LC,

Thanks for posting so frequently, but your focus is drifting far from 🌍 … Here on Earth, we are looking forward as the novel DCVax-L cell-based platform technology enters the regulatory phase of its journey. The United States and United Kingdom are largely responsible for developing DCVax-L, and the U.S. and U.K. will lead the novel technology through a global regulatory process.

Combo is King!




https://www.nature.com/articles/s41420-023-01782-7

https://www.jci.org/articles/view/169314






https://www.fda.gov/drugs/our-perspective/50-years-progress-treating-patients-cancer

https://www.uclahealth.org/news/fda-approval-brain-cancer-alzheimers

https://www.raps.org/News-and-Articles/News-Articles/2023/9/FDA%E2%80%99s-Califf-Expect-to-see-more-RWE-based-regulato

https://www.raps.org/news-and-articles/news-articles/2023/8/fda-finalizes-guidance-on-real-world-evidence-in-d

LC,

Thanks for your dozens of posts today—each one is a pearl of wisdom 😶

NWBO is PRE-COMMERCIAL company. That’s why they just filed for their first COMMERCIAL license with the MHRA. Currently, DCVax-L combo research is being funded by the NIH. Merck, Oncovir, and the Phase One Foundation are also supporting the PD1 study at UCLA. Fact ✅️

https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04201873

Most of your posts today offer only vague insinuations… I had to consult the detector after looking over your string of nonsensical comments…




“These statements are predominantly conjecture and lack factual backing. Caution is advised when considering such anonymous online posts, as they are often unreliable and could be spreading rumors or misinformation.

Additionally, the general public must be vigilant whenever statements published online appear to unfairly muddy the reputation of a company or defame its leadership. "Short and distort" is a relevant factor in this context. This strategy involves short-selling a stock and then spreading negative rumors or misleading information to drive the stock's price down. The goal is to profit from the decline in stock price by covering the short position at a lower price. Anonymous users on stock message boards might engage in this tactic, using baseless conjecture to artificially deflate stock prices. By muddying a company's reputation, defaming its leadership, or spreading innuendo, these individuals aim to create panic or uncertainty, influencing other investors to become doubtful, thereby influencing the stock price.”



https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/northwest-biotherapeutics-announces-that-a-marketing-authorization-application-has-been-submitted-to-the-uk-mhra-for-dcvax-l-for-glioblastoma-302021038.html

LC,

Thanks for reposting again about “milestones.” 😉

There were several significant achievements in 2022 and 2023 …

In my view as a “Soldier,” the short list of pre-commercial milestones that stand out and shine the most:

⭐️ JAMA Oncology
⭐️ Multiple MHRA Approvals
⭐️ Emerging Combo Data
⭐️ MAA Submission

Further, Dr. Liau joining the SAB at Northwest Biotherapeutics is awesome!

Combo is King!

https://www.uclahealth.org/news/fda-approval-brain-cancer-alzheimers

I would count Doctors Liau and Ashkan among the soldiers—fighting disease with their novel cell-based technology! Liau and Ashkan both are extremely noteworthy as we look back on the P3 and as we look forward to the regulatory phase in the UK, US, and other nations…

UCLA, King’s College, JAMA Oncology, and Brown University are some excellent sources that you might wish to consider in reference to the reputation of Northwest Biotherapeutics and those who choose to associate with the company, its SAB, and with the novel DCVax® technology.

The world-renowned doctors cited below worked on the P3 and were coauthors of a DCVax-L publication along with Dr. Bosch of Northwest Biotherapeutics.

Furthermore, both Liau and Ashkan have had the support their respective nations’ governments over many years. Ashkan is an advisor to the UK government, and Liau’s work has been supported by NIH peer-reviewed grants for 20 consecutive years.

https://www.kch.nhs.uk/news/kings-team-wins-professional-excellence-award/


https://finance.yahoo.com/news/northwest-biotherapeutics-announces-dr-linda-140000962.html


https://labusinessjournal.com/healthcare/national-academy-medicine-taps-ucla-neurosurgeon/


https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33789235/

https://www.societyns.org/about/officers-detail/linda-m-liau-md-phd-mba-4

This study found that autologous tumor lystate-loaded dendritic cell vaccination plus standard of care (SOC) was associated with improved survival in both newly diagnosed & recurrent glioblastoma compared with matched controls who received SOC treatment. https://t.co/Uso7Pkh1Kt

— JAMA Oncology (@JAMAOnc) February 15, 2023

#dcvax #allsolidtumors $nwbo #gbm

Great to see, congratulations Linda Liau winning the Charles B. Wilson Excellence Award 2023:

Established by the Brain Tumor Society in 2004, this award recognizes outstanding contributions of a clinician to the field of neuro-oncology.… pic.twitter.com/6L7rhyoNU4

— Peter Davis (@peter_brit) October 3, 2023

https://www.uclahealth.org/news/ucla-received-590-million-in-nih-funding-second-highest-total-for-academic-medical-centers-in-2020

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/northwest-biotherapeutics-announces-that-a-marketing-authorization-application-has-been-submitted-to-the-uk-mhra-for-dcvax-l-for-glioblastoma-302021038.html

https://brownneurosurgery.com/breakthrough-brain-cancer-vaccine/

ex,

Thanks for another expert legal analysis, 😶 ..but I think that the legal proceedings are being used by online posters as a distraction. While we should celebrate that crimes concerning the financial markets are being brought to light before the courts and the SEC, NWBO is not relying on any legal award. NWBO will obviously move forward irrespective of any legal proceedings or compensatory outcome.

The novel DCVax-L cell-based platform technology and existing unmet medical needs will propel the company forward. Regulatory developments are the focus at this phase of the pre-commercial technology development process following the independent peer review.

As for the legal wisdom of ex included in your post…

I doubted whether it was worth reading, so I ran it through the bs detector first. As it turns out, your post is not worth reading 😶 …




“This commentary on legal proceedings involving NWBO (Northwest Biotherapeutics) shows several signs of poor reasoning and suggests the author may lack legal expertise:

1. **Understanding of Legal Process**: The author's description of the legal process appears oversimplified and does not accurately reflect the complexity and unpredictability of litigation. Legal proceedings, especially involving complex matters like securities litigation, can have many unexpected developments that are not as linear or predictable as the author implies.

