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.
it would be ridiculous to assume that Merck's interest in NWBO, if indeed true, disappears when people involved leave Merck. How badly organized would Merck be if it has such short-lived memory?
Thanks for sharing its true
yes I know that story I have read that post as well and seen the photo in that post
You are missing the point. The point we are making is that it is most likely that Merck and Northwest agreed that Merck would send anyone from Merck suitable enough to do what Duffy did at NWBO, as previously described, in exchange for a first option to acquire Northwest (yes speculative but highly likely) and gather information. Duffy's CV suited that job so Merck delivered what was agreed. But it could have been Fufyy of Muffy or anyone else with the same caliber at Merck's, capable of doing the job at NWBO.
For what NWBO and Merck were after they didn't need to send Merck's CTO, which would have been too obvious anyway. Long version short Duffy was not employed by NWBO (yes as cover), Merck sent a representative.
NO I dont have a link or definite proof for this but I will stick with this for my investment in NWBO. Sometimes a duck is a duck when it quacks and walks like one.
edit
Where do you guys get the idea that Duffy was some big shot at Merck?
Sorry I wasn't trying to be patronizing or condescending
Thanks guys great DD!! Not selling 1 NWBO share
The subject is why do we see overlapping patents from Northwest.
There could be different reasons for this. One is what I described Northwest wants to increase the probability of being accepted in one go, so as not to have to file subsequently improved patent descriptions after being rejected for one and the same invention. And in this case, enhancing the probability of being subjected to the odious operations of patent troll companies as in how I described it.
Another reason is to examine if Northwest is patenting more ways to get to Rome as they say, let's see what Flipper finds out. I don't see Northwest not completely patenting every aspect of the process, for as much as it can be patented, and accidentally forgetting a part of it and then later being confronted with other patent owners' claims.
Now as for you describing the invention and consequently patents of the carbonator, as if Im a 12-year-old but that's ok, I can 100% guarantee you that in the near future there will be, or already are, new methods for producing cancer antigen sensitized dendritic cells patented, which is only a good thing. I'm happy that DCVAX will be made completely obsolete by a better method in 10-15 years? However, that new invention will have to go through the same approval and prove better results first than L. In other words, it's not as if a newly submitted and approved patent in this area would immediately kill the DCVAX platform.
So a new improved patented method close home to producing cancer antigen sensitized dendritic cells but not infringing DCVAX will, regardless of what you are saying, NOT get NWBO in any sort of royalties/financial/obstruction trouble.
Well, as an absolute fact they gave Innes shares and not give Davis (hired as the CFO) shares.
Wonder why?
Answer is that Innes was hoped to bring in money. Just like Nevid did.
again love your snappy come backs it takes one to know one.
flip, Im not a patent attorney but I do know that its not uncommon for inventors, after consulting with their patent attorney, to submit overlapping patents with small differences to enhance the chance of being accepted after first filing. This is especially so when the inventor and lawyer have on some details some doubts about how to describe it to make the invention really unique. If they don't do that what happens is that patent trolls could pick up a rejected patent, rewrite the part for what it has been rejected for, and then file it as a completely new invention. I hate those patent trolls they should be prohibited but that is probably me as a socialistic European talking :)
And yes its often a waste of resources.
lol well as we say in Dutch the one who persists wins.
You can say many things about Marzan but he does keep persisting in his messages and one day he will be right. In biotech investing it's not about the 99% you were wrong its about that one-time you are right. Anyone that does not understand that you should not invest in biotech
well its a bit sadder than that.
I suspect Northwest did not update the trial completion date with clinicaltrials.gov because they did not want to be bothered by the NIH a year after that date.... so there is that
If anyone else has a good reason, for not updating, let me know
Nope they have 100% not.
An extension for good cause may be requested under conditions specified in 42 CFR 11.44(e) (the request for extension clause). The preamble of the final rule explains that such requests will be granted in limited circumstances. (81 FR 65076-79)
The reason why they have not been granted an extension for submission of trial results is that they simply not requested an extension. For an extension to be requested one must first update
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00045968
with the study completion date, which we know they did not.
Now of course Northwest can always claim that the last day they examined a patient for the purposes of final collection of data for the primary outcome is actually Oct 4 and thus that is the primary completion date if the NIH would insist with Northwest, but then that would be lying. On the other hand who could disprove that.
In general, for applicable clinical trials subject to § 11.42, clinical trial results information specified in sections 402(j)(3)(C) and 402(j)(3)(I) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 282(j)(3)(C) and 42 U.S.C. 282(j)(3)(I)) or in § 11.48, as applicable, must be submitted no later than 1 year after the primary completion date of the applicable clinical trial.
The final rule in 42 CFR 11.10(a) also defines "study completion date" for a clinical trial as the "date the final subject was examined or received an intervention for purposes of final collection of data for the primary and secondary outcome measures and adverse events (e.g., last subject's last visit), whether the clinical trial concluded according to the pre-specified protocol or was terminated…."
The question is thus when was the last patient was examined or received an intervention for purposes of final collection of data for the primary and secondary outcome measures. Im pretty sure that was at least on Aug 19
https://nwbio.com/nw-bio-announces-completion-of-further-data-gathering-for-phase-iii-trial/
BETHESDA, Md., August 19, 2020 – Northwest Biotherapeutics (OTCQB: NWBO)(“NW Bio”), a biotechnology company developing DCVax® personalized immune therapies for solid tumor cancers, today announced that the remaining outstanding clinical trial data for the Company’s Phase 3 trial of DCVax®-L for Glioblastoma brain cancer as described in the Company’s last report on July 24, 2020 has now been completed by the specialty analytics firms. With this data now in hand, final quality control checking and confirmation are under way to enable Data Lock.
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! People kill me. What is your claim?
