PFS

Professu5

I’d say another run at $11-12 is in play here. It was headed higher when their PFS dropped last week if not for the grant news and people taking gains simultaneously.

oriabra21

# LPTX news: Phase 2 DeFianCe trial showed sirexatamab (DKN-01) + chemo/bevacizumab achieved 38% response rate vs 24% control in DKK1-high colorectal cancer patients, with significantly improved PFS and OS (prior interim: HR 0.47 for PFS, HR 0.19 for OS). Safety profile was clean with no increase in side effects. ESMO conclusion: "promising new targeted therapy" that "supports advancement to larger, biomarker-driven clinical trials." What It Means: This is solid Phase 2 data that justifies Phase 3 - typically worth $400-750M in partnership deals. https://preview.redd.it/6t1ysina44wf1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ce7e9b8cfe1053266c42d5b9e680764c7a1d0c47

oriabra21

Phase 2 DeFianCe trial showed sirexatamab (DKN-01) + chemo/bevacizumab achieved 38% response rate vs 24% control in DKK1-high colorectal cancer patients, with significantly improved PFS and OS (prior interim: HR 0.47 for PFS, HR 0.19 for OS). Safety profile was clean with no increase in side effects. ESMO conclusion: "promising new targeted therapy" that "supports advancement to larger, biomarker-driven clinical trials." What It Means: This is solid Phase 2 data that justifies Phase 3 - typically worth $400-750M in partnership deals. https://preview.redd.it/kvdusli244wf1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f34716e0d8ff58746d26d464f0c121022aad826b

No_Ranger_6130

My short thesis was the PFS would cause a huge drop, and it did. Unfortunately it ran up so much before that I barely broke even. I agree with you on the fraud, the CEO has a huge liability to a shareholder lawsuit. If any lawyer is working on it and wants some free DD let me know.

novuus_dk

The management in Surge Battery Metals is doing everything right to move the project along. A PFS coming up soon. And the US government is now finaly eyeing domestic critical minerals. They even took a 5% stake in the Lithium Americas Thacker Pass project just recently. But this, Nevada North project has even higher grades of lithium clay. Exciting times ahead for sure

Ass--Cheeks

That was my concern especially with the sudden momentum in the stock, so I closed out my calls for the time being. I've seen a lot of the discussions centered around their expected PFS though, what are your thoughts on that catalyst?

unibash

People sleeping on ABAT but smart money is accumulating. 43.8 million share volume today when it usually averages 15. PFS for Tonopah lithium mine incoming.

Professu5

If you’re holding shares now, you just have to decide what matches up with your goals. Taking profits in this $10 range could be great sense! I think this still has room to run in the short-term because (1) the entire sector is rallying due to US Govt support for critical minerals and domestic supply chain, (2) ABAT could release their Tonopah PFS results as another catalyst at any moment (alluded to in their release on Monday morning). Over the next year, who knows? Entire market is frothy and a little volatile at the moment. Trump is volatile. Early stage companies are volatile and that’s what this is. Could be $5 next year, could be $25. Your guess as good as mine.

Odd-Anything8149

News on their successful extraction, proof of product essentially. Before this they were in a speculative stage with estimates of what they could produce. Now, they do a PFS and some other things that give more concrete information and expectations to investors.

EDRN18

If their PFS is released and received well, could be in the next month or so. Their next earnings report is a month from now so I anticipate it’ll be released around that time.

Cpinkman14

Thats right, PFS is coming btw

Tricks-T-Clown

They have the recycling IP as well as mining. Their land is near $LAC and the PFS is expected shortly. LAC is further along for mining but they also have the recycling vertical. Not a lot of information at this point but they have a government grant for a commercial recycling facility in South Carolina as well.

EDRN18

I respect your decision to hold out until they show their Phase 2 recycling is up and running. I think this recent movement is more related to the mining/refining side of things though, with their PFS for Tonopah Flats due to be released in the very near future.

EDRN18

Majority of shares are in my IRA and I think ABAT has a lot more room to run. I sold a very small amount (<5%) but this is a multi-year hold for me. Waiting on them to release their PFS for Tonopah Flats and continue their buildout on the recycling side (commercial-scale recovery of lithium, nickel, cobalt, manganese, etc. and announcement of their second recycling facility in South Carolina). Both of those are near-term catalysts that could cause upward price movement, although PFS is likely somewhat priced in with this recent move in stock price.

EDRN18

$ABAT. PFS for their Tonopah Flats lithium project could be released tomorrow. 20 million trading volume today in anticipation of that. Currently at a 52-week high.

innatangle

My exposure to copper is an Australian Copper Junior called CODA Minerals - approximately 1 millions shares at about AUD $0.099 average. I'm banking on a $4 share price when either production commences, or it's bought out by its much bigger next door neighbour, BHP Billiton. The company is still in the pre production phase which makes it a risky play, which also means the share price is heavily discounted. They just had an independent valuation carried out that said the fully diluted share price (which includes another funding raise next year) is AUD $0.46. Currently the stock is at AUD $0.135. The current funding raise is to bank roll their PFS. Right now, it's officially a copper/silver play, but they're working on bring cobalt back into their flow sheet. By itself, cobalt is about a AUD $1.5 billion resource (pre tax). By bringing Cobalt back into the mix, Coda will be entitled to a lot of Australian government funding and tax breaks available to companies mining minerals related to decarbonisation. It's a 100% gamble at this point, do your own DD.

Sea_Vehicle984

I have been invested for over 4 years and have deep knowledge of the company. The asset is there with 43Mt of 24% grade Mg proved by drilling only 5% of the resource. The processing steps were developed at the bench, and the PFS is significantly advanced with mine permit the lynch pin. The LOI with Galaxy who wants to buy the ore can only be advanced and finalized with a permit. MgO is not that difficult to produce, and the ore can be economically crushed and shipped to the industrial site. The path from 63 to 200 kt or even 250 kt seems clear, again after the permit is received. Activism has detered progress massively, and few management teams would still be standing. Family controlled investor management, not your typical junior lifestyle miner. I see a buck on permit and loads of upside over the next several years with a pathway to $10 easy to see, but solid execution and government support or less red tape is required to achieve it. I see few like this over my 30-year investing career. Lots of risk. Lots of reward. Biggest risk is the permit and that is 95% done.

