Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Or they might do a batch processing price, which is the same, no matter how many shots come out of that batch, and then a per shot cost as well. I don't think that is efficient pricing. But that could be the method given their pre-approval pricing model. I think on initial batches, they should record as much of their costs and profit as reasonable, on the initial manufacturing and not charge per shot the first year at all or, if they make enough batches for 3 years, maybe then they charge for shots year 2 and year 3. Assuming that they are extending survival and can increase that number of patients accordingly, given the combination with poly-iclc and hopefully Keytruda too, that could result in ultimately even bigger revenues per patient over the course of the patient's treatments, and yet even still, per month, far less than other competitive treatments per month, overall and a better quality of life for those patients.
Comparatively, Optune is $21,000, per month, indefinitely. So each year for Optune, that would be $252,000 per year forever. In theory, if they did not do the per shot pricing, and charged $250,000 to 260,000 for the batch of shots, for 1, 2 or 3 years, depending on the patient's tumor tissue and the ability to make however many batches the per cost might vary, but for the patients where more shots resulted, and who lived for those years and more, that would be an exceptionally good deal. Effectively half and even less than Optune, and in a combination, let's say with Poly-ICLC, a way better outcome IMHO. If the patient lived 9, 10 years and beyond, as in that one arm, the cost versus Optune is infinitesimal "per month", though "per month" would lack meaning in that context. You'd no longer be talking about survival "per month" but additional years. And I would expect patients living that long would no longer be doing more than monitoring, not getting shots anyway, so the cost would be long behind for them. And on a per year basis, again, compared to an Optune, just an infinitesimal cost for the benefit.
I do not have private message board. If you’re talking with someone named bio, this is a general name and there are people who use monikers not unlike mine. We’ve had this conversation before about this, and sticking it in here is not going to change reality. For instance, I am not Bio99, that is a different person and poster. He is on Reddit and Twitter and I am on both places. I did not create the Reddit board. It is not a private board. Twitter is not a private board either and I have the exact same moniker in both places as here. I do not believe I have ever communicated with you in either place either on a comment board, directly on twitter or even in private messaging.
I disagree on the issue of global manufacturing and costs and I think they will get a label much larger than just GBM, but despite GBM being an orphan designation, if you get North America and effectively Europe including treaty jurisdictions with the UK and US extending the approvals, and global manufacturing, you have economies of scale right off the bat. Add in other off-label and more easily extended labels today with real world data and you get economies of scale very early on.
I was not saying the machine produces 10 or 12 doses per patient, each cassettte being 1 dose. That depends on the specifics of their tumor tissue and requirements, what is in any given cassette batch per patient. The Cassette produces 1 batch with a range of shots. My point is 12 different patients 1 patient per each cassette. The cassette is an entire batch for one patient. 12 cassettes is 12 patient batches. The per shot batch is individualized and there may or may not be a per shot price it may ultimately be per batch but they may just allocate it out per shot, or they may standardize per shot even though one patient gets 9 shots out of a batch, another 5, etc.
I think it makes more sense for projections to price it out per batch and I think ultimately, it might average out to around 250,000 or 260,000 per batch or so, maybe more. If you get 2-3 years worth of shots, the first year of treatments might be paid up front and you hope the patient lives long enough to get the full range of shots, so also, again, the actual revenue may vary. It depends.
I think they should get the $250 to $260,000 up front from insurers in total. But, they will be talking to a variety of parties and may work out complex pricing negotiations and some of that might not be entirely public because it is what they charge one place might reasonably differ in another place or country. So I might do a 220,000 - 240,000 as a conservative estimate, per total batch. And there would be other costs but I would stick broadly just with revenue at this stage. They might ultimately charge for shipping, handling and storage as well, to incrementally address those costs.
But initially I’d estimate by whatever I thought was a reasonable revenue average per patient for each batch of vaccines.
Exactly, they can literally extend the business and create synergies for powerful new treatments and businesses. So that will be extremely valuable to both parties and create potentially massive growth. The doctors and hospitals are service points. They too could possibly serve a specialized and larger role extending labels and partnering in treatment validation. But I think they don't have the resources to be in the same league as the BP's. I could be wrong and, of course, it depends on how fast the BP's get this...
I think many BP CEO's and top executives are still fairly traditional and are still skeptical about how cell based treatments, such as this, can really fit into their businesses, so they may be slow on the uptake with regard to how much a threat NWBO is to their traditional businesses.
Yes. I agree completely.
