Replies to post #207078 on NorthWest Biotherapeutics Inc (NWBO)

[anders2211]

The DCVAX trial is the longest running trial in the history of biotech trials ever, stemming back to the last century from bottom to top. There is no biotech from start to finish, that has run that long. What that implies is that NWBO is highly inefficient in bringing a developing drug to market. The reason why that is is that there are lawyers running the business, not experts actually knowing how to develop a drug and bringing it to market avoiding all the pitfalls and problems LP and consorts have fallen for. Let alone investing in the wrong projects such as real estate and production capacity.

That doesnt mean it will never be launched, it will, even with one hell of an OS tail Im sure and also some of the wonderful advantages you described. However the moment it will get worldwide steam (2-3 years after market) it most probably is already old technology.
Again, the whole medical IMMU drug industry is moving towards developing drugs without the combination of old SOC. Many IMMU therapies will be launched in the next 3-10 years
You can deny it but I would suggest to just Google and you find plenty of ample examples of promising IMMU therapies (there are 650 currently in trial). DCVAX is cutting edge as long as it is not overtaken by IMMU therapies treating without the combi of SOC and I, therefore, give L 3 years from now before its obsolete.

[sentiment_stocks]

They found a way to make APCs more aggressive in 2013/14/15, do you think they wouldn't want to apply that knowledge and test it in "L"? I don't believe "L" trial was specific with how long maturation should be, so if they made a minor tweak from 24 hours to 16-18 hours(method b) it would still follow protocol. The results could prove to NWBO that the maturation window for Method B is working and the hypothesis from the observation in Direct would be confirmed at least internally.

That type of move would certainly explain the longer wait.

They wouldn't have used TFF in the first set of patients as the patent wasn't approved. So what if they weren't seeing as much psPD in those earlier patients? Certainly with Brad Silver they did, as LL references him in her March 2012 Tale of Two Tumors presentation... but perhaps it wasn't as evident in the earlier phases of the trial. Otherwise, I'd like to think they would have used a different criteria to evaluate PFS in this trial.

So if they switched to TFF sometime in 2012 - when the trial became a P3 trial... could the "inflammatory changes" seen on the MRI scans AFTER DCVax-L treatment start to manifest themselves in a more robust manner?

And if they continued modifying the "art", could the number of these false progressions have started to to multiply even more? I remember that both Sunday Dennis and another DCVax-L patient (I can't remember his blog name on Cancer Compass? - but Avii probably does) after being diagnosed via MRI for progression, were being told by their doctors in 2015/16, that it was rather common for DCVax-L to cause psPD, and that the progression seen may be false. Certainly with Sunday, she didn't make it, nor sadly did the other guy. I believe the same thing was also told to Kat Charles (Kat's Cure) in, was it, 2016, and of course, for Kat, it apparently was false progression. Anyhow, my point is that it would seem that the clinicians and patients were beginning to recognize this in the later part of the trial, whereas, there was no mention of it - other than LL in that one presentation from 2012 - in the earlier portion of the trial.

Anyhow, it's possible that if there were changes (and they worked better) made as the trial progressed, and then the psPD issue may have become more apparent with time, and that may also account for what appears to be an improvement in the results as time also progressed.