Replies to post #797069 on NorthWest Biotherapeutics Inc (NWBO)

[akblack]

Yes. Post a screenshot here publically, including the sender metadata, in an unaltered raw screenshot for IT hacks to analsyse.
Here's why I believe it's not real: 

Short answer:

Even if every fact in that message appears in past 10-Qs, George still would not have written the message as shown. The problem is not the facts. It is the implications, tone, and forward-looking certainty, which go far beyond anything in NWBO’s filings and would violate normal IR practice.

Now the detailed breakdown.

1. “Everything he said is already in the 10-Qs”

This argument is only half relevant.
Reg FD is not only about revealing new facts.

It also covers:

- selective interpretation
- selective emphasis
- selective predictions
- selective assurances
- anything that could reasonably influence an investor’s view

Even if every factual element had appeared publicly, the message as written creates an impression and expectation that is materially different from the neutral tone of a 10-Q.

And that is a Reg FD issue.

2. The phrases that absolutely would never appear in a real IR email

These lines are the problem:

“We believe they will ultimately approve DCVax-L.”

This is a forward-looking conclusion about regulator behavior.
NWBO has never said this in any filing.
They always use conditional language like “we cannot predict,” “we hope,” “we believe DCVax-L has potential,” etc.

“If they had found a fatal flaw… they would have let us know a long time ago.”
This strongly implies:

- no major issues exist, and
- approval is only a matter of time.

That is material, even if the underlying facts aren’t new.

“We are much closer now than ever before.”
This is also not in the filings and is guidance on regulatory timing.

“We believe…” + “…will approve…”
No IR officer is allowed to say a regulator will approve a drug unless the approval has already happened.

This directly violates cautionary language in NWBO’s own filings.

3. The tone is wrong

Zavoico’s official communications are:

- tight
- dry
- technical
- cautious
- always hedged with risk language
- always aligned with legal counsel

The message shown is:

- conversational
- emotional
- reassuring
- subjective
- speculative
- informal (“I’m sorry I can’t be more definitive”)

It reads like an investor message board post, not a compliance-cleared communication.

IR officers at a pre-approval biotech do not write like this.

4. If this were real, NWBO’s legal counsel would immediately intervene

If he wrote this and it leaked, it would be a Reg FD incident, and NWBO would be forced to file an 8-K within 24 hours to publicly correct or disclose it.

There has been no corrective filing.
That alone is extremely telling.

5. The strongest argument against authenticity

If this were real, NWBO would have created:

- insider trading exposure
- selective disclosure exposure
- litigation exposure
- regulatory scrutiny

Zavoico is senior and experienced.
He knows / should know better.
He would never write “we believe they will approve” in a private email.

Conclusion:

Even if the facts in the message appear in the 10-Q, the tone, predictions, implications, and assurances absolutely would not be written by George Zavoico or any IR officer.

This message is almost certainly not authentic, or it has been paraphrased or embellished by the recipient.