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 could be mistaken, but I believe that if a filing is rejected for changes, most companies would make the change, resubmit it, and say nothing until it was accepted. I don't know that most companies announce submission, but even if they do, when acceptance is delayed investors just assume that some changes are being made and wait to hear of an acceptance. Of course it would be very different if a complete rejection was occurring, but I believe that would be very rare if the company and regulator were working together at all during the trial.
In the case where IMCL's BLA was rejected, and Martha Stewart and the CEO were jailed for insider trading before announcing that additional trials were being required. IMCL knew of the FDA's problems with the trial, but didn't have to divulge it until the FDA officially rejected them. During that time they sold BMY on partnering Erbitux with assurances that things were well with the FDA. At that time the FDA's hands were tied, they couldn't criticize their views being improperly stated. After this case the rules were changed and if the FDA's position was misrepresented, they could say so.
If they ever wanted to make a Biotech version of the movie "The Sting" all they'd have to do is do a picture of what IMCL did to BMY in the partnership for Erbitux. Of course in the end it became a blockbuster drug, so it took longer than BMY figured, but ultimately it was very profitable.
Gary
When no money is attached to what's being called a milestone, almost anything the company wishes can be called a milestone. If there were a partnership, and if at specified points money was paid by one partner to the other, those payments would truly be defined milestones that are achieved as they're truly material events.
I believe most companies announce the acceptance of a filing for approval by regulators, but the filing, and acceptance of something like an IND to permit a trial to be started is something many companies don't announce, unless they are truly milestones in a partnership and they're receiving substantial money. Investors frequently discover new trials in the Clinical Trials database for trials that haven't been formally announced.
I believe we'll get a PR for the acceptance of the UK filing once the company is notified. It could be this week, or next. The question may be, do they also announce an Annual Meeting, or are they waiting for something more before it's announced.
I for one certainly learned how secretly discussions could be held in the recent IMGN buyout offer. Many people were speaking about a buyout at some point in the future, but none had any idea that it was coming so shortly, and for so little, so fast. The same thing can be said for partnerships.
Gary
Buyout vote scheduled for January 31st.
https://ih.advfn.com/stock-market/NASDAQ/immunogen-IMGN/stock-news/92927342/form-defm14a-definitive-proxy-statement-relating
Sorry that more financial information won't be available before the vote, but management clearly wants this to happen, so they're forcing the issue ASAP. I can only hope that Institutions tell them no.
Gary
We're essentially in the same place. I've invested more in NWBO than any other stock I've ever bought, but with the buyout IMGN is worth much more than NWBO.
Something I do believe that all of us need to do when discussing future prices, look at the Market Cap. I'd make the assumption that 1.5 billion shares are outstanding. IE a $20 share price represents a $30 billion market cap. While that may sound high, a billion in earnings could give that with a P/E of 30, certainly a possibility, or it would take $3 billions in earnings at a P/E of 10. I frankly believe that in time our earnings will go to tremendous numbers of billions, but it doesn't happen instantaneously.
If we're not bought out, and when we gain a tumor agnostic label, I've got to believe our sales will quickly go into double to triple digit billions, earnings will certainly go into double digits, for purposes of discussion let's say we reach $30 billion in earnings and lets say we're still at 1.5 billion shares. That's $2 a share, P/E or 10, $20 share price, P/E of 30, $60 share price. I believe that we'll justify that P/E of 30, but it can't be taken for granted. All that I'm suggesting is that earnings take time to grow, but our potential, with a tumor agnostic label, is almost unlimited over time, a trillion dollar market cap in a decade wouldn't be out of the question if anywhere near half of all solid tumor patients are getting one of the DCVax's. If we remain independent, just give it time. If we're bought out after a tumor agnostic label, but not that much in earnings, it ought to be at least $30 billion, or $20 a share, and it ought to be more than that.
Gary
Now up to 40K, going for 50 and plan to stop there.
Gary
I agree, in time trials covering all of this will happen, the question may be what is first.
By the way I rounded off my position today with more shares than I'd have dreamed of a year or so ago.
