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.
Abc, thank you for this data. I won’t have time to dig in on it for a few days, but I am interested in looking at the exercise timing more closely to get a better picture of market response to news and events.
Imagine if the news falls in succession with several big pieces. What will that do to buy interest and who is selling?
Imagine one of those news pieces is a partnership deal. What if it is midstream and the news just keeps popping after that?
Imagine the pseudoprogression side study is positive by original design too, it has been a long time to see some change in placebo. What if they are all positive, even the original pIII endpoints? But you get to market the newer bigger numbers?
Imagine multiple licensing deals for exploration of new solid resectable tumors. What if they are all approved conditionally after small proof of concept studies?
Milestones alone on the first few could drive all operations leading to full independence or a bidding war between partners in a takeover. Self-preservation in biotech used to require multiple deals with poison pills to protect from hostile takeovers. What is all that worth?
I don’t know how many shares are short but it doesn’t bother me to try to understand the science behind the practice or the estimates. It doesn’t have to be all that large to cause a squeeze anyway if longs are not selling for a short term profit. There are only teens X1000 shareholders of this stock. Warrant holders or former warrant holders are highly likely to be holding tight by my look because the number of shareholders hasn’t been climbing. Retailers seem to be mostly out of gas and ready for the big showdown. There is like $600M in profit in warrants and grants with no rush to sell.
The last estimate I saw was from a LG filing a few months back at 15k. This is a small number of people considering the number that those of us on this board know personally.
There are some here doing the Sojo thing or what not with a piece of their shares, but that can’t be too large a volume and if they are following the TA signs, it seems to bode poorly for the shorts operations of late if I am keeping score.
The question is, when the stock starts climbing at what point do people start releasing some real shares to the market. That will tell you the size of the squeeze. I know anything that I have said was emotionally driven and I assume the same with others. That means no one really knows. A lot depends on the rest of people’s portfolio at the time and whether they feel as comfortable as Most investors do right now.
Sorry for the confusion…the click track connected the allogenic CAR-T news to the Biomarin vector news but they are unrelated, as you know.
You have to look ar vector gene therapies/companies separately from the gene editing companies. There are several of players in the allogenic CAR-T (thanks to jondoeuk for the education) race and collectively they are adding up to quite a bit of patient experience. They are gene editers and are doing in vivo and ex vivo transfer for conditions like sickle cell and for Allogenic CART, as well as advanced Turbo or Stealth cells which are further edited to reduce NK response.
Vector gene therapy carries quite a bit of added potential risk in my mind. My understanding is that vector gene therapy implants code that just keeps on churning. This can lead to bad effects in terms of potential malignancy or pathological pathways. Some deficiencies when over-expressed create unknown “toxicities”, or even known diseases.
Editing is intended to restore natural expression to normalize output.
I smell something in the air, and it can’t be CherryTree blossoms for it is not spring. I know that smell…it is a short squeeze. I smelled it before, that’s right…short squeeze.
Walk it down all you want. No one I know is selling a single share. The buying has been very light but no one is selling.
Oral administration of anti-CD3 monoclonal antibody as a potent immunomodulatory agent: preclinical and clinical studies
Whereas intravenous administration of anti-CD3 acts via transient depletion of the activated effector T cells, oral anti-CD3 mAbs act by the induction of Tregs, thus causing the immunomodulation of the CD3/TCR complex and decreasing common unwanted adverse effects associated with parenteral administration, such as CRS 61. Oral anti-CD3 mAb, unlike its intravenous counterparts, affects the gut immune system and mesenteric lymph nodes (MLNs), thus promoting Treg activity without inducing generalized immunosuppression 62. This mode of therapy uses the gut immune system and underlying lamina propria for the generation of immune signals, thereby inducing a favourable systemic immune response 23, 24.
The induction of regulatory cells has been described following oral administration of anti-CD3 mAb in mice and in humanized mice, following migration of the antibodies to the gut wall 63. The oral administration of anti-CD3 mAb in experimental autoimmune encephalitis, a model of multiple sclerosis, induces CD4+CD25– latency-associated peptide (LAP)+ T cells that exhibit regulatory properties 64, 65. Similarly, oral anti-CD3 mAb suppresses low-dose streptozotocin-induced and non-obese diabetic (NOD) diabetes models of T1D through the induction of IL-10-secreting CD4+CD25–LAP+ regulatory cells, thus decreasing T cell proliferation and IFN-? and IL-17 production and increasing TGF-ß production 66-68. Oral anti-CD3 is beneficial in animal models of colitis 69 and atherosclerosis 70.
