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.
Even a large fund won't typically sway decision of another fund. Hence why you sometimes see public battles between Hedge Funds over some stocks ... Herbalife.
Dendritic Cell therapy has a long history of failed treatments. Other Funds probably weighed that history against NWBO's current valuation against Woodford's track record and investment along with other variables such as AF's bashing, Cash Burn, Public/Doctor's Knowledge, etc and decided history will repeat itself.
They also might be betting that people are jumping on to a bandwagon by tagging along with Woodford. Thus, the valuation they are buying in is far to rich for where it truly should be at it's current stage.
Tons of reasons to explain a short interest increase.
Why short interest hasn't dropped, it could be because Funds are not able to deliver the shares BUT these funds are Hedged.
For example, Funds that have shorted shares might have purchased long term Call options as hedges. Unfortunately, to unwind the trade the fund will have to wait until the option expires. It cannot just sell all of the options and use those proceeds to buy shares on the open market. As this kind of buying volume buying will increase their losses on the short positions AS WELL AS increase the cost of acquiring the required number of shares in order to exit the trade. Thus, to properly exit the trade, the fund has to wait till the option expires and receive the promised shares.
Probably a simplistic example, but COULD explain why Short Interest only increases. Holders can't get out, but speculators keep entering.
Overview of Observed Overall Survival for all Stage IV cancers being treated by DCVax-Direct:
1. Soft Tissue Sarcoma ... 5 Year Observed Survival Rate - N/A
2. Pancreatic Cancer ... 5 Year Survival Rate - 1%
3. Neuroendocrine Tumors ... Help Look For?
4. Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer ... 5 Year Observed Survival Rate - 1%
5. Melanoma ... 5 Year Observed Survival Rate - 15% to 20%
6. Colorectal Cancer ... 5 Year Observed Survival Rate - 10%
7. Ovarian Cancer ... 5 Year Observed Survival Rate - 17% to 69% depending on type of Ovarian Cancer
Looking at the observed 5-year survival rates above, I think it becomes clear that some of these Stage IV cancers will be best served using a RECIST or equivalent primary endpoint to ensure trial does not keep going for 5+ years.
For cancers where the 5-Year observed survival is non-existent, I think it is possible NWBO could move forward with a PFS / OS trial instead.
The purpose of bringing this up to attention is to give everyone an idea of the flexibility that NWBO has when pursuing Phase II. When making a decision about which type of cancer to pursue in the next clinical trial, those factors will probably not only include the shrinkage of existing tumors, but also OS and PFS.
Once Woodford put in $80+ MM into NWBO, it has become clear that neither side (long/short) has an information advantage. It is just a matter of risk, comfort, and willingness to believe in one's own assumptions that will dictate each individual's actions.
In the unlikely event other large institutional funds with short positions "knows" something else, then the next question is if that additional information is even relevant and could impact stock price.
On the other side of the coin, if there is some information out there that is RELEVANT and IMPACTFUL, Woodford should've uncovered and assessed it into their overall risk profile before making the most recent $40 MM of the $80+ MM investment into NWBO. (That is unless Woodford has been extremely lucky in past investments and has no skill in conducting proper due diligence ...)
Thus, I don't find these numbers troubling at all. This rise in shorted shares can be explained away by a number of items:
- Previous short positions could be hedged by warrants / calls
- New short positions are short term technical trades (hitting a critical resistance point), or valuation trades, etc.
I think AngeloFoca was trying to indicate that the difference in cash is the number 1 reason why CLDX is so much farther on their trial.
Recent evidence of trial sites opening also show that more funding = FAR better enrollment.
If it wasn't so difficult for NWBO to get funding last year with all of AF's attacks, we would be in a far better position.
Another important aspect is that banks have been cut out of the most recent deal. The House should never be left out of a deal, and they were left out of the $40 MM funding round.
Typically, when it comes to options, almost all trades execute with a "Market Maker" firm as the counter party. These firms are responsible for ensuring the security stays as liquid as possible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_maker
These are the firms that ensure your options trades will settle EVEN if no counter parties exist to take the other side of the trade when you place your purchase/sell order. When these trades occur, good Market Maker firms will execute corresponding transactions that will ensure the overall portfolio continues to stay as close to "Delta Neutral" as possible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_neutral
Generally, these firms will be employing significantly advanced portfolio hedging strategies.
