Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
I expect that is true too, but likely not always the same issues and people involved, not the same part of the process. But yes, I expect they have developed new expertise as part of their work validating and licensing Sawston and Advent.
Yes, but they need shares. They do not want to be buying and chasing this thing up before news. Then it will just go higher. They are hoping they can bottle it up not just until the news, but even after.
As persons involved in the trial. Not the experts a regulator needs. They know those “experts” are ready at any time. That’s not what I was talking about. That’s obvious, and no, Dr. Ashkan and Dr. Liau are not just partisans, they are clinicians. Regulators are concerned with much larger commercial and manufacturing issues as well and they are not experts for those conversations, besides being on team applicant, so not a consultant for the MHRA at all.
That is often not possible at a price that would justify the wait of shareholders. Bad actors often do their bad acts through third parties and pretend to be cheap saviors.
If you don’t like it, invest somewhere else. For heaven’s sake. Be responsible for yourself and your investments and quit faking being some sort of “victim”. You knew the deal. You’ve been told the deal by all kinds of people every day. The company is silent. They have not misled you either. They hardly say anything. Just the minimum, because it is impossible to know how long a lot of this will take. And at any moment, the partner you claim would help, might act, but they haven’t. So you can take from that what you want but why hang around here a/it posting day after day, under different ID’s, when there is a large market available with all kinds of opportunities. It’s YOUR choice and your disposition.
They hardly ever say anything. Your claims are utter nonsense as I said, unless you’re naive. You can’t time these small biotechs and anyone who knows anything, knows that, yes, even when you go in only in the phase stage. It is exceptionally difficult and you knew there was a partial halt and all kinds of other potential issues. Making this kind of noise just before approval is completely and utterly disingenuous.
No, it’s validation, and the first validation that is relevant. But yes, regulators can take longer for new kinds of complex drugs like this one. So I would not assume they won’t have questions or won’t take their time if they feel it is worthwhile. Secondly, they may not have a lot of expertise in this particular field and so they may seek advice and they also have complained they are understaffed.
So we’ll just have to see.
Not true. I recognize this is biotech, not Tech, and it’s highly regulated and this is a new product. The person who claims to have invested here is the one who doesn’t understand time and money, since it is up to you to measure your timeline and what you need money and how much risk to take with your money. So don’t be a moron and blame other people like longs invested here, for your poor management of your money by not deciding what your timeline required. The victim card!? I am not at all playing victim. That is ALL for the morons who falsely claim they did not know this takes a long time and were not told, as I have said many times, do not bet it all on one stock.
But the reality is, I do not believe people who post nonstop nonsense and moreover, we had what amounted to a huge return from under .20, .17 to $2.51, so those in a hurry, should have taken some money off the table and let their risk be subsidized.
But no, ignore the process, the reality of what you invested in and make stupid claims as if this was Amazon, not a microcap biotechs with a new, personalized medical product like nothing ever before… OK. Yeah, 6 months, and you’re out. So why are you not out?
This is false.
People who come here to “complain”, are here for specific purposes and to taunt and talk the price down, generally speaking. There are people who are clear investors and certainly there are legitimate issues to discuss, of course. But mostly it’s a pitched battle of people and shorts come here to affect sentiment, generally. It’s their job.
They may have believed that PFS would work out, despite crossover and pseudoprogression. I am not surprised and in fact I have seen the exact same overly optimistic views expressed at every small biotech in the market. And sometimes they are luckily, correct.
What were they supposed to think and tell you? Hey, this is going to be extremely difficult, there are unforeseeable challenges ahead and we have no idea when this will be completed, it could be another 10 years or more, but we’d really like you to invest?
They’d be out the door. And the reality is, they told you that negative story every quarter and in every single regulatory filing. Things don’t go as planned in this space and things that can go wrong, frequently do go wrong and then they were deprived of capital by shorts for most of that time.
I can’t figure out if you really are this naive or you’re just larding it on for bulletin board drama to get that price down as low as possible. This is THE game when companies are coming up on approvals or big, major turning points. Swing traders especially when anticipating approval will sell their shares and then s/it talk a company to get those shares as close to zero as they possibly can, so that on the event, assuming it goes well, they can buy back in at dirt cheap prices just before the stock, presumably, takes off from the low low price they talked it down to…
I agree with your description that the two drugs are coadministered. I do not think that means that it is a “maturation agent” in this context. I think that is back to the notion that it’s one drug. I do agree that it makes sense for the company to find a way, as soon as possible, to work with Oncovir to ensure that patients, going forward, not just in trials, can access and have Poly-ICLC, specifically Hiltonol, with their DCVax-L injections, as an adjuvant treatment that stimulates the immune system broadly, not just the dendritic cells in the vaccine. It does so by pretending to be viral DNA. It would be good if the companies find ways to collaborate, work together and commercialize in a manner that provides patients with the best possible solution, as well as positions both companies to prosper from the collaboration.
