NorthWest Biotherapeutics Inc (NWBO)

[sentiment_stocks]

It’s evident you are working very hard to make a case that NWBO is not worth anything but the $6 price your July puts are currently at… and as you’ve indicated here… and elsewhere… you want to buy back in at.

Before I examine at what you’ve said in your recent “contrarian” post… let’s not forget your own pertinent i-hub tagline…

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…

and elsewhere…

I admit to taking advantage of them. Every small cap biotech company does the same, although more directly; I pick up some of the loose change these companies leave in their wake while running off with whatever they can stuff in their pockets. It might be shameful or not, I don’t know—but if I don’t, another will come and do it anyway. Perhaps I am doing nothing to ‘fix’ the world by my behavior, but I’m certain flipper isn’t either.

So anyone reading your posts may also want to keep those nuggets in mind.

Now… first you state that…

NWBO had likely submitted a standard abstract for admittance of DCVax-Direct data to the ASCO poster presentations but were rejected… They either did not submit an abstract (less likely) or did and it was rejected (more likely). The only way they could present was to pay their way in.

As you very well know, had they submitted an abstract to ASCO, they would have had to have done so by Feb 3. According to the rules of ASCO, they then could NOT have presented anything about the trial before the embargo for ASCO had lifted (around May 15?). From the same ASCO guidelines...

Furthermore, the contents and conclusions of the abstract must not be presented at any scientific, medical or educational meeting of 500 registrants or more or be published in a scientific, medical or educational publication (in any medium), in whole or in part, before the ASCO Meeting.

Yet we also all know they had similarly booked an “Exhibitor Spotlight Presentation” for Monday, April 20, at AACR. They booked that presentation (similar to what they just did at ASCO), despite the fact that they actually did have an abstract accepted at AACR. Now why would they have booked a big presentation like that at AACR?

Let’s consider this… if they had wanted to present what they just presented at ASCO, at the April 20 AACR meeting, they couldn’t have, could they, if they had submitted an abstract to ASCO. The rules would have prohibited that.

But in the end, the AACR presentation was not provided to us in a webcast. Why? Well because as you are prone to stating your presumptions as if they are fact, I will too. My “guess” is that they when they had booked that AACR event, they had hoped to have the information available on Direct at that time. And my guess is, they didn’t. So instead, they elected to move it to the back-up time… ASCO… because the timing of the independent data analyses coincided with the May 30 time slot… and it didn’t come in time to make the AACR presentation booked. So they had Dr. Bosch give an update there for any interested parties at AACR (since we already knew is was booked) … but they didn’t webcast it for us because there wasn’t anything new to tell shareholders. Capesh?

Regarding Direct…

On Slide 7… you state:

Shows a compelling-looking survival graph of the 39 evaluable Ph I patients. What is missing from any of these slides are a comparator group. The only way to know how well DCVax-Direct is or isn't working, in the absence of obvious extensive tumor shrinkage, would be to enroll a concurrent control group with identical inclusion/ exclusion criteria, give them placebo or no treatment at all and compare survival times between groups.

Well then, you should surely be pleased that you actually do have somewhat of a comparator group. Because as Dr. Bosch points out at the ASCO presentation (I don’t have to use disclaimers) :) …

I mentioned already two different activation regimens and we found that there were two and that survival and stable disease were observed very frequently with one method, but not with the other method. So one method in fact becomes a control for the other method, demonstrating that the effects that we are seeing are truly related to the treatment….

and

…in this way, the trial becomes it’s own internal control. It’s almost like we tested two products… one which is potentially inactive or less active, and one which then compared to this one, shows a great level of activity in keeping patients alive.

And if you need a further comparator… how about this? Anyone that had exhausted all their options… and with only an approximate 3 month life expectancy (don’t worry, I’ll cover that later on) is told to go home and call hospice. With such a small life expectancy… like Beach Life says… they’re told to go home and simply “make sure your house was in order.”

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=114164542

Gnawkz covers your comment pretty thoroughly about “Kris Carr” when he tells you it’s “highly improbable that the clinical trial would’ve recruited a number of “Kris Carr”s.

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=114163984

As you yourself point out, she’s actually moderately famous BECAUSE she’s a “IV cancer patient with multiple lung and liver metastases that has been alive for over 10 years since her stage IV diagnosis.” So if there be 27 Kris Carrs out of 39 patients, well this DCVax Direct P1 trial ought to become hugely famous, right?

Now let’s examine another of your “presumptions.” You contend that Method B is different from Method A because the patients for each Method really just had their criteria changed… despite the fact that Dr. Bosch specifically tells us it’s the activation regimen that is different. Surely you’re not “saying” that it’s the criteria that is the activating regimen? Or are you just suggesting that Dr. Bosch is lying to us? Or maybe he suffers hugely from confirmation bias.

