Slave, first thanks for your patience in putting up with the questions and opinions on the Flaskworks/Eden issue. I do believe you meant to reference the 2024 10-K rather than the 2025 one, but that aside. you're correct the 10-K puts to rest any possibility of the system being included in or filed as a supplement through the end of 2024 and into the 1st quarter of 2025. I say into the quarter because any 2025 activity included in the filing would be limited to the date the language was written.

The Q1 10-Q language leaves more room for speculation. Preparing for anadditional regulatory filing doesn't preclude the possibility that a filing had been done. So, was an initial Flaskworks/EDEN filing done during the quarter? Up to the reader to decide, at least to my simple mind.

I guess I'll have to disagree at least from the question the degree of impact Flaskworks might have had on the impact of share price and expectations of the MHRA processing time. I feel at least a PR announcing its inclusion would have been warranted. It's all speculation anyway until we get information on Flaskworks one way or the other. Appreciate your response.

Slave, thanks for your response to Jesster's query. My prior question regarded whether the addition of Flaskworks to the MAA. either as part of the original submission or as a subsequent variation, was significant enough to require public notification in order to comply with SEC regulations given the potential the knowledge might have had on share price? Your response to Jesster would appear to support that it should have.

Thanks for the response Slave. I was thinking of SEC requirements and that the addition might fall under Regulation FD guidelines, or at least was significant enough that an 8K would have been warranted.

Slave, thanks for the input as always. If Flaskwork/EDEN had been added as an amendment after the original MAA submission given the potential impact the knowledge might have had on share price, shouldn't the company have made the change public? Just notification of the addition would not seem at odds with MHRA requirements if it was limited to simply noting the change. Thanks in advance.

The OTC is correct, but you might want to add the Market Makers are not performing the function to be altruistic. They charge a fee to both parties, lender and borrower.

Slave, thanks for your detailed input as always. But it does address an ongoing question I've had that I'd appreciate your input on, namely when does a variation not part of the initial MAA need to be made public. In particular, if it expands the MAA to include treatment of other forms of cancer and/or inclusion of the EDEN system, is the addition not required to be made public since it may have a significant impact on the share price? Not talking about providing anything that impacts MHRA process, just an announcement by the company the variation has been filed.

And you are only here because ... wink, wink.

The word reminded me of the Jim Croce hit song title.

Ok, so let's compare the charts of two totally unrelated companies in two unrelated sectors. I happen to hold both. What is the point you're trying to make outside of you're getting desperate to find anything to try and throw shade at NWBO, anything that you apparently hope will have a negative impact even when it makes no sense at all.

Funny you should mention those two. Bought AAPL back in 1997, still own it. Picked up NVDA in mid 2022. Probably overweight in tech but also hold positions in some other names you'd recognize.
I'm confused. In your last post, your posts couldn't be contradicted because they were just your OPINIONS. Now they are facts that can't be disputed. Well, my opinion is that posters don't show up without any past record and start blitzing the board with negative posts out of the goodness of their hearts just trying to save us poor ignorant helpless souls from ourselves. You've got an agenda and it's not one of altruism.
Congrats on the retirement. I'm retired also, but suspect have a few years on you.

Well, let's discuss that.
First, I didn't contradict your OPINIONS, just noted that with no prior posting history (at least on Ihub under that alias) pointed out you initiated a blitzkrieg of negative posts over the past few days. There was no contradiction, I clearly noted "regardless of validity," leaving the reader to draw their own conclusions. My conclusion was you should look in a mirror before suggesting a scam, regardless of how you choose to present it. I assume I am also entitled to exercise my 1st amendment rights.
As far as research, I've following the company for well over 10 years, accumulating a position over that time. I am down now but believe in the technology and that it will do well in time regardless with criticisms of management I've made on occasion. It's just one position in a portfolio with a lot of winners.

Ok, lets take a look at this.
You get an Ihub ID on NWBO in late April. No further posts until July9th, followed by a blitzkrieg of negative posts daily on any issue over the past years you can question, argue or present your view or interpretation on, regardless of validity. You have accused the company of running a scam, I believe more than once.

I would respectfully suggest that you should look in the mirror before making such accusations.

Citing a 10-year-old article? Seriously?

Why wait that long?

Oh please! No financial interest either way? You really want anyone to believe your interest is strictly altruistic and limited to trying to provide accurate information? The only real question is who or how you're getting paid.

Don't know anything about his/her Yahoo history. Just responding to the Ihub posts and content.

In the stock for over 15 years, huh? You've been on Ihub since 2013, but your posts and any apparent purchases on NWBO don't begin until early 2022. Sorry you're at a lost, but based on your posts its doesn't appear to be a huge one. Like all of us you have the option to sell or vent. The Enron Linda in a separate post is just a cheap shot. Doubt you know anything about it except she was employed there but left years prior to the company's problems.

