NorthWest Biotherapeutics Inc (NWBO)

[Umibe5690]

Doc:

Thanks for responding. Again, my point, to summarise, was that in either case, it should be a win-win situation:

1. Case 1: Late vaccination, absent resection, for cross-overs does not confer benefit or it is at most de minimus. Good for trial as a comparison arm and should for all intents and purposes mirror placebo/SOC.

2. Case 2: Same as above, but benefit shown and separation of curves blurred/non-significant. Not good for trial but good for patients where even though later vaccination upon occurrence and few if any resections, the vaccine is still relatively effective. The later vaccination would have perhaps been even more effective had a new sample through a resection been obtained. This may be especially so if the recurrent cancer is the most aggressive kind, which appears to be the case in recurrence, and has morphed into MES where LL/RP have found the the vaccine to be especially effective given that MES is more "immunogenic".

Thus, it would be a win-win in either case and I would argue that one could not ignore the benefits of a case 2 scenario. Having said that, I do agree that case 1 may be more likely and depending upon your perspective, rather disappointing although rather suspected. JMHO.