The fallback narrative for a Phase 3 failure is already being constructed? Interesting!

And a good try but if Phase 3 fails there will be nothing left of NWBO for shareholders whether they bothering selling who do not also own a piece of Cognate.

Failure or success will provide many shareholders a welcome sense of closure.

Attempts to drag out the misery in the event of a Phase 3 failure are just downright cruel.

Agreed, anyone new interested in a 90% loss should seek great insights from Smith on Stocks of the kind he has been providing for the last several years.

And so the ASCO Pumping Begins...

Yep, if NWBO were 1 penny the argument would be that if NWBO dares to keep the shareholders informed, the shadowy shorts would 'destroy' the stock by taking it down to half-a-penny.

I guess my standards for 'destroyed' are too low but when you can't even buy a discounted 12 ounce can of soda with a single share of NWBO I'd say we can quit being scared of what the shorts will do if legal topics like Direct are discussed with shareholders who, are believe or not the owners of the company to whom management must be accountable.

I agree with both of you about NWBO's Investor Relations.

2022 is a long way off, and the year for NWBO to prove itself is 2017.

If buying toxic land is frugal, well, then yes.

And that brings up some questions:


What is the present state of progress on Sawston?

When will it come online?

What will be its capacity?

When we will we see start to see return on ROI?

How much equity does NWBO have in the property or are we underwater?

A bank would ask these basic questions of NWBO if approached for a loan so you think the very owners of the company have a right to know.

So yes, if you define throwing money into a black hole as frugal while not retaining a separate CFO (something I sued to oppose when I trusted management) then yes they are frugal - as in penny wise and pound foolish.

This is more than 2 years old:

I was talking about the option buyers being mostly hyper-long NWBO shareholders who thought they could time this stock and get a steal. The option sellers were obviously betting on a price decline. It would be interesting to see just who those sellers were!

Agreed, and I would add, it seems more like playing blitz chess against an invisible opponent whose pieces are mostly invisible and where you cannot see the moves they made but only the results when your pieces get removed from the board.

Sure, you can sometimes win by blind luck - but is it worth the risk?

Neil Woodford sounds like an ordinary investor who tried to remonstrate with NWBO management and found out, as ordinary shareholders have found out, that they could care less about his concerns or even about preserving shareholder value.

Basically he said, in a more professional and restrained way, a lot of what I have been saying and what I have been saying Mr. Woodford seemed to be thinking based upon his actions.

There is really no need to read into Mr. Woodford's any more than that.

We thought Mr. Woodford was on a different level and special information or an NDA or something like that but it seems he's really just a frustrated shareholder like an increasingly large number of us.

Holding back an announcement and destroying the personal wealth of those option holders - just so that she can grandstand and enjoy the limelight - well that would tell you a lot about Ms. Power's priorities.

Most of those options holders are hardcore longs who believed in NWBO so much that they not only predicted success but also tried to predict it within in a given time frame.

Being sick is no excuse for not looking after those people who stood by her. You don't forfeit a game you put in a backup.

So if we find out that she held back that announcement on the basis you said, well if had options (thank God I don't!) I'd be suing.

I really hope we all get that miracle because I would rather be wrong about my evolved view of NWBO and be made whole (and also see honest investors like you avoid losing more than 100k) rather than be right.

But if Monday comes without one, and that loss is locked in, then you'll know why I relentlessly try to balance the overly optimistic views which have lead many investors to pile risk upon risk.

I am only down tens of thousands of dollars but at least my loss is (for the time being) a paper one that is not yet 'locked in.'

If I feel this bad about a paper loss, I can only imagine how you feel now and more still, how you're probably going to feel Monday when all hope for those options is gone.

It is how I will feel should NWBO go bankrupt or (more likely) be absorbed by Cognate or another company at a bargain basement buyout price.

But dawn is in a few hours and maybe I'll wake up to a stunning PR.

We can dream!

I would too but Mr. Woodford discovered that Ms. Powers would rather burn down the company and everyone's investment with it than submit to the slightest degree of real accountability and transparency.

Still, Mr. Woodford has decided to let this play out Ms. Powers way and if she suceeds and his investors are made whole again (with some profit) then he will be satisfied.

But if it fails, I would not be surprised if he finds some legal way to bring NWBO management to account.

I'm sure the same thing will be said at 5 cents a share to those who doubled down in the 30 or 40 cent range.

The Washington Post rooted out Watergate and brought down a ruthless and powerful President Nixon and yet when challenged about their reporting on this story they surrendered and retracted it.

