NorthWest Biotherapeutics Inc (NWBO)

[ae kusterer]

OncoJock

Wednesday, July 27, 2022 4:40:23 PM

Re: None

Post#
498736
of 498829
The Risks We Face Together As NWBO Investors

Dear fellow NWBO shareholders:

So, I realize that with all the excitement about the new Class C preferred shares few people may actually take the time to read this lengthy post. But in response to good questions from Kaizenman and Poor Man, some well-informed pushback from biosectinvestor, and even a little encouragement from sentiment_stocks to go ahead and ruffle some feathers so long as I avoid personal attacks and stay focused on NWBO, here are 15 risks that concern me right now.

Before I start my litany, let me assure you that I continue to hold shares. In fact, I’m more heavily invested in NWBO than in any other single company’s stock in our household’s investment portfolio. At today’s closing price of around $.68 per share, the portion of our nest egg devoted to NWBO shares is a little over 6%. My wife and I hold larger amounts in various funds, but the only other individual companies that come close are Medpace Holdings, at 4%, and Halozyme Therapeutics, at 3%. So I have skin in this game.

Also, let me concede David Innes' general point that the risk of investing in NWBO today is less than it might have been a few months ago, before we knew results of the phase 3 clinical trial of DCVax-L in glioblastoma multiforme (GBM). And, the prospect of a financially beneficial partnership appears stronger today than it did just yesterday. Nonetheless a prudent investor might say that substantial risks remain. Here are some of those risks as I see them. Together they explain why I have not put any more precious skin in this game since May 10.

1) Evidence of naked short selling and lack of enforcement/protection by SEC regulators. I have been hearing about this ever since March of 2021 when I first bought shares, but my concerns have continued to grow. This is especially true in light of new evidence I found in a June 16 tweet by @TommyBaxendale. Mr. Baxendale, who tweets from Taiwan, cites the SEC website and precise URL for the source of his information. In trying to confirm this info, I did reach the SEC website, and at the URL Mr. Braxendale specified I could download the SEC “Fails to Deliver” data for the first and second halves of May, but I could not open the spreadsheets on my desktop. I have written the webmaster at the SEC for help. Here is a screenshot of the graphic posted by Mr. Braxendale, which contains the data I have been trying to confirm. I’d also love to see data from the first half of the month, which would include the May 10 debacle at the New York Academy of Sciences:


2) Widespread allegations of market manipulation/orchestration of price movement. I had heard this might be a problem, and my concerns were confirmed when I filed a formal complaint with the SEC after May 10. (I also wrote my representative in the US Congress to request an investigation, but that's another story.) The SEC website requires complainants to choose from a dropdown menu of reasons for their unhappiness. Sure enough, one of the menu options was naked short selling. Another was orchestrated manipulation of security prices. Clearly, if the SEC sees fit to program its website to include these options for complainants, then these problems must be widespread, and NWBO is a potential victim.

3) NWBO is a very small company, and management expertise is concentrated in only a few people. What if Linda Powers, with all her Ivy League magna cum laude brilliance, falls seriously ill?

4) Jerry Jasinowski, a key member of the board of directors when it comes to advising on manufacturing, will turn 83 years old this year, according to Wikipedia. Mr. Jasinowski is a former president of the National Association of Manufacturers, and founder and president of the Manufacturing Institute (again according to Wikipedia). He’s a true visionary, famous for his “Dream It, Do It” campaign to address America’s manufacturing skills shortage by increasing training programs throughout the country. To my eye, the recent success of NWBO in ramping up production at Sawston bears the mark of Mr. Jasinowski’s genius, in addition to hard work and perseverance by Advent staff. However, Mr. Jasinowski’s health could fail at any time and leave the company without his expert guidance.

5) Speaking of guidance, there is a noticeable lack of physicians among members of the top management team. While top management expertise is strong on legal matters and venture capital (Ms. Powers, Mr. Goldman), science/technology/research (Dr. Bosch/Dr. Boynton), manufacturing (Mr. Jasinowski), investment banking/pharmacy(Dr. Malik) and international relations (Mr. Black), there appear to be no MDs in the top group. After researching the public biographies and formal training of all top execs and board members, I was unable to find even one who has ever practiced clinical medicine. I hope I’m wrong about this.