For example, to hedge against selling a Long Call, the firm COULD be executing a short term "Covered Call" transaction with another individual. If the Covered Call options gets called, the Market Makers buy the stock and transition into a long term Covered Call option position.
The above is just a VERY simplified potential hedge and probably rarely executed.
Now ... if the overall demand for the underlying equity is minimal and volume is not significant enough, then Market Makers don't even allow Leaps to be traded. NWBO Leaps were not added till sometime in 2014 if I recall. Prior to that, the 6 month option was the farthest out option that could be traded for NWBO.
This is my general understanding of how things work. It is obviously simplified, so if anyone out there feel that I have skipped over details that should've been shared please add.
Thanks
Thanks Flip, from an ethical perspective it makes complete sense.
Hopefully the PFS value truly does show similar or better results than the data presented for Phase I.
Wouldn't this complicate the calculation of the seconday objective of OS? Especially if the patient decides to pursue another course of treatment.
Or would it be much more favorable for NWBO as other treatments would increase the survival rate when used in conjunction with L.
Hi Pyrr, thanks for your posts. Please come back as you do initiate quite an extensive discussion and make members drive a greater attention of detail in their analysis and research.
Just wanted to call it out that these links are showing outdated information given the recent level of Woodford investments.
unfortunately it doesn't look like woodford's holdings are shown here. disappointing. the total value of institutional holdings is 50% higher.
Hi Pyrr,
Thanks for coming back on the board.
I wanted to ask you a bit more about the most meaningful Direct patient to date, Allan Butler. More specifically around the fact that Allan Butler's Stage IV pancreatic cancer shrank enough to qualify for surgically removal.
I understand that because the cancer was surgically removed, it is almost impossible to apply the traditional RECIST criteria against it.
What I would like to understand is the following:
1. Has this occurred before in the past? Other treatments have "shrunk" the tumor sufficiently that existing treatments which were not viable all of sudden are once again possible.
2. How has the FDA dealt with situations like this in the past? It is difficult for me to believe that scenarios like this has not occurred with Chemo or Radiation like therapies.
3. Is it logical to automatically increase the OS benefit for a patient once a previously unavailable treatment is automatically applied?
Would the Toll-Like Receptors that were also injected into patients be the primary reason why the DC Vaccines utilized by Linda be more effective versus the current standard used in the Phase III trial?
In contrast, we administered the Toll-like receptor (TLR) agonists, imiquimod or poly ICLC, following intradermal injections of ATL-DC to induce DC maturation in vivo. We previously demonstrated in pre-clinical models that the utilization of TLR agonists could enhance the survival and trafficking of DC in situ and enhance the priming of tumor antigen-specific T lymphocytes 31. The findings from this current study suggest that the induction of patient-specific anti-tumor immunity using ATL-DC vaccination and in situ maturation with TLR agonists may represent a preferred formulation for DC-based therapies.
Hi Steppen,
Shorting is not as straightforward as most investors believe.
There is a SeekingAlpha article that provide a lot more depth into the different methods for shorting a company and how to profit from it. Can't seem to locate it right now.
But one example is that sometimes big funds purchase shares not because they believe in the company, but rather there are big fees to be earned by providing the market with additional share count liquidity.
Another example is that a funds begins stockpiling shares in anticipation of shorting (due to share liquidity concerns).
The point is that there are numerous ways to directly/indirectly own shares, thus making it difficult to truly understand the underlying motive of any investor, whether short and/or long.
The failure of DCVax-L in Phase III will be death blow to DCVax-Direct. It will destroy NWBO's credibility and make it almost impossible for the company to raise additional capital to fund a large Phase III trial.
Hence, why the focus on -L. It is a predictor of things to come.
I have read through most of the current debate regarding the make up of psuedos vs rapids progression patients in the 55 expanded access trial.
I was under the impression that if a patient was diagnosed to be a psuedo progressor, they would be moved to the 72 patient sub-arm of the current Phase III trial. Considering the fact that a majority of the patients in the 55 expanded access trial was enrolled in 2012, would that not imply most of the patients are true rapid progressors vs psuedo progressors?
Are there other complexities involved that would make the categorization of patients difficult?
Having pseudoprogression does not disqualify a patient from the Phase III trial. Thus, from that, would it not be safe to assume the majority of the patients in the expanded access arm is made up of true rapid progressors. Sure a few would still fall through the cracks, but not enough to make the current Median OS irrelevant.
