Umibe5690,
Let's look a the underlying rational for a PR firm vs no PR firm. Could Les occupy his time with PR perspectives? Maybe but then he would be accused even more of being an insider trying to pump a stock that is not yet ready to turn a profit let alone release all data on the long tail. How does that help us? It doesn't. On the other hand, preparation for a PR blitz is important especially if multiple news items are expected to be shared. Timing of news release for maximum impact needs to be considered ahead of time and room must be made for adjustments. A PR firm should do this while Les and Linda work on the final drafts of whatever they want to release.
Time has not been a friend to NWBO investors but time appears to be inversely proportional to the likelihood of multiple wins for product validation. For example, we know methylated MGMT is being analyzed and the numbers already look good by comparison for that. Let's call that a homerun. Are investors on this board talking this up and staying focused on that or is there more concern about what management is or is not doing at this point? Maybe the numbers look good for adjudicated PFS. I am willing to call that a home run as I believe Bohsie demonstrated how this could be. Are we waiting on overall OS to improve based on the last patients that were enrolled? Maybe. Are we waiting for results on recurrent GBM patients? Maybe. We have 2 compassionate use patients that have no tumor tissue remaining after less than complete resections and a 3rd surgery. Those patients were both treated in 2015 outside of the Phase 3 trial. Has something changed that might be being captured in the last 32 patients enrolled? Maybe. So what do you tell investors about your trial ending if the SAB is saying not yet but then won't tell you when. If this were not the case I think that the SAB has enough integrity to call the company out by words or other action if the company was acting contradictory to their suggestions.
We are not the experts and we can not see what the rational is for what is going on. I can only guess and my guesses tell me that there are good reasons for what is happening but just as many bad reasons for what is happening can be reasonably entertained. Because of this, I don't like rewards being handed out to insiders when long term shareholders are being diluted and then hurt by the impact these rewards have on price support over time. On the other hand, rewards of some sort in the form of partially restricted shares does seem fair if meted out appropriately. I believe we would both agree that balanced rewards are appropriate if done right but that the appearance that this is currently the case leaves plenty of room for doubt. One thing I would like to remind us all of though is that those who did the financing with the A warrants wanted rewards put in place even if different points of view arise about why that may have been the case.
Finally, much has been discussed about the hold and the rational for not disclosing the reasons for it and it's lifting. If the hold was put in place for ethical reasons by recommendatikn of the CRO, thus keeping NWBO blknded, and Mr. Woodford came to find out about this through Ms. Katherine Wolf, then NWBO would not have wanted to disclose this for trial integrity reasons as well as to prevent freeing up someone who had questionable intentions with regard to influence over NWBO after the time this discovery was made. Alternatively, this may also be explained by Larry Smith's suggestion of interference into the trial at the time of the hold.
I know you mentioned other concerns as well but I will limit my response to these topics for now as my posts can get very long if I let them. Best wishes.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
