skitahoe
4 hours ago
I frankly think that the more we challenge what he says, the more we give him a degree of credibility. I believe he's supporting the shorts, but frankly I think the majority of them are bailing out. Some may become longs, others may not give up on shorting, but may not do it again with NWBO until we're well into dollars, and they believe we're due to retrench before advancing shortly.
The question might be, how will the likes of AdamF do in handling approval. I suspect that he'll try to say he called everyone attention to NWBO, and they should have invested on looking it over for themselves. The snake that he is, he'll make it sound like he's to be credited for calling your attention to the stock. He may even say he's told the shorts to go long before the approval.
Gary
skitahoe
5 hours ago
Yesterday my daughter, who's leaving to live in New York tomorrow evening, had a dozen or so of her best friends over. Sadly in discussions with them it was revealed that two of them recently lost parents, both to GBM. I couldn't help but bring up NWBO and what it was doing.
Statistically it was unusual to have these sort of numbers, but it does happen. I don't know that the number of GBM patients are rising dramatically, but it's such a deadly cancer that when people dying from cancer, GBM is often in the discussion.
I can't say that I've lost family or friends to it, pancreatic has been dominant in those I've known that recently passed. but interestingly some of our anecdotal and trial results have shown positive results in pancreatic.
Gary
SkyLimit2022
7 hours ago
Gabagool,
You’re finally catching on. Progress at last! ✅️
While AI apps are not primary sources, they can help guide readers toward full-context sources and help distinguish between fact-based commentary and fact-free conjecture.
1000% yes, it is advisable to use AI tools in tandem with the iHub app to help guide and direct research of claims and statements posted online about NWBO, its leadership, its novel EDEN technology, and the multiple cell-based technologies owned by the company. AI can help efficiently verify information, cross-check linked full-context sources, and identify baseless rumors and other bs.
“Online stock market message boards often serve as platforms for anonymous users to post unverified claims and rumors, creating a risky environment for investors. In these settings, it is crucial for readers to approach information critically and use advanced tools, such as artificial intelligence (AI), to protect themselves from deceptive content and misinformation.
How AI Can Help Protect Against Deception
AI-driven tools can play a vital role in filtering out misinformation and directing users to reliable information. With the rise of AI in financial markets, these tools are increasingly capable of identifying patterns in online content, spotting inconsistencies, and flagging suspicious claims. For example, AI-powered algorithms can analyze message board activity for trends in sentiment, the recurrence of certain baseless rumors, and language patterns indicative of coordinated misinformation efforts.
Moreover, advanced AI models are adept at guiding users toward firsthand and credible sources. Through automated searches and contextual analysis, AI can suggest reliable sources, like peer-reviewed medical literature or credible financial reports, and present relevant background information, preventing users from being misled by surface-level speculation or incomplete narratives.
Risks of Unverified Rumors and Baseless Claims
On message boards, the anonymity of users allows bad actors to spread misinformation through innuendo, defamation, or rumors—often as part of a “short and distort” campaign. This tactic involves disseminating false or misleading information with the intention of driving down a stock’s price, thereby profiting from short positions. Such campaigns often rely on emotionally charged language, vague accusations, or misleading “insider” claims that lack verifiable evidence.
These deceptive practices pose significant risks, as inexperienced readers may be swayed by these narratives, potentially making ill-informed decisions. This highlights the importance of using AI tools to critically assess and cross-check claims with verified data.
The Importance of Independent Research and Trustworthy Sources
AI should be seen as a support mechanism in your research, not a substitute for due diligence. It is advisable to always confirm the veracity of claims posted online by consulting reputable and independently verified sources. Trustworthy information can be found in peer-reviewed medical literature, official financial reports, regulatory filings, or guidance from licensed financial advisors. Such sources undergo rigorous checks for accuracy and reliability, unlike anonymous posts on public forums.