It's a drug company, not an OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer), which is an entirely other kind of business, a business GM and similar companies are much more capable of, and comes with all kinds of different meanings and business requirements outside of the scope or capacity of NWBO and which are very low margin and just not something they'd be good at, and they'd lose all kinds of value to their drug franchise for a terrible business model.
Agreed. No need to turture out every detail. The franchise model is very powerful. I believe they will work it out skillfully and thoughtfully.
Yes, and no from my perspective. I agree there will be necessary work with hospitals, as with many of these new cell treatments, to prepare them to provide the treatment. But it will the best care for their patients and that's that. The doctors will receive training, there might eventually be a DCVax-L office nearby or on site to handle parts of the process. But I do not think that it will be franchised to doctors or hospitals necessarily. Maybe. A hospital COULD be a partner for developing and helping to market DCVax-L more broadly, for other cancers and helping to get it approved and licensed for a wider range of diseases, so maybe in that context.
But I think partners would have a much larger part than just dispensing the vaccine. The vaccine is easy to dispense already, that's a huge selling point. You don't need to partner with doctors to dispense it. You need to expand markets for it and expand it to all solid tumors. That's a partner, and they have a lot more work than something local.
So there will be different levels of collaborating organizations though and partners in any kind of customized treatment like this though. I just don't think it's like burgers and the franchisee is the doctor's office. I honestly don't know that I even like the name "franchise" except in the most general sense, as in business with a very particular role for the main company and then partners. I don't think people should take this to the idea of burgers and restaurants.
But I do believe there will be a franchise like business model to expand the potential customer base as rapidly as possible and partners who jump on it first, will seize a potentially much larger revenue stream than they'd imagine. For instance, of a major hospital company like Mayo Clinics, jumped on it and took on a huge portion of the costs for getting the label expanded to let's say pancreatic and liver cancers, or some particular area that makes sense, that might be a partner. However, rather, I don't think such hospitals would have enough money if this franchise were properly priced, to step into that kind of a role. I think that would have to be a Big Pharma co, like a Merck. And then they'd be the marketer, and you'd market that newly named product for that particular cancer, that way you'd not have Merck also marketing and taking revenue from the Brain Cancer line. XYZ drug would be for that specific category of treatment, even though at base, it really is just DCVax-L. This model is already followed in the drug industry, I believe.
I completely agree with the rest of your points, though as to BO, it could. However, if they pursue that model, I do not think we'd get full value for the business model early unless they do a bunch of deals up front and they have large revenues for those models in a manner that conveys the breadth and depth of their strategy.
They have plenty of capacity they can grow and they have a roll-out plan from manual to Flaskworks. They will have plenty of space to grow and then retrofit as well any space. They may also still do their regional financial authority required localized production, which would likely continue to be manual production since Flaskworks machinery would likely be dedicated to DCVax-L production.
I disagree.
Initially that may be the case, but they might do a deal where they want to market to particularly important cancers and even perhaps a combination drug/treatment and a company might be able to do a deal with them that the new treatment will be called XYZ. NWBO might handle the manufacturing for DCVax-L, but the final treatment might be branded and marketed under a new name. It might reference DCVax-L in marketing. All kinds of deals can be put together.
As for manufacturing and storage, I do not agree generally with your views on machines. I have always said that NWBO will likely have manufacturing facilities, which may continue to include a CDMO running that facility, to make DCVax-L, but they would never give the machines away or sell them for others to do with them whatever they want, for the DCVax-L production. Their technology is a critical competitive edge. They might license them under severe restrictions much later, so that a purchaser could not make a lysate based vaccine with dendritic cells of violate the license, but the problem with that is they lose IP ultimately because machines are easily backward engineered, once you do that and IP is terrible for any kind of machinery. And also, when you maintain close control of a secret sauce, your IP protection is basically FOREVER. Even when someone steals it from your careful care and protection, like Coke's "recipe", you can sue people for billions of dollars. Once you put it all out there, it's gone. Leasing or selling, it's the same thing. It's not going to happen in my opinion and if they did do it, long-term it's a HUGE mistake given the nature of their technology at base. They are NOT a CDMO, and Advent is simply a contractor. Advent as an inside the tent contractor though is in a special position and it would be better to work with one or only very few CDMOs rather than any and all. Again, trade secrets are extremely powerful ways to protect your IP and they last as long as you maintain the secret, so forever. But if you don't take care to maintain the secret, you lose the protection.
