. 51% or bust.
If a Pharma company attempted to buy the company on the open market in 1 day (100% purchase of all shares), the following would happen:
One could buy 10% on the market at these prices for under $100M. Why on earth would they pay the 10+B for that?
Perhaps Merck only spends 10 to 15 billion for 10% of NWBO
Trodelvy, for reference, is an ADC while it's already had trial failures. Gilead paid 21B for Trodelvy!
Sales of Trodelvy, which Gilead markets for certain advanced breast and bladder cancer patients, increased to $283 million from $180 million in Q3 2022. In late July, the drugmaker netted European approval for Trodelvy in hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer. In September, Gilead shared data from its ongoing EVOKE-02 clinical trial, showing that Trodelvy plus Merck's checkpoint inhibitor Keytruda (pembrolizumab) benefited patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer.
https://endpts.com/merck-gives-few-details-on-2024-restructuring-plan-for-manufacturing-network/
Merck is getting ready for something apparently but not saying exactly what that is
Fourth-Quarter and Full-Year Sales Reflect Sustained Growth Across Oncology and Vaccines
We can check the Q date against the list dates to see if they match timewise.
CO's share count number comes from OTCMarkets site which gets it from compushare which is the registra for NWBO (and many others). It is accurate.
What is not know though is how may preferred shares that can convert to common have been issued.
There are 4 milestones to be paid by NWBO to former Flaskworks. The first has been paid. Crickets on the rest, and as stock payouts they are a mandatory disclosure.
At the 2022 ASM (where did that 2023 ASM go anyway?) LP said how they were testing various very different processes with Eden. That should be a clue that it could not just reproduce the existing process. And further they were to select a version to proceed forward on last year. Crickets there too.
People might look at the hundreds of millions that others have been poring into R&D in this field and wonder if Flaskworks is really special.
I would instead look at this site
murcidencelum murcidencel
autologous dendritic cells (DCs) derived from peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) obtained from glioblastoma patients. A sample of the same patients' glioblastoma is also collected, and a tumour lysate prepared.
Yeah, those curves were odd. Compare to any curves with Stupp, they do not fall off the cliff like that. They all tend to show some tail even if thin and short.
Wonder f that might have anything to do with post progression care in Russia?
Thanks for the info on the paper.
Why the huge up swings and heavy reversals?
Spoofing incidents have been documented.
Agreed it does not mean anything of significance for NWBO. MRK will pay whatever they decide (negotiate) to pay for whoever they decide to buy.
Shortbread makes crumbs too
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4666789-merck-and-co-inc-mrk-q4-2023-earnings-call-transcript
Chris, thanks for the question. Obviously, first, I just want to reinforce the pride I have in what Dean and the team have been able to do and the meaningful progress we are making both in our internal pipeline and what we have been able to do through the business development, which is I think in some ways, in a weird way, underlying your question. But as we sit here today, while I feel very good about the progress we have made in the growing portfolio, the diverse and deep portfolio we have in our pipeline, we do continue to believe we need more, and we will continue to prioritize business development. And I would say that our views of deals like Prometheus, like Acceleron are still the size of deals we are very interested in, if we can find great assets. So, clearly that’s an area of focus. But also continuing to do smaller deals as well, like what you saw with Harpoon. So, it’s going to be a range of deals. But I think as you look in that zero to kind of $15 billion, $1 billion to $15 billion, it continues to be where we will look for. And then obviously, we have also, I think shown that not only are we very open to doing an acquisition, but we see collaboration as an important tool as well, very similar to what we did with Daiichi Sankyo. So, we are going to be looking at the full suite and including deals that fit those categories.
I actually think the order is investors are selling common and then turning around and buying discount Cs direct from the company.
[]]Nope. It includes “initial assessments,”and guess what, DCVax-l, while not commercially approved yet, is an established medicine for compassionate use.
Not sure where you’re getting all this bad info from. Read some of Biosectinvestor’s comments regarding the company’s relationship with advent.
We are at the early stage of introducing a new process which has the potential to reduce timelines substantially. We will work with industry stakeholders to develop this process further.
Sure pall.
Show me where MHRA has said anything about this imaginary SWIFT program. You can't, because it doesn't exist.
Some have used the adjective swift to describe efforts by the MHRA to move faster. That is fine. But if you are asking about any specific program or details that have never been announced have fun.
I am sorry if fail to grasp that swift is just an adjective.
Thank you Frank.
Hard to see how it's an FOIR issue if they aren't running a pilot.
Is that to decline MTD?
What normal dev stage biotects say at this step: Abeona Therapeutics Announces FDA Accepts and Grants Priority Review for Pz-cel Biologics License Application (BLA)
CLEVELAND, Nov. 27, 2023 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Abeona Therapeutics Inc. (Nasdaq: ABEO) today announced that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has accepted and granted Priority Review for the Biologics License Application (BLA) for pz-cel (prademagene zamikeracel), Abeona’s investigational autologous, COL7A1 gene-corrected epidermal sheets for the treatment of patients with recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (RDEB). Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA), the FDA has set a target action date of May 25, 2024.
I felt like March might be the time for NWBO to announce an ASM based on progress with submission by that time but if still in progress they may be advised to avoid a meeting and any possibility of saying something they shouldn’t.
I wonder how all the doctors and lawyers that pledged to buy millions of shares based on having just met Marzan and seeing his masterful powerpoint presentation are feeling now years later seeing the stock trade at 50 cents when he convinced them to buy at $1.20+
Weee.
