Thursday, February 06, 2025 11:39:13 AM
We haven't talked about this much here today, but maybe you pumpers can help me out with this one.
The biggest X buzz right now is around Minister Andrew Gwynne and his statements yesterday regarding brain tumors.
Specifically, he said that brain tumors are an area where things "have not progressed at all".
Now, I think that DCVax-L will get UK approval. But in my opinion this statement is being glanced over with a little too much indifference. The X crowd is saying things like "he needs to look into DCVax! Is he aware that Northwest is working on this in his own country? A drug called DCVax has been under review by the MHRA for over a year!" I find it almost impossible to believe, though, that he doesn't know about DCVax-L.
Is it not concerning that with the MAA over a year into review, likely having been through two CHM discussions, and on the doorstep of a decision, the PUS at the Department of Health and Social Care who almost certainly has been made aware of this application by now has just stated brain tumor treatment is an area that "has not progressed at all"? That just seems like an odd choice of words for someone that would very much have their finger on the pulse better than most regarding the DCVax MAA.
Now, he also platformed brain tumors as being "an integral part of our cancer plan" so maybe he was politicking up his success a bit. i.e. painting a picture of how dire the treatment of brain tumors is, how important advancements will be to their cancer plan, while knowing that he is going to have a big brain cancer win to tout just around the corner. It certainly could be that angle.
But the very direct choice of "has not progressed at all" seems a bit too dire and unnerving. I would think that he would use a tone more along the lines of "It's been a long time since we've made an advancement in this area, but we are optimistic that we can make progress". Am I picking up the wrong vibes from this?
"Brain tumor care has not advanced at all...............psyche! Here's a new drug approval!"
The biggest X buzz right now is around Minister Andrew Gwynne and his statements yesterday regarding brain tumors.
Specifically, he said that brain tumors are an area where things "have not progressed at all".
Now, I think that DCVax-L will get UK approval. But in my opinion this statement is being glanced over with a little too much indifference. The X crowd is saying things like "he needs to look into DCVax! Is he aware that Northwest is working on this in his own country? A drug called DCVax has been under review by the MHRA for over a year!" I find it almost impossible to believe, though, that he doesn't know about DCVax-L.
Is it not concerning that with the MAA over a year into review, likely having been through two CHM discussions, and on the doorstep of a decision, the PUS at the Department of Health and Social Care who almost certainly has been made aware of this application by now has just stated brain tumor treatment is an area that "has not progressed at all"? That just seems like an odd choice of words for someone that would very much have their finger on the pulse better than most regarding the DCVax MAA.
Now, he also platformed brain tumors as being "an integral part of our cancer plan" so maybe he was politicking up his success a bit. i.e. painting a picture of how dire the treatment of brain tumors is, how important advancements will be to their cancer plan, while knowing that he is going to have a big brain cancer win to tout just around the corner. It certainly could be that angle.
But the very direct choice of "has not progressed at all" seems a bit too dire and unnerving. I would think that he would use a tone more along the lines of "It's been a long time since we've made an advancement in this area, but we are optimistic that we can make progress". Am I picking up the wrong vibes from this?
"Brain tumor care has not advanced at all...............psyche! Here's a new drug approval!"
Recent NWBO News
- Form 8-K - Current report • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 04/07/2026 04:30:50 PM
- Form NT 10-K - Notification of inability to timely file Form 10-K 405, 10-K, 10-KSB 405, 10-KSB, 10-KT, or 10-KT405 • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 03/31/2026 09:04:37 PM
- Form 8-K - Current report • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 01/15/2026 10:06:20 PM
- Form 8-K - Current report • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 01/02/2026 10:14:59 PM
- Form DEF 14A - Other definitive proxy statements • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 11/28/2025 09:43:27 PM
- Form EFFECT - Notice of Effectiveness • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 11/26/2025 05:15:34 AM
- Form 424B5 - Prospectus [Rule 424(b)(5)] • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 11/25/2025 10:23:07 PM
- Form 8-K - Current report • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 11/20/2025 09:26:03 PM
- Form PRE 14A - Other preliminary proxy statements • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 11/19/2025 09:15:48 PM
- Form 10-Q - Quarterly report [Sections 13 or 15(d)] • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 11/14/2025 09:44:21 PM
- Form 8-K - Current report • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 10/31/2025 04:29:10 PM
- Form 8-K - Current report • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 10/30/2025 08:40:05 PM
- Form 8-K - Current report • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 10/24/2025 04:28:38 PM
- Form 8-K - Current report • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 10/14/2025 06:22:26 PM
- Form 10-Q - Quarterly report [Sections 13 or 15(d)] • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 08/14/2025 09:00:38 PM
- Form 424B5 - Prospectus [Rule 424(b)(5)] • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 07/01/2025 09:04:38 PM
