News Focus
News Focus
icon url

Extremist223

06/25/18 1:48 PM

#179583 RE: flipper44 #179580

So you are saying that LL had blinded pfs numbers for the whole trial and strongly predicted that no placebo would be left to progress by that date given historical comparisons.

I can see it being possible they didn't move forward for AA so that they can load up and regain % stake.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what you were trying to do is look at the most recently enrolled placebo patients and calculate how many should be progression free by her presentation?

Can we get a little better proof it's close to zero?
icon url

longfellow95

06/25/18 2:59 PM

#179590 RE: flipper44 #179580

Flip.

I know the slide in question was reposted in recent times, but I can't find it. Are you able to repost or give post number?
Thanks
icon url

Ultraz2

06/25/18 3:16 PM

#179591 RE: flipper44 #179580

I believe this is very true and what has made it a very good buying and share structuring opportunity, up and down, for many. :-)
icon url

hankmanhub

06/26/18 9:43 AM

#179655 RE: flipper44 #179580

if the above is correct, NWBO could have released PFS topline and applied for approval with the thought that although initially accelerated, it could - if OS successful -- be followed by OS for full approval.



If in hindsight, after the final data is unblinded and released, we see that the above quote actually proves true, then the most likely reason not to do so was in order for LP et al to take a last shot at self aggrandizement to get (many) more cheap shares and probably did not file the BLA at that time in order to KEEP THE SHARE PRICE LOW for them to accumulate many more very cheaply.