I think this refers to the maturation cycle of the dendritic cell and at what point of maturation it is first introduced to patients.
In Phase I, 2 different maturation cycles were tested. I commented on this with Flip months back. I don't have a subscription with iHub so can't search.
I agree. Options should be used primarily for minimizing capital costs and risks.
When buying naked call options, esp, for NWBO, it should be executed from the perspective of owning future shares without committing the full capital. Thus limiting risks and other missed opportunities.
For example, I own 50 contracts of NWBO Jan 2017 @ roughly $1.00 per contract. I don't feel comfortable dedicating $30,000 to buying up the 5,000 shares. I am much more comfortable owning $5,000 worth of options that represent the 30K shares.
In a worst case scenario, assume options expire worthless after 2 years and I lose all $5K. From a total risk perspective relative to what my NWBO planned holdings of $30k would have been, I would end up with a 17% loss. If it works, the I can purchase the 5,000 shares and solidify an entry point even if the shares rocket.
In addition, I have freed up $25K of capital and can invest in stronger companies (an MLP in this case) to collect dividends to generate income while maintaining 5,000 shares worth of exposure to NWBO.
Please note, numbers above are in range approximate.
The mistake is to use the full $30K on a single bet in hopes of a world changing payout.
Pyrr,
First of all thanks for providing your viewpoints and DD. It has been tremendously helpful in my own DD.
I want to say that I believe everything posted on iHub is just a part of a bigger story. Even though I have lost a little bit on a few options bet, it was to ensure I did not miss out on a potential large upside gain if you were correct about a completion of German HE negotiation in October.
If you recall, through my own DD, I had stated I believed end of Feb 2015 was more likely for HE negotiations to be completed. I purchased a small batch of options for that as well.
This is how I've always traded across a number of my holdings, small options bets for potential catalyst that can initiate large movements.
The majority of my bets are large share investments and long term options, and that has done well for me. Even though I've lost a little bit on some small options bets, those were trades I would've made regardless of your DD because it was small short term bets with huge upside. The Risk/Reward/Length of Time was very favorable mathematically, thus it was executed.
Please do not stop sharing your opinions and viewpoints as I found them to be extremely helpful and has supercharged my own DD for NWBO and other BioTechs.
I've been burned before also on options, but I've also made a tremendous amount from it.
For NWBO, my original options position expired worthless in Oct 2014. I lost there with small bet that some of these catalysts with no firm dates could potentially play out. Was wrong, oh well :-/.
Right now I am holding the $10 Strike for Jan 20 2017. Bigger than the October options that expired worthless, but larger due to the added time. A majority of my holdings are in shares.
My ideal situation is to convert those options into shares when Jan 20, 2017 rolls around.
I think it is worthwhile to keep learning and trying the options game. It is very rewarding once you become better versed. How much money you are risking for the potential gain? What is a realistic probability for the PPS to double/triple/quadruple? How much time does it take for a price to move? etc.
I have traded options for several years now.
I think it is important to keep in mind the total leverage being purchased when buying Call Options due to the low PPS for NWBO when compared to other biotech companies.
NWBO’s PPS of $5 is low. Thus, when buying a $1 call option, it is only providing 5x leverage for a potential 100% loss if the PPS has not moved above a certain strike price. In comparison, CLDX with it’s $17 PPS, a $1 call option would provide 17x leverage for a potential 100% loss. Thus a % move on CLDX’s PPS will have 3.4x the impact on the value of an option vs the same % move on NWBO.
This is extremely important to understand as when investing in stocks with single digit PPS. The bet is to have greater leverage with the acceptance of a potential 100% loss. But PPS can really define how much additional
leverage is actually obtained for the potential 100% loss. Thus, for shares with single digit PPS, it could be better off to buy the shares vs the options.
With that said, I own a bunch of options for Jan 2017 when those options first opened. As NWBO is just paving new roads, I don’t believe anything but the farthest out option is worth a look.
I second the preparation for limited PPS movement in 2015.
From all of the events that have occurred in 2014 (or lack thereof), it is important to note the NWBO is swimming in uncharted waters:
- No hard information on HE reimbursement due to complexity of contract negotiations with multiple parties (6 contracts per hospital for 10 hospitals)
- Extension of –L trial due to BSSR and long path of regulatory approval from 3 different agencies
- Continuous manufacturing improvements
- (I am fairly certain others will be able to continue to add to this list) …
It is prudent to invest appropriately and have reasonable expectations. Personally, my expectation is significant PPS movement in 2016 with 2017 onwards being the major growth years. I am hopeful for a massive increase in 2015, but if it doesn’t happen I will not be worried.