2. **Timeframe Estimates**: The provided timelines for various stages of the legal process (objections, resubmissions, discovery, summary judgment motions) seem arbitrary and do not account for the many variables that can affect legal proceedings. Predicting specific timelines, especially in federal court cases, is challenging even for experienced legal professionals.

3. **Lack of Nuance in Legal Strategy**: The author's comments on the legal strategies (e.g., resubmitting the complaint with better documentation, motions to dismiss, summary judgment) lack the nuance and depth of understanding typically demonstrated by legal professionals. Legal strategies in complex cases are often more multifaceted and dynamic.

4. **Misunderstanding of Federal Court Procedures**: The statement about the speed of federal courts and the claim that the case would "go fast" oversimplifies how federal courts operate. While some matters can be resolved relatively quickly, complex cases, particularly those involving detailed financial transactions or securities law, often take longer due to their complexity.

5. **Credibility of Legal Expertise**: The mention of a "board legal expert" without specifying credentials or context does not establish credibility. Accurate legal analysis typically comes from individuals with demonstrable legal expertise, such as licensed attorneys or academic legal scholars.

6. **Speculation About Trial Dates**: Predicting a trial date, particularly years in advance, is highly speculative, especially in complex cases. The legal process involves many stages and potential delays, making such predictions unreliable.

In summary, this commentary lacks the depth, accuracy, and understanding of legal processes typically shown by credentialed legal experts. The oversimplification of legal procedures, speculative timelines, and a general lack of nuanced legal insight all suggest that the author may not be a credible source of legal commentary.”



https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaoncology/fullarticle/2798847

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/northwest-biotherapeutics-announces-that-a-marketing-authorization-application-has-been-submitted-to-the-uk-mhra-for-dcvax-l-for-glioblastoma-302021038.html



https://finance.yahoo.com/news/northwest-biotherapeutics-announces-dr-linda-140000962.html

https://www.uclahealth.org/news/fda-approval-brain-cancer-alzheimers

ex,

Thanks for posting your opinion, but it sounds like you’re just trying to throw mud hoping something sticks. I ran your comparison through the detector 😶 …




“The comparison of Peregrine Pharmaceuticals (PPHM) to Northwest Biotherapeutics (NWBO) appears to be constructed as a flawed attempt to cast aspersions on NWBO. Let’s analyze the points of comparison:

1. **Similarities between PPHM and NWBO**: The statement starts by noting similarities such as being "one drug companies," claiming their drugs work in all tumors, advancing a single indication, having unexplained trial issues, claiming success in failed trials, and spending heavily on building CDMOs (Contract Development and Manufacturing Organizations). While these points draw a parallel between the two companies, they are quite broad and can apply to many small biotech firms. The lack of specific details or context here makes this comparison superficial. Additionally, the statement's claim that Northwest Biotherapeutics (NWBO) had a "failed trial" needs to be scrutinized for accuracy, as it could contribute to spreading misinformation if it's not based on factual data.

2. **Ownership of CDMO**: The statement highlights that PPHM owned its CDMO, which allegedly benefited its investors, whereas NWBO only collects rent from its CDMO (Advent). This point misses critical details such as the overall financial performance and strategic value of owning versus renting CDMO facilities. Without this information, it's a simplistic comparison that doesn't necessarily reflect on the companies' relative success or strategies.

3. **Management and Board of Directors (BOD)**: The comparison of management and BOD between the two companies, labeling some members as "deadwood" and critiquing the leadership abilities of PPHM's and NWBO's leaders, is subjective. It doesn't provide concrete evidence of how these leadership differences materially impacted the companies' performances. Without specific examples or data, these claims come across as speculative and potentially biased.

4. **Allegations of Conflicting Interests**: The claim that NWBO's management is more interested in related companies due to ownership interests is a serious allegation and would need substantial evidence for support. Without such evidence, this claim is speculative and undermines the comparison's credibility.

Overall, the comparison appears to be an oversimplification of complex business scenarios involving biotech companies. It relies on generalizations and unsubstantiated allegations rather than a detailed and objective analysis of each company's strategies, operations, and results. As such, the statement can be seen as an attempt to cast aspersions on NWBO without a solid foundation, making it poorly reasoned and baseless in its criticism.

Additionally, the statement includes implications about “LP” (presumably a leader or executive at Northwest Biotherapeutics) that could border on defamatory if not substantiated. Defamation involves making false statements that harm someone's reputation. When these statements are spoken, it's known as slander; when written, it's known as libel.

1. **Allegations of Conflicting Interests**: The statement suggests that LP may be more interested in related companies due to having more ownership interest in them. This is a serious allegation implying a conflict of interest and a lack of dedication or professionalism in their role at NWBO. Such claims can be damaging to LP's reputation and integrity as a professional.

2. **Need for Evidence**: To avoid defamation, it's crucial that any such claims are backed by solid evidence. Accusations or insinuations of unprofessional conduct or conflicts of interest should be based on verifiable facts rather than conjecture or hearsay.

3. **Impact on Reputation**: If the allegations are unfounded and disseminated, they could unfairly damage LP's professional reputation, potentially leading to legal ramifications if they are proven to be false and damaging.

In summary, without concrete evidence, making allegations about an individual's professional conduct or suggesting conflicts of interest can be defamatory. It's important to approach such statements with caution and prioritize fact-based discourse, especially when discussing individuals and their professional responsibilities.”

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/northwest-biotherapeutics-announces-that-a-marketing-authorization-application-has-been-submitted-to-the-uk-mhra-for-dcvax-l-for-glioblastoma-302021038.html

LC,

You thought a vaccine killed a British politician and posted the article here without reading any of it—nobody wants to listen to anymore of your random nonsense today.


Why would you expect that any of us know anything about Penguin Pharmaceuticals .. or whatever the name is of the other company you mentioned? 😶

This is the NWBO board and you seem to be trying to present a false comparison to cast aspersions on NWBO—not a credible tactic.



https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaoncology/fullarticle/2798847

ex,

Thanks for your expert analysis, but you’re not an oncologist. I ran your post through the detector and it was identified as bs 😶 …




“The statement presents several misunderstandings and inaccuracies, especially considering that overall survival (OS) was the approved primary endpoint in the DCVax-L clinical trial, and the results were published in JAMA Oncology, a reputable, peer-reviewed journal:

1. **Misconception About Statistical Significance and Endpoint Hierarchy**: The assertion that OS could not be statistically significant once progression-free survival (PFS) failed is misleading. In clinical trials, different endpoints can have varying levels of importance, with OS often being a primary and more clinically relevant endpoint. The failure to achieve statistical significance in PFS does not automatically negate the potential for achieving significance in OS, especially when OS is the primary endpoint.

