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.
Flipper has clearly gotten where all shareholders will get unless things change - if NWBO lets him down one more time he’ll stop defending them and force them to do their own talking.
I am pretty sure I’ve said something to the effect that naysayers talking bad about NVCR is not relevant here. Neither is talking good about NVCR but that’s less common here.
Put it on the Merck board, not here unless that letter references DCVax-L.
I did pay attention and was addressing the hypothetical the person made as a clear joke. I doubt even NWBO would dare to insert another publisher to double check the work of the first one but then I didn’t think they’d dare miss the time frame they gave out in August 2023 so I could be wrong.
If NWBO were to reveal that they hired a second publisher do you think it is more likely or less likely that their supporters will justify it instead of saying the new delay is a problem?
It was a reasonable concern you had and I edited for clarity.
Of course not! Only any made after the bet ends. It does not apply retroactively.
The agreement includes pre-requesting that if one loses the bet, one is pre-requesting that all posts except for one farewell posts be removed per a standing author request [edit for clarity: this applies to future posts after the date in question, not retroactively].
Nothing can stop a loser if the bet from welshing and crying to Admins to restore their post but then each restored post will have a green recycle symbol of shame reminding everyone that they went back of their word.
I’ll be happy to enforce the bet as I undertook with the two originals for as long as I am allowed. If I am pressured by the higher-ups on IHUB to stop enforcing, I’ll indicate to all of you and stop enforcing before getting banned.
I think what I outlined was a significant impact? How do you define it in concrete terms?
Submission will have some impact in that we should have a floor of somewhere over $1 a share and the potential for price appreciation up until the moment of truth at the MHRA looks. There’s a certain group of investors who will want to get in on a binary event and regulatory approval is binary in ways that TLD turned out not to be.
That said, mere hope of TLD and not even TLD got us to above $2 a share in 2020. It is possible that we could get somewhere near there as approval looks but maybe not.
Not really dead but dormant as it can be revived when NWBO does submit and with a lot less of the nonsense. Most of these characters were not here half a decade ago and there was plenty of discussion here back then.
How did that data release timeline hold up?
Senti has integrity even if she is very naive about this management team, to a degree impervious to lived experience.
Senti therefore did not make this stuff up.
What she did was, for reasons of her own, fail to provide basics like: Who said what, when etc.
It could be because Senti spoke to someone she did not want to put on the spot (presumably besides Mr. Innes) or she did not find it productive to take the time to spell things out figuring that readers who were pro-management would believe her uncritically and anti-management shareholders and others n would not believe her no matter how clear she was.
While I agree that Senti did not just make stuff up, providing more clarity about the provenance of her information would dispel doubt.
The problem is not so much that people pretend they call NWBO and then make stuff up on here.
The problem is that we don’t often get clarity on who asked what and who said what in response. Then separate from the facts, a good communicator can provide their own opinion.
Instead what we get is a slurry of facts plane opinions and impressions when, with even minimal note taking the elements can be separated.
This means that we just get impressions and vague notions instead of this is what NWBo said in response to this question and here is my interpretation of it in light of these factors.
Given that adding illiquidity to an already risky investment is an unreasonable ask to make of shareholders the idea I have seen floated of converting shares to book entry (almost like they were in a DRIP) could prevent this scenario but should not be legally expected of shareholders. The onus is on brokerages to respect the shares of depositors and I believe they will, scare tactics notwithstanding and I will average down undeterred little by little during this unwanted extended buying opportunity.
We’ll see and in the unlikely event that happens I’ll let you know.
No, though some pro-management longs have implied that brokers don’t always follow the rules.
Respectfully, you’re always flip-flopping on your position concerning NWBO here and provide little evidence to back up your positions ans well and probably aren’t the best placed to lecture others about educating themselves.
I have never given my broker approval for that nor received consideration which they would have to give to loan out my shares.
I hold my shares in non-margin account and so mine should have never been allowed to be lent out so this is encouraging.
Unless a share was issued by NWBO I am not sure how you can say it is real?
That would be like saying a dollar not issued by the government is not real.
If someone passes me a fake $100 bill that in good faith I thought was a dollar bill and I go to use it at a merchant, the merchant is supposed to confiscate it.
I can try to take action against the person who passed me the fake and make a recovery but it falls on me unless I am insured in some way.
The very concept of naked shorting would seem to involve the production of shares that are not real because shares are sold to new investors without ever being purchased by the naked shorter and if the naked shorter keeps doing it, wouldn’t that result in more shares (both real and counterfeit) existing than the company authorized?
How can they all be real if only some were created by the company?
