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.
With favorable terms, a financing of that size would be very bullish IMO. I am still of the opinion that the big fish have access to more info than most of us. A vote of confidence of that magnitude would carry a lot of weight and remove another uncertainty for an extended period of time. Nwbo is going to need a lot of money in the next 12 months for preparation of manufacturing/commercialization of L. Also, multiple Direct trials will certainly be expensive.
I was hoping it would go lower and would love another intraday 20-30% drop to pick up another 10 to 20k in the 7's. Not looking very likely. I think we're range bound for now.
Any thoughts on the next dilution? I think it could be in the 100m range..
Wow what a great buyig opportunity! Just think this is a 25% sale from only a couple of weeks ago. Now we just need retail to panic and we'll really have some fun. Flash crash anyone?
Looks to me like Flipper cashed out and moved on :)
"MY nephew was one of these 33 patients, and so this particular point of PYRR's was particularly important to me. You can imagine why I might be upset when it is brought to my attention that the company may have went ahead with a fruitless study, and of course, I was going to look into it. I couldn't believe it. It is lost on so many that he and I did not agree on this 33 patient point. Yet, he's not insulting me, but instead asking me to PROVE it. And prove it I shall."
Great, so why don't you settle your little personal disagreement with Pyrr on the 33 via PM. As to your other point that you continue to rehash, have some of NWBO's comments been a little misleading? Maybe, depends on how you want to look at them. Won't matter if either L or Direct are successful. So again, a complete waste of time.
What's your point on the Direct data? Do you think if Direct proves to add considerable time for these patients (OS) with a high quality of life it won't be successful? Do you think if the treatment works very well for some (reduction in tumor burden providing other options like surgery, etc.), stabilizes/stops progression for some, slows the progression for others, it won't be huge (and highly profitable) success? Do you understand the potential market size? How many of these patients are cured by SOC? The bar is low. I don't have dreams of a cure, I have dreams of a viable treatment option that makes it to market. Is it possible another drug/treatment better than Direct will be discovered? Yes, that is an inherent risk in these investments. Even if it isn't Direct, I sure hope a cure is discovered in our lifetime, don't you?
What do you think will happen if they do form a collaborative trial with a CI and find success? You don't know the likelihood of this occurring or what may already be going on behind the scenes.
Of course this investment is a huge risk. It also offers a huge potential reward. As you learn more about investing you will notice a direct correlation usually exists. Either or both trials could fail. Investors may lose most if not everything, OR, NWBO could make a bunch of us Very Very wealthy. It's called BIOTECH, invest accordingly. Don't risk more than you can easily live without.
It's not going to work. They are much too busy with more important things. The modeling is impossible without the enrollment details and you will just have to wait with the rest of us. You'll be able to play with the numbers/yourself when they announce enrollment is complete. Won't be long now.
Her posts are full of inaccuracies. Reminds me of Pyrr. A lot of BS with a little truth mixed in to give the appearance everything is valid.
There was a definitely a coordinated effort this week to pull NWBO down. It was set up with the flash crash a few days back, which soaked up a lot of the residual buying pressure on the rebound. As luck would have it, a perfect opportunity then presented itself with the larger market and biotech selloff. Shorts are back in control for now, but won't be for long.
Down 20% in two weeks. LOL!! Why isn't anyone talking about what an incredible buying opportunity this is? Maybe we can gloat about all those shares we picked up in the 11's and 10's. Do we really have to wait until after a bounce before everyone posts about how they bought more at the lows?
Where are you at Turtle? Go RK, GO NWBO!!!!!
Incredible, you did it!! All of your research paid off. It was a very difficult mission, but with much perseverance you pieced everything together and figured out that management has indeed tried to portray all of the clinical trial results in a positive manner. Who knew?? Those dirty scoundrels even tried to skip over the potentially less glowing details. Nothing gets by you. Thanks for sharing this shocking news with us ignorant longs.
