Ou.
Clinicaltrials.gov unintentionally gives us a couple ways to interpret the full extent of the trial design, because it (the clinical trial.gov posted design) is not specific enough for the public to know exactly which fleshed out design to rely upon. (This is likely true for all brief versions of trial designs they have ever posted).
A couple patients posted on the internet how the pseudo-progression arm protocol works up to the point of enrollment. Public message boards and the internet were also recently confronted with something that may or may not have been a much more specific version of the trial design....but it was apparently proprietary info, so message boards and the public were instructed by the company not to reprint the document or link it. I am not trying to confuse matters. I am a public investor following the rules by only discussing the possibility of how a second interpretation of clinical trials.gov limited info might affect things. I'm not going to be passive....I have to think. In the end there is only one written official trial design -- and one thing I believe very strongly, clinical trials.gov only gives us the equivalent of an abstract. As for NWBO, they have probably not fleshed out the full extent of the trial design to the public, but they have given a few more 'glimpses' in their press releases.
I can't put myself in the shoes of a hypothetical CEO looking to purchase NWBO.
I am still fully invested in NWBO, and I have always been diversified.
(Note: Tomorrow, I'll try to give my thoughts on how the methylated MGMT factor might be affected when seen through the prism of a (possible) second fleshed out trial design (the one with five arms I have been considering in my most recent posts). My conclusion is that it does not change my thinking on the phase III chances for a favorable outcome.
