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.
At July 31, 2021, approximately a total of 245.2 million options and 58.8 million in underlying warrants were under block or suspension until at least August 31, 2021.
Are they extending further w.o reporting it? I guess that is OK as the ends justify the means around here
very sensible questions I hope you get answers
Speaking of the financials
I do hope this is true and if true then it may be a shrink of good news
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=165803186
I have a few clients who would gladly lend them money. They have actually reached out to the company, who have been adamant that they presently do not need financing at this time.
You are guessing again.
You dont know what has been further suspended and what now, so far the big bulk has been tied over many times
I am also very frustrated with their communication tactics.
thanks for that info
Ok so they may very well be tied up further as has been the case so far
so case and point you should not believe everything or anything that ex says...
The extensions are about to start expiring in bulk soon
Warrants and Options Suspension
At June 30, 2021, approximately a total of 241.5 million options and 58.8 million in underlying warrants were under block or suspension agreements.
At July 31, 2021, approximately a total of 245.2 million options and 58.8 million in underlying warrants were under block or suspension until at least August 31, 2021.
yes same old complaint and reproach towards management that we have seen with some other shareholders for many years which I fully understand but what at the same time should not be new to you Pumper or any other long.
The long unnecessary silence builds understandable unnecessary distrust with some shareholders towards the company and thus results in unnecessary stock price volatility.
Those that have a less calm mind will start complaining and calling for unproven accusations that then leads to the defense of those that have unwavering trust.
alas, it is what it is.
I am not aware of any theory that biotechs need alternate manufacturers
it is pure frustration and I personally am not looking forward to what will happen to the SP IF we see nothing beyond Nov 1.
But they are not swindlers.
And so the end of Q3 is September 30. Therefore, for my part, I'm figuring the MHRA certification will likely minimally move into sometime in October (because everything is pretty much minimally a couple of weeks late with them).
Your narrative makes no and zero sense
warrant holders are warrant holders for a reason. They have invested and supported NWBO through the years especially those that are left now and I know some personally. They believe that NWBO is a success and have had that belief for years now. Why in Odin's name would they sell now on no news. Because some of them woke up this morning and all of sudden realized now today on Sept the 8th that the certification may take longer? They realized that it may take longer for which there is absolutely zero evidence no even worse there are many clues that the certification has succeeded?
Its your emotions that make you write something out of the blue because the SP got a dent today.
nonsense
if we close at 1.18 and I hope we crawl back up now, then we have the third higher low, 1.08, 1.13 and then 1.18
I dont know who is doing the selling. If I was a warrant holder wanting to sell I would wait until after the certification and not sell on a short-term down slide, but that's me. We have not seen any excessive exercise of warrants so it must have been warrant holders that were holding already for months (if its indeed ex warrantholders).
As to the suggestion that this could be the 11 million loan converted into new shares. That would be material and must be disclosed.
On the other hand, the 5 million debt which was converted in June into new shares was not disclosed by NWBO within 4 business days (but in the last 10Q) and disappointed me greatly since it is against SEC rule.
If this were true then this would be concerning and indicate a longer wait than Nov 1. Hope I am wrong.
I still believe at least for the SP there is a hard deadline on Nov 1, we are still 7 weeks before that. If after Nov 1 we dont have TLD then I see the SP get below 1$
are you buying sojo?
there is always that cahnge its -10% tomorrow
The only annoying thing when it goes down is you could have gotten more shares from the purchase you just made a few days ago when the price was higher, that's it!
all small biotechs are down
if you know so well how the SP of a security will be moving in the future you must be multi-millionaire
Ok if you insist
So please, I love to learn, describe to me how the period of no news between May 12 and now, and the correlated 40% price drop in that time period, is not a sell off. Because that logic must be outlined in a doctorate level course I haven't taken yet.
Tbh at this point, I would not care if journal/TLD would come together with Sesamestreet, lunchtime at Disneyworld or during half time of checkers with kids. As long as it arrives asap
the question is not if DCVAX L works that have long been established
The question/anxiety for me is if we will see topline data and the publication in a journal before NWBO has to default on its loans.
I can think of no better way for NWBO to apologize to ABTA for last year’s (NWBO’s) inaccurate timeline projection
lol sometimes you are funny
I know a thing or two about drafting regulatory filings
I think you’re wrong that he was there to draft the SAP.