The lack of any physicians, or former physicians, on the leadership team gives top management a major blind spot as they try to steer the company. This opens the company to possible mistakes and missteps since, after all, it will be physicians who choose to prescribe DCVax-L for their patients, or not. And it will be physicians on the Central Nervous System panel at the National Comprehensive Cancer Network who will choose to add autologous tumor lysate-loaded dendritic cell vaccination to the treatment algorithm for glioblastoma, or not. And it will be physicians who, upon reading a report in The ASCO Post, the New England Journal of Medicine, the Lancet, or perhaps an accredited continuing medical education (CME) activity of the type I help to plan, will make the crucial decision to prescribe DCVax-L, or not.

The absence of clinical experience among top management may help explain the puzzling lack of research abstracts presented at major medical meetings, like the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), where an historic breakthrough on such a nasty, stubborn, and lethal tumor type as GBM would normally be welcomed with open arms as a research abstract presented at a plenary session. Instead, NWBO found it necessary to assume the more expensive role of exhibitor, spend a major amount of cash, and rent an exhibit booth for ASCO 2022. There wasn’t even so much as a virtual-only e-poster in the formal conference program. I’ve been helping to educate oncologists about advances in cancer medicine for more than a decade. Trust me, it’s the attitudes of their peers that physicians rely upon, not just the experimental data, when deciding whether to risk making a change in clinical practice. To fix this, NWBO needs to hire a physician as chief medical officer, add him or her to the innermost circle of leaders, and do it soon.

6) Risk of competition is growing. If the wider use of external control arms makes it easier for NWBO to win regulatory approval, it will do the same for competitors’ drugs.

7) Human error during manufacturing is always a possibility, especially with such a highly personalized therapy. Under Murphy’s law, if something can go wrong, it probably will. Namely, Patient A could receive dendritic cells meant for Patient B, a death or major adverse event could occur, and the company could be exposed to massive legal liability.

8) Other legal proceedings are already underway, especially the shareholder lawsuit stemming from the “true-up” executed by management before I became a shareholder. This seems like a wild card.

9) NWBO is a one-trick pony. Its product line is not diversified. While dendritic cell vaccines may well prove to be a platform approach that can improve outcomes in other types of cancer beyond GBM, the amount of time required for that to occur seems like it may extend well beyond the lifetimes of members of current management, esp. Mr. Jasinowski.

10) Human error seems particularly likely due to the shortage of skilled and qualified lab technicians who work in the fast-growing cell and gene therapy industry. Competition for qualified technicians can be cutthroat. It’s possible that NWBO could finally fill an opening after an extensive search only to have the incumbent poached by another, larger company that is able to offer better salary and benefits. Then a newbie replacement could be thrown onto the job quickly (to keep up with prior production commitments) and mistakes could happen.

11) Speaking of human resources, I have been wondering this: Who would want to go to work for a company, and seek to make a career with that employer, when that company is openly trying to avoid having human beings on the factory floor? Who is going to want to make a major, long-term commitment to a company that owns a brilliant, disruptive technology like Flaskworks, that is explicitly designed to fully automate production of cell and gene therapy? It seems like NWBO will need to hire people who are really smart in one area (science and laboratory techniques) and really dumb in another (their own long-term self-interest).

12) Financial risk. Don’t even get me started here. NWBO has been running on fumes for years. Many of these risks have been known for a long time, and, to management's credit, they are disclosed at length in the latest annual report. Perhaps the best example is the $15 million loan (or was it $16.5 million?) borrowed from Streeterville Capital. If memory serves, the loan proceeds became available to NWBO in November, with a term of 22 months, but the first payment would not be due for 8 months. So that means the first loan repayment would be due this month (July). That’s more than $1 million per month in principal, not counting interest, on top of all the other ongoing expenses associated with personnel, production, etc. I’m guessing this Series C preferred stock is being authorized now to help ease the pressure from this debt. Has anyone seen an income statement that shows meaningful sales revenue from vaccine doses sold?

13) Regulatory delays are par for the course. Does NWBO have the financial stamina to withstand one or more regulatory setbacks caused by, say, heavy caseloads at MHRA, human failings by Advent staff during a Sawston site inspection, or (heaven forbid) a complete response letter from the FDA? Does NWBO have any cushion or room for error in its commercialization schedule? If so, it’s not obvious.

