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.
We are not talking about company statements. We are discussing posters on here saying there is NO risk. There is always SOME risk. Saying that NWBO is 100% risk-free is just wrong. That is the ONLY point I was making. I have to say it gets really tiring having people constantly go off on me like I am a short who claims NWBO is going to fail when I NEVER say anything of the sort.
I get being a fan of the company and management, I am too. But that doesn't mean I have to agree with every ludicrous statement about the trial, management, and the company. People's inability to think for themselves and simply blast anyone who doesn't spend all day singing the company's praises gets awfully tiring after a while.
Have a great weekend everyone, maybe talk about something of substance, rather than coffee breaks and what rich person might want to buy the company. Seems like we have at least a few more weeks based on what the company has allegedly said.
There is ALWAYS risk. I am not saying that there is a lot of risk, I do not believe that there is. But saying that there is NO risk is naive. Disrupting a $100's of billions industry by definition creates risk. Not a lot of people were expecting a war in Ukraine 6 months ago but see what it has disrupted? Or a pandemic 2.5 years ago.
I don't need you to explain what I hold, I am well aware of what I am holding and why. Weighing rewards presupposes that you are weighing them against the risks, you claim do not exist, which makes your logic . . . questionable.
So you are saying that in October 2020, NWBO presented the new endpoints AND the contemporary trials they were going to compare themselves to prior to data-lock and hiring an independent, outside firm to determine which trials to use as comparators to the FDA and other RAs? Neat trick, that.
The same KIND of risk. A different LEVEL of risk.
The risk from management failure. The risk from shorts. The risk from competitors. The risk from external, unconnected events.
The farther along in the process they get, the less likely each of these are to interfere with or delay approval. With news over the last 6 months about manufacturing, for instance, that becomes less of a concern.
No idea, really not my area. I am hopeful that the FDA and other RAs are on NWBO's side in this and that their interests coincide. But traditionally the FDA at least has tended to be very BP-centric. I am not saying they won't approve, I am simply saying that it is not a 100% guarantee that they will accept NWBO's external controls over some others. I remain concerned that the forces against NWBO can still affect things, although as I noted, I think it a lower concern then in the past. I don;t know how much things can be delayed, thus causing additional funding concerns.
I seriously doubt any of this is going to happen.
NWBO is a Biotech company. They do not have the resources or even interest in getting side-tracked filling frivolous lawsuits against AF and others. There is zero to be gained from such suits and compared to curing cancer, it is a total waste of time.
While the DoJ could bring civil or criminal cases, don't hold your breath. Expect an investigation about something like this to take many years and to eventually settle a long time from now. The DoJ is not going to time their case(s) based on when a journal article is published. That is beyond ridiculous.
Yeah, the journal certainly better cover a lot more about DC-Vax, that is the entire point of doing the journal.
A hostile takeover? Where do people come up with this stuff? Take a look at: their anti-takeover provisions and see if you still think that is a possibility. I'll give you a hint: "No."
Short squeeze? People have been talking about that for YEARS. You do understand that the shorts are well aware of what is coming, right? This isn't a secret. Don't worry about the shorts, they have protected themselves.
I wish I were more optimistic about their journal knowledge. But they have been off by orders of magnitude on their estimates over the last two+ years. Including about imminent events. If they aren’t even sure they can do the ASM in a month, I am not going to get my hopes up.
The journal should be accompanied by other good news in their string-of-PRs they talked about three years ago but maybe that plan got scraped? Only time will tell. Either way, all the good news is likely to show up in PRs, not at the ASM.
They certainly could (and should) announce something before the ASM, they are just unlikely to announce anything at the ASM.
The most likely reason for delay is that they intend to seek authorization for more shares and doing so with the price at $0.60 is risky.
RE: skitahoe:
There is a logical flaw in this. It assumes, despite experience, that NWBO management can accurately predict the future in terms of timelines. At best, they seem to indicate a hope that they can make mid-July. That indicates to me that they will NOT have one before mid-July and that August is at best 50-50.