No cult. I just recognize the reality. And I would not have invested much 12 years ago because honestly, I’ve known enough bios to know that they had a long way to go. I was watching them then.
I don’t disagree with the notion that it has taken an ungodly amount of time to get to where they are, but I also recognize and understand what it is they are trying to do, how challenging that is and that they have unnecessary hurdles being put in their way. I also recognize that most persons that I have seen in this field, with phenomenal resumes and previous accomplishments that take over such companies inevitably fail because they do not have the time, or patience or desire to invest their lives in a new technology like this team has. So most often they either bankrupt the company or sell it for cheap so they can move on. THOSE guys are loved by shorts and tend to fail upward. So I agree with you that this teams determined and long effort will typically be portrayed as “failure” and that persons who invested early, not really understanding what they were doing, may sometimes be disgruntled. They can also often be swing traders.
By the way, the markets are large, you claim to be a long, you’re here 24/7, but you have only had mostly negative things to say. Are you dispositionally challenged in that you can only invest in companies and management teams that you apparently hate with passion? Why don’t you go out and buy some NVIDIA or some company you like rather than spitting all over long investors in this company, claiming to be another “long”. I would not be surprised if you do own shares, but most such people are SWING traders and for swing traders, in the lead up to an approval, they think their job is to get the stock price as LOW as possible by bashing the crap out of the companies so that they can buy again very low, and swing their profits high on an approval.
Whatever the case, manipulating stocks is problematic.
Not a revelation of anything new for small biotechs. That is literally their job to be constantly believing and hoping that some key event will open up market interest and if you take a moment and read that Washington Post article about the company and AF, it’s quite obvious there have been many times such incidents and continue to be such incidents, but it’s a tiny company, they are limited by a variety of circumstances and they are overwhelmed by an ant farm of short posters who seem to be part of an ongoing, compensated effort to keep the price low. We also know that larger entities appear to have enabled manipulation of the stock price, though we do not yet know if they can be held to account over their activities.
No they haven’t. This is typical of shorted small microcap bios at this time. They have taken the company to the edge and they have a single product. That shorts have been, for years now building in an expectation that they will be rejected is also quite common.
They are set for a moderate commercial launch and we do not know yet if they have any possible deals in the wings, but quite frequently, a company will wait until they have a reasonable valuation to accept such deals.
We’ll see what happens next, but the notion that, given where they are, they have “failed” is nonsense. The reality is far from that. That it’s a small company and a few entities or personalities with deep pockets can manipulate the price is no revelation in our modern markets.
Oh nonsense. Total garbage swing trade crap.
It’s an adjuvant treatment. I didn’t say I am certain one way or the other, only that anonymous posters are not the best source, as was proven by the claim that it was fully approved. But adjuvant use is not the same as a standalone approval and it may be that the CRI is correct and we see, in fact, that the combination trial with Keytruda allows for DCVax-L and Poly-ICLC as the standard of care. Meanwhile, Keytruda, in that mix, is the only standalone drug of the 3 that is approved as a standalone drug.
Things are not always absolute, in the way we might expect. But as I said, I am not claiming it is a standalone approval. It’s an immuno-stimulant and it would make sense if, having so much data that indicates it is not a risk for safety, regulators were OK with it when it’s addition to a therapy performed as expected, as an immune stimulant and PAMP.
But I’m no ideologue. I also said I do not think it matters at the moment. DCVax-L is seeking approval as its own treatment that is part of the SOC. Their application does not require poly-iclc to be approvable.
Yes. Only NWBO.
1) AEK was quoting you vaguely and loosely saying you might support the other poster, generally this has not been your claim.
2) the claim is that it is already in DCVax-L, and there is zero evidence to suggest that is the case or that DCVax-L has a version 2 that will be announced soon. Those are the claims of the other person. You were referenced obliquely as not sure one way or the other but it could be.
But your defensiveness on the subject makes me think that you are now claiming something that is not currently part of the facts. The current immense response that is given by the use of Poly-ICLC is when it is given as an IM injection and adjuvant treatment, not as a “maturation agent”. There is absolutely no evidence that it has been added to or will be added to this approved version of DCVax-L, thus disposing of that additional step.
