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.
If their claims were handed over to another authority to investigate widespread corruption and that case is being investigated in an ongoing manner and multiple levels of government investigation are going on how does that work?
its absurd.
What about patients that could have been saved by announcing TLD + a less prestigious paper explaining the data months ago? I know via, via of a 16-year-old boy who died of GBM 2 weeks ago (I do not know the family personally). If that family would have had assurance DCVAX L works and had gotten the go-ahead from their MD because of disclosed TLD and the explanation of the data in a smaller paper. They could have sold their property and perhaps saved their son. Or start crowdfunding and get the finances by telling people this treatment really works.
I personally think it's outrageous to have desperate patients resort to or doubt going to NWBO/Advent for treatment without their MD being able to give a go-ahead, no data no go ahead. Imagine being a patient not knowing whether it's wise to put your last money in DCVAX L because your MD can not give a go-ahead because the data is unknown yet.
This is ALL because the egos at NWBO headquarters dont see the urgency and want a prestigious journal to publish.
outrageous..
Doc logic I have trouble trying to understand what you are saying.
The limitation period of an unlawful act is, in general, 6 years which means that NWBO can no longer claim suffered damages for stock manipulation, if any can be proven which I highly doubt, with parties involved in the manipulation, prior to Feb 14 2016 as of today unless NWBO has already claimed and substantiated damages with certain parties within the 6-year timeframe, which I also doubt.
Documenting any stock manipulation wrongdoing won't change that, it only confirms NWBO is and was aware of the wrongdoing which complicates a request to extend the 6-year time frame.
best wishes
yup could very well be possible. Nothing is off the table when it comes to NWBO and timelines. But I won't be around to see that happening if no TLD by then.
I understand.
Like I said before at this point for me TLD+journal is not good enough anymore they better come up with the announcement of BLA submitted and or the approval by the MHRA or I will write a serious complaint of them having waisted so much time lol
I understand. I will probably sell completely 2 weeks prior to ASM in anticipation of news if of course no TLD by then.
PM will you sell if no TLD on March 1?
I hope not hope, I hope you stick around, but I understand if you would
that makes a lot of sense I agree
provided the results are good IMO yes
will certainly be able to claim that they never had sufficient resources
Im not going to lie I think the delay of TLD + publication is beyond absurd as well.
They better come with more than the article alone cause that is now just not good enough anymore.
Yes I know I was there ;) lol
But I now get what you meant
Et tu Brute?
Odd that supposedly NWBO never submitted a SAP until way late
If the plaintiff can demonstrate they had no or could not have prior knowledge about the foul play (for reasons of covering it up) by the third party then that is correct.
However, if even this board had knowledge about stock manipulation then how can NWBO maintain they just did know. I think any claim of liability for stock manipulation is going to be extremely difficult for NWBO after all this time has passed. They just should not have waited this long IF we will ever see any such claim for suffered damages by NWBO which I highly doubt tbh.
well then they better hurry the hell up since the limitation period of an unlawful act such as stock manipulation is generally six years. The limitation period starts running from the date of the breach occurs or the tort is committed.
In fact, I think they may already be too late if they have not filed any liability with any third party yet.
But wait... speed and continuous urgency is one of LP specialties. lol
It really does not take that much time. Major journals require a 2-3 week turn around from reviewers. A reviewer can say they cannot do it on time. They just get someone else. A major revision should take at most a month unless something is so bad it requires going back and doing more work. Months delay---no.
I am convinced the article is in peer review and the delay is due to obstacles in the peer-reviewing process
the mother of all news will ofcourse be TLD + publication not only because the approval will indicate future revenue but foremost the speculation of an acquiring of NWBO against a much higher SP (and an uplist before that) can then begin.
Does telling someone that your paper has been submitted considered fall under this criteria ?. I really doubt that surely discussing the data is unethical but telling someone that you submitted your paper without leaking any data remains ethical.
Thank you. That I knew already and now in peer review (As DI told us) with delay in the peer reviewing unfortunately. Hopefully sorted out soon
Lol that’s what always happens. Im long in anavex a tiny bit and I believe the big gain is still ahead of the stock. Im planning to increase my position after NWBO TLD but probably then the stockp will be x2 what it is now. If anavex will get approved for Alzheimer’s boy oh boy that would mean a MC of 25 billion at least
Are you long in AVXL flipper if I may ask?
mistyped I mean market revenue
if I have to give it a stab then I think the delay is due to peer review going back and forward.