We are currently 6 weeks past NYAS, when they supposedly expected the journal only a month or two prior. That is NOT a small margin of error. Even 6 weeks ago people were talking about the journal being imminent.
I doubt that they will announce anything substantive at the ASM, they have not in the past 5 years I have been around. The lender does not get to convert until NWBO makes their first post-TLD public offering, so no rush there. The price isn't moving until they PROPERLY announce TLD with a journal and other support, instead of some half-@$$ed release at a close conference.
At this rate, shorts/hedges probably have at least another month to accumulate shares and fleece shareholders.
I assume they take some cut but the income to me would be 6.875%
I hope it wasn't a mistake but only time will tell. As I have said before, this does not dampen my long-term outlook but at present, absent more information, it seems like it is going to add resistance to getting the share price where it needs to be in the shorter term. That makes financing and continuing to operate more difficult/challenging and from a personal perspective makes my life more annoying.
Maybe they needed a presentation first before they could update clinicaltrails.gov? No idea, seems weird. But that whole thing seemed to be done in a half-@$$ed fashion, almost as an afterthought. Just bad optics as far as I am concerned. Time will tell, I suppose, as with all things.
Fidelity. They had something on their website when I was in my portfolio about it. They were offering 6.875% on NWBO shares. Just be sure you understand the terms. :)
True but they gave themselves a lot of those shares, so they didn't exactly pay for them the way we did and they can, and undoubtedly will, give themselves more shares, while we will have to continue to buy ours. I guarantee their percentage of the firm will not decrease as rapidly as will ours.
They seem quite focused on the medical community and other pharmaceutical companies, which is great. The problem is that they seem out-of-touch with retail investors' needs and feelings and if they need to rely on new retail interest to raise or maintain share price, that may hinder their efforts. I would love to post a one-page DD on reddit or other forums I know, explaining the opportunity right now with a guaranteed success and artificially depressed share price but I have no confidence currently that the company can meet any sort of near-term goals in a timely manner. It is very frustrating.
RE: miltong
RE: VikingInvest
Exactly, but that is not what happened. Going after AF is like shooting fish in a barrel but instead, Smith on Stock ends up shooting him/herself in the foot.
That is all I was ever saying. The article looks like it was written by an unpaid intern who knows nothing about NWBO, the stock market, or the Internet. The inability to do a 1-minute search to get the stock numbers, being unaware that the ClinicalTrials.gov website was updated (and when), being unaware of the original endpoints, and being unaware of all of the secondary endpoints, are not the hallmarks of quality journalism.
If the article had emphasized that the presentation explained the changed endpoints, that the EU/UK/DE endpoints have officially changed, and that AF himself acknowledged the change on the EU/UK/DE website, that would be fine. But instead, the article makes up things without any basis in reality.
But people here, including those who contacted people's bosses or made allegations and threats to organizations because of earlier false articles, are strangely silent when 'their side' does the exact same thing. Suddenly, the writer does not need to be objective. The writer does not need to rely on facts but can make up whatever they want. The only important thing is the conclusion. I disagree.
I AM NOT DEFENDING AF.
Why is this so hard to understand?
Smith on Stocks made up facts in an article and those facts justify AF's actions. Not me. I don't justify his actions. Smith on Stocks does. Because according to Smith on Stocks, ClinicalTrials.gov, which at the time of the AF article stated that PFS was the Primary Endpoint, was authoritative. Not what was said in the presentation. Not what it said on the EU/UK/DE clinical trial sites. ONLY WHAT IS ON CLINICALTRIALS.GOV. If Smith on Stocks is correct, which s/he is not, then AF was correct at the time of writing that article and saying that PFS was the primary endpoint of the trial because ClinicalTrials.gov said so. He was not correct, the endpoint were changed.
