Mike Hill @MHill771

𝗧𝗵𝗲 $NWBO 𝗗𝗖𝗩𝗮𝘅-𝗟 𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝗹𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱𝘆 𝗱𝗼𝗻𝗲. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗙𝗗𝗔 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗮𝗹𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱𝘆 𝘄𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗹𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗺𝗲𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗶𝘀𝗺 𝗽𝗮𝘁𝗵𝘄𝗮𝘆. 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗹𝗲𝗳𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗶𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗳𝗶𝗹𝗲. #DCVax-L is a vaccine made for each patient from their own dendritic cells, the immune cells that teach the rest of the immune system what to attack, loaded with their own tumor. It treats #glioblastoma, the deadliest brain cancer. An American company developed it, yet Americans have to go to Europe to get it. #DCVaxForBraelyn The FDA has spent the past year writing down how it wants to judge treatments like this one. The core evidence it asks for already exists. One question decides this: can the FDA evaluate DCVax-L for approval under the plausible mechanism framework, on the evidence already generated? Read against every document the agency has published on the framework, the answer is yes. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗻 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗲𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗽𝘀 1. File the biologics license application (BLA) and ask the FDA's biologics center (CBER) for review under the plausible mechanism framework. A BLA is not another trial. It is the dossier the FDA decides on, and the framework changes what counts as sufficient inside it. The framework itself needs no new statute and no special designation. A sponsor asks for it. 2. Ask for full approval on survival, with no new randomized trial. The completed phase 3 is the pivotal study. Mechanism, a related product, a related stage of the disease and independent natural history are the confirmatory evidence. A registry of every treated patient supplies the follow-up. 3. Open access alongside the filing. An expanded access treatment protocol does not have to wait for the BLA; it can begin 30 days after the FDA receives it. Filing the BLA satisfies Right to Try's application condition. 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗙𝗗𝗔 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝘄𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗻 𝗱𝗼𝘄𝗻 Nov 2025, NEJM, Prasad and Makary: the plausible mechanism framework. Five questions. Built for cell and gene therapies first, and available for common diseases, particularly those "for which there are no proven alternative treatments." Feb 2026, NEJM: one adequate and well-controlled study plus confirmatory evidence is the FDA's default basis for approval. Feb 2026 draft guidance: an externally controlled study against a well-characterized natural history can be the pivotal study. Confirmatory evidence includes mechanism, target engagement and "exposure-response on biomarkers and clinical outcomes." The product can target "a well-characterized downstream or compensatory mechanism with a clear mechanistic rationale." June 2026 draft guidance: six conditions under which an external control supports effectiveness. The plausible mechanism framework named as an example of FDA regulatory flexibility in critical settings. "Even small effects may be clinically meaningful when the effect is on survival or irreversible morbidity." Why it exists: to bring regulatory flexibility to individualized therapies where the conventional model does not fit. The guidance names gene and RNA therapies, then says "the general concepts may apply to other types of individualized therapies": therapies that target "a specific pathophysiologic abnormality serving as the root cause of a disease." The FDA's own announcement: the guidance "leaves open the potential that this framework may apply to additional tailored therapeutics provided they directly address the underlying specific cause of the disease." The framework is not a new approval standard. It is how the FDA reads evidence under the standard that already exists. That is exactly why it can be asked for today. 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝗴𝗹𝗶𝗼𝗯𝗹𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗺𝗮 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗶𝘁 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝘄𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗻 𝗳𝗼𝗿 No proven alternative: recurrent GBM has no established standard of care. Of 400+ trials since 2005, only one phase 3 in newly diagnosed and none in recurrent disease had shown a survival benefit. High and predictable mortality: the exact case FDA regulations name for historical controls, "certain malignancies." Life-threatening in the regulation's own terms: a disease "where the end point of clinical trial analysis is survival." Individualized: a different product for every patient, made from their own cells and their own tumor, aimed at the root cause, the broken instruction layer. Orphan designation in the US and Europe. