Replies to post #764226 on NorthWest Biotherapeutics Inc (NWBO)

[JerryCampbell]

If you're going to hang out on ihub, you need to understand that some nwbo mantras are chanted endlessly.

Any complaints about nwbo management action or inaction - "pre revenue biotech"

Any attempt at discussion of dcvax efficacy - "73 doctors"

Other mantras that pop up randomly - "tumor agnostic", "naked shorting", "trillion dollar technology", "all solid tumors", "platform technology",

For the distraction lawsuit - "multi billion settlement"

There is a subset that claims to genuinely believe that nwbo will receive broad approval for indications that weren't part of the trial.

All ihub longs claim to own hundreds of thousands of shares. ihub ownership claims aggregate to about 3x nwbo's float.

nwbo stock price only goes up due to true believer buying. It only goes down due to manipulation. Users here are such market savants that they can detect spoofing simply by glancing at a level 2 screen. Just ignore Linda Powers adding a million shares to SharesOutstanding each trading day.

[polska]

Says the shill, working for colluding hedge funds! Your timed hit piece is essential to the interpretation that it provides a cover for blatant market manipulation.

Regarding the 73 authors; they are experts in oncology. You have zero credibility!

Hopefully, the discovery process will find you.

[Roman516]

No G Research,
Your comments "I dont’t know why people keep citing this 73 authors figure. It’s meaningless to the interpretation."
and
"And if DCvax’s JAMA study study was totally negative, those same 73 would have signed onto it. It’s challenged science done by good researchers."

This is your opinion and not worth much. As a research scientist I side with Dr. Linda Liau and the 73 Oncologist that studied the data and are well respected in the field of study. Your JAMA comment makes zero sense as well, if the JAMA study was totally negative nobody would have signed it as their reputation would be on the line, IMPO.

[XMaster2023]

It’s all about the next step.

The Combination Therapy.

Of course you know this.

[Doc logic]

Galzus Research,

Why are you being defensive about the 73 authors? You claim that DCVax-L will be approved so maybe those 73 agree with the data interpretation as presented by Dr Linda Liau, Dr Roger Stupp and NWBO. Observations that a stronger trial design should be possible for future trials does not take away from the extensive checks and balances put together for interpretation of data for this one which peer reviewers agreed were “adequate”. Those who have not reviewed the data and methods as well as these 73 are really in no position to make judgments about the methods and conclusions agreed upon by them. Questions are fine, just as those 73 might have had, but conclusions are another matter because those conclusions themselves must be checked for bias the same way the data was checked down on multiple ways for bias. I’m sure you can understand what I am saying; ). Best wishes.

[jesster64]

73 scientific peers were willing to put their name to the paper and agree dc-vax showed pos results. I think thats says a lot more than
"There has been significant criticism of the study"
Once again, why did you not mention the 73 peer acceptance and let readers make up their own minds.

"I think the results are reasonable enough to not be surprised if DCVax-L gets approved", and here you are hedging your bet that when approved, you can say "see, I predicted it", because your credibility will be call into question. Nice way to play both sides.

and
Don't muddy the waters with POLO example to justify what you wrote.