Your argument is that if someone attacks AF, then they are right, regardless of what they say, regardless of what facts they make up, and regardless of how much they actually make AF's actions look reasonable. The only thing that matters is that the tagline of the article is AF = poopyhead.
I 100% agree with you. BUT Smith on Stocks, not ME, states that ClinicalTrials.gov is authoritative. So, according to the article and Smith on Stocks, AF was reasonable to ignore the fact that the EU/UK/DE sites were changed 18+ months ago and was reasonable for ignoring that the presentation specifically states that the endpoints were changed in the SAP and thus was reasonable for stating that the trial failed because PFS was confounded by pseudo-progression and PFS was the primary endpoint.
My argument is NOT that AF is correct, it is that the article is poorly researched, more poorly written, and actually supports AF's position rather than effectively attacking it because it specifically states that he was right to ignore all the evidence of the change in endpoints. But people don't care, they only care about the conclusion it draws even when the facts and assumptions it makes are all erroneous. Listen to how many people reply that it is only pennies. The difference between $1.71 and $1.29 is roughly 25% That is not pennies, that is a significant error. No one has a problem with the article stating that AF made up PFS as an endpoint? So no one on this board is aware that for 15+ years the stated primary endpoint of this trial was PFS? They all just forgot? Everyone is fine with giving AF a pass because ClinicalTrials.gov is authoritative, a 'fact' made up specifically because the author thought it proved his/her point? The ends do not justify the means.
Try this. There is a bag with 501 black marbles and 1 white marble.
I pick out 500 black marbles in a row.
I pick out the white marble.
You explain that the 501st marble I picked out was black. Why? Because the prior 500 were black.
I pull out a black marble.
You point to it and say 'see?'
What color is the 501st marble I pulled from the bag?
Instead of saying the 501 black marbles I pulled out were black, you are saying the one white marble was black. That is my problem.
Not according to the SoS article. According to the SoS article the endpoints on ClinicalTrials.gov are authoritative. Therefore, according to SoS, AF did not lie because as we all know, the endpoints were not changed until a week after the presentation.
1. According to SoS: "The government website ClinTrials.gov [sic] is the authoritative place for information on clinical trials."
2. According to ClinicalTrials.gov on May 10 - Primary endpoint: PFS. [Note: maybe it was secondary, I forget]
3. According to AF on May 10: "Patients administered the Northwest Bio treatment, called DCVax, went a median 6.2 months without their brain tumors returning compared to a median of 7.6 months for patients offered a placebo."
So based on the SoS article, what did AF say that was wrong? He is stating what the slides stated and referring to the endpoints that SoS indicates are authoritative. SoS validates what AF said by stating that the online endpoints are authoritative. If you think AF lied or misled people, then you should be upset by SoS's article.
My point is that he did not have to lie because the endpoints were not changed and people will reasonably rely on them. That does not mean that he wouldn't have lied if they were not changed or that he isn't lying right now. Just that he didn't need to lie on May 10.
I look at things as a former federal prosecutor. Details matter and timing matters. You can't go after him for what happened on May 10 because the facts support his statements. You can't go after him for his current statements because there are no losses. The opportunity to 'get' AF was botched.
Smith on Stocks wrote a hit-piece complete with inaccuracies and flat-out false information that failed to prove the point it was trying to make and instead bolstered AF's arguments. Rather than accepting that simple fact, and it is a fact, people defend the piece because it is attacking someone they dislike. That is hypocritical.
Rather than making up facts and flat out lying about what happened on May 10, Smith on Stocks should use truthful information and write an article about what AF is saying now. That might actually be effective.
Note: That a tweet is a statement made by someone (and thus admissible in court) does not make it reliable news or information. Sources are important.
I have stated, more than once, that he made a statement at the time that was facially correct because the website was not updated. Until the website was updated, we had no statements from the company that the endpoints were changed. They NEVER acknowledged the change to the European/UK trial websites. The presentation was by outside doctors and as has been stated numerous times, was not an official presentation by the company.
