That analogy does not work.
Gravity is observable and repeatable. An expanded label theory is not the same thing as watching an apple fall from a tree.
The claim here is specific: that NWBO’s label is being expanded beyond the announced GBM MAA, and that this may explain the delay or require the company to “prepare accordingly.”
That is not gravity. That is a regulatory claim.
If NWBO amended the application or sought a broader cancer indication, that would be a major development. It could affect market size, manufacturing demand, reimbursement, capital needs, and timing of revenue.
So the question remains: where is the disclosure?
Wouldn’t that be material? If true, it would significantly change the scope of the MAA. Unlike the apple, I do not know where this lands.
I am not asking for proof that apples fall. I am pushing back on the idea that a GBM MAA became a broader cancer label discussion without at least a PR, 8-K, or some clear disclosure from the company.
Market Data 
Markets 