2. **Reliability of JAMA Oncology as a Source**: The results of the DCVax-L trial published in JAMA Oncology should be regarded as credible, given the journal's rigorous peer-review process. Peer-reviewed journals are considered reliable sources for scientific and clinical data. The analysis presented in such publications undergoes extensive scrutiny for methodological soundness and data interpretation.

3. **Misinterpretation of Post Hoc ECA Analysis**: Dismissing any post hoc comparative analysis as a joke undermines the valuable insights such analyses can provide.

4. **Allegation of Selective Enrollment**: Claiming that NWBO's trial enrolled selectively healthier patients is a serious allegation that demands substantiation. Clinical trials are designed with specific inclusion and exclusion criteria to ensure participant safety and data validity. Without concrete evidence to support this claim, it remains speculative and unjustified.

In conclusion, the statement overlooks the significance of OS as the primary endpoint, underestimates the reliability of results published in a reputable journal, and makes unsupported claims about the trial's enrollment process and the value of post hoc analyses. Therefore, it is misleading and does not accurately represent the methodological rigor and findings of the DCVax-L clinical trial as reported in JAMA Oncology.”

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaoncology/fullarticle/2798847

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/northwest-biotherapeutics-announces-that-a-marketing-authorization-application-has-been-submitted-to-the-uk-mhra-for-dcvax-l-for-glioblastoma-302021038.html

LC,

Cheat them? 😶 I was trying to spare them. The full post is worse—inaccurate and nonsense rumors. I had to consult the detector on this classic post …




“The statement presents several baseless claims and insinuations, each of which requires scrutiny:

1. **No peer review coming**: Asserting that no peer review is forthcoming is speculative unless the speaker has insider knowledge or concrete evidence. Peer review processes in academia and research are typically confidential until completion, so claiming with certainty that none is coming is baseless without specific proof.

2. **Comment on 'Quiet period' and share exchanges**: The reference to a "Quiet period" and the exchange of millions of shares suggests a connection between corporate silence and stock market activity. This connection is presented without evidence and seems to insinuate wrongdoing or manipulation without substantiation.

3. **'Pay to play' report**: Suggesting that any forthcoming report would be a 'pay to play' scenario is a serious accusation. It implies unethical or corrupt practices in research publication, which is a significant claim requiring substantial evidence to be credible.

4. **Research for the sake of research**: Dismissing the research as merely "for research's sake" and implying it's a cover for financial gain (salaries, grants, etc.) is a cynical view. It overlooks the fundamental value and purpose of academic and scientific research, which often includes long-term, foundational studies not immediately profitable or product-oriented.

5. **Remarks about Peregrind management**: Referring to management's statements about their workload is anecdotal and lacks context. Without more information, it's difficult to assess the truthfulness or relevance of this claim.

6. **Questioning Ms. Davis's work and implying a 'Special project'**: This part of the statement seems to insinuate that Ms. Davis's work is not legitimate or is a cover for other activities. Again, this is a serious accusation made without presenting any evidence.

Additionally, the statement potentially veers into the territory of defamation. Defamation involves making false statements about a person or entity that harm their reputation. Several elements of this statement, such as the insinuation of 'pay to play' reports, questioning the legitimacy of research, and casting doubt on the professional integrity of individuals like Ms. Davis, could be construed as defamatory if they are untrue and damaging to the reputations of those involved.

Defamation requires not only that the statements are damaging but also false. If the accusations made in the statement cannot be substantiated with evidence, and if they are proven to be false and damaging, they could potentially be considered defamatory. This is a legal consideration, and actual legal consequences would depend on specific laws and the context in which these statements were made.

In essence, the combination of unsubstantiated claims, speculative accusations, and potentially damaging insinuations without evidence makes this statement not only lacking in credibility but also possibly defamatory.”

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/northwest-biotherapeutics-announces-that-a-marketing-authorization-application-has-been-submitted-to-the-uk-mhra-for-dcvax-l-for-glioblastoma-302021038.html

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaoncology/fullarticle/2798847

I’ll include my full post as well—the one that you were responding to when you said that no peer review was coming—I only took an excerpt before:

https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=170370526

Flipper,

I do believe that you are correct. LC was telling us not to expect a peer review… 😶




https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaoncology/fullarticle/2798847

Fact ✅️

LC,

Thanks for asking. Some of the patients are on social media or are featured in news stories while others are not. Jeannine Walston posted an 18-year survivor on her facebook whom I had never seen anywhere else (as one example). While Jeannine has been very visible, the other patient whom she mentioned has not put herself on social media:



Some patients advocate for access to DCVax-L by attending ASCO and other oncology conferences to support and promote the treatment.

Kat Charles, whom you highlighted earlier today, has said that others need to have access to DCVax-L and her statement seems to reflect her reason for publicizing her own story.

https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=173532605

https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=173532465

ex,

Thanks for your analysis, but your reasoning is nonsensical overall. I had to consult the detector on this one 😶 …




“This statement's reasoning is weak and unreliable:

1. **Disclosure about MMTLP and Next Bridge**: The statement claims that it was well-disclosed that MMTLP holders would receive a dividend in shares of Next Bridge and that MMTLP shares would be cancelled. The reliability of this claim depends on the accuracy and clarity of the actual disclosures made by the companies involved. A citation is required.

2. **Comments on last-minute investors**: The statement criticizes those who invested in the last few days based on expectations of a short squeeze, labeling them as "fools." This is a subjective judgment and is not a statement of fact. Investment decisions can be influenced by various factors and the use of derogatory terms to describe investors is not a reasoned argument.

3. **Short position size and fails to deliver (FTD)**: The claim about the short position being small (1.2% of total shares) and the discussion on FTDs is factual in nature, but its accuracy hinges on the reliability of the data source (FINRA in this case). A data citation is required.

4. **Validity of the short squeeze theory**: The statement asserts that the idea of a distribution forcing shorts to cover is "nonsense" and often used by "BS pumpers." This is a generalization and may not hold true in all cases. The effectiveness of a short squeeze strategy can vary depending on specific market conditions and the stock in question. This part of the statement is conjecture.