14) NWBO has an unpleasant history of dilutive financings. Hate to say it, but Scotty is right on this score. Thanks to Jerry Campbell for doing the research and coming up with this history of financings that have diluted the value of common shares. In the left column you see the date, and in the right column you see the number of shares outstanding. The Series C preferreds may have a similar effect, or they may not. At this point they’ve been authorized, but not yet issued. And whatever dilution may take place could be made up for by a bump in the share price (or not). In any case, another serial dilution remains a risk.


15) NWBO is traded over the counter (OTC) and its chances of ever “graduating” to a national exchange like the NASDAQ are slim. Hate to sound negative, but the odds are against us. An SEC 2016 white paper titled “Outcomes of Investing in OTC Stocks,” available from the SEC website, stated that companies traded OTC “rarely grow into a large company or transition to a listing on a stock exchange.” This is not to say that it never happens; it does. But it’s rare (less than 1% per year based on SEC figures) so that’s why I include this among the risks that give me pause. Here’s a data table from that paper:


So there you have them: 15 reasons to worry. Please tell me why I'm wrong, and include any evidence you may have handy. If you convince me, I may resume buying shares.

Thanks!

--OncoJock

Wednesday, July 27, 2022 4:40:23 PM

Re: None

Post#
498736
of 498829
The Risks We Face Together As NWBO Investors

Dear fellow NWBO shareholders:

So, I realize that with all the excitement about the new Class C preferred shares few people may actually take the time to read this lengthy post. But in response to good questions from Kaizenman and Poor Man, some well-informed pushback from biosectinvestor, and even a little encouragement from sentiment_stocks to go ahead and ruffle some feathers so long as I avoid personal attacks and stay focused on NWBO, here are 15 risks that concern me right now.

Before I start my litany, let me assure you that I continue to hold shares. In fact, I’m more heavily invested in NWBO than in any other single company’s stock in our household’s investment portfolio. At today’s closing price of around $.68 per share, the portion of our nest egg devoted to NWBO shares is a little over 6%. My wife and I hold larger amounts in various funds, but the only other individual companies that come close are Medpace Holdings, at 4%, and Halozyme Therapeutics, at 3%. So I have skin in this game.

Also, let me concede David Innes' general point that the risk of investing in NWBO today is less than it might have been a few months ago, before we knew results of the phase 3 clinical trial of DCVax-L in glioblastoma multiforme (GBM). And, the prospect of a financially beneficial partnership appears stronger today than it did just yesterday. Nonetheless a prudent investor might say that substantial risks remain. Here are some of those risks as I see them. Together they explain why I have not put any more precious skin in this game since May 10.

1) Evidence of naked short selling and lack of enforcement/protection by SEC regulators. I have been hearing about this ever since March of 2021 when I first bought shares, but my concerns have continued to grow. This is especially true in light of new evidence I found in a June 16 tweet by @TommyBaxendale. Mr. Baxendale, who tweets from Taiwan, cites the SEC website and precise URL for the source of his information. In trying to confirm this info, I did reach the SEC website, and at the URL Mr. Braxendale specified I could download the SEC “Fails to Deliver” data for the first and second halves of May, but I could not open the spreadsheets on my desktop. I have written the webmaster at the SEC for help. Here is a screenshot of the graphic posted by Mr. Braxendale, which contains the data I have been trying to confirm. I’d also love to see data from the first half of the month, which would include the May 10 debacle at the New York Academy of Sciences:


2) Widespread allegations of market manipulation/orchestration of price movement. I had heard this might be a problem, and my concerns were confirmed when I filed a formal complaint with the SEC after May 10. (I also wrote my representative in the US Congress to request an investigation, but that's another story.) The SEC website requires complainants to choose from a dropdown menu of reasons for their unhappiness. Sure enough, one of the menu options was naked short selling. Another was orchestrated manipulation of security prices. Clearly, if the SEC sees fit to program its website to include these options for complainants, then these problems must be widespread, and NWBO is a potential victim.

3) NWBO is a very small company, and management expertise is concentrated in only a few people. What if Linda Powers, with all her Ivy League magna cum laude brilliance, falls seriously ill?