Thanks Flip, I saw it from Evalute but work has kept me busy. Deadlines, unfortunately, don't naturally disappear on their own .
For the Grams, wanted to see what kind of measurable improvements have occurred since the beginning.
It would be nice to understand either:
- Phase I tumor requirements OR
- Original supply of Dendritic Cells from a single batch
But that kind of analysis can be put on hold till after all approvals have been received. No point in making a super efficient manufacturing process to only have the main program fail.
Thanks Flip. I can't contribute much on the science side of things except to share what I hear or see.
I am not sure if any of you can help (Evaluate?), but I recall reading through all of the iHub posts that there were several about what the minimum amount of tumor was necessary in-order for Cognate to create DCVax-L.
Maybe my memory is faulty, but I think one of the poster said that the minimum tumor size was a Sugar Cube (~4 grams) and another said it is now just 2 grams. That is a 50% reduction in raw material input. This implies that throughput yields have improved substantially due to all the process upgrades that Cognate has created/discovered. Essentially, they are able to produce the same amount of DCVax-L vaccine with 50% less raw materials.
The other side of the coin is that, NWBO realized they don't need as much vaccines for each treatment. Thus they started to collect less raw material for manufacturing finished goods, but I find that to be highly doubtful considering dosing studies should have been completed much earlier.
Just not sure if the above are facts or something I read somewhere else. Anyway, I believe in Cognate's ability to manufacture great treatments.
AustinMediaInc,
If ARGUS just recently broke ground on their manufacturing center, then they are far behind Cognate in the manufacturing learning curve.
I've attached a few links for you around some history regarding biologic manufacturing and the challenges.
1. http://www.pharmamanufacturing.com/articles/2013/1305-biotech-facility-transformed/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" >http://www.pharmamanufacturing.com/articles/2013/1305-biotech-facility-transformed/
2. http://www.bioprocessconsultants.com/bptc/sites/default/files/articles/jones_sd_levine_hl_mckee_s_-learning_curve-rprnt.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" >http://www.bioprocessconsultants.com/bptc/sites/default/files/articles/jones_sd_levine_hl_mckee_s_-learning_curve-rprnt.pdf
It takes a long time for a company to realize the greatest production/cost benefit. At initiation of any new facility, production is low and cost is high. It takes years to get that ratio optimized. The learning curve is substantial and a very step by step process. There are no real sustainable short cuts.
The first URL is case study for Boehringer Ingelheim, a company that specializes in contract manufacturing for other BioTech firms. Even with all of it's manufacturing experience and expertise, it still took Boehringer 2 years to get a new site up and running and at an acceptable level of efficiency. I find it difficult for Argos to perform this same feat without at least the same minimum of 2 years. Of course, the short cut is to screw the efficiencies and hope that their product will generate enough volume sales will eclipse the high COGS.
NWBO has dedicated a substantial amount of time and research to get their manufacturing to where it is. Link 2 provides a high level summary of the general challenges that Cell Therapy manufacturing brings.
In short, NWBO must either "Scale Up" (more efficieny) and/or "Scale Out" (more facilities) route. Through Cognate's efforts, they have moved to near the top of the Dendritic Cell manufacturing learning curve with any additional improvements bringing in substantially less gains then the overall cost. NWBO is shifting their manufacturing strategy to "Scale Out" to ensure their is sufficient production to meet future demand, especially for Europe.
DNDN failed to "Scale Up" during clinical trials. This put a low ceiling on their overall manufacturing knowledge. As such when DNDN began to "Scale Out", their facilities around the US were very inefficient and required a significant amount of sales to support and be profitable.
I don't know much about Argos and their product. My current job is in supply chain and manufacturing. I understand project timelines and how long it takes to walk the learning curve from the bottom to the top. Every variable is significant from dependable raw material delivery to production line layouts to finished good storage and final shipment. I would be blown away if Argos is able to deliver Cognate's level of manufacturing efficiency once the facility has been completed. I would have to learn more about how they did it, but till then I am going to step back and assume that more more dilution will be needed by Argos to fund future manufacturing improvements.
That was a great example. Well I guess this debate is done. Linda knows what she is doing.
