Replies to post #423961 on NorthWest Biotherapeutics Inc (NWBO)

[biosectinvestor]

You're exactly right. Which is why there is NO NEW DISCLOSURE OF AN AGREEMENT. Exactly what I have been saying.

You seem not to understand that though. Because you go on to say there is no agreement with COGNATE in place. This is false. There is an agreement that provides, as was ORIGINALLY INTENDED, that it expires when they are approved and 5 years pass, and no other agreement is put into place. At that time, they will decide the terms of commercial production with Cognate, as per their disclosure documents, if any, and where. They can't make those decisions now.

But to say NO agreement exists, is patently false. Additionally, they signed another NEW Agreement with Cognate in 2019, for DCVax Direct.


I have pointed out previously, there is no Commercial Manufacturing Agreement, but as always intended, the EXISTING agreement provides for WHEN that agreement will be put into place.

This agreement never ended, and should they want to fund a new trial, they have this agreement in place.

The notion that there is no agreement and CRL and COGNATE are irrelevant because no agreement has ever been posted on the SEC database is a fake argument.

That was never the agreement structure.

I am not trying to overcomplicate, that is up to you and the others requiring that something that should be done has not been done when that is false.

I do not think you don't understand. It is imperative to a certain segment to suggest that there is no ongoing relationship with Cognate and that is just not true. And the production agreement to make DCVax Direct, signed in 2019, which also continues, is proof that those who want to suggest there is nothing there and if it did exist it would have to be reposted in the SEC database, are just wrong.

No termination occurred, no ending of the relationship. These companies still have the opportunity to do whatever they would like to do in the future, but the better deal is usually doing as much as you can for yourself first, which appears to be what NWBO is in the process of doing.

Sorry you don't win this argument.

[biosectinvestor]

There is no agreement with Cognate or CRL in place, and that is why NWBO took the active step of removing all references to the now-expired contract from their regulatory filings.

This is not true, the existing agreements are in their filings when they were made. All agreements a company ever signs are not constantly republished. The are easily found in the SEC database. Is that complicated for you?

I have substantial knowledge of how large, publicly traded corporations deal with their contracts generally. You apparently have no idea what is what. Leave it to people who know what they are talking about.

This isn't difficult, and it's not a matter of me believing whatever I want. Just like the lawsuit ruling that you somehow think precludes all possibility of the company having been aware of an IA in 2015 that they, conveniently, did not acknowledge, officially accept or disclose. They just decided to change the whole direction of the trial. You think that decision, and their removal of the Cognate contract language from regulatory filings, were just spontaneous coincidences?

This is false as well. The company has said it was blinded. The court unequivocally says that no efficacy IA occurred as of 2017, and no, I did not say NO IA occurred. A safety IA occurred. They reviewed for safety. THAT is what the court decision says and YES, it was material, as of that date or the court would have stated it differently. That was the record. The filings were updated and amended by plaintiffs. The parties had made their supplemental motion related arguments. End of story. And, despite the beliefs that they were unblinded, the REGULATORS agreed they were not Unblinded, or they would not have accepted their updated SAP's. If you had a case, I guarantee some smart attorney would have filed again, based on deceitful statements. Instead, people like you litigate on bulletin boards where there are no rules of evidence, there is no law related to deceptive filings, or fraud on the court. Anyone can say anything here and it can be believed, true or not.

The constant effort to over-complicate simple realities (such as pretending being 14 months past data lock with no TLD is perfectly normal when the simple reality is that the data is bad and they've known it for six years), is just another tactic in this year-long shameful scheme to obscure the truth.

I am responding to people trying to say, only on bulletin boards, NOT IN COURT, which is where you should be if you were saying anything even half truthful, with the truth. The truth, when people try to tell simple lies, requires evidence. People who tell lies do not present evidence, as I did earlier in my post on the subject. I think people can judge who is lying. The company swears their filings are true. Sue them.

You see, it is this kind of ignoring of details that makes what some people so deceptive. Claiming it is all "simple" and "they are lying" without real evidence is nonsense. Go to court and prove it. Then I will believe you've made a case. Instead, I will stick with what I see and read in SEC filings that you claim do not exist anymore, but that I can easily access via the SEC database.

[lrdpdx77]

JRIII:

I believe the contract is still valid. The terms of the contract provide for termination 5 years after commercial sales after approval. I think Biosect has offered more facts and sound reasoning than what I've seen in your posts. Time will be the judge of who's right and I will be the judge of who I agree with.