Replies to post #779406 on NorthWest Biotherapeutics Inc (NWBO)

[Guzzi62]

Very good results, but why didn't they follow up on it?

A P2/3?

[The Danish Dude]

The question is why you’re pretending it didn’t show what it clearly did.

Well, knowing Jondoeuk participated in the FUD group on InvestorVillage with ex, lc, iclight, lessismore, jrIII and JerryCampbell and for many years willingly manipulated and lied about anything NWBO on Ihub, Yahoo and Stocktwits, we can only speculate as to why he’s back 👀🤔🙄



That’s right. Fudders are joining in big numbers “at the turn of the tide” …. but thanks I think we’ll manage without even more nonsensical paid shill garbage than is already drowning the board.

Look at this fun post on SeekingAlpha.



Chiugray mentioned this article

https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-3287211/v1

Who’s is linked to this

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-48073-y

Which states



One after the other of posts that are easily refuted.

It was a comment to a Galzus article. 🤭

Full circle of nonsense. FUD creators and FUD commentators.

These were the days where exwannabe fanatically denied ATL-DC used at UCLA was DCVax-L. Jondoeuk just reiterated that.

Today everyone knows ATL-DC used in clinical trials by UCLA IS DCVax-L.

All their nonsense comes back to haunt them.

They are nothing but BS’ers

[seekinganswers]

This phase 1 trail for "safety" showed a 62% reduction in the tumor!! This is what ORR looks like.
SO..... there goes your theory.

[jondoeuk]

The DCVax-Direct study was a Phase I, single-arm, dose-escalation trial. It was not intended to demonstrate tumor shrinkage. Its goals were safety, feasibility, and identification of immune activity. This is standard for Phase I trials in immunotherapy.

It was a Phase I/II (N=60) trial. The only objective measure of efficacy used was response rate (i.e., tumour shrinkage). Tumour response was assessed using both RECIST and irRC. So the trial was a failure from an efficacy perspective.

Many of these patients had stable disease at 8 weeks.

You mean to tell me that fast-growing tumours are worse than slow-growing ones?! Does anyone else know about this?! I suggest you tell the medical community asap!

Several were still alive at the time of data cutoff. Their survival durations were not marginal. They were multiple years in cases where a few months would have been expected.

There was no SOC and no control arm. Without a control arm, there is no way to objectively assess survival (PFS and/or OS).

These were not patients with easy-to-treat disease. They were heavily pretreated, end-stage cancer patients with no systemic therapy in the trial.

Twenty (51.3% of those enrolled) had under two or fewer prior therapies.

The trial generated survival outliers and immune biomarkers in line with modern immunotherapy understanding.

Using NWBO's own data https://www.thestreet.com/investing/stocks/biotech-school-how-to-spot-hidden-danger-signs-in-clinical-trial-data-13748701

And now that foundation is being advanced.

What foundation? It had no single-agent activity. Drugs with no single-agent activity rarely, if ever improve outcomes in randomised and controlled trials (when used in combination).