Gary
JT, some suggestions you've already received are certainly possibilities, I do believe it's also possible to initiate things on their own in this way. If the trials are totally new trials, those requiring filing new IND's, having the IRB and lead clinician totally formalize the trial protocol, it could take the better part of half a year to do so, IE major new funding may not be needed until later in the year, when approval in the UK occurs the share price ought to be substantially greater and revenue should be routinely increasing.
I have no idea the status of new IND's, etc. or if the company is looking to expand existing trials at UCLA, or elsewhere, transitioning them into registrational Phase 2's or even Phase 3 trials. I don't know if the company can take over, or co-sponsor existing trials which they currently have no position in.
Hopefully our share price will be substantially greater once the UK accepts our filing, that would give the company a little financial flexibility to issue a few million shares to initiate new trials. No doubt, they'll need more, but perhaps not till after UK approval and at that time they should be in a much better financial situation. I would certainly expect that others who'll benefit from their products being utilized in new trials will also participate in trial costs, but I don't know that they'll pay NWBO for the right to do so, though it's certainly a possibility.
Gary
Jester, I believe you're right. The question may be, if you did sell after spoofing was deemed to be the cause of a major price drop, could you file to get a part of the gain awarded NWBO, or would you have to sue the MM's based on what was proven in NWBO's case. I don't know that NWBO would pay investors who sold at the time, I think they'd have to make claims themselves, possibly directly through Posner as a class action, or perhaps by joining the suit. I'm not a lawyer, this is just a guess, but if I had sold when the MM's brought the company down, I'd probably contact her office for guidance.
In some way, even when NWBO is selling at double digit share prices we'll all have lost a bit due to the spoofing. Why? Because NWBO was forced to sell far more shares to get the needed funds then they'd have had to if the price was dramatically higher. On the other hand, those of us who added on the weakness in the share price could actually come out ahead because of these actions.
Gary
I believe that the new facilities you're discussing that BP's are building are intended for producing massive quantity products, DCVax's are a very different animal, each batch is individually made for just one patient. With the approval of the EDEN it will all be made with many EDEN's located in a large cleanroom. Each EDEN will make one batch of personalized vaccine each time a new disposable cassette is installed in it. Each batch will provide numerous doses, held in cryogenic conditions, for one, and only one, patient. If that patient passes on, I believe any remaining vaccine will be useless and will probably be disposed of, I believe.
Gary
Branster,
I certainly believe that Merck, or others, could partner with NWBO in running new trials which use their products with DCVax-L. I don't believe that LP will sell them an equity position in the company below solid double digit figures, which can't be justified until the stock is trading for at least $5 and probably substantially more. It certainly may be possible later in the year, but I suspect the new trials will be initiated sooner than that.
Gary
I'm no legal expert, but it seems to me that the judge is saying that he want to see more of NWBO's case, then he'll make up his mind. When he's seen more of the information, if he agrees to move forward from there he's practically said that he's seen enough to call the suit valid. I believe that Posner has all the information he'll need to see. At that point the defendant's might consider a settlement rather than risk the size of the penalty a trial could bring.
Gary
Thanks H2R, that's what I was thinking of, but clearly I made the mistake of thinking it was for DCVax-L when it's actually for DCVax-Direct. I wonder if anything similar has been made for DCVax-L which includes all UK patients who tried it for solid cancers other than brain as well as all other trials which did as well.
It would be interesting if the company did an update of this as many patients at the time were living, it's been several years, how many may still be alive.
Happy New Year's,
Gary
Thanks, that may have been where the data came from in the plot I saw, but I thought it came from the patients treated in the UK.
Gary
Thanks Flipper,
The graphic I was thinking of had the patients by how long they've lived and their type of cancer. I'm uncertain if the patients described here are in that graphic, or if it's only those treated in the UK under compassionate use. I frankly was unaware of much of these trials you found with Bard, clearly there is some knowledge about cancers which could work toward a cancer agnostic label. I don't know if, or how much of it is in the filing with the UK, but there should be little doubt in anyone's mind that eventually a tumor agnostic label is a real possibility.