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗶𝘃𝗼𝘁𝗮𝗹 𝘀𝘁𝘂𝗱𝘆 𝗶𝘀 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲𝘁𝗲 331 patients, 94 sites, randomized, double blind. 64 of 99 placebo patients crossed over at recurrence, so survival was measured against 2,006 contemporaneous matched control patients from 15 randomized trials. Newly diagnosed: 19.3 vs 16.5 months, HR 0.80, p=.002. Alive at 5 years: 13.0% vs 5.7%. Recurrent: 13.2 vs 7.8 months, HR 0.58, p<.001. That is a 42% lower risk of death. The benefit widened over time, and it was largest in the patients who fare worst. Why no second trial? The completed trial, the crossover and the survival evidence make the case, and the FDA's June guidance names the ethical stake: after "a substantial decrease in mortality," a second trial "would generally present significant ethical concerns." 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟲 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗹𝘆𝘀𝗶𝘀 The phase 3 paper named its own limitation: without patient-level control data, "propensity score matching could not be performed." The critics named the missing methods: "propensity score matching or inverse probability weighting." In 2026 Northwest obtained individual patient data from three independent randomized trials and had independent statisticians run exactly those two methods. Propensity score matching pairs each DCVax-L patient with control patients who had the same prognostic profile, so like is compared with like. Presented at BNOS in July 2026; peer-reviewed publication is the next step. Propensity score matching: HR 0.69 to 0.77. Median survival +3.4 to +6.3 months. p .004 to .027. The original cohort-level analysis showed +2.8. When the matching got finer, the benefit got bigger. The survival advantage held under both patient-level methods and was larger than the original cohort-level estimate. Northwest reports sensitivity analyses for hidden confounding; the published paper should give the values. The method has been tested in this exact disease. In May 2026, the INSIGhT investigators replaced their own randomized control arm with propensity-matched external controls. For three drugs that had failed randomized testing, the method also found no benefit: HR 1.00, 0.93, 0.88. "Carefully matched external controls" produced "treatment effect estimates that were similar" to the randomized analyses. The method did not invent a benefit. Applied to DCVax-L, it found one. And the authorship closes the loop. In 2023, Dana-Farber statisticians Rahman, Ventz and Trippa wrote that they were "not aware of independent validations of these analytic methods in a GBM trial context." Rahman and Trippa are the senior authors of the 2026 INSIGhT validation. The critics asked for patient-level data and a validated method. By 2026 both existed. That supports the method the DCVax-L reanalysis used; publishing that analysis in full is step one. And it is the form a BLA requires: FDA guidance says applications "must include" patient-level data for the external control arm. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗙𝗗𝗔'𝘀 𝘀𝗶𝘅 𝘁𝗲𝘀𝘁𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗮𝗻 𝗲𝘅𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗹, 𝗮𝗻𝘀𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗱 1. Well-defined natural history: 2,006 controls from 15 randomized trials. 2. Very similar populations: 14 prespecified criteria, chosen by an independent firm, validated against all 15 source trials, now matched patient by patient. 3. Similar treatments: in newly diagnosed disease, surgery, radiation and temozolomide in both groups. 4. Objective endpoint: death. 5. Comparable start: survival from randomization after radiotherapy in both groups. Drop the two control trials that admitted early progressors: HR still 0.80. 6. An effect too large to be bias: five-year survival more than doubled, HR 0.58 at recurrence, and the effect grew when matching tightened. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗹𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗺𝗲𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗶𝘀𝗺 𝗰𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗮, 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗱 The FDA's five elements, quoted exactly from its February 2026 draft guidance (fda.gov/media/191247, lines 26 to 32), each answered: 1. "Identifying a specific genetic, cellular, or molecular abnormality with a clear connection between specific alteration and disease indication." (line 26) ✓ Met: in GBM, the dendritic cells that should teach T cells what to attack are overridden by suppressive immune cells. A tumor never presented for attack grows unopposed. 