Replies to post #647900 on NorthWest Biotherapeutics Inc (NWBO)

[biosectinvestor]

That is not what it said or reported at all. That is your spin, yours and Adams. Adam would have destroyed his reputation if he had to report the truth of the report. So he seized on whatever he could to make a claim that he could suggest substantiated his insanity over all of these years. You've basically been in consort with that effort. But it's false, and it is clear that none of the doctors involved and having authored the report, nor regulators who allow the treatment to be SOLD at full price, to their citizens, agree with you. NONE OF THEM.

And you're an anonymous person, who says he doesn't own shares and spends years and years, every day, 24-7-365 posting negative comments on this treatment, because, apparently you claim you're "helping" us shareholders, which only shareholders read or post here. But the shareholders mostly appear not to want that kind of help. There are some who claim to be shareholders who ALSO have nothing good to say, but we all know they have had remedies for years and opportunities to exit at a very substantial profit, if they knew what they were doing, and were honest, but they chose not to do so.

I still remain very substantially up on this investment. And nothing suggests anything like what you state. Further, you've been a promoter of Optune, which apparently did exactly what you claim here, but you never thought to say it... they failed their Phase 3.

Optune was approved with zero OS benefit, despite OS being the primary endpoint. (EF11 trial). That trial failed by definition, whereas the DCVax-L Phase 3 met both of the prespecified primary endpoints in the SAP. :)

But you'll keep repeating your lies, because that is what you do.

https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=173102434

exwannabe
Re: supersteve13 post# 643251
Thursday, October 26, 2023 4:32:02 PM
Post# of 647903
Congrats SuperSh, you are right for once.

Unlike you and your fellow clowns, I will admit when I was wrong and not just reply with insults.

Good luck with this POS stock.

Another poster's post, but I seem not to have the link handy.

Keep these facts in mind when Ex repeats his lies. :)

https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=173101149
Yes, re Optune, there was basically no significant OS benefit, and that WAS in fact the primary measure, and yet it was approved…and the same shorts constantly post nonsense here about DCVax-L.

https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT00379470

https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=173101856
Ex can you show how PFS was met/ succeeded in the EF11 trial? Please don’t lie about PFS being the primary endpoint again while doing so. Thanks! :)

https://www.ejcancer.com/article/S0959-8049(12)00352-8/fulltext

[supersteve13]

Actually it showed that the prespecified (while blinded) endpoints of OS vs ECA in GBM and rGBM both succeeded. You should reread it, as we all know that you have trouble reading trial endpoints and data, and are willing to lie about the data when it’s convenient for your narrative. :)

[Dr Bala]

Which do you believe? The landmark JAMA data or a fudster's post which displays zero understanding.

[supersteve13]

Ex do your recently exposed lies about endpoints/ data in other trials harms readers’ belief in your claims? I think you know that they do, and it bothers you. :)

[MasterBlastr]

Thought I would slap you with a clown face on that one, if you wanted to go back and check.

[CherryTree1]

There is only one endpoint in any trial. It is Overall Survival.
All other endpoints are a hope and a prayer to indicate something about Overall Survival without having to wait years for Overall Survival.
The comparison to historical data shows that DCVAX-L is the real deal.

[drugrunner]

More LIES from EX

[dstock07734]

EX,

When did Brian Pusch, a lawyer on acquisition exit, joined Oncovir? Last June. When did NWBO get the acceptance notice of the JAMA paper? On August 27.
You see what I mean.

If you read the latest poster from Dr. Liau in which biomarker analysis was also adopted for the p3 trial, you should hide somewhere crying instead of spreading BS.

[hoffmann6383]

Ex, your comment as to the failed endpoint is blatantly false. The endpoint was changed prior to unblinding. Further, the patients that were originally in the control and crossed over took DCVax-L. When you take DCVax-L you are no longer part of the control. I'd recommend people get their information from experts in the field versus anonymous online posters with agendas. Further information on this subject can be found at the below post. I didn't read past the bullshit I found in the first 2 sentences of this post.

$NWBO

A few comments on why we have an ECA, per Dr. Liau.

37 minute mark.https://t.co/Qx29dboU0S

Dr. Musella: Can you compare the OS of those who did not get the vaccine upfront to those that got placebo and did not crossover?

Dr. Liau: There were few very few of them… pic.twitter.com/0SVuGKtkqw

— Hoffmann (@hoffmann6383) October 6, 2023

[flipper44]

Your ignorance is blissful for you I guess.

Let’s take away your happy place.

Instead:

1. The original primary endpoint was only a surrogate, and it was confounded by a positive immune response called pseudoprogression. By itself, this only meant the trial would take longer.

2. The secondary original endpoint was the main endpoint, survival, and it was confounded by crossover treatment with DCVax-l, although perhaps still may show the treatment arm was superior to control arm. Comments from Doctor Liau, the stagnant early five or six censors before median, possibly being the six dropouts (their censorings are likely easily spotted in the 2018 SNO presentation graphs) still discussed as not available to compare yet in 2022 all point toward DCVax-l doing better than control.

3. Your decade long certainty that there was a futility recommendation back in 2015 is likely wrong, because, as you know, DSMBs do not have to recommend futility in a trial if only the surrogate endpoint is failing but the main endpoint of survival is still promising.

4. Consequently, the critical main/survival endpoint was still likely in the hunt.

5. It very well could be that control patients that did not receive DCVax-l early in the second half of the trial, when sicker patients were allowed in, were losing their immune systems and dying early and/or leaving the trial early (some perhaps just before progression), (dropouts) because they were not having part of their immune system decline restored by DC initiated t-cells. (Interesting, those censors did stay long enough to receive the base dose of chemo)

6. Because of the censoring and high amount of crossovers to DCVax-l, it would be logical to select new endpoints without knowing the early results.

7. Concurrent externally controlled endpoints made a ton of sense because it is in an indication where standard of care survival statistics are dismal and very consistent, so that comparison to the treatment is very reasonable. It also allowed two more massive advantages. It can allow the recurrent GBM population to be analyzed for pivotal therapy decisions, and it allows the use of DCVax-l without concurrent chemotherapy.

8. Finally, all this is accompanied by expected and consistent immune responses to treatment in patients responding to DCVax-l.