I really haven't used AI much, but there is no doubt it's a great resource. The think I don't know is how much fact checking is done before information it's repeating is a part of the dialogue. Bogus things are written all the time, the question is whether they become a part of the total information AI considers, or if they're really good at weeding them out.
The quality of the information you get from AI is as good as the research they do in determining the validity of the information. I'm reminded of a story from my thermodynamics professor many years ago. When he returned the term papers to the class, one that he gave an A to had a note to see him after class. When he saw the student after class he told him that he always thought it was worthy of an A when he wrote it, and thought he made a good selection when he selected the paper from the fraternity file. Now with AI it's going to really be rough on professors determining how much work a student has done, and how much is AI.
When I was in school, if I was composing a paper, spotted an error within it, if I couldn't fix it with erasable paper it wouldn't be fixed.
Had computers been available to students back then I'd have been a far better student. Today's students don't know how good they have it, they don't even think about things like significant figures, as we did when working with slide rules. Computers may be able to make money trading at $.0001 increments, for most of us investors, a penny spread or more was all we needed, and probably how trading should be done again to get a fairer market.
Happy New Year's,
Gary
If the board moderators can find the graphics that show the non brain cancer patients that have been treated, I think it would be worthy of being stickied so we can easily find, and discuss it.
Thanks and have a Happy New Year's,
Gary
While I agree with you completely BB, the company will still be notified when it's officially accepted and they'll tell the world with a PR, that's when some, perhaps many, people who've never heard of NWBO will hear about it, so that's why it's important.
Those who say that we need volume to move substantially are right. To get that volume we need to attract new investors. This is one step in the right direction. As the NWBO story is heard by new investors volume will increase to the point that the MM's can't possibly keep it under control. I believe the company has plans for much more information to be released this year and each release will attract new investors to the company. Personally I've continued to add on weakness, but once we're above $1 I doubt if I'll do so any more. There is a point where I just want to sit back and watch my personal worth grow, and start enjoying life more.
Happy New Year's,
Gary
I currently have 30K in July $32 and $33 options where my average price is below $.10, I intend to buy at least 10K more but the share price has been moving up, and I won't chase it much higher. I've had several days where in a 5K order I get one or a few calls filled at prices like $.05, over time if nothing is filling, I'll raise the bid to $.10 and get it. Days later, $.10 doesn't do it, at least not quickly. If I'm right, and if the offer goes up dramatically higher, I might make more money from the options than the shares I'm holding.
Have a Happy New Year's all,
Gary
I know I've seen a bar chart that shows many patients with different solid cancers with the longest survivor on the top, still alive with pancreatic cancer. If we can find that chart I suspect we'll find 15 different cancers documented on it. Each patient in the chart is designated as living or decease at the time the chart was created.
I have no idea if this, and further documentation about each patient, was included in the UK filing in hopes they'll go with a tumor agnostic label, or if only information on brain cancers were included. I say brain cancer, not GBM, because GBM was redefined during the trial so some of the patients in the database would no longer be considered GBM patients, but all are certainly brain cancer patients. I'm sure that other forms of brain cancer were not in the trial, but hopefully with GBM being the most serious of brain cancers, the label will be at least for all brain cancer patients.
If they don't get a tumor agnostic label the question may be, do they do one trial that enrolls patients with a variety of cancers, or do they run several smaller trials, each for one specific cancer. The same question would also apply to a future DCVax-Direct trial.
I still hope that when NWBO announces acceptance from the UK they also announce when the next Annual Meeting will be held. With the exception of things like the Big Biz Show, we've really received very little guidance in a year, it's time that we should be told what progress has been made, and some forecast for where we're going.
Happy New Year's,
Gary
I believe that the law suit will take care of itself. Of course so will the approval of the vaccine, we don't make these things happen, we can discuss them in any way we wish, but it's the company that makes them happen.
