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.
Anyone know the elevation at Sawston? If we are on high ground, we should be safe from flooding.
I have seen many references to Inmune on this BB, and I know it is another of LP's babies, but I never really investigated it or did any DD on it. It sounds like some of you think it may be a worthwhile investment. Can I ask for an Inmune 101 quick revue of the basics on what they do to start me off on my DD. Thanks
I will watch for that when I continue listening to the video - thanks.
Of course I am "with us." Where else would I be be. I am a long of "long standing." I have a significant holding in NWBO, both shares and warrants.
I have started listening to the video you suggested, but have not yet completed all of due to the pressures of time, and I agree with the points you make, however, from what I have seen so far I had one major disappointment. They point out how dire the situations is in the GBM research area and lack of any really helpful treatment and bemoan the situation in GBM.
But not once do they point to something potentially new on the horizon about to be revealed that may greatly change the lack of success to date. It is as thought they never heard of the PIII about to reveal itself, or do not believe it can succeed. I would have thought that this potential on the horizon in GBM would be the first thing they would point out - even if not quite certain yet - and at least hope for the potential in the very near and approaching future.
Yup, those were the days. To entice you to buy, thye would cut open a grapefruit while you stood there and offered a taste. Of course, they were really tasty and really sweet. They were very effective sales people - but they had a great product.
I used to live in Dallas many moons ago. I still remember those ruby Red - so delicious. They used to come around in pick-ups and sell them to you on the street in front of your house - fresh from the farmer!
Just filled at $1.22
With any luck, they will have a few bomblets on the way to the BOMB!
I was under the impression that there is very little institutional holdings in NWBO.
I would hate to think there is no catalyst between now and say mid September/October. that would mean more downward pressure on the price until then. LP seems not to care about the share price UNLESS it affects her or NWBO for financings. So assuming they have no need to raise funds before say Nov for the start of the M$ monthly repayments they can let the stock price drift continue downward for the near term. I hope that the PR on the completion of Sawston work, can buoy share price some, when that happens. Personally I hope the TLD will happen sooner, rather than later, perhaps Aug/Sept Well we will see what happens over the next eight - ten weeks. Sojo, any predictions on how this thing goes barring any surprise PRs? I do not really take your predictions as gospel (neither do you) but they are fun to watch, and there are no other tea leaves to read at the moment.
Well, I guess, we will all have to sit back and wait to see just how NWBO will choose to write up the BLA in terms of what they try to get approval for and whether they use the new or old definitions of GBM, and how eventually the FDA chooses to respond should they approve, and what terminology they will use on their labels.
OK, how you read or misread what I posted should not be the issue here. All I meant to say was that the redefining by the WHO of GBM, should be neither here nor there in regards to the success or failure of the PIII trial. It should stand or fall on what it intended to show and what was actually found about those in the trial. Any latter day relabeling should have no effect on the outcome of the trial either way. It would be like doing some gravity testing on Pluto before it was reclassified not to be a planet. The relabel should not affect the trial. So if someone was admitted to the trial under its stated terms, the fact that he was now relabeled to some other disease, other than GBM, should bot change anything. This has nothing to do with NWBO trying to do anything. The only thing that happened, was that in some distant land, a new label definition was being applied to some who happened to be in the NWBO trial. This should leave the trial totally unchanged and should succeed or fail on its own terms.
Even as you quote (some of) my words, you put your own spin on them and do not understand what I said.
I did no such thing!
Just because you say you "didn't doesn't mean you didn't.
I hear you
Boy, where do I begin? When you are on the defensive you use a lot of words and build false ideas out of whole cloth! You have put many words into my mouth that I have never written nor intended as straw men, and then proceed to try to knock them down. I will highlight some of those areas below:
Ultimately, NWBO set up a trial by defining those excluded and included to the trial, and to see whether the treatment (DCVAX) would improve (OS i.e., the 6 revised endpoints) now that after all has been said and done WHO comes along and reclassifies part of those included in the trial as non GBM should really have no bearing on the trial results. Think for a moment if the opposite were true and the "removal" from the trial caused the trial to FAIL, would you still be saying the same thing - that's how the cookie crumbles? Ie., if those redefined out of the trial were the cases that the treatment helped and could no longer count as a success leaving the narrowed trial to fail, after 15 years of effort, expense and trials just because the WHO came along in the last days and redefined GBM? No way, you would likely be arguing, WHO be damned, and our trial succeeded on those we intended to treat and should be approved by the FDA for all those included in the trial whether or not WHO changed the labels for those still very serious conditions that we now claim to have a treatment for. Well this is just the reverse of that, but the same logic still applies.
Ultimately, I still believe that the trial succeeded even without the new WHO definition of GBM, and has no need for this new crutch on which to posit success. Go NWBO.
I hope you are right, I was playing devil's advocate.
I hope you are right.
Repost of my earlier post:
Playing devil's advocate, they would argue that the reclassification by WHO, just gave NWBO another possible ad hoc set of calculations to see if they would work.
In other words, the fact that this new classification had the blessing of WHO, and is mot merely the result of NWBO data mining, does not make the new calculation ant less ad hoc.
I am a long on NWBO, and as much as I would like to see the PIII trial succeed, I am not at all clear how the reclassification would change anything for the trial. By this I mean, If the trial originally include group A and group B as the intended treatment group, and if say the trial failed (or was not dispositive in result), when considering both groups as originally intended, then I seriously question that by incorporating a new generally accepted DEFINITION of GBM that now excludes group A from the definition (but not the trial) and that now the trial succeeds when ONLY considering group B and EXCLUDING the originally intended group A, that this would now constitute a successful trial that warrants FDA approval.
Frankly I can see both sides of the argument, and do not see this as a slam dunk for the trial based on this reclassification. I hope I am wrong, but I see this as debatable and can see the FDA going either way.
Hi Sojo, I nearly had a heart attack when I saw you wrote:
Well, we just had the Virgin Galactic launch, now I am waiting for the NWBO launch!
Hi Gorilla, thank you for sharing your call to DI with us. I think it would help many of us if you could take the time to clarify or highlight which parts of your email represent actual comments from DI, and which parts of your email are your own elaboration on what he said, or what you thought were implications of what he said even if he did not actually explicitly say that.
Do you have any idea whether any of your group overlap with Marzan's group, who if memory serves well, posted that they have about 40 M shares. (was that 40 M or 20 M?)
How do you know that is ONLY warrants?
The following is an email I sent to Sean Hannity this morning, after I saw his show last night on Fox on the breakthrough in face and hand transplant and the interest that Sean espouses to have in all things medical. Btw, the show was great, you should try to see it if you can.
I only see X1
Yes,I agree. That is a real possibility, but still just conjecture.
PM, while that is a possibility, I hope you are wrong, as I would prefer to think that most of the warrant holders are friendly longs and would prefer to think that most would hold the shares for much better prices down the road rather than selling them right away, although I admit that is certainly a possibility. I would like to think some other reason is at the root for the large jump in the share count the other day. Several are possible, but I have no real information on this matter.