It would equally not surprise me if NWBO has waited for Uk approval
good, grief everyone knows that when I said market size I, of course, meant measured in revenue, not in numbers of patients. I assumed such a simple fact would be known by everyone.
right now I just want the journal and TLD. If the stock price would after that only tick the old ATH then Im more than happy, sell and move on.
that is an odd way of comparing market size, the rarity of the disease.
I did not assert that the number of GBM patients is as high as women with breast cancer which is also odd to look at it.
Treating a patient with GBM is way more expensive and has a higher price than treating a patient with breast cancer resulting in approx the same market revenue. In other words 10,000 x 10 is the same as 100 x 1000
Merck will certainly not pay $20B for GBM indication alone. That sort of valuation just doesn’t make sense as it’s a relatively modest market size
Gilead’s Breast Cancer Drug that Came off a $21 Billion Buyout Finally Gets FDA’s Full Approval
give me a break - was SOS or was he not god damn right about it being a screaming buy at .36? You could have sold for 2.50 for a 7 bagger in just 5 months from your quote. Even now it's almost a triple from there in 20 months. Are you investing to make money or not?
This may help in your quest what L could be valued at as a stand alone
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/worldwide-glioblastoma-multiforme-industry-2030-114500235.html?guccounter=1
Once it gets tested in any culture, animal or human it is part of the platform
That does not present any medical statistical evidence Direct works whatsoever. I think it works I think NWBO holds gold. Its not to convince me.
There is no data indicating that Direct works as we have seen at least at the level of the blinded blended data from L for other organs. And there is no active trial.
yes I know they have treated a few patients (among Thermo's brother if I recall correctly) with Direct which looked very promising.
However, since Direct is NOT an active trial worse there is no other active trial at present with NWBO and the data from the few single Direct patients are insufficient to prove any statistical medical evidence one can not call it a platform yet. This is entirely NWBO's choice.
So theoretically there could be a platform however in practice there is none. (IMO) the reactivating of the platform is up to the acquiring company buying NWBO, they have all patents in place todo so.
The reality is that DCVax Direct and L are just variances in the same modality of treatment and the company has enough evidence to begin broader trials once the reforms are in place.
because it is apparently such an emotional subject I have decided to once and for all prove my point see tradingview chart:
1. From Jan - 1/2 march 2021 nwbo and XBI performed in the same manner
2. From 1/2 march 2021 - aug 2021 NWBO outperformed XBI.
3. From Aug 2021 - 1/2 Nov 2021 NWBO and XBI performed on average in the same manner
4. From 1/2 nov - end dec. NWBO declined worse than XBI thus NWBO underperformed XBI
5. Jan - Feb 9 NWBO increased from a worse position while XBI decreased
6. and now XBI and NWBO have paired up again.
So over the course of the last 12 months, NWBO and XBI performed the same for investors. If you would have invested $ 1000 in NWBO and in XBI on Jan 1 2021 and compared it with today you would not have been worse or better off by one or the other. Which is my whole point
It is normal to measure the last 12 months, not a timeframe a subjective investor would like to observe to fit its biased narrative.
The only treatment NWBO is after getting approved is for GBM. Thats it.
If they want approval for lung, colon, pancreatic, liver, ovarian, head and neck, and others for all Types of Inoperable Solid tumors they will have to conduct trials.
Facts:
If you think that LP will on her blue eyes just gain approval for anything outside GBM after GBM data without conducting new trials then I cant help you. Ofcourse new trials need to be started to prove there is a platform.
No NWBO SP did NOT outperform the XBI benchmarked it has now paired up after it first underperformed.
NWBO journal article is late due to peer review back and forwards which is taking way longer than usual with other medical journal publications.
Im measuring it from the decline of biotech and you from the beginning of the year which is highly arbitrarily.
NWBO has caught up with XBI which before that had lacked behind with, great. If it now overtakes XBI then we are doing better.
Its called the measurement of the bench market.
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/032516/how-use-benchmark-evaluate-portfolio.asp
yes on paper, in reality, a biotech has to prove that by conducting other trials than the main one. NWBO is not conducting any trials at present and thus until they do they are not developing their MOA outside GBM, their platform. If tomorrow they would announce they have continued any of their discontinued Direct trials then yes then from that moment on they are developing a platform by trying to prove the MOA works outside GBM. Now they have no platform only a GBM treatment.
NWBO has declined more than the XBI over the last 6 months prior to dec 31 and has now since the start of the year caught up, that's no progress that's making up for lost ground towards XBI since the decline of small biotech 6 months ago.
Now XBI and NWBO have the same decline -26% and thus the same performance. Its really not that difficult.