What's your next research project? Maybe you can figure out if Linda Powers or Less Goldman has ever been incorrect with their stated timelines for reaching milestones? I’m sure at first glance it doesn’t seem possible, but if you really sink your teeth into the PR’s, conference presentations, etc., you might have a story. Please provide a five page post on your findings (evidence based) to shock all of the longs here that are completely unaware.
So what's your point in all of this? That management sometimes spins information in a favorable (or less negative) manner? Why don't you tell us something that hasn't already been posted dozens of times by myself, Austin, IClight, Foxhound, Pyrr, and others. What CEO/top administration doesn't try to shed the most favorable light on their company, results, and activities? Are you claiming something illegal has been committed? Will any of this even matter if L or Direct are successful in their clinical trials?
I'm just happy I decided to sell at 11.17 today and add more at 10.15.
Guess the big fish overseas blindly threw money at NWBO with hopes of a miracle. If he only knew what you know..
I know you invested a lot of time here, so I hope you still own enough to capitalize on the big move that's coming and soon.
What!?? You mean I'll have to do some of the research myself from now on. But I prefer to be lazy and have someone else do all the digging...
You've never posted anything I hadn't already read or thought about. Most of your posts on the data were completely inaccurate. But I know why they were written. I'm well protected to the downside, but would have made more to the upside. Keep up the good work with your team. Maybe our paths will cross again.
Do you normally do most of your DD long after you buy?
Good work captain! What a bunch of pros on this board. Consistently buying the lows and selling the highs. Guess I'm the only one always doing the wrong thing at the wrong time lol. It's just weird how people only ever talk about their buying and selling well after the move goes in their direction.
Wow that's a really long post for someone so light in their position. Somehow I feel more scared, uncertain and doubtful about NWBo after reading your post. Usually when I have these feelings I sell (at the low) and have to buy back at higher prices. Think I'll just sit tight today, maybe buy a few, and see if we close green.
So you must not think Dr. Buzdar was in a responsible position then, because last year he did exactly what you "seriously doubt"
I'm wondering the same thing. We have two differing opinions on the table. One appears to be speculation supporting the most positive outcome, another supposedly factual information from medical professionals at MDA directly involved with the trial.
Why doesn't nwbo set the record straight? They have filed sec responses to other shareholder inquires.
No response to the recent information regarding method A preceding method B?
Eval, you used to be one of the regulars. What happened?
Oh I see, you closed at 9.50 because you think it's going higher from here. I agree. Just another day trader making a few bucks.
Wow, how did Woodord get dupped out of nearly 100m? Thanks for exposing this Michonne. Guess we should all follow your lead and short this since that seems to be far less risky. Would you advise less than 1% allocation to a short position or something higher? Probably no need to hedge since failure is a given. Thanks for saving us all from our ignorance.
Umm...OTC?
We may receive notification soon that enrollment is complete in the L trial. The initial impact would be a positive increase to share price IMO.
Here's something else to ponder. Let's suppose enrollment is completed, but the 1st IA hasn't been reached. Wouldn't we then have a fairly accurate efficacy and PFS/OS indicator if more time passes without any news on the 1st IA? Is it possible/likely that a long wait for the 1st IA alone could cause a sizeable appreciation in market cap (cldx levels) or even precipitate a short squeeze?
Yes Woodford's investment choices are a good model to follow. And yet you would rather bet against Woodford with your short position. What's your level of hedging to the upside and why do you feel this is necessary?
It is amazing what greed can do to people and the despicable actions it can motivate.
Nice move, RK! :)
With regard to your question earlier..I really dunno. My guess is that all the commotion was anything from trying to assist someone with a lower SP entry into a long position, facilitate a lower SP for covering shares or puts, or create a lower SP for reasons related to call options expiry this week.
One thing I do know for sure, there's a lot more going on lately than meets the eye ;) I'd love to hear more about your friend via PM if you can share. Go BLCM!!
Is anyone else buying the dips?
Ha! If I had a dollar for every time someone talked about a short squeeze.
