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.
In fact, using Brightboys start date of Feb 11th, he asserted that the market in general was down 25%.
Using the same start date of Feb 11th; on that day NWBO opened at
0.168 and closed at 0.1728.
So I won't cherry pick different start dates; to be scrupulously fair, I'll just cherry pick the same start date!
And as you can see, NWBO's share price has been really quite resilient during the coronavirus period, currently standing at 0.18!
Thus outperforming the market by just over 25%.
Brightboy picked entirely different periods for his comparison.
Here is the original post:-
Wow!!! In comparison to demand and value destruction, Les and Linda make Covid 19 look like child's play!!! NWBO's down 98%. The market's only down about 25% !!!
July 11, 2015 for NWBO. Feb. 11th, 2020 for the market.
Otherwise known as 'cherrypicking'.
If NWBO went up a 100% next week following an interesting ASM, it would be drastically outperforming the market.
Here's the original post, Jerry:-
Wow!!! In comparison to demand and value destruction, Les and Linda make Covid 19 look like child's play!!! NWBO's down 98%. The market's only down about 25% !!!
Bio.
I know, I know!
That's entirely my point.
I was calling out the poster who said that NWBO was down 98% and the market in general was only down 25%.
I asked him what the start dates were, and he acknowledged that they were entirely different.
Just check back on the posting dialogue.
Here's the original post that I raised objection to.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=155064647
Les better hurry up. I will be shocked if he keeps his word. What you gonna do? Nothing.
Yes there was just a modest improvement in OS36 between JTM and SNO.
But the Top 100 median increased very markedly.
JTM was 40.4 months (CI 35.5-46.5)
SNO was 58.4 months (CI 45.9-94.5)
So the projected median went into almost an entirely different CI range. Highly statistically improbable, and can only have been caused by a long tail who just kept surviving, beyond previous expectations and KM projections. I think it is perfectly reasonable to make a supposition that if the projected Top 100 median had been calculated again, a year after SNO, it would be higher again than 58.4%.
On the basis of conditional survival expectations, it's implausible to me that these 50-60 long term survivors who surpassed statistical expectations between JTM and SNO, would then start suddenly falling short of expectations.
FWIW, my blended OS60 still hovers around 20-21%.
Some time back, LG gave a reason why they didn't want to give out a 'subjects still alive' figure. He suggested that they might be accused of cherrypicking, if they did.
That is, of course, debatable, and some would say it's not a valid justification for withholding numbers still alive.
Again, fwiw, my current survivors figure would be just below meirluc's, but quite a bit above Ex's.
Maybe 38-45 range.
Lucky Les Goldman has promised a PR before the ASM so most likely this will be released tomorrow. This won't just be a regular PR, this will be a STRONG PR. I'm just so excited I won't be able to sleep tonight.
KD has gone back to Merck.
JR found a career resume for him that clearly states he is now back with Merck.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=154687867
ASM going ahead.
Friday.
And how has NWBO done since Feb 11th 2020?
HB. Remember back in the dim, distant, pre-virus days, when we could do this sort of thing:-
NWBO's down 98%. The market's only down about 25% !!!
Hi Doc.
But do you have a view on whether all this work was to solely benefit NWBO, or NWBO and Merck, or just Merck?
I certainly don't know on that score.
Everyone is convinced that they've got the right interpretation of her meaning (including me), but nearly all are wrong.
Except me.
Lol.
Reminds me of that green and grey diagram.
PR Monday morning about ASM??
All my own recipe.
I just followed Scotty's lead, and decided to mix a few metaphors!
I'm sure I could have got another one in there, if I'd tried harder.
These should be on the mailing list:-
https://www.otcmarkets.com/otc-link/broker-dealer-directory
You inserted yourself in the debate between Flip and myself.
There should never be "several" assumptions when one will do. Do we agree?
Examples of the Use of Occam’s Razor
The Development of Scientific Theories
Occam’s razor is frequently used by scientists, in particular for theoretical matters. The simpler a hypothesis is, the more easily it can be proven or falsified. A complex explanation for a phenomenon involves many factors which can be difficult to test or lead to issues with the repeatability of an experiment. As a consequence, the simplest solution which is consistent with the existing data is preferred. However, it is common for new data to allow hypotheses to become more complex over time. Scientists choose to opt for the simplest solution as the current data permits, while remaining open to the possibility of future research allowing for greater complexity.
The version used by scientists can best be summarized as:
When you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is better.
The use of Occam’s razor in science is also a matter of practicality. Obtaining funding for simpler hypotheses tends to be easier, as they are often cheaper to prove.