Orally and intranasally administered anti-CD3 have been found to suppress autoantibody production in a mouse lupus model 71, 72. An increased release of IL-10 in the serum has been demonstrated and suggested to account for the protective effects of systemically administered anti-CD3 mAbs 59, 73.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cei.13159
Still need to dig in on this molecule…
Clinical trials with intravenous anti-CD3 mAb
Two Phase I safety trials in renal allograft recipients with acute rejection episodes demonstrated that otelixizumab [93] and teplizumab [94] do not elicit major side-effects. In the year 2000 the first clinical trials with humanized anti-CD3 mAb were launched to test the tolerogenic activity of anti-CD3 mAb in T1D. In an American Phase I/II trial, teplizumab treatment of patients with recent onset T1D improved insulin production and metabolic control [95,96]. Similarly, a European Phase II/III study giving up to a total of 64 mg of the anti-CD3 mAb otelixizumab over 6 consecutive days reported a long-lasting therapeutic effect in terms of ß-cell preservation, as measured by C-peptide levels [97,98]. The effect was most significant in patients that had good C-peptide levels at the beginning of the treatment [97,98]. Follow-up studies were designed to test whether a lower dose of teplizumab (two courses of 14 days treatments, each cumulating 5, 6 or 17 mg) [9] or otelixizumab (3.1 mg cumulated during 8 days) could preserve C-peptide secretion in new-onset T1D patients while decreasing the side effects that were observed in the previous studies. However, the low dose of otelixizumab was nonefficacious [99–101] and the choice of endpoints of the Protégé study testing teplizumab was highly controversial [9]. A post hoc analysis using conventional endpoints found a treatment benefit in patients with higher baseline levels of C-peptide [102]. Also the AbATE study reported that patients with new onset diabetes benefit from treatment with teplizumab for at least 2 years and identified immunologic features at baseline that were significantly different between responders and nonresponders [103]. Teplizumab is currently being tested in preventing onset of T1D in a population ‘at-risk’ (ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT01030861). A new study on otelixizumab is recruiting T1D patients to identify the concentration with maximal therapeutic effect and minimal side effects (NCT02000817, clinicaltrials.gov). While otelixizumab and teplizumab were foremost tested in patients with T1D, visilizumab and foralumab were mostly studied in IBD [92]. A first Phase I trial, assessing safety and efficacy of visilizumab in patients with severe corticosteroid-refractory ulcerative colitis gave promising results [104]. After reducing the original dose of 15 µg/kg/day for 2 days due to occurring side effects (prolonged lymphopenia) to 10 µg/kg/day the safety profile was considered acceptable. 84% of patients showed a clinical response, with 41% entering clinical remission and 44% endoscopic remission [104]. A follow-up randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that was intended to confirm the efficacy of visilizumab for the treatment of IBD (but used only half of the original dose, i.e., 5 µg/kg) was terminated prematurely because of safety and efficacy concerns [105]. Treatment with a cumulated dose of only 0.7 mg (for a patient weighing 70 kg), was not only associated with a cytokine release syndrome but also with an increased rate of infection as well as vascular and cardiac symptoms. This was surprising as administration of 48 mg otelixizumab to patients with T1D provoked less side-effects [97]. It was hypothesized that visilizumab's low tolerability as compared with other Fc modified anti-CD3 mAb might be due to a stronger activation of CD3/TCR signaling [92]. As a consequence the clinical development of visilizumab was halted. Foralumab, the only completely human anti-CD3 mAb, was assessed in a Phase I/II clinical trial in patients with moderate to severe active Crohn's Disease [106]. Intravenous administration of up to 1 mg for 5 days was considered safe with manageable side effects. Even though the power of this study was too limited to assess clinical efficacy, the dose of 1 mg seemed to ameliorate the endoscopic index score while no significant improvement of clinical symptoms as assessed by the Crohn's disease activity index was reported [106].
