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.
Hmm… that is odd, if I’m not accidentally on ignore. I don’t ignore anyone (as a mod, I probably shouldn’t), so I don’t know how the ignore function works.
I think both Bigger and thermo are invested as private investors, and not as fund managers.
From 2/06/24 NWBO PR:
My NWBO buddy Richard just posted a tweet thread that merits some DD consideration.
All this talk about buildout of cleanrooms and $NWBO’s capacity to manufacture $DCVax one thing that is being overlooked is the connection between the company and EW Helathcare. EWH, a private investor in healthcare companies, was part of the group that provided financing
— Richard Fairgrieve (@RichFairgrieve) May 1, 2024
lol! :)
At least we can say "bye bye" to Nemesis. He's been kicked off I-hub.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/profilea.aspx?user=845347
If you don't think DCVax-L will be approved, what good will the millions of options be to management that they've awarded themselves?
I understand you think this is all about building out Advent, which currently consists of personnel and a lease on the Sawston building (and NWBO shares for achieved milestones), and given that, I'm curious why you would bother bringing up what I'm sure you must consider those useless options?
And there are 80 or more of them across the nation and in the UK, Canada, and Germany who were directly involved in the trial. Pretty sure they're following the regulatory process as it moves forward, too.
Well that's not good... for Car-T (or patients).
Is it any surprise, though, that the Car-T developers "stress that the benefits of their cancer therapies still outweigh the risks."?
Norisk... I don't think you're correct on German Colonel being short. That's my personal opinion, but likely the opinion of a good many others here.
Below is a post that I'd made back in Nov 2018 re: what had happened to me when I tried to look into obtaining the physical certificates to some of my shares in one of my Schwab accounts. It may be helpful to look over for anyone considering taking that type of action.
I was going to mention that I thought making a move like transferring shares from your brokerage to ComputerShare would probably make the shares untouchable and ensure that they are not being used for shorting - although I'm not sure if Computer Share still houses their share with the DTC (I honestly don't know and perhaps someone else knows the answer to that straight away, although I'm sure a little research would indicate whether this is the case or not). If they're still in the DTC, then that could potentially still be a problem, if you believe there is a large naked share position.
But again, if your shares are in a Roth, then unless you can transfer the entire Roth account to Computer Share, I don't see how you can move them out of the Roth and hold on to the ability to benefit from the potential tax advantages should the share price rise.
Fidelity will likely take them. They will take NWBO shares transferred from Computer Share.
Again, though, this is NOT an action I’d recommend for anyone using a Roth account. And I think quite a few of us are using those.
Schwab doesn’t allow the transfer in of any OTC stocks. Schwab will allow you to buy OTC stocks with them; but when you do, they place warnings of those buys. Perhaps they feel that because they’ve warned you, you do so at your own peril.
Of course if you have your shares in a physical form, you will securely own those shares. But because the market no longer buys and sells shares in that form (paper certificates), it’s my belief that you’ll have to give them back to one of these companies (Schwab, Fidelity) in order to sell any of them, in the event that you might want to. And I don’t think Schwab will take them back, as an OTC stock.
To continue on this thought, please let us know if this works out differently for you.
One area where this would likely present a problem is when these shares are kept in a Roth account, as I don’t believe you can just remove those shares, and then put them back.
I don’t believe these entities can present you with paper certificates. I think they can transfer them to Computer Share, who can them give them to you in a physical form. At that time, then, they are no longer available in the market to be bought or sold, which is fine, I suppose, if that is your intent. Then if you wish to put these shares back into the market, you will likely have trouble doing so at Schwab as they currently do not accept transfers of NWBO into their accounts. You can purchase NWBO through them, but you can’t transfer shares in. Perhaps they will allow those back that you’d originally bought with Schwab, but that can be a month(s) long process. Fidelity will take them, though.
That’s my understanding of the process, via my own past experience with Schwab.
A wood chuck would chuck all the wood he could chuck if a wood chuck could chuck wood.
:)
Regulators do not like it when companies speak to the status of their marketing applications publicly. It’s a good thing you are usually careful to remember that these careless musings of your’s are simply your own opinions.
Well I, for one, think your post offers a very good take on the current situation.. so thank you! :)
I have no idea. :)
Not seeing anything in there about "working" or "business" days... just plain ol' days...which was the subject of the post your responded to.
Good article on Bamboo Lounge re: Northwest. Asks with all the positive and upbeat events, it's hard to see how the share price is so low.
True Grit vs. True Grift link
Um, okay, that makes no sense.
Fingers crossed, that’s how it works. :)
The wording of the Flaskworks PR leads me think they are attempting to time it “upon approval”, with the set backs in the timeline making that an easier objective…, but I most certainly could be wrong.
Tbh… I’ve often wondered if some in the FDA
All my opinion.
I honestly don’t think so… there was No mention of it at the time. No one was thinking that DCVax was causing psPD to my recollection, back in 2015 (except possibly UCLA, IMO).
Considering what you, and I'm sure others, cite, I have some newish thoughts on the subject.
