Replies to post #552478 on NorthWest Biotherapeutics Inc (NWBO)

[Zadie420]

Ok. You guys need to respond to his shameful hit piece. This guy is spreading FUD. I do not have Twitter acct.

[pgsd]

Sentiment Stocks @sentimentstock
1h
Replying to @AlMusella @EANOassociation and 2 others
One of their arguments against the contemporaneous (not historical) ECA used is that the DCVax trial excluded "Patients with progression".

No... $NWBO's trial excluded pts showing BOTH real progression or "SUSPECTED" progression (e.g psPD caused by chemo/rad who live longer).

Reply
Retweet
4Like
More options
AlMusella's avatar
Al Musella @AlMusella
2h
Replying to @AlMusella @EANOassociation and 2 others
Bottom Line: This study has flaws, as do ALL phase 3 trials. They are not bad enough to disregard the conclusion that DCVAX helps patients. We need to get this approved ASAP, then we will be able to experiment with combinations that will improve these already impressive results

Reply
Retweet
9Like
More options
AlMusella's avatar
Al Musella @AlMusella
2h
Replying to @AlMusella @EANOassociation and 2 others
The authors want the study repeated with no crossover. I wonder if they would allow their kids or parents to participate in such a trial, with the risk of a placebo. If they wouldn't allow their family to do it, why should we.

1Reply
Retweet
8Like
More options
AlMusella's avatar
Al Musella @AlMusella
2h
Replying to @AlMusella @EANOassociation and 2 others
The other major fault they think they found is in the control group. Unfortunately not in the paper, but in talks, Dr Liau showed a KM curve for the control groups, and they all overlapped, and the KM curve for DCVAX was better.

1Reply
Retweet
11Like
More options
AlMusella's avatar
Al Musella @AlMusella
2h
Replying to @AlMusella @EANOassociation and 2 others
"This is the first SAP that has been submitted for the Trial, and it is being submitted prior to Data Lock
and unblinding of the study results." The definition of "Post-Hoc" is "After the event" - which implies they saw the data before creating the SAP, and they didn't.

1Reply
Retweet
9Like
More options
AlMusella's avatar
Al Musella @AlMusella
2h
Replying to @EANOassociation @NeuroOnc @OncoAlert
I completely disagree with the paper. Luckily it was just submitted and not peer reviewed. It would never pass peer review. The easiest fact to show they are wrong is they emphasis "post-hoc" a few times. Had they read the paper, they would have see

[Horseb4CarT]

And yet the patients live longer and are alive longer than with any other treatment and SOC.

DCVax long term survivors >50

All others =0

[biosectinvestor]

Well that’s a big Merry Christmas!

[Reefrad]

There will definitely be a rebuttal to this rebuttal as this “paper” basically calls into question the methodology of the Lia by calling them out for using the term “prospective”. This is an outrageous accusation, “the investigators had seen the data… and then decided to go ahead with the cross trial comparison”.

Clearly this cannot be true as this would be a major violation of academic integrity. Furthermore, there is zero chance a journal like Jama would allow the original paper to be published as is if this were the case.

[X Master]

Just another looser who might conduct a perfect trial but never will achieve anything in his life. 73 Authors in a peer reviewed JA agreed that DCVax is effective.

[hyperopia]

Now where have we heard that name before? Martin van den Bent sounds familiar. . . Oh, that’s right, he and Wick also wrote another hit job on DCVax when the interim results were published in the JTM:

First results on the DCVax phase III trial: raising more questions than providing answers.
Wick W1, van den Bent MJ2
Author information
Neuro-oncology, 01 Sep 2018


In today’s pathetic and false critique in Neuro-Oncology he notes this:

MvdB has received honoraria for consultancy from Genenta, Servier, Astra Zeneca, Boehringer- Ingelheim, Carthera, Nerviano, Chimerix, Roche, Fore Biotherapeutics, Menarini-Stemline, Incyte and Sumitomo Pharma Oncology.

But somehow he just so happened to “forget” that he was paid by Karyopharm for a competing trial that published results earlier this year.

A Phase II Study of the Efficacy and Safety of Oral Selinexor in Recurrent Glioblastoma

Authors’ Disclosures
M.J. van den Bent reports personal fees from Karyopharm during the conduct of the study, as well as personal fees from AbbVie outside the submitted work.

https://pure.eur.nl/en/publications/a-phase-ii-study-of-the-efficacy-and-safety-of-oral-selinexor-in-