Actually they didn't. They inventor of the science is Linda Liau a leading researcher at UCLA. So the joke (to the extent there is one) is on you. YOINK!
That is just silly. You pulled that outyerass. Pharma buys early stage companies all the time in fact Amgen paid a BILLION dollars for Oncovex a company with only one p1 compound. Don't try to sound wise when you're not.
The reason is that big pharma is a small molecule business and not a biologics business. They want a pill that they can spit out a million pills a day at a cost of virtually nothing.. NWBO's treatment is is a biologic and is complex and very expensive to make and administer. Unlike small molecules a good deal of the "secret sauce" is in the manufacturing and process patents many of which belong to Cognate and are of much less interest to big pharma which wants composition of matter patents. Add in the fact that the margins on NWBO's treatment will be much much smaller than the margins on the small molecule compounds of big pharma and you have the reasons that big pharma has no interest in NWBO. Amgen or another biologic perhaps but not in the near future.
How about peopel you dont agree with. Still god bless for me or just for folks with whom you agree. I served too. whaddup teabag? Lemme know
You sure they didn't already try it on you. You seem pretty brain damaged. "libertarian" may asssh. At the best they are anarchists without the machine guns but you ain't one anyway.
Probably saved both, but clearly an act spawned by the mutual desperation of both parties. That said I have been long and look to get that way again but the stock is way ahead of itself. New info means new strategies. The first interim look was the canary in the coal mine, the amended protocol further confirmation. In today's market good results on the p1 will get you a spike in price so if that floats your boat go for it, otherwise dead money for a year. Anyone who is a "long term" investor in event driven stocks with no revenue or product is a fool.
Just needling ya. But it is accurate to say that all republicans are delusional and de facto teabags. You are judged by those ya hang with and the GOP is run by evangelical intolerant judgmental fascist nut bags. 45(and half) of 9 GOP presidential candidates in 2008 did not believe in evolution so you ain't "moderate" in any sane world.
Rubbin my donkey's noses in it. I'll admit it is a little trollish but the few who remain here have certainly earned it. So where is the outrage for filth like armed lunatic who has never posted a single word about the science. You of course are the anti lunatic, incessantly posting the most irrelevant and useless factoids. while you miss the most important one--- REO failed and you don't seem to grape that fact. G'day
Randon Walk Down Wall Street. Good fiction but disproven by Value Line and of course Buffett, many years ago.
Outfit? Outfit? 1917 called and they want their slang back. "'Unit" maybe. Maybe the Army has "outfits" but I doubt it and not where I come from. No Vietnam vet I have ever met has asked me what "outfit" I was with. Get down on your cyber knees and thank me or I'll have you keelhauled and cut back your ration of cyber rum "capn" !!!
And of course I predicted that the 88 interim peek was overdue and that something was brewing and it wasn't good. All of which is true. There is simply no way to spin the additional time and expense of the new protocol as good news so please don't bother. It's not terrible but it is most certainly not good. In fact as a general rule NO change in protocol is ever good. If you don't understand that you shouldn't be here.
I also predicted the dilutiive financing to much derision from the hoi polloi. I am predicting that you won't get Direct data until year end at the earliest and the first interim look until q-3 of next (at the earliest). German revs will be insignificant for at least the next year an probably much longer (and perhaps never). There will be no partner or buyout during the pendancy of the p3. Write it all down in ink.
You really ought to try stand up. You are one funny Kiwi. 20% of the posters on this board couldn't even spell intellect.
I owe a slight apology to itrizia. The studies range from 16% to 63% of pseudo progogressors in the many peer reviewed studies on the subject, however my 36-45% is dead center in the data. A statistician would probably throw out the top and bottom quartiles and run the median from there. which would land squarely in the middle of my numbers. You're welcome.
You sound like a teabag- a hater of gubmint who says (but does not believe) that there is no difference between the parties but in his heart is to the right of the GOP even if he doesn't vote - You are however more polite than most.
Read any one you want. You do so love to make a fool foyourselg
Table 4: Rates of pseudoprogression reported in the literature in patients treated with radiotherapy and temozolomide.
Author Year Number of patients Response criteria Period of early-response assessment (months) Number with ePD psPD (% of ePD) Overall rate of psPD
Chamberlain et al.  2007 51 Not specified 6 26 7/15 (47%) 7/40 (18%)
Brandes et al.  2008 103 Macdonald 1 50 32/50 (64%) 32/103 (31%)
Taal et al.  2008 68 Macdonald 1 31 15/31 (48%) 15/68 (22%)
Chaskis et al.  2009 54 Gd-MRI + clinical 6 25 3/12 (12%) 3/54 (6%)
Clarke and Chang  2009 85 Macdonald 0.5–1 35 10/27 (37%) 10/77 (13%)
Fabi et al.  2009 12 Macdonald 2 4 2/4 (50%) 2/12 (17%)
Peca et al.  2009 50 Gd-MRI + MR Spectroscopy 6 15 4/15 (27%) 4/50 (8%)
Roldan et al.  2009 43 Macdonald 1–1.5 25 10/20 (50%) 10/38 (26%)
Gerstner et al.  2009 45 Macdonald 0.5–1 24 13/24 (54%) 13/45 (29%)
Sanghera et al.  2010 104 RECIST 2 27 7/22 (32%) 7/99 (7%)
Tsien et al.  2010 27 Macdonald 3 14 6/14 (43%) 6/27 (22%)
Yaman et al.  2010 67 Gd-MRI + T2/FLAIR 6 17 4/17 (24%) 4/67 (6%)
Gunjur et al.  2011 68 Macdonald 1 41 14/41 (34%) 14/68 (21%)
Kang et al.  2011 35 Macdonald 1 18 8/18 (44%) 8/35 (23%)
Kong et al.  2011 90 Macdonald + rCBV 2 59 26/59 (44%) 26/90 (29%)
Young et al.  2011 321 Macdonald 0.5–1 205 30/93 (32%) Not specified
Park et al.  2011 48 Macdonald 1 25 11/25 (44%) 11/48 (23%)
Topkan et al.  2012 63 Macdonald 6 28 12/28 (43%) 12/63 (19%)
Pouleau et al.  2012 63 Gd-MRI + edema 2 33 7/33 (21%) 7/63 (11%)
Present study 2013 70 RANO
Macdonald 3 15
42 2/15 (13%)
10/42 (24%) 2/70 (3%)
about 80mm fully diluted shares. Just sayin. Mkt cap not 350mm. In fifth grade math this would get you an F
Huh. You need to do some research. The numbers for those deemed early progressors run from 36 to about 45 pct are actually pseudo progressors Thems just the simple numerical facts if you believe the studies that have been done on the matter. Don't know about easy to tell part or "extra cautious". I just look at the empirical data I recommend you do the same
You seem to enjoy making a fool of yourself. It's clear you doont understand that app oximetry 40 pct of the informational arm are likely to be pseudo progrssors and the implications of that fact. But hey smart guy it's your money although we both know it's not very much money