Conclusion and Advisory Notice
Given the prevalence of misinformation and “short and distort” tactics on anonymous message boards, investors should exercise caution and skepticism. AI tools can effectively aid in identifying and mitigating the risks of deception by pointing users toward credible, firsthand sources. However, responsible investing requires combining these tools with thorough independent research and reliance on authoritative sources such as peer-reviewed publications and qualified financial advisors. In this digital age, discerning between rumors and factual information is essential to making sound investment decisions.”
AI is being exploited by bad actors, but it can just as effectively be used to expose and counter bad-faith actors online.
https://www.rand.org/research/projects/truth-decay/fighting-disinformation/search.html
https://blackbird.ai/blog/compass-by-blackbird-ai-help-organizations-fight-narrative-attacks/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphika
https://graphika.com/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kolawolesamueladebayo/2025/01/02/how-ai-is-mitigating-threats-in-capital-markets/
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=176119276
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=176119052
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=176114523
The Danish Dude
7 hours ago
… the authorship of a journal article does not render it immune to criticism
Thank God pseudonymity of a hit piece under the guise of the Seeking Alpha short and distort scam banner, does somewhat offers that.
As Joshua Mitts wrote in his Short and Distort paper.
https://download.ssrn.com/20/02/19/ssrn_id3541328_code1806223.pdf
In this paper, I show how pseudonymity undermines reputational accountability in financial markets. I examine 2,900 attack articles against mid- and large-cap firms published on a website, Seeking Alpha, and show that pseudonymous ones are followed by stock-price declines and sharp reversals.
Thanks for the two contributions you misinterpret as analysis.
The first one I dissected, digested and spat out, so please spare us any nonsense of anyone wasting their time doing it again.
For any long with half a brain about due diligence, your hit piece was beneath amateurism.
Which is how pseudonymous short and distort hit pieces gets validated on Seeking Alpha in the first place.
I’ve seen quality pieces getting turned down, on idiotic grounds, simply because the “ticker” was in the short and distort target.
You wouldn’t want to publish stuff about a naked shorted company that actually contained positives.
I commend you on when your hit piece was published right in time to counter an upswing thus justifying market makers manipulation.
Welcome to the board by the way.
You are gonna fit right in 👍🏻
SkyLimit2022
7 hours ago
x,
Thanks for offering us your brilliant analysis, but you’re not a doctor 😶
The statement made by the unnamed commentator regarding the trial and the efficacy of DCVax-L is not supported by the published findings and is factually unfounded. A peer-reviewed study published in JAMA Oncology thoroughly examined the use of DCVax-L in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma (nGBM) and recurrent glioblastoma (rGBM), demonstrating significant improvements in overall survival (OS) compared to matched external controls.
Specifically, for patients with nGBM, the treatment with DCVax-L combined with standard of care (SOC) resulted in a median OS of 19.3 months, compared to 16.5 months in the control group. In the case of rGBM, the median OS was 13.2 months with DCVax-L, compared to 7.8 months in the external control cohort. These results were statistically significant (p < 0.05) and indicate a clinically meaningful improvement in survival.
The commentator’s claim that the survival in the treatment group did not exceed that of the control group is clearly contradicted by the study’s findings. Furthermore, the critique regarding the use of crossover as an explanation for failure is misplaced. The trial utilized a well-established external control methodology, and the results still showed a significant survival benefit. The use of external control data is a valid approach in oncology when randomized controlled trials are not feasible, particularly in a disease with the poor prognosis seen in glioblastoma.
Additionally, the suggestion that the analysis plan was altered after the trial endpoints failed is misleading. There is no evidence in the published study to suggest that the analysis plan was changed post hoc in a way that would undermine the integrity of the results. The statistical methods employed in the study, including the use of external controls and adjustments for confounding factors, were robust and appropriate for the trial design.
The commentary’s criticisms of patient selection and the external control approach also lack foundation. The external control cohort was rigorously matched to the treatment group on key clinical variables, and the data from this cohort were contemporaneous, strengthening the validity of the comparisons.
