Replies to post #795693 on NorthWest Biotherapeutics Inc (NWBO)

[GoodGuyBill]

I appreciate the passion, but let’s separate the signal from the noise.

Yes, there’s been speculation among longs- most grounded, some not. But lumping “tumor agnostic” into the same bucket as “King Charles is being treated” or “Cofer Black is tracking people” is rhetorical sleight-of-hand. One is a scientific classification with real implications; the others are speculations.

DCVax-L’s tumor agnostic potential isn’t BS. Interestingly, on the one hand, you refer to the claim that DCVax-L is agnostic as 'BS',

You know what other BS claims have been floating around. Lets see, tumor agnostic...

yet, in the very next sentence, you also claim that DCVax-L

may be approved tissue agnostic and soc around the world for treatment of all cancers.

Obviously, you know that DCVax-L's tumor agnosticism is built into its mechanism by design, as it trains dendritic cells using lysates from any solid tumor, not a predefined cancer type. Whether the regulatory body acknowledges that now or later (and whether the market prices that in now or later) is a separate question, but the science is clear and unassailable.

As for the “whole pie” comment: no one’s demanding instant gratification. If you read my recent posts, as opposed to just running your mouth, you'd know that I presented DCVax 's tumor-agnosticism as a matter of when, not if. But make no mistake, NWBO is now approaching a risk-adjusted inflection point: MHRA approval + BP partnerships = dual validation. And yes, each step matters. However, some steps have nonlinear impacts.

You, like others, consistently mention the current share price as proof of failure. That’s flawed reasoning, as the field of pre-commercial biotech is littered with low PPS companies that later incurred hard post-validation. Moderna, CRISPR, and even Sarepta—all traded low before their catalysts hit. PPS ? potential.

And the credit card jab? Cute, but irrelevant. I strive to base my convictions on science, regulatory precedent, and strategic positioning—not just emotion. You’re welcome to mute, but don’t confuse skepticism with gaslighting. And don’t confuse forum noise with institutional silence- Wall Street doesn’t post here, but it watches.

Final note: yes, approvals take time. Studies take time. But when they converge with validation and strategic capital, the market doesn’t wait for revenue—it moves on reduced uncertainty. That’s the thesis. You can disagree but at least engage with the logic.

[GoodGuyBill]

Jesster64, let’s unpack the term “BS,” because it’s being used as a rhetorical sledgehammer where, imho, a scalpel is needed.

“BS” implies absurdity, fabrication, or impossibility. When you label everything from “tumor agnostic” to “King Charles being treated” and “Cofer Black tracking manipulators” as “BS,” you’re not making an argument—you’re dodging one. These examples aren’t equal in credibility, and lumping them together is either intellectually lazy or disingenuous.

In regard to King Charles, the facts are clear: he was diagnosed with cancer and treated as an outpatient, but the hospital, physicians, and treatment modality have not been publicly disclosed. Dr. Keyoumars Ashkan is a renowned neuro-oncology expert, awarded an MBE in 2023, and the UK lead investigator for DCVax-L—a tumor-agnostic therapy now conditionally accessible via the NHS High Cost Drugs list. It’s not unreasonable to suggest that Ashkan could have been consulted regarding the King’s case. While there’s no evidence confirming this, the institutional proximity and mechanistic relevance make the scenario plausible. Calling it “BS” isn’t skepticism—it’s rhetorical laziness. If you want to challenge the claim, challenge the evidence. But don’t flatten nuance into nonsense.

Regarding Cofer Black, the facts are equally clear: he served as Director of the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center during one of the most pivotal periods in U.S. intelligence history and currently sits on the NWBO’s Board of Directors. His expertise spans covert operations, threat network mapping, and counter-disinformation—skills directly applicable to identifying and mitigating asymmetric market manipulation. No, he’s not personally monitoring retail posters (lol). But suggesting that someone with his background might advise on strategic intelligence, cybersecurity posture, or coordinated short attack detection isn’t absurd—it’s operationally coherent. Dismissing that as “BS” ignores the very real intersection between national security-grade intelligence and the opaque, often hostile terrain of biotech markets. If you want to refute the inference, do it with logic—not with a shrug and a label.

Both examples—Ashkan’s potential consultation and Black’s strategic relevance—are speculative and unconfirmed. But they are grounded in institutional proximity, mechanistic plausibility, and real-world accessibility. That makes them reasonable assertions, not rhetorical garbage. They may not be true—but they are not “BS.”