No, I disagree on different vials of cancer. Sure, if they come back for treatment. But if a person has both lung cancer and brain cancer at the same time, say metastatic cancer, but the cancers are different, and if they have surgery, a vaccine would be one batch with different tumors. There's be no reason to do it 2 different times. They are processing antigens, not making a different product.
I think you go too far into the weeds in this next part Gary. Of course they won't likely necessarily hold onto vaccine for decades patients. It costs space, money and capacity. However, if they had a research clause and had a reason to hold onto some portion of it, that would be up to their R&D or even commercialized research arm.
Each batch is in a completely enclosed "cassette". A machine at industrial scale can be doing multiple things at once. Some batches are likely just waiting for the next step while the DC's are processing the lysate/antigens, for instance. There is no reason for an entire machine to be sitting idle while a cassette is merely waiting for the next step and "brewing" the vaccine.
Agreed.
I usually agree, but I do not believe doctors or hospitals will be franchisees. This is something I frequently disagree about with Gary. I do not think they will franchise this out, but I do believe they intend to stay intimately involved even if they allow established companies to market DCVax-L under another brand name to address other cancers. I think they intend to stay intimately involved and to make those vaccines. Of course things can change with the right offer on the table.
I am sure shorts will give it their best to downplay its significance… even though it puts an exclamation point on a very important matter that has been misunderstood.
I said this before, but, I will repeat: If Flaskworks is able to produce concurrent vaccine batches, and it was my early contention that that was up to 10, but it turns out it is up to 12, which has always been one of my points when discussing Flaskworks early on, then this conclusion is way understated…
From your post:
I think it definitely means that they have no intention of giving up the business in whole or in part entirely, but will be part of every cancer and indication. I know LP has talked about how difficult it would be to just give away, for instance, lung cancer, to a large drug company, when it is the same drug.
So I think you are correct.
Often that slight extra volume can definitely create a strong rise and 7.73% up is not weak or even mediocre. It was a strong finish. As I said earlier in the day, it takes the market often a while to digest news that is not revenue related or about a major change like approval. Even sometimes big news can not make a dent or result in a decline despite being great news. So for only with a minor blip in volume, having a solid rally of 7% speaks to confidence despite there being more than a billion shares and being on the OTC.
Thank you so much Chiugray. I do a lot of research along the way but often lose the details after. I am sure I have that bookmarked along the way along with the research but just finding it amongst all the posts rebutting short nonsense just makes it challenging given other things I do and keep track of as well.
Much appreciated!
Looks like a strong close with volume above average.
Shorting, it no doubts frustrates a short when they expand the number of shares artificially and exponentially and there are still buyers… aww, you’ll recover.
Someday. When you find a stock that really is a fraud. Fingers crossed that you don’t have to keep trying to manufacture frauds when you can’t find them.
They have validated measures for viability of cells and potency already established, which they have talked about before. There are established quality measures and whether a person or a “machine” makes it, it is literslly (not comparatively) the same exact processes. Those measures are and will be valid for the same product, in exactly the same manner. Your verbal effort to manufacture differences doesn’t make it actually so.
Don’t be flatworld level ridiculous in a 3 dimensional world. See the forest for the trees and at least pretend to be rational.
Thanks so much Sukus!! All the best!
Thank you Chiugray! I believe you are correct!
I know. I think this one had a giant, nasty worm in it too, so I can imagine it made him a bit ornery, and I think he may need dentures, so despite being rotten and having a worm, I would not be surprised if he left a tooth or two in the poor worm and apple.
Interesting and of course not surprised there. ExW and I had discussed and argued about the same matter the year before and gone through the merger agreement where the terms for their shares vesting and their leaving were addressed.
It’s not unusual for such people to take these things out of context and exaggerate to advance their pecuniary interests, unfortunately.
I said nothing counter to that. So your impatience suggests you have a challenge reading and I understand it is difficult for you. You’ll learn.
No, there was a financial crisis that stopped their trial initially, then the issue of crossover and pseudorecurrence meant they let the trial run to prove OS instead of PFS which by definition means a longer trial.
I doubt the translation issue was about translating to “English” but rather was likely about having a local German firm review the communications with the German tax authorities and advise an international and complex drug related company in the intricacies of German law and ultimately as to how the German authorities misunderstood or they misunderstood the issue and then how to mitigate and negotiate the outcome…
But for you, given how little you know about these things, it was “how to translate from German to English”
Then there was the issue of dealing with authorities on the ECA, ensuring it was insulated from bias, utilized external, fully trial blinded experts and that it took into account all of the complexities and complications for comparing this particular trial to basically all the main trials that occurred concurrently and where things were not directly comparable, then statistical tools for addressing and measuring particular differences that would address any questions arising therefrom.