Same_Advertising_864

The biggest thing that stood out for FURY for me was their Eau Claire mine composition results. *copy and pasted because I dont have time to type all that lol* Total recovered gold production of 834koz gold at an average diluted head grade of 4.46 g/t gold. Average annual production projected to be approximately 76k oz gold over an 11-year life of mine (“LOM”) at an all-in sustaining cost (“AISC”) of US$1,140/oz for the Base Case; US$1,153/oz for the Hybrid Case, and US$1,170/oz of gold for the Toll Milling Case. Low initial capital expenditures (“CapEx”) ranging from $117M in the Toll Milling Case to $217M in the Base Case. Rapid after-tax payback period of 2.5, 1.5, and 1.1 years based on the three cases, respectively. 76% of the ounces within the PEA mine plan are currently in the Measured and Indicated resource category, demonstrating a timely pathway to a prefeasibility study (“PFS”) with minimal conversion drilling required. And this is all also based on a gold price of $2400/oz gold is currently $3680ish/oz so Im confident that if their yield results are accurate they'll flourish in the next couple years. (This is not financial advice)

armar38

David spoke in investor’s conference after both trials’s updates (NUVB and NUVL) came out this weekend: https://journey.ct.events/view/ea2e92e3-d524-423c-a68a-fe84140ac942 His comments are encouraging and the results actually seem very good for NUVB. For second line treatment (comparing apples to apples as first line data for NUVL are preliminary), intracranial response is better with Ibtrozi (around 80% for NUVB vs below 50% for NUVL). Intracranial response is crucial in NSCLC and the reason for better efficacy of Ibtrozi could be that it still inhibits TRK which tend to affect tumor growth (this is just my hypothesis, could be because of drug potency/pharmacokinetice/brain penetration etc.). NUVL is ROS1 selective because the developers wanted to avoid TRK inhibition side effects, but it might just be the case that Ibtrozi hit a sweet spot (it is more selective for ROS1 compared to previus generation drugs to avoid dizzines but still not nearly as selective as zidesamtinib). David was also asked about the difference between NUVL and NUVB market cap (1,2 billion vs almost 6 billion), for which he sought an answer in Nuvalent presenting seemingly longer PFS with no real data to support it. I don’t think this is enough to explain the massive difference, but I cant think of a good answer.

asagi_lumina

small primer, if not interested skip to next paragraph: figured it was about time that i give a quick biology rundown, this is helpful if you want to understand phase 2 results that i'll describe below. *as usual, i am just a regard so read and always always do your own research for pete's sake.* we've learned in HS that the body is just a bunch of cells that sticks together. A cell has: nucleus (think "brain" of. cell), cytoplasm (think "liquid around the heart"), membrane that surrounds it. membrane itself has a bunch of protein that are embedded in the membrane or span across it. ROS1 is a receptor tyrosine kinase (RTK) that sits in the cell membrane. In patient with cancer, due to gene fusion ROS1 becomes active all the time Drugs like **taletrectinib (IBTROZI)**, **crizotinib**, and **entrectinib** bind to the **intracellular kinase domain** of ROS1 at the membrane. This blocks its “always-on” signaling and slows/stops cancer growth. cool so now let's talk about the Barcelona world health conference shall we? my regard ass forgot to find a way to listen in for the Barcelona world health conference hence this is only 2nd handed information. As you fine regard now, there are 2 studies going on Trust I (in china) and Trust II which is global but David mentioned: \- Long term data shows impressive improved PFS. Excited about the promise of IBTROZI \- Patient who used IBTROZI saw better results especially when they haven't been exposed to other drugs. \- Mild side-effects, pretty much whatever you see in all the medecines you probably have taken in your life. All in all, nothing that we didn't know: IBTROZI is ***still*** best in class long after FDA approval. No news on Safusedenib but i am curious about what David mentioned in Boston: "Look forward to Q3 earnings" and "talk to FDA". shit is going fast regards and i am all here for it. i. like. this. stock.

asagi_lumina

David today at the Citibiopharma: \- Daichi to realease updated trial evidence on Safusidenib in low grade glioma updating **Progression-Free Survival (PFS)** and (maybe Overall Response Rate (ORR)? --- not sure about that one since the audio was INSANELY BAD---) \- David mentioned being in discussions with the FDA on a pivotal head to head trial against Voarsidenib. \- David confirmed advanced FDA discussions on high grade glioma pivotal study (read phase 3) \- David: “we have more than what we need to get to profitability”. NUVB is coming for a 6B market and I am all here for it. i like this stock

One-Replacement-8314

TMC released a PFS and IA in accordance with subpart 1300 of the Regulation S-K at the beginning of August, for the NORI-D, NORI and TOML reserves. As such, this 3rd-party audited study meets the same standards as every other mining companies. The PFS and IA reveal a net present value of 23.6 billion dollars for those two areas alone, with, despite the pessimism/conservatism inherent to the standard, what will be the lowest C1 nickel cost in the industry by an order of magnitude at only $1,065/t; and an IRR of 27-36%, much higher than traditional land-based mines. This is due to the fact that while land-based mines only yield 2-3% of resources, with 97-98% of the soil having to be processed and then tossed back - deep-sea nodules have 99+% purity, that means that 99% of what’s picked up, will end up being sold. So yes, as per industry standard and audited studies, everything indicates this will be highly profitable. And yes, $TMC also a functional deep-sea mining collector, which they have been using to run the profitability and environmental studies. They have developed, built, and then used the collector successfully in a series of production test runs back in 2022 - with partner AllSeas. AllSeas, the most prolific maritime company (pipelay, offshore construction, etc), and who owns the largest vessels in the world, is a strategic partner in $TMC and have agreed many years ago to evenly split the capital costs for the development of the world’s first deep sea mining vessels and collectors. I trust that you understand AllSeas wouldn’t be investing hundreds of millions of dollars to develop technology that wouldn’t ever be used if it wasn’t a profitable initiative.

Rumplfrskn

The Fernley building is empty because during construction they had the opportunity to buy a fully built and permitted facility which cut months and millions out of the equation. It was a smart move and now they’re selling it. Compared to Redwood, ABAT has proprietary extraction patents plus Tonopah Flats with huge reserves. There are no other companies able to extract lithium from sediment in the same way. LAC is in construction but the ABAT PFS will demonstrate substantially better margins.

