NorthWest Biotherapeutics Inc (NWBO)

[ADVFN_doclee]

Ike

Decided not to take my advice, huh? ;)

Clearly not - mainly because it appears to have passed me by completely, perhaps because it was of such outstanding irrelevance as not to have even impinged on my consciousness.

You assert that Management are relying on the Scientific Advisory Board (the clue of what they do is in the name) to be the sole arbiter of when to unblind the trial. I must, therefore, ask on what basis has Management been hinting at the imminent unblinding of the trial at various times over the last year or so when it was (so you assert) not their prerogative to decide when to unblind?

Are you suggesting that it has been the SAB telling Management that unblinding was nigh, only to keep changing its collective mind on when to unblind? That being so, the SAB must have explained to Management's satisfaction why the prospects of unblinding had changed. Such an explanation would need to be understood by Management who, I suggest, are too clever to allow themselves to be bamboozled by scientific gobblediegook. So, the SAB's explanation must have been in words of one syllable, ie not too difficult scientifically for lawyers to understand. I would have thought that being lawyers (who are the doyens of the wordsmith trade) Management could then paraphrase the SAB's now-not-as-difficult-to-understand explanation into a form understandable by the likes of all of us who read such things as "Form 8-K"s and this Board.

As to your assertion that no criteria for triggering the decision to unblind the trial are set, this can only mean that you are privy to the information that the end of the trial is to be made on a whim or the spin of a coin. Every scientific decison needs a framework within which that decision is made and that framework is composed of the criteria, even if they are based only on experience rather than hard facts. What you are essentially saying is that there is nothing in the trial protocol which will tell investigators when the end of the trial is reached (excluding for "futility", of course).

As to your final paragraph, I would suggest that you take a deep breath, re-read what I hoped would happen at the ASM and then come off your high-horse of being the self-promoted advice-giver extraordinaire of this board, huh! Management are and have been telling us nothing for a long time now, even as we see the value of our investments diluted nearly to extinction; something in stark contrast to Management's more than handsome emoluments. They may be worth every penny they are given but how are we to know because we in fact know nothing of what is going on. Even when we are given hope of something happening we cannot trust the news to be true - some members of this board complain of being frankly lied to by Management whilst most of us have our hopes misleadingly raised by Management that the end of the trial was imminent. It is in this regard that I opined that somebody at the ASM should ask Management to tell us what are the conditions which will trigger the end of the trial, and only if they refused to explain why they couldn't or wouldn't provide that information might there be a collapse in the SP leading to bankruptcy sometime in the near future should expectations be falsely raised and then be dashed. Of course if they agreed to provide some idea of the criteria it would go some way to reassuring some of us that our investment in NWBO is not so unsafe as some on this board are claiming so that the idea of selling out now becomes less of an attractive option.