4) Jerry Jasinowski, a key member of the board of directors when it comes to advising on manufacturing, will turn 83 years old this year, according to Wikipedia. Mr. Jasinowski is a former president of the National Association of Manufacturers, and founder and president of the Manufacturing Institute (again according to Wikipedia). He’s a true visionary, famous for his “Dream It, Do It” campaign to address America’s manufacturing skills shortage by increasing training programs throughout the country. To my eye, the recent success of NWBO in ramping up production at Sawston bears the mark of Mr. Jasinowski’s genius, in addition to hard work and perseverance by Advent staff. However, Mr. Jasinowski’s health could fail at any time and leave the company without his expert guidance.

5) Speaking of guidance, there is a noticeable lack of physicians among members of the top management team. While top management expertise is strong on legal matters and venture capital (Ms. Powers, Mr. Goldman), science/technology/research (Dr. Bosch/Dr. Boynton), manufacturing (Mr. Jasinowski), investment banking/pharmacy(Dr. Malik) and international relations (Mr. Black), there appear to be no MDs in the top group. After researching the public biographies and formal training of all top execs and board members, I was unable to find even one who has ever practiced clinical medicine. I hope I’m wrong about this.

The lack of any physicians, or former physicians, on the leadership team gives top management a major blind spot as they try to steer the company. This opens the company to possible mistakes and missteps since, after all, it will be physicians who choose to prescribe DCVax-L for their patients, or not. And it will be physicians on the Central Nervous System panel at the National Comprehensive Cancer Network who will choose to add autologous tumor lysate-loaded dendritic cell vaccination to the treatment algorithm for glioblastoma, or not. And it will be physicians who, upon reading a report in The ASCO Post, the New England Journal of Medicine, the Lancet, or perhaps an accredited continuing medical education (CME) activity of the type I help to plan, will make the crucial decision to prescribe DCVax-L, or not.

The absence of clinical experience among top management may help explain the puzzling lack of research abstracts presented at major medical meetings, like the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), where an historic breakthrough on such a nasty, stubborn, and lethal tumor type as GBM would normally be welcomed with open arms as a research abstract presented at a plenary session. Instead, NWBO found it necessary to assume the more expensive role of exhibitor, spend a major amount of cash, and rent an exhibit booth for ASCO 2022. There wasn’t even so much as a virtual-only e-poster in the formal conference program. I’ve been helping to educate oncologists about advances in cancer medicine for more than a decade. Trust me, it’s the attitudes of their peers that physicians rely upon, not just the experimental data, when deciding whether to risk making a change in clinical practice. To fix this, NWBO needs to hire a physician as chief medical officer, add him or her to the innermost circle of leaders, and do it soon.

6) Risk of competition is growing. If the wider use of external control arms makes it easier for NWBO to win regulatory approval, it will do the same for competitors’ drugs.

7) Human error during manufacturing is always a possibility, especially with such a highly personalized therapy. Under Murphy’s law, if something can go wrong, it probably will. Namely, Patient A could receive dendritic cells meant for Patient B, a death or major adverse event could occur, and the company could be exposed to massive legal liability.

8) Other legal proceedings are already underway, especially the shareholder lawsuit stemming from the “true-up” executed by management before I became a shareholder. This seems like a wild card.

9) NWBO is a one-trick pony. Its product line is not diversified. While dendritic cell vaccines may well prove to be a platform approach that can improve outcomes in other types of cancer beyond GBM, the amount of time required for that to occur seems like it may extend well beyond the lifetimes of members of current management, esp. Mr. Jasinowski.

10) Human error seems particularly likely due to the shortage of skilled and qualified lab technicians who work in the fast-growing cell and gene therapy industry. Competition for qualified technicians can be cutthroat. It’s possible that NWBO could finally fill an opening after an extensive search only to have the incumbent poached by another, larger company that is able to offer better salary and benefits. Then a newbie replacement could be thrown onto the job quickly (to keep up with prior production commitments) and mistakes could happen.

11) Speaking of human resources, I have been wondering this: Who would want to go to work for a company, and seek to make a career with that employer, when that company is openly trying to avoid having human beings on the factory floor? Who is going to want to make a major, long-term commitment to a company that owns a brilliant, disruptive technology like Flaskworks, that is explicitly designed to fully automate production of cell and gene therapy? It seems like NWBO will need to hire people who are really smart in one area (science and laboratory techniques) and really dumb in another (their own long-term self-interest).