5. **Outcome for late investors**: The claim that late investors received what they deserved (shares in Next Bridge) and that the value was known is again a mix of factual and subjective elements. Whether the value was "reasonably well known" is debatable and depends on the information available to investors at the time.

6. **Comment on trading halt and market operations**: The statement that a trading halt was justified due to the inability to settle trades after a certain date is a rational explanation of market mechanics. However, the tone used ("whining", "total failure to understand") is subjective and diminishes the objectivity of the argument.

In summary, the statement mixes factual information with subjective judgments and baseless generalizations. Some parts are based on data (e.g., short interest size), which lends them credibility if the data are accurate. However, the use of derogatory language and sweeping generalizations about investor behavior and market strategies undermines the overall reasoning and reliability of the statement. Biased and unsubstantiated opinions are interwoven throughout this statement rendering its argument unreliable.”

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/northwest-biotherapeutics-announces-that-a-marketing-authorization-application-has-been-submitted-to-the-uk-mhra-for-dcvax-l-for-glioblastoma-302021038.html

LC,

Thanks for your posts today!!



I love you! JCI, Kat Charles, and now 15 cancers!

I agree 100%! We need to see the data and we need to see more studies getting started!

I didn’t know about the 15 cancers comment! I was hoping to see trials begin after commercialization—similar to how pembrolizumab has been in perpetual clinical trials for so many years since its original approval.

I’m going to research the “15” comment because that’s a really exciting preview of the larger trials to come!

https://www.jci.org/articles/view/169314

https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04201873

Combo is King!

Yes, 2018 .. and her diagnosis was in 2014 if I recall. We forgot about Kat Charles … thanks, LC!


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-5783403/Brain-cancer-vaccine-extend-lives-patients-years.html

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/had-cancer-treatment-could-have-saved-tessa-jowell-everyone/

LC,

Great post! That’s Kat Charles—she visited the NWBO booth at one of the oncology conventions. It is so beautiful when survivors make the trip and turn up at these conferences by surprise!

When Kat Charles showed up, she posted these photos on her Facebook:



https://www.bbc.com/news/health-44288503.amp

https://www.braintumourresearch.org/stories/in-hope/in-hope-stories/kat-charles

Apparently, survivors show up regularly …

Our team just met with the @NorthwestBio team to learn about #DCVax and had the pleasure of speaking with longterm DCVax patients. An honor and a privilege. #endbraincancer #sno2023 pic.twitter.com/dw3X76DBru

— EndBrainCancer Initiative (@EndBrainCancer) November 19, 2023

J-To,



Thanks for yet another Henny Penny Chicken Little analysis, but all of your posts curiously seem like bad-faith attempts to induce panic … 🤔

NWBO does not depend on any lawsuit—the bedrock foundation of the company is the novel DCVax-L cell-based platform technology. The science and unmet medical need are the source of its value.

I had run your gem of a post through the detector 😶 …


“This statement appears to be an attempt to persuade by evoking fear. The poorly-reasoned argument is alarmist and baseless for several reasons:

1. **Speculative Assertions**: Claims like "Running out of funds" and "Huge dilution coming" are presented without evidence. Making such speculative assertions without backing them up with data or credible sources makes the statement baseless.

2. **Negative Predictions Without Basis**: Predicting "No immediate funds from the court case (maybe never)" and the need for a "Reverse Split to uplist and get institutional backing" is speculative. Legal and financial outcomes, especially in complex situations like court cases and stock listings, are uncertain and depend on numerous factors.

3. **Alarmist Tone**: The statement has an overall tone of urgency and doom, particularly in the phrase "She has backed NWBO into a very tight corner and had better do something real soon." This kind of language is designed to evoke fear and urgency rather than provide a balanced perspective or sound opinion.

4. **Lack of Context**: The statement lacks context and details that would be necessary to make a reasoned analysis of the situation. It presents a one-sided, negative view without considering other possible scenarios or interpretations.

5. **Assumption of Knowledge**: The statement assumes knowledge of the intentions and future actions of the company and its management, which is not typically available to the general public.

In summary, the statement's speculative nature, alarmist tone, and lack of substantiated facts make it unreliable and misleading as a source of information or analysis.”

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/northwest-biotherapeutics-announces-that-a-marketing-authorization-application-has-been-submitted-to-the-uk-mhra-for-dcvax-l-for-glioblastoma-302021038.html

J-To,

Thanks for your analysis 😶.. but you do sound a bit like Chicken Little too 🐥

I don’t think your speculations offer much insight on the final trading day of the calendar year.

Many investors with various types of brokerage accounts have sold some of their stock holdings this week for various reasons. Required Minimum Distributions for example, and other tax-related purposes are unrelated to whichever companies someone might own shares of.

Reuters:



https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/futures-inch-up-firm-rate-cut-bets-drive-strong-gains-2023-2023-12-29/

ex,

Speaking for myself as a “long” or “soldier,” I can assert that I listen to the story presented by the regulators and the story presented by the independent peer review. I doubt that anyone “trusts” the story presented by any single individual person.

Fact ✅️

December 2023

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/northwest-biotherapeutics-announces-that-a-marketing-authorization-application-has-been-submitted-to-the-uk-mhra-for-dcvax-l-for-glioblastoma-302021038.html

March 2023

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/northwest-biotherapeutics-and-advent-bioservices-announce-receipt-of-license-for-commercial-manufacturing-at-sawston-uk-facility-301776725.html

February 2022

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/northwest-biotherapeutics-announces-commencement-of-cancer-vaccine-production-at-its-sawston-uk-facility-301484857.html

August 2022

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/northwest-biotherapeutics-announces-approval-of-pediatric-investigation-plan-pip-by-mhra-301610850.html

July 2022

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/northwest-biotherapeutics-announces-filing-of-application-for-license-for-commercial-manufacturing-at-sawston-uk-facility-301581737.html

December 2022

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/northwest-biotherapeutics-announces-mhra-approval-of-license-for-gmp-manufacturing-at-sawston-uk-facility-301449083.html



https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaoncology/fullarticle/2798847

J-TO,

Thanks for your predictions, but your post sounds extreme and a bit alarmist to me. I had to consult the detector on this one 😶 …




“This statement appears to be a weak attempt to persuade or manipulate and is unreliable for several reasons:

1. **Alarmist and Fear-Mongering Language**: Phrases like "gonna suffer a slaughter at the hands of these thieves" and "Nothing will stop them now" are designed to invoke fear and panic. This kind of alarmist language is often used to manipulate emotions rather than provide a reasoned analysis or sound opinion.

