Replies to post #4451 on NorthWest Biotherapeutics Inc (NWBO)

[flipper44]

FCB, you inquire about any concerns I might have.

Of course my main concern would be the difference between the first trial and the 3rd trial. But as I continue to "drill down into this," I am rationally exuberant. A few years ago I heard an interview on NPR (I think) with MD Anderson. The representative from Anderson said phase 3 was almost never as good as phase 1. He gave examples without naming the actual companies. He sounded like a veteran in the war against cancer. Those 2 concerns are about it. We are waiting for "just the facts" man….I could reason matters until I'm blue in the face, but we are all waiting. I think we have Steve Nash on the free throw line, and he only needs to sink 1 of 3.

[ou71764]

FatCat, if you want a sure thing, it's not here! You're a young man. Look into buying shares of stocks that pay a cash dividend and have a long history of increasing their dividend every year. It's a slower way to get rich, but it's an almost guaranteed way to get there. Ask Buffet. The list is long of stocks that meet the criteria. I can name 50. Start with GIS, PG, and JNJ.

But as an investor, we all know why we're here. Where else can you see 5X your investment in one day?! And more after that.

Flipper is right, phase III trials can fail when the earlier ones were so promising. There tends to be a selection bias in phase 1 and 2 trials. It's probably not even intentional. If you are going to enroll 10 to 20 people in a trial, you want to see them succeed. Not for the results to make the drug look good, but for the patients.

Take the young athlete with the family in the NWBO phase 1 trial who is cancer free 10+ years later. He was motivated. He was young with his life ahead of him. He had a family. And he had been told that he only had a few months to live.

Wow, what a crappy thing to think about. He wasn't a statistic, he was someone we would all want to get better, permanently. Fair or not, someone like that is more likely to get steered into a trial (or in his case, he sought it out himself) than an older, weaker patient.

And that's what the skeptics have said about the NWBO early data. And it's why the FDA requires a large, double-blinded trials to get approved. I have my issues with the FDA process, but I absolutely endorse the idea of requiring large, double-blinded trials.

If the vaccine works, none of the issues that anyone has raised will matter. I know, I know, "what if" the vaccine is only effective on some people in the trial, blah, blah, blah. That can happen. And if it's the case, we might not even get a "continue" from the DMC, much less an early approval.

But remember this, the control group is fighting the same battle against GBM - only those patients don't have DCVax-L in their arsenal. We know how the current SOC is doing for patients - it's not much to base your hopes on if you have GBM. I know I would feel much better having DCVax injected into me if I had GBM. So would every other long here. So hang tight and let the chips fall where they may.

You've never clicked on your brokerage account and seen it drop $40,000 instantaneously (pre-market) after a company had announced failed trial results. I have, and I'm not a rich person. It is not something you get beyond easily. I had to go to work that day. Same old b.s. at the job, only $40,000 lighter in the click of a mouse. And that wasn't even my worst investment mistake.

So I would never, ever say there are sure things with FDA trials. But if the corner keeps overplaying the square out, hell, I'll still try to burn him deep.