JuiceThis1687

I did not think the result today was bad at all. Quite the contrary. I think people who sold on the p-value result are missing the forest for the trees. A p-value of .056 vs their pre-defined .045 is essentially saying that the likelihood of achieving the superior PFS data by random chance is 5.6% as opposed to 4.5%. A .056 value is still significant- just didn't meet their pre-defined threshold. I think people are starting to realize this too as it recovered by about 25% today. But yeah it didn't help that their own press releases say they "missed" statistical significance and all these other headlines are saying phase 3 trial "fails" or "does not meet goal". I think it's just short term noise though. I'll take a drug that nearly doubles the PFS of several standards of care (and more than doubles when excluding pre-treated patients) with a p-value of .056 instead of .045. We know with a higher degree of certainty that the drug works and we can buy the stock for a lower price than before. Anyways, the endgame for new drugs is FDA approval, and i think FDA will appreciate the large benefit to PFS over the .01 difference in p-value.

Bansionboy

Basically regards, TMC at 3B now, PFS says it should be at 23.6B. Strap in lol.

Bansionboy

CEO tweeted Friday after hours that they are releasing the PFS Monday AM. It’s already up 20%.

Teardatassup22

Be on the lookout for TMC tomorrow. PFS is being unveiled followed by a week of big updates, from CEO’s X account

WSB3220

TMC releasing PFS premarket tomorrow, could expect heavy volume on that name.

daddybeatsmehelp

Majority were Jan2026 calls, bought pre-tweet cause I knew PFS, permit, and more partnerships were coming this year. I tossed whatever I had left into $6 calls, exp 8/8, right after CEO tweeted. All bought on margin like a true degen regard.

kim_yong_uun

$TMC Fellow shareholders, next Monday will be so heavy on disclosure, I owe you at least some notice. The Northern Hemisphere likes to take it easy in August, but I don’t want you to miss this one. Before the market opens on Monday, August 4th look out for the following: \- PFS. At our last earnings call we committed to have our PFS ready in Q3. On Monday we will release our PFS Technical Report Summary on the area over which we have applied for a Commercial Recovery Permit to NOAA \- Initial Assessment. Since our PFS does not cover our total estimated resource, we have prepared an IA for the rest of the resource \- Strategy & project economics presentations. We'll share two presentations. Craig's presentation covers the highlights of the PFS, IA and how we start production. My strategy presentation will give you a broader context of how the U.S. pivot has changed our strategy and revisit our overall mission and masterplan Thank you to our shareholders for your patience as I know you have been asking for these details. Get ready for an exciting inbox on Monday morning, and for a week of exciting developments that will follow.

MindlessAnt2760

It was the same study 004. Just more patients. The 005 is the P3 Registrational trial yet to start. The data was still very impressive with speed and depth of response. PFS is more important than ORR as the next step.

R101C

AI wouldn't lie to me, right? No, I did not write that piece — but it is a very well-researched and detailed analysis that looks like it was originally posted by the X (formerly Twitter) user @rekurencja, as cited near the end of the text. It’s a thoughtful combination of: Back-of-the-envelope economics Logistics modeling Public data from the Toliara Monazite PFS Educated cost assumptions about ports, rail, and trucking Speculative infrastructure optimization ideas It’s highly unlikely to be AI-generated — the voice, detail, and long-form structure strongly suggest a human analyst/investor familiar with both critical mineral logistics and the nuclear/REE sector. The tone also mirrors the style of content shared on retail investing platforms like X (Twitter), Seeking Alpha, or Substack. If you're considering quoting or repurposing the material, it would be appropriate to credit the original author @rekurencja and link back to the thread as mentioned in the post. Would you like a summary or a simplified takeaway from the analysis?

Yyir

I work in mining, saw the word PFS... Dude PFS isn't worth the paper it's written on. They are estimates at best and only used to get more money. Wait on a DFS

Copperhead881

$TMC will continue to ebb and flow but you can DCA pretty easily on any given day. Once NOAA and PFS drops it won’t come back from under $10.

EDRN18

Love the ABAT rec. Some real catalysts on the horizon on both the recycling and mining sides of the business. Waiting on the PFS report which will further identify the value of mining claims, and the company has been installing phase 2 equipment on the recycling side which will allow them to further process black mass into lithium, nickel, cobalt, and manganese.

Bansionboy

It’s a risky play but their PFS may be released in the next 6 months. Your port is how I wish mine looked, thanks for the post months back.

Terrible_Toe

You can't bring up mili/milif without bringing up Trojarova. West gore is YEARS from getting preliminary results in, the site just defrosted like a month ago. Trojarova will likely see the validation of the soviet site records + the results of the 13 new boreing holes on site. Once the site is validated and the PEA is finished we can work towards the rest of validation stages. I think Sept - Dec news of site validation will finish and Milif will annouce either the sale of Trojarova or dilution to finance the mining project and start PFS/FS. but honestly west gore is years from anything substantial happening

Bansionboy

It’s mostly speculative. But you have the executive order, permitting and PFS to look forward too. With those on the horizon you could get some big fish investors.

PsychedelicDucks

$18 before PFS and permits. $25+ after.

WellAintThatShiny

https://investors.metals.co/news-releases/news-release-details/world-first-tmc-and-pamco-achieve-breakthrough-commercial-scale First stage of processing has been complete with no modifications, PAMCO is on board with processing, presumably Korean Zinc as well. As for numbers, I’m assuming you’re referencing the Iceberg hit piece about a month ago. Truth is, nobody in the public (including you), knows the numbers because the PFS hasn’t been released yet. My guess is the numbers are extremely compelling because Michael Hess and Korean Zinc just jumped heavily on board in the last month. You know they’ve seen the estimates and saw something they liked.

SeaEconomist5743

What I mean is, cash is no longer a problem whatsoever. There is a reason for the recent investments with Hess and KZ, and instructional ownership has doubled. Next couple months we’ll have a clear idea of their NOAA permit applications, the PFS and a impact study, and if those are as positive as teased, TMC will have made the comeback of the century…and if negative, nail in the coffin. With that said, still of course highly speculative and volatile. Time will tell, but the recent election changed everything.

15May1992

Im new here so please be respectful and kind: 1. Net cash balance sheet 2.Aisc :800-1000 usd,today's gold prices:3k plus 3.Only risk is its a single mine operations,2nd mine PFS due before December .African risk is limited due to very well connected ceo and historically peaceful southwest Nigeria. 4.listed on both london and Toronto 5 Maiden dividend this year. Quarterly dividend from now on.Yielding about 7% 6.depending on how you calculate it , forward p/e of 1.5! (Expected 90,000 oz at 2300 usd gross margin)

daddybeatsmehelp

They completed the PFS, and submitted it along with the commercial recovery application to NOAA. It will be publicly released Q3, based on their last earnings call.