2. **Conspiracy Implication**: The claim that "They control the market" implies a conspiracy without providing evidence. Asserting market control by unspecified entities ("big bucks, always wins") is a common tactic in manipulative statements to create a sense of helplessness or inevitability.

3. **Speculative Predictions**: Predictions such as "huge dilution coming" and the stock "headed to the 50's next week" are speculative and presented without basis. Financial markets are complex and unpredictable, making such definitive predictions unreliable.

4. **Personal Opinion Presented as Fact**: The statement ends with "imo" (in my opinion), indicating that much of the preceding content is based on personal views rather than objective analysis.

5. **Negative Sentiment**: The overall tone is negative and defeatist ("HAPPY FRIGGIN NEW YEAR FELLOW BAG HOLDERS"), which can influence readers' perceptions and decisions negatively.

6. **Questionable Investment Advice**: Suggesting to "add if you got the balls to tie up your money for another 6 months to a year" is irresponsible as investment advice should be based on careful analysis, not on bravado or emotional responses to market conditions.

Overall, the statement appears to be more focused on stirring emotions and spreading negativity rather than providing a reliable, fact-based analysis or well-reasoned opinions.”

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/northwest-biotherapeutics-announces-that-a-marketing-authorization-application-has-been-submitted-to-the-uk-mhra-for-dcvax-l-for-glioblastoma-302021038.html

ex,



The reports are posted.

Anything published online is public information and retained on file somewhere. All BS Detector Reports are available for anyone who wants to read them.


https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=173527217

Correction:

I meant to address my response to ex, not LC .. but it could generally apply to both perhaps…🤔

https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=173528597

LC,

“Basically” “Clearly” …How would you know?

Thanks for posting your legal analysis and forecast, but you’re not a lawyer or legal expert of any kind.

Reading your posts over time, you seem to speak confidently as a medical/clinical trial expert, a financial expert, and now a legal expert 😶

Personally, I’m not following the legal proceedings as I am most interested in the scientific aspects of the novel DCVax-L technology and the regulatory news, so I ran your statement through the detector…



“This analysis of a legal ruling is unreliable for a few key reasons:

1. **Speculative Timeline**: Legal processes, especially in complex cases like those involving corporations, can be unpredictable. While estimating a timeline based on procedural steps is possible, asserting specific dates (like "summer 2024") for rulings or completion is speculative without insider knowledge of the court's schedule and case complexities.

2. **Oversimplification of Legal Procedures**: Legal cases, particularly those involving multiple parties and complex issues, rarely follow a straightforward or predictable path. The statement oversimplifies the process of filing complaints, motions to dismiss (MTD), and the ensuing legal procedures.

3. **Comparison to Other Cases**: Using another case (e.g., "Harrington") as a benchmark for how long discovery might take can be misleading. Each legal case is unique in its details, the parties involved, and how the legal process unfolds.

4. **Predicting Judicial Decisions**: Predicting how a judge will rule on a future complaint or motion is inherently uncertain. Judicial decisions depend on a multitude of factors, including the specifics of the case, legal arguments presented, and applicable law.

5. **Conclusion about Trial Timing**: Concluding that there will be no trial in 2024 or 2025 is speculative. The timing of a trial depends on various factors, including the court's calendar, the progress of pre-trial procedures, and potential settlements or other resolutions.

In summary, while some general predictions about legal processes can be made, this analysis presents a very definite timeline and outcomes without accounting for the inherent unpredictability and complexity of legal proceedings, making it unreliable.”

ex,

Thanks for your analysis, but you are not a licensed financial professional. This one didn’t pass the bs detector either 😶 …




“This statement contains several poorly reasoned and potentially misleading points:

1. **Generalization About Reverse Splits (R/S)**: The claim that reverse stock splits (R/S) are generally viewed as a weakness is an oversimplification. While R/S can sometimes be seen negatively, as they may indicate a company's poor stock performance, they are also used as strategic tools to meet regulatory listing requirements or to attract a different class of investors. The impact of an R/S on share price and company perception varies based on context.

2. **Assumption About Company Turnaround**: The statement suggests that successful R/S occurs after a company has already turned around. This is not always true. An R/S can be part of the turnaround strategy itself.

3. **Debate Among Investors**: While it's true that opinions on R/S can vary among investors, categorizing most "longs" as against R/S without evidence is a broad generalization that doesn't account for varied investor strategies and perspectives.

4. **Claims About NASDAQ Delisting**: The statement about NWBO having been delisted from NASDAQ due to poor governance and subsequent violations is serious and requires substantiation. Without specific references or evidence, these claims remain speculative and potentially misleading.

5. **Current Compliance Allegations**: The assertion that NWBO is currently acting in ways that would violate NASDAQ rules is another serious claim that would need to be backed by concrete evidence.

Additionally, the anonymity of the statement's author and the reckless nature of the analysis further undermine its credibility:

1. **Anonymity and Accountability**: The anonymous authorship of such claims means there is a lack of accountability. Anonymity can sometimes lead to the spread of unfounded allegations, as the author is not publicly responsible for the veracity of their statements.

2. **Reckless Analysis**: The statement provides a sweeping analysis of complex financial and regulatory matters without demonstrating a thorough understanding or providing evidence. This recklessness, especially in discussing serious matters like governance violations and NASDAQ listing rules, can lead to misinformation and unfairly damage the reputation of the company in question.

The combination of anonymity and a lack of careful, evidence-based analysis makes the statement not only poorly reasoned but also potentially harmful and irresponsible.”

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/northwest-biotherapeutics-announces-that-a-marketing-authorization-application-has-been-submitted-to-the-uk-mhra-for-dcvax-l-for-glioblastoma-302021038.html

ex,

That sounds like another rumor to me. I had to run your post through the bs detector 😶 …




“This statement about "LP" (presumably referring to a specific individual associated with Northwest Biotherapeutics, or NWBO) is composed of greater than 99% baseless innuendo and is defamatory for these reasons:

1. **Lack of Evidence**: The claim that funds are being diverted to "LP and friends" is a serious accusation of financial impropriety. Without concrete evidence or credible sources to support this allegation, it remains baseless.

