Replies to post #53326 on NorthWest Biotherapeutics Inc (NWBO)

[etpa]

Adam,
I should have included that I had previously asked you specifically if you were compensated by outside entities for your articles, with the expectation that they expected you to impact the NWBO share price, to which you responded, "no."
I apologize for the omission.
I am long NWBO and appreciate reading both sides of the debate.
Although you make interesting points, and I do appreciate your background, my view is that, overall, there are many positives to this story which you tend to ignore.
In any event I am a cautious long, and welcome your further comments.

[PacificNW]

Adam,
with all your self anointed incredible biotech experience if my memory serves you haven't been batting well enough to be entering the Hall of Fame anytime soon. In fact if LL's video didn't come out per yourself NWBO wouldn't have dived to $2 and you wouldn't be looking so good with this stock unpick either. My point is that your your track record with regards to your prediction have been horrendous.

In addition it seem obvious that you are an armchair biotech writer who possibly has an expert that you consult with that gives you info or has taken you under his/her wing. You definitely ain't no doctor or technician in the field and the only thing that I can come up with is that you might have stayed at a Holiday INN but that is about it. I don't believe that any general common sense points that you wrote can be used for this specific situation, in fact your points are pretty archaic and simplistic to say the least.

I will give you one thing, your style of writing is entertaining so an A in that subject and another A in form over content. And I am being kind. Prost!

[f3tt3f]

So, you're now focusing your bear thesis on PFS as the primary endpoint?
How do you suggest that the trial be designed around OS if the FDA required all patients who progress to cross over into an open label treatment arm?
Ultimately, the FDA (and no one else) will have to make the call on this - and they will certainly have to take into account their insistence on the crossover arm.
Puzdar had made it clear he is more flexible with these envelope-pushing trials.

[mapman1010]

This doesn't make rational, logical nor common sense:

The posting date is not relevant to the story I wrote, unless you believe that people attending Liau’s talk were sealed hermetically in the room and not allowed to use their smartphones or talk about her presentation with others.

There were 3 million shares traded that day (multiples higher than average and dropped nearly $2) and the people attending that presentation were scientists and not likely to have the takeaway from that presentation that they should sell all their shares in NWBO when the takeaway in my mind as a shareholder was that patients are living longer. Even if they had a different takeaway than I had as a stockholder I find it incredulous that they would have (as scientists and not stock market savvy analysts) the inclination to sell all of their shares. I would also speculate that the people (scientists) in that room are fairly conservative in their stock portfolios and wouldn't have the number of shares (if any in NWBO) that would affect the share price. The same scenario played out on Aug 21, 2015 when 4 million shares were traded and the stock price fell nearly $3 when there were nonexistent borrow able shares for retail traders like me.
So you tell me how this wasn't likely illegal market manipulation.

[antihama]

NWBO’s problem is that a PFS benefit in front-line GBM lacks clinical significance. What matters most is prolonging survival.

I would agree with you IF delaying disease progression doesn't also lengthen patients' lives but even before Linda Liau stated

“what we are really comparing now is early DC vaccination vs later DC vaccination and and I guess it is a good thing patients are living longer”

your concern doesn’t exist for me here. Even before she stated that I saw it as a no brainer with the trial going forward with PFS as a primary endpoint. Why? OS primary endpoints were definitely needed for chemo drugs. Chemo drugs not only kill tumor cells but indiscriminately also kill healthy cells and as a result overall survival might not improve compared to PFS. However, we know that DCVax is about as toxic to a healthy cell as getting a flu vaccine. It zeros in on the cancer and not healthy cells so unlike a chemo drug, you’re not only delaying the progression of a disease but also increasing survival. I have full confidence that DCVax can be approved using PFS as the primary endpoint.

[longfellow95]

AF
If I may quote from your post:-

'I'm not under investigation of any kind. I don't know why you'd think i was under investigation, but I'm not.'

You seem to be stating this as fact.

How can you possibly know!

[lattices]

Adam, you can see I'm a new poster to the board and I'm not yet an investor in nwbo. However, I am in args and I'm very close to becoming one in nwbo.

There was one particular comment you made about nwbo in one of your Street posts which, on the surface, seems inaccurate.

The phrase is something like "dentritic cell therapy has been discredited."

That one sentence of yours has caused me enormous consternation. I've redoubled my research, and I still don't understand why you said that -- why you believe it, if you do.

From what I can tell, the only part of the technology that was "discredited" was the manufacturing process of Dendreon, which NWBO (appears to have) solved.

Last week, in the European Commission hearings, there was even one expert who referred to Provenge and that it was approved for the EU and it was frustrating that the manufacturer will only sell it in the US.

Many of your comments about NWBO related to management, progress in trials, and so on. With that one comment, you veered into a view on the entire therapeutic platform category -- why? Were you sloppy with words, or is this your view and if so, why?

Thanks.