Happy New Year's,
Gary
If the BP's are smart they'll realize that DCVax's will result in people living longer, perhaps being cured. These people aren't living because of the DCVax's alone, it's because it works with a variety of their products. Purchasing NWBO may be the goal for some of them, but my point is that getting the vaccine on the market will potentially aid many of them as their products work with it. Even if they don't, people living many years will no doubt find them using products made by the BP's over much of the rest of their lives.
Sure the BP's may wish they'd developed the DCVax's themselves, but they didn't and until they really want to develop a line of personalized products having just one, or two to make and distribute mass produced products along with individual products will probably create more problems than they can imagine. It becomes even more complex if the DCVax's are the only products requiring cryogenic storage and handling.
As they go into trials on other solid cancer it's likely that different cancers will do better with different products added to DCVax-L. If that turns out to be the case, many companies may be interested in NWBO, and perhaps they'll realize it's better if NWBO remains independent and helps all of them to sell more of their products. Regardless, people living longer will use products from the BP's and all sorts of products while they're alive. About the only thing they won't be buying is a coffin.
Gary
I agree with you. I believe that Posner is a top flite attorney, and I don't believe anyone in her position reveals everything she intends to bring up in trial until she's in that trial. Clearly the Judge is saying that more is needed, or he could dismiss the case. I believe that she already has a lot more and will reveal more of what she has, but not everything she intends to bring up in court.
I'm not an attorney, but have friends who are, and I don't believe that any would expose their entire hand before going to court. Posner has 2 weeks to provide more detailed reasons the trial should continue, I don't think she'll have any problem meeting that deadline, I suspect she could be ready even sooner, but that could entail showing more of her hand than she's willing to expose at this time.
We all need to realize that this isn't the goal of the company, the goal is curing cancer. LP is a highly qualified attorney herself, she no doubt knew how the stock was being manipulated. I don't know if she contacted Posner, or if Posner's attention was somehow focused on NWBO and contacted LP about it. It really doesn't matter who approached who, Posner is an expert in this area and she took the case on contingency. Attorney's don't take such cases on contingency unless they believe they have a strong case for winning them. It may be many months, or years before this is completely resolved, but I believe that it will prove to be worthy of the time Posner and her firm are spending on it.
What's far more important during this time is all the other work the company is doing that's leading to an approval with the UK, and ultimately with the other regulators. That's the name of the game, what's happening in court is just a small side show.
Have a Happy, Healthy, and Safe New Year's,
Gary
I think that we all should realize that unless the MM's determine to settle and put the suit behind them, by the time it actually goes through the court, with all the delays they can create, it's doubtful that we'll need the money the suit will bring in. There is not a legal analyst around that doesn't believe Trump is attempting to do the same thing, put off legal action against him until after the election. the MM's are acting no differently.
As I understand it, Posner is taking this case at no cost to the company on contingency. At this point she'll determine is she, and her firm wish to invest the funds to keep going, abandon the suit, or see if NWBO is willing to pay some of the additional costs to continue the fight. I don't know that we'll ever hear exactly what the decision is, it might very well be an adjustment in the percentage the attorneys will get. I don't know this is a fact, it's just the way I understand it.
Gary
Has anyone gone through the deficiencies, and perhaps more importantly do we know if Posner is going to attempt to cure them?
There is no doubt in my mind that the MM's have tremendous political power and that must be overcome, in addition to the legal arguments, to win a suit against them.
Gary
If the MTD rejection is somehow conditional, I would think it's not final until the conditions are met. If in fact it's not, I would hope the company would put out a PR indicating that they're moving forward toward a trial. If a date has been set, they should announce that as well. Perhaps if one of the attorneys here can take a deeper look we can get a better education on what's happening.
Happy New Year's all,
Gary
Riley,
Your concerns about long term problems remind me of a Navy Commander I worked with many years ago. He was having some health issued and was concerned that it may have been caused by experimental products he was given when he joined the Navy, about 20 years prior. When last I heard, he was being completely stonewalled about what he'd been given. I'm sure somewhere the Navy knows, but they were fighting him ever learning, and while we lost contact, I doubt if he ever did.
