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.
I repeat. I just checked, and so far as I can tell it is still a stub NOW.
I googled drugbank and found the following for DCVax-L:
" This drug entry is a stub and has not been fully annotated. It is scheduled to be annotated soon."
Almost all the entries were "Not Available"
How are you seeing "a rolling review through either ORBIS/ILAP and thus ... multiple RAs involved"?
Please explain.
The article tells us :
Recently I have been using the share price of NVCR as an inverse indicator to the real value of NWBO rather than the direct value of the highly manipulated NWBO share price directly. It is clear they know the score and that the future is already written on the wall.
I would like to know as well.
You fit the short pattern perfectly: fact is true, but conclusion you draw is totally your opinion and nothing more - pure speculation.
MOTION TO WITHDRAW FILED BY GTS
117
Aug 1, 2023
MOTION for Hannah O. Koesterer to Withdraw as Attorney . Document filed by GTS Securities LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order To Withdraw As Counsel).(Koesterer, Hannah) (Entered: 08/01/2023)
Main Doc
Withdraw as Attorney
118
Aug 2, 2023
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL granting 117 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. The motion of Hannah O. Koesterer to withdraw as counsel on behalf of GTS Securities, LLC, and for Hannah O. Koesterer to be removed from the CM/ECF service list for this matter, is GRANTED. Attorney Hannah Olivia Koesterer terminated. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 8/2/2023) (rro) (Entered: 08/02/2023)
Main Doc
Order on Motion to Withdraw as Attorney
I am a long for the long term. I do not trade around the core of my position. Nevertheless, I take time to checkout some of the shorts' posts. there is information to be gleaned even from their posts to reassure the longs. By this I mean: Watch the content of their posts. To the extent that their posts are short, repetitive, and lack substance this is reassuring to a long. Their guessing, speculating, asserting false facts, assertions lacking citation or authority, is again very reassuring to a long. It becomes obvious, they have no real argument to provide. When sometimes their posts are substantive, detailed, and authoritative or at least quite rational, then I put those posts on my radar for things to watch for - but with a large grain of salt. Sometimes it is useful to temper my unbridled optimism with a perspective from the other side. Even the volume of the bashers' posts gives information to the longs. So bottom line, even the posts of the bashers and shorts have some (limited) benefit for the longs. When you are given a lemon, make lemonade.
Who is in the picture??
I have a novel idea. If you are a long term long and are not just a short term trader, take a 2 week break from this bulletin board (or until Aug 25 when the response to the MTD is due) and come back later to see what is happening on the board. You will probably find that that you missed absolutely nothing and that the shorts have been talking to each other and after a while got tired of it. Of course if there is real hard news (not just someone's bored speculation, bash or pump) by all means come back to discuss and appraise or if you have something really worth while to report..
On the 19th I posted several thoughts on the possibilities for the additional modules (pages) which I copied below. I have inserted into your post the correspondence to my item numbers from my post, Seems like the ideas are pretty similar except I offered more choices.
.
Thanks Ex. I guess they are basically Chinese.
No need to apologize.
Does LL even speak Taiwanese??
Is this in Taiwan? What is this in EST? Has this already happened?
I posted something similar but without reference to the UK:
Ex, I do not need to prelitigate the Goldman defamation lawsuit(s) or to determine the outcome of such a lawsuit(s). I am stating that those who think they are not at risk for their defamation on BBs and are protected by anonymity or any other reason (or defense) they may imagine, may be in for a rude awakening.
I must have hit another raw nerve.
Ex, I must have hit a raw nerve. I was addressing LessIsMore, but you chimed in.
You wrote:
'Nuf said. I will not be the one that is hung out to dry. It's your funeral.
LessIsMore, you have been warned, but knowingly choose to disregard the information you have been given and choose to continue with the defamation. Hope you have a good lawyer that won't bankrupt you.
I know that. I was referring to the attempt to explain away the 27 modules with the complexity and novelty that could easily require 1.7 to 2 million pages. My problem with that was that it does not explain the need for 27 modules, just the need for 9 (or 5) modules (depending on RA) that may be much larger.
Does ORBIS set the number of modules required? If not, this would be a good start to make submissions more uniform across the RAs.
Thanks ATL, that was informative.
ATL, thanks for tracking those numbers down, But I am wondering how much overlap is there between the modules for the diff RAs. Did you also get the subject headings for each of those modules for those RAs that you could give us? So for example if all the RAs had a module covering subject X, were each of these required, because the details for each RA was different, even if the basic subject matter was the same? Will one basic module with a few extra pages for each RA for their special requirements be enough?
A couple of days ago I posted a thought about the need for 27 modules. Did it look like any of those topics would fit to a module of their own?
Addition to my post:
I would add one more possibility that I missed in the original post;
2.1) to account for Poly iclc?
Thus the post now reads:
Jim, you did not provide the citation I was asking for, but the logic you present is certainly enough to make that notion quite plausible if not definite.
This is a list of posters who are well versed in NWBO and always a good read and whose opinion I seriously consider. I read their posts with regard even if once in a while I differ on some minor point. There are of course others like them who do not appear on this list.
Yes, of course you are right. I actually knew that, but my fingers were doing the walking. The obvious reason for the choice of the term of art is that to "dismiss a motion to dismiss" gets to be a little confusing, hence the choice of deny, making it to "deny a motion to dismiss." Actually when I wrote this in my post it was "dismiss an MTD" with the acronym, so it does not sound so bad as when the full phraseology is used with the double dismiss fully pronounced - not just "em tee dee". Either way the meaning does get through.
I think we might be coming to a final confluence on submission to the MHRA from what Les Goldman told us on Biz. I read between the lines of what he said, in particular they are now double checking which implies the application is all but complete. I would give them one to three months for that. Also on the spoofing lawsuit, Sept 27 is the date for the final submission on the MTD and then it will be in the hands of the Court. Perhaps one month for a ruling that will dismiss the MTD. At that point they will start working to prepare for discovery which I imagine Citadel et Al desperately want to avoid and so will start settlement discussions. so we could see the MAA and a settlement discussions (especially with the added pressure of the MHRA submission) coming one after another perhaps some 3 months out and the share price hopefully will respond to these confluent pressures.
I think he was referring only yo the GBM indication where they will not need much of a sales force as they are already at over 90 of the main locations that treat GBM. He did indicate they are open to partnership for the other solid tumors where they do need to build up a significant sales force. They just need to pay up!