Albert Einstein referred to Occam’s razor when developing his theory of special relativity. He formulated his own version: “It can scarcely be denied that the supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience.” Or, “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.”
The physicist Stephen Hawking advocates for Occam’s razor in A Brief History of Time:
We could still imagine that there is a set of laws that determines events completely for some supernatural being, who could observe the present state of the universe without disturbing it. However, such models of the universe are not of much interest to us mortals. It seems better to employ the principle known as Occam’s razor and cut out all the features of the theory that cannot be observed.
Isaac Newton used Occam’s razor too when developing his theories. Newton stated: “We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.” He sought to make his theories, including the three laws of motion, as simple as possible, with only the necessary minimum of underlying assumptions.
Medicine
Modern doctors use a version of Occam’s razor, stating that they should look for the fewest possible causes to explain their patient’s multiple symptoms, and give preference to the most likely causes. A doctor we know often repeats the aphorism that “common things are common.” Interns are instructed, “when you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras.” For example, a person displaying influenza-like symptoms during an epidemic would be considered more likely to be suffering from influenza than an alternative, rarer disease. Making minimal diagnoses reduces the risk of over-treating a patient, causing panic, or causing dangerous interactions between different treatments. This is of particular importance within the current medical model, where patients are likely to see numerous health specialists and communication between them can be poor.
I'm not using the Occam's razor argument.
After it was used by another, I simply gave it's commonly accepted meaning.
And; "the first assumption to have under Occam's razor" is not something I said.
If you are putting something in quotes, then it really should be verbatim and with context.
Declaring something as 'not debatable' doesn't make it so.
Hi HB.
As you know, when JR first brought this to our attention, I simply concluded that we couldn't possibly know the why's and wherefore's
(other than my reference to NWBO needing to do a quick stock check of the secret sauce cabinet) and left it at that.
And I've really only re-engaged in the debate, because there is sod all new to talk about.
But thanks for the DI response.
And although it's coming through the lens of an IR guy, some of the wording is interesting.
'We move on no worse for having worked with him.'
Why did he say 'no worse' and not 'better'?
And; '..for having worked with him.'
Why didn't he say; 'for having him work for us'?
Now if the two firms had a common agenda, and that was along the lines of using Duffy to devise an SAP that would be acceptable to the FDA, then why would Merck want to help NWBO getting the SAP accepted?
Well, if a partnership / buyout was in the works, then you could see why that may be so. If Merck became partners in, or owners of the DCVax platform, then they would want the L trial to have a successful outcome. And presenting an acceptable SAP to the regulators would be part of that. It would save a few years delay, compared to an SAP that received negative feedback, maybe even calling for a new trial from scratch.
But if the two firms actually had different agendas, and the Merck agenda was a covert agenda, well then we would have a very different kettle of fish.
And I will refrain from any further reading of the tealeaves in that kettle of fish, at the moment.
There is nothing wrong with dot connecting!
It's just a method for forming hypotheses.
If you go on to say that any untested hypothesis is fact; well, obviously, that's ermm, rather iffy.
If we were to explore the Duffy scenario further, we might ask the question; did either Merck or NWBO have a broader agenda beyond a simple employment of an individual who subsequently left and returned to the former employer 'like people do'?
And I imagine one or both probably did.
But the next question (for me at least) is; did Merck and NWBO share a common agenda?
Or did Merck and NWBO have different agendas?
My dot-reading and tealeaves-connecting hunch suggests to me that I have no idea, but I would certainly have the second possibility remain in the frame.
Occam's Razor:-
The principle (attributed to William of Occam) that in explaining a thing no more assumptions should be made than are necessary.
Well, if you think that Merck wanted NWBO's SAP accepted by regulators, then why do you think Merck would want to do that?
Do you think they have some further intention in regards to NWBO?
Dubious, since it was Duffy that initially approached nwbo.
Wrong. Instead, imho, the simplest explanation is Merck wanted their SAP design accepted by regulators
Marzan, I do hope your optimism is well -founded!
My own view, as stated previously, is that I doubt that adoption of any new guidelines will make much material difference to NWBO.
The FDA had the flexibility to make exceptional decisions previously, so I don't envisage much change, excepting change that further benefits BP.
After all, wasn't that the point of the exercise? (He says cynically.)
And as a proponent of Evidence-based medicine, I don't support approvals that are based solely on post-hoc or ad hoc subgroups.
But, meth / unmeth was prospectively identified and stratified for, and is universally accepted as the most important prognostic biomarker, so that subgrouping comes with validity.
On historical controls, I would just say that the EF-14 trial Optune trial is a form of historical control, as are Stupp 2005, Brandes and one or two others. The more that our OS data (particularly at OS36 and further) surpasses EF-14, the more difficult it becomes to not approve.
