Hey mod, can you please sticky this fresh quote for Dr. Liau. Thanks.

Hey, why not, they just did it with the ASM transcript?🤷‍♀️

Well, GoodGuyBill, we’re still waiting?

Here’s likely how the NICE conversation goes:

You tell us how and why the vaccine seems to help certain patients then back it up with a confirmatory, and we’ll try to green light it for that subset. So long for now.

Here, this is from another biotech’s 10q and it took me one minute to find for you. Now go review NWBO’s 10q and compare the level of detail. Please let us all know what you find.

>>License Agreement with the Baylor College of Medicine
In March 2018, the Company entered into an exclusive license agreement with BCM under which the Company acquired a worldwide, exclusive license to BCM's rights in and to certain intellectual property rights, including a European patent to develop and commercialize MAR-T cell product candidates (the "BCM License Agreement"). In exchange for the license, the Company issued shares of its common stock to BCM valued at approximately $5.0 million at the time of issuance, agreed to make royalty payments to BCM upon commercial sales according to the royalty schedule in the BCM License Agreement, under which the royalty percentages increase in proportion to the aggregate net sales, and agreed to pay BCM certain milestone payments up to an aggregate of $64.85 million. The milestone payments are based upon the occurrence of nine particular milestones relating to completion of the first dosing in clinical trials for a first and second distinct product, FDA approval, and achievement of certain net sales goals. The Company is also responsible for sublicensing fees and for reimbursing BCM for related-party expenses. In addition, upon a liquidity event (as defined in the BCM License Agreement) of the Company, BCM will receive a one-time liquidity incentive payment of 0.5% of the liquidity event proceeds (as defined in the BCM License Agreement).

So when I don’t agree with one of the disciples it’s misdirection? Got it. I told you my belief. Again, all one of you groupies have to do is ask the company and copy paste their response here, or even better have them put it up on their website or in a filing. Because the only UCLA contract I’ve ever seen is ancient and vague. But no, instead the question is never asked and we all argue year after year over it. But I think that’s how the disciples prefer it?

>>Glioblastoma treatment has improved in the past 26 years. Half of people with glioblastoma now live two years or more following diagnosis.

“When Tom was diagnosed, 5 percent of patients lived for two years or longer after diagnosis,” Chicoine said. “Research done locally and globally, like identifying genetic markers for increased glioblastoma risk, are important strides in survivorship.”

https://www.muhealth.org/our-stories/26-years-and-counting-leading-edge-glioblastoma-treatment-gives-tom-more-time

The Top Brain Cancer News of 2025

https://www.targetedonc.com/view/the-top-brain-cancer-news-of-2025

This is likely what’s delaying approval not the skeptics. Probably why they refuse to run more trials too?

“There is a significant subgroup of patients who have lived more than five years,” Dr. Liau says. “But the challenge is trying to determine which patients it may work for and for which patients it doesn’t. Each new discovery gets us closer to improving survival and quality of life for patients facing this devastating disease.”

https://www.uclahealth.org/news/article/beating-brain-cancer-through-vaccines-and-research

Anyway, I can see everyone here is just going to blow right by this serious post just like they always do. Have a good day.

Well, now you’re just making light of something more serious. Les advised on complex legal issues and keeping LP out of hot water, no doubt.

Just a concerned investor who imagines himself in retail’s corner.

Thought I recalled reading in that transcript that Innes was doing Les’ work?

So please spend your energy on that instead of threatening skeptics.

Since you’re an investor you must realize that a ROI appears to hinge on the health of the One women show, right? If she goes like Les just did I have no idea who or what even holds the company together, do you?

>>Instead, it's "ATL-DC is not DCVax".

Speaking of governance, does anyone here care that a non lawyer IR Wall Street guy is taking over the General Counsel position? 🤷‍♀️

Sorry about your friend but we all have lost people. Now onto actual motives; If you really believe in this therapy why aren’t you screaming from the rooftop to get this in the hands of a company with proper governance and resources? Why aren’t you outraged there’s been no pediatric trial since L has no side effects? Why would you threaten skeptics who are trying to change things for the better by insisting on transparency?