Cybertwit

Backstory: the Nautilus Minerals fiasco To understand TMC, it is important to know the history of Nautilus Minerals, its predecessor. As we will show, there are striking similarities between the two companies, particularly how OPEX spiraled out of control and precipitated Nautilus’ downfall. TMC’s CEO Gerard Barron was an early investor in Nautilus along with TMC’s founder David Heydon, who was CEO of Nautilus from 2002-2008. Nautilus’ flagship project was Solwara 1, a seafloor massive sulfide deposit within the territorial waters of Papua New Guinea (PNG) at depths between 1,200 and 1,600 meters. Like TMC, Nautilus boasted: Large resources that would address the scarcity of “stretched” land-based mines. The deposits were polymetallic (copper, gold, silver and zinc), with extraordinary copper grades. Who could resist this chart? Not the PNG government that granted an exploration licence in 1997, then a mining (exploitation) licence in 2011. The government took a 30% stake in Nautilus. Although the company had been allowed to mine, amazingly no pre-feasibility study (PFS) had ever been conducted by Nautilus. The preliminary economic assessment (PEA) filed in 2018 warned: “The potential viability of the Mineral Resources has not yet been supported by a pre-feasibility study or a feasibility study.” Then clouds gathered on the horizon. The company initially claimed in a 2010 technical report (pg 9) that the operating cost (including shipping) was competitive at $70/tonne of ore. However, in its 2018 PEA, the cost was revised to $192/tonne of ore, a 174% increase. Due to the surging cost, the PEA only yielded a measly NPV of only $56mn. After raising ~$686mn from investors and mining nothing, Nautilus eventually ran out of money, filed for creditor protection in 2019 and was delisted from the TSX. The Prime Minister of PNG declared “we burnt almost 300 million Kina ($72mn) in that Nautilus project on a concept that someone told us can work, but it is a concept that is a total failure as I speak.” However, the episode was highly profitable for Barron as his $226k Nautilus investment turned into $31mn when he sold all his shares a decade earlier, around 2007-2008, near the height of the market. Heydon also exited around the same time. According to a 2021 Bloomberg article, Barron said: “I originally invested in Nautilus not because I knew mining but because I just sort of thought it sounded cool, and I sold out at the right time”. TMC (formerly DeepGreen), which rose from the ashes of Nautilus, now owns two exploration licences that once belonged to Nautilus through wholly-owned subsidiaries, Nauru Ocean Resources Inc (“NORI”) and Tonga Offshore Mining Limited (”TOML”). The Wall Street Journal, summarised the episode when TMC merged with a SPAC: “The first time Gerard Barron tried to mine the sea floor, the company he backed lost a half-billion dollars of investor money, got crosswise with a South Pacific government, destroyed sensitive seabed habitat and ultimately went broke. Now he’s trying again.” And why not? As Barron declared in a 2019 interview: “Whether you invest in a company like Deepgreen or not, everyone is a sucker for the story”. In this report, we will show that in every aspect, TMC is following the same path. https://iceberg-research.com/2025/05/27/the-metals-company-tmc-a-remake-of-the-nautilus-fiasco/

stevenryl866

IMNN IMUNON Announces 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting Oral Presentation Highlighting Unprecedented Survival Data from Phase 2 Trial of IMNN-001 in Treatment of Newly Diagnosed Advanced Ovarian Cancer Friday, 23rd May at 8:05 am Data show continuous clinically significant improvement, with median 13-month and 3-month increases in overall and progression-free survival, respectively, in treatment group Women treated with IMNN-001 and standard of care chemotherapy plus PARP inhibitors achieved nearly 12-month increase in PFS compared to standard of care; median OS in IMNN-001 treatment arm not yet reached after more than five years Phase 2 OVATION 2 Study results also published in peer-reviewed journal Gynecologic Oncology

SeaEconomist5743

Ha metals yes. Google again in 1-2 months, maybe the price at that time, PFS, Impact study, application approval, will force you to actually dig deeper than a headline. Until then, keep riding your confirmation bias.

SeaEconomist5743

You’re preaching DD to people who YOLO daily SPY calls or puts, and think GME is going to make their great grandchildren rich. Give it a month, the PFS and impact will be released, NOAA application approved, and all of a sudden this board will be full of overnight believers and experts. I’m holding 45k+ shares of TMC, agree with everything you said, and will only have one thing to say/post here in 6 months - a screenshot of the easiest 10x (minimum) I’ll have bagged, and in a years time.

SeaEconomist5743

Yup, give it a month when the permit gets passed, and PFS and impact study are released, and this board will be full of overnight believers and experts. Until then I’ll sit back fat and happy with tens of thousands of shares at a basis well below $2

SeaEconomist5743

Basically everything you’ve said is false, and that’s based on research, not a biased opinion like you’re spewing. Check back in 2 months when the environmental impact study and PFS is released. Until then, read up on land based mining, deep sea oil drilling, windmills (what do you think they do with those turbines, which only last 10 years).

momsickle

Don’t. Look up PFS (post finasteride syndome). It can permanently ruin your life

Peckartyno

Into the Canadian junior mining world. You’re underestimating the scale and complexity of the Canadian Shield. It’s a land with like 2 million lakes (seriously). It’s fucking impossible to build anything up there without running into about a thousand lakes, bogs and forests along the way. Forget about roads. So unless there are proven minerals (which have a mining PFS study at least) that are IMMEDIATELY on the vicinity of this location it will likely be a completely worthless investment. I would bet there are just far more accessible and economical locations with mining to make this very far down the list of locations to invest in.

goatcroissant

https://www.bmj.com/content/354/bmj.i4823 Conclusion:5-α reductase inhibitors do not seem to significantly increase the risk of incident erectile dysfunction, regardless of indication for use. Risk of erectile dysfunction increased with longer duration of benign prostatic hyperplasia. The PFS group is the weirdest group on the internet.

Humaniac99

Hello all, I am Humaniac99 CFA, CFP, CIC, ChFC, CMA, CFS, CIMA, CMT, PFS, CLU, CTP, CHFM, CHFP, CIIA, CM&AA, ChEA, ERP, FPAC, FRM and I am a financial advisor. Ask me anything!

