Investors are not “funding” a CDMO, they are paying for services and there is no such financial relationship as you suggest. And yes, I could see a company buying a CDMO, but NWBO has Flaskworks and having the expertise available ON SITE, is extremely valuable for developing Flaskworks further as well as for getting the necessary licenses.

Further, just because it WORKS WELL in this instance but is a little different than a company so handicapped that it has to seek that expertise out and hope to find it, doesn’t make it “wrong”. You have suggested absolutely NOTHING real that says there is anything negative and I have made a strong case for why this is immensely beneficial.

Plus if is flatly obviously beneficial, which is why shorts have to keep bringing it up and IMPLYING, without any proof of any sort, that it should not be.

Shorts bet this was another Dendreon and THEY LOST. They can’t give up because that means they would need to buy shares and that would be conceding defeat. So they are going to be screaming bloody murder all the way to this company’s success. This is his incredibly STUPID they are.

In response to my previous post. Was trying to add to it late but had some computer issue ....

And the Citadel CEO likely spends at least 15 million on properties in maintenance, taxes and other costs for his properties and probably a good percentage of that for his NYC apartment that he NEVER INHABITED/Inhabits.

So yeah, 15 million on Advent... versus hundreds of millions spent by Dendreon up front. And that in the year it applied for its MAA license, got licensed for global manufacturing at its own facility and spent a good amount of that on developing its automation technology that will immensely reduce costs for manufacturing.

DROP IN THE BUCKET.

You don't get a drug licensed that can be an entirely new modality for virtually any cancer treatment by not spending any money. That's why we are ALL here. It's called, if you shorts haven't noticed, "INVESTMENT". And investment in core facilities for global manufacturing, in anticipation of a marketing license, is about as basic, real and appropriate as anyone in this position can get.

But shorts think they can manufacture insanity and nonsense and manipulate people into thinking NORMAL is ABNORMAL. It's not just NORMAL, it's brilliant and appropriate and that's what drives shorts NUTS. You can't help yourselves. You were drooling to see Dendreon run all over again, and IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. OOPS. You guys are up a creek without a paddle. Now you're paddling with your hands, trying to make crap up.

Getting a license for and maintaining a facility, which Advent does for NWBO so that it can ultimately get licensed to market and sell and manufacture its drug, is ALWAYS going to be expensive. That is a drop in the bucket given what companies spend. Dendreon went bankrupt developing such facilities for itself, and this is EXACTY what shorts counted on for NWBO. She found a way around this and shorts can't help but try to imply there is something wrong with her being able to ultimately destroy their previous argument against and practical challenge to this endeavor, that they thought would kill any new dendritic cell vaccine company. SHORTS failed to comprehend DCVax-L and why it was different, Shorts assumed things that were flat out wrong, and now they can do nothing but throw stones constantly because they have nothing.

You've got zero, nothing, nada. You can only attack by implying false notions and taking facts out of context and hoping naive rubes will believe your nonsense.

That cost would have been hundreds of millions of dollars up front previously. $15 million is an amazing accomplishment and thanks for laying it out. Literally people pay many times more for apartments in NYC. This is a new treatment for cancers that will open up a whole new pathway to potential cures.


https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/24/business/who-is-ken-griffin.html?unlocked_article_code=1.tU0.DqBk.b2s6-6fanSQ6&smid=url-share

This is total and utter nonsense.

1) It's a CDMO with a completely specific and defined role that has been the same since the very beginning of the trial. The only difference is that the CEO's private equity company had started the first manufacturer, and shorts messed up their relationship and that company, much larger, needed to be sold to Charles River Laboratories, but she had, with those entrepreneurs, created a totally unique kind of manufacturing entity, one that CRL found was worth buying and establishing because of this new area of CDMO work.

2) To preserve the expertise developed in manufacturing DCVax-L, she was able to get the UK entity spun out to her PE, to 1) keep the local license for manufacturing, and 2) further develop Sawston's capabilities.

3) The relationship is fundamentally the same as with any start-up bio and CDMO and there are requirements that they maintain it as such, including a policy created to address this very issue in response to a previous complaint by shorts to the SEC. There is no stealing or theft or nonsense going on and this has NEVER been a real thing, just a bogey man used to manipulate anyone ignorant enough to believe it.

