Replies to post #396988 on NorthWest Biotherapeutics Inc (NWBO)

[biosectinvestor]

They are using Phase I/II numbers and while they may undercut many treatments, it is dated and I think the undercut is not helpful overall, and I think it is likely wrong for commercial production. So I disagree. I think it’s a nice source for the Phase I/II numbers, but I would not try to get too much out of it for the reasons I said. I’d not try to make it into a leak, or suggest that now NWBO needs to release TLD, etc. It will lead to scrutiny, and scrutiny undercuts.

Nice survey article, reminds us of the Phase I/II data which ultimately was more mature than the data in the 2018 article and did not have a placebo arm I believe, so it gives what one might say is a good estimate of what we might likely see in the unblinded Phase III data.

[marzan]

Flex, agree numbers don't lie. I think the Cat is out of the bag!

[biosectinvestor]

And I did read through the whole article. But if one is going to focus people’s attention just on DCVax, one has to note what it says immediately after. Cutting that out looks incomplete. And like I said, they appear to be referencing old, trial related info for the manufacturing and not what will likely be the situation for commercial manufacturing, so rather than ignoring that I’d note it and explain.

[KIPK]

Totally agree Flexroy.

Review articles are done to summarize a given field, summarizing the available developments, & outlining their comparative positive vs the negatives, BUT they are generally & for good reasons are unfamiliar with more recent advancements, eg; progress in automation to assist in maturations/expansions of cell-based therapies as NWBO has been more recently done & protecting the said IP...

In additions, the reviews generally end up taking more favorably in favor of newest approaches/technologies, but they lack any tangible data from the use of the proposed new technology to see if it actually works.

IMO, this is a very positive article for NWBO....

Very Long NWBO!!