I am not asking for inside information from MHRA. I am questioning whether the public “evidence” actually supports the conclusion being drawn from it. Evidence only leads to likely conclusions if it is interpreted in context and weighed against other possible explanations.
Take the Jenkins appointment for example. You seem to view that as a strong indicator that NWBO would not bring someone like her on board unless they were confident approval was coming. But that logic creates another issue. What information would NWBO have that gives them that level of confidence? Depending on what that information is, it could raise disclosure issues. So either NWBO has material knowledge and has not disclosed it, or maybe just as likely, they do not have that kind of knowledge and are still trying to convince regulators.
Now add the other pieces. NWBO is about 2.5 years into a process that was supposed to be fast tracked. EDEN/Flaskworks still does not appear to be clearly validated after close to 6 years. Dilution continues. With those puzzle pieces included, Jenkins being brought in could just as easily mean NWBO needs high level help getting through regulatory, manufacturing, commercial, or credibility issues that are still unresolved.
Jenkins may be a positive addition. But her appointment does not prove approval is close. It may prove only that NWBO needs high level help getting the story, process, and business case across the finish line. If that is the case, approval may still be a ways off.
Market Data 
Markets 
