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.
Exactly. Nobody knows.
And the company has indicated nothing, by admission nor silence.
So people getting their hopes up . . . again . . . is unwise and unhealthy.
I heard Terry Waite speak at UConn in the early 90's, not long after his release in 1991 after 5 years as a hostage in Lebanon. One of the things that struck me (now almost three decades ago) was him talking about how he survived in isolation for years. He said that it was important to keep faith that you would be released, that you would survive. However, that the people who created artificial deadlines or goals (e.g. 'I'll be home for Christmas'), or believed the many promises, were the ones who did not make it.
An excerpt from a recent interview touches on this point:
RE: hoffmann6383 -
Man, they are trying awfully hard this morning. Need Christmas money?
RE: KD8888888
You don't need to shout. You can sound perfectly uninformed in lowercase.
When you are only paid $0.02 / post, you don't need to make a lot of sense.
RE: Maverick0480
Linda Powers did not say anything about publication or presentation at the latest Annual Shareholders Meeting, other than to say that rumors about presenting at ASCO back in June (2021) were false. (https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=163888870)
In 2019, Linda Powers answered a question about presenting findings at ASCO, to which she responded:
Sorry, it was the earlier bounce from $0.17 to $0.42 - https://killtheshorts.com/
They posted on here for a while. Not sure how much of the price move was due to them and how much to other factors. I do remember it being the first time over $0.40 since I started here.
RE: Long and gone
Not all shorts are created equal.
First, large pharmaceutical companies that stand to lose a great deal if NWBO is successful could pay people to post negatively about the stock and to drive down the share price. Why? Because the lower the share price the harder to get financing, the more diluted the stock the less profit there is to be made by investors, and poor stock performance is an easy thing to point to as to why the company will fail or is mismanaged.
These shorts win by delaying results, by putting pressure on the company (financial, legal, etc.), by lowering the share price enough that any buy out is at a discounted rate, or by killing the company entirely. They do not necessarily hold any long-term position in the company's stock, neither holding shares nor holding a short position for long. They can manipulate the stock price with small, timed trades.
Second, there are companies and funds that make their money by shorting stocks. They look for companies with a certain profile and attack their stock. It does not matter if results are imminent. Results have seemingly been imminent for years. Again, they can manipulate the price with relatively small, timed trades to cause people to buy up while they unload shares, and to panic sell when they want to get the shares back. Alternately, they can do man-in-the-middle attacks by simultaneously buying and selling the stock, intercepting a buy order and filling it at a high price while simultaneously hitting a lower sell price. So if you put in a Limit order to buy 10,000 shares at $1.05, they might hit a bunch of shares at $1.03-$1.04 and sell them to you at $1.05 because their computers and network equipment are faster than your broker's.
In the same way there are companies and funds that pump stocks. Last summer one of those groups, which advertise themselves as 'short busters' or similar, pumped NWBO up over $1. Again, they look at companies that meet a certain profile, buys a bunch of stock for cheap, tell their followers that they are going to bust the shorts, their followers buy in, causing the stock to rise, the company/fund sells at an inflated price and moves on to the next stock. Each stock goes up just like they said it would because people are told it will go up so they buy, causing the stock to rise. Nice self-fulfilling advertising.
I would seriously doubt that there are many people with large short positions in NWBO right now. It is possible but to me fairly unlikely.
RE: MI Dendream:
My point, if I have one it is sometimes difficult to tell, is that prior to approval and ramping up manufacturing capabilities there are only a very small number of patients that can get DC-Vax. Maybe they can enroll in a combo trial at UCLA, maybe compassionate use, maybe some doctors have access, maybe some shady guy in a stained overcoat in an alley. But without approval it will not be available to the masses who need it. And currently manufacturing capabilities put a hard limit on the number of potential patients. That limit is dozens where soon it will be thousands.
Releasing TLD has the potential to make more people aware of DC-Vax, a published article and conference appearances can provide better information and awareness to the medical community. But those are largely irrelevant without approval, which is not really impacted by the release of TLD and a published article (although peer review could have some modest impact it is likely to precede approval by some time).
So whether TLD was released in October 2020 or is released in early 2022 (I am not suggesting this is likely) has at most a nominal impact on potential patients. However, being able to put out a clear message about DC-Vax with the data and a peer-reviewed article to back it up, has the potential to blunt fallacious attacks against the results and increase its use after approval.
Yes, on October 8, 2020:
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=158783215
This board talks about lots of things. Doesn't make them true.
The answer to your question, however, is October 9, 2021. 'Why?' you ask? Because I have 5 other, totally unrelated to each other or to NWBO things that are all now happening around October 9, so clearly the universe is speaking or something. No need to thank me.
What exactly is the point of this? Do you honestly think that you are in a better position to determine when and how to release TLD and update clinicaltrials.gov than a group of individuals who have been running this trial for over a decade, have the unblinded results and analysis, and have the advice of the SAB and leading oncologists?
Even if you were somehow successful with something, the most you could reasonably expect to happen is to cause some sort of fine or rebuke from the NIH down the line. Which, as an investor, seems like a bad thing. No government agency is going to rapidly cause NWBO to release the results or update the website any sooner than NWBO decides to as a result of an email from some _______ investor.
Thanks, Doc!
I agree with you. I am sure that management has been forced into a number of bad situations and tried to do the best they could. Having met them at a couple of ASMs, listened to them, watched them, and looked critically at some of their choices and actions, I feel very much that they are trying to do the best they can for the people who have supported them and enabled NWBO to continue to exist. As you say, they could easily have allowed a great deal more dilution, especially over the last year-and-a-half.
