NorthWest Biotherapeutics Inc (NWBO)

[exwannabe]

GermanCol, your argument on censors being discarded fails, badly.

First, Flipper is correct. If the LTFU's are gone, that is because they were found. One does not delete censored data when the SAP says otherwise. This one is trial stats 101.

That aside, if your read of the K/M was correct it would provide support for Flipper's more properly stated analysis of the issue,, that LTFU's being found brought the curve down and that explains why the JAMA paper shows the 232 OS as being less that the 2018 blended data.

Your key point is the read at 24 months where you assert the K/M shows 35% OS and thus no censors prior to then (when about 8 or 9 would have been expected in the 2018 dataset).

Problem is that 35% read. I put the graph into a digitizer and see the number more like 36% (precision is clearly an issue, even with tech assistance). And that is enough to allow for several censors, even 8 or 9 is possible.

I do not assert I have proof that the LTFU theory is wrong. But I do assert your proof is invalid. And Fipper's more properly stated argument is speculative.

What is a fact is that a "win" in the 232 vs 99 OS comp would be huge, even if not stat sig. It is still an endpoint of the trial. And team NWBO has buried it.

BTW, on a minor point. "left censors": are something totally different than what you assert. That refers to if censors are prior to or after the unknown event. In this trial, all censors were right censors as is the norm in OS trials such as this. The term is sometime incorrectly used as you describe, and as English is not your main language I am not trying to flame you, just letting you know., See this paper from Oxford