2. "Developing a therapy that targets the underlying or proximate pathogenic biological alterations." (line 28) ✓ Met: DCVax-L supplies the patient's own dendritic cells, loaded with their own tumor and prepared outside the suppressive tumor environment, to restore tumor-directed T-cell instruction. 3. "Relying on a well-characterized natural history of the disease in an untreated population." (line 30) ✓ Met: 2,006 controls from 15 randomized trials, patient-level data from three more, no time-trend in survival 2012 to 2022. 4. "Confirming that the target was successfully drugged or edited or both." (line 31) ✓ Platform evidence documented; product-specific bridge required. After DC vaccination, cytotoxic T cells increased inside the tumor, and infiltration correlated with survival (P = 0.047); T cell infiltration in the UCLA vaccine-first arm. The FDA is open to confirmation "for a subset of patients"; the BLA should supply DCVax-L's own immune-monitoring results and the bridge to these studies. 5. "Demonstrating improvement in clinical outcomes or course." (line 32) ✓ Met: longer survival, five-year survival more than doubled, a bigger benefit under patient-level matching. The eight considerations attached, each answered: 1. An individualized therapy aimed at "a specific pathophysiologic abnormality" 2. A "compensatory mechanism with a clear mechanistic rationale" 3. Substantial evidence from "a single adequate and well-controlled clinical investigation with confirmatory evidence" 4. A natural history that lets the effect be "reasonably distinguished from natural variability" 5. An improvement not attributable to "alternative treatments or natural variability" 6. Prespecified analysis plans 7. A reason a new RCT is not feasible 8. A product that "can be manufactured to regulatory quality standards," made for every phase 3 patient: manufacturing experience documented, US CMC review required 13 of 13, every one in the FDA's own words, every one answered from the record, every open step named. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗳𝗶𝗿𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘆 𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲, 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗙𝗗𝗔'𝘀 𝗼𝘄𝗻 𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘀 Mechanism: in the DCVax-Direct phase 1 (a different product: activated dendritic cells injected into diverse solid tumors), more IL-8 and IL-12p40 from each patient's cells went with longer survival, p=0.023 and 0.024. Exposure-response, in the FDA's words. Related product: UCLA's 46-patient randomized phase 1 trial of its own tumor lysate DC vaccine, at EANO this Friday. Both arms got the vaccine; the order was randomized. Vaccine first, 555 days. Checkpoint first, 271. HR 0.32. The order matters: priming before checkpoint release more than doubled median survival. Across the class, a 2024 meta-analysis of seven dendritic cell vaccine trials, 3,619 patients, found HR 0.71 for survival, "indicating a true-positive result." Related indication: the FDA's own example is "a different stage of the same disease." DCVax-L worked at both stages. Independent natural history: national cancer registries, separate from the trial controls, as the guidance requires. Real-world data is expressly allowed. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗵𝗲𝗱 𝗰𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗺𝘀, 𝗮𝗻𝘀𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗱 Three published critiques set out the case against the trial. Each point, answered from the record: Endpoint switched to survival? Progression could not be read: 256 of 494 scans needed adjudication. The critics agree: progression-free survival "is not an adequate endpoint for immunotherapy studies because of the phenomenon of pseudoprogression." Survival is the "gold standard," in their words. Cohort-level controls? The critics named the fix: propensity score matching or inverse probability weighting on patient-level data. That is exactly what 2026 did, and the benefit grew. Never validated in GBM? Two of the critics who raised it led the 2026 study showing patient-level external controls reproduce randomized results. Selection? Dropping the control trials that admitted early progressors changed nothing, as above. The benefit was larger in patients with more residual tumor, the opposite of what selection would produce. IDH, a tumor mutation linked to longer survival? Tested centrally in every DCVax-L patient. The gap is in the older control trials. Chosen after the fact? An independent firm, prespecified criteria, validation as above. Then a larger effect against different trials at the patient level. Company author? Data held by independent CROs, analyzed by independent statisticians. Run another trial? The completed program, crossover and survival evidence make a repeat unnecessary; the FDA's guidance names the ethical concern; the BLA documents why a new randomized design is not feasible or ethical. 