That’s conjecture on your part. My conjecture is the principal investigators wouldn’t have put together the paper and put their names on it if no good faith effort to obtain patient level data had been made.

Senti - regarding sharing of patient level data, is this standard behavior among companies? Wouldn’t they be motivated to share the data, as presumably it would show patient differences that would weaken NWBios results?

Agreed on big biz fiasco.

Maybe all the more reason to attend.

Or just on time and not 18 months after the last one.

Wouldn’t the sponsors of the referenced trials want to provide that data? Especially since the inference is that the patent level data would show that there was no positive outcome?

I certainly am not saying that. And, currently, we ARE a penny stock. It’s just that for a company with serious ambitions, who has stated to multiple posters that their hands are tied in terms of self promotion because of regulatory agencies and also bloggers like AF regularly attacking them, Les shooting from the hip on the Big Biz show seems to contradict that reasoning. If he reaches new investors through that show, more power to them. However, after 10 years, I’m frustrated we’re still at that point as a company.

Right. I’ve always felt like Les appearing on a paid promotional spot on a show catering to penny stocks undermines any rational for NWbio’s hands being tied in regards to promoting their story.

Every time Les appears on the Big Biz show this is my thought as well. If they had something lined up with a BP, they’d muzzle Les - if for no other reason than an acquiring or partnering BP would want to control the narrative.

They’re not the sponsor of the trial. You can look at the article, acknowledge that it seems incredibly promising - maybe even use the data to try and build a partnership for combination trials - but PR ing it would seem unprofessional. (On that note, watch Les hit the Big Biz over the weekend).

So what is your story? That they were going to enroll you in the study despite you not having a true glioblastoma?

I’ve been in this long enough to remember bears crying foul about the primary endpoint being PFS and not OS.

Ex, where does the patient level data come from? Does it belong to the sponsor of the original trial being cited in the control arm? Why isn’t it available to include?

Yeah. Any way you slice it this has been a pretty poor investment for a lot of people. But I bet more people bought sub .50 than > 5.00. And certainly not 1300.00.

Ok. But that’s a 20 year chart. Not that we’re doing much better, but it’s not 1300 to .5. It’s more like 12 to .5. Assuming you bought at the high of the decade.

What’s the math on 13000 to .50 cents? It hasn’t split in the last ten years. Are you basing that off share price as a percentage of market cap?

My average isn’t .17. I never said it was. Only that most people’s average is closer to .17 than 6, or 10, or 1300.

Certainly far more people bought NWBO at .17 then at > 20 dollars a share.

You mean Les? Linda Liau - while she’s now on the board, she’s a researcher and isn’t going to appear on Mad Money.

On this point, I agree with you.

Good lord. Solar panels sit on your roof for 20-30 years. Meanwhile, how much plastic and electronic junk have you, me, anybody, bought, thrown away, rebought, etc..during that time?

There are certainly doctors who disagree with your opinion on this matter.

Dang, the audio only will be pretty dull if there isn’t anyone live in person to ask real questions.

I love my Roth. It’s kind of calmed me down at times, in regard to this particular investment. Time line wise. When I started buying NWBO I was 16 years away from being able to withdrawal. No hurry. Now I’m 5 years out.

In an odd coincidence, she passed away from brain cancer.

s.

Or God forbid, it precipitates another quiet period while the lawsuit plays out. We’ll be in an extra quiet period.

I think margin is key. And IRAs are not marginable.

Right. Or if another entity , business or fund, wants to acquire some of the C shares. So in that regard, the notion that they're looking to increase the allowable shares is really just the other shoe dropping. What's disappointing is the current share price, and no clear idea what direction things are heading behind the curtain.

It’s 100% on brand for NWBio to carry a PR firm through years of quiet period, then part ways right before the quiet period ends, when they finally have something to get out there. It’s inept, or it’s an amazingly good omen. Reminds me of hiring Duffy, or the CFO.

I agree. The longer you’ve been around the more this just sounds like noise. The best vengeance is living well. Let’s have the JA and updates.

Source?

Well, also whatever was going on with Linda Liau leading up to the presentation.

Have you tried more eye rolls- maybe six or seven? I can’t speak for anyone other than myself, but Dr Ashkan recently said the paper was submitted for peer review, and that tells me there will in fact be a paper. He would know. It’s not like Les and Linda are putting the finishing touches on it over a pot of coffee at the Bethesda IHOP.

Who’s writing the article, though. Certainly nobody at NWBio. They’re guilty of poor communications and managing timeline expectations, but I don’t know how much control they have over the paper / publication process. Maybe I don’t understand this issue and someone can correct me.

I agree with you on this point, Gary. We will probably never know what was going on behind the scenes ( Covid aside ) with Dr Lieu and STAT.

You don’t have to take their word for it. Ask the trial investigators. They’re well paid neurosurgeons - but I wouldn’t question their moral compasses.

It’s odd that they aren’t working the phones like they have in years past to verify shareholders. Maybe once they finally announce the ASM.

I've always had the impression that there is sometimes 'inside' knowledge that a PR is pending, regardless of the content of the PR. Then it seems that finally something is happening, stock starts nudging up, and everyone goes bananas with speculation.

One of the problems of the on again, off again trail, is that thinking around Immunotherapy and endpoints has changed considerably over the years. You know that of course, so I'm just mentioning for anyone new to the board. Also, back in the pre-woodford days, I remember a lot of Nwbio bears screaming quite loudly that PFS was a bullshit endpoint for cancer trials, and only overall survival was a legitimate endpoint.

NWBio wasn’t technically presenting data at ASCO. they were ASCO adjacent.