You are reading too much into the above. The only reasonably interpretations are 1) it says what is says 2) this means that there is NO problems with data input -- if there were, the DSMB would not be able to review unblinded data, as the data itself had not been locked.
That theory is a bit of a stretch. No, I will go further -- it is ridiculous. No management wants to look amateur, and no management wants to make it seem that they are abetting a conspiracy.
Someone, bored, seems to want to give thumbs down to the posting of scientific abstracts. Is Stash Fry back? A 10 year old?
Yes, the issue -- as many have stated many times -- is not how much it will increase on good/excellent results compared to today. The real issue is what is the company worth if it has a drug candidate that looks like it is going to market. Given the low valuation so far of this biotech, that eventual valuation has the potential to be far higher than $20/ share. Of course, we need to see good to excellent results.
From the press release, there is no indication of "botched" data. On the contrary, the unblinded data set seems fine.
The last update on Clinicaltrialsdotgov said that the trial was still "recruiting" as of December 2, 2013.
Smart move! I still have ALU (from $1.25) but have been thinking of selling as well as it is going sideways.
TRQ has dropped from the 11s all the way down to under 3, for a variety of reasons: delays in starting up operations and, more recently, conflicts with the Mongolian government. But it hit its bottom in terms of 50 DMA in December 2013. Since then it has been going up. This increase has nothing to do with rumors of buyout -- it is because concentrate was shipped, because the Mongolian government seems to realize that it has to come to some sort of modus vivendi with TRQ and, quite importantly, the ramping up of production targeted at a key market: China. This is not a mine like any other. Its major market is the 2nd largest economy in the world, China, which will have an insatiable need for copper and gold. And that market is right across the border.
Combined with an excellent opportunity for shorts to play on the fears of skittish investors. Just don't be skittish.
Actually, there is a tidbit of information in the press release that is quite important. It said that the DSMB had looked at the unblinded data. This tells us that the issue is not with data input or some data anomaly that had to be cleaned up. It may seem, in this day and age, when we aren't using pencils and manually inputting data, that there should not be data input problems. But they do happen. Not, howeve, with the NWBO data, which appears to be clean. We can strike off that possible reason for delat. The DSMB, in other words, has the final data, now all it needs to do is provide the analysis.
Adam F has a BA in political science. That's all you need to know about his competence.
He does that -- writes up the article BEFORE any new news, and then when new information comes out, sticks it in and gets the article out in a few minutes. It's the way he works. I pay little attention to him -- in the short term he can cause pain, in the long run he is irrelevant.
This is the perfect set-up for you -- delayed results, play on the fears of longs, get them to dump shares, you buy them when the price has been pushed down --go ahead, play your game, the sheep will follow your lead, the others will yawn as they have seen this game played over and over and over zzzzzzzzzz.
Interesting study-- relevant to a discussion on this board about use of biomarkers for trials in AD --
Squitti et al., Metal-score as a potential non-invasive diagnostic test for Alzheimer's disease, Curr Alzheimer Res. 2013 Feb; 10(2): 191-8.
"The link between biometals and Alzheimer's disease (AD) has been investigated with a focus on local metal accumulations. In this work, we have looked at systemic metal changes and computed a score (M-score) based on metal disarrangements to discriminate patients with AD from patients with vascular dementia (VaD) and from controls. We measured serum levels of iron, copper, ceruloplasmin, transferrin, and total antioxidant capacity (TAS), performed Apolipoprotein E (APOE) genotyping and calculated non-ceruloplasmin copper ('free' copper') levels, transferrin saturation, total iron binding capacity, and ceruloplasmin-transferrin ratio (Cp/Tf) in 93 patients with AD, 45 patients with VaD, and 48 controls. All subjects underwent biochemical, neuroimaging and cognitive evaluations. Significant differences were observed among the tested groups for the levels of copper, free copper, peroxides, and TAS and for the Cp/Tf with disparity in couple comparison. On this basis we created the M-score as linear combination of biometal variables and APOE genotype. Besides its ability to discriminate AD patients vs. controls (ROC AUC=90%), M-score was able to distinguish AD vs. VaD (ROC AUC=79%). Moreover, we calculated the sensitivity and the specificity for M-score and for the other significant variables: M-score reached the highest sensitivity without a relevant loss in terms of specificity. When we compared M-score with APOE genotype and Medial Temporal Atrophy score, it resulted statistically better than these diagnostic markers. In conclusion, we confirm the link between biometals and AD and suggest its potential as diagnostic tool. Further studies may elucidate its potential role as reliable diagnostic test.
Some of us remember the days when 30,000 to 40,000 shares sold. Those days, there would be shares selling in the morning, then often long lulls, especially in the afternoon, when the price would slowly go down. Now THAT was low volume and under the radar! And those days are long gone.
Look, if PRAN fails, you would have overpaid. The results in AD and HD trials already suggest that this upcoming trial won't fail. If the trials succeed, you won't care what price you paid, because you will have gained a lot of money in a short time.
I will add that if they did release a statement, you can be sure that its meaning would be parsed so carefully that people would read into any statement five different meanings. Think: if NWBO wrote a statement that said "we do not have information at this time, but expect results in the near future" all of the people on this board would ask: what does it mean that they have no information? Are they saying they have no inkling of what is going on? Are they trying to hide something? Why wasn't the statement longer? This sounds fishy yada yada yada. Bottom line: wait for the DMC.