4) NWBO owns Flaskworks outright and that is the future of production. The current handmade production, which was done during the trials first by their previous manufacturer and now by that subsidiary that was spun of, Advent, will no longer be the primary production mode, they expect. But so long as it persists, it keeps the operational risks and costs at a separate entity, something that helps them avoid Dendreon's fate. And that drives SHORTS nuts as well, because they were hoping for another dendron.

5) The other brilliant move by the CEO was to get local, regional financing for the manufacturing operation, and because Advent had no real manufacturing facility other than NWBO's Sawston facility, they could do a deal where "NWBO", but really Advent, agreed to provide local businesses in the Cambridge University area, access to the specialized research and trial capabilities that having access to such a manufacturer would provide. So the relationship effectively became symbiotic, and a portion of Sawston is effectively a locally financed development facility for this kind of technology. That situates both companies in a great, local role to find different kinds of research partners and innovate as well and it subsidizes, potentially, Sawston, so long as it is not engaged in commercial operations for NWBO. Lastly, having a CDMO isolates the costs and risks of all of those employees, their retirement benefits and other aspects of early growth, which is not a minor consideration. It's a win, win, win all around.

NWBO is not authorized to market or sell DCVax-L in the UK. It is manufactured there by Advent as a "compound pharmacy" would create an unlicensed drug, for compassionate use. The regulation, not some conspiracy. Conspiracies are for nuts.

Poly-ICLC is a different company's DRUG. Not part of any natural dendritic cell maturation process. It works by pretending to be a VIRUS and stimulating other processes in the body when DCVax-L is injected. The entire notion is incorrect, and as I said, it is not in that particular patent that was referenced in the post to which I just previously referred. It's not included in any version of DCVax, either Direct or DCVax-L It's another company's carefully created, manufactured, drug and NWBO did not have a patent to make it any more than they had a patent to make Keytruda. They also have never claimed they make it nor that they sourced it from Uncover for their manufacturing.

I too, hope they coordinate and present trials with the combination in the future. The results are wonderful. But sometimes people make things up because they want to believe something. They get it in their head. Poly-ICLC is an adjuvant treatment in all of the trials. It is injected separately in an intramuscular injection. The UCLA formula for ATL-DC and DCVax-L are the same. There is no disconnection, as has been claimed by some shorts and so there is no need to further promote this false theory that will only create confusion as there is simply no basis to it.

The patent referenced in the PR for more potent DC's also does not say anything about Poly-ICLC or TLR's or Hiltonol. It's not referenced. In other words, it does not use it in any formula to "mature" DC's or create the vaccine. It is used as a separate adjuvant, with an IM injection. That's the research at UCLA. UCLA doesn't use it as a "maturation agent" either. It's the same version of DCVax-L as always. That patent is about deriving DC's, not adding new drugs to the "formula". I don't doubt the company uses this process, but it's not about modifying the DC's in a profoundly new way to create a new drug. It's about deriving the same DC's in a better way, in the same way that Flaskworks might derive a more potent and more intense vaccine because the process is more precise.

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/nw-bio-receives-us-patent-on-broad-processes-for-producing-more-potent-dendritic-cells-198760831.html

Sure, old man. LOL. Dignified?

LOL. Someone has sent in the clowns... for the weekend and likely until approval, sigh.

We can disagree dstock. And certainly they are investing in other treatments. And they might even start to do dendritic cell vaccines given the press so far for DCVax-L, which is pretty stunning. It has nothing to do with NWBO at the current time. And they don't invest speculatively on the notion that if they build it, NWBO will come. They can build their own, but no one invests in that fashion as you suggest. There is no secret deal, no advance investing because they have NWBO in the bag already but it's not public... this is fantasy.

Yeah, we have to recognize the value we do have and that we don't need to invent fictions. In fact, inventing such stuff harms the steady analysis of those who know what NWBO has and what DCVax-L is in truth. There is no need for fictions, hype and overstatement.

Steady as she goes VikingInvest!

You give your own posts a thumbs up and screech nonsense. Incredible.

We see the larger picture, you create noise.