They are not making it and it is apparently already “made”, now they have an outside third-party services making cGMP versions.
For you, everything is magnified in the manner that best suits the economic outcome that benefits you even though virtually every step of the way, you have been flatly wrong and basically lied, when you in fact did not know.
You’re ridiculous. The third-party manufacturer is not hand crafting them one by one presumably and even if they were, typically skilled party can even put together a home faster than you’re speculating about the process. Further if they have a few cHMP models or even one, it is likely enough to begin the process of validation.
No, they bought the company, with initial obligations of certain key employees to help in the transition, not necessarily to stay forever. NWBO owns the patents, technology and already owned the know how for their own vaccine. Now they exclusively own this technology, and have prepared and modified it to maximize their capacity for simpler and immensely more productive commercial manufacturing.
Agree 100%.
Sometimes it takes a few days for subtler information to register as well. This is not “money”, it’s about advancing a critical process. Even when highly significant, the small community of investors following a company like NWBO may already be fully invested and the significance might not register in a larger community for a while or not until later news or commercialization of the new technology.
ExW appears to have gotten his “Flaskworks competitor” from the profile link for the NWBO collaborator firm that the woman in this LinkedIn profile works for…
“5. Northwest Biotherapeutics created a DCVax platform to treat a wide range of solid tumor cancers.
— Ida Bogac (@albtur_mnymkrs) February 6, 2024
These continuing efforts herald a potential breakthrough in alternative cancer prevention and treatment regimens. “$nwbo #dcvax pic.twitter.com/pwACyXzVHa
Definitely not a manufacturing tool. All anyone has to do is look at what it is… it’s equipment NWBO would maybe use in prep to spin out the dc’s before they begin to make the vaccine by hand… nothing more.
When shorts are caught by surprise, all they can do is pretend to know what they are talking about, supply a “link” if they can and then bluff…
It’s interim news, so your ridiculous glee is nothing to notice. It’s pure Dunning-Kruger nonsense…
You clearly have no idea what you’re talking about. A casual dive into that site tells anyone vaguely knowledgeable that this is not anything like the Flaskworks machinery or technology and that this machine does not manufacture anything like DCVax-L. You might be able to use it for prep before you then do the actual manufacturing of a vaccine like DCVax-L, but this is not at all what you think it is…
This machine is for separating DC’s not for a cGMP manufacturing process of a real clinical vaccine. This is for separating dendritic cell types and mixing them a bit, it has nothing to do with actually creating a state of the art vaccine for a manufacturing process. This is basically a clinical machine you might use in prep for a manual process like NWBO does now.
Did you even look at the brochure or the actual “machines”? Total nonsense.
No, they already have units, they just need a cGMP version. And this other company having their claimed units doesn’t mean they can make every product. Flaskworks had such units when they were bought, but to get the machines to the specific requirements of a particular product and the cGMP takes more than reading a website claim and equating the two…
More on general IP Protection, old post
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=172826539
I do not consider myself uninformed. I think this is the obvious circumstance. Flaskworks will come along shortly. I think I also previously predicted how they would get it approved, that it would not require human testing or any of the things some suggested and that you would be able to do multiple different batches at once in one system. All things that caused my assertions to be challenged.
It’s looking very good and very exciting, and the patent process as well, is extremely exciting. These will become core and very important patents for maintaining ownership of the Lysate + DCVaccine pipeline. Others will not only need to create, and trial and prove survival numbers comparable to DCVax-L, but they will also need the manufacturing technology. NWBO can become a go to for vaccine inventors and a partner for commercializing such vaccines also, if they want to go that route and if there are new innovations that make that a profitable and viable route. But most importantly, regardless, they will have a solid set of patent moats to protect the company and investors.
Very exciting PR in my opinion!
Why do you throw out these patented lies every day? It’s really strange at this point.
Not news. And it cannot attack the diversity and reality of unknown and broad antigens like DCVax-L. Further, it will take them years to accumulate the survival data NWBO has even if it has some efficacy, which may be very unlikely given past efforts to attack handfuls of known antigens only. If everyone gets a different mix of different antigens, how do you even measure which human concocted version worked and which didn’t? Seems like a questionable endeavor.