I find it astonishing that you think that peer reviewers do not evaluate the data. In fact, I don't quite understand why you are defending NWBO on this. A press release is a press release.
Of course they do -- but here we are talking about a trial run under MD Anderson's aegis, not an in-house study.
The issue is not what a company CAN do. Many companies, as others have noted, release preliminary results. The issue is what should be done.MD Anderson has stated what is a reasonable position. Anyone who has gone through an IRB knows this.
How ignorant can comments on Yahoo comment boards get? Rather ignorant, as this comment attests. Dr. Whatever your name is, look at the DCIX shipping routes.
Still here. Made profit in the run-up, lost paper profits only, rebought starting at 1.48, awaiting explanations for the strange control arm results and for HD way forward.
Deal with the arguments presented, forget the labelling. So much of the time on Yahoo, people fight over whether or not there is bashing or soft bashing or pumping rather than evaluate the arguments themselves. I am long NWBO, but quality of debate on this board is highly uneven. I've appreciated it when others on this board have set me straight on some issues here, and am thankful for the constructive criticism -- but the fact is, some of the investors on here don't understand how trials work, PERIOD. And if you don't understand how trials work, and how drugs are evaluated, in general, why are some of you even investing in developmental biotech?
I appreciate some of your other posts -- but in this case, during a trial, why would lead P.I. of a trial even express enthusiasm? The correct attitude in public statements is to be factual and neutral.
For the life of me, what dredge up this old spat and bring it to the top of the board? Anyhow, I may have blasted you, and vice-versa, but both of us have stayed with the stock. Neither of us has paid attention to the ridiculous bashers. Both of us see something in it. You have zillions more than I, that's the difference. (Then again, professors don't get paid like those on Wall Street.) I re-entered at 1.48 -- great timing. The past month and a half have been a sweet recovery. Good luck to you.
I like what I see, of course, but we are all hanging on for news. The bottom line is that we have not heard news on either the next phase of the HD trials, nor have we heard any explanation for the strange AD results. Unlike July 2013, we don't know of two major catalysts coming up. We can expect to hear one definite piece of good news (info on the next HD trial) at some point, so that is positive. But the wild card is what we will learn about interpretation of the AD results. That uncertainty should limit the upside. How much? Beats me.
In terms of NWBO, I think the problem is less with NWBO and more with the fact that investors don't seem to understand how trials work. You can't release any information before pre-determined trial endpoints except, for example, on safety. Raw data is tricky -- what if there are data anomalies that stem from incorrect data input? (Yes, this happens.) What use it is to say that "no news to report" when that is ALWAYS true with trials? I am less interest in updates on actual trials than in updates on reasons for lags in reporting of *analysis* of results.