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.
They won’t comment until there is data. They’re not talking heads, they’re careful investors. I think Bigger’s record speaks for itself. He has hit on some good securities recently.
That would be worth more than 100 billion. Every....solid....tumor...on...Earth
If the ASM is a bust, death by traffic might be an option :)
This is good info Ike. I’m on the fence about attending, but appreciate navigation info. I’ve never been to DC.
There are a few reasons that this is currently trading at under .20 in the final months of a pivotal P3 trial...
1. Company is out of cash
2. #1 is by design from Wall St and Big Pharma because...
3. A successful trial would start a paradigm shift in cancer care that uproots very profitable business models.
4. A NWBO bankruptcy preserves status quo on these cancer care treatment models.
Diver implied it with his post...the story here may be one for the ages.
A dominating technology in the cancer treatment market guarantees a MUCH higher market capitalization eventually than TSLA. No side effects. Turns the immune system onto cancers.
The worldwide market for such a product is almost unfathomable.
Stay tuned...
It will take the proverbial “offer they can’t refuse” That’s 15-20 billion. Won’t happen without good data. I’d venture that price may not happen until a clearer picture of the UCLA combo trial emerges. But by then, the price would probably go up.
15-20 billion is the pre-revenue value. Once the revenue stream starts, it’s all over. Big pharma knows this.
Patient be you. Baby Yoda might argue that “soon” he will be grown.
I apologize for the bad humor and I agree...this company moves trials slower than most glaciers.
But don’t you think that they won’t release a timeline because too much of what remains is dependent on regulators?
I don’t have an exact count, but based on sales of preferred shares, I imagine it is substantial (10 million or more warrants)
Pumpers have been super successful. There’s nothing anyone can say to pump this stock. Only data and product approval will change the current sentiment.
There are a bunch of warrants expiring by the end of May. My guess is that the company might play hardball on extending those with topline data imminent.
Thanks Senti!! That’s great information. Tell Dr. Liau we’re rooting for her vaccine and her patients.
Until data is published, we all remain hopeful. This trial has to end with a publication to determine efficacy.
It’s natural to think that vaccine administration would fall under the management of medical oncology. They would also most likely order subsequent scans to determine efficacy and response.
Doctors are frequently in the trenches battling diseases and illnesses, especially in private practice. They spend far more of their time these days dealing with insurance companies, reimbursement issues, and administrative political issues than the time they get to actually research new treatment technologies. This is especially true with DCVax, because it crosses multiple subspecialties. SOC for GBM involves surgery, medical oncology, and radiation oncology. Because DCVax isn’t a chemo drug, it’s not clear who would manage administration. Most likely medical oncology or an immunologist. That issue is possibly inherent to why few doctors are pushing for this therapy. No specialty would clearly benefit from the reimbursement for DCVax therapy. There are no side effects for a medical oncologist to manage and be reimbursed for. Radiation oncologists normally don’t manage medications, just radiation. Neurosurgeons manage surgery, not immune function. Who would treat with DCVax? Primary care physicians give vaccines. They could probably handle it, but that cuts out a ton of sub-specialty revenue. My guess is that many oncologists would not welcome this therapy with open arms, as it doesn’t benefit the business of oncology.
That’s, unfortunately, a hard truth of the world we live in. Many doctors are also business people (medicine is a service industry) and there isn’t much service needed in a vaccine that could cure cancer with no side effects. It’s easy to understand any oncologist’s ignorance on the subject.
The market is selling and selling and selling. You’re right. But on what fundamentals? The company is out of cash? Yes. The company has no hope of product approval and future sales? Not likely. In fact, revenue is likely closer that ever.
The dropping of positive news may be an event that is being timed for maximum impact on share price by management.
Those selling and selling and selling? Let’s see where they have to cover.
He’s a smart guy. I’m sure he keeps adding here.
If 200 million warrants expire and then we announce positive topline, we might get to do the next capital raise at $15. 5 million common at $15 would get us to commercialization.
No doubt, this is NWBO management’s goal in withholding information. Burn them quickly at their own game.
They get naked squeezed in a buyout. It could be really uncomfortable.
It would appear that there is a management vendetta against short sellers of this stock. There seems to be appetite for wiping out the short position in one fell swoop. If management is successful at holding positive trial and regulatory news until the verge of approval, there would be a MASSIVE singular day correction on this security. We could go from .20 to $20 in weeks. Based on your conversation with Les, that appears to be management’s real goal. Crush short sellers with a massive correction and hurt them further with a potential overcorrection. It sounds personal.
We’ll have to see how it plays out, but this would support a conversationI I had with Cofer at ASCO last year. He basically admitted that catching short sellers through regulatory agencies was futile. The only way to beat them is to catch them in their own game. Crush them on the battlefield, even if they’re breaking the rules.
NWBO has the science to do it. If management is successful in delaying good news as long as possible, the correction will burn shorts to the ground quickly.
My sell orders start small around $15. I wonder if any of them will need to cover there.