Do I believe that he knew he was making up something that was not actually true? Absolutely. Do I believe that he knew it wasn't true at that time and knows it is not true now? Absolutely. Did I ever have any doubt that the endpoints were changed prior to data-lock? No.
None of this is relevant to the argument though.
I don't consider Twitter to be a good place to find news or information.
It makes no difference what AF says now, the SoS article was about what AF said on May 10 and makes BLATANTLY FALSE claims about what AF did on May 10. Whether you agree or disagree with AF, SoS is acting no better. That does not mean that AF is currently right, he isn't. If you want to attack AF, do it with actual facts, not made up ones, like claiming that AF made up PFS as an endpoint.
The ClinicalTrials.gov website clearly shows when it was updated. This has been discussed for two weeks and should be considered common knowledge by anyone following this stock. SoS states that ClinicalTrials.gov is the definitive source of the endpoints. Why does SoS state this? Because it would bolster SoS's argument if correct, easy to look at a screen and compare it to AF's text. Unfortunately, it completely torpedoes the argument because the endpoints weren't changed when AF wrote his hit-piece.
Your timeline is irrelevant as the article is talking about AF and his effect on the stock on May 10. On May 10, the endpoints displayed were PFS and OS. If the point of SoS's article was that AF has not acknowledged that the endpoints were later changed, then SoS should have stated what the endpoints were at the time of the article and when they were changed. Instead:
I didn't list every single error (hence the ellipses at the end), I just highlighted a few that were ridiculously easy to verify. What error did AF make that was more egregious than stating that ClinicalTrials.gov showed the new endpoints on May 10 when the page was clearly updated a week later? That BLATANTLY FALSE statement destroys the entire argument SoS is making. If the website was, as stated, the definitive source of the endpoints, then AF was 100% correct. END. OF. STORY. PFS was the primary endpoint and the trial failed on PFS. Nothing else matters.
Now we happen to know better but the article is nothing but a hack job and honestly makes anyone supporting NWBO look pretty stupid. If you need to lie and make up things in order to support your position, then perhaps your position is not really as great as you thought. Attacking AF's credibility, if you think that is something worth doing, can be done with actual facts. There is no reason to make up things to do it. Supporting this kind of drivel is not the sign of someone who can look at issues objectively.
I didn't go writing someone's boss over the original. I don't feel that to be my place. My point is that some hack journalist makes up facts in order to attack someone, then people should be equally outraged regardless of whether the target is AF or NWBO.
Not getting a single nit-picky detail right, all of which were simple to find, suggests that the entire article was not researched at all. That the main point is completely false and actually proves AF's argument destroys the article completely. Nothing else in the article makes ANY difference when you state that ClinicalTrials.gov is the definitive source for the endpoints. If it is, then AF was 100% right that the trial failed and NWBO presented a failed trial and pretended that it was outstanding results. People's unwillingness to acknowledge this really damages their credibility. It is fine to make mistakes, everyone does. The problem is refusing to acknowledge and rectify them.
Smith-on-Stocks article is full of as many errors as AF's piece. So who is going to badger them to correct it?
Stock price closed May 9 at $1.82 (not $1.80)
Stock price opened May 10 at $1.71 (not $1.29)
Stock price at beginning of presentation at $1.38 (not $1.24)
Stock price closed at $0.76 (not $0.75)
Article notes that "[t]he government website ClinTrials.gov [sic] is the authoritative place for information on clinical trials." Which 100% proves AF's statement that the trial failed was correct at the time it was published.
. . .
So do we only care about 'truth' when it aligns with our position or are those who so zealously attacked AF and Stat news now going to show some integrity and call for this hit-piece to be corrected?
All good, just clarifying and providing context. :)
Actually, in 2019 Les responded to the voted questions:
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=146490681
In 2020, at the first Virtual meeting, NWBO did not really answer submitted questions but just gave a little narrative:
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=154813508
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=155111548