thanks - i will give it a try.

Well thank you for the gratuitous ad hominem. That was truly illuminating and helpful. Thank you so much. I will immediately stop investing based on your fantastic advice. I just can not wait for more of your wonderful advice (perhaps on how to make the searches more directed to our acronyms so I get better hits).

Kaban, the first thing I tried was to google the acronyms, but unfortunately most of the time (not always) what you get is a million different hits on totally unrelated subject matter unless the acronym is very standard and well accepted and in common use in which case you do get a hit but usually then I already know what the acronym stands for.

Here is a list of some of the acronyms from the last several weeks of your posts that i am not familiar with: CBC, Serum hCG, IXRS, eCRF, AE Assessment, KPS, rPD, nGBM, QoL, SAP, ePD, T2-progress, ORR, DFS, DSC, MGMT, post-RT, DWI, DTI, ADC, NAA, Cho, rCBV, T2, ROI, ROC, MNC, T2/FLAIR, GTR, CCNU, ANG, ICLC, p-EGRF/p-ErbB2, mMGMT, unMGMT, DTH, TLR, BCG, RPMI, dPBS, mAb, TFF, PBMC, TLR, IRB/EC, eCRF, ICH, GCP, ICLC, BCG

Thank you again.

RK, thank you for your kind response to my post. Unfortunately my level of ihub membership does not allow me to use a private reply. Actually GTR was the only term unfamiliar to me - but there are others in previous posts. Is it OK if I post them on the public board?

Pgsd and Md,

You guys are very well versed in reading this kind of literature but most of us are not (including many lurkers who do not post much or at all) and find reading comprehension quite low when every few lines there is another acronym we do not know. This is not a complaint to RK whose posts are extremely helpful - but could be much more so, with very little additional effort, to those of us not as well versed as you guys are. I find your retorts quite elitist and overly protective of RK - WHO I AM NOT ATTACKING. Why not let RK respond for herself.

RK, one further suggestion if you do not mind: Please color any quote. I know, quotes have quotation marks but when reading down a couple of computer screens you can forget if this was quoted or your own thoughts, so a background color for each distinct quote would be very useful.

Hi Rk and anyone else to whom this may apply.

I much enjoy reading your carefully crafted posts. I have two suggestions (requests) to make so that I could enjoy reading your posts with greater comprehension. Most of us are not as fluid as you are with some of the acronyms that you use very liberally. Could you either include the full term followed by the acronym the first time you use it in a post or perhaps just post a full list of all the acronyms you use and their meaning.

Also, you are very heavy on the use of quotes. Quite often these are not accompanied with a date of original publication. It would be very useful if a date could always be included. Thanx.

If they expect event 248 by Nov, what happened to the 2nd interim? Why was it never announced?

Sure, if say 2 or 3 HFs hold just 5 or 6 M shares created by the naked shorts and they circulate these shares around just 5 or 6 times is all it takes without ever touch a single share owned by NW or LP.

As to the regulators - I have no idea why they are asleep on the job!

I speculate , that if there are actually 40 to 70 million naked shorts sales outstanding, then these are held by the retail investors (or whoever else) bought them. These shares are just ordinary shares (so far as the investor knows). These could be a large part of the high volume you are concerned with. They need not all come from LP or NW. Depending on how much churning goes on just a few million shares actually need to circulate. Theoretically just one share could be resold (churned) back and forth 40 M times to produce 40M sales for that day.

The real questions are 1) who is behind the volume sales and 2) why are they dong this.

At the time, I had two related hypotheses for the volume. 1) Some investors or HF or even shorts believed that news would be released at the 3 recent conferences, or 2) HF who believed that many retail investors believed hypothesis one, took advantage for some quick trade to make some fast dollars.

Turtle:
Why would Les tell you we (the investors) will need much patience if the endpoint of the trial is expected in Nov - just around the corner. When this happens the "investigation" will be small potatoes.

Why would Les tell Turtle we (the investors) will need much patience if the endpoint of the trial is expected in Nov - just around the corner. When this happens the "investigation" will be small potatoes.

I'm puzzled a little by the seeming "coincidence" of the screening halt. If they already had screened enough to finished the planned enrollment then it would have been NWBO that should have simply changed the status of the enrollment to no longer active. If the screening halt was due to some regulator concern, then I find the timing coincidence strange as it made no difference and caused huge suffering for investors. I also find the NWBO silence on a matter that made little difference in the long run. They simply could have stated in a NR that they aleady have screened all the people they would need for the trial.

Sounds like Les has no expectations for an AA or reaching 248 events with a positive result any time soon or he would not be too concerned about patience for a long and difficult investigation as that would then be a minor consideration.

I agree with much of what you and flipper suggest. I also hope your conclusionary remark are spot on for PII. My point was that all of these points you make are speculations and your attempt at guessing what is behind the numbers presented. All I questioned was that using the good result for the top 30% had no statistical imperative on its own.

Sorry, I could not respond last night as my 15 posts for the day were exhausted.

You are mistaken about my disposition. Actually, I am pretty heavily invested based on my gut. I have now averaged down considerably in the 33 to 80 cent range but am losing on prior purchases, but thankfully not anywhere near the $12 high. My quest for a good answer is so I can sleep well at night with what I have already done until we get more definitive info.

Sorry, I could not respond last night as my 15 posts for the day were exhausted.

Actually, I am pretty heavily invested based on my gut. I have now averaged down considerably in the 33 to 80 cent range but am losing on prior purchases, but thankfully not anywhere near the $12 high. My quest for a good answer is so I can sleep well at night with what I have already done until we get more definitive info.

