Not that I particularly care, but unless you have solid evidence to back that up, you might want to look into the libel laws.
Because people were asking, and the two are commonly seen to be derivatives of the same technology, and because NWBO took an unwarranted 10% hit on IMUCs bad news.
And this trial is for newly diagnosed Glioblastoma. Therefore the sole treatments are the surgery that removes the tumor, and standard chemo treatments with specific drugs. All of this is listed in the trial at clinicaltrials.gov, and therefore you are wrong to say it is not available.
Yes, we could have more information on enrollment numbers. However, most of the information you are asking for remains hidden by the blinding of the trial, and some of it by HIPPA. And what do you mean "what is the nature of the control arm"? It's a placebo (most likely saline injection).
You are confusing the DCVax-L study with the DCVax-Direct study. -L started in 2007 as a PII, and was restarted in 2011 as a PIII. They have 33 treatment arm cases carried over from the initial enrollment, and have been enrolling for 2+ years since then. Given that they expect to complete enrollment around Q3 2014. If you assume constant enrollment you get about 8 patients a month, meaning 200 already enrolled. That's probably on the high side, since enrollment would have ramped up over time, but it's a starting point.
PII was, I believe, 100% treatment, so all of the people transferred over to the PIII are treatment arm.
Where are you getting that information? She has outright purchased, at market value, a huge number of shares. As has Toucan, which she controls.
His entire argument is "IMUC didn't produce statistically useful data, therefore the somewhat similar NWBO can't possibly work.
The two approaches are similar, but not identical, and even the IMUC data is not catastrophic for them at this point.
Pick a random trial phase biotech company, find me that information on them. AF doesn't have it. There's no reason to think that the patients were cherry picked, yet he has been accusing NWBO of doing so for months (years?) now. This is despite the fact that he was writing articles in favor of IMUC at the same time.
If you bet against small biotechs, you are going to be right more often than wrong. But if you bet on them, the times you are right are going to pay for the rest.
Except it's possible to point to at least one probable cause for IMUC's failure to match their P1 data. That being the careful selection of patients who matched their antigen profile. The only information that seems to get thrown around for NWBO is "age selection" of patients, but I have yet to see a source that documents anything of the sort.
They've got two weeks to file the form. Not saying it did or didn't happen, just that if she did at this low, it might not be filed yet.
I notice they've got the placebo/trial arm ratio wrong, and they don't mention the crossover arm. Those two together might make recruiting more difficult.
What do you think the chief Technical Officer is? Generally, the one driving the actual technical functions if the company, including the practical (as opposed to theoretical) trial design, among other things. Therefore, his discussion of the practical means of setting up clinical trials for small bio-techs are of incredible interest. Not, I'll admit, where we're likely to see any sort of announcements, but still interesting.
Again, you seem to be saying this guy shouldn't present because he can't present exactly what you want to see.
Not every single presentation is exclusively to drive shareholder value, although the name recognition and status that comes from doing them is always beneficial.
I don't mind honest criticism, in fact it's useful. Complaining that P1 studies didn't have a control arm, and was compared to standards of care is not honest criticism. P1 studies are small scale trials to determine two things, first is this worth pursuing on a larger scale, and second, is it apparently safe for the patients. The answer, on -L, for both was yes.
That is why they are smack in the middle of a P3 study on -L that has a control arm, exactly what they need for FDA approval. It's also why they're proceeding on P1 study for -Direct, to determine those same things.
People need to keep in mind what the upcoming announcements actually are. The announcement on -L, coming in the next month or so, will most likely be of the form "your product isn't killing people, carry on with the test". Given that, we probably aren't going to see real results until early 2015, late 2014 at the earliest. The chance of a study being shut down early because it is successful is tiny, to the point of being almost non-existant. Realistically, we are probably not going to see a huge move on this announcement.
-Direct is another story, in that we might get results at any point in the not to distant future (although I would be surprised if we see anything this quarter), but when we do, they're P1 results. The best realistic outcome from that is going to be an indication (even a strong indication), that the treatment is effective, and a much larger trial is going to be needed to prove it sufficiently for approval. This might provide a significant move, depending on the quality of the results, but it is not going to blow the roof off the stock.
Yes, I like the stock. Yes, I think the -L P1 trial indicates they are on to something. Ditto various -Direct animal trials. Yes, given that, I expect it to pay out hugely in the next couple of years. That's why I'm sitting on a decent chunk of it (for me, I'm not a huge investor). No, I don't expect any of that to happen in time to pay off my Christmas bills. Or even my vacation this summer. And I still know there's a huge risk that one or both trials fail, and all of my investment goes away. That's biotech.
You do realize the difference between a Yahoo message board and the market in general, right? If nothing else, there's a major selection bias, because of course people who buy in did so because they think it's going to work. There's plenty of skepticism out there.
And no, this price doesn't even begin to reflect the value of a successful trial.
I think it's an addition by Sabby, bringing their stake up to 4.49%. I'm not familiar enough with the forms to be certain, however.