Replies to post #527942 on NorthWest Biotherapeutics Inc (NWBO)

[JimSmith111]

With respect to the unknowns, I rely on the knowns to help guide me whether there could be anything bad underneath the rock of unknown. It's imperfect by definition, of course.

But what is going on so far has shown me nothing but a good-faith effort to realize the goal of making this available. Although some question whether certain aspects of the process have been navigated in good faith, I'm okay deciding, for me, that there is a genuine good faith effort as it relates to bringing this to the market generally. So if something isn't cloaked in pure good faith along the way, I am okay assuming (not knowing, of course) that it was done as part of the overall greater good faith effort to make this happen.

To the extent that I am forced to speak in generalities, it is because this is my position generally. I would be glad to address a more pointed concern but the concern at this time appears to be a general concern as to the unknowns. I can't opine as to that with precision.

I could try to guess what you may be getting at would be discovered, but at this time it is only the general concern that something may be out there. Again, asking in a neutral way, is there some more factually-specific concern you believe could arise, the suspicion of which is grounded in some other set of known facts?

I have wondered if certain others are getting at this, based on the difference between a fig leaf and an olive branch, the second one typically being offered deliberately for a reason.

[pqr]

Poor Man - I thought the answers to your earlier post were a bit defensive but here I will strongly disagree with your implication that the failure to act proves or even suggests that there is an ulterior negative reason. There are dozens of entirely legitimate reasons for not litigating including prominently that it is expensive and not necessarily productive, not to mention hugely time consuming for any enterprise much less one so small with more important things to accomplish. I recognize the premise of your question goes beyond litigation but what good is going to come from a public debate with a wholly disseminating adversary? Well
meaning posters here cannot resolve far more simple disagreements - do you think if DI posts, “Adam here’s where you’re wrong …” that is going to shut him up? He’s getting paid for this you know.

No the reason nothing appears to have been done is that it would not work but would waste resources. Time will tell if 5/10 and related changes that calculus. Best to All.

[hoffmann6383]

LoLOL Ken.

Not how it works. You have to prove your case and you don't put it on someone else to prove the absence of your case. This is nonsense.

[biosectinvestor]

AF haunts numerous companies, and the general GOOD advice, despite the lies, which is a common feature, usually floated speculatively and without context, is to ignore it because lawsuits against media companies and “journalists” is a waste of time and resources. However, typically Adam does not lose his cool and start stalking the company and it’s shareholders floating transparent lies on social media. He went beyond the role of journalist, though I am sure he would argue otherwise. The nice thing in our court system is that juries decide issues of fact. Moreover, if the company were about to get bought or partnered in a powerfully validating way, it really would not matter much what Adam or StatNews did in discovery, what would matter was what they did to undermine price discovery and why. A jury would no doubt find the story interesting and I doubt it would find them sympathetic.

Generally speaking, I think suing media is not useful. But Adam likely has left them with no choice. There was a former US Attorney in Boston I know of who had contemplated suing him years ago on behalf of a few companies at once, and I would suggest they think about him or his firm. It was in the local business press in Boston a few years back. The company I was interested in was bought. Adam helped ensure the buyout price was lower than it likely would have been otherwise. I did fine, but I do not think anyone appreciated what felt like a hit job to facilitate a cheap buyout. It came with a hedge fund attack as well.

Anyone implying because they never sued the media (a generally silly thing to do in the US) must mean they have something to hide is quite ridiculous however.

[sentiment_stocks]

Well lack of money might be something to consider as to why they wouldn't have filed a lawsuit at an earlier time.

There was strong talk of filing one back in 2018. I know that I personally thought it would be better to file one when the data was actually out and proved efficacy... the public is likely to get somewhat outraged when they find out that nasty hedge funds have been trying to destroy a company with a treatment that is actually proven (with all that stat sigy stuff) to help to cure cancer.