NorthWest Biotherapeutics Inc (NWBO)

[SkyLimit2022]

LC,

Cheat them? 😶 I was trying to spare them. The full post is worse—inaccurate and nonsense rumors. I had to consult the detector on this classic post …




“The statement presents several baseless claims and insinuations, each of which requires scrutiny:

1. **No peer review coming**: Asserting that no peer review is forthcoming is speculative unless the speaker has insider knowledge or concrete evidence. Peer review processes in academia and research are typically confidential until completion, so claiming with certainty that none is coming is baseless without specific proof.

2. **Comment on 'Quiet period' and share exchanges**: The reference to a "Quiet period" and the exchange of millions of shares suggests a connection between corporate silence and stock market activity. This connection is presented without evidence and seems to insinuate wrongdoing or manipulation without substantiation.

3. **'Pay to play' report**: Suggesting that any forthcoming report would be a 'pay to play' scenario is a serious accusation. It implies unethical or corrupt practices in research publication, which is a significant claim requiring substantial evidence to be credible.

4. **Research for the sake of research**: Dismissing the research as merely "for research's sake" and implying it's a cover for financial gain (salaries, grants, etc.) is a cynical view. It overlooks the fundamental value and purpose of academic and scientific research, which often includes long-term, foundational studies not immediately profitable or product-oriented.

5. **Remarks about Peregrind management**: Referring to management's statements about their workload is anecdotal and lacks context. Without more information, it's difficult to assess the truthfulness or relevance of this claim.

6. **Questioning Ms. Davis's work and implying a 'Special project'**: This part of the statement seems to insinuate that Ms. Davis's work is not legitimate or is a cover for other activities. Again, this is a serious accusation made without presenting any evidence.

Additionally, the statement potentially veers into the territory of defamation. Defamation involves making false statements about a person or entity that harm their reputation. Several elements of this statement, such as the insinuation of 'pay to play' reports, questioning the legitimacy of research, and casting doubt on the professional integrity of individuals like Ms. Davis, could be construed as defamatory if they are untrue and damaging to the reputations of those involved.

Defamation requires not only that the statements are damaging but also false. If the accusations made in the statement cannot be substantiated with evidence, and if they are proven to be false and damaging, they could potentially be considered defamatory. This is a legal consideration, and actual legal consequences would depend on specific laws and the context in which these statements were made.

In essence, the combination of unsubstantiated claims, speculative accusations, and potentially damaging insinuations without evidence makes this statement not only lacking in credibility but also possibly defamatory.”

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/northwest-biotherapeutics-announces-that-a-marketing-authorization-application-has-been-submitted-to-the-uk-mhra-for-dcvax-l-for-glioblastoma-302021038.html

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaoncology/fullarticle/2798847

I’ll include my full post as well—the one that you were responding to when you said that no peer review was coming—I only took an excerpt before:

https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=170370526