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.
Question for those of you who know how OTC market makers operate - Do MMs make more money if they get people to sell low and buy high? Seems like a great opportunity for them right now given the absence of info to manipulate prices downward especially if they know publication or some other positive news is coming out soon (via grapevine). They would know they will be able to capitalize on this price difference when the news actually comes out in a few days/weeks. Is that how it works? I think I have seen examples posted of companies that dropped precipitously right before big news, but am trying to understand the reason. TIA.
Anders - Got it - we agree. Regarding your question, if authors contact the publisher, it is possible sometimes to get information regarding what issue a specific publication will come out in. Some journals (not the top ones) publish online only versions on a rolling basis as soon as corrected galley proofs are received. Again, in this case, the company could get a pretty clear idea that the article would be coming out online soon (maybe not a specific date, but within a couple of weeks). Maybe that is the case here.
Anders - True, but why wouldn't they have filed the preliminary meeting notice with a date of "May *" instead of "April *" if that were the case? What's the rush?
The company is doing the final analysis so they will know everything, Whether or not they report specifics, who knows.
Me too!
My Solipsistic comment FWIW - I seem to frequently get big news when I am traveling. I am traveling April 10 - 29. You can draw your own conclusions on publication timing....
At least until the publication comes out
Interesting - Thanks Ex.
That is a good point. They would not have been able to change enrollment other than retroactively at the time the document was filed. Enrollment would have been completed 2 years ago.
Got it. That number seems way out of line with the number of sites in other places that they had originally targeted. Ukraine only represented 39 out of 410 specified study sites. Might be possible that they found it much easier to recruit patients in the Ukraine for some reason, but that number is so large that I wonder whether there might be an error in it.
Avi - Thanks for the interesting information. Sounds like Revimmune is a separate entity that just happens also to be owned in part by Linda Powers and Cognate. I agree that it makes some sense that Revimmune might be another company using Cognate (or Advent) facilities. I have never heard any hints of a combo trial using DCVAX with IL-7 as an immune booster, but maybe I just missed it. Maybe that is in the cards IF the P3 trials plays out well and they have more money. I agree that if the trial fails, Cognate will come out of it much better than NWBO will, and I guess that would just be smart business on their part.
No - I have not seen it. Just going by the official enrollment plans from clinicaltrials.gov.
Raf - Not sure if that number is right. What I put in my post was based on previous info I had compiled from actually counting (a while back) and calculating %'s for all the R-It sites from clincialtrials.gov. My note indicated that Russia was the single biggest "3rd world" site at less than 15%, so unless I badly miscounted (always possible), I don't think 1/3 are from Ukraine. My data file got lost when I changed computers and I do not have time to go back and recalculate.
AVI - I know a researcher who has been working with CYT107 (IL-7) for non-cancer immune issues via Revimmune funding. FWIW - He made the comment to me that he thought it would be a good idea to test it as a cancer therapy. He said he thought Revimmune was a subsidiary of NWBO, but I have no idea whether this is correct.
STS - Look at the clinicaltrials.gov site for the study. Of the total, 61.1% of the sites are in places where I would have high confidence (US [42% of 404 sites], Australia, Canada, Netherlands, and New Zealand). The others are all countries traditionally more "3rd world," with Russia having the largest percentage of sites (12.9%) of those remaining, and the remainder spread out fairly equally across countries. Having that % of sites in a specific location does not mean that the same % of patients will be from there. Depends on the enrollment patterns.
Yes - Very confident about it coming out, just not sure of timing. All the communications related to data and pub status indicate it is well into the process, rather than being outright rejected or never submitted. I don't like the waiting (like watching paint dry) but a long publication process is not unusual.
Kiwi - You did at least get your James Murphy indicator today....
Saudi Arabia would be big - they have a huge diabetes problem. Hopefully that is coming down the pike.
Agree that makes sense. I think he used the wrong word. Normally, "publication" would be the correct word once it is published.
Agreed - poor choice of words
They will not even have the data to analyze final results for another couple of months so the idea that there is any "leak of negative results" driving PPS before mid summer is ludicrous.
We are still way too far away from the readout for any rise in price related to this. Just wait until mid-June. Until then, this is all noise.
