Replies to post #114350 on NorthWest Biotherapeutics Inc (NWBO)

[HappyLibrarian]

Isn't it foolish not to fully utilize the Direct Phase 1 data and a good PR strategy to help support the share price, make the financings more bearable, and build excitement that will make the unblinking and release of Phase 3 DCVax L results more powerful.

Isn't it foolish not to similarly utilize the Phase 3 DCVax L Information Arm data?

Given that 20 cents a share is as low as it can get, itvis pretty hard to argue that we have much to lose by releasing and properly publicizing information we have every legal and moral right to share with the world.

When long term shareholders are down 90% it is time to finally stop repeating the same failed approach over and over again and expecting a different result.

[tryn2]

Kabunushi, totally agree that we should wait as long as possible. Even though l have $11k in warrants that will expire Dec 27th of this year, l also have around $115k of shares, so it would be better for shareholders and those with brain cancer if thie trial continues...

[exwannabe]

ARGS may have some evidence that a tail exists, but that trial would virtually certainly have failed if run to the planned completion.

A) Even in the 1st 1/3 subset they pull out the HR was only .88, that would not have been stat sig at the final.

B) The overall trial showed no tail. Flip down to page 28 of
Flippers linked chart , and you will see the tail for vaccine is lower than the tail for SOC.

C) The relative benefit in that 1st 1/3 subset was driven by the control arm doing worse, not the vaccine arm doing better. That makes it look much more like a random fluke than a real effect.

D) Through 75% of final events, the vaccine arm was doing worse by almost 5 months. That is a huge amount to make up.

We will possibly see the 290 event follow up data, or we may not. But it is not going to impress anybody.

As far as NWBO:

Nobody (I know of) has said the trial should have been stopped at 248 PFS. What is normal, is to unblind and release the primary data (and possibly immature OS data). Continue to follow the trial and release OS when that hits 233.

The defined PFS endpoint is at 248 events, that does not change. It is common to get a few extra events, as nobody can perfectly cut the data. But intentionally gathering more events for perhaps a year is moving the endpoint. So they are not helping the primary endpoint of the trial by maintaining the blind.

The only benefit of maintaining the blind is that they have slightly higher quality data on the OS secondary.

[biosectinvestor]

Very well said and presented in exactly the right context Kabunushi!

This has always been my understanding, that OS was very important for IO, and that the longer the period outstanding, the more likely that we would see an ongoing benefit for those patients who were benefitted the most. But any of us just saying that is easily critiqued here by those who take the opposite, most aggressive stance. Presenting it in the context of the ARGS trial, and with regard to what they actually said, is extremely clarifying and very important. Thanks for that fantastic post!