There is no dispute by me at all that TLR2 / Poky-ICLC, is part of patents and part of the company’s long-term view. I have numerous posts over many years and tweets on the subject when no one else was much talking about these things in those forums. I was also talking about the other additional drugs and combinations basically from almost the first day that I was here, and certainly early on though many of those posts were removed at the time, to my consternation.
But the fact is, hyping false notions, is not the road to credibility. Creating fictions that the current version of DCVax-L won’t need IM injections of poly-iclc because it’s already in there or will be shortly is nonsense. It is nonsense 1) because that is not how licensed drugs come to market; 2) because current formulations of DCVwx-L are in trials WITH Poly-ICLC as an added adjuvant injection, not already in the treatment.
I said poly iclc is not part of a NATURAL maturation, meaning it is an added drug that creates additional conditions, which the latest paper describes. The addition of it in the patent is a broad description of things that can be added to change the nature of the vaccine in different ways, but it is not the baseline formulation of the natural process that was the first version of DCVax-L and would be akin to a combination therapy creating an additional level of response.
So no, what you quoted doesn’t say what you think it says and what I said holds. It is currently an additional drug and treatment that doesn’t appear in the body in any natural way to get the DC’s to their state and it is not in the current version of DCVax-L in a form intended to induce the reaction that the IM injection provides because if it were, there would be no need for those additional trials.
Adding it is an option among very many, that the company has preserved for itself with bold and forward thinking drafting of patents. But as to what they actually will use or do, that is still to be determined and it may very well be that when they develop such formulas, as with many things, it may turn out that the better way to use poly-ICLC will still be as a separate IM injection. It might not be, but as I said, that is part of drafting a patent that anticipates possibilities and creates opportunities. That is what such patents are for. They are not necessarily just a description of the current exact formula of DCVax. The company has scoped out things it might like to try, and they might put such a version together, and then they would need to test that in humans, and they might test it against giving the shot directly and separately for poly-iclc, to see what works best.
But there is zero evidence that is what is going on NOW.
Management is executing on a novel treatment that no one else in the world is involved in or saw value in. Those who non-stop attack them, are so often just mouthpieces for the interests that seek to maintain a low share price so that they can keep attacking them. But yeah, we'd all like the share price to be sky high. No question about it.
He did not say you can't criticize them. He told you that he has a different opinion. There is a difference.
First of all, that post was not a response to you Hyperopia, because unless you have multiple ID's, you're not typically the person posting those claims irresponsibly, that you know the current version or the future version will have all of those variations. You make broad patent claims and prospective ones based on where your research might go, to ensure you have room to grow. But those claims are not necessarily the current version of DCVax-L. BCG I actually believe is in there. Poly-ICLC is getting results as an IM injection, not as part of the DCVax-L formula. If that were the case, they'd not need to have that separate injection at UCLA in all of their trials.
The fact is, a patent like the one you just quoted, lists all kinds of possibilities, but DCVax-L in its trials and generally will have only one formulation. Secondly, the formulations will be consistent over the course of a trial, not constantly changing. The drug is not based on every possibility listed in any given patent. Secondly, I referenced the patent that the OTHER PERSON who was referenced gave but also with the knowledge that patent claims are often broader and prospective, while the drug in the current trial, is not the version, for instances, reflected in the expectations for the combination patent. I never said that Poly-ICLC combinations are not in any patents, because we know it is and we know the company references it just like it references BCG, the grandaddy of cancer vaccine concoctions.
The other person has said there are 2 versions of DCVax-L, which falls directly into the nonsense promoted by shorts.
However, no one argues that the amazing results with poly-ICLC have come in all of the trials with just DCVax-L. They come in the trials with Poly-ICLC as an ADJUVANT therapy using a separate IM injection. That is because it is not already in DCVax-L. And the fact is, person's claiming they have the actual formula for DCVax-L's current maturation factors, not just making claims about the patent, are showing a lack of understanding. None of us know what is in the actual, current mix, because that is a trade secret known to the company and the regulator, but not public information. Further, if just throwing in the poly-ICLC into the DCVax-L mix, randomly, over the course of the trial, worked, and if that were the case, it would not be necessary to have separate trials or to have it listed as an IM injection in those research papers about those trials.