Awkward-Distance2672

ChatGPT The value of a mine is often estimated as a percentage of the total value of the deposit. This is because an in-ground resource does not automatically equate to the full market value of the contained metal or mineral. The valuation depends on the development stage and other economic factors. Percentage-Based Valuation by Development Stage 1. Exploration Stage (0–5% of the deposit’s total value) • Very high risk, as no proven reserves exist yet • Valuation is based on drill results and initial geological estimates • Investors apply steep discounts since many projects never reach production 2. Advanced Exploration / Development Stage (5–15%) • Defined resources (Indicated & Measured) but no production yet • Preliminary Economic Assessments (PEA) or Pre-Feasibility Studies (PFS) increase certainty • Higher valuation but still significant risk due to permitting and funding challenges 3. Feasibility & Construction Stage (15–35%) • Feasibility Studies confirm economic viability and reserve classification • Mine construction begins, but financing and execution risks remain • Valuation increases as the project nears production 4. Production Stage (35–100%) • The mine is fully operational, generating revenue • Valuation is based on cash flow, reserves, and remaining mine life • Mature producers may trade close to the net asset value (NAV) of their reserves Factors Affecting the Percentage Applied • Jurisdiction & Political Risk (stable regions receive higher valuations) • Metallurgical Recovery Rates (how much of the metal can be extracted profitably) • Financing & Debt Levels (higher debt can reduce valuation) • Commodity Prices & Market Conditions (boom cycles increase valuations) Mines in early stages typically trade at a steep discount to their in-ground metal value, while established producers can trade closer to full value.

somedaysoon26

Tmc is a pre-revenue company. They have Allseas, a global leader in underwater pipelines and subsea construction, as their partner. Together, tmc and Allseas have proven out and tested exactly how this will work, from the robotic collector on the seafloor to processing of nodules into valuable metals. It all works and the prefeasibility study (PFS) should be coming out in the next several weeks, which should validate those numbers and show that it is lower cost than terrestrial mining... Revenues will be real, massive, and immediate. It's not that the math is malarkey, but the risk is that they don't get regulatory approval. But if you dig more into this stock and the reasons for regulatory holdup, you'll likely be convinced that the regulatory side will soon be a non-issue.

SeaEconomist5743

The main issue is regulations - currently not permitted by the ISA to mine however they’re submitting an application in June to do so, snd with rising geopolitical tensions, rising global interest and demand, many studies over the last 10 years dispelling concerns about environmental impact (it’s certainly better than land based mining and labor), and of course the new White House administration - which TMC has various ties to, TMC has first moved advantage and is primed to take off once either ISA or the USA says go. I have a decent size position in TMC, next few months will have key developments with the PFS report and application submission, along with any other developments, this year will be a make or break year IMO. Def do your own DD, still speculative at this point!

somedaysoon26

100 percent. The PFS will put this on more whales radars when they see it is lower cost than terrestrial mining and do some digging to understand how close we are to regulatory clarity and approval. 2025 going to be a monster year for tmc!

rookworst82

You seem to be a bit delusional. It is exactly the opposite. IMO the current market cap is very low. When the PFS is submitted soon you will find out 🤣. What is the woo woo shit please explain. I now TMC Allseas already succesfully vacuumed 4500 tonnes of potato sized nodules! And these nodules can be melted into high grade alloys without any major changes to existing PAMCO furnaces! It is looking good! That are facts, so please do your DD a bit better or shut up!

rookworst82

You seems to be living in the past with your concerns. Please try a bit better on your DD. TMC could already start mining if they want but TMC decided to wait for ISA to finalize the rules and regulations. But if it will take too long....they might start! Imo this stock will rock when PFS is submitted soon and expect to fly when production starts!

rookworst82

Convinced this will be big! In meantime keep the on the look for Preliminary Feasability Study! The PFS will imo ignite the stock and we will take off! It is expected soon! March will be excited and June will be crazy!!!!!

somedaysoon26

So you understand how the production cost curve works if you're in the business? If tmc is on the low end of the cost curve relative to terrestrial mining, they'll still do just fine. These commodities are also cyclical and we are seeing low prices paired with global under investment. That underunvestimate will be a recipe for rapid increase in prices. Either way if you're lowest on cost curve, you'll do quite well. PFS release in the next several weeks will confirm.

somedaysoon26

I mean, everything has been proven out for tmc so the market is just more accurately reflecting that reality. Their PFS is essentially done and will be released any week now. The regulatory body has a meeting next month to discuss how to approve exploitation applications if the regulations haven't been finalized. Tmc is submitting application in june. Buying puts might be a bit risky, but hey if you got money to burn why not!?

somedaysoon26

It's true, this fell massively. Mostly due to inaction on the regulatory front. But nothing has changed in terms of the potential if they can get go-ahead, which is looking increasingly likely. They are releasing their PFS very soon, holding a strategy day for investors to explain their new services business, and the ISA meeting in march will bring clarity on application process. Things are entirely different today, than when they spacd.

somedaysoon26

Tmc is a pre-revenue company. They have Allseas, a global leader in underwater pipelines and subsea construction, as their partner. Together, tmc and Allseas have proven out and tested exactly how this will work, from the robotic collector on the seafloor to processing of nodules into valuable metals. It all works and the prefeasibility study (PFS) should be coming out in the next several weeks, which should validate those numbers and show that it is lower cost than terrestrial mining... Revenues will be real, massive, and immediate. It's not that the math is malarkey, but the risk is that they don't get regulatory approval. But if you dig more into this stock and the reasons for regulatory holdup, you'll likely be convinced that the regulatory side will soon be a non-issue.

SeaEconomist5743

The main issue is regulations - currently not permitted by the ISA to mine however they’re submitting an application in June to do so, snd with rising geopolitical tensions, rising global interest and demand, many studies over the last 10 years dispelling concerns about environmental impact (it’s certainly better than land based mining and labor), and of course the new White House administration - which TMC has various ties to, TMC has first moved advantage and is primed to take off once either ISA or the USA says go. I have a decent size position in TMC, next few months will have key developments with the PFS report and application submission, along with any other developments, this year will be a make or break year IMO. Def do your own DD, still speculative at this point!

bcar444644

That is correct, they are burning cash until they can start mining. The PFS coming out soon will certainly give this thing another bump; and voting on mining regulations is still up in the air so its a gamble. But i am hearing $5 a share by summer. Im up 60%

SeaEconomist5743

Lutnicks nomination vote scheduled for 2/5 and Gerard just posted on X today that he’s been spending a lot of time in the eastern time zone and working to seize opportunities with the new administration, and the PFS is coming soon. Add in the upcoming mining conferences, Rubio’s meeting with India, ISA meeting in March )which includes reviewing for approval)….its about to get wild 🤘🏻

am-reddit

I use Quicken - using it for a couple of decades. Moved from MS Money to Quicken. It does much more than that and it is not necessarily an investing-friendly as its a PFS. But its reporting feature, connecting with Brokerages an Banks, Budget, Bill Pay, Tax software integration all good - Its the only software product that I pay for. Most probably moved on to mint, apps, etc. It may not be cool or UX friendly or impress a new customer (as u can see from the comments). I know it well and its features not matched by the newest PFSes - IMO.

