Thanks Afford. Why would I get mad over that? You're entitled to your opinion of my stance. My picture is that of a bull after all. ;) But, regardless that I want to see DCVax-L complete a successful study, I'm not an emotional investor, I'm a hard-working one. I like to know everything when I make a big investment but there are times when none of us know all things, and when our gut instincts calls the shots. But, I'm also buying shares so my strategy of dollar cost averaging is not the same as someone who is trading options.
I don't agree with Pyrr's view on Direct. It's too early to label Direct either a success or a failure. My view is this is a first in-man, and stability of disease, with evidence of some shrinkage, will lead the market to support a multi-injection in Ph II as a promising extension. I do not think the market will bolt if one injection fails to shrink the overall sum of the metastases by 30%. That said, I do think this iHub turned on Pyrr to a degree because they felt his dark Direct views came out of no where; but that's just not true. He might have been in a mood when he first revealed his put, but that doesn't mean he hadn't been dropping hints of his disappointment. I do find him to be jagged at times, but he is far from evil (though I'll admit the revenge talk bothered me too, it still doesn't make him evil). He's entitled to voice his negative views regardless of how forceful or imbalanced I think they are at times.
Perhaps my perspective is different from most, as in my mind, there was always a chance Pyrr could end up having an issue with Direct and DCVax-L. Data crunch folks don't like doubt, and riddled-data to crunch with inevitably means doubt. He can not support Direct, because he can not see the data. There's a chance he may not be able to support DCVax-L down the line either (assuming he one day comes to the determination that the data he thought he analyzed may have been riddled on him too). If he can't get get his hands on the data to figure out if it's working, he's going to figure out a way to conclude that it might not be. No ifs, ands, or buts about it, as he sees that as balance. It doesn't mean that he concluded that it won't work, he sees that it can. However, if they're not giving him the info he needs to analyze and prove it works, then he can't stand behind them and say that it does. And, why would he need to do that anyway? There are plenty of other things that he can figure out, so no need to invest his time on proving NWBO, with its hidden data, works.
But what's really going on? The company has always been good at keeping the data close to their chest, and operating behind a dark curtain. Nothing changed. They can't put the Ph III study at risk and suddenly reveal any data point, from any open arm (including Israel), unless the source of the revelation is unbiased; they can't put their executives in a precarious situation, where they could be accused of making false or misleading statements on either study, so everything they present, ever word they say, is thoughtfully planned and carefully selected to negate these risks. In the end, investors are left trying to unscramble what every data point and every word means. Well, after a certain point in time I believe that kind of behavior ( though unavoidable, as AF's latest tweet makes clear), where they're telling us to trust the earlier science, but only giving us morsels to continue to build a foundation with, eventually leads folks who need more than trust to begin to question all things. But what happens when data isn't forthcoming or it is at a crossroads, such as it is now with Direct? Those who doubt begin to suspect all the data on-hand. And, now many here have judged Pyrr for doing just this. To Pyrr, investing isn't about loyalty, it's simply and purely about hard data, so understandably he has an issue with being judged over his put choices. But, again NWBO's science hasn't change, and neither has managements. The only thing that has changed is his views on their behavior. NWBO has only completely revealed all the data in a limited handful of times (This 51 CUA being one). What he thought he could figure out didn't pan out the way he thought it would, and so he's left to wait for a data reveal to prove that it's working, which is unfamiliar territory, particularly as he is untrusting of them now. As far as Direct is concerned he's come to his own realization that what they haven't said, means much more than the limited data that they did share. But, that doesn't mean he's accurate on his interpretation of their non-dialogue. It's a catch-22 situation they're in. They're damned if they're say to much without MD Anderson by their side by AF, and their damned if they don't say by his.
Now, they're at a point where they're going to continue to operate as they've always done, in secrecy; but the only difference is Woodford entered the picture, and they don't need to concern themselves with skeptics. They have the end goal in mind. They have investment dollars in their hands to spend to bring the Ph III study home, and to start Direct Ph II's, and I trust they'll continue undeterred. As investors our choice is clear, we either trust in the scientific data that we've been given, accept the rest we have always been blind to, or we doubt and suspect some or all of it.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