Additionally, Poly-ICLC is in fact a drug made by another company. NWBO doesn't make it. There is no question that the company could choose to do a later version of a vaccine, with all kinds of improvements and combinations, of every stripe across various patents. No one said that can't happen either. But the wild speculation 1) that there is a version 2 of the vaccine, 2) that the current one already incorporates poly-iclc, so they don't need to do the IM injection, etc., etc., those are wildly speculative claims without basis.
And if you are in fact posting these wild claims under other ID's and then maintaining the otherwise cool and collected hyperopia, until this post, well, then thanks for the revelation.
My question for you, Hyperopia, is, are you claiming to have the actual formula for DCVax-L since its inception and initial trials? Really?
And are you claiming that upon approval of DCVax-L, as it is currently, there would be no need for any off-label prescription of poly-iclc, because it is already in DCVax-L, and has the same impact as the current UCLA combination trial? Is that your claim? I don't think so.
As for post approval, future formulations of new versions of DCVax-L, of course they can do all kinds of amazing things. They could add in specific antigens they want in every batch, regardless of whether a patient's tumor initially had such antigens. They could seek a manufacturer of an off-patent keytruda at some future date and toss some of that in, and once it's off patent, they could do so regardless of whether the combination patent has been approved. And sure, they can throw in poly-iclc as an adjuvant, directly into the vaccine, as that is typically how adjuvants are used with vaccines, though usually they are not a separate biologic like poly-iclc and these other treatments, which operate more like combinations and have a therapeutic impact beyond just the dendritic cells in DCVax-L.
So yes, there is no current evidence that it is in DCVax-L, or that the company won't want patients to get poly-iclc as an adjuvant IM injection because, "it's already in there". That's clearly not the case.
It can't tell you their subjective intentions.
I found multiple references to approval on the CRI website. Seems unlikely to be a mistake. They refer to it as a quite limited adjuvant use in a limited number of patients. Also, it is in so many trials and clearly is viewed as a safe adjuvant. As a PAMP, it's an immunostimulant. Further, approvals of adjuvants for vaccines are not always as conspicuously noted as a standalone approval. The fact is, as a PAMP, Poly-ICLC will never likely be a standalone treatment for cancer or any disease. It is basically always a treatment that MIMICS viral infection and generates a stronger immune response with another immune therapy.
I would not be surprised if the CRI website were correct, or if it were wrong, but I take their expertise more seriously than anonymous posters on the internet.
Here is the second reference to being approved: https://www.cancerresearch.org/cancer-types/skin-cancer
At some point last year, someone posted a page from the Cancer Research Institute, which I will include below. It could be inaccurate, no doubt. It is also possible it is only approved as an adjuvant for another therapy and sometimes, because a drug is not approved as a standalone drug, it is not widely known. Poly-ICLC in my view, has no chance of ever being a standalone drug. All it does is trick the immune system into believing that there are indications of a viral infection, though that is literally NOT the case, and it causes the immune system to rev up. The reality is, for immune therapies, this is a very useful tactic to add to a treatment like DCVax-L because it revs up all kinds of immune processes that further assist the immune system's response, for instance, to cancer and the various antigens that have viral origins in many cancers, but particularly GBM.
But I am completely willing to concede that I have no idea. I said it was approved because every time I said it wasn't, previously, someone corrected me. So I presumed that was correct information. It may be wrong, or we all might simply not have the full information.
As I said, this could be wrong, or we could be not fully cognizant of all of the details. But I do note that adjuvants for vaccines do not require immense effort to be approved generally, so long as they have been shown to be safe and that they have an effect of making a vaccine more powerful. Adjuvants come in a variety of types.
https://www.cancerresearch.org/treatment-types/immunomodulators
Quit misidentifying me. You’re false identification with some other ID or your name calling, is not acceptable.
Far from it. I see your other ID posting the same point. The question followed a detailed set of answers and posts that anyone can read. The question back was to have you prove your point and you can’t, you responded with empty nothingness. The more you post, the more obvious it is that you have no real arguments except those you can IMPLY, without anything behind them.
You avoid the question on point to make a claim that has zero validity. But that’s just what one can expect of shorts without much to say except that they needs to post constantly to throw empty questions out to imply false things to scare away investment. If you were confident in your position, and your buddies, you’d never be here, you’d never be all of social media posting nonstop nonsense, you’d just let it happen. You know you’re wrong and every post proves it.
I agree Karl. Great post.
Manufacturing many of these different drugs requires similar steps and machinery. You grossly over generalize based on limited knowledge.
The company that makes Poly-ICLC currently is Oncovir. They have an old, expired patent and a new one to make a better version with greater efficiency.
