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.
Read the article. They don’t have the data and they were bought several years ago. Lol. $12B. $3B more than Juno that also didn’t have any results. Good try though! Lol!!
Did either one have P3 data when they were bought? NO!
At a market cap of $5B, NWBO share price would be ~$7/sh .
So if Big Pharma is willing to pay $9B to $10B for P3 results that haven’t been given, I am betting they would easily pay $20B, ~$29/sh.
Yescarta didn’t have P3 results yet!
Kite: “Gilead expects to have data in the second half of this year (2020) from a Phase 3 study testing Yescarta earlier in treatment, “
https://www.biopharmadive.com/news/gilead-yescarta-cell-therapy-writedown-deal-pressure/571762/
Where can you find historical graphs of old delisted stocks, like DNDN?
Thats true, but NWBO was also pummelled by shorts, and so they werent able to get the appropriate funding at higher levels. Looking back, had they sold 1/10 of the shares needed at $12 a share, they would have had more cash, and way less dilution. Hindsight is 20/20.
That's ~$5B market cap. KITE & JUNO sold for $10B without positive results. More like $20 a share...
Let's hope so!!
Put "Bullets" where used against NWBO when it fell from ~$4 a share down under a dollar and into the penny stock levels. The good thing is that options are not available for NWBO on the OTC market, and I hope that NWBO doesnt push to move this back to the NASDAQ until much after TLD is provided.
The fact that "the Street" has connections to this Dendreon attack, and that Adam Feuerstein used to work at the Street, and was another attacker of NWBO. The issue I have with AF isn't that he makes negative comments regarding NWBO, I would like questions to be put forward about an investment. Its the fact that when good information comes out, or anything of a positive nature, there is no comment from AF, and this shows he has a predetermined notion of NWBO, a negative one of course. That to me suggests there has to be motive there.
Yes, hence why I am waiting to see what the Short Interest is for Sept 15. I am expecting it to jump to 20M from 14M at the end of August.
I dont have a link. You would think it would be available in their annual 10Q reports. Suffice to say, ~700 M could be the share float, but that would also include all the director's shares, Cognate's share volume, etc... which wouldn't really be part of that public volume IMHO (though technically it is, because they could sell it all on the public market).
I agree, but if the large short volumes arent pushing the price down, then that means there is significant buying volume to prop it up, so what happens is that they may have to buy more in the afternoon, which will push the share price up. The fact that the selling volume hasn't significantly dropped the price doesnt bode well for the shorts.
I am betting there will be ~ 20M short volume for Sept 15th up from 14M .... Waiting for that to be updated.
2M shares where shorted this morning, and gobbled up. Shorts are trying to keep this down, but there seems to be enough buy sentiment to keep the share price buoyed. Interested to see if there will be some large buy volumes in the afternoon, which could jump this over $1.
Your link also states a 15.09% Short % of Float from ~14M share short. So you tell me if its correct. LOL!!!
Shares float are shares that available to purchase on the open market. The 700 Million shares are shares outstanding, but much of that volume is restricted. Share float are publicly owned, unrestricted and available on the open market. So you are incorrect spartex.
Also, 13 M shares short from end of August. The short interest will be out here shortly for Sept 15th. They calculate it twice a month.
exwannabe Look at my post. I never said that the daily volume of shorts correlates to the short interest. What I said is, there has been a significant amount of volume coupled with shorting, so unless the shorts have been buying back the same volume they have been shorting in the last two weeks, the short interest will increase.
It simple math. And since there has been enough buying interest for the share price to go up, I am betting that the short interest will be significantly higher, maybe closer to 18M to 20M. We shall see....
Interested in the Short Interest. It was up in the 13M volume at the end of August, however, the shorts have been working hard to keep the share price down the last couple weeks, as the shorted volumes have stayed at ~60% of the total volume. So either the shorts are buying back their shorted volumes, or the short interest is going to be up in the 30M shares or more.....
Should know soon
https://fintel.io/ss/us/nwbo
Yes, it definitely is part of the Flaskworks deal.
Shorts have been non stop trying to push the share price down. Buying pressures slowed up with the drop in Tech stocks, so shorts were able to take advantage at the end of the day. If you look at many of the graphs, this has happened in the past, but buying pressures were too strong.
Until P3 results come out, this will always be the case unfortunately!!
There are numerous sites that can give you this.
Here is one:
https://www.shortvolume.com/
Shorts could get squeezed hard!!!
