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.
That was before even my time.
Of course LP has a plan, and the "shorts" do know it.
What "longs" fail to grasp is that her plan is not what aligns with your hopes.
The only news that will really matter is:
. Approval
. Partnership (and that does not mean a combo trial).
Have fun watching the market reaction to non-news like MHRA acceptance, NWBO hype of combo trials and Advent.
I like Flippers date for Aug 24, 2024.
LMAO.
Yes, I stand by my claim they were 100% certain to miss the 11/28/2022 deadline that newman posted by over a year. And they did miss that, and by over a year.,
I went on assert they were 95% to miss this years Nov deadline, which they also missed.
Try harder,
Never made such a bet.
Why do you support Hoffman;s lies? Afraid to debate on actual reality?
My bad.
I think acceptance is reasonably expected next week but maybe one week after that due to holidays.
So realizing you would have lost a bet on approval in 2023 (which is what I offered) you unilaterally change it submission.
And then use your tag line change as proof.
Seriously Hoffman, who is the target market for your lies? The tiny fraction of current NWBO longs? LOL
Might want to double check your facts there flipper.
On phone now, but the MHRA submission was in Dec 2022. It was accepted in Jan 2023. The FDA submission was later
Absolutely,.
Do to the multiparty conspiracy one cannot assume NWBO shares purchased through retail brokers are valid. Best to get physical paper certs.
The cost and overhead of this is not bad.
. Transfer your certs to a ComputerShare (CS) Direct Registration System (DRS) account, CS is the registraw for NWBO so the official list of who owns what.
. Pay CS to print the paper certs for you,.
When t is time to sell, you can check to see if any retail broker actually accepts these. If so the process involves getting your notarized signature on the paper and sending by registered mail to the broker.
Some have reported this is difficult for OTC stocks so you might want to convert back to a CS DRS account. CS does not buy/sell, so from there you have to find a broker who will accept a transfer from CS. If so, complete that transfer and be done.,
All this is critical as NWBO shares in a broker must be assumed to basically counterfeit.
-------
OK, the above is per dstock's post. IMO, the basis is complete nonsense. Shares of NWBO in any major retail broker account are solid. If not in a margin accoutn using amrgin they are not even being lent out.
One has to wonder why "longs" are presenting this crap thesis that NWBO shares at retail brokers are flawed.
Gee, thanks for letting me know that trial exists and uses Oncovir;s Poly-ICLC.
Now, can you please explain how that supports the absurd statements made by dstock?
Per dstock (and now you, dd and others):
Why?
The points are solid.
. NWBO has not mentioned the UCLA ATl-DC trials for years. Why not?
. The clinical trial registry does not list DCvax-L as a name it is known by even though copyrighted names are used in other cases of this nature
. The process for the ATL-DC used by UCLA (details below) is very different from that of DCVax-:L..
.... ATL-DC has every dose for a patient individually manufactured and used fresh. -L makes all in a single batch and freezes.
... Initial maturation time of ATL-DC is several days longer than DCvax-L
... Activation time is several hours longer. for ATL-DC than DCVax-L
.... Additional leukos may be performed as neeed to get more, fresh monocytes.,
. Several 3rd party reports have Prins saying it is NWBO's product.,
As opposed to this we have LL saying they are basically the same. What does "basically the same" mean either legally ownership wise or to the RAs.
Manufacturing differences per the Prins paper
Rethinking it a second time, it is very possible that when the abstract was published they fully expected to have numbers by the conference but did not. If so, they would likely wait for the next significant conference to publish.
That would be consistent with both the quoted text and lack of known results.
https://www.ctad-alzheimer.com/files/files/CTAD%20ABSTRACT%202023%20oct%2024_compressed.pdf
Search on lp019
Only presents baseline data, but then states:
It is common to have posters that just describe ongoing trials w/o presenting results.
I am not saying I am sure that is the case, but it sounds likely.
You connect all dots to DCVax-L. Oncovir lists 10 P1/2 trials on their main page, and none of those is DCVax-L or ATL-DC.
That I agree with.
And I do think anybody who did accept should abide.
It was in my initial reply to you:
Dec 8 reply to Hoff;s submission summary
No.
NWBO will need another trial.
And again, when hoff posted that summary 3 weeks ago I replied the same day calling it lying BS.,
Keep supporting hoffman though despite how much he lies.
You will certainly not find all of them. As I said repeatedly since Hoff started posting otherwise my bet with hoffman was on approval and the terms were double or nothing on the sig line.
He then quotes hs own post where he unlatterally change the bet.
Crash is just copying Hoffman's lie.
How did I lose the bet that I offered? That the MAA will be approved in 2023?
I guess it is possible it gets approved next week. But I doubt it.
So basically you, and the other 4 replies, can not actually say where I have been wrong. Just that I have been negative on a stick that has gone from $6 to $0.81 while I questioned it.
OK.
OK Druggie, please tell me where I have been wrong.
I asserted they had an efficacy IA in 2015 We now know that is fact.
I asserted that the IA pointed to the PFS primary endpoint as being being futile. We now know as a fact that the endpoint failed badly.
I assert that the OS 232 vs 99 failed badly. Anybody who can not see that is clueless.
I assert the FDA guidance on ECA reads poorly for the -L submission. I stand by that
I assert the FDA guidance on tissue agnostic does not apply to -L. I stand by that
I asserted that they would not be approved based on this trial. I stand by that.
I never asserted they could not reach data lock, could not submit a MAA.
Come on druggie, argue facts, not BS.,
Ar you going to be like Steve (hoffman) and call me out on a few spelling errors and one quickly correctly post? Come on druggie, prove it.
Never said that. Just hoffman lies asserting it and using his own quotes to support it.
You an actually find posts where I said they are likely to flle "soon" if you look.