Looking forward to watching the shorts squirm... trapped!

That is for the Direct solid tumor trial, and is excellent news. It looks like we will receive results for TWO trials very proximately to one another, Phase III GBM, and now for Phase I/II Direct trial covering Solid Tumors. In combination with the German trial, things seem to be moving along and lots of news is pending, from various directions. I'm looking for unexpected surprises now.

Very encouraging!

Yes, it's the DIRECT trial, not the DCVax-L trial for GBM. That's good news too!

This is not true.

I think we were discussing the obvious care they took to not be accountable for their published hit piece, and their anonymity, which is typically inadequate for a real news organization to take seriously.

And then additionally why those efforts should still be fundamentally inadequate, with the right resources, to track them down.

Counting on the "big boys" to put the effort in, is often not all that rewarding. But in my experience, this kind of effort to hide nearly always fails eventually.

Unfortunately he may not be able to use extralegal resources, and he was the head of agencies that did the work to which you refer, not the person who did it, most likely. But he certainly knows who to contract. Hard to know how focused the company really is on that detail.

Though I agree, that's the reason to be excited about his appointment. He likely can track them down through both white hat / legal means and probably also through black hat / extra legal means, though he can't use any black hat info legally. If they were using black hat means, they'd probably know everyone they are in contact with too.

Hard to know, but I would expect he'd keep it all white hat. But you never know.

And if they were aware of other illegal activities, a few anonymous tips would be all it would take. Boom. They'd never know why or what or how.

Hosting details are not necessarily that helpful, unless one has an active case in court and can then subpoena the service providers. But it doesn't necessarily create jurisdiction to sue. It might or could based upon the issues at stake and the factual details one can establish. Pulling someone under jurisdiction, can be a very powerful tool.

Here is the listed ownership detail on the site, which means even the hosting may likely be not all that helpful, though certainly, if one has a case in court, it would be good to subpoena the host and Domains by Proxy. It's also possible that even Domains by Proxy and their host could be listed under other names, pseudonyms and / or nameplate corporations in still other jurisdictions.

Usually, you can figure it out, eventually, but it takes time, resources and knowledge driven focus that combines legal and technical information and capabilities. If the persons hiding have not taken incredible care from day one, and if they've slipped up along the way, then no amount of resources can hide them, ultimately. They rely upon people hitting legal walls and barriers that take a minimum amount of funds, being discouraged, and not going much further. Major law firms are not so great at that tracking, so companies likely need to hire special consultants to assist, or they will be wasting funds and resources on a pointless effort.

Additionally, if they've registered their domain fraudulently, or under another pseudonym, with false information, it's very likely you can cease that domain or at least have it taken away.

As for the hosting, it's very possible that it's Godaddy.com, which likely only knows the owner by their Proxy name, or at least that's what they will say, and try to stick to saying.

Contact Information


Registrant Contact

Name: Registration Private

Organization: Domains By Proxy, LLC

Mailing Address: DomainsByProxy.com, Scottsdale Arizona 85260 US

Phone: +1.4806242599

Ext:

Fax: +1.4806242598

Fax Ext:

Email:PHASEFIVERESEARCH.COM@domainsbyproxy.com


Admin Contact

Name: Registration Private

Organization: Domains By Proxy, LLC

Mailing Address: DomainsByProxy.com, Scottsdale Arizona 85260 US

Phone: +1.4806242599

Ext:

Fax: +1.4806242598

Fax Ext:

Email:PHASEFIVERESEARCH.COM@domainsbyproxy.com


Tech Contact

Name: Registration Private

Organization: Domains By Proxy, LLC

Mailing Address: DomainsByProxy.com, Scottsdale Arizona 85260 US

Phone: +1.4806242599

Ext:

Fax: +1.4806242598

Fax Ext:

Email:PHASEFIVERESEARCH.COM@domainsbyproxy.com


------
Raw WHOIS Record

Domain Name: PHASEFIVERESEARCH.COM
Registry Domain ID: 1874592735_DOMAIN_COM-VRSN
Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.godaddy.com
Registrar URL: http://www.godaddy.com
Update Date: 2015-09-08T18:21:23Z
Creation Date: 2014-09-07T08:37:54Z
Registrar Registration Expiration Date: 2017-09-07T08:37:54Z
Registrar: GoDaddy.com, LLC
Registrar IANA ID: 146
Registrar Abuse Contact Email: abuse@godaddy.com
Registrar Abuse Contact Phone: +1.4806242505
Domain Status: ok http://www.icann.org/epp#ok
Registry Registrant ID: Not Available From Registry
Registrant Name: Registration Private
Registrant Organization: Domains By Proxy, LLC
Registrant Street: DomainsByProxy.com
Registrant Street: 14747 N Northsight Blvd Suite 111, PMB 309
Registrant City: Scottsdale
Registrant State/Province: Arizona
Registrant Postal Code: 85260
Registrant Country: US
Registrant Phone: +1.4806242599
Registrant Phone Ext:
Registrant Fax: +1.4806242598
Registrant Fax Ext:
Registrant Email: PHASEFIVERESEARCH.COM@domainsbyproxy.com
Registry Admin ID: Not Available From Registry
Admin Name: Registration Private
Admin Organization: Domains By Proxy, LLC
Admin Street: DomainsByProxy.com
Admin Street: 14747 N Northsight Blvd Suite 111, PMB 309
Admin City: Scottsdale
Admin State/Province: Arizona
Admin Postal Code: 85260
Admin Country: US
Admin Phone: +1.4806242599
Admin Phone Ext:
Admin Fax: +1.4806242598
Admin Fax Ext:
Admin Email: PHASEFIVERESEARCH.COM@domainsbyproxy.com
Registry Tech ID: Not Available From Registry
Tech Name: Registration Private
Tech Organization: Domains By Proxy, LLC
Tech Street: DomainsByProxy.com
Tech Street: 14747 N Northsight Blvd Suite 111, PMB 309
Tech City: Scottsdale
Tech State/Province: Arizona
Tech Postal Code: 85260
Tech Country: US
Tech Phone: +1.4806242599
Tech Phone Ext:
Tech Fax: +1.4806242598
Tech Fax Ext:
Tech Email: PHASEFIVERESEARCH.COM@domainsbyproxy.com
Name Server: NS77.DOMAINCONTROL.COM
Name Server: NS78.DOMAINCONTROL.COM
DNSSEC: unsigned
URL of the ICANN WHOIS Data Problem Reporting System: http://wdprs.internic.net/
>>> Last update of WHOIS database: 2016-11-29T19:00:00Z <<<

For more information on Whois status codes, please visit https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/epp-status-codes-2014-06-16-en

The data contained in GoDaddy.com, LLC's WhoIs database,
while believed by the company to be reliable, is provided "as is"
with no guarantee or warranties regarding its accuracy. This
information is provided for the sole purpose of assisting you
in obtaining information about domain name registration records.
Any use of this data for any other purpose is expressly forbidden without the prior written
permission of GoDaddy.com, LLC. By submitting an inquiry,
you agree to these terms of usage and limitations of warranty. In particular,
you agree not to use this data to allow, enable, or otherwise make possible,
dissemination or collection of this data, in part or in its entirety, for any
purpose, such as the transmission of unsolicited advertising and
and solicitations of any kind, including spam. You further agree
not to use this data to enable high volume, automated or robotic electronic
processes designed to collect or compile this data for any purpose,
including mining this data for your own personal or commercial purposes.

Please note: the registrant of the domain name is specified
in the "registrant" section. In most cases, GoDaddy.com, LLC
is not the registrant of domain names listed in this database.

I think his focus is, to manage his fund and his position in the company with appropriate diligence and in a manner that won't even create a hint of divided loyalty, disloyalty or a conflict of interest with the investors interests to whom he owes a fiduciary duty.

I think the nonsense on the boards about his not investing more or needing to invest is based on no real information, is purely speculative, and is mostly, without much basis or merit. But that's just me.

I do think, that he held his investment, is about as good a sign as one can get, in this context, plus his positive statements about his continued belief in the technology. That's about as good as one can get from any investment manager, generally speaking.

So I think, whenever this is discussed, even when speculating that he is about to take action he may not take, it can result in very negative outcomes because people then have to look at potential actions, instead of focusing on his consistency and what he has said and done, and not done, already.

