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.
I guess if one frames it as a downside of 30 pennies, it takes the sting out of a 100% loss.
I know I’d feel better about it.
See my reply to Ex’s assertion that the trial was unblinded because of shipping records:
Reply to shipping records theory
You receive a hat tip in the post!
Nice — I would think/hope most long term holders will remain steadfast, at a minimum until top line is announced, potentially “forever.” As Captain Kong said in Dr Strangelove after realizing their B-52 was leaking fuel so fast that they wouldn’t make it to their primary target inside Russia:
Ex - more on the shipping record theory.
As I mentioned in my original response to your post asserting the shipping record theory of the trial blind being broken:
The April lows seem to be support. Would be great if it bounces off support and recovers.
One of my favorite investments was in Expeditors of Washington International. They were notorious for not caring what analysts thought and not managing to quarterly profit reports. I don’t think retail investors registered in their thinking. They were also known for being extremely well-managed and having a highly motivated workforce. I believe their approach was “Make a shit load of money and they will come. In the meantime, ignore the stupid static.”
I appreciate not targeting retail investors. They’re fickle as hell.
I’m in for a long term gain. Would be great if it’s measured in decades, not years. Like Buffet says, the best holding timeframe is forever.
On the other hand, it was the biggest meeting of oncologists of the year. Seems like they should be addressed as effectively as possible. Call me old school.
Ol’ Stuppy is going to be pissing on NWBO at some point in the future. Maybe priming oncologists favorably toward DCVax isn’t a bad idea.
In any case, I do appreciate your perspective and will keep it in mind as things unfold. Lord knows I have blind spots.
Yep, I sound like I have an IQ of 59 when I try to speak Spanish.
I know I’m leaving myself wide open here, lol.
I appreciate your sharing your thoughts — thanks!
My selection of quotes from your post is intended as a marker into your numbered sections, not as a summary of your argument.
What leads you to think this? I didn’t get that impression. The presentation on DCVax-L seemed to be geared toward naive retail investors. It seemed like a waste of time to any professionals in the audience (This is a statistical analysis plan. yeah, they can take a long time. And data verification, don’t get me started — I’m talking thousands and thousands of queries. And an informational arm, I know you guys are hard asses about statistical valid results but these are impressive results, right?)
Sorry, I don’t mean to be an ass but that’s my honest impression of it.
Thanks Evaluate- you are a gentleman and a scholar. (Forgive the assumption you are male if indeed you are female. I am old and unwoke.)
I gave the SAP you referenced as quick read through, because, unlike anders who has unloaded his last lot of shares today and is free to enjoy the rest of his life unencumbered with the minutiae related to NWBO, I still own a shit load of stock.
I felt transported back to dark times because the trial mentioned in the SAP you provided, though relatively recent, has barely moved the ball forward since the crap I was reading 15 years ago. I was well versed in breast cancer treatments, and this was a bad flashback.
In any case, I believe NWBO’s SAP will be significantly more involved than the example you gave — because of pseudoprogression distinctions, crossover confoundment, changes in surgery during the decade of the trial, yada yada, yada.
I did find what looks like a little nugget — will share soon in an unrelated post. Life calls.
I’m not a lawyer and I don’t play one on the internet, but the meaning of words can be important. Can we categorize the current state of those working on the SAP as being involved in drafting, not finalizing, the SAP?
Thanks Evaluate! Been waiting to review to confirm/revise initial impressions.
Thanks for the additional color on NWBO at the conference. Will be looking for indications of additional collaborations over the next year as well as how funding of the Mayo trial plays out.
Isn’t it more likely that whatever entity shipped the placebo/treatment vials simply kept a running total of “number of patients who received placebo”, “number of patients who received treatment,” and reported that number at some point?
If the aggregated number originated from the shippers, how does it break the blind since patients and trialists still wouldn’t know who specifically received treatment?
Apologize if this has already been well-covered previously but I don’t remember any details on this broken blind theory in the last six months.