But your changing the subject to speculation that having equipment and building general labs means that Merck is entering that market, without more information or connectivity to this company or discussion or reality, is just out there. You would do well to not just post news articles about new facilities everywhere and connect every single one of them to NWBO. It is not credible and it undermines the bull case by suggesting we are all of the same mindset. Most of us are realistically following it, looking for good reason to KNOWINGLY speculate, but not selling wild speculation as certainty.
Curia Global is not a drug company seeking licenses to sell drugs. They are a CDMO.
And yeah, different companies might hire a CDMO to manufacture a new version of poly-iclc, but not all versions are necessarily the same and further I see no information suggesting Curia Global has been hired to manufacture poly-ICLC. You could start by proving that that’s the case and providing an alternative source for poly-iclc. That doesn’t mean such company by definition and not by facts, is connected magically to NWBO.
As for Merck, Merck has had an ongoing relationship with Uncover for use of its poly-iclc with its own drugs.They have coordinated on various trials and licensing arrangements. That, by itself, does not mean everything you incessantly post as fact about NWBO or DCVax-L. If Merck is getting ready to either manufacture Poly-ICLC, they could be doing a deal with Oncovir as their partner, or they could buy Oncovir and yes, that could lead to a relationship with NWBO. But let's not get ahead of ourselves by making wild claims about news stories about plant equipment.
And, up to this point, that relationship with Merck, has brought Oncovir a huge amount of benefit. Let's wait and see what comes of these things. One can take about FACTS without speculating wildly.
I did not discuss that drug. And no, I will say what I want to say, how I want to say it and not engage in your silliness. You changed the subject, pretending you delivered great insight. But of course you said nothing new. I tried to be fairly polite, recognizing that your effusive enthusiasm leads you to make claims that have no basis in reality. Let’s leave it at that.
No one is disputing the plans of UCLA and the company to use new drugs to enhance the effect and counter secondary immune responses that undermine the impact of DCVax-L.
We have not lost. They’ve applied and have a very likely shot at receiving approval. You jump prematurely and make your case superficially, and based on false notions, as always. We’ll see what happens. But try not to prematurely sell false conclusions.
And there is much more to it with regard to compassionate use and the UK Specials program. Advent and Sawston are the lynchpins making that possible, at all. Shorts attack pressure points that they understand are actually critical and necessary but require sophistication to understand. Their facile arguments are intended to interfere with the company’s efficient operation, as they did when they undermined the financing arrangement with Cognate. They had very favorable financing that once unwound, it literally required the massive spoolingout of dilution for past years worth of financing at a share price that they had shorted down to likely below 1/10th of the price of previous share based financing that required Cognate to hold the shares and not put them out in the market, but also required them, for that agreement, to top up the shares as they declined in price to maintain the value of the payments for critical DCVax-L production throughout the trial. It was a most favored nations clause and shorts understood that by destroying it, they could make a lot of money and destroy the company, and likely pick up the IP and value of the trial, having been anonymous, as now public saviors.
These guys are criminals. Through and through, shorts are vultures and the real fraudsters and the entire market knows it. The regulators are frozen because there is a whole lobby that, libertarian and such, believe that is all “legitimate” business. In Indonesia, people who engaged in genocide and all kinds of mafia activity believe that “gangster” as a word, means “free man”. This is the philosophy of our favorite shorts as well.
The mindsets are not different. I think your notions are just not realistic and don’t describe how commercial business is done. It’s easy to get very enthusiastic and not really know the details but think one does because one sees all kinds of things on Google or in the news. I get that. I was young once too. It’s exciting and you connect all kinds of things that are not connected but when you’re maybe a bit naive about such things, and that is not necessarily an age thing, one can start to think everything is connected. Merck is developing a plant with technology I heard about over here… they must be connected… but over time you realize that you can’t make such broad and naive assumptions, and there would be other kinds of hallmarks.
That is called speculation, and speculation so wide and broad can generally be ungrounded in reality. It’s fun, it can create even a sense of false euphoria. But time will teach you, hopefully, to speculate with more knowledge and information and to know when you are just wildly speculating and blowing smoke.
How about this, can you point out another biotech or public company that has a regional financing authority as smart as Cambridge, giving advantageous funding for them to build a manufacturing facility who then has a CDMO to meet the requirements of that local development authority that it be used also as a facility for growing a local industry and research hub for biotech?
It was a brilliant public, private, municipal deal. And shorts are frustrated as hell about it.
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.