Given the investment objectives of his fund, shorting is not likely a primary means of making income. All managers might use hedging to manage risk or to manage timing and pricing challenges when they take certain kinds of risks.

But I doubt he is nakedly shorting any companies in his fund, given its indicated investment objectives.

Naked shorting tends to be at riskier types of investment entities, like specific hedge funds with a defined or undefined focus. Hedge funds are expected to hedge and take those kinds of extreme risks, and given that it's hard to find those without everyone else seeing the same opportunity, I suspect that funds attempt to "manufacture" opportunities by short bashing and shorting biotechs and doing similar sorts of activities with very volatile investments.

If it was openly known they were doing it systematically, which I believe is the case, then the SEC would actually likely view it as illegal activity, which is why, I suspect, it is a highly guarded secret.

However, Woodford appears to have a long-term focus to his fund, and income generation, and while some hedging of actually held positions is very possible, naked hedging is likely not an activity they would engage in much or that any regulated fund, for instance, would likely do if that was not within their defined investment objectives as a key part of their strategy.

However, given the size of his position, I would not necessarily assume he never hedges or tries to make-up for any potential or anticipated ups and downs that could generate income while hedging his actually held investment. And, in that context, one would likely not see a change of total ownership even if he had effectively averaged down using hedging transactions.

Yes, they did everything they could to isolate liability for publishing it:

1. It's a single purpose vehicle;
2. It's offshore; and
3. They hid the ownership of the domain and used it as a drop box only for communications.
4. It's in the UK, where financial regulation, despite protestations otherwise, is fairly lax.

The notion that any of you or I could put up a pretty wordpress blog, publish 3 or 4 stories that we might've copied from elsewhere, and then get a hit piece on a company covered by major papers, is pretty ludicrous. I presume there were big boys behind that effort, they used the echo chamber of other investor "blogs/news" sites, SA, etc., most likely (I wasn't here during that period, but I know how it goes). Nonetheless, the fact that they got major coverage and a focus on one of the investment managers to embarrass him, suggests some fairly high level efforts there. I can't imagine that was just some clown, or even two or three clowns.

Though it is definitely possible to get that kind of coverage from something so basic for one person, they'd have to really have the echo chamber down pat, and even then it would be unlikely they'd get major news coverage. It's either that, the small shorts working together (coordinating on twitter and elsewhere, very possibly not entirely knowingly in all cases) or something initiated by someone with more resources who could bring a reporter's attention to the article and the circumstances. Kind of how Jim Cramer described doing it in his famous video clip.

Anyway, it's pretty clear what their intention was... and that they succeeded. Next time, focus on the journalists and editors that give them coverage, in the nicest and most appropriate way possible, and get as much information from them as possible. There is no reason for them to hide it, and if there is a larger story, you want their involvement and focus - so stay friendly and don't sound crazy. They have the resources to get closer to the truth than most of us have at our finger tips.

It's easy to avoid those problems. The US has good laws, but this is a matter, mostly of free speech. SEC does not enforce libel laws, that's for the individuals and companies, and states to make those laws and enforce them.

SEC has been beaten back, time and time again by decisions made by conservative, anti-regulation judges who make the law completely and utterly ineffective.

Mission accomplished... they were a single purpose vehicle.

If you've thrown in the towel, you wouldn't care if your phone calls are answered. This doesn't make any sense.

In which case, then, he was not barred by confidential information, from investing at that time.

He would have sold if he thought it was, in fact, a bad call overall. He held.

But, if it did not pan out, and all investments have risk, making decisions to invest more in this context, have more risks and potential liabilities.

It's possible they know more, and it's also possible they really don't know the complete details.

Whatever the case, NWBO has filed an updated clinical trial plan that says it is about to be completed or already is completed, as of this month. I doubt any such information would hold them from investing at this point in time, and even if it did, I think the larger issues I pointed to earlier are much more significant. I don't think he'd be investing at this point in time for those other reasons, regardless. Lastly, his holding is far more significant. If he thought this was a pending disaster, as a money manager, he has a duty to divest, not to hold and ride the value down to oblivion. Yet he hasn't sold. I think that's about as much information as I need, together with his other statements of confidence in this investment, to not take much from his lack of new investments.