In conclusion, the claims made by the unnamed commentator are without merit and fail to account for the rigorous methodology and statistically significant findings of the JAMA Oncology study. The evidence clearly supports the efficacy of DCVax-L in improving survival for patients with both nGBM and rGBM.
JAMA Oncology DCVax-L
Interview with Linda M. Liau, MD, PhD, author of Association of Autologous Tumor Lysate-Loaded Dendritic Cell Vaccination With Extension of Survival Among Patients With Newly Diagnosed and Recurrent Glioblastoma, in a podcast with @JackWestMD. https://t.co/POEeEg5cVz— JAMA Oncology (@JAMAOnc) November 18, 2022
https://braintumourresearch.org/blogs/research-campaigning-news/astonishing-results-for-brain-tumour-vaccine-trial
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=176114523
skitahoe
8 hours ago
In thinking about the shorts, I do believe that it's a strategy that defines their entire investment style for some of them. I however think others are investors who go both way. I believe many with short positions are closing them, because they believe the company's been taken as low as their concentrated efforts could take it, and now positive news is anticipate. I really believe that some of these people are now taking the long side and they'll continue to do so until they sense a major retraction, and they may short that.
Personally I look forward to doing something similar, but differently. I look forward to when NWBO has options available. When I sense a solid runup and believe it will retrench shortly, I'll sell out of the money calls on no more than 10% of my shares. If I'm right, the stock retrenches, depending on the expiration, I'll either buy them back at a healthy profit, or let them expire. If I'm wrong, I'll either allow the stock to sell at the option price plus the premium I took for the option, or buy back the option, and take a loss on that, while making a big gain on the stock. If I let the stock go, it's usually because I still believe it will retrench to what I received, and I'll be able to repurchase it.
I'll be honest, I've never had near the numbers of shares of any other stock than I do in NWBO, in the past selling calls on a couple thousand shares was a lot. Now I can sell a few tens of thousands of shares and be well under 10%, so even if I'm bringing in $.50 a share, it's substantial pocket change.
I don't know when options will be available, but I believe it will happen when they move to a major exchange. I've seen options on companies as low at $2, but I believe they were higher when options were initially made available. I hope that shorts, who I believe are becoming longs, will consider such a strategy, rather than going short again, and once again bashing the stock in hopes of taking it down. In selling out of the money calls, I'm just saying I think it will retrench a bit before making new highs, in the long run I believe new highs will come after retrenching. In going shorts, I believe they're saying they want to drive it down as far as they can. JMHO.
Gary
exwannabe
8 hours ago
. It did, however, improve OS significantly,
That is problematical. The trial randomized 232 to -L+SOC and 99 to SOC. The 233 did not live longer than the 99. That in itself is such a huge red flag that it stuns me that anybody cannot see it. But let us drill down for the details.
Yes, they blame crossover for the lack of shown efficacy, But making excuses for failure is, well making excuses for failure.
Then we have the formal problem that they did not change the analysis plan until after they knew the predefined primary PFS and secondary OS endpoints failed. That is a huge issue called multiplicity. But whatever,
Then they use the comparison to an ECA that is summary data scraper off published papers. Both FDA and EMA laugh at this for good reason.
And last. Even against the ECA there is a huge issue with patient selection. The JAMA paper notes that patients in the ECA with near complete resections live long, just as long as the -L patients with near complete resections. And the -L trial required intent for total resection.
Have fun
XMaster2023
8 hours ago
Mr. Researcher, you are correct. The number of authors does not mean anything. It is the quality of authors and their credentials that you look for.