Clinical trials with oral anti-CD3 mAb
A Phase I study with healthy subjects showed that repeated oral administration of the anti-CD3 mAb OKT3 was safe and induced immunological effects [107]. When given orally, this FcR binding antibody did not trigger systemic proinflammatory cytokines, immunogenicity, depletion of T cells or modulation of the CD3/TCR complex. Oral OKT3 enhanced T-cell proliferation, suppressed Th1 and Th17 responses and led to increased TGF-ß/IL-10 expression and decreased IL-23/IL-6 expression by dendritic cells [107]. A treatment regime of five-times 1 mg was considered superior to 0.2 or 5 mg [107]. Two single blind randomized placebo controlled Phase IIa studies in patients with treatment resistant chronic hepatitis C infection (HCV) [108] or nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) and altered glucose metabolism that included subjects with Type 2 diabetes [109], demonstrated that oral CD3 was safe and well tolerated, as measured by blood hematology, chemistry, immunological safety markers and physical signs [108,109]. Both studies reported positive effects on disease and immunological markers including an increase of Tregs [108,109].
Thus, mucosal anti-CD3 mAb therapy is an attractive approach for the treatment of inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. Further studies are now required to investigate the therapeutic effect of oral anti-CD3 mAb and to test nasal administration.
https://www.futuremedicine.com/doi/full/10.2217/imt-2016-0049?rfr_dat=cr_pub++0pubmed&url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori%3Arid%3Acrossref.org
This is quite the interesting opportunity…
Tiziana’s Foralumab is the world’s first and only, fully human anti-CD3 antibody and can be delivered orally, making it a potential game changer in the treatment of Crohn’s Disease and other autoimmune diseases through higher efficacy and reduced toxicity. The United States Patent and Trademark Office has granted a patent covering its proprietary formulation for oral administration. Additionally, Tiziana is employing another revolutionary approach to treat patients with neurodegenerative diseases such as progressive MS (pro-MS) by delivering Foralumab via nasal administration. Foralumab modulates the immune response, reducing inflammation locally and systemically, through interaction with the gastrointestinal and nasal mucosal immune system. Tiziana anticipates the initiation of a Phase 2 trial with nasally administered Foralumab in progressive multiple sclerosis (pro-MS) in Q2 2021. Phase 2 trial with orally administered Foralumab for Crohn’s indication is anticipated to be initiated soon
http://www.tizianalifesciences.com/drug-pipeline/foralumab/
So the books on ESMO are closed? While that is a little disappointing, I never really could get myself to believe ESMO was our stage. SNO has always been on their radar and it makes the most sense once ASCO was off the table. November will be here in the blink of an eye and a publication could really come any day now. That pathway remains on track until after SNO from my perspective.
The question I would like answered is where are we from a regulatory perspective? My expectation is that the ball has been moving forward on a parallel path. I don’t recall them ever foreshadowing any of the regulatory steps they have completed ahead of time,. I expect that progress is being made, but we are really kept in the dark there.
FOLD recently informed shareholders of a completed rolling application. I’m not certain that we would have known had they not reported it. I couldn’t find any FDA posting on it.
PQR, Merger, not acquisition. I would like to see a stock swap myself. I would basically keep all of my money in and let it roll on that combined company. Not sure CRL owners would agree to the valuation NWBO would deserve in the combined future or if they would want so large a voting block from the new blood, but I do think it benefits both.
I am a very long, long with more faith in management than most here. Having said that, I have way more confidence in Charles Rivers Biotherapeutics realizing our true value than I do a solo NWBO. I also think it gets us farther faster. And, I think a BP buyout gets us no where near our true potential value for this company. I would happily live with the cash but be disappointed nonetheless.
Any which way, my future is so bright that I gotta wear shades.
I believe that we will either see a merger come shortly after the announcements fly or a buy-out about a year from now then. They will need an enormous amount of cash to build up the systems and services required to support the US and EU businesses. Maybe, they could pull off UK alone, but it is the least profitable major market so that doesn’t help you too much.
I personally believe CRL has inside advantages in negotiations and would be foolish to pass up the opportunity to dominate cancer drug development. For them, actually, NWBO could be the first of many cellular/gene companies they later acquire because they have the development and manufacturing skeleton to go pretty broadly in advanced biotech. It just seems to me that LP knew what she was doing with everything Cognate related and it all fits the plan.
Appreciate the complement Cheesey
Isn’t LP both CEO and CFO simultaneously? I am pretty certain that is one of the key beefs of those Good Samaritans who warn us all of the corrupt management team.
Well then, doesn’t she bare sole responsibility for both the decision to release results and the decision to allow warrant holders to purchase and create new equity shares in the company?
If as you allege, NWBO is a shell game and thus the above scenario is taking place where LP is withholding information in order to sell shares in which she directly benefits financially, wouldn’t this expose her to both criminal and civil liability?