Most of this conversation is just noise.

As I've said a number of times, based upon real experience, is that: 1) It's not likely that he has information at this time that would prevent him from trading, based upon information from a few years ago; and 2) However, it's very unlikely he would be buying cheaper now, even given that he clearly still holds and is a clear believer (he would have had a duty to sell otherwise)given the nature of his fund and his duties to his investors.

The reasons that individuals trade, that are maybe obvious to individuals, don't necessarily apply to regulated fund managers in circumstances such as these. They have a range of duties, obligations and measures for their potential liabilities that don't apply to individuals trading for their own accounts.

That's why most of the discussion around whether he has bought more, and why hasn't he, etc., is basically nonsense. His actions have little to do with whether one judges, of own's own accord, that an investment is a good one or not. His fund has different overall objectives than 90% of the people on a bulletin board like this, in most cases and he has different duties and obligations applied to his decision making.

LOL.

And who exactly do you think will own that platform and take it forward efficiently? Nice try.

This is great to see. The Cancer Moonshot initiative is all about the data, so I think this is substantially as a result of those efforts, though researchers have been pushing for it for years before that as well.

I would not be surprised. Sounds exactly correct for the kind of person he appears to be, from his posts and columns.

RE AF's Bashing.

AF is just done here. I pointed out to him the other day that his participation on bulletin boards, and as a journalist bashing the company, was inappropriate for a journalist and likely suggested bad actions that I honestly think are likely actionable.

I think he's been thinking about that...

He has a lot of pride invested in this game and will no doubt continue at TheStreet.com. I think he'd bash if NWBO was proven to heal all diseases known to man. At this point, he's beyond rational, but still a good essay writer, and will no doubt try to confuse potential and current investors in any manner possible with whatever he can find, dirt, nonsense, anything, to try to do the company in. I believe, at this stage, he is likely full of malice, and he knows his posts show that malice and invective and intentionality.

Again, all my personal opinion here.

I would not be surprised in any agency to see leaked information ahead of the market knowledge. But honestly, I haven't seen BP corruption of the sort often alleged on almost all of the bulletin boards, for every company that has ever been before the FDA.

I also haven't seen it at the SEC. Just haven't.

So I think those allegations tend to be baseless.

I do see opportunities for streamlining and I think the government has been doing that and the FDA has been fairly enthused about moving things along. Many of the delays we often blame on the FDA involve the various other institutions and challenges with the design of trials (availability of patients, or slowness of trial hospitals or universities, or correctly tabulating and verifying data prior to its release, etc.). I just don't see the issues that are often alleged on the bulletin boards.

Right to try, is risky. Though I do think there should be a special designation for treatments that are shown safe, and which patients believe might be efficacious given some anecdotal evidence in Phase I or Phase II trials. I don't have a problem with that notion, though I think they should also be unable to bring suit against the relevant companies, doctors and hospitals (for failure of the treatment, or side-effects, other than for gross negligence in administering treatments) when they get that right.

NWBO's success should only happen based upon the science. There is no indication that the FDA is not doing what it is supposed to do, and appropriately so. No one, even the doctors, want a drug out there that is not properly shown to have efficacy. Otherwise there are plenty of companies with much larger marketing budgets, that even with an inferior drug, would likely win that war.

The work to expedite has already been done. If Trump benefits from it, that will just be the natural course of his winning. The Dr. mentioned, Patrick Soon-Shiong, for the Moon Shot initiative, was there to ensure Trump continues the program begun under the current administration. As I posted previously, it has immense bipartisan support:

http://www.cancermoonshot2020.org/press-releases/2016/2/24/patrick-soon-shiong-md-to-deliver-cancer-moonshot-2020-keynote-at-biocom-global-life-science-partnering-conference

Sound familiar?

Everything that was said about him, recently, has been said before, over and over and over again. There was nothing new to cause his abrupt withdrawal... at least nothing new here, I suspect.

I have not seen that, but perhaps you've had that experience.

I think he bases his fundamental decision, not on reality, but on an outdated study he did on non-representative companies, validating a theory that is now discredited. Or, contrarily, as some suggest, maybe he uses that theory to justify selective attacks. Whatever the case, i don't think his stories are entirely about the companies themselves and saving investors, but rather, creating shorting opportunities for his acolytes. In that context, I don't doubt one can make money shorting companies in consort with those people, following his lead.