Yep. Given that expectations seem to be low for ASCO, it may set the stage for an upside surprise in price if they actually deliver more data (like number of patients still alive) than we expect.
Hope I didn’t just jinx anything!
In any case, I’m not interested in short-term jumps in price. It’s all about the final trial results in the end.
mav, i didn’t intend to tie you in any way to cldx/rindo/fudstein.
i initially phrased the first paragraph in the following way (in which “one”=abbvie) to avoid what seemed like the very slight possibility of confusion between abbvie vs “you” but stopped when it came out sounding like this:
“if one shoots a handgun at a tank, one shouldn’t be surprised when one gets run over. especially when one saw one’s buddy pull the same stunt (rindopepimut) last week.”
the above sounded too stiff to my ears, especially coupled with a battlefield metaphor. does one use “one” on the battlefield?
anyway, since you were just posting the story, not commenting positively or negatively on it, I thought the likelihood of misinterpretation was low.
and here we are.
if you read my posts, you’ll see that i refer to the weasel as fudstein, whenever his weaselness is mentioned in my posts.
Yep, if you shoot a handgun at a tank, you shouldn’t be surprised when you get run over. Especially when you saw your buddy pull the same stunt (rindopepimut) last week.
Single target approaches are essentially a dead end. I know, I’m a master of the obvious.
Much appreciated LF! Will check it out tonight. Day of celebration on hand (son graduating — our long national nightmare is over, as Ford would say and my son would agree. )
Now I’ve got two songs stuck in my head!
I envision that one day I’ll be sitting on the beach with my granddaughter, and in response to her question, “Grandpa, how can you give so much money away?” I will say, “Come here and let me tell you a story called “The Tale of Two Lines and Their Friend The Parabola.”
After that thrilling tale is finished, I’ll say, “Now let me tell you about old chartists.” And she’ll roll her eyes and say, “You already told me that story a million times!”
Those old chartists were a bit obsessive — I hear Sam Weinstein got kicked out of assisted living because he couldn’t stop pinching the nurses.
Longfellow — thought you might find this of interest. A large review of adverse effects in 125 ICI clinical trials involving 20,128 patients. The abstract doesn’t break out grade 4 or 5 AEs (refers to > grade 3) and doesn’t look at hyper progression. Go figure.
Results: This systematic review and meta-analysis included 125 clinical trials involving 20?128 patients; 12 277 (66.0%) of 18?610 patients from 106 studies developed at least 1 adverse event of any grade (severity), and 2627 (14.0%) of 18 715 patients from 110 studies developed at least 1 adverse event of grade 3 or higher severity. The most common all-grade adverse events were fatigue (18.26%; 95% CI, 16.49%-20.11%), pruritus (10.61%; 95% CI, 9.46%-11.83%), and diarrhea (9.47%; 95% CI, 8.43%-10.58%). The most common grade 3 or higher adverse events were fatigue (0.89%; 95% CI, 0.69%-1.14%), anemia (0.78%; 95% CI, 0.59%-1.02%), and aspartate aminotransferase increase (0.75%; 95% CI, 0.56%-0.99%). Hypothyroidism (6.07%; 95% CI, 5.35%-6.85%) and hyperthyroidism (2.82%; 95% CI, 2.40%-3.29%) were the most frequent all-grade endocrine immune-related adverse events. Nivolumab was associated with higher mean incidences of all-grade adverse events compared with pembrolizumab (odds ratio [OR], 1.28; 95% CI, 0.97-1.79) and grade 3 or higher adverse events (OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.89-2.00). PD-1 inhibitors were associated with a higher mean incidence of grade 3 or higher adverse events compared with PD-L1 inhibitors (OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.00-2.54).
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaoncology/article-abstract/2731143
Grade 3 definition:
Severe or medically significant but not immediately life-threatening; hospitalization or prolongation of hospitalization indicated; disabling; limiting self care (eg, can’t bathe or use toilet on own)
Grade 4 def:
Life-threatening consequences; urgent intervention indicated.
