NorthWest Biotherapeutics Inc (NWBO)

[biosectinvestor]

1) AEK was quoting you vaguely and loosely saying you might support the other poster, generally this has not been your claim.

2) the claim is that it is already in DCVax-L, and there is zero evidence to suggest that is the case or that DCVax-L has a version 2 that will be announced soon. Those are the claims of the other person. You were referenced obliquely as not sure one way or the other but it could be.

But your defensiveness on the subject makes me think that you are now claiming something that is not currently part of the facts. The current immense response that is given by the use of Poly-ICLC is when it is given as an IM injection and adjuvant treatment, not as a “maturation agent”. There is absolutely no evidence that it has been added to or will be added to this approved version of DCVax-L, thus disposing of that additional step.

There is no dispute by me at all that TLR2 / Poky-ICLC, is part of patents and part of the company’s long-term view. I have numerous posts over many years and tweets on the subject when no one else was much talking about these things in those forums. I was also talking about the other additional drugs and combinations basically from almost the first day that I was here, and certainly early on though many of those posts were removed at the time, to my consternation.

But the fact is, hyping false notions, is not the road to credibility. Creating fictions that the current version of DCVax-L won’t need IM injections of poly-iclc because it’s already in there or will be shortly is nonsense. It is nonsense 1) because that is not how licensed drugs come to market; 2) because current formulations of DCVwx-L are in trials WITH Poly-ICLC as an added adjuvant injection, not already in the treatment.

I said poly iclc is not part of a NATURAL maturation, meaning it is an added drug that creates additional conditions, which the latest paper describes. The addition of it in the patent is a broad description of things that can be added to change the nature of the vaccine in different ways, but it is not the baseline formulation of the natural process that was the first version of DCVax-L and would be akin to a combination therapy creating an additional level of response.

So no, what you quoted doesn’t say what you think it says and what I said holds. It is currently an additional drug and treatment that doesn’t appear in the body in any natural way to get the DC’s to their state and it is not in the current version of DCVax-L in a form intended to induce the reaction that the IM injection provides because if it were, there would be no need for those additional trials.

Adding it is an option among very many, that the company has preserved for itself with bold and forward thinking drafting of patents. But as to what they actually will use or do, that is still to be determined and it may very well be that when they develop such formulas, as with many things, it may turn out that the better way to use poly-ICLC will still be as a separate IM injection. It might not be, but as I said, that is part of drafting a patent that anticipates possibilities and creates opportunities. That is what such patents are for. They are not necessarily just a description of the current exact formula of DCVax. The company has scoped out things it might like to try, and they might put such a version together, and then they would need to test that in humans, and they might test it against giving the shot directly and separately for poly-iclc, to see what works best.

But there is zero evidence that is what is going on NOW.