16th. 16 articles in the last couple of months, all critical, all out of context, or cherry picking to produce misleading statements.
As I said before this mess, it would not surprise me to see this settle into a trading range for a while (albeit a bit lower than I thought at the time) until the next positive announcement pushes it up.
Proving defamation is extremely hard in this country, and while Adam is playing very close to that line, he could probably avoid a charge of actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth that would be necessary for a libel suit to stick.
Normally I'm a fan of this fact, because free speech is a valuable right, although I admit in this case, I kind of wish it were a little easier.
Except that they have released preliminary data in the past. Dr. Buzdar, specifically, has done so. Therefore, they are either hypocritical, or reacting without thinking in defense of one of their staff (which, admittedly is more attractive from an organization than throwing him to the wolves, but I prefer my reactions with thought).
Companies routinely release such information. It may not be accepted practice, but it is common practice.
There is the issue that their own personnel have released exactly such information in the past, indicating that they are, at best, inconsistent on this subject.
Prior planning probably wasn't necessary. Those types of law firms announce these investigations whenever there's even a hint of blood in the water. Essentially all the investigation is is them putting their contact information out there to see if enough people bite to make it worth their while to pursue, so it doesn't really cost them much of anything to make the attempt.
First, MD Anderson has still delivered no rebuke to NWBO. They've said they don't believe it's accepted practice, but not that NWBO did anything wrong.
Except that Dr. Buzdar is the lead investigator on a study of Paclitaxel, owned and produced by Bristol Myers Squibb. And, as the lead investigator of that study, has released preliminary data in advance of the completion of the study. Therefore indicating that this statement is and his are, at best, inconsistent with actual practice.
Yes, it does matter if other companies have done it. That's what determines industry standard practices, and that's what NWBO was following.
Yes, there are. Animal tests. Phase 1 trial.
There is no evidence from the PIII trial, which is what "blinded" means.
And I fully understand that. It doesn't change the fact that every bit of evidence there is (which is every bit we could expect to this point) is positive. Saying there are "no signs of efficacy" is false.
Because you are drawing to much inference from a drop in share price. I would remind you that we are still up 27% on the month. Yes, it's possible that this is a response to perceived unethical action on the part of NWBO, but you lack any solid evidence to support that. Perhaps it's simply that the share price had spiked more than was justified by the good news (it was certainly more than I expected), and this was the catalyst to bring it back down.
Anyone believing that NWBO did wrong is ignoring the fact that they did nothing that every other development stage biotech has always done. Even AF, who started this whole mess, apparently has no problem with it when BLUE did it. There is no unethical action here, there is no wrongdoing, there is merely business as normal, which one particular blogger turned into an attack piece.
What delay? We'll get the next interim report when it happens, but generally, later is better.
Unless you're still talking about the first interim efficacy report which never had any requirement to exist.
They are, generally, a highly thought of oncology research organization. In this specific case, however, they have made a comment that is not supported by the facts.
I love my brothers, and consider them to be great people. That doesn't mean I won't call them out if they say something wrong.
She was in a completely different department from where the corruption happened. I could point out that you (and I) live in the USA, which tortured people in Guantanamo, and it would have just about as much relevance to your personal behavior.
Put simply, it comes down to the trials. Two going on, even moderate success on either one is a huge deal. Complete failure on both, and the price is going in the toilet.
Every bit of real evidence (animal tests, PI Brain study, PI Direct preliminary results) look good, but if any of that was definite, we wouldn't need PIII studies.
If that 300 shares is every bit you can afford, it's probably not a great place to put it. If it's where you are putting the money you can afford to risk, the potential return is huge. Any developmental stage drug company or biotech is a risk, but in this case I believe it's one worth taking.
Then why did Dr. Buzdar disclose unanalyzed results on one of his own trials. And why did AF post positive review of BLUE, who released unanalyzed data at just about the same stage in a trial.
It is absolutely industry standard to disclose data from unblinded trials as it becomes available.
Why would another research institution come forward? It's not their fight. I bet it will come up in contract discussions with future trial sponsors, however.
Again, this sort of information release is, absolutely, standard practice. Dr. Buzdar has done it on a BMY trial. AF praised BLUE for doing it on another trial in between posting articles lambasting NWBO for it. Hundreds of companies have done it when their trials have good preliminary results. NWBO did not jump the gun, and they did absolutely nothing out of the ordinary.
Yes, I do see. It's up 25% from right before the announcement. And what do you think the inevitable AF article about NWBO withholding data would have done?