You said that shares would not be subject to scrutiny but that is like predicting a counterfeit bill will never be subject to scrutiny and thus the bill is real.
Maybe you are predicting that no one will find a way to unwind all the NWBO transactions ever made (including any naked shorting and determine whose shares are and are not real. Maybe the technology for that exists and maybe it doesn’t.
Hopefully any alleged naked shorters can pay their debts if there is a short squeeze due to a BO etc. and we never find out.
What happens if the firm involved in naked shorting cannot pay the debt and goes bankrupt (without meeting margin call) and the platform fails? Are we insured for what the SP was when they went BK or what we paid to buy the shares?
That’s the issue I see and would like addressed if this naked shorting stuff is real.
Take it up with Kusterer since you think he’s a Basher. He raised the scare tactics:
First, it’s the folks promoting naked shorting and the idea of counterfeit shares as a thing doing that includes the person I responded to.
I don’t buy the naked shorting any more than the spoofing that replaced it as the excuse du jour.
But since Kusterer opened the discussion I’m reminding everyone of what accepting this logic could mean (only a lawyer would know for sure):
If a bunch of us bought counterfeit shares, unwittingly, aren’t we on the same footing as Madoff investors who thought they had real equity?
Now we should be insured for the principal we put in if it turns out some or all of our shares are counterfeit.
But I don’t think the broker is necessarily on the hook for more than our principal and if we sell counterfeit shares that go to the moon whereas other shareholders who hold lose everything when the counterfeit is discovered, why do we get to keep our winnings when they get nothing?
In both cases our shares were fake. I could see clawback applying but maybe it doesn’t. If you can show me how our situation would be fundamentally different under the law then please let me know.
I guess we could try to get more than just compensatory damages out of brokers for selling us shares without knowing they came from naked shorting and were likely to be counterfeit. Again that’s a lawyer’s place to understand. I’m not sure that would stop clawback.
Another interesting thing is what about folks who bought what later turn out to be counterfeit shares at a higher price and sold at a lower one? Do they get the difference made up?
We live in a global, interconnected world and Australia is part of the Anglophone world where DCVax-L was primarily researched and developed.
The fact that this doctor has apparently not heard of the JAMA article and does not find it compelling enough to raise the funds and get DCVax-L in the UK under Specials is not a good look.
His life is on the line.
I regard it as proof that even within the scientific community NWBO’s communication strategies are not having the right impact.
I’m just facilitating a bet not deciding what they wager. Enforceability has been the issue here for years.
That seems very fair. Terms are set now so you can include that farewell post could be included in the terms of the bet. Just ask the other party and as long as agree and they get the same chance to do a farewell post if they lose, then the terms of the bet are updated. Starting that post as Farewell Post: would avoid confusion.
The bet would presumably not cover ceasing emojis but just posting under this or other handles.
If either party loses the bet, a mod could enforce using author requested removal, if both parties agree. As long as they don’t appeal the loser’s post stay down and if they request restoration the green symbol shows it was restored and reminds everyone who welshed on the bet.
Will you each also agree to voluntarily having the bet enforced without appealing to have posts restored?
Will you each also agree to voluntarily having the bet enforced without appealing to have posts restored?
No one really expects something on Monday but hope that there will be news Monday.
This one is like that Lopezzz character who came to pump. Whoever is behind them had them stop posting in tandem after I pointed out their nearly identical posts except for the Rogeting to change the language.
Maybe this one just hops into different stocks for no reason but notice the effort to start a rumor.
We seldom agree on much but I also blame traders for a large part of why NWBO is not priced correctly. The worst offenders are the ones who talk big about NWBO online but then sell everyone else out behind the scenes only to brag about their trading acumen later.
I’ll be glad if we get more but I am being very conservative because any increase shareholders are going to have to accomplish on our own by holding strong and hoping it works this time.
My estimate assumes NWBO has a face plant on follow-up communication similar to that which took place surrounding TLD.
Because approval in the UK allows revenue calculations it is infinitely more valuable than TLD but like TLD this management team will likely manage to attenuate its impact.
Despite all the big talk about Orbis these approvals are happening sequentially and this matters.
That gives NWBO s big old excuse not to ‘hype’ even a UK approved product in legal ways for alleged fear of angering the FDA.
Unless and until NWBO starts executing communicating and executing again the SP will remain well below what it should be with no conspiracy theories needed to explain it.
Auto prices are coming down and hopefully NWBO will double when we get MHRA approval in mid-2024 or earlier so with $100,000 (50,000 shares at $2) you could buy that truck and even trick it out and have some cash leftover.