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

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-48073-y

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

https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-2591941/v1

You do know that there is a German clinic selling a fake DCVax that is not at all DCVax-L. Oh, right, you just sling this BS and really don't know much at all. I forgot. CLUELESS Nemesis.... the stalker, who tries to stalk Kings College by attacking NWBO, because he needs to be the center of attention.

Thanks QL. Given my just previous discussion of the confidence MHRA showed in DCVax-L by investing immense resources in the process of commercially licensing manufacturing for DCVax-L in the UK, so that DCVax-L could be provided, at cost, to local patients on a compassionate basis, not a small investment of time, resources, effort and Human Resources to do so, I think it is interesting that they did that previous to not just commercial approval but even previous to the company filing an application for commercial approval with the MHRA. Shorts will say otherwise, but the reality is, regional financing was provided, they did not do regional financing because it is expected to fail. The regional authority likely spoke with regulators to get a sense, no one wants to put money into something that is not happening. And the reason for building was not just to do a CDMO, though that was part of the deal with the regional authority. The details of all of this suggest to me some serious interest in DCVax-L by the MHRA and then the regional authority financing the facility, that also is not done haphazardly for any random "failed drug company". That's just not how this works. I've never seen that kind of investment. Remember, this is a first of its kind, highly individualized, complexly manufactured, biological drug, not aspirin.

In that context, I found the following discussion of a drug considered for early access, in a context of a desperate need for treatment, very telling, where the drug was not so viewed by the MHRA:

https://app.box.com/s/jv487awvqzzsrdql0o34h9gg350ceyd4/file/1205689992766

"EARLY ACCESS TO MEDICINES SCHEME (The scheme aims to give patients with life
threatening or seriously debilitating conditions access to medicines that do not yet have a
marketing authorisation, when there is a clear unmet medical need)

The EAG considered and advised on a medicine indicated for the treatment of a cancer of the
bone marrow called multiple myeloma that has not responded to previous treatment with at
least three different types of anti-cancer medicines. It was concluded that the submitted
evidence was insufficient to confirm efficacy in the sought indication and fulfilment of EAMS
criteria and the discussion concluded with a negative opinion."

I think it is reasonable to conclude that making DCVax-L available in the current context, has not been done on the basis of some sort of whim, or carelessness or just because GBM is an unmet need. These decisions are made with the UTMOST of care by such regulators and then also by the regional finance authority there in Cambridge. The MHRA is not sloppy and the shorts know this too. The more the shorts post, the more shrill they become, the more false bravado and false confidence they evoke, the more they betray their uncertainty, fear and probably terror. The fact is, the people posting are not likely those holding the positions, but just their puppets and lackeys. But they are here because someone knows they made a bad decision a long time ago. It seemed like a good one. They listened to AF, and the stock price collapsed, and they could force a lot of dilution. But things could and likely will turn rather suddenly at some point here, and they need to get out of their position. But false bravado keeps them from admitting their mistake. But I think they also are not thinking clearly, have become complacent, yet they still fund the social media campaign to sink the stock. It's very telling, even if it's just driven by too much money and not enough thought.

I have gone through the company's language in their 10-Q, looked at the MHRA site, and quizzed two top AI systems at the highest access level. I've maintained those conversations over months, feeding the AI's relevant texts from the regulator, on the subject, and now also the exact language from NWBO.

They initially disagreed. But ultimately the AI's agreed that the measurement date is, January 24, 2024, not March and not December. That makes 150 days June 22nd, 2024. I'm not saying there has not been a halt since, as we don't know. I'm not saying I know anything for sure. I'm just passing along what I believe to be the most accurate analysis of what the measurement date is for the 150 day period, assuming no interim halt. And the AI's, without bias, have indicated the same. A halt is not guaranteed, though shorts would have us believe so. This is likely one of the most analyzed drug trials around. The fact that the relevant regulator has already licensed NWBO commercially to manufacture the drug, pre-approval, and deliver it on a compassionate basis, is a profound difference from MOST drugs in this context. In fact, I've never seen that before. EVER. And certainly not with this complex of a drug. Licensing the manufacturing and compassionate sale of this complex and individualized of a manufacturing process, pre-approval, required immense care and an extremely deep dive by the regulator, prior to marketing approval or even prior to the marketing application being filed. If you think about THAT, THAT is incredible. Why would a drug regulator dedicate such immense resources to ensuring that a drug, not yet approved for commercial sale, but having already finished it's Phase 3 and published the results, to allow it to commercially manufacture for global distribution and for local compassionate use distribution, at full price? That's a strong indicator if I've ever seen one, of a very positive view, regardless of the opinions of screeching shorts, who screech so loud, and so constantly, that you KNOW they know their position is untenable.

