I don't know all the details of the trial design (and do not know where to find them) other than to say trial design has been problematic from the inception and contributes to the company's lack of credibility. It may be that NWBO did not design the release of interim results into the trial. if so, adding them takes money time and also affects the conclusions that can be drawn from the trial. There are studies that indicate that releasing interim results reduces the reliability of the outcome of the completed trial. Nevertheless, any color from the company would be helpful. If interim results were not written into the (second) trial, then tell us and provide a plausible rationale for designing a trial that did not contemplate reporting interim results. If so, tell us when we can expect interim data. If not written into the original ( and/or second) trial, tell us why seeking an an amendment to the trial is not a good idea.
The company still does not seem to realize that it has a very large credibility gap. At this point it is impossible (and from the market's perspective, irrelevant) to determine whether it is ineptitude or intentional deception. The lack of transparency (or self awareness) is equally amenable to either hypothesis and equally damning. The credibility gap can only be closed by a comprehensive company statement, which would be easy to do. Any release of information (assuming it is favorable or neutral) would address both the credibility and ineptitude issues. Lacking that ,as we say in the the legal business, the jury (the market) is instructed to draw an adverse inference, Les Goldman more than anyone should know this. At the end of the day, if you are in the market for equity, any ethical way to get the stock price up so that dilution would be minimized, seems to trump almost any other business exigency. IMHO a comprehensive statement on trial design and whether/if/when interim results can be expected and if not, why, would help the stock. We all get the science.
In all fairness, although it did not help the stock, I think the company's news release regarding the IP and freedom to operate issues was timely and very very helpful and served to ameliorated some of the concerns the market has. A similar release on trial design and interim results would go a long way, especially in light of IMUC's release.
I think you make some good points and I agree that competition is good. I have faith in this new management team and I am in it for the long haul but I think the company could be a bit more transparent and a bit quicker on the switch to provide information. The patent issue dragged on and on and I don't understand why the company didn't address it sooner. That said, there is a decent investor relations effort underway, we have heard that there is a new website coming, the chatty and informative investor letters arrive in my inbox regularly, and there seems to be a quality branding and communications effort that even includes twitter. The team has been presenting at conferences every other week and its clear there is an effort here that we have not seen before. Most of us know that the science is good and the products will eventually save lives and make lots of money. I think its important to keep in mind that the European market is huge. I think it may take a year or two to pay off but at this price this stock is a no brainer. Thanks for your thoughtful posts. I appreciate it.