Replies to post #643078 on NorthWest Biotherapeutics Inc (NWBO)

[supersteve13]

Show the KM curve and statistical analysis. Liar. :)

[Jackxkr]

Maybe the results of the compassionate case's will be better. I guess all we can hope for.

[XMaster2023]

Ok so this is where EX try’s to explain how he is more astute than the 70 Doctors that Coauthored the journal article. Give it up.

[newman2021]

This is what I ask you to come out, show your face, and challenge the educated JAMA world and see how an idiot you are. Let me explain it even in a simpler form to you. Let us look at the blended mOS results published in 2018 Vs mOS results published in JAMA. You are claiming how comes JAMA mOS results are lower than the 2018 blended mOS results. The answer is in the rGBM efficacy which Dr. Bala says that you are an idiot that you wouldn't understand or you pretend you don't understand but you are good at spinning, here playing with the numbers. You should know the mOS for the rGBM standard therapy is 7 months whereas the JAMA shows you 14 months, a whopping double, for the 64 rGBM patients out of the placebos. The doubling magnitude of the rGBM effect is causing the 2018 blended mOS numbers slightly higher; still the root cause is DcVaxL and is the indispensable drug showing benefit to the patients overall; DcVaxL is the reason that these 64 rGBM patients with no more chemos got their mOS doubled. This is what now UCLA is perfecting in a combo trial with Keytruda plus 2 adjuvants exclusively for rGBM patients where DcVaxL is the indispensable component in the combo. In nGBM patients, mOS reaches pretty fast but the tail takes longer - you know that. The mix of nGBM and rGBM numbers thus threw the blended 2018 mOS numbers slightly higher. The complexity of this mathematics cannot be easily explained with the mOS theory - you know that. It can only be explained by the k-m curve tail theory - you know this as well. But you don't want to be honest. Because you are a fudster. You want to scare away the newbies coming into ihub looking for knowledge. You need to show your face and debate point by point with right people like Liau and Bosch if you continue to confuse this math. Or listen to the JAMA Q&As.

[Doc logic]

exwannabe,

... and anyone who does not acknowledge that crossing over to a known active treatment, that is still considered experimental until proper measures to validate it are accepted and approved through “the process”, is deliberately misinterpreting the data as if the active treatment is not really active and especially effective in mesenchymal signature non temozolomide using crossover patients. The exceptions rule to adequate and well controlled trials allowed for proof to be presented that inadequate measures needed to be replaced with new ones. That includes the use of ECAs that are properly vetted and accepted under peer review which Dr. Linda Liau began the process of in presentations to peers before May 10th, 2022. That was continued on that day with a top line data presentation with the use of the ECA measures mentioned in prior discussions then those ECAs were formally peer reviewed and accepted by JAMA Oncology. This is proof of a general validation of those measures by . THAT is your big problem that Dr. Bala continually reminds you of. The ECAs have been peer reviewed and accepted as valid by the peer community. That those with an agenda would oppose this is to be expected as they are protecting their own interests. The vast majority of peers are not aligned with them or the interests that they represent but rather with the patients. Even the investment community recognizes the change that is coming and the failure of NVCR to live up to patient expectations while Sawston builds a waiting list of patients wanting a real chance at a cure. Best wishes.