What do you know about dark pools? Thanks
Any speculation about selection bias is simply speculation. And not all selection bias need be considered misconduct. One valid reason NWBO and the doctors involved would want to engage in selecting patients with a longer life expectancy is to ensure enough time for at least 4 injections and adequate time for the immune system to respond.
Whether or not the trial protocal for life expectancy changed during phase 1 is up for debate. It seems pretty clear it will be extended to > 6 months in phase 2. This change aligns with the hypothesis above that NWBO would want to be somewhat selective during enrollment. The extent of selection bias is unknown and there may have been a wide range of life expectancy in phase 1, but all were equal to or greater than 3 months.
I agree it does seem suspect, but who knows. We all hide behind aliases. I did find it really peculiar that Pyrr decided to throw in a little doubt about the L trial with his critique of the Direct results a couple of weeks ago following ASCO. Especially when he has been a strong supporter of L the entire time.
I have a feeling certain folks here are like lawyers. Eager and willing to attack or defend either side of a case (as long as they are "paid to care about someone's money").
With all of the back and forth lately I am reminded of some of the comments made by Maverick about the futility of trying to dissect every little detail (btw - not a lot of love between the two of us but he did make some good points from time to time). I have certainly been guilty of this myself. Here are some of my conclusions over the weekend.
1. Significant financial progress has been made this year with the addition of Woodford. Paying the bills and keeping the doors open is no longer a going concern. Unfavorable financing dripping with warrants and feeding the hungry short machine is no longer a concern. Woodford also provides a validation of the company, management, trial results (comprehensive clinical data from various compassionate use and other sources), and did I mention management.
2. Promising data from both programs have been released this year. We were given early glimpses of the efficacy of the L program through the 55 patient arm and the recent Direct data that may turn out to be very positive (time will tell). We are very fortunate as investors to have a sneak peak at what may come from these trials.
3. Additional treatment centers have come online to finish enrollment of L. We may even meet LP's prediction of enrollment completion in 2015.
4. Data from the Direct trial is promising enough to warrant further research in phase 2. That's really all we were realistically hoping for with the phase 1. The door is still open for the treatment to be a blockbuster.
5. There are still a lot of unknowns about the science, but that is actually a good thing for investors. If every detail and scenario were already known, the ship would have either already sank or sailed. A prerequisite to investing in a colossal winner is to put money on the line when risk is high (because of the unknowns) and probability of success is perceived to be low. Both are applicable to NWBO. We have the additional benefit of the various pieces of evidence that support a reasonable chance of success. I'll be buying the dips.
Thanks for your comments. I'm not claiming that selection bias has occurred in the Direct trial, but the opportunity for it may exist. If patients with slower progressing disease or longer life expectancy were selected it would skew the emerging picture of a very efficacious treatment that has been presented.
Flipper brought up a good point that several of the patients progressed very quickly which supports various claims that these patients were near the end. I know I sometimes play the skeptics advocate. If it does nothing more than reinforce the long thesis for myself or others by disproving doubts or misinformation I will consider it a success. Not all of us are scientists, MD's, or clinical trial experts, and it may take a few extra questions to figure this stuff out.
I agree afford. I wasn't trying to imply that Baker Bros is more important than Woodford or that they are the all important end goal.
What I was trying to say, is that in my estimation, a phase 2 collaboration with big pharma would provide additional validation of the science that would be impossible for the likes of Baker Bros to ignore. If we have more firms like Woodford, Baker, etc., jump in, we will see a domino effect of other funds that follow suit. The combined buying from multiple large firms would have a dramatic impact on the share price (maybe even kick off a short squeeze if the shorts aren't hedged to the hilt with warrants). Hope that helps clarify.
Wonder if AF feels any different about the probability that L will eventually find approval with the market cap well above the threshold of the Feuerstein-Ratian rule. I would have loved for NWBO to be the one that busted his little theory. Oh well, approval will feel like appropriate revenge anyway.
