Replies to post #645868 on NorthWest Biotherapeutics Inc (NWBO)

[The Danish Dude]

Lets debunk that pile of shit. As always, its just to repeat, what you're paid to ignore.

https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=171886437

[Roman516]

Hog wash HG,
Per your comment, "There are 7 publications that detail the deficiencies in the trial and the bias that makes any conclusions from the trial suspect."
The 7 publications are based on low level, paid bashers compared to the 100's of publications supporting NWBO, DCVax-L, but you already knew this
information since you are the expert in the Bio field???
Per your comment, "Only when the trial was virtually completed and the PFS primary endpoint had FAILED, did they attempt to post hoc "dredesgin"??? the trial to add an R/R/ GBM arm using the placebo arm."
Once again, the PFS primary endpoint was a statistically guess and in the end the OS results proved outstanding as the OS in the golden standard, but again,
you already knew this was the case.
Per your last comment, "Don't FDA is going to buy it.", you can remove the Don't to make a clear and true statement, IMPO.

[Dr Bala]

1. This is definitely a NAIVE GBM post by fudster HyGro.

2. Re post hoc hallucination: would you believe the statements by Dr. Liau or the fudsters' fantasies?

3. Re PFS: fudster, what is important for a patient? PFS or OS? Any thoughts?

[biosectinvestor]

1) the crossover was not post box and the rescue to the trial, it was part of the trial from the beginning. You really are confused HyGro.

2) the ECA was because the cross ver depleted the actual placebo arm as a regulator would expect if a drug was working. 90% of the patients got the drug and everyone was living longer than normal, not a situation that would suggest a failed trial in that instance;

3) the trial was allowed to run many years because survival was obvious yes, everyone was living longer. But they yes also knew pseudoprogression was an issue in many immunotherapy trials. But they still did not know the results and were not unblinded. Further, the independent consultants who drew up the SAP were not involved with the trial and only knew the clinical trials description and parameters, so that was an extra level of blindness upon blindness. But was not post hoc, but ironically trials that are post hoc still get approved, so it’s an irrelevant point. This was not that, but your claim is nothing meaningful at this stage.

So no, I did not “miss anything”.

The independents who wrote up the trial then did a study of the results compared to the ECA on exactly the measures you suggest and found across the board, statistically, there is no bias due to the factors you suggest. Further, from the beginning they considered all of the differences you suggest and picked the most representative and concurrently similar clinical trials. There statistical analysis proved that there is no such bias.

Hence, you must articulate and speculate about bias but there is none… it’s all speculation and your anxiety because you have been consistently wrong across the board.

Your poorly thought out posts are so hateful and unreal. You really should spend some time away from your computer. You write almost like poor gollum speaks, the way you get so intense.

That shorts generally and so anxiously want such an admirable breakthrough kept from these suffering patients is just an incredible memorial to the bankruptcy of the soul of every short. I can’t imagine, where they are going with this insanity, but it will not be a very nice place, ultimately.