As it so happens that at that moment most needed was a required independent third party that could help with the SAP
exactly
Additionally the entire theory is further based on the notion that everyone else was unblinded and he was the only person they could find who was not, which is completely false and is the short argument for why the trial and SAP revision are invalid
we ended exactly on the uptrend and thankfully not below
the sp keep being pulled down to the uptrend currently at 1.23
Dr. Duffy commented, "My years at Merck, from inception of the Keytruda programs, have been exciting and invaluable. As I look forward now to the next wave of advances in immune therapies for cancer, I am excited about the potential of NW Bio's DCVax technologies to deliver new breakthroughs for patients. I hope to build on my experience in immuno-oncology and my network of relationships in the field to help NW Bio achieve this potential."
There are plenty of other persons and resources they can turn to for that work.
Guiding Principles
The principle consideration when evaluating whether to modify an endpoint is whether the decision is independent of the data obtained from the trial to date. If the decision to revise endpoints is independent of the data from the trial, then such revisions may have merit. In fact, Wittes [8] encourages consideration of changes in long-term trials, as medical knowledge evolves or when assumptions made in design of the trial appear questionable. Wittes further argues that researchers “may consider changes to the primary endpoint when the trial has airtight procedures to guarantee separation of the people involved in making such changes from data that could provide insight into treatment effect” [8].
Some trials have successfully changed endpoints after the trials began by maintaining independence between the decision and the trial data. For example, the randomized Post-CABG (Post Coronary Artery Bypass Graft) trial [9] compared two lipid-lowering regimens in patients who had coronary artery bypass surgery. The investigators explicitly did not identify a primary endpoint when they designed the trial. An angiogram to assess lipid deposition in the coronary arteries was conducted at entry and then again five years later. The researchers planned to compare changes in lipid deposition over the five-year interval between the two regimens. Because by design no endpoint would be available for five years after randomizing the first participant, the protocol team used this period to define the endpoint and to develop methods for analyses. Although the endpoint was not prespecified in the design phase, a practice that is not generally recommended, trial leadership ensured that the selection of the endpoint was independent of data from the trial.
Given this frequency, Evans writes, it is important to determine when changes to endpoints are appropriate and how they should be reported. The main consideration, he says, is whether the decision to modify an endpoint is independent of the data obtained from the trial to date. If this is so, he argues, the revisions may have some merit or even be worth encouraging. If not, then there is a danger of cherrypicking – for example, by selecting new endpoints because they show a trend towards significance and ignoring other candidate endpoints because the trend is not desirable.
Investigators and reviewers should ask three key questions to gauge whether a change in endpoint really is independent of the trial data, Evans suggests: what is the source of the new information that prompts consideration of the change (e.g., results from another trial, which may make the revision credible); whether interim data on the endpoint in question (or related data) have already been reviewed; and, “most importantly”, who is making the decision to revise the endpoint (e.g., the trial sponsors or an independent external advisory committee).
CPO Chief Pessimistic Officer lol
Im not saying that they started to work on the amended SAP the moment Duffy stepped in but 2 things. First Duffy left right after the amended SAP was submitted to the RA"s second by FDA reg a neutral person not involved in the previous old SAP must be involved in drafting and submitting the new endpoints, that's Duffy and not Bosch. Bosch moved to Amsterdam to be absolutely away from drafting new endpoints to adhere to FDA regs. So that certainly was Duffy's job as well.
we must not forget that Duffy was not just browsing around and doing Mercks DD at NWBO's. He guided NWBO to have the SAP amended and submitted to the RA which Im sure took most of his working time at Northwest. The amending of SAP could not be handled by Dr Bosch who needed to be lifted out of the process because of FDA regs. So for this work, a fair salary had to be paid to Duffy.
Im adding to my position tomorrow as well since you are right Im right ;) lol
LL presents at Abta and has not stepped down as DCVAX L lead investigator. So you are saying that Dr Liau is in cahoots with Northwest Dr Bosch, LP to embezzle patients to get L as a treatment for financial gain knowing full well that the treatment is not working at this point?
I suppose that is what a swamprat or Novocure would do yes
I wouldn't want to be associated with complicity in that game.
Perhaps you can point to where in this ad they promote or advertise DCVax-L.
Its inconceivable Northwest advertising DCVAX L at this stage aiming at patients knowing the trial failed. Unless Dr LL and LP are monsters.
how odd for a failed trial lol
Well, maybe that was RP and maybe not.