3ebfan

Yeah, the problem with oral solid dose is that you need ~10x the API to get the same effect through the stomach with these GLP-1s vs. PFS. Not as viable at the moment. Source: Industry insider

ReneRobert

Exactly. For those not aware, PFS means pre-filled syringe. Injection via needle is definitely the most (maybe only) viable method for these drugs currently. I'm not sure there are any successful oral medications that come close to the effectiveness, despite random websites selling them.

3ebfan

There’s a global shortage of PFS filling capacity. Even if a smaller company can make a comparable drug they are going to have a hard time manufacturing it. It takes ~5 years to get a new filling operation up and running.

CosmicSpiral

**Thor Explorations Ltd. Q3 2024 Report** * 18,167 ounces (“oz”) of gold sold with an average gold price of $2,328 per oz. * Gold (“Au”) poured for the period totaled 20,110 oz. * Cash operating cost of $585 per oz sold and all-in sustaining cost (“AISC”) of $766 per oz sold. * Revenue of $40.2 million (Q3 2023: $36.6 million). * EBITDA of $27.4 million (Q3 2023: $10.5 million). * Net profit of $17.5 million (Q3 2023: $0.9 million). * Senior debt facility reduced to $3.9 million as of September 30, 2024. This debt is scheduled to be fully repaid by the end of Q4 2024. * Transitioned from a net debt position of $2.7 million on June 30, 2024 to a net cash position of $2.7 million on September 30, 2024. **Operational Profile** * The priority of the Company’s exploration strategy is extending the Segilola mine life through delineation of potential additional underground resources at Segilola. An initial 12-hole drilling programme continued during the period with initial positive drill results received from the first two holes of 3.0 meters (“m”) grading 11.24g/t Au from 294m and 1.5m grading 3.22g/t Au from 269m. * The remaining Pre-Feasibility Study ("PFS") and Mineral Resource Estimate update workstreams are being completed, with a target completion in Q4 2024. Currently, estimated total reserves at the Douta project in Senegal total 1.78 million gold ounces at 1.2 g/tAu. * RC drilling activities around the Makosa deposit were completed during the period. The programme was focused on increasing the percentage of oxide resources at the Makosa East Prospect, which runs parallel to the main Makosa mineralized trend and is additional to the current mineral resource. Additional infill drilling was completed at the Makosa North, Mansa and Maka prospects. * During the quarter, Thor expanded its operations into Cote d’Ivoire following the signing of a binding agreement with Endeavour Mining Corporation to acquire a 100% interest in the Guitry Gold Project for $100,000 in cash and a 2% Net Smelter Royalty. Guitry is an advanced exploration project characterized by numerous gold-in-soil geochemical anomalies that have only been partially drill tested by the previous explorers. Some of the drill results include 1m grading at 12.03 g/tAu, 12m at 10.4g/tAu, 16m at 7.90g/tAu, 2m at 6.97 g/tAu, 4m at 5.73 g/tAu, 3m at 4.74 g/tAu, 16m at 2.25g/tAu, and 24m at 2.02g/tAu. * Earlier in 2024, the Company entered into an option agreement with Goldridge Resources SARL to acquire an 80% interest in the Boundiali Exploration permit, an early-stage gold exploration project located in northwest Cote d’Ivoire.

CosmicSpiral

> I think once we see some form of capital being returned to stockholders the stock will rerate at least a bit. Buying back stock at 1x fcf would do some crazy magic. > He was blaming a bad 2023 (falling production and whatnot). bad communication with disseminating news (for example what happened with the lithium exploration they had going on?). The standout problem in the back half of 2023 was the ore grade. [If you look at the resource model page in their Q3 presentation](https://thorexpl.com/site/assets/files/2777/thor_corporate_presentation_v20_09_24-oct.pdf), the pit has a 4.05 g/t average but 95% of the high-grade assays are 60 meters or deeper. The mining teams enjoyed hitting layers of the surface rich material in 2022, but they were stuck sifting through 0.5-1.5 g/t material between Q2 2023 and Q1 2024. Combine that with the scheduled plant upgrades in Q4 + Q1 and high AISC, and it's no wonder revenue and profit cratered. Now they're slowly returning to excavating those high-grade deposits along with falling AISC. You can see the fluctuations in ore grade in the mining section of the 10-Qs. My understanding on the lithium front is that geological mapping and sampling are still ongoing, but the company is putting most of its current efforts in accelerating the Douta PFS and exploring the underground cavity at Segilola. > Also the (perceived) very short life left on Segilola probably makes people look for alternatives. Short life compared to a 10-15 year mine, but the ore grade is 8x the cutoff point for open pit profitability. As open pit is the cheapest means of producing gold, they get massive leverage with every increase in gold's price. It's a unicorn mine in that sense.

ding1133

A little late to this post, but solid DD. EQX is the second largest position in my portfolio and I continue to add. I’m heavily loaded on $10 Jan 26 calls, and recently started loading on Jan 27 calls. I think the market is going to be pleasantly surprised on the cash flow being generated with Greenstone in production and the company has been very conservative with the numbers, the mine has been equipped to handle 12% more than the numbers in the PFS and DFS, and they’ve hired they intend to hit those equipment limits and have planned power generation for them. Recent currency devaluations in Mexico and Brazil will contribute 6-8% reduction in costs in those countries too. This is almost a no brainer, and the icing on the cake is Rick Rule loves this stock - a Ross Beaty stock. Something like 14 out of 16 Ross Beaty stocks have been 10 baggers for Rick Rule.

chuckle_fuck1

Compare PFS of ide-cel (BMS) https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2024850 figure 2A to cilta-cel (J&J) https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2303379 Figure 2. Substantially longer duration of duration of response/PFS in J&J product. Also we’re running trials for both of these products where I work, survival statistics are in line with these publications for each respective product

apothecarynow

>The results show that their drug ivonescimab trumped Keytruda ($MRK) in treating stage IIIB-IV, PD-L1 positive (cancerous tumor) NSCLC patients. I heard this headline as well but where are the numbers? Statistically significant PFS by how much? And then I study only being performed in China... I bought a little bit to be in the race but there's still a lot of questions I have with it. https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/analysts-impressed-after-summit-akesos-pd-1vegf-antibody-triumphs-over-keytruda-lung-cancer#:~:text=Whereas%20Keytruda%20targets%20the%20PD,growth%20factor%20(VEGF)%20protein.