But let’s look at that criteria anyway. I’m sure you are aware that the clinical trials site still states that the criteria for the P1 trial is greater than 3 months (not 6). It is only MD Anderson’s website that shows the inclusion criteria to now be greater than 6 months.

And I “suggest” that this is because the criteria now found on the MD Anderson is for the Phase 2 trial… and not the Phase 1, which is the data Dr. Bosch is addressing. The inclusion criteria for the P2 trial will be greater than 6 months because now they know the patient must have a life expectancy of greater than “6 months to support the intent of completing dosing through the fourth injection visit.” The Inclusion Criteria on the MDA site had just recently added the 6 month criteria (maybe two months ago?) and I am pretty certain that at that time, the portion about reaching the 4th injection was not there. Why? Because remember I pointed all this out to you about two months ago… and I don’t remember it being there at that time. But maybe that’s just my own confirmation bias.

As for suggesting that the scientists provide you (us) with a life expectancy for each patient… compared to a current survival time for each patient, etc., etc….you have to know how impractical and almost impossible that would be… how could one arrive at a completely accurate current survival prediction time for each patient? Anticipating this type of … response … from someone else… I had looked under both cancer.org and cancerresearch uk.org to find there currently is no available survival time for a stage 4 soft tissue sarcoma patient.

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/sarcoma-adultsofttissuecancer/detailedguide/sarcoma-adult-soft-tissue-cancer-survival-rates

Stage
5-year observed survival rate
I
90%
II
81%
III
56%
IV
Not available

http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/type/sarcoma/treatment/statistics-and-outlook-for-soft-tissue-sarcoma

[quote]There are no statistics for sarcomas that have spread to other parts of the body (stage 4), but they have a lower survival rate than stage 3.

So what would you suggest MDA and Dr. Bosch and the gang do then? Would you suggest that they provide 10 or so abstract links for each of the 13 cancer indications demonstrating the possible median OS for each of the 39 patients? Really? After having done something similar… and simpler… for the 51 Info arm, can you imagine the fun AVII, Adam and you would have examining all those abstract links and their survival predictions for each of the 39 patients, and all possibly in an attempt to lessen the impressive and notable facts provided to us by Dr. Bosch yesterday?

It seems ludicrous to even suggest it.

Then you briefly look at Pancreatic Cancer in your post.

Seven patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer were enrolled. The median overall survival (mOS) for these is only 3.9 months.

Yes… but if you gave a median OS for those pancreatic cancer patients that were treated under the Method B activation regimen, what would it be then? Oh… we don’t know at this time, and neither do you. But I’ll take a wild stab at it… I bet the three still alive were under the Activation Regimen. So let’s look at that possible median OS. Oh… we can’t because they’re all still alive, one at over 9, the Pancreas NET at almost 14, and the final at almost 18 months. Since we know these were all stage 4 cancers, we know they were diagnosed quite late. From that fact that their condition is so advance, we know their life expectancy is very low and their prognosis (w/o Method 2 Direct) is not very good.

When you discuss the “Many Ways to Interpret a Chart”, you once again reference “confirmation bias”. I know this is a favorite term you use to apply to others (you’ve used it with me), and I’ve seen you use it on other boards. Wikipedia refers to it also as “myside bias”. It’s the tendency to search for, interpret or recall information to confirm one’s beliefs or hypotheses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

Maybe you are aware… or maybe you aren’t… that you yourself are falling under the same sway? Everything you post is geared to fit either your belief or interpretation of events or the facts… or everything you post is geared to attempt to point others in the direction you want them to go… you know, you “might even be tricking” us kinda thing?

So as far as Direct is concerned, you can try to convince us that

-perhaps they had an abstract rejected for ASCO;

-or the Method B activation regimen was just a lie and that it was really just the inclusion/exclusion criteria that changed;

-or if only they’d had a comparator group, this data could be validated;
or better yet, if only they’d provided us with all the individual life expectancy versus current survival times, and rates of progression before and after therapy for each patient;

-or that the pancreatic cancer patients had a 3.9 median OS when you discount the important fact that those still alive most likely fall under the Method 2 regimen - and would be subject to another median OS;

-or that the scientists were just victims of their own confirmation bias;

... but I’m sure I’m not alone here in seeing confirmation bias written ALL over your analysis.


In another post, you accuse NWBO of having

a vested interested in painting the best possible picture of their therapy, whether that picture is very accurate or not isn't their primary concern.

It would seem that your vested interested is in painting the worst possible picture… in a vain effort to drive the price down to $6.

Now… I look very forward to looking at your DCVax-Modeling on L a little later.

However, at this time, I have to go attend a surprise birthday party and then assist my 15 year old daughter in sewing another of her fabulous anime outfits for the upcoming Anime Expo in LA. I’d hoped to transcribe more of Dr. Bosch’s presentation today, but responding to your contrarian post rather messed that up.