2. **Defamatory Implications**: Suggesting that someone is misusing company resources or manipulating news for personal gain can be defamatory, as it can harm the person's reputation, especially if these claims are unsubstantiated.

3. **Vague and Speculative Language**: The statement is vague ("carefully playing the news," "much runs to LP and friends") and lacks specifics, which is characteristic of innuendo designed to imply wrongdoing without making a direct accusation.

4. **Generalization Without Context**: The statement generalizes about the individual's actions over the years without providing specific instances or context.

In summary, the statement makes serious allegations without substantiation, uses language typical of innuendo, and could potentially damage the reputation of the individual referred to as "LP," rendering it defamatory and baseless.”

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/northwest-biotherapeutics-announces-that-a-marketing-authorization-application-has-been-submitted-to-the-uk-mhra-for-dcvax-l-for-glioblastoma-302021038.html

LC,

Did you mention “truth” in that post? 😶

Thanks for posting, but I think that we should seek trustworthy advice from licensed oncologists. I ran your statement through the detector…




“This statement is misleading and unreliable for several reasons:

1. **Lack of Credibility**: The author's anonymity and lack of credentials as an oncologist mean they likely don't have the expertise to accurately assess the efficacy of a cancer treatment like DCVax-L. Expert medical opinions typically come from qualified healthcare professionals.

2. **Generalized and Unsupported Claims**: The claim that DCVax-L is only "mildly effective in some small subset of patients" is a broad generalization without supporting data. Clinical effectiveness should be backed by scientific studies and clinical trial results.

3. **Misrepresentation of Treatment Protocol**: Suggesting that DCVax-L "requires brutal chemo and radiation up front" is misleading. DCVax-L is a type of immunotherapy, and while it might be used in conjunction with chemotherapy and radiation, describing these as "brutal" is subjective and doesn't accurately represent the nuanced decision-making in cancer treatment protocols.

4. **Dismissive Tone**: The statement's dismissive tone ("But don't let the truth get in your way") undermines its reliability. It suggests a biased viewpoint rather than a balanced, evidence-based assessment.

Additionally, the statement fails to acknowledge the potential of DCVax-L for use in combination therapy beyond traditional chemotherapy and radiation. Recent trends in cancer treatment show a growing interest in combining different therapeutic modalities, including immunotherapies like DCVax-L with other agents such as PD-1 blockade. These combination therapies can potentially enhance overall efficacy and provide new treatment avenues for patients. The dismissive tone of the statement overlooks these evolving and nuanced approaches in oncology, further undermining its reliability.

In summary, the statement's lack of credible authorship, generalized claims, and subjective language make it misleading and unreliable as a source of information about DCVax-L or any medical treatment.”

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/northwest-biotherapeutics-announces-that-a-marketing-authorization-application-has-been-submitted-to-the-uk-mhra-for-dcvax-l-for-glioblastoma-302021038.html

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaoncology/fullarticle/2798847

JAMA Oncology Peer-Reviewed Publication

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaoncology/fullarticle/2798847

LC,

Thanks for asking about the Specials Program again. Revenue might not be the most relevant consideration on this topic as the Specials data might have greater value in the long run…

The compassionate use cases generated some astonishing data, and those data may be included in the regulatory filings!

LC,

Your curiously vague reference to LP and Asia didn’t pass the detector either 😶 …




“The statement is potentially defamatory and appears intended to fuel a rumor for several reasons:

1. **Implied Wrongdoing**: The suggestion that "Powers" (presumably a reference to a specific individual in a position of authority or influence) might exploit her "Asian contacts" implies unethical or underhanded behavior without providing any evidence or context. This insinuation can be damaging to her reputation.

2. **Lack of Specificity and Evidence**: The statement is vague about what "Powers" might "try" with her Asian contacts. This lack of specificity, coupled with no evidence, suggests that the intent is to insinuate wrongdoing or illicit activities without making a direct accusation.

3. **Feeding Speculation**: By mentioning that "this regulator never gets discussed here," the statement seems designed to spark curiosity and speculation, characteristic of rumor-mongering.

4. **Potential for Misinformation**: The statement's speculative nature and lack of factual basis can lead to the spread of misinformation.

In summary, the statement appears to be crafted to cast aspersions and fuel rumors without providing any substantiating information, which can be damaging to the individual's reputation and is characteristic of defamatory intent.”

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/northwest-biotherapeutics-announces-that-a-marketing-authorization-application-has-been-submitted-to-the-uk-mhra-for-dcvax-l-for-glioblastoma-302021038.html

LC,

Thanks for posting, but this sounds like another rumor to me. I ran it through the detector 😶 …



“This statement is composed of greater than 99% baseless innuendo for the following reasons:

1. **Speculative and Suggestive**: The statement is purely speculative, suggesting a scenario ("Powers could agree to provide L at cost") without any evidence or context to substantiate the claim.

2. **Implied Wrongdoing**: By saying "if you catch my drift," the statement implies wrongdoing or unethical behavior without directly stating it, which is characteristic of innuendo.

3. **Lack of Transparency Claim**: The assertion that "she's never shared a thing about the numbers with retail" is presented without evidence. It's important to note that companies have various regulatory and legal obligations regarding financial disclosures.

4. **Assumption of Malintent**: The statement assumes malintent on the part of Powers without providing factual support for such a claim.

The statement can also be considered potentially defamatory because it implies unethical or dishonest behavior on the part of Powers without providing any evidence. Defamation involves making false statements that harm someone's reputation. By suggesting improper conduct in a business setting without factual backing, the statement risks defaming Powers, especially if these insinuations are baseless and if Powers is a recognizable figure associated with a specific company or context. Such accusations, when unsubstantiated, can damage a person's professional reputation and credibility.

In summary, the statement relies on innuendo and speculation, lacking factual basis and unfairly implying wrongdoing without substantiation.”

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/northwest-biotherapeutics-announces-that-a-marketing-authorization-application-has-been-submitted-to-the-uk-mhra-for-dcvax-l-for-glioblastoma-302021038.html

iclight,

Thanks for posting, but your post sounds like an attempt to start rumors. I had to run this one through the detector 😶 …



“This statement is poorly-reasoned, baseless, and defamatory for several reasons:

1. **Lack of Evidence**: It makes several accusations and assumptions about intentions and actions (or lack thereof) of a CEO without providing concrete evidence to support these claims.

