Replies to post #537001 on NorthWest Biotherapeutics Inc (NWBO)

[hoffmann6383]

Bullshit. First, irrelevant. Second, false. Third, please provide the basis to your supposed knowledge as to what the peer reviewers were provided. I couldn't make it through the first paragraph of repeated and debunked bullshit.

Have a great one Gro.

[norisknorewards]

Beating hearts in this trial after 5 years. Never before seen. Good luck you fpos

[Dr Bala]

Nonsensical speculations. Also, please provide links to substantiate your false claims in the post.

[SkyLimit2022]

Forward this feedback to JAMA:
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/pages/contact-us

[thermo]

oh... and he misses his target

I would say the FDA has been well aware of the issues and the data for many years and wanted to see this trial finished and the data analyzed. But that just may be another one of my wild guesses.

[SkyLimit2022]

Thank you for publishing your views about the study of the murcidencel cell-based technology, but your statements need to be verified. JAMA and Northwest Bio should hear your feedback directly.

In my opinion, a lot of unsubstantiated negative information about murcidencel has originated from rumors and baseless innuendo published on social media to muddy the reputation of the company and benefit those attempting to short the stock.

More importantly, social media is not a safe and reliable source of info about any drug. Verify what you find posted on social media. Consult professionals and seek trustworthy full-context sources.

The JAMA independent peer review of the murcidencel (DCVax-L) P3 study is a solid source of information. Licensed independent physicians and qualified skilled statisticians have validated the significance of this landmark study, its design, and its data.

Forward concerns directly to JAMA and Northwest Biotherapeutics:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/pages/contact-us

https://nwbio.com/contact-us/

[biosectinvestor]

It's likely in there, you just want them to be very emphatic about it. There is no placebo arm. I think that is the most obvious answer. If you don't have enough patients for the placebo arm because most patients have crossed over, then making more patients defer their treatment and die sooner, for no reason, is unethical.

The placebo arm was not fit for purpose. The placebo arm is short. They have disclosed that they needed an external control arm, and they have likely discussed this entire set of facts with their regulators ad infinitum. Emphatically explaining that would simply be disclosing matters that might tip the regulators hand, or suggest that they are likely to have a positive disposition, IMHO. That's not the job of such an article.

Of course, I know you will interpret the entire things the opposite to whatever I say. But that seems to me the most obvious answer.