NorthWest Biotherapeutics Inc (NWBO)

[Dan88]

AVII, you said "Does anyone have a clue what Dan is trying to say here?"

My reply to yours in blue:

You know very well what I have said (provided at the end of post in quotation marks), the first two paragraphs reflect what you have said over the years that 1) the trial failed in mPFS or likely failed in mPFS or it is likely the trial is futile, and DMC might have recommended a halt for the trial due to that; and 2) recently you have asserted the blended mOS is 20 months and there is no separation between the early and late vaccined patients.

If the halt were indeed imposed for futility based on PFS, the reason had to be 1) mPFS for treatment arm were much worse than that of the control arm. If this were true, the only reason would be unexpected high immunization reaction from those patients who had received DCVax-L and acted like progressed (pseudo-progression in effect, remembered Dr. Busch’s famous statement that pseudoprogression wreaked havoc as he commented in a general sense but not necessarily specific to DCVax-L trial in a German conference). If mPFS for both treatment arm and control arm were similar, i.e., the same, or slightly worse or better than that of the other, it would be highly unlikely that DMC would recommend a halt due to futility. So having a futile PFS recommendation, if it were true, could only mean one thing: mPFS for the treatment arm were much worse than that of the control arm, and the reason for that could only be due to pseudoprogression of the treatment arm patients who wreaked havoc. So if this were true, it is highly unlikely that there would be no separation in the OS curves. Have you seen how you have contradicted your own views! Please see my other post which explains why this actually is a good thing here https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=140053298

Anyhow, the so-called futile trial or it is unlikely that mPFS would meet its goal theory is just a theory. The evidence or support to that theory is nothing scientific but the only the collapsed share price. In the end, it would be at least equally likely that mPFS has met or surpassed its designed goal (four month separation), and this is in effect supported by everything we have known today but not the share price despite what one would say, believe or speculate. This is one more incentive for naysayers to make a share price which makes it impossible for anyone to believe that trial will be a success.

Finally, if you still don't understand what you have said is in effect 100% contradictory. I will use my one-post-a-day post next day to once again try to help you out.

Now, you can mark my word: As long as DCVax-L is proven safe to use (yes it has been proven), some efficacy of it if proven will get it approved by FDA, and there will be various ways to approve that efficacy according to Linda Liau and I strongly believe her. Plus patients treated by DCVax-L will have better QOL than anything you would have cheer for.

Below is what I have said which AVII has a hard time to understand according to his reply.

"You are contradicting what you also believe (assume) that mPFS failed [or likely failed] and that the now lifted halt for screening new patients was due to failed mPFS. [have you for year promoted this speculation?]

You can argue, as you usually do, that there is no contradiction between the two with the other being no separation in mOS between the early and late vaccined patients. [please just reread your own posts post today and yesterday to see whether you have said that. Of course I don't mean to say you have said that word by word]

Even DCVax-L acted exactly like saline water at the time of the halt still cannot explain it being due to failed PFS. Because if that were the case, the mPFS between the control and the treatment arms would be the same or similar, and as blended OS was trending up, no way anyone would impose a partial halt!

This is my only post so you have final say."