Does taking risk in that scenario make sense at all given her financial status currently, and after the sale of Cognate?
Do you connect dots or just spout conspiracies?
So Maverick, using this background does that mean we can expect NWBO to be acquired in early 2022 or after fall 2022. When did/does that clock start ticking?
I agree that going it alone is not a realistic option at this point unless you are willing to severely dilute. To me, it makes sense to lay some groundwork, but before going public with data, I don’t see much benefit to a buyout negotiation. It limits your serious bidders.
On the other hand, a merger could be in play at any time so long as your partner fairly values your asset before taking into account acceleration and synergy. A merger of equals that values NWBO at $12-18B is palatable or better because it isn’t materially different than dilution but accelerates everything. If CRL allows us to be acquired by BP instead, they can kiss manufacturing potential bye bye and expect to be limited to the absolute minimum the contract requires and then lost completely. That is if BP chooses not to tie you up in litigation for a few years first. Did Ocrevus litigation help or hurt Genentech/Roche?
FOMO can be a powerful motivator.
Not surprisingly LC2020, this is a nonsensical reply.
If what you say is true and I had GBM, I'd sue them for holding back vital information to my survival. I'd claim failure to inform to preserve my tumor, and failure to inform the medical community of efficacy on a timely basis.
I do not understand why anyone believes they are time bound to release data by either the October 5th or even the earlier dates theorized by some here. If there were any real pressure to meet those dates, COVID is surely an acceptable cause for the delay.
Nothing seems more clear to me than the idea that they are timing TLD press release with some form of peer-reviewed scientific release. They need both the credibility backing as well as the thorough review of the data. Per LLs May presentations, the primary endpoint will be analyzed by three different statistical methods and the first secondary uses one that is complicated to describe. If someone can please provide a written sample of a template they can follow that will provide the appropriate coverage of TLD and be easily understood by the investment public, I am all eyes. They need the details and they need the endorsement, plain and simple.
LP has all but said as much on multiple occasions now. Everyone chill. The target or targets have already been engaged. We don’t know which target and when but they are already locked in. We are just waiting for the impact.
Right hyperopia, in the world of conspiracy theories…
We would need to believe that UCLA, LL, and NWBO are conspiring to spend lots of money to treat patients with combination agents that they know do not work already and assume the liability should something go wrong, but will test it anyway just so that a billionaire can fleece retail investors of a $500k income.
Now that makes a whole lot of sense. Maybe we can get OAN to cover this investigative news brought to you by exwanna & LC2020. We can believe them over these scientists because they spend countless hours here warning us all with no self interest. What more proof do we need
Now let me show you this $40 pillow that is awesome. I also have a $60 version that is a little bit bigger, but boy oh boy what a steal it is. Literally a steal
Not suggesting she isn’t. Suggesting the sub-PI has nothing to lose however by walking away. Nothing
My guess given the environment I am seeing….
Conferences have found their sweet spot, and its called Hybrid. You do not get a reduced registration in most cases for virtual attendance. Live cannot be understated. The highest revenue for congress has now been clearly seen with Hybrid model. It is here to stay.
Boston remains on lockdown from a medical perspective. Locals do not have institution permission to attend live. They never opened but were about to before Delta. Punting a month gives you substantially greater odds for Hybrid if you are watching COVID right now.
Unfortunately, I am fully invested and can’t free up much cash before September 9th. I have a sizable block of stock, but nowhere near where I want to be. I was hoping for some other things to pop first. I may really regret not selling all my modest biotech to buy this rocket. Diversification can be your enemy in biotech investing and I already see that I will likely regret it soon.
I don’t do options. I don’t like the time bound risk in early biotech companies. It adds an element of risk that to me is unnecessary when you are already in speculative ventures.
One additional point, if you were PI or EU PI, after you submitted the publication and were disappointed by results, would you….
Go on a road show and present the data model with excitement?
Talk about how to combine strategies with your drug to make it even better?
Strategies with SAB colleagues from other oncology fields on what to do next?
Continue to refer to the therapy in futuristic statements for months on end?
Refer to the study as one of your greatest accomplishments in life?
Or would you deliver bad news and move on with your career? Especially, if you are also well respected in so many other fields that you can brush it off, like say you are a giant in the device research as well?
Things that make you go, hmmmmm
What is a clinical publication? Well, this can be approached from many angles but let me give you a rather simplistic view.