This is a very detailed, yet simple explanation of option pricing. Beautiful, actually.
As an options trader, the only thing I would add is that the Bid/Ask spread for options are typically quite large.
Thus, when you enter a position and want to exit immediately thereafter, you usually have to take a 10%+ loss just to cover the difference in the bid/ask spread.
It is a warning that upon entering the position, you could see a loss of 20% right off the bat.
Why are these sales not being reported on NWBO's 10-Qs / 10-Ks for Healthbank?
Why is there no mention of Healthbank in the 10-Q / 10-K?
Was it just so recently established that it has not been included on any of there financial reporting?
There P&Ls are reported in the Thousands. 1 patient storing their tumor would show up as a 4 under sales.
I took a look through some website address registrations. Looks like Healthbank.com is owned by Toucan Capital.
https://whoisology.com/archive_7/toucancapital.net" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" >https://whoisology.com/archive_7/toucancapital.net
It looks like the article is referencing the wrong company.
Exactly ... LoL. Man, I need to proofread what I type up next time.
I agree with you austinmediainc. I do not believe a halt will not cause it to jump to a $6 Billion valuation. It will cause NWBO's PPS to jump, but $6 Billion valuation might be too rich for that.
Germany HE will. Because it provides an initial glimpse of what the potential market is once approval is granted AND what kind of demand is on the backend. That # of Patients on the waiting list is the biggie. Pent-up demand causes true PPS gains.
- The # of patients waiting (potential demand)
- Re-imbursement price from Germany (potential pricing + premium)
- # of Hospitals participating in HE (available supply)
are all real life indicators of potential financial success of NWBO's DCVax-L product after approval. I am confident in the science, but there are a lot of other biotechs that have great science as well. But it is this new avenue that made me invest.
This is the unique factor about NWBO that no other BioTech has. This makes modeling future success easier and more believable then some SWAG market penetration % + patient's willingness to sign up + hypothetical pricing + whatever other assumptions folks come up with to justify their future PPS predictions.
Great points obuhz, though not sure if some of the benefits you stated can be realized given NWBO's product.
Typically, a majority of the benefits you highlighted are realized because of larger manufacturing runs due to higher volumes in the production of a single product.
Thus, less labor is required, less energy is required, higher facility utilization as less of it is sitting idle while the production line is being changed and setup for the next run, etc. A longer production run enables all of the benefits you highlighted.
I cannot see NWBO having a longer production run thus realizing all of these benefits since their product is so customized. Each batch will always run for X number of hours, and will always require Y number of setup hours, and Z number of change over hours.
The equipment purchasing should be more CAPEX expenses, but chemical procurement is definitely an advantage.
My initial thoughts are the above, but I will dwell on this a bit more to see what I am missing.
Thanks Pyrr.
No worries, I had no estimates so your wild speculation is at least a starting point for most of us, I think.
I am going to admit, I am a bit lost on how there can be "volume" manufacturing for DCVax-L.
In typically manufacturing plants, economies of scale benefits become realized because "Setup" and "Switching" time is minimized and "Run" time is maximized. DCVax-L is manufactured per patient. Thus, there can be no additional "Run" time benefits beyond what a batch is suppose to produce (2-3) years. Adding additional patients does not reduce "Setup" and "Change" time cost that would.
Thus the typical benefits from larger volumes (minimizing Setup & Change Costs) are not applicable due to the customized nature of the treatment. This is from my understanding of how -L and -Direct are manufactured.
My thought is that what ever the initial cost of manufacturing the treatment is, is what it will stay at for the foreseeable future regardless of the increase in patient volume.
This is how I've been analyzing NWBO's future COGS.
Hey Pyrr,
What are you estimates for the initial numbers from HE? Patient #'s, Wait List, Treated Patients.
Pricing I am assuming to be around $70,000.
Thanks
Thanks LongUSA. Not sure how familiar you are with Poker, but this to me feels like an All-In-Bet with a high flush draw against an opponent that can easily call and keep playing.
It is a good All-In play due to the hand dealt, but the opponent would still be in a better position once the next hand begins.
Here the flush draw is akin to the HE price negotiations. Once it has been finalized, the hand finishes. The next hand is how many patients are willing to go through with this program. Lots of valid points why it will succeed, but no historic precedent has been set that would point to high patient adoption, much less rapid patient adoption.
