Replies to post #681450 on NorthWest Biotherapeutics Inc (NWBO)

[learningcurve2020]

I'm not sure we even know that, but interesting thoughts. This is where without super computer simulations, it's just impossible to follow all the upstream downstream domino effect calculations. But I'd only guess that targeting "everything" isn't a solution either -Not without a brutal side effect profile.

Sure that initial T result was short lived but clearly the one-two punch was a standing eight count in the first round. It's why I'd like to know if those two targets are on L's list. Such a shame management refuses to do Q&A's.

I'm skeptical of L and even more so that its DC's will continue to replenish the immune system indefinitely or until the stem shuts down.

Maybe so, but a good sniper can kill a machine gunner in short order.

>>Or as Senti might put it, you don’t take a rifle to a machine gun fight.

[sentiment_stocks]

We know that even getting rid of egfrviii and egfr wildtype, provides no durability as a monotherapy.

Right, because when egfrv3 was targeted using rindopepimut, the tumor simply returned without that variant present.

I was wondering if you, or anyone else, would be interested in reviewing an analysis I'd put together regarding what appear to be significant errors with the study presented in 2016 by NEJM of the single GBM patient that received CAR T IL13BB? treatment for his tumor.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1610497

I do suspect that this P1 trial may have paved the way for the next trial that was recently published in the NEJM.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2314390

I ask because because I believe there are two significant things wrong with the study as it was presented.

1. The authors present that a large spinal tumor was "discovered" after a second round of the Car-T therapy was given, but they claim that the spinal column tumor (multifocal leptomeningeal disease) was a result of the previous treatment given in a trial (clinical trial NCT01975701 for BGJ398, an FGFR inhibitor). I give reasons why I think this in my analysis... which I admit... could be wrong.

2. The authors indicate a glowing 7.5 month CR period that I believe to be incorrect, and that perhaps, at most, the response was around 2 months. In my analysis, I state why I think that.

We report that autologous CAR T cells targeting IL13Ra2 mediated a transient complete response in a patient with recurrent multifocal glioblastoma, with dramatic improvements in quality of life, including the discontinuation of systemic glucocorticoids and a return to normal life activities.

It is for these reasons that I wondered if anyone on the board would be interested in and have the time to look at what I'd found to see if they agree, or what I might have missed. I'd written this analysis more like a letter to the NEJM quite some time ago, but decided against sending it to them, or bringing it up here as I did think at the time, that the company might have been pursuing publication of their results in the NEJM for the interim data. And without vetting it, I couldn't know if I was right in what I was seeing. And now, with all the hoopla concerning Car-T and its magnificent results with regards to GBM, I'm curious if others agree with my thinking.

If you, or anyone other critical thinkers are interested in reading through my thinking on the matter, I'll post my reasoning here, and would welcome any response or corrections as to what I may have missed. It's a bit lengthy, which is why I ask. And I'm really looking for constructive critique, as I'd hate to go further with this if I'm incorrect.

Thanks!

:)