The "change of heart" is what I'm constantly being accused of by paranoid longs who see anything and anyone that presents anything other than a 100% bullish stance in everything about NWBO as a FUD spreading short (often in disguise and working with the hedge funds, infiltrating message boards and controlling the world!!).
And so honestly I would love to write a short article to really mess with them, but that's quite the unwholesome motive.Really I can't write a short piece on NWBO because imo there is no solid basis for one and far too much risk. But I don't think someone who does so is any more greedy than all the longs on these boards.
I'll tell you exactly what I think (though I already have). Here's a simple summary:
-The stock ran up to $8.70 ish on a wave of positive sentiment, near term expectations, and from what looked like institutional buying. Imo therefore, that price was vulnerable. Once I saw the volume dry up and the pps start floundering, and realized that that market cap, fully diluted, was the highest it's ever been, I decided well, either I can 1) do nothing and watch it fall back down to new support levels, or 2) I can hold my shares and hedge with puts, or 3) I can sell and hedge with puts.
The first option was out for me because I didn't give really any weight to these "catalysts" that were supposedly coming because a) NWBO has a perfect track record at not coming through with them, b) I believe we've already seen the best Direct can do in the Ph I at this point in those case studies, so no catalysts in any "new" info there, and c) I no longer think the HE program will be much of a pps mover. The 10-k was especially 'weak' in its wording on what to expect there.
The third option I also eliminated though I can understand anyone picking that course of action. For me there is a chance the Ph III could be halted and that imo is an ever present reality that may not be precluded by a PR alerting us to the first interim trigger (a company doesn't have to do so, only the DMC rec if it is material).
That left option 2. So that's what I did.
I then made the mistake of deciding to tell people on this board that follow my posts because they are curious as to my current stance. I said that I don't think there is evidence of ORR in the Direct trial and that is what can move the pps and not really much else at this point, and that I felt the pps went up too fast on the expectation of whole group data "end of March," which I think we'll either not get at all or what we do get will be more "necrosis" information. The market isn't going to do a head fake and be confused over that like it did last summer.
Further I said that I'm unsure how well Direct will do in terms of ORR in the Ph II leg. Not seeing substantial shrinkage in any of the injected tumors after many months on therapy has me doubtful. If I wasn't doubtful before it was because of Triozzi et al and the seemingly quick efficacy they were seeing (we were told one patient had 28% shrinkage of the injected tumor, and that was at the beginning when they were like 2 months in). Since then really nothing. Case studies and a poster that show no partial responses (PR). So yeah, I'm now doubtful. T-cells, if truly targeting tumors, just aren't that ineffective.
Checkpoint inhibitors prove as much. Some complete responses on those, and a good number of PR (30%-99% tumor clearance). Those tumors dissolve. Those tumor cells literally 'burst' from the t-cell activity. With Direct it's mostly cytokine storm that causes tumor cell death. But these lesions more or less sit there. Like with ablation. Do I think it can extend OS? I do, yes, probably. But that means future studies with PFS/OS and a concurrent control, probably sham.
Still like L quite a bit, but I've gone over why ad nauseum and it's in my articles. It isn't just the modeling, it's all things considered. But I will say if 55 were enrolled in the info arm by Dec 2012 (and future psPD randomized from May 2012, and so that arm was smaller than it would have been--that's also why less psPD likely in info arm than one would expect--psPD stopped enrolling in it around May--though imo AVII's right, def more than just 1) then there were many more enrolled in the trial itself by that time. Closer to 100 or more.
Most of the PFS assumptions about where those 66 events came from are via enrollment over 2012 an 2013 and the 33 brought forward (and yes I think all 33 were randomized). We have to examine all evidence, and the whole picture being painted about L in the Ph III is that it has a high chance of meeting stat sig. Less chance of halt first interim, more of a chance at second. Still a chance it blows up? Yes of course. But what you are looking for in biotech is a series of higher probability than normal plays. This has a higher % chance of success than Ph IIIs as a whole (45%). Imho of course. So, you put the money down. It's all math. If you continue to put money on 60%-70% propositions that will return greater than 2:1, and you are at least close in your estimates you will make a lot long term. No diff than any high EV play.
I'm glad I shared my POV but I realize now many just can't handle it. Most can't, I'm afraid. But in the end that's really their problem, isn't it?
I'd offer you advice, but I just don't care about your money, unless you give me money to care about your money. I might even be tricking you with the above post...