Personally, those are not my values.

I'm not a believer in that theory. I do believe that if they continue to have an advantage in the field, both technologically and can deliver it economically, they will do very well.

The world is constantly evolving. They will have to manage well, not just as a start-up, but if they are successful now, they will need to move to become a well-run, better company at all levels. They are understaffed and have a lot to do to get to that point, once they are successful.

There is no SEC transaction tax. They actually take in revenue if they prosecute. The GOP based congress has been very anti-regulation for years, and the judges appointed over decades have reduced the regulations to the point where they virtually have no teeth and have no meaning. That's the real truth. And more of that kind of "de-regulation" that makes the world safe for thieves is about to come our way.

I don't think AF will give up. I think he will keep writing and writing because, it's not about the facts, it's about his ego.

I note that the SEC says:

"Shhhh! We're huntin' wabbits!"

Excellent! :) False light...

Hard to know. It depends on how fast that comes, and how quickly and powerfully the rally happens.

Personally, I'd hope that they have wire taps and email/internet related warrants already on them.

I think they failed because of the cost of their treatment and because they were the first treatment to get through all the hurdles and were not the most advanced. I won't claim to be an expert, on the company, but I think it went beyond the shorting, unfortunately.

But it was a valiant effort and just because they ultimately had challenges staying afloat, it was not because they did anything wrong.

This is the problem with people like AF. THey actually don't understand the science, so all they can do is put out nonsense that sounds vaguely scientific to justify a position they've already taken. He has taken the same position on almost allof these companies, based upon outdated and badly conceived research he did on companies that are not directly similar in a number of ways.

He's a fraud, alleging fraud, as I see it. He's just not credible. But, even a broken clock is correct, twice a day, which is pretty good, if you think about it. How many people do you know who can't get it right even that many times a day, every day? Again, all must my personal opinion.

Right!? Ludicrous, isn't it... but they keep saying it and not quite putting it that way.

Agreed.

I am not one to answer necessarily, but I asked iclight for a link to clarify what exactly he is discussing... I haven't seen the link.

GLTU too Eagle8!

He was a political science major, so the rhetorical nature of his pieces can compel people who don't have the time nor the inclination to really drill down and do their own due diligence. And, there's no doubt, he does damage these companies and undermine them quite profoundly. He's an arsonist. I don't know who he works for beyond TheStreet.com, but I suspect that the targets of his columns are not innocently chosen, but that's just my personal opinion.

He has to make filings because he owns a large enough amount of the company that he is effectively affiliates with them. He has to follow the rules for such holders.

However, I doubt very much that he has current inside information.

You keep saying he doesn't want to lock in his losses until he has gains to count them against. That seems unlikely.

1. It's not a tax driven fund;
2. Fund managers try to preserve capital, not count losses against gains for tax reasons. If he had no more confidence in the company, it would mean he things it's a total loss, but he could have sold out at much much sooner than this, and would have preserved a huge amount of capital for reallocation to better opportunities.
3. They count the funds regular performance also by its Net Asset Value, which does NOT require a sale. You think it requires a sale, but again, that's a tax driven measure. Most funds are also measured by their NAV's, on an ongoing, basis, not by what they've bought and sold. IF he allows large amounts of assets dwindle to nothing before trying to recoup anything and is only looking to recover the tax dollars against his gains, he's also not fulfilling his fiduciary duties to his investors.

Again, you sound good, but you seem to have no real understanding of how funds are managed nor what they worry about, on a day-to-day or long-term basis.

Maybe, but it's usually even more dramatic than we've seen so far. They like to really move it down before it goes up, or maybe even during a seeming rally, publicize some nonsense that seems legit, and crash the price again, after a solid gain, so that people who are looking at some good money, suddenly sell.

I personally don't think they've created the fear of God that they sometimes do with these stocks, but I didn't buy at the peak and the drops I have in mind are usually during a very volatile up and down period that creates incredible uncertainty and seems not related to specific news. I think the declines so far are more along the lines of the normal horror show. Fear of God has not yet entered the picture for me, though I realize people have different tolerances.