Latter-Truth-5968

I was looking to buy stock in PFS, PFC, and BFH. You think that would be a bad idea?

this-user-name-sucks

They (NWBO) have achieved success in glioblastoma? A randomised and placebo controlled trial was conducted, showing those given a placebo had a better PFS, as well as OS, which means the vaccine failed. The trial was initially designed as a prospective multicentre placebo-controlled and randomised PhIII. Patients with ndGBM were to be randomised in a 2:1 ratio to either DCVax-L or placebo. The primary endpoint was PFS and secondary endpoint was OS. The mPFS was 6.2 months for DCVax-L patients; mPFS was 7.6 months for placebo patients. The HR for DCVax-L was 1.1., which means a 10% increased risk of tumour progression. Also, the others trials you talk about have nothing to do with NWBO. In addition, the company has been using third parties to ''promote'' (pump) them for years and years (they still do!) [Behind The Promotion Of Northwest Bio | Nasdaq](https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/behind-promotion-northwest-bio-2014-07-07)

lUNITl

If only the PFS endpoint is confounded why are they writing in their annual report that both endpoints were confounded? You're just reading it incorrectly. There was no last minute changed that solved this problem for them. Following the FDA's guidance on how to handle all of your endpoints being confounded does not mean they still need to accept your results. Lots of drugs would weasel their way into the market using this strategy if it were viable.

OldenBoy

exactly—so I’m not sure what we’re arguing about, then. The original endpoints, which were created before the phenomenon of pseudo-progression was known, were confounded due to pseudo-progression via crossover. Basically, tumors swell in response to the drug working, but it looks like they’re swelling from tumor growth. AKA, PFS endpoints don’t work. So they were changed. In tandem with this, the FDA has put out guidance (officially published last year) on the use of external controls, for precisely the type of trial NWBO concluded.

OldenBoy

yeah no crap, but the endpoints were changed BEFORE data lock to reflect Overall Survival, which is more important than PFS which is a proxy for OS. And those endpoints were confounded because patients who received placebo, if their tumor came back, were given the option to take the drug—which almost all did. This option was mandated by the FDA for ethical reasons. Do you think the FDA will punish them for following their own recommendation?

lUNITl

I think the difference is that CVM is putting themselves in a lot more legal jeopardy by outright claiming over and over that the study was successful and that they actually had the non chemo arm in the protocol the whole time. NWBO puts the fact that their study can’t be used for FDA approval in one line of their annual report each year and just points to research articles that make it sound like it could be approved. > > Under the Protocol the primary endpoint was progression free survival, or PFS, and the secondary endpoint was overall survival, or OS. **Both of these endpoints were confounded:** the PFS endpoint by pseudo-progression, and the OS endpoint by the “crossover” provision in the trial design https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/1072379/000141057823000185/nwbo-20221231x10k.htm

lUNITl

Because the study didn’t meet any of its endpoints. You guys are pointing to research articles that speak positively about the study without addressing the fact that there is no path to FDA approval without a new study. > Under the Protocol the primary endpoint was progression free survival, or PFS, and the secondary endpoint was overall survival, or OS. **Both of these endpoints were confounded:** the PFS endpoint by pseudo-progression, and the OS endpoint by the “crossover” provision in the trial design https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/1072379/000141057823000185/nwbo-20221231x10k.htm

lUNITl

> Under the Protocol the primary endpoint was progression free survival, or PFS, and the secondary endpoint was overall survival, or OS. **Both of these endpoints were confounded:** the PFS endpoint by pseudo-progression, and the OS endpoint by the “crossover” provision in the trial design https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/1072379/000141057823000185/nwbo-20221231x10k.htm They can’t get FDA approval. The study did not meet any of its endpoints. They hide this fact in a single line in their annual report every year to legally protect themselves. They will continue to mislead investors while diluting the stock, collecting large salaries, and loot the corpse of the company by handing contracts to friends and family.

lUNITl

> Under the Protocol the primary endpoint was progression free survival, or PFS, and the secondary endpoint was overall survival, or OS. **Both of these endpoints were confounded:** the PFS endpoint by pseudo-progression, and the OS endpoint by the “crossover” provision in the trial design https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/1072379/000141057823000185/nwbo-20221231x10k.htm Dead company

lUNITl

> Under the Protocol the primary endpoint was progression free survival, or PFS, and the secondary endpoint was overall survival, or OS. **Both of these endpoints were confounded:** the PFS endpoint by pseudo-progression, and the OS endpoint by the “crossover” provision in the trial design https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/1072379/000141057823000185/nwbo-20221231x10k.htm

lUNITl

> Under the Protocol the primary endpoint was progression free survival, or PFS, and the secondary endpoint was overall survival, or OS. **Both of these endpoints were confounded:** the PFS endpoint by pseudo-progression, and the OS endpoint by the “crossover” provision in the trial design https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/1072379/000141057823000185/nwbo-20221231x10k.htm

lUNITl

You should add this statement from their annual report so people don’t accidentally believe OP’s conspiracy theory and think this drug will get approved. The study’s design confounded both of its primary endpoints, it will not get approved. This is why the stock is basically worthless at this point. > Under the Protocol the primary endpoint was progression free survival, or PFS, and the secondary endpoint was overall survival, or OS. **Both of these endpoints were confounded:** the PFS endpoint by pseudo-progression, and the OS endpoint by the “crossover” provision in the trial design https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/1072379/000141057823000185/nwbo-20221231x10k.htm

Bigfoot_17

You're 4 years behind on this argument, the SAP (statistical analysis plan) was changed and approved by ALL RA's involved in the trial prior to unbinding of the data, can't massage what you can't see. OS (overall survival) is the gold standard, can't fake people living 5+ years after receiving DCVAX-L. Additionally with immunotherapy they discovered the tumor would swell due to the attacks from the immune system making it look like the tumor was growing when in fact it was getting killed off. That's why PFS (Progression Free Survival) was dropped as an endpoint. Again this argument about changed endpoints after unblinding was screamed and yelled by the FUDsters to try and protect their short positions and ultimately squashed by lead scientists such as Dr. Linda Liau in the trial. Cheers.

this-user-name-sucks

Randomised and controlled trials (typically) mandate a predetermined hypothesis, endpoints, and statistical analysis to avoid the possibility of data manipulation. The original primary endpoint (PFS) was changed, due to the claim of pseudoprogression. However, it had already been described before the trial began, with the RANO group updating the criteria in 2010 to address the issue. Considering that 92% of patients were enrolled between 2012-15, accounting for it in the (PFS) assessment could have been done with an amendment before most participants were enrolled. One should ask why it took NWBO 13(+) years after the first enrolled patient to decide PFS was no longer a valid endpoint in this trial, which is a major deviation from the original design. The changes in endpoints were made because PFS was ultimately negative.

