News Focus
News Focus
icon url

seekinganswers

11/08/25 11:01 AM

#796861 RE: learningcurve2020 #796858

That was according to GROK , usually accurate. And yes, the subject has been avoided, like the plague.
LP knows all of the answers, but doesn't say.
Maybe this is why there is not a single large institution invested and there could never be a buyout from any BP?
Not much money left over after manufacturing costs plus UCLA royalties, especially in the tiny UK market.
NWBO management could clear all of this up easily, if they chose to.
icon url

seekinganswers

11/08/25 11:26 AM

#796862 RE: learningcurve2020 #796858

Correction: Those #s reflect the percentage of the overall net royalties to the university and how they are divided.
2-5% seems more like industry average of net revenues as a whole. There are other fees and equity payments on top of royalties.
My intention is not to mislead, I stand corrected.
icon url

exwannabe

11/08/25 12:19 PM

#796867 RE: learningcurve2020 #796858

It is not that simple. Here is the real story of who developed what.

In the mid 90s Boynton ran the P1/2 trials with DC Prostate. This was/is a specific antigen DC so not ATL based. Sometime in the late 1995-2001 time frame NWBO had developed a process for ATL based DCs that used freeze-thaw cycles to extract the lysate and freeze the final product. The differentiating agents were GC-CMF and IL-4 as was common. I am not aware of any clinical trials at that time.

In the mean time, around 1999 LL, Prins, Cloughsey et all ran a P1 with a fairly standard version of ATl-DC, used an acid bath to extract the lysate. Imature DCs were frozen and thawed for each dose to be matured via the lysate. The use of GM-CSF and IL-4 was described in a referenced paper for 1996 that had nothing to do with NWBO.

In 2001 NWBO contracted with UCLA to perform clinical development of NWBO's version. This work did not use UCLA's version, and was not changing the product. It was designing and then running the early trials.

So we are talking 2 different agents. One by each side. Yes, LL did work on the clincial side of the DCVax-L program, but UCLA has no ownership in it. Nor does NWBO have any ownership of the UCAL based ATl-DC that was developed prior to the NWBO/UCLA contract.