The preprint that has been disclosed is on interim data from an early 2023 data snapshot. There is no reason that would need to wait for the primary completion.
A paper based on the primary completion will be a different paper, Most likely at least a year or more away.
I missed the KM chart in 232 vs 99.OS
Can you please ink it?
You want to make up hypothetical explanations for the 233-99 OS number anomaly.
The simple question is why does NWBO not disclose and explain it? Why do they need you to push the storyine on the key data?
The failure to disclose the current SAP secondary endpoint of OS between the 232 vs 99 is "telling".
Some longs argue it does not matter. They are way wrong.
Some realize it is actually key, but assert it could be good. They are delusional. If that data was even trending well LP would have been shouting it from the tree tops.
The most important data sucks. And is not being being disclosed for that reason.
Edited-Don't forget the interim results for our combo trials schedule for completion on this Wednesday (1/31/24), L+ Poly-ICLC.
I gotta feeling the paperwork is already done and waiting for announcement shortly since the trial started long time ago,
Hey, you have iinfo on the "true up" trial and aren't letting us know?
Not that I think the trial matters much Courts really do get into this type stuff much. And even it it does, would only mean LP/G give some options back that they can always re-issue later
But it is a trial. And it has been quite a while since NWBO has been involved in a clinical trial, the other ones that have new information.
The blinded change of the primary end point to Overall Survival (the gold standard) is not an issue.
The regulating authorities agreed to the change in the SAP.
Overall Survival (the gold standard)
Seriously? The OTC is not registered under section 6 of the Securities Exchange Act. That means they are not a National Exchange.
This is the list, per the SEC
Everybody knows the OTC has far less disclosure rules by law.
As far as the reason for NWBO delisting, that is pure crap. They were subject to 2 delisting notices at the time the fled.
The NWBO 8K on the subject
As reported in the Company’s quarterly report on form 10-Q, on November 7, 2016 the Company received a letter from Nasdaq indicating that certain of the Company’s financing transactions did not comply with Nasdaq’s Listing Rule 5635(d). The Nasdaq Staff had determined to aggregate a series of transactions that were completed between May 15, 2016 and October 13, 2016 for purposes of assessing whether the 20% threshold for shareholder approval had been triggered for issuances priced below the applicable market price. These transactions included repricing of existing common stock purchase warrants and issuances of new common shares and common stock purchase warrants.
As also reported in the Company’s 10-Q, the Company and its representatives are in discussions with the Nasdaq Staff regarding available avenues for remediation, and the Company intends to submit its plan of remediation to Nasdaq on or before the November 18, 2016 deadline established by Nasdaq (The Nasdaq Staff shortened the 45 day period for submitting a plan, pursuant to their discretionary authority under Listing Rule 5101. The Staff based this determination on the Company’s recent shareholder approval violation, pending bid price grace period and concerns about the Company’s internal processes for review of transactions such as these). If Nasdaq does not accept the plan of remediation, Nasdaq may issue a notice of delisting. The Company would then have the right to request a hearing before an independent Nasdaq Listing Qualifications Panel (the “Panel”). A request for a hearing would stay any suspension or delisting action pending the hearing and the expiration of any additional extension period granted by the Panel. The Panel would have the discretion to grant the Company an extension period of up to 180 calendar days from the date of the delisting letter within which the Company would be required to demonstrate compliance with all applicable listing requirements. Notwithstanding the foregoing, there can be no assurance that the Company will be able to satisfy the applicable listing requirements and maintain its listing on The Nasdaq Stock Market.
They are not on pink sheets. They are on OTC. The same SEC regulations apply here as elsewhere.
Most all of the 100's of ATL-DCs have been trialed over the last 30 years are just "a couple tweeks" different. You know this.
If you want to admit that -L is "the same" as all the others, fine. If not, then -L and the UCLA product are different.
Which is it? Are all the others the same? Cannot have it both ways.
I recall that it was the local authority in Cambridge ("The Greater Cambridge Council") which put money into NWBO's development which is in its South Cambridgeshire Science Park (or something similar).
Never have posted here before but feel the need to interject given all the back-and-forth about the new UCLA trial.
The vaccine the trial is using is NOT DCVax L. It is Prins' own formulation which he describes as "a slightly different version of that" that he himself has developed. How do I know this? I asked him and he gave me that information in a direct communication.
Having said that, not sure what all the kerfluffle is about. As someone mentioned earlier, these institutional trials rarely get past P1 given the financial commitments, and it'll be several years before any hard data emerges from this particular effort.
So, again, why the volume, intensity, and nature of your posts? Are you looking to sell?
Are you selling short, or do you actually have shares and just want to cash out to the next fool? If short, legal or not?
Sure.
They have a single trial where patients on SOC+L prior to progression did no better than those on SOC prior to progression. As measured both by the predefined primary endpoint of PFS but also by OS. That kind of creates doubt.
They changed to cross trial comps only years after knowing hat happened. The trial remained formally blinded to patient level data, but that does not mean they did not know the results of various analysis made using the unblinded data. We know as a fact that there was an efficacy IA i 2015, and anybody with a brain knows they were taking looks at the OS between the arms as the tail progressed hoping for the tail. And that makes the change post hoc.
The ECA they used was summary level data only which prevents it for being adjusted to patient level differences. Though there is some math that can be used, it is crude and the results have not even been disclosed.
The extend of resection issue is huge. The -L trial required intent for near total resection. ECA patients with near total resections lived as long as -L patients with near total resections.
95%? LMAO.