Replies to post #545953 on NorthWest Biotherapeutics Inc (NWBO)

[beartrap12]

We’ll I don’t think NWBO got their money’s worth from Dr. Stupp. He throws doubt on the results while failing to mention the 25 bearing hearts. And calls the External control “historical” control cases.

[flipper44]

Dr. Stupp. Wrong again.

Here is what he said.

The presumed benefit of DCVax seems to be restricted to patients with MGMT-methylated tumors (Supplement 2, eFigure 1). The authors do not provide an explanation for this observation nor for the counterintuitive benefit seen in the elderly (age ≥65 years) and in those with only partially resected tumors.

Dr. Rago, and Dr. Stupp knows this too, understand there is far more mutation targets in methylated mgmt-tumors. Dr. Stupp ignores this as he is a proponent of only Optune and Temodar. Just like Dr. Stupp ignores that reducing Temodar dose might maintain interference with tumor repair but not, as it has been doing to patients all these years, reducing the ability of t-cells to do their job.

Dr. Stupp also knows, but forgets, that patients 65 and older are, on average, highly methylated mgmt and mesenchymal, again providing a high level of mutations for DCVax-l instructed t-cells to attack.

Dr. Stupp also knows, but conveniently forgets, that patients with partially resected tumors actually need further tumor clearance than the surgeon can provide. Thus a patient who would otherwise die early because of poor surgical tumor clearance, instead has his residual tumor attacked by infiltrating t-cells previously instructed by DCVax-l. This also provides antigen targeting for further immune monitoring.

Dr. Stupp also ignore very long term survival proof in DCVax-l patients, because he knows Optune can’t do this nearly as well due to tumor escape from the tumor treating field focal points, and he knows Temodar can’t do this nearly as well because Temodar actually weakens t-cells.

[Dan88]

Soft bash commentary wrangling on some already well-explained yet understandably not perfect issues. Considering the high stake of DCVax platform when approved on his "enterprise" Stupp protocol and TT Fields (Tumor Treating Fields), yes he intended to ignore/downplay the pristine safety profile and the efficacy evidence resulted from unprecedented efficacy on rGBM patients. I bought 30k shares more today after a while of hesitation after reading his commentary.

BTW, below is my email to him sent this morning:

On your commentary titled "2022 Top Story in Oncology: DCVax in Patients With Newly Diagnosed and Recurrent Glioblastoma"
Yahoo/Sent
Xxx [e-mail]>
To:[e-mail]
Thu, Dec 8 at 1:22 p.m.

Dear Dr. Stupp,

Well first thank you very much for your significant, unmatched contribution to GBM treatment and management over the past decades. Do you think what is important and significant in terms of DCVax-L treatment for GBM patients, besides what you having reasoned and questioned, is its benign safety profile, the strong support of its efficacy from the trial results obtained for rGBM patients? Your suggestion for its full potential with other approved agents in combination is duly appreciated.

Looking forward to your reply,

Sincerely,

xxx, PhD

[Doc logic]

LearningEveryTrade,

“The authors created a synthetic control...”. I don’t think so. As I recall a third party was called upon to compose contemporary ECA comparators. I think someone has been chewing on sour grapes for a while now and it shows. Too much innuendo not based strictly on scientific rigor and the idea of selection bias is NOT balanced out by the original attempt to find and enroll patients from the middle of the OS curve to work with in this trial. This meant excluding longer lived pseudoprogressors and early progressors so that the true benefit could be measured in a group from the middle. Dr. Stupp does not balance this out. Best wishes.

[GPha]

Despite all of the noise and illogical arguments against NWBO. Dcvax-L will be approved at least in GBM indication, mark my words.