Yesterday's volume was ~24M shares, of which, 14M where shorts. Meaning when you include the additional short volume, there was no "catching up" by the shorts yesterday. The massive volume of shorts keep the share price from skyrocketing. However, if this continues to go up that wont be sustainable, and we could readily see a short squeeze here.
The majority of the tail has to be treatments. Over 90% crossed over to DCVax L. And since cross overs happen sooner than later, I would readily say that the tail is probably easily 99% treated!
Ahh there’s the link. I guess so. Weird. That doesn’t seem too good a choice unless it was something due to the pandemic.
Yes where is that PR. When I spoke to Dave Innes he said that was not the case.
If someone can post a resume that K Duffy is back at Merck so can I post about Linda!
Linda is now CEO at Disneyland’s. Check out her resume below:
March 2020 to present. CEO Disneyland
January 20001 to Feb 2020. CEO NWBO
Skills MS Word, MS Excel
Anyone can post a resume. I could post a resume that K Duffy is now working as a cook at McDonalds. Doesn’t mean it’s true. Lol!! That’s funny that people would believe that.
Kevin Duffy has gone back to Merck?
The ASM is canceled ?
Where does it state these claims??
Unless there are huge buying lots, now the shorts can take days to buy back these shares to keep the price low.
Cel-Sci issues a letter to shareholders.
https://www.irdirect.net/prviewer/release/id/4243540
Obviously this is a short attack. Saw this exact situation before with NWBO. Stock price fell from $12 a share down to $3, and then continued on the next couple days all with huge sell volumes. I will continue to pick this up!!
They pumped it by putting out the AGM details prior to giving these details. Not saying that they actually pumped up the price and took advantage, but they pumped up the price so that this news didn't drop the share value down to $0.10. I would have much rather it be $0.10 to buy more. They should have come out with that news well before the AGM news.
That was a Dyck move! That was truly a pump and dump scheme. Build up hope around the AGM and then dump and dilute 25M shares.
Shorts won’t allow this over $0.30. That is the tipping point. If this pushes well above $0.34 or more I believe you’ll see a huge jump from shorts covering their sales.
I wasn’t stating what is specifically used for trials. Just giving someone a simpler definition of p value. Actually I prefer the Wilcoxon rank method in comparing populations. Nice try exwannabe in trying to catch me in something. You just like to argue for the sake of arguing.
The last standard of care termizolomide was approved on greater than 2 months increase. ICT 107 was evaluated on 2 month increase. If DCVaxL is able to show an mOS increase of 2 months it is considered a success. This used to be one of the endpoint targets. Not sure if they changed that or not.
Here is p-value for dummies; it shows you use the standard deviation to calculate it. You can also read the first article Bohsie posted called NWBO: Statistically Speaking which calculates the P-Value from the Phase 2 trial.
https://www.dummies.com/education/math/statistics/how-to-determine-a-p-value-when-testing-a-null-hypothesis/
You never know if you have SS. If the two tails are the same then it wouldn’t matter if you stopped the trial earlier or not. However, for the same reason IMUC continued to evaluate their trial, they were doing so to see if over time a fatter tail would eventually give them SS. It didn’t.
However the fact that DCVax L shows a fatter tail, and it would go to reason that the longer they wait the stronger the p value will get.
That may be what stat sig is to you but in the biopharma industry it is the probability that two populations are actually the same. Meaning the smaller the price value the more likely the two populations are different and therefore an effective drug.
iMUC’s trial showed an increase of 2 months but there was a probability greater than 5% that they were the same populations. So the trial failed.
What effect p value greatly is the standard deviation and what effects the standard deviation is long fat tails. So the longer the trial goes the more the p value is dropped (as long as the tail is fatter and longer)
No. They test if the two means are from different populations however the endpoint must be 2 months greater. Just like termzolomide’s phase 3 trial, it showed an increase greater than 2 months and that was the original endpoint for NWBO’s DCVax-L. They reduced it but increased the strength of the P value numerous years back.
There has to be some hypothesis to test. Something to show that these are two different populations. And it the difference is statistically significant then you know that the vacinne is effective. So they test for the mOS increase to be 2 months or greater. IcT-107 failed. It was 2 month greater mOS but was not statistically significance in the phase 2 trial.
So The article is showing that from the blinded dated, the SOC needs to have an ~mOS of nearly 19 months for that outcome to fail, but since it’s a crossover it would actually provide a strong case that the vaccine is actually effective.
Yes sorry blinded.
You are correct, the right value is 99 to 232; I just did the calc 1/3 in my head. Which doesn't change a thing. In the calculation, we still know the number of placebo patients 99, and the number of treated 232. So you still model it with that knowledge.