Sunday, June 11, 2023 10:34:13 PM
Just some thoughts about what was presented by Dr. Liau and a tremendous list of others, and what was just presented by Dr. Bosch. The more I think about it, both have performed some rather different functions.
The Journal and all the presentations by Doctors and others who participated in the trial did what they're expected to do, they presented the data for what happened in the trial. They produced the K-M plots, discussed pseudoprogression and why PFS wouldn't be a valid goal. They provided all that ought to be needed to determine that the vaccine was effective.
Dr. Bosch on the other hand did not harp on what happened in the trial, he in reality answered the bigger question, WHY? Dr. Liau and team catalogued all that was happening in the trial, but Dr. Bosch and the researchers working with the company discovered why the vaccine was effective, and why it should be effective in other solid cancers. I don't know that such a discussion couldn't be presented for peer review, but it's not something that would normally be determined by the clinicians.
I frankly don't know if ASCO is the conference that largely answers why questions, it's more about saying what happened by the Clinical Oncologists making the presentations. Perhaps NYAS would have been better, and I'm sure there are others. I don't know if when the Journal was developed the T-cell information was known, but even if it was, it would really only have been know by Dr. Bosch, not all the clinicians who generated the data. Perhaps there is a proper conference for the company to present an Abstract revealing the why DCVax-L works, but Abstract or no Abstract, Dr. Bosch has not only explained why DCVax-L works in GBM, he's explained why it ought to have benefits in virtually all operable solid cancers. If in fact the same findings are seen when DCVax-Direct is injected into inoperable tumors it may explain the why there to.
I welcome others thoughts about this, what I'm suggesting is purely from a layman's view of what's done by the clinicians, vs. what's done by the scientists, and in this case I believe Dr. Bosch was representing the scientists while Dr. Liau and all were representing the clinicians.
Gary
The Journal and all the presentations by Doctors and others who participated in the trial did what they're expected to do, they presented the data for what happened in the trial. They produced the K-M plots, discussed pseudoprogression and why PFS wouldn't be a valid goal. They provided all that ought to be needed to determine that the vaccine was effective.
Dr. Bosch on the other hand did not harp on what happened in the trial, he in reality answered the bigger question, WHY? Dr. Liau and team catalogued all that was happening in the trial, but Dr. Bosch and the researchers working with the company discovered why the vaccine was effective, and why it should be effective in other solid cancers. I don't know that such a discussion couldn't be presented for peer review, but it's not something that would normally be determined by the clinicians.
I frankly don't know if ASCO is the conference that largely answers why questions, it's more about saying what happened by the Clinical Oncologists making the presentations. Perhaps NYAS would have been better, and I'm sure there are others. I don't know if when the Journal was developed the T-cell information was known, but even if it was, it would really only have been know by Dr. Bosch, not all the clinicians who generated the data. Perhaps there is a proper conference for the company to present an Abstract revealing the why DCVax-L works, but Abstract or no Abstract, Dr. Bosch has not only explained why DCVax-L works in GBM, he's explained why it ought to have benefits in virtually all operable solid cancers. If in fact the same findings are seen when DCVax-Direct is injected into inoperable tumors it may explain the why there to.
I welcome others thoughts about this, what I'm suggesting is purely from a layman's view of what's done by the clinicians, vs. what's done by the scientists, and in this case I believe Dr. Bosch was representing the scientists while Dr. Liau and all were representing the clinicians.
Gary
Recent NWBO News
- Northwest Biotherapeutics Announces Establishment Of the Company's Own Dedicated Leukapheresis Clinic • PR Newswire (US) • 04/21/2026 01:30:00 PM
- Northwest Biotherapeutics Announces Establishment Of the Company's Own Dedicated Leukapheresis Clinic • PR Newswire (US) • 04/21/2026 01:30:00 PM
- Form EFFECT - Notice of Effectiveness • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 04/21/2026 04:15:08 AM
- Form POS AM - Post-Effective amendments for registration statement • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 04/16/2026 09:25:30 PM
- Form 8-K - Current report • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 04/07/2026 04:30:50 PM
- Form NT 10-K - Notification of inability to timely file Form 10-K 405, 10-K, 10-KSB 405, 10-KSB, 10-KT, or 10-KT405 • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 03/31/2026 09:04:37 PM
- Form 8-K - Current report • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 01/15/2026 10:06:20 PM
- Form 8-K - Current report • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 01/02/2026 10:14:59 PM
- Form DEF 14A - Other definitive proxy statements • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 11/28/2025 09:43:27 PM
- Form 424B5 - Prospectus [Rule 424(b)(5)] • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 11/25/2025 10:23:07 PM
- Form 8-K - Current report • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 11/20/2025 09:26:03 PM
- Form PRE 14A - Other preliminary proxy statements • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 11/19/2025 09:15:48 PM
- Form 10-Q - Quarterly report [Sections 13 or 15(d)] • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 11/14/2025 09:44:21 PM
- Form 8-K - Current report • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 10/31/2025 04:29:10 PM
- Form 8-K - Current report • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 10/30/2025 08:40:05 PM
- Form 8-K - Current report • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 10/24/2025 04:28:38 PM
- Form 8-K - Current report • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 10/14/2025 06:22:26 PM
- Form 10-Q - Quarterly report [Sections 13 or 15(d)] • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 08/14/2025 09:00:38 PM
- Form 424B5 - Prospectus [Rule 424(b)(5)] • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 07/01/2025 09:04:38 PM