Thanks for clarifying this Beartrap. Keep up the patience and due diligence.
I’d imagine that, if they’re successful, by the time this trial is complete, they’ll have sold out to Merck for many billions of dollars and that Merck will be kicking their chops to use a P3 to expand access to other indications.
Let’s imagine that the new combo trial for recurrent GBM using DC lysate vaccine and Keytruda that UCLA has started shows efficacy. Would this be helpful or hurtful to NWBO? I believe that, if the DCVAX-L product is approved in 2020 or 2021, efficacy in this trial may open up more avenues for revenue just as manufacturing is gearing up after approval. I don’t see UCLA as a manufacturing competitor. I see them as researchers wanting to move forward with the assumption that DC vaccines are efficacious, all while the P3 DCVAX-L trial is yet to be fully analyzed. I find this to be highly positive.
Interesting analogy. I’m hopeful that our patience pays off. In the meantime, the pious bullies will speak their certainties about the trial’s failure.
I don’t think the company is lying. I think what they’re doing is groundbreaking and time consuming. I’m hoping regulators concur.
But remember, according to Nov 2018 data at SNO, the top 100 patients in this trial had a mOS of well over 60 months.
The FDA seems to be doing a disservice to patients with their overabundance of caution here, but perhaps it is the independent CRO that hasn’t been able to compile the data to get to lock or unblinding in a timely fashion.
I’ve seen at least a dozen patient success stories with DCVAX. I consider “success story” to be 60 month survival or greater. Seems to be consistent with Dr Liau’s assertion of “dozens”
Dave has communicated quite clear that the company has provided guidance as to where they are in the trial process. They will not detail the process further and when future trial endpoints are met, that will be communicated.
Dr. Hahn is a radiation oncologist. He has equal parts training in radiology and oncology. But radiation oncologists have to be able to read PET, CT, and MR scans for targeting cancer.
He’ll understand the psuedoprogression issue very well, as he has years of experience targeting cancer in diagnostic studies. It’s not always clear. Microscopic extension of disease is always a concern for radiation oncologists.
I agree BlueJordan. I’ve had similar conversations with Dave. We ALL are lamenting the time that it has taken to get to topline data on this trial, but they’ve told us that in many ways they are doing pioneering work on this trial. As a clinician, I see the biggest issue as being how to adjust PFS eventing for psuedoprogression in this trial and get four different regulators to agree to their method(s). Building consensus is REALLY time consuming. I bet they’ve learned that all too well. Getting 66 neurosurgeons and PhDs to sign onto an interim paper in May 2018 also took more time than they anticipated.
I can wait a few more months on my investment for the binary event that is approaching. They seem to be preparing for success and commercialization. Based on what I’ve seen, that’s probably a smart bet. Demand for their personalized vaccine will be sky high with good data and approval.
I thought the Cognate deal consolidated shares?? You never mention that.
Didn’t you say that about ASCO last year? Scotty...when will you give up?
I don’t think we’re into data lock, but I believe we’re VERY close. Some queries and data formatting is probably all that’s left.
No. I am following company guidance. Data lock is quite near and I expect it will be communicated when it occurs.
I’ve been invested for over 2 years now. I lament the time it takes them to complete scientific analysis. It took them 8 months just to put out the simple interim data paper, but 66 doctors signed on. Building consensus at takes time. I’m hopeful the CRO will have all queries resolved by early next year and we’ll get a data lock announcement before or in January. It could come any day.
The bottom line is that anybody who has done any research into the actual data supports the stock. Mouthpieces like Adam Feuerstein have no respect for science. He ignored it on AMRN too and look what a fool he turned out to be on that one. He’s playing the odds of failure and history is on his side. There has been no change in SOC in GBM in 12 years, despite multiple trials. They almost always fail because GBM is a tough nut to crack. The science here is solid. I like it on AMPE’s product too. I’m invested in both currently.
I agree with Bigger when he says, let the reporters yap. 66 researchers will probably tell us a different story in 2020. What data will Feuerstein have to back up his story if Dr Liau publishes a paper stating the success of this trial? He won’t have anything except a bunch of tweets to eat. I hope the company sends him a cooked crow.
I think we all know where things stand. The SAP is complete. The CRO is finalizing queries and formatting to get to data lock. Once there, we apply the SAP to the data and get lots of analysis. This should take a few weeks. Topline will come first. Detailed analysis and a scientific paper breaking down all the data will come after topline.
I’ve lamented how long this has all taken, but I expect results and approval in 2020. Hard to say how many agencies will approve the vaccine. Good data should lead to approval in all four jurisdictions.
I agree. New endpoints aren’t needed. Well defined and reasonable ways to evaluate psuedoprogression are most important to this trial. Somebody who “progressed” at one month and is alive 4 years later with no indication of disease? Gotta throw that “progression event” out.
I’m down. My cost basis is .26
If the data is as good as we anticipate and supports approval, it could be quick. This is a disease with orphan status. It sure would be foolish not to be able to hit the ground running.