Replies to post #600549 on NorthWest Biotherapeutics Inc (NWBO)

[ilovetech]

[skitahoe]

Just some thoughts about what was presented by Dr. Liau and a tremendous list of others, and what was just presented by Dr. Bosch. The more I think about it, both have performed some rather different functions.

The Journal and all the presentations by Doctors and others who participated in the trial did what they're expected to do, they presented the data for what happened in the trial. They produced the K-M plots, discussed pseudoprogression and why PFS wouldn't be a valid goal. They provided all that ought to be needed to determine that the vaccine was effective.

Dr. Bosch on the other hand did not harp on what happened in the trial, he in reality answered the bigger question, WHY? Dr. Liau and team catalogued all that was happening in the trial, but Dr. Bosch and the researchers working with the company discovered why the vaccine was effective, and why it should be effective in other solid cancers. I don't know that such a discussion couldn't be presented for peer review, but it's not something that would normally be determined by the clinicians.

I frankly don't know if ASCO is the conference that largely answers why questions, it's more about saying what happened by the Clinical Oncologists making the presentations. Perhaps NYAS would have been better, and I'm sure there are others. I don't know if when the Journal was developed the T-cell information was known, but even if it was, it would really only have been know by Dr. Bosch, not all the clinicians who generated the data. Perhaps there is a proper conference for the company to present an Abstract revealing the why DCVax-L works, but Abstract or no Abstract, Dr. Bosch has not only explained why DCVax-L works in GBM, he's explained why it ought to have benefits in virtually all operable solid cancers. If in fact the same findings are seen when DCVax-Direct is injected into inoperable tumors it may explain the why there to.

I welcome others thoughts about this, what I'm suggesting is purely from a layman's view of what's done by the clinicians, vs. what's done by the scientists, and in this case I believe Dr. Bosch was representing the scientists while Dr. Liau and all were representing the clinicians.

Gary

[hankmanhub]

I would venture to say that while the presentation at ASCO by Dr. M Bosch is not technically peer revued, that is true, but it has something far better, it is said in the name of NWBO, and is thus subject to review the in courts via lawsuits as misleading investors if not completely true. I think that is at least as strong as peer revue.

[dstock07734]

OJ,

Thanks for the reply.

We should not have any reservations about the quality of evidence from Dr. Bosch's presentation. NWBO has been collaborating with world-renowned scientists. Take a look at the members in the advisory committee. Take a look at Dr. Subbiah's resume, the guy who published papers with the inventor of checking point inhibitors, James Allison, a Noble Prize winner. Take a look at Linda Liau's resume.

Tens of patients with various types of solid tumors received DCVax-L treatment through compassionate use. If I am not mistaken, compassionate use is reviewed by FDA on case-by-case basis. If there were no effects, would FDA keep approving it?

I doubt anyone here has a Ph.D. specifically in dendritic cells. Therefore no one here is equipped to question the scientific validity of the data.

Dr. Bosch just showed us the vaccine can be loaded with antigens of various solid tumors. Without a doubt, he would following the steps similar to what Antonios did in his dissertation under Dr. Liau's guidance.
https://escholarship.org/content/qt0t37x26s/qt0t37x26s.pdf