For example, one of the 73 Co Authors is Dr. Walter he is the Chief of Neurosurgery at UR Medicine's Highland Hospital and a Professor of Neurosurgery and Oncology at the University of Rochester Medical Center. He obtained his medical degree and completed neurosurgical residency training at Johns Hopkins University and Hospital, where he also completed a National Cancer Institute sponsored fellowship in neuro-oncology. Following completion of residency training he served on the faculty at the University of Pittsburgh, where he was named director of adult neuro-oncology, and was recruited to the University of Rochester in 2007. Dr. Walter performs brain and spinal tumor surgeries at both Strong Memorial Hospital and Rochester General Hospital. He sees patients in clinic at Strong Memorial Hospital, Rochester General Hospital, and Clifton Springs Hospital, and has special expertise in image guided neurosurgery, radiosurgery, and complex spinal surgery for tumors. He runs an active clinical research program that is involved in evaluating experimental therapeutics for patients with brain and spinal cancer. He is particularly interested in developing therapies that not only extend survival, but that also improve the quality of life for people afflicted with these diseases. He runs a research laboratory at the University of Rochester that seeks to develop new targets for tumors.
University of Rochester Medical center was a trial site for DCVax-L. So if you think Dr. Walter would endorse a product that doesn’t work, you’re crazy. Now let’s compare your credentials to Mr. Walter’s. I look forward to your post.
jesster64
8 hours ago
yes, the last line of defense for the journalist, blame the reader. POLO is a smokescreen. Anything about it has nothing to do with dc-vax.
"DCVax isn’t in treatment guidelines, nor does it have approval, nor does it improve PFS"
you forgot to add it prolongs life
" the authorship of a journal article does not render it immune to criticism", I never said it did. What I am saying is your anonymous criticism is worth less than the opinion of the 73 scientific peers, yet you never mention them in the article. Nice of you to point out vinay prasad, now how about naming some of those who criticize dc-vax in fairness or can't you be bothered?
j e d
8 hours ago
Man, this is becoming cringeworthy. You present yourself as an uninterested biotech researcher with a relevant PhD, but then have prolonged tit-for-tat arguments on a penny stock forum. Doesn't pass the smell test.
Also, as you know, DCVax's PFS comparison was confounded, so saying nor does it improve PFS is dishonest. It did, however, improve OS significantly, which is more important that PFS anyway. POLO not having an effect on OS is more damning that a confounded PFS comparison, as PFS only exists as a proxy for OS. Either you are not a serious researcher or you have a financial interest to spin (or both).
Galzus Research
10 hours ago
So the answer is no. If you don’t want to understand, that’s fine. But POLO was a positive trial, shifted treatment guidelines, got approval, and has been a highly, highly criticized study.
It was published in the NEJM, with a who’s who of pancreas cancer researchers. That doesn’t stop a trial from being criticized by others, most notably Vinay Prasad.
And no, it’s not DCVax. DCVax isn’t in treatment guidelines, nor does it have approval, nor does it improve PFS. POLO was a more convincingly positive trial, and it was still subject to criticism
TL;DR (because people aren’t bothering to), the authorship of a journal article does not render it immune to criticism. And any of those authors in the JAMA paper would acknowledge that it did not go according to plan, and therefore has limitations, which are delineated in the article itself.
SkyLimit2022
10 hours ago
x,
Thanks for your keen insights about combos 😶
For DCVax-L, there are two combo trials that are particularly relevant today:
⭐️You will be pleased to notice placebo-controlled RCTs on the list!⭐️
☑️ Completed Hiltonol (poly-ICLC) Trial:
https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT01204684
☑️ Ongoing Hiltonol (poly-ICLC) Trial:
https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04201873
The research at Roswell was recently approved to expand … Two of their DC combo trials are particularly noteworthy—active, grant-funded, and posted recent updates!
