I’m here to answer your questions and respond to your comments.
Given my three-post-per-day limit on this board, I’ll try to multi-task as much as possible.
Hey Afford567, good to see you’re still as feisty as ever.
I’m not under investigation of any kind. I don’t know why you’d think I was under investigation, but I’m not. Sorry, if that disappoints you. NWBO, on the other hand, is under investigation. Of course, the company is investigating itself since Linda and her crew told Neil Woodford to go screw himself. It’s probably more accurate to call the NWBO investigation a thorough whitewashing but it will be fun to see what excuses they come up with, nonetheless.
On a related note, contrary to popular opinion on this board, I’m no mastermind stock manipulator, or even a useful proxy for those who might be mastermind stock manipulators. I am, however, flattered that you think I can wield such power and influence.
What I am is a decently intelligent biotech reporter who’s unafraid to throw around an opinion about biotech stocks. I’ve been covering biotech for 15 years, more than enough time to learn a few things.
If I my tweets and columns move stocks, it’s because I have the respect and attention of investors. They value my opinion. For that, I’m grateful. It’s a big responsibility and I take it seriously.
Re: your question about using PFS as the primary endpoint in the phase III study. NWBO probably didn’t know any better when they designed the study more than 10 years ago. I’m not sure how much time you spend reading SEC filings (you should) but NWBO warns that PFS may not be an acceptable efficacy endpoint for approval. It’s certainly telling that every other company pursuing drug development in the front-line GBM setting uses OS as the primary endpoint.
Just a reminder, in case you forgot: I’m not being investigated for anything. NWBO is under investigation -- by itself. I hope that’s clear, definitive enough for you. Probably not, but I tried.
To Austinmediainc -- You seem like the sanest poster on this board. I respect your willingness to recognize there is a legitimate bear thesis on NWBO and criticize NWBO management for their many shortcomings. Let me clarify a few things, however:
I’m not a blogger. I’m a professional journalist with 25 years experience in the business. I happen to write for a digital media company, but that doesn’t make me a blogger. (not that there’s anything wrong with blogging, per se.) I may write in an unconventional style but that doesn’t mean I ignore journalistic standards and ethics. I’m actually a stickler for that kind of stuff. I do “take sides” because that’s a big part of my job. I appreciate your accountability and willingness to admit mistakes. I believe strongly in the same.
To Sentiment_stocks -- The Linda Liau lecture was posted to YouTube on Jan. 8, 2016. I knew that because I watched the video and transcribed many of her comments. The posting date is not relevant to the story I wrote, unless you believe that people attending Liau’s talk were sealed hermetically in the room and not allowed to use their smartphones or talk about her presentation with others.
The relevant information is that Liau spoke on Oct 15 in the middle of the afternoon East Coast time. The next day, NWBO shares plunged. That’s not a coincidence. And it’s not because of some fictitious short-selling conspiracy.
Let me ask you a question: If Liau’s comments weren’t detrimental to NWBO and responsible for the stock slide, why was her lecture removed from YouTube the day after I emailed her with questions?
You claim my story is unfair to Liau because she couldn’t respond. That’s not true. She chose not to respond. She let her UCLA media handlers respond for her. Her lecture was a public event, not private. It was posted on YouTube, remember? If Liau or UCLA intended her comments to remain private, there would be no YouTube video.
I remind you that there was ample discussion on this board about Liau’s lecture. I believe my interpretation over yours, but don’t deny me the right to an opinion when you offer yours just as much, if not more.
To Evaluate -- By definition, a clinical trial using a PFS endpoint will generate data faster than one using an OS endpoint. Think about it. patients progress first (their tumors start to grow again) well before they die of cancer.
NWBO’s problem is that a PFS benefit in front-line GBM lacks clinical significance. What matters most is prolonging survival. FDA approves drugs in the front-line GBM setting based on overall survival benefit, not PFS.
Think about it this way, if PFS was an acceptable, approvable endpoint for front-line GBM, all companies would design studies using it. Of course they would, because those studies could be conducted faster. But that’s not what Celldex or Bristol-Myers Squibb are doing with their respective front-line GBM phase III studies. They’re using OS as the primary endpoint.
To ETPA -- I’m not an analyst. I don’t invest. I don’t offer investment advice to other people. Sorta hard for me to commit securities fraud, don’t you think? I know what you’re thinking: But… but….but… you’re paid by nefarious shorts to write your bashing articles!!! No, I’m not.