I gather that iRANO, RECIST and irRC are different protocols for how to measure tumor response to an immunotherapy treatment. Could one of you please BRIEFLY indicate the key features that make the diff between them? I imagine for the most part they must be fairly similar but for these key differences,

I hear what you are saying, as I am long and my INTUITION tells me that the risk reward ratio here is very favorable. But it is far from a comfortable feeling at this point, and I feel more like a tight-rope walker without a net who has not yet fallen (and hopefully won't).

I guess what you are saying is that on its own the 30% datum would not prove anything, but given other factors in the trial, you are willing to lend it a more positive coloration. But to be clear, this is not a statistical argument.

"Could be" doesn't cut it!


Then why did they release similar info on methods A & B in the Asco presentation in 2015


Well, when we have that data and it is good then you will be right but for now it is not yet proven so far as I can see. I can provide my SPECULATION for why the data looks as it does that will allow for success in the trial but I can not say that is the statistics showing this - just my speculative interpretation of the fact I have been given.

Flipper, I see where you are coming from and where you are going and I hope this is actually the case. What still bothers me however is if in fact the poorer results correlate to the old methodology etc and the better results correlate to the new methodology etc, WHY on Earth did they not say so in their poster/NR????

What I am saying is that this lone datum does not suggest much of anything. When they do testing with those conditions your imagination suggests and are incorporated in the trial and they get convincing numbers then we will have a new discussion.

Beach, I guess you are also giving up, so you decided to sideline me by identifying me as AF - typical ad hominem when you run out of argument. For the last time - I am a long and despise AF - whether you believe this or not.

Eval, like I just responded to Beach, when they disclose these factors then their argument might make more sense to me, but at THIS time they prove nothing of value to me with this particular argument.

Beach, when they find the "thing" that the top 30% have in common then NWBO will have something to talk about, but until then I do not see how their argument about the top 30% shows anything at all. For now you are reading your hopes (and mi ne) into these stats - but they show nothing on their own. Sure I could speculate with you, that the top 30% were helped by DCVax and that the bottom 30% were already beyond help or something like that, but that speculation could also be that the top 30% were the healthier of the random group and that the bottom 30% were already on the border of death and could not be helped. But these speculations for the reason for how the nubers fell out PROVE nothing.

Flipper, I respect your input on this board which has often been quite illuminating, But I am a relative simpleton and any argument that is not distilled into 2 or 3 sentences will probably escape me. If I understood you, then you basically conceded my point that nothing was proven by this argument, but NWBO has other correlations they think will be useful in further testing. If you can distill your response to my point in one simple paragraph that would help.

Biosect, the argument you propose also says that "the [top] 30% did not show a [positive] reaction to the addition of this treatment."

Btw I also despise AF for his twisted and often false arguments, but not every word out of the mouth of a liar is a lie.

No, you give me a break. Your argument does not show as you allege that some are being helped. When you follow those on SOC (or on placebo or on AF's grapefruit juice) you have outliers above the median (as well as outliers below the median). The outliers above the median do not PROVE in any way that that these patients have been "helped" in any way more than the others. You are throwing statistical significance out the window when you ignore comparison between how many outliers below the median vs how many outliers above the median. BUt merely stating look at our outliers above the median proves nothing as some outliers ALWAYS exist by definition of the term "median."

But Dr Bosch put this forward as an efficacy argument!

I have a question for RK or anyone else who wants to run with it. I fail to understand the point Dr Bosch was making when comparing the TOP 30% of patients in the PI D trial in their individual results vs thier expected individual Wheler result which of course looks good. But why ignore the countervailing result of the 30% poorest patients in the same sort of comparison which would obviously look bad. If you want a complete picture you can not only look at the 30% "good" outliers and ignore the "bad" outliers. what is the logic to this look at the balance with your finger firmly on the scale? I do not get it - please explain??? this is probably what AF was arguing - does he not have a point - whether it is an individual comparison for each patient or against the overall statistic?

BTW, I am a long and would love to get past this point with a rational argument.

why wait?

I know of no other customer paying Cognate tens of millions of dollars towards this "shared" facillty like NWBO has. Do you? How general is the plant that it could serve many DIFFERENT biopharmas with DIFFERENT needs. It is not as though there is a biopharma on every corner looking for a facility that can handle dendritic cells and load them with tumour lysate etc. NWBO's needs are reasonably unique -so I imagine it would be hard to find other pharmas to share these costs.

Doingmybest, I will insert my comments in red to your comment which I have bolded in the quote below of your reply.

Senti, I am a serious long, but one of my major beefs (beside the needless silence for their own self protection, is the phrase I underlined in the quote: "as well as upgrade Cognate." The huge amount spent on Cognate (as well as on Sawston, UK and German production facilities) only make sense if LP believes that they will get AA very shortly - otherwise non of it make sense now! But my larger complaint has been specifically wrt Cognate. Even if LP believes that they will get AA shortly, why did they not spend my (read investor) money within NWBO where I (the investor) still retained ownership of the facility they paid for rather than in a vehicle (Cognate) that was fully controlled (owned?) by LP and in which I (investors) have no share what-so-ever and will make lots of money should NWBO succeed. I will have no share in the huge profits generated by Cognate even though I (the investor) paid for the facility and took all the risk. I am not arguing fraud, as we all knew what was happening - but this can not be seen as fair to investors and might cross the line of self dealing and LP's fiduciary duties to the investors!

Did anyone notice this mysterious bid just earlier for 89,000 shares at 0.4201? Clearly it was a MM, as only they can go out to so many decimal places on their orders - retail can not do this (very unfair). It was there for maybe 20 minutes or so and then just disappeared. Non of it got filled as far as I can tell.

I was being facetious.

Sorry HL, but if that was meant to be an explanation - I did not get it???

What exactly in your view is the connection between the large volume of Jan 2017 options expirey and NWBO bankruptcy? I do not see the logic connecting the two? Please explain!