And your basis for such an accusation would be?

Sure, I remember Thermo. He's been on the board for about 9 years and averaged about 5 or 6 posts a month over that period. Heck, you probably average more than that daily. But I reckon "pumping" depends on your perspective and your aim.

Not arguing, just requesting a clarification. You should learn to know the difference.

Slave, your post notes that "DCVax is not being held up because of volume. It is being evaluated based on how its therapy is made, because in autologous immunotherapy, the preparation is the product. That evaluation takes time, and it takes precision." While true, I thought how the therapy is made was known and detailed in the MAA, resulting in the formulation of the recent SI which would seem confirm that.

OK DD, I'll bite. Maybe this is nothing more than a contest over who has the best ChatGPT version but if you're going to make a statement like " Btw a lot fro the rest of what you are saying is absolutely wild speculative BS", you should be willing to back it up. Examples from prior posts in support of the statement acceptable. Or are you just upset with the recent attention he/she/it is getting and doing some venting?

Slave, all true. I can understand the scientific caution as well as possible political concerns that contributed to the delays. Now, if I may be cynical for a moment, I would speculate that if instead of a small American biotech not well funded or politically connected, the MAA had been submitted by a larger company, say GSK, the scientists and politicians would have found a way to deal with the submission more expeditiously.

DD, just a quick note. Under item C in your post, believe you meant to say the MAA has been under formal review since March 2024.

Slave, thanks for your response. I've continued to follow your subsequent posts this morning and IMHO believe you've provided more information and clarification in a few hours than I normally see in months. Hope you become a regular contributor. That being seen, while I appreciate the process details you've provided and the gymnastics the MHRA has gone through to get to this point, I still have to ask why so long? Granted, DCVax-L didn't fit their existing model, but how long does it take to build one and issue the proposed SI? At the time the MAA was submitted, the MHRA was being criticized for not [processing submissions in a timely manner and reports a year later indicated there were still problems. And of course, there was the recent matter where a MP submitted questions that were just blown off. I would suggest some delay may be due to bureaucratic indifference. Still believe the process could have been completed and the SI issued at least 6 months earlier.

Look forward to seeing more posts from you in the future.

Nicely done Slave! Hopefully your input will end some of the arguments raised back and forth today. Probably not, but one can hope - some egos have gotten involved to the point they'd rather argue fine points than substance. My only addition looks at DCVax-L from the standpoint of someone who might have a friend, relative or even myself who might have to deal with a glioblastoma. They wouldn't care what type of studies or testing was involved - their only concern would be does it work and is it safe to use. That was established long ago, so why would it take 18 months for the MHRA to put together the recent proposed guidance that could have been done at least 6 months or more ago?

Good to see you checking in on occasion ATL. Have a great 4th.

Correction - it was green

I've read it. Doesn't change my opinion that the proposed guidance put out for stakeholder input could have been presented at least 6 months ago.

We can argue ECA, RWD, RWE, or even RCTs all day long. Regardless, the MHRA has had the data and known the sources for nearly 18 months and only now are getting around to putting a proposed guidance out for input from interested parties. I don't see anything that should have been prevented this being done 6 months or more ago.

Suspected might be something like that, but thanks anyway.

JTorence, I don't monitor the board every day and may have missed them, so would request some information. "Reported several RFI having been issued". Reported by who? Any detail? Can the poster(s) be trusted? Thanks for any help.

Update is overdue.

Beartrap, I don't know about EDEN, but the contraption in the pasture kind of resembles one of the machines we used to make crates for cantaloupe packing sheds during the summer while I was in high school.

Being willing to simply "state" your position and challenging another to be willing to state their position "under oath and under penalty of perjury" aren't the same thing. Simple enough for you?

So you're willing to "say and state" your opinions, but are you willing to meet the standard of being "willing to state under oath and under penalty of perjury" level your are demanding of another?

"As is typical" Pray tell us what is typical about an MMA process nearing the 500 days in process mark?

Sounds like trying to get information or accountability from one of our own federal departments or agencies doesn't it. Asked AI (I only have Copilot) for the longest time for the MHRA to make an approval/denial decision on a new medicine MA. The response was in excess or 450 days but couldn't provide and exact time. It did confirm a decision was made but wasn't able to determine the approve/denial. That would eliminate L as the substance in question. Using 3/15/2024 as an acceptance date, L just passed the 470-day mark. Maybe we're looking to set a new all-time record.

Doc, I concur with your analysis "that nobody can hold MHRA accountable to a specific time frame nor will they do so themselves as long as they see the kind of progress being made they want to see". However, on the other side of the equation the folks at NWBO are estopped from making any comments at all about the process or delays because the MHRA will hold them accountable.