Oohw now I understand you mean this March 1 loan
https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/1072379/000110465921032416/tm218804d1_8k.htm
Well, it doesn't say that the loan is due before Nov 1 if no TLD or any other event did not happen at a certain date. If it were to be due on Oct 5 if a certain set of events did not happen then that ought to have been disclosed by Northwest. Like us, the company that loaned the amount to NWBO is probably watching the financial status, SP, and disclosure of TLD by NWBO like a hawk, just like us.
Nice grapple, you can get a good bite out of probably anything with that machine :)
On March 1, 2021, Northwest Biotherapeutics, Inc. (the “Company”) entered into a Commercial Loan Agreement and Note (collectively, the “Loan Agreement”) with Streeterville Capital, LLC (the “Holder”) in the amount of $11,005,000. The Loan Agreement has a maturity of 22 months. Repayments do not start until November 1, 2021.
Following November 1, 2021, the Loan Agreement will be amortized in 14 equal monthly installments of principal at 110% of the pro rata amount, plus accrued interest. Interest on the Loan Agreement accrues at a rate of 8% per annum, and the Loan Agreement includes an original issue discount of ten percent. The Loan Agreement allows pre-payment at any time at the Company’s election. If the Company elects to pre-pay, the pre-payment would include a 10% charge. The Loan Agreement contains customary default provisions, including for potential acceleration.
If Dr Bosch in Amsterdam, after encountering him in a coffee shop, granted me to answer and choose between the 2 questions:
A. How good or bad are the results
B. At what exact date will the results be disclosed
I would choose B and leave A for what it is.
yes true but what month? Surely you mean a month in the second half of 2022?
if no TLD before Nov 1, cause that was the subject, then I dont see 11 million worth of patients flocking to Sawston covering what is needed in Nov and dec 2021. Let alone no approval for reasons of reimbursement.
I think what Captain is trying to say is that (based on my earlier calculation) Northwest would need 11 million in LOANS (calculated on the repayment of loans+ interest, business costs etc) to bridge over Nov and Dec IF no TLD before Nov 1.
I also believe TLD + publication before Nov 1
And if I am not correct what Captain meant with that 11 million then pardon me.
If NWBO ignored that requirement, would it affect the $11 million loan?
Toothless
hope so and agree, cause quite frankly NWBO playing it at the brinks of the financial abyss gives me the chills. Would LP be so stubborn as a donkey to rather have financial problems / get NWBO into bankruptcy as to not having it her way which is TLD close to a publication? I hope not.
What's more important shorts going all ranting and exploding for a few weeks if we JUST see topline data and the publication weeks after that but then saving the company or jumping over the financial edge of Nov 1 with no assurance of a safety net/ SP imploding?
yes ex I emailed them happy now?
I think it’s too bad the rule is not enforced.
yes Nov 1, 2021, to me is a hard deadline given their current financial status, the quiet period not being able to sell shares, the authorized shares, the tying up of warrants etc. I do not believe they will be able to find anyone or a group to front them with $11-12 million if not more to cover Nov + Dec.
Im in a way happy they have that financial knife on their throat this will force their hands I hope.
well as we know Northwest has stated they are not bound to any conference for their releases. However, now that we know its not ESMO I don't think it will be prior to ESMO.
If we go beyond Oct 5 2021 and Innes D refers to the Oct 5 PR he has to, from Oct 6 on, add the year to it when referring to the Oct 5 PR, which is more work for him. Ha suits him well lol
aah I missed that it takes a lot of time to read all posts.
Thank you for the update.
thanks for sharing pgsd, I personally do not consider NWBO to be present at ESMO, perhaps late-breaking but I doubt it
I may sound like I’m contradicting myself from earlier thoughts,
I have always said that in most EU countries, the self-dealing by LP/LG in this particular case of LP would have most certainly led to the prosecution by a government body and, Im nearly sure would have led to the successful conviction of the reimbursing of suffered damages for shareholders. Those damages would have been based on the sum the Northwest shares would have been worth if the CDMO 's would have been subsidiaries of Northwest, as required in most EU countries in given circumstances.
But NWBO is not in Europe... this is America and in America, this construction that LP and LG chose for is apparently completely legal. I think its no different than any other CEO of a listed company in the US filling its pocket.
Im 98% sure L will be approved and that will set the SP to x at least Im invested for that.
hey evaluate,
got your PM can you Ihub PM me your email I am not a full member of Investorhub then we can communicate via email.
best wishes
back when I was a student I use to work for a magazine called Formule 1. We get to go to all F1 races in Europe and Canada. Good times
good idea Sojo I will!!!
I have never met an unpleasant Canadian thus all Canadians are nice
Philosophy I picked up from ex
good grief men.
The idea you have that you are the ground zero for biotechs is preposterous.
anyway, next time better read the article first
General Characteristics of All Applications and Disclosures
Applications for Companies Publicly Traded in the United States, No. (%) (n?=?221)
h The sum is 221 (not 222) because of exclusion of 2 applications that were withdrawn before US Food and Drug Administration assigned review status.
he did prove it, the question was are there any that do not disclose from the NCBI article we learned there are which disproves your point.
CU tomorrow. Ps: tip for your next subject:
Linda Powers is she a pink poney? prove she is not.....
by the way, you are absolutely right that Northwest is over the 1-year study completion date and has not disclosed trial results yet, and until they have been submitted you remain correct when you say they have not submitted yet. we get it
yesterday you got quiet after being proven wrong by me and PM (no options or shares for Duffy) and just now you burned by Flipper.. how is your pink pony ride? there is always tomorrow until TLD see you then new changes new subject :)
Lol you are on fire today flip
lol hahaha well yes that was clear from the beginning master technical analyst :) (your mom knew that too? at least your math teacher :)
exactly