It seems clear to me as well that they very much want to provide all the details people are itching to hear. They want to trumpet the success of DC-Vax to the world. On a number of occasions Les has said more than he should have. And honestly, I would not count Linda or Les as being particularly good public speakers. Communication really isn't their forte.
For all that I support their efforts, I absolutely acknowledge that they may not have been entirely truthful, they may have been misleading. But so far I have not been presented with evidence that proves that. Instead we are daily barraged with a bunch of conclusory drivel. 'The share price is X, or down X%, so the company stinks.' 'They said X and it didn't happen, so they are frauds.' I spent 2 years as a Federal pro se clerk, handling over 300 cases filed by federal and state inmates seeking relief and they invariably gave the same sorts of conclusory arguments. If you are going to attack someone's character then the burden of proof is on you to prove your allegations.
The thing about communications is that it is a two-way street. While it is reasonable for shareholders to expect timely, factual communications, a company should be able to expect that the public and markets will react in an appropriate manner. If you provide good blinded data in 2018, you should expect the stock price to rise, not crater. If every time you provide good news hack journalists and a bunch of anonymous bulletin-board posters twist everything, then are you really doing a service to your shareholders?
If you want facts, the price about a year ago was $2.50 and today it is half of that. Where did all of that money go (~$1 billion)? To the people shorting the stock and attacking the company. When good news comes out the stock goes up a bit, and then gets pounded as shorts drain the bounce from the positive news. If they don't coordinate the release of TLD, the same thing is going to happen on a much larger scale.
I would disagree that no one on this board is talking about management being held legally accountable for the September 2020 timeline. But that is neither here nor there.
As to ethics, trust, and competence, ethics for someone in the legal profession are fairly straight-forward and I don't necessarily see any ethical problems with the timeline issues. As for trust and competence, I would argue that we as shareholders are a lot better off if management realizes they were mistaken or made a poor choice or didn't understand something and then changed course over a team that never learns, never acknowledges mistakes, and bullheadedly continues on a path that new evidence suggests is no longer a path to success.
Obviously, I need to make some assumptions about why things happen and why management has acted the way they have. IMO, on several occasions management has received new information in the form of trial results, blinded or unblinded, or regulatory and classification changes, which have caused them to reevaluate how they move forward. I have little doubt that they expected the trial to conclude years ago but that when they saw the data and the high survival rate, they had to change course. That is not an easy decision. Maybe they could have gotten approval by now but at what future cost? They have now gathered tremendous amounts of data that will help them and will help patients in the future that they would not have had if they ended the trial early.
Similarly, when they concluded the trial and saw the results, I believe that they had to reevaluate their planned announcement of TLD. They had planned a series of PRs around Flaskworks and Sawston, a presentation at a conference, and who knows what else. But based on the data and changes to the definition of GBM, and the advice of the SAB, they changed course.
I understand that people have trust issue, I get that people doubt management's competence. I am simply not one of those people. However, it is not simply through some blind faith but because the circumstantial evidence points to a different conclusion and I would prefer longterm approval and use as the new SOC over short-term revelation of TLD to shareholders.
learningcurve202 is almost like a preacher. He just loves to hear himself talk. I don't know what level of investor you feel you're reaching with such tripe.
Btw, I see some here still fefuting the Duff without ever acknowledging all the evidence. Terrible.
Yeah, that is how this works. <Rolls eyes>
So you choose death? Cool. I guess you'll stop posting now. The question is whether or not enough other people will choose option "I" or "J" of all those afflicted with GBM in order to support $10 MM? I am guessing "Yes."
2 + 2 = 0, brilliant!
Funny, I already know exactly what you will say if TLD is released and is spectacular. You'll find some minuscule sub-group that doesn't benefit or has some minor inconvenience and pretend they are who needs it most and go on about how you have always cared about them. It will be like coal advocates bemoaning the number of birds killed by wind turbines but neglecting to note that wind power kills the least birds per unit of power of any generation method. Or bemoaning that some handicapped individuals will not be able to use plastic straws if there is a ban to protect life on Earth.
"Common sense" is the term used to explain that you should trust your own unrelated experience when faced with something you don't understand, rather than trusting to the people who literally spend their lives seeking to understand and explain something.
So common sense tells you that you should build an entire plane out of the material used to make the Black Box, because then if it crashed it would remain intact . . . nevermind that it would be too heavy to fly. Engineers are just stupid.
Common sense tells you that drinking disinfectant will prevent getting COVID because really, there is no difference between ingesting something and cleaning surfaces with it. Doctors are just dumb.
That is what Common Sense means.
"I owe you NOTHING!"
Man, it has gotten so bad that all the 'skeptics' have resorted to just talking to one another. :O
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=165650810
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=165648625
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=165651406
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=165650294
Nice useless article about a company that just licenses other people's technology. Note how the article says nothing at all about what they do or why their technology is 'breakthrough.'
Their website is full of corporate jargon and short on any actual accomplishments. So yeah, if they can jump from $0.43 to $43, one can only imagine the potential that NWBO has.
No it does not. The new SEC ruling going into effect at the end of September reduces the ability to trade OTC stocks that are not in compliance with reporting requirements. And it only affects Pink Sheet stocks, which are the most risky of OTC stocks.
Here is the text: https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2020-212