First is the title and authors - easy, check
Next comes the introduction to GBM - Linda could sketch the outline in quite literally minutes and a med writer could finesse and reference in hours, check.
Next the Methods - lifted from study design and SAP, check.
Then Results - tables run for you by computers and verbiage written to give additional color - hmmm, that don’t take too long, check
Finally the Discussion - analysis brought to you by Linda Liau and Keymours Ashkan with support from Marnix Bosch, Trial steering committee, and SAB.
And, Of course, you need to add a couple words to your prior conclusion that
DCVAX-L is safe and feasible to add the standard of care for GBM.
Now where do we stick that word effective?
Then licked, stamped and submitted. Done, nothing to do until you get back a rejection or comments. Then, you choose to address questions or go somewhere else. Make no mistake, however, a journal or congress that rejects the publication, rejects Linda Liau, Keymours Askan, and colleagues. It is their word that this is good, reputable science.
You see where this is headed, right?
Mav, every time I see these numbers, I think that is an awful lot of money sitting in profit on the sidelines. I know a lot is “locked up” but a lot of that has been voluntary. I get it that selling may lower price. Those are still some pretty rock solid cojones held tightly. Some day I may tally up volumes of trade within periods of time and reflect on those numbers too.
I just don’t think the shorts have any fire power left. It has been pretty light and quiet all summer, then a slight uptick in volume and we are right back to the range.
Captain O, Are you able to run these number or have them from roughly September 10, 2020 to October 6 and then to October 22, 2020?
I have the 10q number which helps, but I’d really like to look more closely at those chunks in time.
Hi Patrick,, welcome aboard! Jondoeuk has provided some good intelligence and I have been trying to keep this site current. It had been a few months since Precision has had any real news. I forgot to post the latest gene news that was provided and will do so soon.
I am getting crazy excited for this stock. Their CAR-T program has unappreciated value and will be one of the players in the first and second generation allogenic products. It remains to be seen what the marketplace will shake out to look like but based on BP interest and investment in the autologous market right now, I think there is clear value here for those platforms.
To me the real juice to squeeze here is gene editing. They have clearcut advantages over CRIPR based programs. The race to deliver gene editing technology depends on how you define the game, but as far as I see it, the first in opportunities are plentiful and the companies seem to be giving each other some space right now. A better technology can be second or third to market however and still win the game. I really like where Precision is positioned.
$650M market cap? Are you kidding me? It doesn’t take too much research to see the other players are either dramatically overvalued or DTIL is significantly undervalued right now. I am pretty certain that the announcement of first human dosed with ARCUS editing will cause a spike. DMD could be very lucrative and all theirs.
In a publicly broadcast enduring documented session outside scientific safe harbor, during the time of or immediately prior to a submission for review for full US approval, for the PI to indicate that her agent would soon be available commercially is called misbranding. This is often referred to in laymens terms as premarket promotion because inherent to that statement is both a safety and efficacy claim on a product not approved for that indication. She did not have safe harbor and is an agent of the company
I have seen that dance many times before. It is counterprogramming for a thought leading physician not to tell you the data, the facts, but right now she cannot. Obviously, anyone watching can she that she has not had as much training or experience giving reassurance without saying what you want me to say, but I cannot. She fumbled with words which is uncharacteristic for her, but very characteristic For this situation. Industry staff are much better at this because that is what experience and intense training creates.
Rest easy longs…that dance was for FDA
Thanks for correcting history Biosect. 100% concur with your accounting of the facts.
Many people these days believe you can repeat false alternative narratives enough times and it will become truth.
My apologues Senti, thank you….for sharing your DD
I am just catching up now
Lykirir, I don’t know how you come up with such great DD, but you do…And I thank you.
1. She has clearly been coached on what she can and cannot say. This has implications…
2. She was searching for words…I think because it is actually hard to encourage a behavior with your hands tied around rationale…aka…she so badly want to answer the question which was why freeze tissue, is it for a future treatment? Yes
Iron Mike, our patience is certainly being put to the test which for some leads to increased speculation. We have not received an update on any progress whatsoever for over 3 months now. The question is whether this is reasonable or not. I still think we have a month before reason should be questioned.
The very fact that you are here means you are capable of speculation. I wouldn’t react to the spitballing of others. Do you believe that you understand why and where we stand now, and for how long does this understanding reasonably project into the future for you?
For me, I have until ESMO before I question the timeline of events. After that, I may need to explore my logic and options. 11 months is quite reasonable if not a little short when it comes to publication. Regulatory submission is a whole different discussion. Those eggs should be cooked soon or one should begin to ask very pointed questions of management and what accountability they have to shareholders. Eggs do spoil.
