Replies to post #208547 on NorthWest Biotherapeutics Inc (NWBO)

[longfellow95]

Number one rule of the Internet: Don't read the comments.

You should have put that at the top, not the bottom.
I wade all the way though your post, and then see that at the end..

Lol. Only joking.

Good post, on the money. IMO.

[Doc logic]

IkeEsq,

I sincerely admire your passionate defense!! You would make a good lawyer lol. The issue as you see it is all dependent on the SAB recommendation which takes all the business responsibilities off of the shoulders of management. In an ideal world of unlimited time and funding, without death or other negative consequences from the wait, a pursuit of absolute truth like that would probably be viewed as quite noble. In the real world that we face, we often must compromise for "good or close enough". In the case of blended blinded data that was shared with us, that point is somewhere around 3.5 to 4 years based on event rate drop off. We are "close enough" to a complete data set from this group that an update of the plan moving forward can be given with no ifs ands or buts. Linda knows this, the SAB knows this, flipper44 knows this sentiment_stocks knows this, Rkmatters knows this, I know this and so do many others.

I don't need to be reassured as I trust what has been divulged as sufficient but there are many others who are sincere longs who want to continue to support NWBO but are troubled by the lack of any apparent end in sight because of management's past fear of affect on share price with a true disclosure when the end was not near and financing would considerably impact share price. They now have cash to finish this trial, patients waiting to get this treatment and some anxious investors who want management to finally come clean with a clear, not fuzzy, outline of procedure going forward. The time has come for management to flip the light switch to the "on" position and make sure the power has not been cut off or about to be, breakers are not tripped, there are no loose, broken or crossed wires or defective or burned out light bulbs, the ground wire is properly installed, lightning strike is not imminent and finally that no nuclear explosion is taking place that would cause a reversal of polarity and subsequent power failure. Any and all additional potential sources of interference not mentioned also being properly accounted for. Now the light does not need to be so bright that we see into the closets and safes but the main room itself should be pretty well lit up.

An ASM is about reviewing past accomplishments and announcing future plans. Future plans should always have some specifics that can be used to hold management and the board accountable to some degree when doing so does not jeopardize the continuation of a necessary strategy. I have not pushed very hard in the past because I believe management felt they were implementing a necessary strategy and knew the science indicated a need to wait. The science no longer indicates a great deal of time needed to wait hence my new position about management's need to shed more light on their strategy going forward.

I would write more about your other comments but I have already written a small book so will stop here as this was the main point I wanted to make anyway. Best wishes.

[ADVFN_doclee]

Ike

Decided not to take my advice, huh? ;)

Clearly not - mainly because it appears to have passed me by completely, perhaps because it was of such outstanding irrelevance as not to have even impinged on my consciousness.

You assert that Management are relying on the Scientific Advisory Board (the clue of what they do is in the name) to be the sole arbiter of when to unblind the trial. I must, therefore, ask on what basis has Management been hinting at the imminent unblinding of the trial at various times over the last year or so when it was (so you assert) not their prerogative to decide when to unblind?

Are you suggesting that it has been the SAB telling Management that unblinding was nigh, only to keep changing its collective mind on when to unblind? That being so, the SAB must have explained to Management's satisfaction why the prospects of unblinding had changed. Such an explanation would need to be understood by Management who, I suggest, are too clever to allow themselves to be bamboozled by scientific gobblediegook. So, the SAB's explanation must have been in words of one syllable, ie not too difficult scientifically for lawyers to understand. I would have thought that being lawyers (who are the doyens of the wordsmith trade) Management could then paraphrase the SAB's now-not-as-difficult-to-understand explanation into a form understandable by the likes of all of us who read such things as "Form 8-K"s and this Board.

As to your assertion that no criteria for triggering the decision to unblind the trial are set, this can only mean that you are privy to the information that the end of the trial is to be made on a whim or the spin of a coin. Every scientific decison needs a framework within which that decision is made and that framework is composed of the criteria, even if they are based only on experience rather than hard facts. What you are essentially saying is that there is nothing in the trial protocol which will tell investigators when the end of the trial is reached (excluding for "futility", of course).

As to your final paragraph, I would suggest that you take a deep breath, re-read what I hoped would happen at the ASM and then come off your high-horse of being the self-promoted advice-giver extraordinaire of this board, huh! Management are and have been telling us nothing for a long time now, even as we see the value of our investments diluted nearly to extinction; something in stark contrast to Management's more than handsome emoluments. They may be worth every penny they are given but how are we to know because we in fact know nothing of what is going on. Even when we are given hope of something happening we cannot trust the news to be true - some members of this board complain of being frankly lied to by Management whilst most of us have our hopes misleadingly raised by Management that the end of the trial was imminent. It is in this regard that I opined that somebody at the ASM should ask Management to tell us what are the conditions which will trigger the end of the trial, and only if they refused to explain why they couldn't or wouldn't provide that information might there be a collapse in the SP leading to bankruptcy sometime in the near future should expectations be falsely raised and then be dashed. Of course if they agreed to provide some idea of the criteria it would go some way to reassuring some of us that our investment in NWBO is not so unsafe as some on this board are claiming so that the idea of selling out now becomes less of an attractive option.

[CogDiss 1188X]

Ike- enjoyed reading your post, entertaining as well as some solid points made.

Number one rule of the Internet: Don't read the comments.

I thought it was “On the internet, no one knows you’re a dog” (or in my case, a horse).

If one clicks the right link posted in a comment, it can completely change how one views things. Like completely. Hmmm, maybe that’s why there’s a rule against it.

Besides, certain comment sections are hilarious.

[sentiment_stocks]

Ike, one thing the company made very clear in the November PR on the 2018 blinded data was that they are moving forward with the stages of work needed to complete the trial - "despite the fact that there are good arguments for allowing the data to mature even further." So I don't think they have any plans to change course after telling us that the time is nigh. They've identified that there are reasons not to do so, but that the reasons to do so outweigh them.

So I'd have to argue that with management having released that PR, they have already been advised by the advisors and have made their decision. As for the whole of the data, they already looked at it - twice. They chose to wait in 2017, and with the 2018 data, they decided to move forward.

It is up to them, not Management, to recommend unblinding based on the whole of the data.

However, there is a lot of wiggle room they left themselves in that PR, and that is what I'd like more public clarity on. If there are certain stages that are done at the same time, which ones are they and how long do they take? How far along are they? Is the SAP finalized?

These are questions that can be asked. I believe you are a lawyer (by your posting name, and your writing style), so you likely know they know how much detail they can give us to answer that question. They should be prepared for questions like that... in other words, they should know they are coming. They can choose to answer them or not.

It is a matter of looking at the data as a whole (as was stated during the proxy meeting in April 2018) and making a determination based on knowledge and experience in the field whether or not the data is sufficient to get approval and show what the treatment is capable of achieving.

My point here again is that they did look at the data as a whole and made a determination that this IS the time. I know I, for one, would just like more clarity and detail on that topic. You know, something like...

We anticipate
(and frankly, they should have an idea by now as it's been two months since they began including November)
unblinding between blank and blank,
with top line to follow between blank and blank.

And hopefully the between blank and blank will be more accurate than the business matters we were told would be coming in a matter of weeks, and instead we heard them 6 months later.