Replies to post #558723 on NorthWest Biotherapeutics Inc (NWBO)

[biosectinvestor]

Again, false. It is not “peer reviewed”, that is clearly marked as an “editorial”, which means it is OPINION. Not peer reviewed.

The two doctors writing it did not disclose their conflicts and they are deeply involved with TTF, meaning Optune, or NVCR, which will be badly affected if DCVax-L becomes the new standard of care.

[Dr Bala]

But yet, this post is a conglomeration of selective nonsense which doesn't rely upon any truth, and is chock-full of misstatements which show a total lack of understanding of the basics of the P3 trial itself.

[survivor1x]

Explain Mesenchymal.

[meirluc]

Thank you HyGro for the article which I will reread again more thoroughly.

However, I do have some initial comments..

1. The authors comment that no other study has abandoned the primary endpoint is meaningless because no other study had used after radiochemotherapy (that can also cause pseudoprogression), an agent like DCVax-L which unexpectedly also frequently caused pseudoprogression. Therefore, none of the other trials had to scrap their PFS as the primary endpoint because their treatments did not cause a second unexpected PsPD.

2. I never read that tbe DCVax-L trial was limited to patients with tumors in only one hemisphere.

3. The orthodox exclusion of rapid progressors in the DCVax-L trial while perhaps more extensive than the exclusion of rapid progressors in the comparator trials, was matched by a more extensive exclusion of radiochemotherapy induced pseudo progressors in the L trial than was the case in the ECA trials. The overall result of those exclusions was a wash and that is shown by the almost equal mOS results of the unmethylated GBM patients in the DCVax-L and ECA trials.

4. Despite the fact that the DCVax-L trial did not differ from the ECAs with respect to the mOS of unmethylated GBM patients, demonstrating an absence of cherry picking in the DCVax-L trial, the methylated GBM patients in the DCVax-L trial had a far superior survival record than the methylated GBM patients in the ECAs. This can only be due to the ability of DCVax-L to increase longevity of methylated GBM patients.

5. How can one explain that in the DCVax-l trial, the 92 patients that included 64 crossover patients but also the remaining 29 patients who never received DCVax-L, had a combined mOS of about 24 months. With no real difference effected by the trial exclusion of the DCVax-L and the ECAs trials (witness the unmethylated GBM results), the only reason for the survival capacity of those 92 patients is DCVax-L.

6. Despite the similar mOS of the unmethylated GBM patients in the DCVax-L and ECA trials, an unexpected 8 of 131 unmethylated GBM patients in the DCVax-L trial (6.1%) survived 5(+) years whereas very few if any unmethylated GBM patients in the ECAs, were in that category.

[kabunushi]

Where was "repeated dosing" addressed in the referenced negative journal article? It was not, that is a bogus issue that you have made-up. There is no such issue even from doctors who are critical of the trial. That is because there wasn't any 'double dosing' in this trial. In fact, dosing in a phase 3 trial is always supposed to be optimal, testing whatever has been found to work best. That is part of the very definition of what a phase 3 trial is.

"Phase 2 is aimed at determining the drug's efficacy and optimal dosing regimen. "

[The Danish Dude]

Peer-reviewed ... LOL :-d

These two dudes are NVCR connected. One can not help wondering, how come NVCR stooges on all kinds from doctors to pawns on stock boards, have become so infatuated with NWBO, that they'd rather post about NWBO, than the stock they're invested in?

"NWBO management enrichen themselves" on the one hand, while "NWBO SP goes to 0" on the other, while no one from NWBO management have ever sold one share, while NVCR management the last week dumped for millions inbetween a PR announcement and a bad SEC filing.

Sheer panic before closing time.

[dstock07734]

You don't even know the difference between peer-reviewed article and not peer-reviewed one? I don't blame you if it is an honest mistake since most peer-reviewed articles are written by researchers. If you do know the difference between the two, I question your motive.