12) Financial risk. Don’t even get me started here. NWBO has been running on fumes for years. Many of these risks have been known for a long time, and, to management's credit, they are disclosed at length in the latest annual report. Perhaps the best example is the $15 million loan (or was it $16.5 million?) borrowed from Streeterville Capital. If memory serves, the loan proceeds became available to NWBO in November, with a term of 22 months, but the first payment would not be due for 8 months. So that means the first loan repayment would be due this month (July). That’s more than $1 million per month in principal, not counting interest, on top of all the other ongoing expenses associated with personnel, production, etc. I’m guessing this Series C preferred stock is being authorized now to help ease the pressure from this debt. Has anyone seen an income statement that shows meaningful sales revenue from vaccine doses sold?

13) Regulatory delays are par for the course. Does NWBO have the financial stamina to withstand one or more regulatory setbacks caused by, say, heavy caseloads at MHRA, human failings by Advent staff during a Sawston site inspection, or (heaven forbid) a complete response letter from the FDA? Does NWBO have any cushion or room for error in its commercialization schedule? If so, it’s not obvious.

14) NWBO has an unpleasant history of dilutive financings. Hate to say it, but Scotty is right on this score. Thanks to Jerry Campbell for doing the research and coming up with this history of financings that have diluted the value of common shares. In the left column you see the date, and in the right column you see the number of shares outstanding. The Series C preferreds may have a similar effect, or they may not. At this point they’ve been authorized, but not yet issued. And whatever dilution may take place could be made up for by a bump in the share price (or not). In any case, another serial dilution remains a risk.


15) NWBO is traded over the counter (OTC) and its chances of ever “graduating” to a national exchange like the NASDAQ are slim. Hate to sound negative, but the odds are against us. An SEC 2016 white paper titled “Outcomes of Investing in OTC Stocks,” available from the SEC website, stated that companies traded OTC “rarely grow into a large company or transition to a listing on a stock exchange.” This is not to say that it never happens; it does. But it’s rare (less than 1% per year based on SEC figures) so that’s why I include this among the risks that give me pause. Here’s a data table from that paper:


So there you have them: 15 reasons to worry. Please tell me why I'm wrong, and include any evidence you may have handy. If you convince me, I may resume buying shares.

Thanks!

--OJ

(OncoJock on iHub, @Onco_Jock on Twitter)
Doc logic

Wednesday, July 27, 2022 5:50:15 PM

Re: OncoJock post# 498736

Post#
498757
of 498830
OncoJock,

Many of us long timers are well past your concerns because of how Linda Powers and company have brought us to this point which after 10 years in represents basically a zero risk comparison to that time. One of the first non issues is manufacturing as that is all being moved towards closed system commercial scale manufacturing. Second non issue Is doctors on staff. Dr. Linda Liau and Dr. Ashkan are world renown principal investigators and they have a scientific advisory board guiding as well. Financing has always happened even in much worse conditions than now. You might want to read up on Linda Powers and her team a little bit more. This is not a one trick pony. This is a platform which will move forward very quickly in other indications because of the groundwork done in this trial and because of the demand for this treatment in many indications once NWBO is able to talk about it. Best wishes.
Get the best-in-class trading platforms th
Roman516

Wednesday, July 27, 2022 7:46:06 PM

Re: OncoJock post# 498736

Post#
498781
of 498830
Many of these risk factors are outdated and are no longer worthy to address.
However, here is some feedback regard several of your risk factors.
As for the human error issues risk items (#7, and #10). The latest Flaskworks device coupled with their automated software will mitigate the human error issues. Advent will still require a skill staff of professional staff to operate the latest version of the Flaskworks devices. The good news in Advent has support from King's college, Northeastern University, and Cambridge University to help them and consult with them as well.
As for the human resources issues in risk item (#11)

"11) Speaking of human resources, I have been wondering this: Who would want to go to work for a company, and seek to make a career with that employer, when that company is openly trying to avoid having human beings on the factory floor? Who is going to want to make a major, long-term commitment to a company that owns a brilliant, disruptive technology like Flaskworks, that is explicitly designed to fully automate production of cell and gene therapy? It seems like NWBO will need to hire people who are really smart in one area (science and laboratory techniques) and really dumb in another (their own long-term self-interest)"

In order to maximize the probability of high yield production output and high-quality production output, Advent has to focus on the Flaskworks devices and the need to focus on automated manufacturing capability. The factory floor will still require highly skilled people to operate and manage all the manufacturing equipment plus manage and operate all of the computer network control system required to keep their manufacturing process both running efficiently and effectively.