BR0L0ELCUNAD0

Any thoughts on SolGold? .12¢ a share right now for SLGGF. ~300M market cap They are trying to sell the company to a major. What multiple do you think it will get considering the Cascabel PFS?

VerySmartDude

Currently looking at a play on $EFTR (biotech penny). Catalyst coming up Q1 2024 and some dude posted his DD/thoughts -> “mgmt feels very confident going into Q1 RCT data. Tomi improved PFS by 800% in CPI refractory pop & it’s looking to improve it just by 50% in CPI Naive pop. Data release was pushed by a Quarter because not enough PFS events were hit which is a positive.” | Now I’m looking at this stock and I see it’s running out of cash and it faces the risk of dilution however the actual drugs they are developing seem to be innovative. This increases chance on funding or BO on positive data (maybe). It seems to have big upside potential however I cannot understand if the risk vs reward is actually there, opinions?

Latter-Truth-5968

PFS Stock

zhouster13

$EFTR will release new PFS data on zotatifin + fulvestrant + abemacicib (ZFA triplet) during the SABCS annual meeting December 5-9 and it should be a catalyst for shares that were close to $1.50 after reporting data at ASCO earlier this year!

Fur-Frisbee

I don't find any other articles about this . But Axos bank is not a little known bank as the article states. It might be "little known" to them. What I don't understand is this trial. Even if a borrower supplies a punched up PFS or financial statements, lenders don't just say OK and give a person a loan. The lenders order appraisals , title work, etc etc. Sounds to me like this trial is bull shit honestly.

silentandwitty

Take a look at Axos bank and the handshake hundred million $ loan their ceo Greg garrabrants gave to Trump based on the value on his PFS.

this-user-name-sucks

I'm active on Twitter, SA and different boards. I have left comments on a number of different biotech's over the years, including TCRT (which I called an utter bioturd saying it would fail) and SGMO (said will be toast if the haemophilia therapy isn't approved). Also, what placebo claim? As for the crossover, when a trial is testing the efficacy of a new treatment, it's unknown if it may show a benefit or not. So, a crossover should be avoided since it can prevent an accurate evaluation of the (survival) results [When is crossover desirable in cancer drug trials and when is it problematic? - Annals of Oncology](https://www.annalsofoncology.org/article/S0923-7534(19)34568-5/fulltext) Because 90% of control (placebo) patients crossed over to the experimental treatment, survival couldn't be reliably analysed, which was the admission of the authors themselves! Moving to OS, as said (look at the data), those given a placebo lived longer. The fact that however many signed it doesn't mean much. Finally, I disagree with the authors that PFS is not an adequate endpoint for immunotherapy trials. But if it was, NWBO shouldn't have chosen it as the primary.

trburket

You expect us to believe that you spend your time searching out companies you deem “scams” to spread misinformation to help those that in your opinion “don’t know any better”. You are an absolute con artist and embarrassment of a human. You are purposely making misleading claims to hurt a small pharma company trying to improve the standard of care for a vicious form of cancer. Think about that. The funny thing about your placebo claim besides being wrong is that 90% of the patients in the trial ended up receiving dcvax in a crossover because of it’s efficacy. Their only mistake was originally making PFS as the primary endpoint but that is inconsequential compared to the OS data I’ve already shared above. There are other criticisms of the trial structure but ultimately 71 oncologists deemed the results significant enough to sign on to the Jama publication If anyone is following this conversation and is wondering who is telling the truth, I encourage you to read this unbiased abstract (link below) on the NIH website that includes some legitimate criticisms for how the trial was performed. Concerning our anonymous vigilante making idiotic claims about PFS above, I’ll leave you all with this information: PFS is not an adequate endpoint for immunotherapy studies because of the phenomenon of pseudoprogression, which is observed in approximately 40% of cases in vaccination trials [59]. Moreover, pseudoprogression is a frequent problem, especially in newly diagnosed MGMT-methylated GB; thus, PFS is a suboptimal endpoint for phase III trials, especially in this malignancy. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10296384/

this-user-name-sucks

No, you have not. The reality is that a randomised and placebo controlled trial was conducted, showing those given a placebo had a better PFS, as well as OS, which means the trial failed. As I said, the JAMA Oncology (such an intrinsically flawed) paper was an attempt to save the trial from this negative conclusion. I have not shorted the stock, just can't stand penny stock scams like NWBO, which allow some to get filthy rich off the backs of those who don't know any better.

this-user-name-sucks

Who designed the trial? NWBO. Who went with PFS as the primary? Again, NWBO. Pseudoprogression had already been described before the trial began, at least as early as 2000. The RANO group updated the criteria in 2010 to address this issue [Updated Response Assessment Criteria for High-Grade Gliomas: Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology Working Group | Journal of Clinical Oncology (ascopubs.org)](https://ascopubs.org/doi/full/10.1200/JCO.2009.26.3541?role=tab) Considering that over 91% of patients were enrolled between 2012 and 2015, accounting for pseudoprogression in the PFS assessment could have been done with an amendment before most were enrolled. You should ask yourself why it took NWBO around 13 years after the first enrolled patient to decide PFS was no longer a valid endpoint in the trial, which is a major deviation from the original design. The answer is that changes were made because PFS was ultimately negative. The same is true for OS. That is, those given a placebo lived longer. As for the JAMA Oncology paper, it was an attempt to save the trial from the negative conclusion. A second trial would have been the real answer instead of such an intrinsically flawed paper. Post hoc analyses are hypothesis generating, nothing else.