Who knows, but re: "reading the final draft," "draft" means before publication - after that, it is "reading the publication." Also look at verb tense - "I am excited abut reading" not "I will be excited to read." Either very poor choice of words or he has seen it.
Chris L's recent tweet is interesting:
I can say I am very very excited about reading the final draft of @NorthwestBio P3 trials blended data. I anticipate publication any day now.
See this site: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/about/faq/#q19
What does embargo mean and can I get the article anyway?
When an article is under an embargo it means that there is a delay, as specified by the publisher, between when the article is published and when its full version can be made freely available in PMC. The default embargo or release delay for each journal in PMC can be found under the “Free Access” column on the PMC Journal List and the exact release date for each article under embargo can be found on the table of contents for the issue in which the article appears or in the corresponding PubMed record. To obtain an article prior to its availability in PMC, you will need to get access through the journal publisher or their website directly.
Doc - My hope is also that they have advanced the technique dramatically over time, and what you and others have reported certainly supports this. The stronger the science and technology, the better the PPS on BO
Its in the appendix to the trial design paper.
Biosect - The PMC referred to is Pub Med Central They are the ones that regulate NIH-funded articles that are required to be released for open access after a year. This has nothing to do with the content of the article being withheld. I am sure the article is freely available to those who have a subscription. No idea why DCVAX was left out, butt has nothing to do with the embargo.
Biosect - That gets into the separate issue of "enablement" - some things said in a patent are not actually feasible, and (poorly done) patents can be challenged on that. Hopefully what NWBO has is all solid though.
Doc - I have done a little patent law work as a consultant so had to read a number of patents and work with patent lawyers. The embodiments I have seen sometimes cover a ridiculously wide theoretical range of doses, concentrations, etc. that the manufacturer would never use. I would take some of what is stated in the patent as more hypothetical than reality.
No journals embargo actual articles for a year. This may be a terminology issue. Many journals have subscription only access until a year after publication. By law, if the study was NIH funded, the publisher has to provide open access to the article after that year of "embargo." No data is being witheld for a year.
No - this unrelated article is available to me in full as a PDF when I click the link. I have no idea why anyone thought that it was embargoed. Has nothing to do with the blinded data publication.
LBAs, like most abstracts, typically would have complete information but submitted at the late deadline. I was referring to a normal (or LBA) abstract submission where you do not actually describe the data you will present because the data have not been analyzed yet. I have seen these types of abstracts accepted on occasion but it is unusual. I can conceive in theory of the company submitting an abstract of their top line results without actually saying what the results were (blind not yet broken and analyses not yet conducted). I say theoretical because I do not know if ASCO specifically accepts these types of submissions. With something this interesting, they might. I guess we will know when the abstracts become public.
You absolutely can do that, as long as the second presentation involves different (more mature) data than the first presentation. It is also sometimes possible (but frowned upon) to submit a conference presentation that says "we will present data regarding X" even though the data have not been analyzed and cannot be detailed yet, and you collect more data and do the analysis in the interim while you are waiting to find out if the presentation is accepted.
Big genetic influence on death risk as well. Not all about lipid levels or EPA/AA.
Management investing their own money in a company, whether cash or stocks, is generally considered a bullish sign. Why do you think otherwise?
If as hinted at by Meifud on yahoo the article comes out in Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology, this means that it will be available online as soon as the galley proofs are back. They post articles as they come in before a journal issue is assigned. This would mean publication dates are irrelevant. Could come at any time. Of course, maybe just rumor and it is in another journal.
That does not sound like an inaccurate description of what would be in the publication. That is more or less what I would guess they would talk about. Certainly is a negative spin though.
Whitewater - Almost all journals now require that all authors sign an attestation saying how they contributed to the study, and that they have read and agree with what is presented in the manuscript. All authors always would have a chance to read/edit a draft manuscript, but whether they actually do read it, who knows. I agree that there must be quite a few people who are aware of what is in the pending publication (likely including the big(or Bigger) investors participating in the recent stock sale but signed NDAs).
H2R - Thanks for providing the date info. I would love to see that, and would not be surprised. I just think it is more likely Industry Theater than as an abstract.