As for the competition issues in risk item (#6)
"6) Risk of competition is growing. If the wider use of external control arms makes it easier for NWBO to win regulatory approval, it will do the same for competitors’ drugs."
Good point, but there are many competitors that are failing to produce results even close to NWBO. Plus, the fact that NWBO has over 180+ patents that help enforce that fact that NWBO is one of the leading research facilities in this BIO field.
In addition, there are many cases when the USPTO could grant patent extension time for individual patents.

As for the allegations and SEC issues in risk item (#2)
"2) Widespread allegations of market manipulation/orchestration of price movement. I had heard this might be a problem, and my concerns were confirmed when I filed a formal complaint with the SEC after May 10. (I also wrote my representative in the US Congress to request an investigation, but that's another story.) The SEC website requires complainants to choose from a dropdown menu of reasons for their unhappiness. Sure enough, one of the menu options was naked short selling. Another was orchestrated manipulation of security prices. Clearly, if the SEC sees fit to program its website to include these options for complainants, then these problems must be widespread, and NWBO is a potential victim."
I have also contacted the SEC on several occasions and received detailed feedback with respect to data integrity matters. As for market manipulation/orchestration of price movement. that is a sensitive subject and I hope there are multiple government and Federal agencies addressing these issues and allegations, and they will be able to identify the root causes. I can assure you that ongoing investigations are not discussed nor disclosed outside the investigation team members. Even representative in the US Congress would have a hard time obtaining information from the investigation teams since members of Congress are not required have security clearances. As for delays in the RAs, there are certainly many issues that are in play and that is a matter for discussion later.

I all I commend you for all your effort to present your risk factors. The fact of the matter is that NWBO has the opportunity to advance forward, and it is only a matter of time (months) not years that NWBO will be able to meet the initial manufacturing phase of their operation objectives. Hence, there is a high probability that the GMP and MAs will be initiated by the MHRA. Based on the fact that last January 2021, MHRA provided acceptance as Northwest Biotherapeutics Announces MHRA Approval of License for GMP Manufacturing at Sawston, UK Facility. My research indicates that advance automation via the Flaskworks devices with certainly be a positive incentive for MHRA to approve of the new process since they had already approved of the manual process.

Roman516

sentiment_stocks

Member Level
Wednesday, July 27, 2022 9:05:13 PM

Re: OncoJock post# 498736

Post#
498790
of 498830
I wanted to address your comment concerning the lack of physicians in leadership positions.

Of course, we all know that Northwest themselves have very few employees, so if there is a patient physician employed by them, I'm unaware of it.

But they do have a rather impressive Scientific Advisory Board as well as a Steering Committee that are regularly advises the company on many of the things that they do.

Below is the PR indicating those doctors who are on the SAB:
https://nwbio.com/nw-bio-announces-scientific-advisory-board/

Quote:
Dr. Alfredo Quinones-Hinojosa (an MD and a rather renown neurosurgeon)
As the director of the Neurosurgery Brain Tumor Stem Cell Laboratory, Alfredo Quinones-Hinojosa, M.D., studies brain tumors from a surgical, imaging, clinical and basic science perspective. Dr. Quinones-Hinojosa conducts research to predict patient prognosis and discover new methods of delivering effective treatments for brain tumors in diverse populations. He has obtained multiple National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants and holds over a dozen patents. He has started several companies to translate his laboratory work back to the patient.

Focus areas
To understand cancer migration and progression in the brain
To understand invasive cell populations
To uncover novel therapeutic targets to impact tumor progression
Significance to patient care

Dr. Quinones-Hinojosa seeks to improve patient safety, maximize the efficacy of current treatments and advance the development of new therapies for brain tumors.

