We could also say that UCLA has no rights to DCVAX. What does it matter? The value is in the manufacturing. The product is the same. UCLA is not developing the manufacturing or commercialization to mass produce ATL DC. NWBO is developing the infrastructure to commercialize it. UCLA is just going to help prove it works, just like any other research site. They’re in the business of treating patients. NWBO is in the business of producing vaccine. It’s a shame that a health science reporter wouldn’t know the difference in these business models.

I hold the same sentiment and position. Thanks for sharing on our behalf.

When I re-read the endpoints today, that’s exactly what I thought. Those endpoints can only be included to show how pointless “progression” is in this trial.

I suspect many large investors cannot buy or sell here due to NDAs. They are still helping the company by feeding cash through warrant conversions.

Remember that the endpoint changes briefly made the company worth 2.2 billion. Just endpoint changes.

Positive topline data makes it worth far more than that and we can be assured that the data is positive based on the company’s actions on manufacturing.

This dip is temporary, yet painful nonetheless. Don’t listen to Scotty and jd. They’ve been yapping and getting things wrong since .16. I’ve made some pretty pennies ignoring those baffoons. Those pennies are about to turn to dollars.

It is a certainty that they will compare control data with historical control.

I’ve always agreed with their silence until they can provide a comprehensive path to commercialization. It doesn’t mean I’ve had to enjoy it. NWBO has been a tough hold for the past four years, but the results have been worth it. I see more green in the near future.

All sellers here were Motley Fooled

I agree that something outside of the company’s control is causing this delay. In the end, it may be positive and will improve the time gap between approval and revenue scale up.

I think the biggest issue lies in statistical significance with regards to the trial control data. 30 true placebo patients just may not be enough to determine statistical significance in this trial. What the historical control should do is allow for statistical significance.

I can see that being the argument of fudsters, but it would have just been unethical to enroll further placebo patients just to get to statistical significance. That was Dr. Liau’s point all along.

But those who bought more will enjoy the fruits of their trades.

Next week it will be...

“Oh look, our P3 trial just crushed the mOS endpoints!”

“What shall we do?!?”

The only issue that I have with these statements is the statement that the trial has no internal control. The secondary endpoints of this trial, as specified by the listing on the EU website, indicate that internal control will be used for secondary endpoint analysis. While there is likely to be confoundment of these endpoints due to lack of statistical significance owing to the size of the true placebo group, I believe it is still within the scope of the trial to have a pure control group considered. A top tier journal passing on publication due to this basis would be unlikely, but within the realm of possibility.

I agree with everything else stated. Thanks for the perspective.

I’ve seen a ton of ignorant things on this board in five years, but this statement takes the cake.

New trial endpoints eliminate the confoundment of psuedoprogression. They also basically ensure trial success. The real question will be by how many months, how the placebo arm compares to the early treatment vs. crossover groups, and how the crossover arm information will be analyzed for approval with regards to recurrent GBM.

It’s been a while since I checked this board. Looks like nobody has sold or is selling. Topline is going to be quite a day. SAP changes basically ensure success. The wild ride could be next week.

Can you get on those in Vegas? BSB are you an oddsmaker?

I think we all just need to relax and let the data be released. I still think we’ll see a PR next week, along with something come out of SITC.

I think we’re trying to apply pre-COVID presentation logistics to a post COVID world. Travel is temporarily limited. Conferences are virtual. Dr. Liau and Dr. Ashkan are clinicians working in hospitals on two separate continents that are hyperfocused on virus management. In relation, nobody gives a damn about NWBO investors or how to roll out the red carpet for this data. They’re going to do their best to publicize the results in a forum that respects when the data is ready. All this debate on “which meeting” seems ridiculous. The data will speak for itself. If it’s good, it will automatically garner attention because of the disease that it is meant to control. Let’s all just relax and see what they have rather than analyze the results on the basis of the forum in which they’re presenting.

No PR is needed today. You can figure it out from their previous PRs and the information on the SITC website.

I agree that a poster session wouldn’t be ideal for this type of announcement in a pre-COVID world, but in a pandemic they can’t jam a massive hotel banquet hall with 500 oncologists and neurosurgeons. In this virtual world, this poster session may be the best forum to present and perpetuate data.

No big halls crammed with neurosurgeons in a pandemic. Scientific meetings are diminished this year. SITC poster session actually makes sense. If SNO were in person, then the big hall makes a ton of sense. Wont happen this year.

I have so many family and friends in with me here. The only thing better than getting rich is getting rich with the people you love.

Bought more today at $1.18

I agree with that assessment. I believe the crossover arm gives us insight into OS performance with regards to recurrent GBM. I personally don’t think the vaccine will be as effective against recurrent GBM (I believe a second resection and vaccine prep will prove better for reactivating DC response). However, I believe earlier DC activation will be shown to be much better and that we could be blown away by OS in the early treatment group.

I do think the results will help plan a new trial for recurrent GBM that may indicate a better vector for using DCVax against recurrent disease.

Just my thoughts.

You should be worried. Shorts are bleeding badly these days.

Turtle...is that you?

No volume here. Shorts still banking on bad data. Longs still holding. The drama ends with data, breaker resets, and trading halts.

Good things come to those who wait senti.

I’m proud to have been here for much of the journey. Patients deserve this vaccine.

Nobody is being squeezed with this volume. Shorts are holding on, adding, and hoping for data to bankrupt NWBO. Good data will cause a 150-400 million share day. That’s when the squeeze will cause trading halts and breaker resets.

This is great information. Thank you for sharing.

I believe endpoint results will be discussed, but in depth analysis will be saved for a journal publication and further discussion next year.

I got the same information, update soon. I believe TLD is still on the table before Wednesday.

I think anyone selling here will have serious regrets next Friday.

Then there are at least 16.6 million shares that should trade this afternoon.

But do you really think they’re not locked and unblinded? I think all that’s left is to roll out the data.

I completely agree with this. They said the sites data is locked. They said all the other information was compiled. What more did they have to say? Data was locked. Moving on to TLD...

I agree Marzan. I believe Duffy connected the dots on the SAP and put us in position to tell the true story of what DCVAX can do. The reward may be mutual for NWBO and MRK. NWBO gets a $20 billion dollar plus buyout. MRK gets a technology that puts them in the driver’s seat for solid tumor treatments moving forward.

It’s almost a certainty that she confirms on 9/12 that the P3 data has gone to the statisticians and the company expects to be unblinded to TLD at any point moving forward.

You are assuming the warrant holders will sell immediately at the price level achieved by then. I’m not sure I agree with that assumption.

Here’s another assumption...

200 million naked shorts exist. At what price do they get to cover? If the warrants exist to provide coverage to that position, those shares are already spoken for.

Volatility here is ensured moving forward.