We’re talking about an American company and an American institution so why on earth do you feel the need to bring up the UK legal system?

More dump graphics. You don’t even know the current state of affairs between UCLA and NWBO never mind the nitty gritty of the contract itself, old new or otherwise.

The outcome may be the same but the process was tweaked so NWBO could call it their own. Why is this so hard? Tell you what, write LP to please put a clear explanation up on their website so we can all finally call it a day on this topic.

LOL. ALT-DC is at once both UCLA’s original version and NWBO’s DCVAX depending on the study and name usage permission.

You keep forgetting that there is an article out there where in print Dr. Liau says that NWBO took her formula and tweaked it to call it their own.

Yeah…”Inquiries”. 🤷‍♀️. There was also a study group that ran alongside the trial that we’ve never heard about.🤷‍♀️. Seems to be no clear record with UCLA treatments either. It’s a mess.

No data on it but judging by social media and LP’s silence, it was very few. And those few who did, it appears the revenue went to Advent and those books are not available to scrutinize. 🤷‍♀️🐑

No take here on how many attended the ASM in person?

Patient population in this trial and with actual GBM? You know the answer.

It’s a shame shareholders have to rely on some anonymous poster’s ASM transcript.

Noticed nobody mentioned “Dr. Monica Bosch, our Chief Technical Officer” who was on the call. Is she related?

This her?

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Monica-Bosch-Morato

Yeah, because what’s to worry about with a broke One women show biotech, who’s addicted to consultants and already burned nearly two billion shares with no ROI in sight, and just one old lousy trial under their belt?

>>No, I believe she went with fear mongering looneys this year.

Speaking of which, she didn’t mention the “Thundering herd” this year? They must taken a wrong turn.

Because skeptics like being right?

>>Why do this on a whortless company?

Research cash is everything to biotech and to regulators. They both benefit greatly from it. If you feel confident enough to post here you should’ve figured that out by now.🤷🏻‍♂️

>>The best is the comment that MHRA gave a last chance to raise more money before it ends.

DCVAX’s trial was first to sign on with MHRA’s program. They made a big deal about it back then, so the UK regulator doesn’t want to advertise it bombed or worse. Notice you don’t see the various charities pushing for L anymore. They’ve likely been told to stop inquiring, imo.

Remember, I was the one who first posted that meeting video here suggesting it was with CHM. Whether it be CHM or MHRA, they are both helping NWBO kick the can down the road, imo. The lack of a pediatric trial is the giveaway that this is going nowhere for now, imo.

I think you and Seeking are both wrong on this. LP’s not lying when she says she has a special relationship with MHRA going back more than ten years. They’re providing cover by keeping everything vague with no paper trail. Just passing the MAA around like a hot potato.

Like I said a long time ago, MHRA has its own reasons for dragging this out. Perhaps they’re giving NWBO an opportunity to raise more cash for research and a confirmatory? Perhaps they first want to see trial results of another more affordable therapy? Perhaps they’re waiting for more research on exactly why it works on some and not others? Or perhaps MHRA knows NICE will never pay for it so the government doesn’t want bad press or lawyer badgering / patient lawsuits? These are the only things that make sense at this point, imo. LP knows but she’s not telling, IMO, and MHRA is providing cover for whatever reason.

You forgot the PR on the notoriously stingy UK paying for it. 🤷🏻‍♂️

Dilution or not, the market cap is the market cap, either it’s pricey or not. I do agree, however, that sneaky dilution is a great method for retail rug pulling. Which we’ve seen over and over again with this one. But my point is the final rug pull should’ve happened already. So either there is no final MHRA decision yet or somehow Advent is worth $300M.

No idea how you got from my post to what you just spewed? 11 years later! You’re crazy if you think the one women non scientist who never shows her face, orchestrated all that. No way. They’re gearing up for mRNA and whatever else.

Forget the stock price, I thought we both agreed the market cap was quite pricey here? That’s my point, it’s too stable to be holding that kind of news for a month, imo.

And shame on Bigger for calling that crap a “Good presentation by LP”. Then in the next post he’s applauding another biotech’s director for a million dollar open market purchase. Shame on you!