I think that the FDA may have initially halted the trial (in August 2015) at the prompting of the DMC (data monitoring committee), whom I believe had ulterior motives, given that we later determined that the head of the DMC was also on an SAB for a Swedish company working on a competing solid tumor dendritic cell vaccine, and that his brother was on the board. Please note, after this was brought out on this board (by me), both of these positions were suddenly removed from the website of the competing company. But, it's very possible, then, that when the FDA looked more closely at the unblinded data of the trial (which I believe they would have access to, while the company remained COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY blinded), they first would have seen control patients that were eventing later than the treatment arm because the treatment arm was showing false progression - pseudo progression / psPD - due to DCVax-l that couldn't be measured correctly due to the antiquated progression determination criteria). But at the same time, they would have also (likely) seen that progression in the treatment patients was also disappearing with time. The FDA may have also seen from the data that some of the control arm patients that were crossing over were also demonstrating psPD after crossing over, that later went away. Finally, as Linda Liau had indicated in October 2015 in a videotaped presentation, all of these patients were living longer (impressively longer, IMO, otherwise, why say it then?). All of these data points would have indicated to the FDA that the trial had issues in both arms, but the safety profile was such that all patients could continue treatment. And there is the interesting fact that the treatment arm was fully enrolled, and the control arm was what, 16 patients short?
Now... as you and others have pointed out, if what I've laid out in the previous paragraph was indeed the case, the FDA would not have been able to share any of these reasons with Northwest as it would have compromised the trial and the integrity of the data moving forward.
It also could have resulted with Northwest privately feeling that the FDA may have also not been operating with honest intent, given that it would seem that the DMC certainly wasn't. Again, if this were the case, I don't think the FDA could share with Northwest their exact reasons for halting the trial. And when Northwest indicated in a public PR (I think that was in Feb 2017 or 18? - I can't remember exactly when) that they would no longer be enrolling the trial and had decided to move forward with the data they had, the FDA lifted the halt within a week or so later. Now those who aren't invested but post here 24/7 will have you believe that the reason for the lift was because NWBio indicated that they would no longer pick up enrollment in the trial. I'd argue, then, why bother lifting the halt ... just leave it in place. But lifting it does telegraph something... IMO... that the reason for the halt was not a bad one, and instead, as you, DocLogic and others often contend, rather an indication of DCVax-L efficacy, meaning... the vaccine works.
Anyhow, thought I'd post my thoughts on this, inspired by your post. :)
Thanks, beartrap, for bringing some of the facts from the recent Flaskworks PR back to our attention.
What I’m curious to know is how NICE and the MHRA would react to you coming onto an investment board for Northwest Bio’s stock and discouraging people from investing in it, while at the same time (or rather at a slightly earlier time), you went before the regulators to present why you think the MHRA should not approve DCVax-L based on your individual experience (which, to be clear, did not involve you even having ever received the treatment).
One might suggest that it looks like you’ve taking a financial position in the stock, and trying to influence its share price with your actions. I wonder if the MHRA and NICE would read your actions as such?
DCVax-L is not the same treatment offered in Germany. Germany doesn’t use the patient’s actual tumor, which DCVax uses to load the dendritic cell so the T cells can locate and attack the tumor. The UK patients often resort to going to Germany for their dendritic cell treatment when they discover that their tumors were either not frozen or not frozen correctly to be used to make DCVax. Of course, the cost is quite a bit less for the German treatment because the process of loading the DCs with the patient’s own tumor antigens in the clean room is where most of the cost is incurred with making DCVax. Flaskworks is intended to help reduce this cost as it takes a good portion of what happens in the much larger clean room and puts it into a little machine. This will help to eliminate a good part of the clean room space required to create one vaccine, as well as considerably lessen the need for clean room personnel.
Anyhow, I just want to be clear that the two treatments are not the same thing whatsoever.
Stay SAFE!
There are other scientists, ones who were more directly involved in the trial than those whose words you might be clinging to, who know differently.
The statistical analysis plan (SAP) for the trial was developed during 2019 and 2020… that is a FACT cited by the company in their SEC filings. If the company is lying about the timeline for that process in these filings, you may want to take your unverified THEORY up with the 100 or so clinicians involved in the trial who know otherwise.
After the SAP was fully completed, fully delineating which trials would be compared, and how they would be compared in the external control arms (ECAs), only then was the trial data UNBLINDED on October 5, 2020.
Personally, I think you’re being rather irresponsible in your use of the word LIAR on the board. You may at least want to note that these are your opinions at the end of such a post, as it would seem you’ve been careful to do so on other posts of your’s.
Unblinding took place WELL AFTER the ECAs were assembled, so given that FACT, the only data the BLINDED investigators would have seen was the still BLINDED data.
Smokey… you can’t transfer shares in from elsewhere. But you can buy NWBO in Schwab.
You can't transfer shares from outside of Schwab. You can buy them, but they won't accept them. I had to open a Fidelity account to transfer what I'd had sitting in ComputerShare, and I'll have more transferring soon. Schwab told me they'd take them last year... and kept me dangling with some departments indicating I could transfer them, and others saying I couldn't. Finally, the law was laid down, and Schwab refused to accept them.
You CAN BUY NWBO in Charles Schwab... most definitely.