I honestly don't know the level of involvement of the sponsor in patient selection. Maybe this issue isn't even a concern at all and I would be happy if someone could definitively prove it isn't. I only know that I have seen the "be wary of phase 1 selection bias" over and over again. One example people like to use is the IMUC phase 1 results that were not replicated in phase 2.
The share price and market cap increases this year speak louder than anything IMO. We are either part of a huge speculation bubble, or early investors in something that will truly be life changing for a lot of people. Only time will tell.
I expected this from you, Flipper. I'll reply and then let you have the last word. I’m not interested in taking this debate in 20 different directions that were not part of the original discussion
1. We have the individual differences between the patients for cancer type, how long the survive, and for those who passed, what method treatment they were given. Moreover, we know the group patient characteristics, including the median number of prior treatments, the stage (IV) of cancer and that their cancers were inoperable.
Back to the original question which was:
What was the life expectancy of these patients? You correctly answered that “We do not have patient to patient profile.”
I agree. Even if the expectancy criteria did not change during enrollment, it is still a minimum requirement with no upper limit. Don't you think there was probably a large pool of eligible patients (unfortunately) at one of the largest cancer centers in the world for NWBO to select from? There is evidence to support this from how quickly phase 1 was enrolled and from other comments made by LP about the high level of demand for this trial. I'm not sure how you can dispute this. Are you inferring that selection bias is not a valid consideration for a phase 1 biotech trial?
2. Diagnosed rate of progression is not given, and would not typically be given in a stage I trial until final results are published (if then), but we currently know:
All patients had stage 4, locally advanced or metastatic disease
• Patients had an average of 3 tumor lesions
• Patients had a median of 3.1 prior therapies
Consider, stage IV patients that had already failed 3 prior therapies on average. Bluesky, please come back to me with a phase I trial showing diagnosed rate of progression prior to experimental treatment.
That's all fine. Now back to the original question:
What was the diagnosed rate of progression for these patients? You correctly answered that “Diagnosed rate of progression is not given.”
I agree. I'm not saying that it should have been released or that this is a nefarious strategy for NWBO to keep us in the dark. I'm only saying that it is an unknown factor. I agree that it is not typically something given prior to final results (my straw man radar is starting to flash). Therefore it is currently unknown. Do you agree there could be different PD's for a single group of stage 4 patients? Not sure why you feel it is necessary to defend or dispute this fact. Moving on..
3. We do not know phase I inclusion criteria for minimal survival prognosis was changed during the phase I enrollment. Your hypothesis is that they changed it during phase I enrollment.
I see your point. We don't know for sure if/when it was changed. The information from clinicaltrial.gov supports your theory that it wasn't changed during phase 1, the trial info from MD Anderson cracks the door open for alternative theories. Let me rephrase the question. Do we know if the life expectancy criteria was changed during the phase 1 trial? Answer = unknown Should we ignore the possibility that it may have been and the potential impact such a change could have on length of survival?
4. I gave you the mix of A and B, you are welcome. And even if you took the extreme case, and placed all method B survivors in the lower group of 9-14 months, and method A survivors from 14 to 17 months, they are all still alive! Even under an extreme division like that, both groups would still be doing phenomenally.
Ha, thank you so much for helping me figure out the slides from the presentation!! Gosh, I would be so lost without you. Under your extreme case, if both groups are doing phenomenally, what does that say to you about the efficacy potential of A vs. B. Does it support the "theory" that B is much more potent that A? Does it cast any shadow over the hope that B is the cure we've all been waiting for? Maybe NWBO is foolish to discard A so quickly? If it is working wonders for the longest survivors in the trial, shouldn't they continue to test A in phase 2?
Like it or not, I am on your side (long). Doesn't mean I don't have lingering questions that will hopefully be answered as we go forward. Some advice for you, there's nothing wrong with also busting bullish speculation by saying, sorry charlie some things are still unknown, you will have to wait along with the rest of us. It seems easy for you to do this when picking about the doubters posts. It would actually give you some credibility to use it a little more liberally on both sides. Just saying.
Good day