Replies to post #32090 on NorthWest Biotherapeutics Inc (NWBO)

[Papa Tweek1]

This comment was posted after the article which says:

bio65
I have no position in nor do I know much about NWBO. I do have a basic understanding of statistics and analysis of clinical trial data. Any classified group will have a result that has highs and lows. It is called a standard deviation. It is beyond ridiculous to analyze a clinical trial and say that the top few persons in any classified group, because of the result, should have been included in a different group. The logic of the article is childish and demonstrates a very basic lack of fundamental knowledge and common sense. I am guessing that NWBO is one of the companies that Mr. Fuerstein has taken a bearish position in in the past? (I only read his articles occasionally).

[HappyLibrarian]

Feuerstein's Distortion of the Information Arm:

Feuerstein forgot to mention that the information arm is being conducted by the same contract research organization that is doing the main Phase III trial.

Thus the only differences between the information arm and the main trial are:

The trial is not blinded.

The patients are sicker, on average than the participants in the main trial.

Unlike the main Phase III, this information arm has not been adjusted to account for the immune system damage caused by standard of care.

So, the last two points of difference actually make the results of this trial more compelling.

And I am not the only one to think so. I have a feeling that the Germans must have seen some early information on these patients before giving approval for Hospital Exemption.

Remember that we did not know the Information Arm existed until relatively recently but I am sure the Germans were getting that information earlier than we were.

Now we know that the Germans did not grant HE only on the basis of an old Phase 1 trial and that gives me even more confidence they are on to something.

[Pyrrhonian]

Yes, but, to admit that would mean admitting the other things the DMC chair said about him are true. Can't do that now.. He even tweeted that that revered man was in Linda's pocket.

I'm all for edgy commentary and f***-all sentiments, but the above shows he's really just being cowardly. And sometimes the loudest are just the most afraid. Maybe I'll try for his job.

But as far everything else he wrote, pretty much spot on. His whole gig is to be the voice that says what these companies will never say--the possible negative view of their data. That's his schtick. It works.

However a balanced view would also note that no ePD has lived past 24 months in any available data on them, and 10% of the info arm did, with a third patient pretty close (22 months). And one still alive past 3 years. That one no doubt believes this was a religious experience (for all of you ites and ics and ians out there who can relate).

Also you cannot say if I take these here (the under 15.3 mOS) and add them in without also saying that if I take some of these here (the over 15.3 mOS) and add them in the mOS could go up. Considering the three over 22 months in the clear ePD cohort, that's not being naively optimistic (and the ePD cohort really were 'sicker' as a whole than the indeterminate).

So there you have it, a balanced view! And still unclear.