So, I would not be surprised if we saw approval earlier than autumn certainly, but I agree with setting the date so far out there, just in case. The regulatory process is unpredictable and you do that to avoid the manipulation by shorts that is virtually always wrong, but capitalizes on fear. I also believe that, as I have said before, in various previous minor misjudgments where the company estimated a likely timeline as near as possible and then there were slight delays, that they should always double the time and maybe more.... and I believe they heard me. I think Les' autumn timeline was given with an abundance of caution, not necessarily because that is what he absolutely expects, but because beating expectations, by a lot, is a far, far better thing than either missing them, even by a few days or weeks, or barely making them.

So I think shorty better keep ready for a sudden change, because I do think anything is possible and that June 22nd is 150 days. We'll have to watch and see. And like I said, we may have already been halted or will yet have a halt, but I also would not be surprised if there was no halt at all. Now let's listen to the screeching of the shorts for the next month, even on weekends and holidays. These guys work so hard to maintain their false notions, it's a dead giveaway of just how fearful they are about success, the more screeching, name calling and insanity from shorty, the deeper the anxiety and fear they are expressing in their own positions.

Yes, and that is exactly one of the reasons the RWE reforms are so useful. The regulatory agencies and insurance systems including governmental can rely on non-trial, less formal, RWE to expand coverage and labels. And that stuff is so new, so people keep assuming the old world trial notions are necessary, but over time I believe we will see, or it might be not all that visible to us given the process, but we will likely see access to new drugs expanding broadly and more rapidly than before. It may just happen though, without a lot of commotion and fanfare.

So it’s a very exciting time. But some of it doesn’t make for exciting posts, because it will happen off-stage and perhaps not entirely visible to everyone initially. It will just be events. Suddenly a drug will be available for another condition or disease.

Hyperopia, I agree pretty much straight down the line with you. I am actually quite certain that poly iclc is not used as a “maturation agent” and have debated that previously with ATL. Recently ATL conceded it’s not true. There is no indication that is true or even that it makes sense, IMHO. It was always an adjuvant treatment when it was given, not used in “making” the cells for DCVax-L, and I honestly don’t think for other versions either. Reference in combination patents and other places is for broad protection and future variants. But no one here knows the actual special sauce of any manufacturing process other than the basics typically disclosed, and that’s the way it should be for purposes of IP protection. Claims to the contrary are puffery.

Also, Oncovir owns poly-iclc. And DCVax-L’s mechanism of action currently is about NWBO’s IP, not Oncovir’s. We don’t want them dependent on the manufacturer of another, expensive, artificially created compound that needed its own approval as a drug.

As for approval, it has been my argument that they will and must get DCVax-L approved on its own, because if not, it’s not a standalone drug at all. And further, the Phase 3 is DCVax-L without poly-ICLC, and the side trials are not completed, and are with an already approved set of other drugs in combination. Poly-ICLC is already an approved drug, and understood to be basically an adjuvant compound. Using an approved adjuvant with a vaccine that has been approved is not such a big deal that it needs literal approval. It will simply become the standard of practice / care, IMHO, given the immense results of the side trials. There have been 2 side trials with poly-iclc, the most recently published one is actually the 2nd side trial with poly-iclc. The third one is current and ongoing with Keytruda and the experimental part and DCVax-L with Poly-ICLC as the “baseline” or SOC in that combination trial that is partially funded by NIH. All of these results will be used for practical guidance once DCVax-L is approved and the data can be used to support the application for DCVax-L as validation of the method of action research. The company and doctors can argue that the method of action is being demonstrated and enhanced by this further research and depriving patients and doctors of the drug broadly would make no sense when it is obviously and demonstrably safe and has substantial evidence indicating strongly of a survival benefit for a broad array of patients both as a standalone drug and in combination with other, complimentary immunotherapies like Poly-ICLC, which by themselves are not proven effective at all against GBM or most other cancers. It is a very compelling case, regardless of the simian-like mud and feces throwing of shorts to suggest otherwise.