☑️ https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04348747?a=29&b=30
☑️ https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04093323
There are other P1 or P2 studies too at Moffitt that seem to overlap with Roswell, and Moffitt has a couple additional studies that will soon be recruiting… We may soon hear more about Roswell’s collaboration with Moffitt which could be very significant news, imo.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=176090178
Among the listed Moffitt dendritic cell trials (that are active now), Roswell is included/mentioned! One study involves an interesting DC combo with adoptive T Cell therapy! All four trials appear to be active with recently posted updates on clinicaltrials.gov:
https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05325632
https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04348747
(Roswell trial listed on Moffitt website and has Moffitt in Florida as one of the study locations)
https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05809752
(Moffitt trial with planned study location at Roswell)
https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05378464
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=176090178
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=175935295
“They called me Gabagool Research”
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=176114523
jesster64
10 hours ago
"Look up the citations of those 73 authors in the DCVax study. These are glioblastoma researchers. If they didn't publish the negative work, then almost all of their research effort would be down the drain"
Correct, they are glioblastoma researchers and signed off on the paper. That has a little more weight that
"There has been significant criticism of the study"
Who are those criticizing the study? Danish dude did deep dive and showed conflict of interest for many of them. Yet in your opinion, they seem to hold more weight that 73 glioblastoma researchers. In fact, you didnt even bother to mention the 73, instead you went with the anonymous critics.
SkyLimit2022
10 hours ago
Gabagool,
Thanks for posting your free pearls of wisdom 😶
Researching a company involves market research and forecasting the potential of the company’s entire asset portfolio within that market prospectively and globally with respect to the historical aspects of that market and existing technologies that are relevant to the overall living ecosystem … But you pop up here out of nowhere like a Gabagool-in-the-box, completely missing the forest for the trees—commenting about yourself, about one platform, or one trial. Nobody who works professionally in equity research would approach it that way…
Furthermore, your posts are generally baseless and highly unreliable. You need full-context, reliable citations to support your arguments—especially when commenting on medical aspects, where you lack qualifications entirely.
Who counts as actually qualified? Here are a few examples that leave no doubt:
✅️ Dr. Liau who is a world-renowned physician and currently serving on the SAB at NWBO
✅️ Dr. Kalinski at Roswell Park in New York
✅️ The U.S. NIH and U.S. DoD who awarded continuing peer-reviewed grants
✅️ The independent JAMA peer reviewers
✅️ The independent Nature Comms peer reviewers
✅️ MHRA which awarded approval of the PIP, approval of the MIA, and continue to support the Specials Program
✅️ Dr. Ashkan who was just honored with an award from the U.K. government
“His work on brain cancer vaccines received the top presentation award by the British Neuro-Oncology Society in 2022 and promises to impact the care of patients with brain tumours worldwide.”
Consultant Neurosurgeon at @KingsCollegeNHS, Professor Keyoumars Ashkan, receives an MBE for services to neurosurgery.
In 2020, he removed patient Dagmar's brain tumour while she played her violin throughout the surgery. 👇pic.twitter.com/H2Z4LZic0h— NHS London (@NHSEnglandLDN) December 31, 2024
https://thejns.org/caselessons/view/journals/j-neurosurg-case-lessons/8/2/article-CASE24112.xml
https://www.kcl.ac.uk/news/professor-keyoumars-ashkan-awarded-mbe-in-kings-new-years-honours
Grant-funded trials are peer-reviewed, and the reviewers generally approve funding/expansion based on preliminary data. Notably, the PII trials at Roswell Park have been approved to expand in scope.. and look who joked on X about the overly-rigorous peer-review process for grant funding—the principal investigator of one of the Roswell trials!
Reviewers asking for prelim data when the grant mechanism says “prelim data not required” pic.twitter.com/qrBBnIvedt— Sheheryar Kabraji (@SKabrajiMD) March 5, 2025
So, it looks like the grant peer reviewers have been watching the PII trials closely ✅️
The long-committed NWBO leadership team have built a comprehensive worldwide IP patent portfolio, acquired commercial licenses, acquired a novel patent-fortified technology to develop in-house automated manufacturing infrastructure, and trials are already underway with the continuing support of peer-reviewed U.S. government grants.
Both DCVax-L and the Roswell DC technology are being studied in combination with checkpoint inhibitors (and other agents). As efficacy data emerge and further studies commence, big pharma will increasingly view NWBO’s DC platforms as either a complement to their portfolios or a competitor. The results of these combination studies will determine the path forward, as the drugs being paired with NWBO’s DC technologies are already commercialized in a vast and swiftly expanding worldwide immunotherapy market.
