Replies to post #81427 on NorthWest Biotherapeutics Inc (NWBO)

[AVII77]

1. I'm not sure why you did not include the abstract. It was easy to find here

Senti posted the link to the abstract within the thread I was replying too. (her post 81311).

2. It's cross-posted at iVillage

Yes, I posted the link to the abstract because it wasn;t recently posted there.

3. As a quick addition, to my comments below, I note that the article is discussed here as well, but in a more dated, discussion that suggests it is not in the context of pending release of data. I think it's worth reviewing this discussion, though I don't have time to delve into it, I think it's a more positive take on the details here

Just a reiteration of company pump.

And I'm not sure that anyone who can rebut it will post on both sites. But I would be interested to hear more.

There have been no valid rebuttals to date. The MST of those 8 rGBM patients is 11 months. Someone might offer a different group of 8 rGBM patients (perhaps treated in Germany under HE, but that would beg the question of "why exclude these 8?") .

I think it's flawed to rebut to an abstract.

Why? There is no accompanying paper. And the Poster is completely silent on the topic I addressed (the 8 rGBM patients).

It's also unfortunate if you don't list which article it actually is and who the authors are, while accusing them of some quite serious either failure in their expertise or fraud.

Again, it was listed by Senti in the thread I was replying to. I think I spend far more time than the average poster here trying to make my posts readable (and it is much more challenging on this site than on others I use).

Regarding "failure in their expertise or fraud" I will leave that up to others to judge. It could be, in fact likely is, an innocent mistake. However, it is a mistake that changes the conclusions from DCVax likely works in rGBM to DCVax likely does not work in rGBM.

The above linked pdf includes lots more data than you have in your analysis of the abstract, including additional charts and other information.

That poster is completely silent on the 8 rGBM patients in the abstract.

But it's kind of basic courtesy to include the links so others can evaluate what you're saying and if it is solid or based upon a misunderstanding, etc. Just a request that you please include the link when you post and cross post it so that people can fairly review and analyze what it is that you're saying.

I'll take that criticism and try to be more thorough going forward.