Replies to post #524000 on NorthWest Biotherapeutics Inc (NWBO)

[Idunno]

Nice. Ty. Flipper, et al, thank you. To the ‘others’, and their backers, well…… We shall see, won’t we.

[ATLnsider]

Well stated dmb2. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

[sentiment_stocks]

Great summary, dmb2! Thank you! :)

[Doc logic]

dmb2,

Really great summary of how the sod busting process must play out with this technology and why some of the hurdles are lowered because of a safety first approach. Best wishes.

[skitahoe]

Great post DMB, I think the board moderators ought to sticky this post.

I really believe that if BP is really looking at what's happening here, and at the additional trials UCLA is running with the vaccine and other therapeutics they'll start to recognize that our vaccines can enhance their therapeutics rather than threatening them.

Certainly, if you give our vaccine along with SOC treatment you get a benefit, but UCLA has shown that when you use it with other therapeutics, many of which previously failed in GBM, you get a substantially better benefit. To me, with patients living longer on the vaccine and a variety of therapeutics it's saying that BP will be selling more product when DCVax-L is approved, not less of it.

Certainly it's very possible that one or more of the BP's will want to own, or partner with NWBO. Owning the vaccine certainly may be an advantage to drug makers who have therapeutics that have synergies with the vaccine, but even if you own it, I don't believe you can prevent your competitors from using it in trials with their products. The difference is now you'd be in a position to profit from the vaccine purchased for use in your competitors trial, and success from their trial is likely to lead to even greater sales of the vaccine.

I know many believe that Merck is most likely to be the partner or buyer, certainly we'll all benefit if that is the case. In many ways I like the way Roche has dealt with companies they've partnered with, and ultimately acquired. Take Genentech, it was initially partnered, then acquired, then spun off again and finally reacquired. The point is it's been permitted to operate as a wholly owned subsidiary when it's been acquired, and Roche is free to spin it off again if it chooses to. Each time this occurred shareholders in both Roche and Genentech have done well while Roche always maintained sufficient ownership to direct what would happen next. I don't know if Roche will ever choose to have Genentech trading independently again, but the way the company is structured, it's a possibility. I suppose it would also be possible for Roche to have Genentech either partner with or acquire NWBO rather than taking it into the parent organization.

Gary