They actually disavowed a famous reporter to do it which means they knew they could not prove their allegations of a stock manipulation conspiracy.

No, I used to believe in NWBO against the world but sorry even fear of lawsuits cannot explain a total failure of communication and transparency.

Thanks for the info and I hope it all turns out okay for NWBO. It hear crow tastes like chicken and hopefully I can eat some. Right now my NWBO eggs won't hatch at all.

Well, I discount what I read here pretty heavily but I see your point and it is a good one.

I just can't see how it is more efficient for Mr. Goldman talk to one investor at a time than to share some facts with multiple investors. By habitually using this communication style and not going on record he is making it easy for people to incorrectly attribute remarks to him or misunderstand him and put that out there.

And if he is not giving inside info then I can just see whatever is available publicly with the only value added being the spin.

But did Les Goldman tell you Neil Woodford was still on board with NWBO as some others apparently claimed he did?

And if he did, why did Neil Woodford respond to that investor as he did?

Was Neil Woodford lying about Les Goldman or was Les Goldman lying about Neil Woodford?

Something does not add up.

Saying that NWBO has actual ties to cults or is an actual cult would be to go more than a bit too far.

I know that is not what you're saying but, I just wanted to make that clear because I see no evidence of that.

None.

Besides, I used to share many of the sentiments and feelings I now oppose so I cannot sit in judgment of others who still cling to them.

And hopefully, the science comes in and we get a lucky break.

In that case, crow will make a tasty meal.

After all, the science could still be good, as even Neil Woodford hopes.

No because I do not believe in getting inside information. It is unethical.

Anything important Mr. Goldman has to say should be share with all shareholders, on the record.

And if he is not giving me special information then I do not need his spin on publicly available information.

It would be one thing if I was the first to call him.

But I have seen plenty of people talk to him, come back feeling good and talking big, only for nothing to happen.

I am quite sure he could charm me too, make me doubt my suspicions, until, at least, more months pass with no news and I realize I've been duped.

So no, I do not need that experience.

To be clear, Neil Woodford is no hero and over on the other message board (may it RIP) I used to point out that Neil Woodford might be in it for Neil Woodford and that his interests did not necessarily align with those of NWBO shareholders.

But then, why would they? He has his own responsibilities to his own shareholders even leaving himself aside.

I just think that people trying to accuse him of double dealing have the burden of proof especially since NWBO management has promised an investigation and has delivered nothing new in terms of transparency or accountability and with shareholders down 90% it is reasonable not just to expect but to demand more accountability and transparency.

And I think that he has a lot more in common in his errors in judgment with ordinary shareholders than is commonly believed, because, despite what people like me who cheered his initial involvement thought, he puts on his pants one leg at a time like the rest of us and can make big mistakes.

Well it could be that Les Goldman was systematically lying and they are innocent of deceit.

For the record, I did say repeatedly that it was improper for Mr. Goldman to speak only to certain people in private and that on that basis he was either breaking the law by sharing material information in that way or was saying nothing of substance.

Either way, I did argue that because Mr. Goldman was not going on record we could not take what he said to mean much since he did not have to stand behind it.

NWBO shareholders share a lot in common with a millennial or apocalyptic cult. Read "When Prophecy Fails" by Leon Festinger and later writings by other social scientists and historians for a good explanation. All the hallmarks are here but I will name two:

1. Alternate date-setting - When one prophecy fails, set another 'doomsday date' and say that the calculations for the last one were off, the day of doom was staved off by the faith of the believers or better yet - never admit you set said date in the first place.

Sound familiar? 'Well that was just a projection.' and the like.

That's fine except each new date is invariably wrong as well.

2. Us vs them mentality. Only the in-group is good and everyone else in the world is at best deluded and at worst part of an evil conspiracy to destroy the in-group and the prophetic leader.

Anyone appealing to hard facts or evidence that call into question the belief system is labeled as a false believer and attacked. This forces many who express their doubts into silence and others into leaving. But the group cohesion is maintained, even to the point of mass suicide in some cases.

Mr. Goldman is not on record as having said anything of the sort and the statements attributed to him by anonymous individuals about Mr. Woodford's stance have just been proven false.

Turn a sow's ear into a silk purse if you want to, but especially given the typical British understatement, I think Neil Woodford was pretty clear.

Well he has not received a response on the investigation since late 2015.

Neil Woodford's language did not sound like that of someone assigning a more than 1 in 2 chance of success to NWBO in the Phase 3 trial.

He is talking in the language of someone hoping a bad mistake he made will somehow turn out all right in the end.