The FDA recently approved two separate registrational trials for two separate drugs in GBM that use synthetic external controls (blended with small randomized placebo). What would make anyone believe that FDA approved of those comparative datasets but would not accept Dr. Linda Liau’s external dataset built of placebos collected from contemporaneous rigorous regulatory trials?
Hello, FDAs footprint is all over this study since August 2015 which really means June-July 2015. The guidance was initially given under Gotleib’s watch. IMO FDA has already provided positive guidance on their SAP. They cannot share this with us easily as this guidance is non-binding and likely verbal.
Thanks for this reference, PGSD
Thank you for this, Iwasadiver!
This post made my day.
You forget the clinical regulatory aspect of knowing and revealing data. They simply could not share any more than they have before some time after November 2020. Since then they have provided me sufficient update to get me through happily today. The future is neither mine or yours to know, but they have not been silent since NOV 2020 and I am pleased with the details which they have released to me and the pace at which I would expect them.
It is starting to get close…
It has been very well established through multiple credible and governmental sources that no interim efficacy analysis was performed (thus reserving alpha), nor ‘efficacy peak’ at least up to the court information from 2017.
We both know that when regulatorS put the August 2015 halt in place what they did was halt new screening, not new enrolling. We also know that placebo in the final 31-32 people was removed.. this likely had been discussed with FDA as evidenced by the 2017 JTM article demonstrating an imbalance. This publication would have to be cleared with FDA or suffer severe potentialities which no attorney would do. This is evidence of another time point of communication with FDA BTW IMHO. As the study was allowed to continue in 2015, we know with certainty that the halt WAS NO DUE to DRUG SAFETY. Later publication confirmed an extremely low AE rate. As nee patients were added to treatment in 2015, this proves that no manufacturing problems had occurred. After March 2017 we can follow a blinded grouped cohort through time on he Kaplan Meyer Curve later posted in 2018. Key word in that sentence is BLINDED. The only reasonable question as to whether they remain truly blinded comes in NOV 2018 when we see likely OCT 2018 results as it allows one to follow that 32 patient cohort, however, those individuals remain completely deidentified to the company, themselves and their physicians. They are blind technically and effectively. In November 2018 they publicly state that they are beginning the process towards locking the database. This means that when they began work on the SAP they were blind and negotiation with FDA and other regulators as to the future course of data analysis in a mandated alteration to the original study design that clearly has a negative impact on treatment benefit determination.
Now the question that some may have, but I do not, is whether no more placebo means no more new randomized placebo patients or whether no more means no more… it means no more. This means between August and probably November all existing placebo patients were transitioning to treatment. It is unethical to use placebo per The DSM.
Comparing data from 2017 to 2018 may allow me to speculate with a high degree of certainty the results of those treated with DCVAX-L before progression, but I do not have a good comparison group because it is at least 2/3 mixed with treated patients of which more than 70% likely received DCVAX before progression. DSM already determined an impact on mortality back before AUG 2015 when regulators forced the removal of placebo thus implicitly establishing efficacy and not only obliged to accept SAP changes to efficacy analysis but also learly demonstrating support for the products efficacy. I contend FDA has been working with us all along, not against us as some dribbling typetwisters may suggest.
Senti, I am so slammed and exhausted these days that my NWBO brain is quite foggy, but didn’t someone here show that the courts of law also have confirmed that they remained blinded?
Nice post
I will feel a little bit jolly at $4 and a little pepper will go a long way. I take a little taste and then let it simmer.
Gus, thanks for the education
Fair enough, I did not read the article, only the comments on it. I assumed it was recent and as we all know the saying about assumptions…it seems this applies to me here. It does not matter the country of origin of the author as medicine is a global network, but 2018 publication date speaks volumes…
Thank you for the clarification. This is not a leak IMO either.
Biosect, I am usually aligned with your viewpoint, but as far as I can tell, you really have no basis to make this statement.
This very well could be an academic leak. From the available data, one can reasonably accurately predict the 5 year combined data point and it is south of 27% by a wide margin (21% +/- 2%). Can you point to another dataset released by NWBO that would allow this statement to be made?
This is the danger of the path management has chosen to take. The more people that see the data and the longer this drags out, the more likely leaks will occur, and they do happen. If this is a leak, management has an obligation to release data imminently.