I would agree with you whole-heartedly if we had confirmation that we were still on track for recruitment completion in a couple of months. As it is, I'm still generally positive, but I don't want to read to much into limited data.
You're reading the press release on those who had received 4 injections, and it reported on all 4. Meifud is reporting on an earlier press release, where they discussed all patients who had, at the time, recieved 3 injections.
They have not been selectively reporting (except if you consider the single patient case study such).
This stock has only ever moved up significantly on actual (and legal PRs from the company). It has moved down, repeatedly, on articles from other sources, with questionable "facts" and unfounded allegations. Doesn't read much like a stock promotion scheme to me. Or if it is, the company really hired the wrong people.
At the end, all it comes down to is the trials. I believe they've got something promising, and I will ride it out until the trials complete. Maybe I'm wrong, and I'll lose my principal, maybe I'm not, and I'll get it back tenfold, but either way, I'm riding it out until that point.
Investigation, not lawsuit. The latter is a legal proceeding. The former is a paralegal sitting by the phone, hoping that they can find a couple of investors willing to pay them to file a hopeless case.
I would feel the same way about any author who only recommends one side of the equation. It introduces an inherent bias into their thinking.
Or the biotech sector is simply having a good week, and we're following along.
I'll take my good news in the form of actual news please.
Secretive means deliberately trying to hide something. They announced the expansion, so what are you looking for? Personally, I'm okay with not getting a new press release every time they buy a new beaker.
Have you ever put a medical product into production? Gotten it into hospitals for use, including educating doctors on it, and handling all of the contract negotiations?
4 months is nothing. Despite that, I've seen a couple of anecdotal stories that seem to suggest people are starting to get treatment. Take that with a grain of salt, obviously, since second hand anecdotes on the internet are worth the paper they aren't printed on.
No actual suits have been filed. The law firms announce an "investigation", get their name in the press, and have a paralegal sit by the phone waiting to see if they can attract people to pay them to file a hopeless case.
To be perfectly fair, this has been pretty much following biotech for the past few days, and is right now.
There is generally no "secret information" that drives up prices before public release. Or down either, despite what TNThagen says. We'll drift along with the markets until the next bit of information comes out. And I'm fine with that.
Considering the last time they released an update, they got blasted by shorts for it, I'm not sure what you are looking for.
1) We've had several updates about Germany in the past few months.
2) See above.
3) Publicity and exposure to Oncologists.
4) The trials are what matter, and we've gotten several timeline updates about them.
5) Because the company doesn't have anything to say about that.
6) Not under LP's control.
&) When events warrant, which is not under the company's control.
7) The next trial information, either the 2nd interim from -L, or additional news releases about -Direct, which, again, they got blasted for last time.
Disease progression or death. Obviously, the later these occur in an individual the better (with an ideal, from a drug effectiveness perspective, being that they all occur in the Placebo arm). But since we don't actually know enrollment, it's difficult to say.
The company doesn't control it. The DMC is a separate entity, and the company doesn't control what is released when, just sets up the initial criteria for that release.
Definitely not a strong one. More to the point, it was not given to NWBO. Also wrong, but that's a whole different story. Please comment on the fact that the doctor who made the statement has released similar data in the past, and the one that the pundit who reported it praised another company for doing exactly the same thing the day after he attacked NWBO for it.
What update? That assumes that they have information they haven't passed on, which they almost definitely don't. The DCM is an independent agent, and the choice to make a recommendation or not is entirely theirs. Since no recommendation (or a delayed recommendation) is the same as the most likely recommendation, there is no reason to think the lack is a bad thing.
Um, kind of duh? If the trials fail, this isn't much of a stock. If they succeed, it's a wonderful one. Anyone who doesn't realize they are making that sort of bet is in the wrong field.
It does, however, say that they did something wrong or unusual, which they didn't. They did exactly what every other company in their situation has done.
Could you please comment on the fact that the sources of all of this fuss have done (or praised companies for doing) exactly what they have attacked NWBO for doing?