At one time I thought poly-iclc was not approved and speculated on approval of adjuvants with vaccines. But that is not necessary or relevant in the current mix of facts. The literature will be enough for any intelligent doctor to want to prescribe the two approved drugs together, IMHO. No need for special approval and RWE can ultimately justify the coverage by insurance and expansion of poly-iclc’s label. Also, adjuvant use and use of adjuvants with vaccines is not really a process that requires immense approval processes generally, when a compound is already generally approved for use and safe. So I do not worry immensely about that, at all. The processes will naturally be addressed and the companies, doctors, patients and regulators will all have a stake in seeing that move along smoothly.

Further, some of the others misunderstand RWE. It is for extending labels, and getting insurance coverage. The data does not need to be adequate to be an additional study or trial, that is exactly not the point. It is to show the benefit and enable the economics of combinations with already safe, efficacious and approved treatments at least in one area, to then extend the labels to other new areas and conditions.

So as for other cancers, compassionate use, as the company stacks up more patients with different cancers, they can work with the patients and doctors in that program to accumulate data to extend the label of an already approved DCVax-L.

So the current application is likely for at least GBM, possibly a broad array of brain cancers as previously the HE and other designations did recognize it as a potential treatment for a wider array of brain cancers even when the company was not asking for that.

But I do not see the approval as likely broader than that and it doesn’t need to be. Off-label prescription will likely expand because there are many patients who often are looking for a drug beyond what has been tried and failed previously, and DCVax-L will hit a lot of buttons, not the least of which is broad potential applicability, a powerful response with an almost impossible to treat type of cancer already, that it is quite a natural concept for treatment and makes sense immunologically, and because it has so few side-effects, for quality of life.

I think they will ultimately have plenty of RWE to extend the label, but that is something that comes after approval.

I agree re speculation about manufacturing and notions about other companies. It’s wild and not grounded in reality. The company already has what it needs for now. If a large partner materializes, great. But what those companies are building is for their own research and other treatments mostly having to do with mRNA vaccines.

I think some people want to keep chattering and developing clout on this topic, and so they speculate wildly, quite frequently. But the reality is, DCVax-L is a fantastic development by itself, and the combination trials are a further revelation and opening up of understanding about the pathology of cancer and the complex immune response to it. Lots of fundamental, new understanding is being revealed that will have broader implications for all research, and many drugs, by the work being done with DCVax-L. Will it all be monetized for us? That will be a complicated part of the process, but I do believe ultimately, DCVax-L will be used very broadly, by many doctors and patients for a broad array of cancers, but NWBO needs to get the initial approval first in various countries and Europe.

The rest will follow more naturally today thanks to reforms like the 21st Century Cures Act and innovations like RWE and ECA’s.

And yet they have the data and the ECA to validate the effect… Regulators do not like to unnecessarily ignore good data and patient and company sacrifice where life extension is proven for a rare disease: it will be about the proof and data, not your formalistic nonsense. The trial was revised prior to unblinding because of the ethical and practical issues around ensuring that patients got access to the drug… their rare disease being literally a death sentence prior to DCVax-L.

It’s easy money for shorts and those who serve them. They do not care what damage they do.

I agree with this. This was my conclusion as well. Initially it seemed otherwise but ultimately that was my conclusion. And as we know, 150 days can ultimately include clock off periods when the MHRA chooses to request information. We don’t have information that that happened, so we’ll just have to see if NWBO flies right through. That is possible as well. I have no doubt that they had a very thorough application given their licensing for manufacturing and all of the incredible data they had worked so hard on both for the application for approval and for the domestic manufacturing licensing process. It was likely so incredibly involved as to practically be the same as any commercial licensing process they’d otherwise go through for commercial marketing approvals. I can’t imagine that it would be anything less.

Since Poly-iclc is already approved for use and as safe, and DCVax-L will likely be approved, IMHO, then upon approval, doctors will likely prescribe the two, and further, NWBO, or Oncovir, will have the ability to present clinical data showing substantially and really incredible results with the combination, as RWE/RWD, and that would be enough to potentially change relevant labels and to get insurance coverage designated. The MHRA has policies positively favoring RWE/RWD as all of the major agencies worldwide are trying to harmonize policies on such matters and also ECA’s.