2. **Conflation of Processes**: The statement misunderstands the complexity of drug development and regulatory approval. Submitting for approval and getting approval are indeed different, but the statement fails to acknowledge the nuances and challenges inherent in these processes.

3. **Assumption of Malintent**: It assumes without basis that the CEO deliberately engaged in actions to impede the drug's approval, which is a serious accusation that requires substantial proof.

4. **Misrepresentation of Clinical Trials**: The claim that the CEO called for a trial change to make approval impossible is a serious accusation and overlooks the myriad factors that can lead to changes in clinical trial protocols.

5. **Defamatory Accusations**: Accusing the CEO of intentionally delaying the drug's development for personal financial gain, and of planning to blame external factors for the drug's failure, is defamatory without clear, substantiated proof.

6. **Oversimplification**: It oversimplifies the challenges of navigating the FDA approval process, suggesting that hiring certain companies could easily overcome these hurdles.

7. **Ignoring Regulatory Complexity**: The decision not to submit to the FDA could be due to various strategic or regulatory considerations, which the statement does not acknowledge.

In summary, the statement is speculative, lacks substantiation, and makes defamatory claims, rendering it baseless and poorly-reasoned.”
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/northwest-biotherapeutics-announces-that-a-marketing-authorization-application-has-been-submitted-to-the-uk-mhra-for-dcvax-l-for-glioblastoma-302021038.html

LC,

Yes, that was a significant era! I wasn’t alive back then, but the genesis of the internet was roughly around the same time that the foundational research behind cell-based immunotherapy technology began.

You might be interested in this video as it seems to foreshadow the discoveries outlined in the JCI article that you posted here!

A look back at some recent history of cell-based science in medicine…

It is interesting in the interview excerpt linked below how Dr. Steinman spoke about the first-generation of DC technology and how further development would follow. He explained that the prostate vax only addressed a single antigen.

It’s also interesting to consider the combination technologies that are now emerging as well!

The first CTLA-4 inhibitor was approved by the FDA in 2011, the same year Dr. Steinman was awarded the Nobel Prize. In 2014, the first PD1 inhibitors were approved. Interestingly, the researchers behind PD1 blockade technology were also awarded the Nobel Prize 7 years after Dr. Steinman’s award.

Ex,

Thanks for posting your vague opinion, but it sounds like you’re trying to start rumors. LP is a shareholder too. I had to run your curious post through the detector .. 😶



“This statement is composed of greater than 99% innuendo. The statement is baseless and potentially defamatory for these reasons:

1. **Lack of Evidence**: It asserts that LP (presumably a reference to a specific individual, likely a corporate leader or significant shareholder) has a plan known to "shorts" (those betting against the company's stock) but provides no evidence or context to support this claim. Without substantiation, such a statement is purely speculative.

2. **Implication of Malfeasance**: By suggesting that LP's plan is not aligned with the hopes of "longs" (investors who believe in the company's future success), it implies wrongdoing or deceit on LP's part without providing any proof.

3. **Generalization and Assumption**: The statement makes a broad assumption about what "longs" fail to grasp, implying they are unaware or naive about the company's internal strategies, which is a sweeping generalization without basis.

4. **Potential Defamation**: If LP is a real individual, suggesting they have secretive, possibly malicious plans without evidence can be considered defamatory, as it can harm the individual's reputation.

The statement lacks factual support, resorts to speculative insinuations, and could potentially damage the reputation of the individual referred to as "LP."

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/northwest-biotherapeutics-announces-that-a-marketing-authorization-application-has-been-submitted-to-the-uk-mhra-for-dcvax-l-for-glioblastoma-302021038.html

MrCee-Cee,

Thanks for the reply. I regret to inform you that the AI bs detector identified that response as bs too 😶

“This statement is nonsensical for several reasons:

1. **Misunderstanding of AI's Role**: The statement misinterprets the purpose and capability of AI. AI, particularly in this context, is designed to assist with information processing and generating responses based on available data. It's not intended to replace human thinking but to augment it.

2. **Contradictory Statements**: On one hand, the statement criticizes reliance on AI for making convincing rather than true arguments, but on the other hand, it acknowledges holding a position in NWBO, a decision likely based on information processing and analysis, which AI can assist with.

3. **Ad Hominem Attacks**: The statement includes derogatory remarks about "idiot-filled cult" and "nwbo pumper on Twitter," which are personal attacks rather than logical arguments about the actual use and utility of AI.

4. **Overgeneralization about AI**: It generalizes AI's capability as merely being an "information aggregate." Modern AI systems are capable of complex tasks, including learning from data, identifying patterns, and providing insights.

5. **Lack of Constructive Critique**: While it criticizes the use of AI, it fails to provide constructive insights into what it believes AI should be used for or how AI could be more effectively employed.

In summary, the statement appears to stem from a misunderstanding of AI's role and capabilities and resorts to personal attacks rather than providing a reasoned critique of AI's application in discussions or analysis.”

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaoncology/fullarticle/2798847

https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=173512857

MrCee-Cee,

Thanks for the reply, but you did not address any of the points that I outlined with reference to value.

I ran your response through an AI BS detector and your response was identified as bs 😶



“This statement is greater than 99% nonsensical and illogical for the following reasons:

1. **Lack of Specifics**: It criticizes a post as "nonsense" and "delusional" but fails to specify what makes the post unrealistic or deluded. Without specific examples or arguments, the criticism is vague and ungrounded.

2. **Ad Hominem Attack**: The use of terms like "garbage board" and "cult" is an ad hominem attack, which detracts from constructive discussion. It targets the people involved rather than addressing the content of the discussion.

3. **Dismissiveness**: The statement dismisses another person's perspective as delusional without attempting to understand or engage with it. This approach shuts down dialogue rather than fostering meaningful exchange.

4. **Overgeneralization**: By labeling the entire forum as being for investors seeking value and implying that other perspectives are delusional or harmful, the statement unfairly overgeneralizes and excludes diverse viewpoints which can be valuable in an investment discussion.

In summary, the statement's dismissive tone, lack of specifics, and use of ad hominem attacks render it nonsensical and unproductive for a constructive discussion on investment forums.”

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaoncology/fullarticle/2798847

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/northwest-biotherapeutics-announces-that-a-marketing-authorization-application-has-been-submitted-to-the-uk-mhra-for-dcvax-l-for-glioblastoma-302021038.html

https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=173512857

MrCee-Cee,

Your posts are baseless and your logic doesn’t follow. 😶 …It sounds like you need to do some research—avoid social media and seek your own credible full-context sources of info.

