Replies to post #787074 on NorthWest Biotherapeutics Inc (NWBO)

[AllSheWrote]

“recurring operating losses” this is normal for al pre revenue biotechs - nothing abnormal or surprising here.

I am so sick of this pathetic argument - straight from the bioharm playbook. At what point does it become abnormal? Five years? Ten years? Or, in the case of this company, 25 years? You can use the pre-revenue excuse for only so long. Eventually a public company must produce shareholder return. If a public company has not produced any shareholder return after 25 years, then something is seriously wrong. The fact that shareholders like you don't seem to care only compounds the problem.

[kabunushi]

Right, no long without blinders on their eyes to the stock price or having a concept of risk would write like that. Why should anybody write copy addressed to those who are not yet all in? Do you think that the only buyers the stock needs are those who are already all in?

[Doc logic]

hankmanhub,

Some of the same language used in this article comes straight from the what NWBO puts in their Qs so from what you are saying one might conclude that every Q is a soft bash even if that language is not the focus of the company; ). This may be boilerplate stuff but that is what you put in writing to protect against withholding known risks from being announced.
Like I said before, this article offers the opportunity side with the risk side and stays relatively short. This is probably to keep reader attention or because the writer has no depth of understanding there either. Because of this the article misses the opportunity to expand on the expected success of this platform because of the science. The writer could have also mentioned the NHS reclassification to cancer indication from GBM on their high priced medicines list and a few other things that point to eventual success but this does not address the time frame issue for return on investment even if the issue about the treatment working is cleared up by the preponderance of evidence.
I believe the term “niche innovator” that was used refers to dendritic cell therapy itself, not the number of indications it will likely treat. Cell therapy is not widely in circulation now for all types of cancer treatment and beyond but as those of us who see this from the science side see it that is about to change in a big way. This writer does not approach this from that angle and probably stays in their lane by sticking to the layman’s view and concerns. Those concerns are focused on the treatment working and the company making money now or soon so that any investment will provide a reasonable chance for a decent return in a reasonable amount of time. Current long time longs have held way beyond what most investors would consider a reasonable amount of time for a good return but that is because they (we) expect way outsized returns. However, if “soon” is not well defined then “soon” remains a legitimate concern for new investors. For us old timers who have a different view of “soon” I can see how the risks mentioned would look like a soft bash; ). Best wishes.