NorthWest Biotherapeutics Inc (NWBO)

[AVII77]

My intent is not to ever muddy the bulletin board. I make mistakes on occasion, and my posting history will acknowledge that. My purpose is to try to bring clarity if I think instead there is confusion on an issue.

Senti, Yes, you very often succeed in bringing clarity to issues.

Let me bring some clarity to the current issue.

Here in post 232486 he argues against the futility theory by noting that the interim was safety only and not efficacy.

In post 232494 I prove that wrong by citing a NWBO slide that very clearly says the planned interim was for both efficacy and safety.

Then he responds in post 232496 citing the 2014 NWBO press release and Furberg comments saying the interim was for safety only. Of course, this PR relates to the 66th event interim, not the 2015 interim.

At this point it is clear he is confusing the 66th event interim with the planned 2015 interim (do you like how I accurately characterized it as "planned"?)

As an additional reply to my post 232494 noting his error he introduces the Lerner lawsuit in post 232567 somehow thinking that rebuts the fact that the planned 2015 interim was to include an efficacy evaluation and somehow proves it never occurred (because he feels they could have amended the lawsuit).

Then the discussion morphs into the Lerner lawsuit as though that has anything to do with the fact that, indeed, the planned 2015 interim was to evaluate efficacy, an important point he never acknowledged he was wrong about. (He also never acknowledged he confused the 2013 interim with the planned 2015 interim => if he wasn't confused, why cite the completely unrelated 2014 PR).

And because the planned 2015 interim indeed planned to evaluate efficacy, you can't claim that it was only intended to evaluate safety as proof it could not have anything to do with the partial clinical hold and a futility finding.

In short, the attempt to rebut the futility theory using that line of reasoning (that it was a safety only look) fails and the only thing the attempted rebuttal succeeded in was muddying the discussion.