Replies to post #123433 on NorthWest Biotherapeutics Inc (NWBO)

[Rkmatters]

You're reading more context than there is. Seriously, you are. The minimum events they can unblind is at 233 events. Eventually they will be at or surpass that number when a DMC report comes in. I never said they wouldn't unblind at once they get the report that 233 or more event. I said there is a reason they expressed it needs to be a minimum of 233 events to unblind. Reason being is that they get the reports once a month. And data reported to them isn't necessarily all real time, some is reported late.

But yeah, I expect them to data lock once that report comes in. But this is NW Bio we are talking about, and they do tend to think strategically. And given that, I wouldn't be the least bit shocked if they got the news in August that 233 events hit, and then made the decision to wait to officially data lock, and have the DMC hold off doing the statistical analysis, in order to tie in into the release of UCLA Phase II results. That to me is a move I wouldn't fault them for doing, if they get the news that the 233 patients was crossed sometime in August. But, having said that I have no idea what they will or will not do. I only know they have the ability to delay the data lock should they decide it makes strategic sense to do so. But I repeat, from the press release I'm expecting that they data lock once they learn 233 events come in. You're expecting that too. So we are in agreement. It could come in anytime from July onward. I'm expecting slightly later than July, for reasons that I explain. But me expressing that I would NOT be shocked by them if they changed their minds and decided, upon crossing the 233 event to temporarily postpone the lock, and not tell us, isn't the same as me not agreeing that the current intention is to DATA LOCK once they learn the 233 or more death events have been in fact breached.

Now if you said there is no chance come hell or high water that they may delay the lock, then I disagree with you. And you can say you disagree with me. There is always a chance with them that they change their mind on their approach to the final reveal IMHO. To me I think the chances for delaying the lock will have to do with how close it is to having UCLA Phase II data reveal. If that trial is trending well, they may want that data to be out around the same time.