𝗠𝗮𝗻𝘂𝗳𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 The framework also requires that the product "can be manufactured to regulatory quality standards." DCVax-L was made for every patient in a 94-site phase 3, and in 2023 the UK regulator licensed the Sawston facility for commercial manufacturing, with products that "may be exported globally." A UK license is not US approval: FDA inspection and the potency assay go on the table at the pre-BLA meeting. 𝗕𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗳𝗶𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗸 Longer survival in a disease with no proven alternative at recurrence. 2,151 doses, 5 serious events even possibly related, no autoimmunity, no cytokine storm. It is the patient's own immune system, with one broken link rebuilt. A repair, judged the way a repair should be judged. 𝗧𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗽𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗙𝗗𝗔 𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘄𝘀 Right to Try covers a product that has completed phase 1, is in active development and not on hold, and has an application on file. Filing the BLA satisfies the application condition; the others must still hold at that time. Patients must have a life-threatening disease, have exhausted approved treatments, be unable to join a trial and consent, and the manufacturer must choose to provide it. No separate FDA approval of each case. Build the program before filing. An expanded access treatment protocol (21 CFR 312.320) requires completed trials, active pursuit of approval and phase 3 evidence. The trials are complete and the phase 3 is published, so it does not have to wait for the BLA. Treatment can begin 30 days after the FDA receives the protocol, absent a hold. The usual reason a manufacturer holds back is risk: a serious event in a very sick patient gets blamed on the product. The FDA answered that in its April 2026 guidance: it "does not intend to deny, delay, or refuse to approve" a BLA "based solely on an adverse event occurring in the context of expanded access use," and "is not aware of any instances" where one prevented approval. Access is the bridge. Approval is the destination. This is not new for DCVax-L: it has been provided under Germany's hospital exemption and the UK Specials pathway. 𝗦𝗲𝗲𝗸 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗮𝗹, 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗮 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝗱𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝗿𝗲𝗴𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘆 The framework's guidance: approval is traditional or accelerated "depending on the endpoints used." Survival is the endpoint, so the request is traditional, full approval, with no confirmatory-trial requirement. The FDA can still require postmarketing studies, and the framework's authors named the tool: "collecting real-world evidence to confirm continued preservation of efficacy." A registry of every treated patient, designed before approval. If accelerated approval becomes the route, the regenerative medicine advanced therapy (RMAT) statute lets post-approval requirements be met through registries and "postapproval monitoring of all patients treated with such therapy prior to approval." Every patient treated under Right to Try or expanded access counts. 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗻𝘀 𝗻𝗲𝘅𝘁 Northwest has pursued the UK first. Its application there has been under review since late 2023, and in July 2026 the UK regulator confirmed it "remains under its initial regulatory review, has not been refused." The US filing is the step that remains. 1. Publish the patient-level reanalysis. 2. Lock in the patient-level control data rights the FDA requires. 3. Report the central IDH results and publish the phase 3 immune data. 4. Request RMAT designation now. FDA must answer within 60 days. 5. File the treatment protocol and build the Right to Try program. 6. Pre-BLA meeting with CBER: plausible mechanism review, six external-control tests answered, manufacturing and potency package. 7. File the BLA with priority review. 8. Build the registry. Approving DCVax-L this way would be the framework's proof beyond genetic disease: an individualized cell therapy, aimed at the root cause of the deadliest brain cancer, carried by a completed phase 3. A win for patients first. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗶𝘀 𝗱𝗼𝗻𝗲. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗿𝗮𝗺𝗲𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸 𝗶𝘀 𝘄𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗻. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘄𝗮𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴. 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗹𝗲𝗳𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗶𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗳𝗶𝗹𝗲. Disclosure: long $NWBO. Commentary on published and presented data and public FDA documents. Not medical, legal, regulatory or investment advice. DCVax-L is investigational and not approved in the US. Regulatory strategy is the sponsor's decision.

