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.
But the IA, Doc! (Kind of like "but the emails".)
You've got to tip your cap though - the dedication is remarkable.
Right on Flipper, well done.
oh spot on again Wavelengthy,
Or if I may delve deeper into past similar false statements, prior to the JTM paper coming out, our favorite former wannabe stated:
"You do realize there is no journal article, correct?
And if there were one, it would be a negative for the company?"
both of which were spectacularly "spot-off".
Are people paid per-wrong-prediction these days?
Agree Bio.
ExW: What FDA cares about, both in general and in particular Dr. Pazdur, is if desperately sick patients survive, even more so if that's with quality of life, and many for years - and even more so without a significant toxicity risk. Having mechanistic data and histopath in support of MOA is a nice-to-have, not a have-to-have, for a toxicity-less successful treatment for a heretofore virtually unsurvivable tumor. And as Bio suggests, NW will have it - Liau and Bosch and Prins and Cobbs and Brem et al already have much of it, and it will be made available in the fullness of time.
But they sure as hell don't need it. Not for this they don't. Patients with beating hearts at 5 years are patients with beating hearts at 5 years - not a single patient in the 2000+ patients across fifteen nd and rGBM control studies made it to 5 years. Not a ONE. NW had TWENTY SEVEN out of 331 alive at 5 years.
Dismissing that as "academic success" is simply beneath contempt. Those are real people - living instead of dying.
Ouch.
Wavelengthy/Flipper - 2
Exwannabe - 0
Good work wavelengthy. All you have to do is quote him and your work is done, and you are a veritable Python.
Keep it up.
Wave
On point as always. But also as always when he’s called out, it’ll be either crickets or a non-sequitur response. I’m betting on the insects.
Aw Papa9x, and here I clicked on your post thinking I was gonna see Doc had posted "Lucille. My Lucille." :)
As you'll recall, Luke says to Dragline: "Your Lucille - boy, where'd you get that??" "Anything so innocent - and built like that, just GOT to be named Lucille!"
(with a nod to most of BB's guitars)
Oof.
No further questions your honor.
Splash!
We seem to be saying the same thing Flipper. There was some speculation that Ashkan might take his place or co-present w/ him and I just thought I should point out that's not going to happen; it has to be Bosch (+/- other NW employee(s) ).
How did you come up with that? I was just letting mzery know that ASCO won't allow non-employees to speak in the Theater anymore. So unless Ashkan is their new CMO he's out. Seems pretty straightforward. If you think they can flout the rules because they used to be different knock yourself out.
Indeed they have. Doesn't look like they'll be doing it this year.
Agree, I remember that as well. I don't see it in the Guidelines themselves, but I did see on the ASCO site somewhere that the restrictions I just posted on who may and may not speak in the Theater are new.
This rumor is a puzzle for sure.
Below is excerpted from the ASCO Industry Expert Theater Guidelines
effective January 2022
G. THEATER PRESENTATION GUIDELINES
.......
.......
.......
5. Theater presentations should feature one or more key internal scientific staff of the Theater Participant, no outside or third-party scientists or speakers, i.e. no Key Opinion Leaders. Theater presenters must be employees of the Theater Participant.
Unless Dr. Ashkan has taken an employment position with the company it's difficult to see how he could be presenting or co-presenting in the Expert Theater.
https://www.asco.org/sites/new-www.asco.org/files/content-files/meetings/documents/2021-AM-Industry-Expert-Theater-Guidelines.pdf
Well said Gary. Speaking of AdamF's words, I've always thought he was going to regret saying "what a snowflake" about Cofer Black. Right about now he may be finding out how much of a snowflake he is.
There are no coincidences dept: Novocure had 19 posters at AACR in April:
https://www.novocure.com/novocure-announces-19-presentations-at-american-association-for-cancer-research-aacr-annual-meeting-2022-suggesting-broad-applicability-of-tumor-treating-fields/
(Apologies if someone has already posted this info)
'24 hours in a day.
24 beers in a case.
Coincidence?"
- Steven Wright
That is interesting that you and biosector would assert that 65 investigators would base a decision to publish on the fact that it is bad news and damaging to the sponsor.
I could understand one or two unethical investigators, but 65???
Hmm. You assume several facts not in evidence. First, the investigators can't make a decision to publish at this stage; they don't have access to the aggregate data - only the sponsor does. Second, for an ongoing trial, whether anything can be published at all is entirely the sponsor's choice alone (this would be true even with a single-center trial). I'm surprised you don't know this, this is spelled out in virtually all investigator agreements.
That being said, that NWBT made the choice to publish now means, obviously, that the data are quite favorable and compelling, even though blinded, blended, and from an ongoing trial. The sponsor having made this decision, the fact that 65 PIs lined up to put their names on it also points to positive results (which of course was my point about the 65 PIs: not the decision itself but the climbing onboard). If they were not, any PI who didn't want to be associated with prematurely publishing blinded/blended data showing nothing (and there would be plenty of them) would not be unethical and could not be accused of it - they would just be sensible, uninterested at best, and at worst not wanting to tarnish their reps with the inexplicable (under your "negative" scenario), premature publication of data showing little or no benefit in a blinded ongoing trial. As an investigator I can tell you I'd be in no rush to put my name on that and in fact I'd counsel the sponsor against proceeding with a publication.
Other than that, strong point.
You do realize that the article is likely to be a negative?
Let me see if I have this right. The company and 65 authors are going to VOLUNTARILY publish damaging blended/blinded results, months in advance of the chance to hit endpoints with unblinded data?? (So that 60 million shares can short the news, don't want to forget that part.)
Savvy. If only I could short some of the posts on this board.
Flipper44
Excellent points about the oddly softened tone of this latest hit piece. Perhaps he's hoping now to avoid formal consequences (or at least receive lighter ones) by being able to point to milder/less slanderous attacks?
In any case I thought I'd point out three letters that are also curiously and suddenly absent from yesterday's innuendo-and-misrepresentations-replacing-outright-lies "article": SEC. That too has been one of his favorite cudgels with which to beat NWBO the past couple of years, remember "SEC subpoenas and other ugly nuggets", "SEC should shut them down", SEC this and SEC that? Where did that go? Could it be that he now fears the SEC's gaze (which one hopes seems like Sauron's in his dreams) has now turned his way? and he dropped the Silmaril like it was on fire?
Fear Cofer.
Quote: Any map notes from AF on how close these booths are to a restroom?
Actually I think you may have touched (Ew) on the reason he lost his old job; he was using p volume instead of p value in all his "analyses".
"Time flies like an arrow.
...Fruit flies like a banana."