Professional highlights
Investigator of the Year, Mayo Clinic Florida, 2021
Chair, Bioengineering, Technology and Surgical Sciences Study Section, NIH, 2016-present
Chair, Surgical branch review, NIH/National Cancer Institute, 2016-present
Editorial boards, Journal of Oncology; Annals of Surgical Oncology; World Neurosurgery; World Journal of Stem Cells, 2008-present
William J. and Charles H. Mayo Professor IV, 2016
https://www.mayo.edu/research/faculty/quinones-hinojosa-alfredo-m-d/bio-20247553
https://www.doctorqmd.com


Quote:
Dr. Jerome Galon (a phD, so perhaps not the type of physician you would like to see more of)
Dr. Galon received his Ph.D. in immunology in 1996 and undertook his postdoctoral work at the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda, Maryland. Since 2001, he has worked at the Cordeliers Research Center in Paris, France, where he has been the director of the INSERM Laboratory of Integrative Cancer Immunology since 2009. His work aims to provide a better understanding of the tumor microenvironment and the dynamics of the immune response in human tumors. His laboratory has identified and demonstrated the importance of the immune contexture when considering cancer treatment. He defined the Immunoscore as a new method for routine clinical assessment of prognosis of cancer patients.
https://www.science.org/content/author/jerome-galon-phd


Quote:
Dr. Samir N. Khleif (an MD, medical oncologist, immunologist)
Dr. Khleif, MD is an immunologist and immune therapist. His research program is ''translational tumor immunology'' focused on understanding mechanisms through which the immune system and cancer cells interact and how to overcome tumor tolerance in developing therapeutic approaches. Specifically, his research interests include developing novel immune therapeutics, cancer vaccines and delineating the mechanisms of resistance to immunotherapy. Prior to transferring his research program to Georgetown University in 2017, Dr. Khelif served as the Director of Georgia Cancer Center, Augusta University. As Director of the Georgia Cancer Center, Dr. Khleif oversaw the development of a large integrated program of basic scientists and clinicians merging the Cancer Center strength in immunology, inflammation and tolerance basic science and immune therapy. Dr. Khleif was an intramural NIH scientist for about 20 years. While at NCI, he also served as a leader of the Cancer Vaccine Section, leading a nationally active Immune Therapy Program. His laboratory has conducted some of the earliest clinical trials in antigen vaccines and was the first to conduct vaccines against mutant oncogenes. Also, in the past few years some of the discoveries made in his laboratory have been trasnlated into first-in-human immune therapy clinical trials. Furthermore, Dr. Khleif has published several studies on the mechanisms of tumor-induced suppression in animal models and have overcome such inhibition by developing strategies that have been translated into clinical trials. His laboratory has developed models to understand how different kinds of immune therapies can be combined to work synergistically and translated into clinical trials.
https://gufaculty360.georgetown.edu/s/contact/00336000019h06bAAA/samir-khleif


Quote:
Dr. John Smyth (Oncologist)
After graduating from Cambridge University in 1970, I trained in medical oncology at St Bartholomew’s Hospital and the Royal Marsden, London, the NCI and the University of Chicago, USA. In 1978 I was appointed to the first Chair of Medical Oncology in Edinburgh. Over the subsequent 30 years I developed multidisciplinary oncology to create the Edinburgh Cancer Research Centre that combines laboratory and clinical research with teaching and training, serving a population of 2 million people. Since January 2009 I have served as Emeritus Professor and Assistant Principal for Cancer Research Development.

My research expertise is in experimental therapeutics from drug design through all phases of pre-clinical evaluation to clinical trials, with my major research interest in the development of new anti-cancer drugs. I have served on the UK Committee on Safety of Medicines, the EMEA Scientific Advisory Group for Oncology and currently chair the Expert Advisory Group for Oncology & Haematology for the Commission on Human Medicines. I have had a particular interest in Palliative Medicine and was instrumental in securing the funding and subsequent establishment of the first Chair of Palliative Care within the University of Edinburgh. My current interests are focused on the affordability of cancer related healthcare.

I have published over 300 papers and was Editor-in-Chief of the European Journal of Cancer, UK from 2001 - 20110. I am a fellow of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh and London, and fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, and is a past-president of the European Society of Medical Oncology and the Federation of European Cancer Societies.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/john-smyth-8a499a3a/?originalSubdomain=uk


The Steering Committee is comprised of these physicians:

• Professor Steven Brem - UPenn (neurosurgeon)
• Dr. Jian Campaign, Washing U, now Mayo Clinic (medical oncology)
• Dr. Fabio Iwamoto, Columbia University (neuro-oncologist)
• Dr. John Trusheim, Allina Health (neuro-oncology)

So hopefully you'd agree that the company has addressed what you had indicated was a "blind spot" pretty well.