The leadership of this small pre-commercial biotech have been committed to building the prospective value for a significant period of time. Aside from the successful completion of the P3 and the independent peer review that followed, the leadership have coordinated the building of a voluminous MAA, the building of manufacturing capacity, and the building of a comprehensive worldwide patent portfolio, and the list goes on …

Quite arguably, the prospective value of the company is greater today than it has ever been since the company was founded…

The price will follow the real value just as dawn follows night, but the management does not have direct immediate control over all of the market forces, especially at the pre-commercial stage and while on the OTC exchange.

Regulatory developments will be the most determinative factors following the independent peer review, and NWBO is still currently on the OTC. The emerging combo data are also immensely significant and further developments on that front will have an impact. Partnerships are also included in the wide array of possibilities going forward in the near term.

The value of DCVax®-L as a novel cell-based immunotherapy platform technology will be determined by the integrity of the science, and the regulatory process will be the catalyst for its change in price.

As some of the freshly-poured regulatory cement begins to dry into hard stone in the UK and in other nations, further combos and DCVax-Direct will present additional potential for the further expansion of value.

From an investment standpoint, we always hope that the value is greater than the price for the period time preceding their alignment. When will they align? The hands of that clock move with government regulators and with the economics of the pharmaceutical industry, but the science and unmet medical needs comprise the essence of true value.




https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/northwest-biotherapeutics-announces-that-a-marketing-authorization-application-has-been-submitted-to-the-uk-mhra-for-dcvax-l-for-glioblastoma-302021038.html

ex,

I like that opinion! 😉 I’m also looking forward to:

⭐️ Approval(s)
⭐️ Partnership(s)

I would have to disagree slightly about the combos and acceptance of the MAA being “non-news.” 😶 …The emerging combo data are brilliant, and any news on that front would be highly significant. Logically, acceptance of the MAA submission will also be significant news because acceptance precedes the review and is obviously required for approval.

Combo is King! ✅️

https://www.jci.org/articles/view/169314

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/northwest-biotherapeutics-announces-that-a-marketing-authorization-application-has-been-submitted-to-the-uk-mhra-for-dcvax-l-for-glioblastoma-302021038.html

https://www.uclahealth.org/news/fda-approval-brain-cancer-alzheimers

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/northwest-biotherapeutics-announces-dr-linda-140000962.html

Typo correction:

*Assessed, not “accessed” ✅️

AI is very effective at assessing the logical or illogical structure of a claim and searching for legitimate references to full-context sources.

The sources cited below are examples of legitimate full-context sources. Anyone can evaluate and research the text of these sources. Further, the credentials and backgrounds of the physicians can be independently evaluated by anyone who chooses to research their work or research the institutions that employ them.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/northwest-biotherapeutics-announces-dr-linda-140000962.html

LC,

Thanks for asking. The AI BS Detector has accessed that your “lies” are presented mostly in the form of baseless defamatory suggestions and other innuendo 😶

“LC’s statements are most often composed of conjecture and lack any factual basis or references to credible evidence.

Innuendo is dishonest when it's used to imply something derogatory or misleading without stating it directly, thereby avoiding clear, straightforward communication. Innuendo often relies on suggestion or insinuation, allowing the speaker to convey a negative message while maintaining plausible deniability. This indirect way of communicating can be seen as a form of dishonesty, especially if the intent is to deceive or manipulate the listener's perception.”


https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/northwest-biotherapeutics-announces-that-a-marketing-authorization-application-has-been-submitted-to-the-uk-mhra-for-dcvax-l-for-glioblastoma-302021038.html

https://brownneurosurgery.com/breakthrough-brain-cancer-vaccine/

LC,

Your post is not substantive and really contributes no real insight to the conversation.

Furthermore, the AI BS Detector has detected a large amount of bs…again 😶



“This statement is illogical and weak for several reasons:

1. **Inconsistent Logic**: It criticizes someone for making a high stock price prediction despite knowing about shorting and spoofing, yet later argues that shorting and spoofing don't necessarily impact stock prices negatively, as evidenced by Tesla's example.

2. **Ignoring Market Complexity**: It oversimplifies stock market dynamics. Shorting and spoofing are just two of many factors that can affect a stock's price. The statement fails to consider other critical factors.

3. **Ad Hominem Attacks**: Calling someone ignorant is an ad hominem attack and doesn't contribute to a logical argument.

4. **Selective Comparison**: Using Tesla as a comparison is selective and is not directly relevant to NWBO's situation, as each company's stock is influenced by its unique circumstances.”

LC,

Thanks for posting or reposting so frequently, but your posts are nonsense and appear to reflect an attempt to start factless rumors.

The AI BS Detector has once again detected a large amount of bs in your post …😶 Fact ✅️



“The statement presents a series of unfounded speculations and assertions that are nonsensical. It makes sweeping claims about management intentions without evidence and wildly guesses future corporate actions like buyouts or reverse splits. The simplistic correlation of company milestones with stock price declines completely overlooks the multifaceted factors that influence stock market dynamics. Overall, the statement is more a reflection of baseless conjecture than a reasoned analysis grounded in reality.

This statement is problematic for several reasons:

1. **Unsubstantiated Claims About Management**: The assertion that the management team will cause harm to “retail” is baseless.

2. **Speculation on Company Actions**: The speculation about a potential buyout, reverse split, or new trial is just that—speculation. It lacks any reference to concrete evidence.

3. **Simplistic View of Stock Price Movements**: Associating company milestones with a declining stock price oversimplifies how stock markets work. Many factors influence stock prices, not just company “milestones.”

4. **Predictive Statements Without Basis**: The prediction of further decline in stock price upon acceptance is speculative and not grounded in factual analysis.”

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/northwest-biotherapeutics-announces-that-a-marketing-authorization-application-has-been-submitted-to-the-uk-mhra-for-dcvax-l-for-glioblastoma-302021038.html

iclight,

Thanks for asking. Your question about Switzerland raises an interesting topic…

Regulatory collaboration agreements seem to have become significant only recently, generally speaking. The UK is now a member of both:

1. Access Consortium (formerly named ACSS)
2. Project Orbis

https://www.eversana.com/2020/10/20/uks-mhra-joins-acss-consortium/



https://www.gov.uk/guidance/access-consortium