Replies to post #475630 on NorthWest Biotherapeutics Inc (NWBO)

[hoffmann6383]

Based on the available data we currently have, GermanCol's analysis was right on point, imo. When, or if, we get the unidentified patient's info, it would be appropriate to look at this again. GermanCol's analysis (based on the information readily available) clearly shows the short narrative to be baseless. Your point is valid Flipper and it was clearly identified in GermanCol's post by making his calculations transparent and showing the unidentified group. That being said, to dismiss the entire post as speculation is nonsensical.

[GermanCol]

I wasn't going to answer anymore, but thought it over and just don't want to leave it like this. In your reply to my post you wrote:

Your post is simply speculation.

That was after I offered all the calculations and sources.

So if you are going to say something like that, prove it with facts, sources and calculations.

Now you are saying something different. That we don't know. But let's recapitulate, what I said is that all of the patients with KNOWN MGMT gene promoter methylation status in the group of these 35 patients that never crossed over are MGMT methylated and that of the patients with still unknown MGMT gene promoter methylation status, almost all if not all are MGMT Methylated.

This last part is the only one that you could have seen as speculation. But actually it wasn't. If you apply simple statistics, you have a group of 35 patients with the following distribution:

- Known MGMT 13
- Unknown MGMT 22

Out of the 13 with known MGMT methylation you have:

- Methylated 13 100%
- Non Methylated 0 0%

Do you know how big is this sample from a statistical point of view to infer something from it? Hard to find a sample as big as this 37% (13/35) in a survey. We know the information for 37% of the universe to make a statistical analysis and in that sample, 100% of them are Methylated.

Finally, I have always believed what you mention here:

What I think this shows is that most of the 24 unidentified mgmt amongst the non-crossovers probably came from early in the trial, before satisfactory mgmt methylation tests were developed. 2008

And actually I used that as a support in the statistical analysis I did, because this means that the selection of the population of patients with unknown MGMT is not biased towards unmethylated, nor methylated MGMT because the trial was randomized at the beginning and the MGMT Methylated and MGMT Unmethylated patients were assigned to both original arms in the statistically correct proportions.

So, I say that at least the majority of the 35 non crossed over patients are MGMT Methylated and this is not speculation, is a conclusion statistically inferred. Also, the rest of my post definitely was not speculation, was made up of facts, calculations and analyses.