Grade 5 def:
Death related to AE
https://www.eortc.be/services/doc/ctc/CTCAE_4.03_2010-06-14_QuickReference_5x7.pdf
Gary, good luck with your upcoming surgery!
The use of the word cure regarding cancer is a bit of a delicate issue. Here are some professional perspectives:
Dana Farber oncologists were surveyed regarding whether they use of the word “cure.”
81% were hesitant to tell a patient that they are cured, and 63% would never tell a patient that they are cured. Only 7% felt that greater than 75% of their patients are, or will be, cured. The participating clinicians reported that only 34% of patients ask if they are cured. For 20-year survivors of testicular cancer, large-cell lymphoma, and estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer, 84%, 76%, and 48% of clinicians, respectively, believed that the patients were cured, and 35%, 43%, and 56% recommended annual oncology follow-up of the patients.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3710180/
More on breast cancer specifically:
After 5 years of adjuvant endocrine therapy, breast-cancer recurrences continued to occur steadily throughout the study period from 5 to 20 years. The risk of distant recurrence was strongly correlated with the original TN status, with risks ranging from 10 to 41%, depending on TN status and tumor grade.
Odds which argue against the use of the word cure.
See the “Statement” of the Siracusa Charter half way down the following article if you really want to get wonky and slice the issue into 9 shades of grey:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4324351/
Note to Ex: no video replies!
Since you brought it up, I guess I’ll post the link to “Why The Future Doesn’t Need Us,” since I had tracked it down but decided against posting it at the last minute.
https://www.wired.com/2000/04/joy-2
I haven’t heard much regarding any progress Bill Joy might have made in trying to get some commitment to controls around the unfettered use of these technologies (genetic engineering, computer science/AI and nanotechnology). Last I remember, he became ostracized in the technology circles he once was clearly a leader of.
It struck me at the time that any progress along the lines Joy was pushing for would be too little, too late. Too many powerful forces (the prospect of greater elite control and a lot of money to be made) going in one direction, while the short term benefits were quite compelling for the masses but the long-term threat too far away and theoretical.
Great example, very impressive!
Of course, progress along those lines raises serious concerns for the future of humanity but admittedly impressive nonetheless. It seems to have an inevitability to it.
Regarding 10 to 20 years beyond currently acknowledged technology comment, I’d agree with that.
Given all that has been learned in immuno-oncology since this trial began back in the mists of the Paleolithic period, integrating these learnings is necessary to more accurately access the efficacy of DCVax. Not to do so would be inexcusable.
Great summary of the likely changes.
Re: Chomsky - his evidence, models, and reasoning are compelling in many cases — manufacturing consent in democracies, interventions in the third world, morality and politics, to name a few.
Funny thing though, on a few topics, he resorts to rhetoric that is suspect. This seems uncharacteristic of him (very much against brand, one might say). It stands out like a throbbing thumb, if one maintains one’s critical faculties in the presence of the guru. That’s just the scenario that calls for increased awareness I suppose.
Ironically, his behavior in those instances may be pointing toward deeper truths. It’s like having a sensitive instrument that usually works well, but for some reason under specific circumstances that are identifiable but somewhat mystifying, it doesn’t. It’s still useful but calls for the application of additional tools. And perhaps some deep thinking about what the heck is going on.
Anomalies can be where the light shines through.
FWIW, I thought the use of Plaintiff was creative
Flipper, since your jaw is already on the floor, you might want to check out Smedley Bulter’s book “War is a Racket.” From Wikipedia:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler
If anything comes of it, I’ll split the profits (50/50) with you, though I’m guessing the animators/studio will get the lion’s share.
I’m assuming the above will hold up in court, so you might want to save this!
BTW, I have a follow-up to the US at war post I’ll share in a bit.
No worry that will happen — though it is possible to take performance art too far and provoke the brokers to get overly physical when they give the bum’s rush after opening the briefcase “full of cash, all in on NWBO,” only to find Monopoly money and spring-loaded Minions.