Replies to post #139135 on NorthWest Biotherapeutics Inc (NWBO)

[Extremist223]

Thank you for being such a strong advocate.

See what a wonderful world awaits us?

It's the one I want to live in.

[meirluc]

Senti, If the PsPD problem had not been solved well before February 2017, NWBO would most likely not have been able to report that about 25% of the patients were still PFS at that time, 30 months after midpoint enrollment (if you assume that 248 events were reached during November 2016). One can speculate that had they not at least drastically reduced the reporting of false progressors as true progressors, NWBO would have (falsely) reported much earlier that 248 (75%) had progressed. The fact that the 75% progression was announced at the same time as the lifting of the screening halt was probably related to the PSpD problem and not at all coincidental. Also looking at the various trials I have not seen any that were employing patients with a normal (unedited) distribution of ages, sex, and GBM markers where the PFS approached 25% after 30 months on trial.

[Leprecon7777]

I think you're theory is the most plausible explanation of the clinical screening hold. All the puzzle pieces seem to fit together with this theory! I would prefer the screening hold was due to an IA stoppage due to efficacy. Hopefully the end result will be the same.

[Rootjim]

sentiment stocks I believe you have the most likely scenario. GLTA

[eagle8]

Sentiment, as always, thank you.

Great to read your posts.
Love your positivism and i agree with your post.

All the best to you.

[AVII77]

Regarding a supposed interim analysis to have been done in the Summer of 2015.

Two things.

One:
It's reputed that Les has denied this claim to several investors.

Senti, is he purported to have:
1. Denied an IA was performed in summer 2015? Or
2. Denied the trial failed in the summer of 2015? Or
3. Denied a futility rec in the summer of 2015?

I don't believe he is purported to have denied 1 or 3 above. I believe some have interpreted a denial of 2 above to mean a denial of 3. They are not the same thing.

Regarding your AA scenario : have you read the recently published Rindo paper in Lancet? Did you see what they said about historical controls? It was presented as an old lesson relearned.
"Even carefully assembled historical controls can be misleading and an unsuitable basis for clinical trial designs"