Replies to post #479394 on NorthWest Biotherapeutics Inc (NWBO)

[newman2021]

r u Dr. B? Boy, you must be something.

[Dr Bala]

Thanks for the analysis. Unfortunately this analysis won't put the lies to rest, but on the other hand it shouldn't matter whether they will be put to rest or not.

The journal paper eventually will explain things and the already known positivity of the results would provide an impetus towards approval by the RAs.

[sukus]

Great to have you here GermanCol. Those who spread lies would find your post like bright light in the dark night. Many many thanks for supporting the truth.

[flipper44]

Thank you. I agree with your premise, but I’m not certain regarding one of your conclusions. That is, couldn’t the lost to follow up simply have been found, as opposed to your hypothesis they are all in the noncrossovers?

I don’t think that impacts your more general conclusions.

Similarly, regarding another post, isn’t it possible Lyriki and and Ex are correct on the small point about where the unidentified mgmt are distributed? Couldn’t it be that 21 were identified mgmt after the 2018 JTM?

Again, I don’t think this hurts the general premise of your findings.

Other than that, I think this is your most important post. Thank you. I hope people read it.

[sentiment_stocks]

Thanks for examining this theory of the 13 LTF in such detail for all of us. I had to read your post several times (well, I was rushing and skipping stuff the first few times)I order to take it all in, but ultimately, your argument that they removed those thirteen and that they were from the “vanguard” group was made very clearly; and I suspect you’re correct.

What I’m wondering is why remove these LTF patients from the final analysis, as you make the case that this obviously handicapped the results when comparing the treatment arm to the ECA. You’ve obviously spent considerable time in analyzing this, so do you perhaps also have a theory as to why they may have remove those patients from the first 19 months?

[hoffmann6383]

nice work again germancol. thanks for sharing.

[flipper44]

Weren’t there less left censored patients in the 2018 SNO update? Maybe more were found?

[marzan]

Wow you are a genius Germancol. Thanks for explaining how the left sensors are punishing and at the same time not including the right sensors in the JAMA article is the reason for the shorter OS than the blended JTM paper’s is an amazing thesis you put together. How in the world we can thank you enough?!
It is unfortunate the Harvard doctors are not honest.
They should retract their SNO article as soon as possible, imo.

[biosectinvestor]

Very interesting and impressive analysis GermanCol! Thank you for putting in all of that work!

[Dr Bala]

Great analysis. Thanks, GermanCol.

[Foogie88]

Awesome post..,detailed, to the point and backedup by solid date.

[tucsonchas]

Thank you, Col.

[NotSure2]

This should be sticked, and have 75+ likes.

[eagle8]

Great work GermanCol !
Thank you for sharing.

GLTU

[dmb2]

GermanCol, thanks much, I appreciate your analytical posts which show a sound understanding of the stats. It is so refreshing to see, as is often the case on this board from several posters, sound analysis based on the facts and data. Those of us who have been here for several to many years have lived through this noise on boards and in the market in general, no ethics, complete lawlessness as the lawsuit will show. Thanks again for combatting the trashy noise of baseless posters with real analysis. Hopefully we will see the proof shortly with submissions and approvals starting within weeks.

GLTA

[exwannabe]

GermanCol, your argument on censors being discarded fails, badly.

First, Flipper is correct. If the LTFU's are gone, that is because they were found. One does not delete censored data when the SAP says otherwise. This one is trial stats 101.

That aside, if your read of the K/M was correct it would provide support for Flipper's more properly stated analysis of the issue,, that LTFU's being found brought the curve down and that explains why the JAMA paper shows the 232 OS as being less that the 2018 blended data.

Your key point is the read at 24 months where you assert the K/M shows 35% OS and thus no censors prior to then (when about 8 or 9 would have been expected in the 2018 dataset).

Problem is that 35% read. I put the graph into a digitizer and see the number more like 36% (precision is clearly an issue, even with tech assistance). And that is enough to allow for several censors, even 8 or 9 is possible.

I do not assert I have proof that the LTFU theory is wrong. But I do assert your proof is invalid. And Fipper's more properly stated argument is speculative.

What is a fact is that a "win" in the 232 vs 99 OS comp would be huge, even if not stat sig. It is still an endpoint of the trial. And team NWBO has buried it.

BTW, on a minor point. "left censors": are something totally different than what you assert. That refers to if censors are prior to or after the unknown event. In this trial, all censors were right censors as is the norm in OS trials such as this. The term is sometime incorrectly used as you describe, and as English is not your main language I am not trying to flame you, just letting you know., See this paper from Oxford