I've read the post and think it is a well-written analysis of the poster's rationale and logical thought process. His/her opinions were derived from his/her assumptions and research. For folks who have not read it, I would recommend reading it to understand a potential perspective of an investor who ultimately does not believe NWBO will be profitable enough to support a significantly higher PPS.
He/she not only considers the science, but also the future market potential and why it might not work.
With the above stated, I will also state that most of what was written were his/her own personal opinions, well-formed, researched, rational, but still opinions with plenty of built in assumptions. Of course, as with all opinions, there are plenty of holes in the poster’s arguments.
I will provide my own thoughts around some of the bigger issues this poster has shared:
1. Patents:
“Yes, the process of injecting patients is probably not patentable.” I think using this as an argument is a bit of a stretch. It is like saying "taking a pill is not a patentable process". I think it is quite obvious that “filling a syringe with a liquid treatment and injecting it into a patient” is not a new process. NWBO has a number of patents surrounding the process of maturation, induction, and preservation of DC cells. Those are the key processes and technology that make DCVax product different. To highlight the injection process as not “patentable” the poster is trying to point out that it is the most “critical” part of the product and it’s application. CLEARLY that is not the case, so this argument is moot. In addition, I believe the simplistic application nature is a COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE vs other treatments. There is no need for expensive equipment, complex training, or any other substantial investments that standard hospital will need to make. The only exception might be additional investment for machines that performs specific blood draws, but outside of that, the product can EASILY be rolled out to a number of medical institutions with ease.
2. Cognate:
The poster assumes that Cognate can continue to stay as a viable entity if NWBO disappear. Considering how many shares of NWBO Cognate owns, I believe Cognate will go bankrupt instantly if NWBO goes bankrupt. If proper accounting rules are followed, these shares will be recorded as assets on the balance sheet. If NWBO goes bankrupt, the asset portion of the balance sheet + remaining accounts receivables will take such a huge blow Cognate will likely be unable to recover from. This is a symbiotic relationship where both parties benefit (better balance sheets) and both parties suffer if the other disappears. To believe otherwise indicates that this poster does not understand how balance sheets are constructed and how equity stakes in other companies are presented on financial statements. The only other possible explanation is that Cognate can take a $100+ MM asset write down and still be viable because they have very little to no debt. I find that unlikely as NWBO definitely does not pay enough in cash in to finance the recent expansions, European manufacturing consulting fees, and capital equipment purchases.
3. Manufacturing and Operations
The poster assumes DNDN and NWBO will have similar operating structures because their end product is built off of Dendritic Cells. This is the farthest thing from the truth and there are a number of articles that indicate DNDN and NWBO are vastly different companies. I don’t plan on going into too much detail here, but I believe everyone knows.
Anyway, just some food for thought for you guys. I believe it is a good idea to read someone else’s thoughts just to understand the different perspectives that drive investment decisions in a particular stock. Clearly, I don’t agree with most of the things written, but it does not mean I should just ignore it.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