No need to get an approval with this Application, as I have said for some time. At one time I had speculated, prior to understanding that Hiltonol had been approved, that an unapproved “adjuvant” can be included in an application. But that was not necessary, once it was clear it was a separate, approved drug, and was administered separately using an IM injection.

I never agreed that anyone had any evidence that Hiltonol was used as a “maturation agent” for DCVax-L. We in fact disagreed about this at length, based on a range of very clear evidence to the contrary including the need to do the trial and the result based on an adjuvant IM injection of poly-iclc separately to induce the stronger immune response. There was never an indication it was already in DCVax-L and speculation that ATL-DC required the IM shot but DCVax-L didn’t but that the UCLA was getting such incredible response really suggested otherwise. My argument also was that the argument otherwise would sometimes go into the wild suggestion that there were “different versions” of DCVax-L which would have been a disaster and actually would amplify AF’s lies, perhaps inadvertently, about different versions and thus false claims about patents.

Thanks for clarifying now.

The MHRA recognizes the potential use of external control arms in clinical trials, particularly when traditional randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are not feasible or ethical. This approach is notably applicable in the context of rare diseases or situations where patient recruitment for a control group is challenging. Exactly this case. Granted, this is all new, and same for their coordination with the FDA and EMA on adopting these policies in collaborative effort.

The MHRA also provides guidance on using real-world data (RWD) to support regulatory decisions, which includes the consideration of external control arms derived from sources such as historical clinical trials, electronic health records, or registries. Their focus is on ensuring that these external data sources are of high quality and appropriately matched to the trial population to minimize bias and ensure reliable results. NWBO went to great lengths and provided statistical and other data in spades to ensure this will be the case. Plus they have lots and lots of other data, side arms, clinical data from compassionate use and lots of supporting data.

Additionally, Health Technology Assessment (HTA) bodies across Europe, including the MHRA, increasingly accept evidence from single-arm trials complemented by external control arms. These studies also must employ rigorous analytical methods to address potential confounding factors and ensure the robustness of the evidence. Again, not really an issue in this case and they all consider historical data and this is contemporaneous data from the most important trials in this space. The individual patient data from THOSE trials is understandably, at this time, hard to come by and so the additional statistical comparisons and other work address that failing. And then remember, they hired a completely blind, external mathematical and epidemiological consulting firm filled with experts to match and provide all of this data. It is, in my opinion, very, very unlikely that besides possibly some questions, which is the job of regulators, they should find the various sources of evidence including NWBO’s scientific study on method of action, very satisfactory, compared to the other drugs previously approved in this space, most of which were in a far worse position and had no survival benefits to demonstrate.

Cool your horses.

Obviously there is never certainty with any of these trials, but there should be at least as much as with any of the other troubled trials that seemed to never bother any of the shorts before. Just their focus on this one that literally blows that old stuff out of the water in terms of the clinical evidence from numerous sources. There is even the UCLA Nature paper and UPenn confirmatory paper on scanning and measurement of results also confirming what NWBO said in its Phase 3 JAMA Oncology publication and what now everyone knows with a fair degree of comfort about immunotherapies, that they can cause pseudoprogression and also that patients do not want to join placebo trials when they have as certain a disease as GBM in terms of mortality. No one likes to be a Guinea Pig and there are more than enough Phase I and II trials these days that they do not need to be.

And let me close with this basic bit of information. It is no mystery to any doctor or patient or regulator in the field how fatal GBM is, how rapidly it kills and that the results seen in these trials is outstanding. While no doubt there could be formalists using formalism to hide their partisan and economic interests in any body, there should be no rational reason this is not ultimately approved, IMHO.

Prayers for your daughter and family. Hang in there!

Delusions of grandeur too I see. And a conspiracy theorist. More to add to your nonsense.

My condolences. Tough times indeed. Take it easy.

Agreed. CRL is not going to be given Flaskworks. That would be a very bad idea. Flaskworks makes it possible to operate without the level of cleanrooms that CRL would necessarily charge NWBO for because that is just what their facilities provide. And CRL building new plants for Flaskworks makes zero sense not to mention the risk of giving away a patented and competitively important technology to a completely unconnected contract manufacturer would mean.