I certainly hope that decades from now they don't learn of long term problems, I'd be over 100 if that were the case, so I'm not concerned for me, but my kids to the vaccine too. I believe we all used the Moderna versions, and I gather they didn't fudge the data, but anything is possible.
In reality, the same can probably be said for almost anything we eat or drink, decades later they can be determined to be bad, or good. I can remember being told that a couple eggs a week was all anyone should eat, margarine was healthier than butter, etc., then the guidance changed. Likewise all sorts of other things. Hospitals were cooking food so well done that it was nearly inedible, the guidance changed, but last time I had a stay the cooks still hadn't gotten the word. Remember when saccharine was taken off the money because of mice getting cancer, they didn't tell us at the time the mice were getting the equivalent of 400 cans of diet coke a day to cause it. How many things could we eat 400 times the normal amount and not have some serious problem.
Gary
That's not correct ILT, at first they were distributed and given under an EUA, but full approval followed.
As far as I'm concerned, far more products should be made available sooner under EUA's, then followed with full approval. Had this been done with DCVax-L I suspect an EUA could have been issued back when the trial was halted and the goals were being changed to OS. Everyone who receives the vaccine under an EUA should have results reported in a Phase 4. Had that been done, I believe the Phase 4 data would have led to a tumor agnostic label, and approval some time ago if the company, manufacturing manually, could keep up with demand. Under an EUA they'd be entitled to be paid by insurance, I would suspect that the price could be higher after full approval, but the company would have had real earnings, especially if the EUA was internationally accepted.
Happy New Year's,
Gary
I certainly don't know for a fact, but I believe that NWBO has been working closely with the UK authorities for years. I believe that they have spent an immense amount of time on the filing, and the regulators know what they are getting in advance of seeing the final document. If I am right about this, I believe that it will fly through the regulators and be approved in under 4 months, possibly even under 3 months.
Of course, it is also possible that they will have delays. Nothing is certain, but I don't think that we should assume the worst case.
I hope that shortly after they announce acceptance that they announce the Annual Meeting, then we should get the information on where we are, and where we are going.
Gary
I think we could be surprised in the near future. I have slightly increased my position.
Gary
Personally I've only done single leg options based on my own opinion of where I expect the stock to go. When I needed substantial funds to do the solar and heat pump system, I sold calls in IMGN that were well above the current price, but years away. I've rolled them to higher levels, even further away and now with IMGN in a buyout, I have repurchased some of them to get the full price in the buyout. I've also be buying substantial options that are over the price of the buyout for nickels and dimes in the belief that the price will go up, if I'm right I'll make far more money, if I'm wrong, it's cost me a couple thousand in a gain of hundreds of thousands.
Gary
I would actually hope that in the future I can make money without selling share, but not until we're trading for about ten times or more what we're trading for now. By that time I expect that Options will be made in NWBO and ideally after a run-up I'd sell out of the money calls at premium prices. If I'm right about the stock retrenching after the run-up, I'll buy them back at a substantial discount, and keep the difference. Worst case, I'll either let the stock be bought out at higher prices than when I sold the calls, or buy them back, possibly at a loss, but overall with a big gain as I'd never do it with over 10% of my stock, and more likely less than 5%, but even that could make $10,000 or so if completely successful in the transaction.
Gary
As the year draws to it end, let me wish all a Happy New Year's with the thought that I believe 2024 will be a great one for NWBO Longs.
Gary
Here's a question for the longs. If at the end of the year the share price is lower than at the end of last year, did you lose money?
The obvious answer of yes might very well not be true. If like me you purchased more shares when the price was lower, it's very possible that you have a gain. In reality, the answer for each of us may be different. Some here who chose to purchase at higher prices might even be behind if the stock closes up for the year, especially if they didn't purchase when the stock was lower.
We'll know in just over 3 trading days, but I would suspect that regardless of the exact price at the end of the year, nearly all of us who've added at low points during the year will actually have gains. As for the shorts, depending on how they've played things during the year, they too could have losses or gains, but if they're still holding stock short, the potential for big losses is greater then gains IMHO.