Leveraging partnerships with world-renowned research institutions, such as Roswell Park in New York, and peer-reviewed grants from U.S. government agencies, such as the NIH, is both efficient and crucial in supporting the validity of breakthrough science and building value.
The trial that just posted a quality control update on Feb 25, 2025 and is led by Dr. Puzanov as principal investigator is a quite noteworthy example.
https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04093323
https://physicianresources.roswellpark.org/news/roswell-park-clinical-trials-offer-novel-immunotherapies-for-advanced/metastatic-tumors-refractory-melanoma
NWBO owns three distinct patent-fortified DC product platforms that we currently know about:
1. DCVax-L
2. DCVax Direct
3. Roswell’s DC Platform
✅️ Additionally, we might consider the novel EDEN manufacturing technology, which NWBO acquired through its strategic acquisition of Flaskworks in 2020.
Is is also quite noteworthy that the term “tumor-agnostic” was used in reference to the Roswell DC product platform:
https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/1072379/000141057824001879/nwbo-20240930x10q.htm
https://cdmrp.health.mil/bcrp/pbks/2024BCRPProgramBook.pdf
https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04348747
June 2024
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/northwest-biotherapeutics-announces-exclusive-in-license-of-portfolio-of-dendritic-cell-technology-and-intellectual-property-302174237.html
“The license includes 5 new patent families that were just filed in 2023 and hence have their full potential patent life ahead of them. The technologies include enhanced versions of dendritic cells (DCs) and DC based therapies, as well as conditioning regimens designed to enhance patient responses and approaches to reprogram the tumour microenvironment to boost immune therapies and help overcome resistance to checkpoint inhibitors.
The DC based therapies include versions with tumour antigens loaded into the DCs and versions for intra-tumoural administration without pre-loading of antigens. Phase 2 trials involving the licensed technologies for two different cancers opened for enrollment earlier this year and are currently under way, and a third phase 2 trial for a third cancer is pending. The trials are fully funded by grant funding and are being conducted as investigator led trials. The company does not anticipate having to provide any funding or undertake any operational role for these trials.
As previously reported, over time the company has been quietly in-licensing various technologies and IP from various institutions and entities which it believes can be valuable in building a leading franchise in dendritic cell therapies.
The portfolio in-licensed from Roswell Park is complementary to, and builds upon, a portfolio which the company exclusively licensed from another institution last year. Together, the two portfolios encompass more than 20 years of work by one of the foremost groups of dendritic cell experts, led by Dr. Kalinski.
The portfolio in-licensed last year includes the foundational technologies and IP, and positive early-stage clinical trial results, developed by the Kalinski group over 17 years before coming to Roswell. The portfolio in-licensed now includes the further work during the last 7 years at Roswell. Taken together, the company believes that the two portfolios comprise a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts and offer compelling synergies with the company’s own portfolio. The company plans to collaborate with Dr. Kalinski on the further clinical development of the combined technologies.”
⭐️ Combo is King! ⭐️
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/northwest-biotherapeutics-announces-exclusive-in-license-of-portfolio-of-dendritic-cell-technology-and-intellectual-property-302174237.html
https://nwbio.com/audio-of-nwbio-2023-annual-shareholders-meeting/
“They called me Gabagool Research”
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=176114523
jesster64
10 hours ago
73 scientific peers were willing to put their name to the paper and agree dc-vax showed pos results. I think thats says a lot more than
"There has been significant criticism of the study"
Once again, why did you not mention the 73 peer acceptance and let readers make up their own minds.
"I think the results are reasonable enough to not be surprised if DCVax-L gets approved", and here you are hedging your bet that when approved, you can say "see, I predicted it", because your credibility will be call into question. Nice way to play both sides.
and
Don't muddy the waters with POLO example to justify what you wrote.
Level up your trading with our powerful tools and real-time insights all in one place.
learningcurve2020
9 hours ago
Hot Features
Premium