Once they have approval they will likely have deals they can make, for financing in other countries, if and when they need it. They will not need that for some time.

No, her result so far is completely consistent with the trial results and efficacy. We don’t know when she even got the vaccine or if her treatment was optimal, since it was out of pocket.

Meanwhile you say nothing but pretend to know things you do not know. That makes you not only ridiculous but laughably so. You have no evidence from your post suggesting at all what you said, and you literally have nothing to say. Zero, zilch, nada, nothing. You just seek attention.

Old topic. Combinations are good. More treatments is better. But many efforts to vaccinate ultimately fail. That’s why you have various phase trials. Hard to know exactly all the details here but we know that the 1 year mark is good, but that’s not the measure for success and a lot has to do with the particularities. Hence you have a trial and you show broad benefit.

And the reality is that that is not what that shows. Again your ignorance outs you.

Actually, I was thinking of the subtle dox threat when people undermine short posters’ stories, and while doxing is a crime, by itself, it would be in service of a crime, and intimidation. You do realize how serious that is? Doesn’t matter what other country. It’s beyond free speech. Way beyond.

And if it is in service of hedge funds or market makers currently being sued…that’s some crazy behavior.

Please be clear, you are mocking someone based on their post about Tracy needing more funds to continue her treatment. So this should be in quotes around your quoted text, and again this has absolutely nothing to do with you. You are not Tracy nor are you her husband. You are not the author of the Go Fund Me account. I just want that to be clear.

This is why it needs to be approved. The cost is a great burden, and having lived already longer than typical. And with this separate recurrence, it is just challenging for a regular person to deal with, as it always is with brain tumors and cancer generally.

Wishing Tracy well!

The response by our resident stalker is inappropriate. These are real people. No one claimed this treatment by itself is the silver bullet cure for everyone, but people do live longer than otherwise and that looks to be the case here so far. We’ll ray that all goes well for Tracy in her further treatment.

And don’t dox people. It’s a crime.

And don’t threaten people for your buddy either. THAT’s cringe!

I think it’s quite obvious what your little name is about.

Apparently you don’t know this is a stalker who is here because of some weird incident with King’s College and he stalks the University and this company despite this company having nothing to do with it. It is Cringe. He is cringe. It has nothing to do with a cult, he’s an either mentally ill or a fraud. That has nothing to do with NWBO. He joined the crew for attention.

So yeah, buzz off.

Not really sure how this is relevant to my comment, which is about press coverage or lack of it for many companies behind many drugs, including well known companies but especially those that are penny stocks. Coverage of new drugs and research is still a valuable thing and if it did not happen, no one would invest in these companies, so it does get through to some audience. The challenge is when such a company and its investors constantly claim they are being shorted, it probably will make new investors think twice, whether true or not.

So the narrative frequently drives these stocks. AMC and GME have an advantage. They are not cutting edge, but lots of small investors can buy calls and that puts pressure on shorts there. NWBO is not a mainstream stock, in a major exchange, so there are no options. We have to rely upon a discounted stock and news that transforms perceptions.

The trial is in all of the relevant trial registries as an official trial, for Europe, UK, Canada and U.S. Look it up.

No, never said that. You should not make things up, as you do.

As for the combination research, it is covered by the application and the original engagement with UCLA and NWBO. The key ingredient, if you haven’t noticed, is DCVax-L, and NWBO has the rights to that… other combinations belong to other companies, and UCLA have collaborated on the patent and process to get here.

You really don’t know much. Your speculation on Advent shows similar ignorance.

If after being here pontificating for so long, you’re asking such naive questions… it’s quite clear you have very little knowledge. And for someone claiming to be so knowledgeable, such a giveaway.

You are the who you are. You’ve already demonstrated a stalker quality and lurking around the hospital kind of a behavior, trying to undermine a clinic with your very weird conspiracy theories. No one I their right mind should take you seriously to any degree.

One thing is likely, you’re used to people giving you respect because of who you are and your affectation of being someone you’re not, at least not any longer.

I think k he is just giving a time that is far out there, given what is known, just in case. It is reasonable to take that as “the date”, but it is no more accurate than anyone else. It is to ensure that any extended quiet period is not turned into a fake debacle, which swing traders and shorts do with relish.