NorthWest Biotherapeutics Inc (NWBO)

[SkyLimit2022]

ex,

Thanks for posting your opinion, but it sounds like you’re just trying to throw mud hoping something sticks. I ran your comparison through the detector 😶 …




“The comparison of Peregrine Pharmaceuticals (PPHM) to Northwest Biotherapeutics (NWBO) appears to be constructed as a flawed attempt to cast aspersions on NWBO. Let’s analyze the points of comparison:

1. **Similarities between PPHM and NWBO**: The statement starts by noting similarities such as being "one drug companies," claiming their drugs work in all tumors, advancing a single indication, having unexplained trial issues, claiming success in failed trials, and spending heavily on building CDMOs (Contract Development and Manufacturing Organizations). While these points draw a parallel between the two companies, they are quite broad and can apply to many small biotech firms. The lack of specific details or context here makes this comparison superficial. Additionally, the statement's claim that Northwest Biotherapeutics (NWBO) had a "failed trial" needs to be scrutinized for accuracy, as it could contribute to spreading misinformation if it's not based on factual data.

2. **Ownership of CDMO**: The statement highlights that PPHM owned its CDMO, which allegedly benefited its investors, whereas NWBO only collects rent from its CDMO (Advent). This point misses critical details such as the overall financial performance and strategic value of owning versus renting CDMO facilities. Without this information, it's a simplistic comparison that doesn't necessarily reflect on the companies' relative success or strategies.

3. **Management and Board of Directors (BOD)**: The comparison of management and BOD between the two companies, labeling some members as "deadwood" and critiquing the leadership abilities of PPHM's and NWBO's leaders, is subjective. It doesn't provide concrete evidence of how these leadership differences materially impacted the companies' performances. Without specific examples or data, these claims come across as speculative and potentially biased.

4. **Allegations of Conflicting Interests**: The claim that NWBO's management is more interested in related companies due to ownership interests is a serious allegation and would need substantial evidence for support. Without such evidence, this claim is speculative and undermines the comparison's credibility.

Overall, the comparison appears to be an oversimplification of complex business scenarios involving biotech companies. It relies on generalizations and unsubstantiated allegations rather than a detailed and objective analysis of each company's strategies, operations, and results. As such, the statement can be seen as an attempt to cast aspersions on NWBO without a solid foundation, making it poorly reasoned and baseless in its criticism.

Additionally, the statement includes implications about “LP” (presumably a leader or executive at Northwest Biotherapeutics) that could border on defamatory if not substantiated. Defamation involves making false statements that harm someone's reputation. When these statements are spoken, it's known as slander; when written, it's known as libel.

1. **Allegations of Conflicting Interests**: The statement suggests that LP may be more interested in related companies due to having more ownership interest in them. This is a serious allegation implying a conflict of interest and a lack of dedication or professionalism in their role at NWBO. Such claims can be damaging to LP's reputation and integrity as a professional.

2. **Need for Evidence**: To avoid defamation, it's crucial that any such claims are backed by solid evidence. Accusations or insinuations of unprofessional conduct or conflicts of interest should be based on verifiable facts rather than conjecture or hearsay.

3. **Impact on Reputation**: If the allegations are unfounded and disseminated, they could unfairly damage LP's professional reputation, potentially leading to legal ramifications if they are proven to be false and damaging.

In summary, without concrete evidence, making allegations about an individual's professional conduct or suggesting conflicts of interest can be defamatory. It's important to approach such statements with caution and prioritize fact-based discourse, especially when discussing individuals and their professional responsibilities.”

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