I don't think we'll hear anything from the company this week, but who knows, perhaps they'll surprise us. I suspect that we'll know about the UK acceptance in the not too distant future.
Gary
Thanks Dstock,
During a colonoscopy if they find polyps they remove them and biopsy them, as I understand it. I'm wondering if cancerous, could the polyps provide sufficient cancer to make DCVax-L which perhaps would help to prevent future cancerous polyps. The few people I've known that had more severe colon cancer had to have substantial portions of their colon removed, but did recover and live for years.
Reading the statistics that were shown here, the cancer is much deadlier than I had thought it to be. I'm uncertain when they say 1.4 million are found to have colon cancer if this includes all those with cancerous polyps removed, or if it's grown beyond that point to be considered as part of the 1.4 million. 700K dying annually certainly would make it a fitting target for DCVax-L if it proves to have benefits. It reminds me, I'm due for a colonoscopy, I've not had even a single polyp in previous ones, but you never know, that's why you do them.
With the New Year's I really should get caught up with some of the Drs. I guess I've been avoiding, not intentionally, just things you don't get around to doing. I do hope we rally a bit going into the New Year, if not it seems that we'll essentially end the year where we began it.
Gary
Dstock, I sure hope you're right. I know that many BP's won't even discuss their Phase 1 and 2 trials, if they don't see success, they simply fall by the way.
I did try going to the school website, but I certainly couldn't find a link to clinical trials they're doing there. I really can't say if a call there might be able to learn something. I would be best if done in German by someone living there, though I'm sure many of those who're listed with phone numbers very probably do speak English.
If as you say all clinical trials become public in 2024, if the trial is still running it should be in the database. I would think it would be the responsibility of the school to do it, but that's not something I know to be a fact.
Once again, Happiest of Holiday's,
Gary
As I understand it, colon cancer is a slower growing and less deadly form of cancer than many which are more aggressive. Is it possible that this trial is still ongoing and gathering data. Do we have anyone in Germany who may be able to check into it.
I know nothing about German designations, but it's possible that if a Phase 2 is generating excellent data it could lead to an approval without doing a Phase 3. In the US it would have to be considered a registration Phase 2 trial, done with Pivotal quality material, but it's possible to do.
If it is an ongoing trial, it's unusual that by this time not even a peek at the data being gathered in the trial was ever announced, but NWBO has never been very open about what's happening, and I have no ideas what German regulations permit to be done. Perhaps we could be in for a pleasant surprise sometime in the future.
Gary
As I understand it, colon cancer is a slower growing and less deadly form of cancer than many which are more aggressive. Is it possible that this trial is still ongoing and gathering data. Do we have anyone in Germany who may be able to check into it.
I know nothing about German designations, but it's possible that if a Phase 2 is generating excellent data it could lead to an approval without doing a Phase 3. In the US it would have to be considered a registration Phase 2 trial, done with Pivotal quality material, but it's possible to do.
If it is an ongoing trial, it's unusual that by this time not even a peek at the data being gathered in the trial was ever announced, but NWBO has never been very open about what's happening, and I have no ideas what German regulations permit to be done. Perhaps we could be in for a pleasant surprise sometime in the future.
Gary
Biosect,
I didn't mean to imply that City of Hope had attempted to make DCVax-L, but rather that I'd not be at all surprised if COH had over the past many decades experimented with tumor lysate and white cells to make therapeutics that may have benefitted their patients. How close they may have been to DCVax-L I have no idea, and I doubt they do either. COH has been a world leader in many therapies, including CAR-T.
I've mentioned meeting a patient who received his own stem cells the day I received mine, three days later he received his own T-cells modified by adding a disabled HIV molecule, as I remember it. My Dr. was involved in the development of the technology, and that was nearly ten years ago. It was nothing he ever wanted to use on me, the patient had a peek fever of 107, but clearly survived, but it's not an ordeal he'd like to put me through. I believe the treatment worked for this patient, though I've never run into him again. The problem with it was the modified T-cells were only effective for a matter of days, if the disease isn't eliminated in that time additional treatment is required.