Thanks but just let Phase V handle it. I only research things for people as part of my day job.

You seem to have just invented a rule about fund behavior to justify your position and it probably has less support than the Feuerstein-Rutain Rule which I am sure you loathe even though there is probably a lot more objective evidence to support it in terms of measurable market caps and successful or successful trials.

By his remarks today, Mr. Woodford said that he has less confidence that there will be a positive trial outcome but that he can only "wait" and "hope" (like the rest of us shareholders) that it will turn out okay after all.

Unless he had a surefire place to invest his remaining 5% to 10% of what he invested that could earn back all he lost, the best option might be to ride this out until Phase 3 data is reported back.

Effectively the loss has already happened and with the end of Phase 3 so close, giving up even a small but real chance of recouping that loss would be stupid.

I was right about Neil Woodford's position on NWBO and how Ms. Powers systematically alienated him by refusing to be accountable and transparent and that for this reason, and not just Phase V, he stopped investing.

You might get one or two shareholders who will be big enough to admit that I interpreted Mr. Woodford's actions correctly while they did not.

But many shareholders will not and some will just move on to another tactic like vilifying Neil Woodford along with Mr. Feuerstein and incorporating him to a grand conspiracy theory that explains why, no matter what, nothing wrong with NWBO is the fault of company management.

Yes, he shredded a portion of his portfolio by investing in NWBO and he has forthrightly admitted his "error in judgment."

In translating to American English once you include compensate for typical British understatement the literal meaning of what he said more is "big foulup." Or almost literal since we're in a family setting. To get the full sense, replace foulup with a shorter word that starts with 'f'.

Mr. Woodford probably got a pep talk from Les Goldman of the kind that has pulled the wool over the eyes of many shareholders who feverishly report it online.

The investor gets off the phone feeling great and having their anxiety lessened until none of what he promises comes to pass. Actually the good feeling will wear off once the investor realizes that Mr. Goldman did not say anything concrete and nothing on the record.

Given that Neil Woodford has already admitted to making "error in judgment" by investing in NWBO in the first place, an error similar to the one many of us made, maybe he also made the mistake of trusting Les Goldman or Linda Powers and that was the genesis of his 'nothing untoward' remark.

Pretty ridiculous isn't it?

Neil Woodford accepts responsibility for ignoring the red flags of corporate governance issues, but he does not say that these issues are excusable or that investors should have to put up with them as long as they know ahead of time.

Instead he said:

No speculation needed, here are Mr. Woodford's words:

At a minimum, Mr. Feuerstein was concerned that NWBO was presenting an overly rosy picture of Hospital Exemption, one that was entice investors only to get revised or simply not discussed later.

Mr. Feuerstein was and though I do not know him except for brief interactions here, yes I suspect he thought NWBO was deceiving investors.

Based only upon evidence. NWBO made a serious lapse in judgement when analyzing Hospital Exemption or knew that they were overstating the case well that is hard to say.

We would need to know what they knew and when they knew it.

Since NWBO has refused to follow up on Hospital Exemption their lack of transparency forces any reasonable person to assume the latter. For our lack of evidence one way or another does rest with NWBO.

This bureaucracy is why Mr. Feuerstein was unfortunately right in equating Hospital Exemption to a glorified Compassionate Use. I was there for the big talk about badly needed early revenues and which shareholders want to develop amnesia about. I believed that stuff and will admit that I was wrong and Mr. Feuerstein was right at least about the practical impact of HE on NWBO's balance sheet.

All the current hot air about the Moonshot thus and Cures Act will almost certainly likewise amount to little or nothing.

I hope I'm wrong but the long history in medicine and other fieldsof big reforms being killed or put in slow motion by bureaucrats is too clear to ignore.

The Sickness Funds are NOT salivating in Germany and with NWBO desperate for non-toxic revenue for the past year we've had every incentive to do a deal.

No, as tempted as I was to buy into what you were saying I had to remember that the actual behavior of German insurers given early access to DCVax L has been to leave it on the table.

While things might be different here this bad precedent is hard to ignore.

Where did that get said? Mr. Wordford's earlier words were not matched by subsequent actions. He probably changed his mind and like Steve Giordino did not do so publicly and not in full. I am not sure his alienation from NWBO is as profound as Mr. Giordino's but then neither was his support.

Thanks to dilution, just to keep the "percentage he wants", as you put it, Mr. Woodford would HAVE to buy more shares. He didn't.

Since declaring that there was nothing untoward, how much bargain priced stock has Neil Woodford bought?

Zero.

Mr. Woodford's actions do not correspond to his remarks.