The big bet is the US hand where Linda is holding 10, J, Q, K and all of the same suit. All that is left is the river. If we get the Ace for the Royal Flush, the bet wins big and DCVax-L stopped at interim for effectivness.
LongUSA, fully agree with your statement. But mortgaging assets is generally a sign of desperation.
It is quite possible this might be the end of financing with HE around the corner and significant share price movement will begin to occur, but I am up on my position. It would be foolish not to pocket a bit of profit now vs the risk if losing everything later.
I am sacrificing some potentially large gains, but believe it is necessary for prudent risk management of the position.
This does not mean I am exiting everything, but just a portion to cover some initial principle.
Summary of all financing rounds held in 2014:
1. Nov 2014 - $25 MM from Woodford
2. Nov 2014 - $10 MM from mortgage of UK facility
3. Oct 2014 - $11.5 MM from Existing Private Institutional Placement (this was to cover the remaining $17 MM of the total $32 MM that was suppose to be raised from the Apr 2014 placement but lowered due to drop in PPS.)
4. Aug 2014 - $17.5 MM from Convertible Notes
5. Apr 2014 - $15 MM from New Institutional Investor (a total of $32 MM was promised)
Total amount raised - $79 MM
Significant cash expenses (9 Months):
- Purchase of new UK facility: $21 MM
- Clinical Trials: $45 MM
- G&A (includes Cognate): $10 MM
Total Cash Expenses incurred ... ~$76 MM
Didn't realize NWBO was in such a precarious cash crunch. The 2 most recent rounds of financing were absolutely necessary in order for NWBO to continue on as a going concern.
I think the 10 MM shares issued was absolutely necessary in order to compensate management. It is clear with the bets that NWBO is making, the end game is getting closer, else these folks are just throwing good money after bad.
Woodford has a stellar track record and I believe would not have invested in NWBO unless he believes it is at the end of the road and a significant move will be forthcoming. It would not make sense for Woodford to invest as the cash balance is just far too low for any BioTech to continue as a going concern WITHOUT sales OR MASSIVE future financing to continue operation.
I am going to be trimming my holdings a bit as that cash number is just easy fodder for AF. $1.6 MM on the most recent balance sheet? Really ...
I use to work for a department in a large university responsible for licensing patents and technology and managing external relationships.
The University is bounded by restrictions built into contracts that prevent it from licensing technology / patents / or other research to multiple parties, especially parties with competing interests. This was pretty standard language in most of the contracts that were signed, unless there were specific other clauses.
The University is not looking to invest in companies or be in any specific industry. Rather the goal of the department and university was to establish long streams of royalty that would ultimately reward professors for all their years of research and work.
In addition, the university takes a substantial cut of the royalty payments and is able to leverage these relationships with large corporations to build more scholarship funding and establish themselves as a key feeder school for these companies.
My university saw these patents and technology as a strategic advantage, not just for the revenue stream, honors and recognition, but also another way of creating future companies and jobs for the next graduating class.
Pyrr has laid out all of the qualitative benefits.
Complicated by the fact that the initial disclosure by NWBO occurred in the June '14 10Q filed Aug! meaning because NWBO is so understaffed and LP apparently does quadruple type duties the 10Q is her catch all instead of a press release.
SITC Abstract is supported by a number of MD Anderson Doctors, something that a large number of folks have pointed out.
One interesting thing is the support from the leadership team, Department Chair Funda Meric-Bernstam and Deputy Chair David Hong, of MD Anderson's Investigational Cancer Therapeutics. Not sure if they are signing their name on this abstract due to the AF/MD Anderson fiasco or if they are attaching their names to what they believe to be the next big step in cancer treatments.
Questions that come to my mind ...
First, I wonder why AF was not directed to the actual department managing the DCVax-Direct trial when he called MD Anderson.
But more importantly, I wonder if DCVax-Direct would be on the radar of these department leadership if AF/Shareholders did not make such a huge commotion out of those "Unsupported" PRs ...
Or if it would have drawn this many doctors to DCVax-Direct.
One thing we can be sure, whatever data that will be presented in SITC has probably been reviewed easily multiple times by probably the best Cancer minds that MD Anderson currently employ.
Just some food for thought, though no one here really needs reassurance.
Hey Xena,
My knowledge of patterns is extremely limited, thus this might be a really stupid question.
Aren't Cup and Handle patterns a continuation of trends? NWBO past history is downward, so how would this apply?
Thanks