Our DCVax-L isn't modifying your own T-cells, but greatly increasing the population of them, and as I gather it that greater population of the T-cells is sustained so your body is continuously fighting its cancer. I believe this is the key reason that our vaccine should be effective in all sorts of solid cancers. I'm a believer that curing cancer is an additive process, IE the more tools the physicians have to use, the greater the likelihood of a cure. DCVax-L will be one of those powerful tools, Poly-ICLC and others will be others, it won't achieve a cure every time, just many more of the times, and Drs. like Dr. Liau will continue to work on use of other therapeutics that will make it even more effective. I certainly don't know, but I suspect that if Dr. Liau's hands weren't tied by a trial protocol, she could achieve 5 year survival for something between 60% and 80% of the GBM patient population.
As I gather it, Dr. Liau and the other Drs. working with her at UCLA are the experts at brain cancers there. If UCLA is to continue to be a leader in treatment of other cancers with DCVax-L, I would assume that Drs. from other depts. would lead such trials at UCLA, not Dr. Liau in spite of her being one of the developers of DCVax-L. I've got to believe she'd be monitoring what they're doing, but I'd be surprised to see her being the lead clinician, or even being officially involved with the trial.
Gary
I was never part of the bet either, but frankly I don't mind some ignoring they lost. Why? Because I rather enjoy the way we're challenged by the more intelligent shorts, but besides that, I know that anyone who wishes can establish a new ID and even if we know who they are, they're not violating what they said they'd do. If the moderators could eliminate such posters it might be meaningful, but frankly I don't want to see them become the police of such things.
I'd rather people just keep their ID, but if we have to guess, I suspect that most who said they'd drop out will be back with other names in less than a month.
Gary
Again, I never said to give the EDEN units to anyone, I suggested that they could be leased with NWBO maintaining full control and having each machine operating in a network under NWBO's control.
I'm sure that you're right about being able to rip off either the machine, or the vaccine for that matter, but anyone doing it would be violating patents. I would suspect that not that many glass companies are able to make the disposable cassettes, and a major company doing so knowing they're infringing on patents is doubtful, but not impossible, especially if they're in China or other countries where stealing technology is common.
I believe that NWBO would be smarter to work, as IMGN did with Elahere, and license DCVax-L to one of the major Chinese pharmas.
I don't believe that City of Hope has manually made DCVax-L intentionally, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if they'd have the capability to do so in their cleanrooms and have probably created something quite similar over the years. I know patients who are alive today because COH created personalized products for them decades ago. At COH patients generally return at least once a year for check-ups even after decades, I've happened to speak to a few who've had hematological cancers decades ago and still come to see my Dr. who's head of the department. You hear some very interesting stories when chatting with such people.
You could be right about eventually selling FlaskWork, but I'd rather see them become a wholly owned subsidiary of NWBO, and if NWBO wished, they could spin them off, in the way Roche spun of Genentech, while retaining majority control, permitting them to reacquire them as they so choose, which Roche did as well.
To me, the key to the EDEN unit is the precision pumps which operate in the same manner as IV pumps. What you've said about stealing technology may be true, but I've spent a fair amount of time in Drs. offices and and it seems to me that all the IV units I've seen seem to be from the same company. I don't know if these units are sold, or leased, and perhaps other companies make them, but I've not seen them. My point is if they're making them and selling or leasing them at a fair price, people will use the tried and proven units. If the EDEN unit is accepted in the same way I wouldn't be that concerned about it being duplicated, at least as long as patents are still in place.
Gary
This is one of the posts I was referring to WRT achieving an approval that's tissue agnostic, though I called it tumor agnostic. I believe that Drugrunner, who I've affectionally called Druggie for years, has a great deal of knowledge of the industry. If he believes they're going for the tissue agnostic label I certainly believe it's a possibility.
Happy Holiday's all,
Gary