But hey, the US is only one theatre anyway!
UK and Europe may be positively different.
JMO.
However, remember the letter that LP sent to the FDA where she emphasized that when judging a treatment, comparisons of the survival rates of the different GBM subgroups should be considered separately? For example DCVax-L may be much more effective in patients with Met+ GBM than in those with Met- GBM. I am guessing that she may have been trying to change the FDA's policy but believe that her audience also included the medical community
I am not sure but LP may also have mentioned that because of the cross over problems, results of the trial should be compared to historical results (not certain about that point).
You can have my shares for $50
Hi meirluc.
Then the question arises; 'What are we waiting for?'.
There's a few sub-issues here.
Do we believe that the time of datalocking is not in NWBO's hands?
I think this was reported here as having been stated by DI (or other NWBO person).
Did DI state it categorically, or he did he just intimate it?
If we take the view that it's correct (that time of datalocking is not within NWBO's control), then in whose hands is it?
I can't think of who that could be other than a regulator.
Or a previously redefined (at any time in the last few years) event count cutoff, that has not yet been reached.
I stick with the view that 'waiting for additional deaths' would not be the way that a regulator would define the cut-off.
Waiting for OS60 might, however, be how a regulator might define it.
Even if the two metrics amount to much the same thing in terms of time.
It is hard to believe that we will have to wait for data lock another 5,6 or 7 months for that last survivor to cross the 5 year on trial timeline.
A vote for lp is a vote to dilute and kick the can down the road. We have run out of road.
For this trial, the "last patient must be 60 months" or anything like that is a bunch of crap this board made up.
Well, as long as we have the biggest virtual booth, that's the only thing that really matters.
Certainly agree with that Sj.
Widespread wearing of masks, getting testing availability up and running fast, and very active contact tracing were the planks that S Korea put in place.
That's why I was careful to say that it was only beginning to look like their stance was justified.
The Swedes themselves acknowledge that their current policy might need changing.
When you see forecasts of GDP in many countries dropping by 25%, caused by the rapid drop in economic activity most obvious in countries with severe lockdown policies, and what that implies in terms of long term costs if accurate, that has to be added into the equation.
It does surprise me that in Sweden, bars, cafes, restaurants, and most schools are still open. And they may well have to amend that side of things.
But that doesn't necessarily mean a lurch to a full lockdown.
Are they also without a mandatory 'stay indoors'?
I'm not drawing firm conclusions just yet, though S Korea has definitely contained the situation. Their deaths were in single figures every day in the last week.
The whole of Europe and maybe wider, are watching Sweden. In a week or two, we'll know better whether their stance was justified, but it is beginning to look that way.
Yep, he's another possible, if he beat security.
It's one reason why I rarely wear a suit.
Countries without lockdown.
Sweden. 12 reported deaths in last 24 hrs.
S. Korea. 3 reported deaths in same period.
It has been reported that a person with grey hair and a suit attended the NWBO Mystery Theater. You are free to believe this was Roger. I believe he was Santa Claus in his summer digs.
The magic number is 23.
All of these reports refer to 23 patients.
One of which was Brad, no doubt.
Yes there was an earlier Prins paper in 2006, I think, that researched just one of the two adjuvants that they later investigated, so that is not part of my confusion.
But these 23 patients were studied as a P1, then as a P2, it would appear.
The question for me is whether the research into the use of either adjuvant, (and all the subsequent abstracts right up until this new one), is based on the same 23 patients, as was the research finding about extended survival of mesenchymal patients.
I've posed this question before to myself (and the Board), but without any conclusive answer.
That research conclusion is in this report:-
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3071163/
It includes the oft-quoted Table 1, which includes the case by case breakdown, including which gene expression, which adjuvant if any, ndGBM or rGBM, and OS of each of the 23 patients.
The abstracts referring to survival extension by use of adjuvants never give the dates when patients were recruited, which is the main reason I think all the reports are about the same 23 patients.
You might remember Pyrr flagging up that they didn't use either adjuvant in the P3, and asserting that results would suffer as a result...
The debate was had on the Board about 4 or 5 years ago as to why they didn't use an adjuvant in the P3 and how that might affect trial outcome. Though obviously no board consensus was reached.
I guess (with hindsight) that if they had included use of an adjuvant in the P3, then they would actually have been de facto trialling a combo, so any resulting approval would have had to be for the same combo...
And you really have to go monotherapy first.
One could argue that there are still grounds to suggest that L could possibly be further potentiated by use of an adjuvant based on those preliminary findings, but that hypothesis can only be addressed after the P3.
And 23 patients is a very small sample from which to try and draw multiple conclusions.