Replies to post #165880 on NorthWest Biotherapeutics Inc (NWBO)

[GoodGuyBill]

Umibe5690,

Your analogy of throwing the baby out with the bath water is erroneous as my vote WILL NOT kill NWBO as throwing a baby out with the bathwater would kill a baby. Are you trying to say "no" voters are baby-killers...Lol.

Linda & Co are very, very knowledgeable and even more capable. But, I am starting to think, and I may be wrong, that they are even more cunning. It seems that every time we think we are about to make progress, there is a new shining object or mis-direction to another catalyst further down the road. They may be doing this for the good of all-- patients, nwbo and shareholders alike. But they may be self-serving at the expense of retail longs too. We may feel very strongly that Linda & co is working on our behalf. I have for 4 years now. I just think it time for her to validate our support.

Linda could get every single vote because there is not one long here who wouldn't give their all for the success of NWBO. Hell many have all ready gave it! And what are the "no" voters requesting? We simply want a trail update or the reason why they can't provide it and a general roadmap toward approval. For that i am portrayed as if I am seeking NWBO's demise?!? As if Linda, who's been fighting multi-billion dollar hedge-funds for 15 years would allow retail investors to move NWBO toward insolvency....Puh-leeze!

At the back of my mind, I cannot help but wonder why would Linda stacked-the-deck against retail voters, diluting their vote....if the good news publication was planned to be released before the vote?

Here's another question: how did many board members come to the belief that NWBO would be releasing blended/blinded data before the vote?

GGB,

Agree with holding people accountable and we are on the same page there. However, a no vote is not the way to do it. JMHO. That is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

GLTU

[biosectinvestor]

Agreed Umibe. This time, at this moment, and with this level of vulnerability, I can’t see a no vote as anything other than reckless though emotionally I get why some think it’s a reasonable notion, and believe that it won’t have the destructive and, at best, massively delaying impact that i am quite comfortable predicting it would have if “no” were to be the outcome. It would be an immensely destructive distraction with no reasonable short-term resolution even if those who are doing it think, just because they say they currently know their own motivations think otherwise. It’s just an impractical and unreasonable mode of thinking even if those who think it think, we’ll, I know I am reasonable, so how could it be otherwise. Corporate finance is not like that... votes have serious consequences.