$NWBO the world deserves to know about #DCVax @greta it is quite the story.

Greta Van Susteren @greta

a month ago

Have the mother contact me at Newsmax in Washington DC..I will put a spotlight on this..it is outrageous

69 211 818 73K 64

@Mr_Derivatives $NWBO dendritic cell cancer vaccine. Significantly improved survival in a phase 3 trial for glioblastoma brain tumors. Currently at 300m market cap. $MRNA gained over 40b on this news.

Being a blogger doesn’t allow the “pretend journalist” to commit crimes. $NWBO

@Siobhain_Mc @wesstreeting @NIHRresearch @CR_UK And to think the @MHRAgovuk has been in possession of an MAA from $NWBO for $DCVax-L to treat one of the deadliest forms of cancer, GBM, for over 2 years and still hasn't approved it. $DCVax is a safe and effective treatment yet languishes in a government morass. Shameful.

@pepemoonboy Check out $NWBO - cancer immunotherapy drug Dc-Vax, potentially capable of treating all solid tumors.

Huge shoutout to @AlMusella for dropping that 2022 interview with Dr. Linda Liau—finally free after being blocked back then! 🙌 Your persistence is inspiring the brain tumor community. Thanks for the share! #BrainTumorAwareness #GBM #Cancer $NWBO

Incredible. “The system” does not want people to get well, survive or compete.  It must be dismantled.

Hoffmann @hoffmann6383

3 years ago

I wrote an article about $NWBO: reddit.com/r/NWBO/comment… I encourage everyone to read it. What is happening with NWBO is astounding and our persistent retail investor has hung on through it all. I believe we will all be much better off when this story comes to its' ending.

50 184 483 178K 49

$NWBO hmm its back

🇩🇰 The Danish Dude 🇬🇱 @FlemmingBruce

10 months ago

$NWBO Now you can download the FULL Transcript of Al Musella webinar December 5th. 2022 with UCLA doctor Linda Liau. AND FINALLY … with the missing Q&A section 💪🏻 bit.ly/49qCOVy Thanks @AlMusella 🙏🏻

6 39 123 16K 12

@TheKitchenPB This is a game for senior citizens.

@elonmusk @DailyMail @elonmusk, $NWBO non-toxic dendritic cell therapy is extending survival (and saving lives) in GBM patients and is applicable to all solid tumor cancers. With the money to scale manufacturing they could be at the forefront of a cancer treatment revolution.

You are a taker, not a maker. All you’ve done your whole life is take from the makers of the world. The zero-sum mindset you have is at the root of so much evil. Once you realize that civilization is not zero-sum and that it is about making far more than one consumes, then it becomes obvious that the path to prosperity for all is just let the makers make. Regarding Tesla, the reality is that I have been given nothing. However, if I lead Tesla to become the most valuable company in the world by far and it stays that way for 5 years, shareholders voted to award me 12% of what is built. Anyone who wants to come along for the ride can buy Tesla stock. If Tesla “merely” becomes a $1.999 trillion dollar company, I get nothing. This is a great deal for shareholders, which is why they voted so overwhelmingly to approve this, for which I am immensely grateful. And they did so by a margin far more than you won your political seat.

$NWBO it’s coming…

Rob @Smooth_Bert

11 months ago

for my $NWBO friends.. this was shared by the CEO of Advent this morning 😊

9 31 201 28K 9

$NWBO significantly undervalued

Andrew Caravello, DO @andrewcaravello

12 months ago

🚨 $NWBO Math Check #AdventBioServices — the only digital GMP facility in the UK — would cost an estimated $700M+ to replicate. Yet $NWBO entire market cap is just $361M at $0.25/share (1.5B shares). That means the market values Advent + #Flaskworks + all #DCVax IP for less

8 17 99 7K 0

@JSpitTrades $NWBO. You buy it because they have a treatment for cancer that significantly increases survival in large trial of patients, but the stock is the worst because the company has been attacked by market makers and is currently in discovery phase of a lawsuit against them.

Today's announcement of tomorrow's pharma-related executive order has such profound implications that I'm going to summarize 12 of them. 1) Drug prices in the US will come down. 2) Drug prices in the rest of the world will go up. 3) Medical insurance will not have to pay so much for drugs. 4) We will therefore see not just lower drug prices but lower insurance costs. 5) Drug companies that get most of their revenue from the US and have big differentials iwth other countries will suffer the most. 6) Pharma companies that do not have approved treatments (and therefore pricing) yet are going to be very prized (think $NWBO and $ANVS) because it's not easy to raise prices worldwide when they're already set. 7) R&D will a) focus on efficiency--think major investments in AI, automation. b) move overseas. Think $NWBO 8) Real world data analysis rather than expensive clinical trials will become dominant. Think $NWBO. 9) Big pharma dividends are going to get cut. This will result in investment transferring from big to small pharma. 10) The US government deficit will crash as Medicare and Medicaid costs drop. The dollar will strengthen. 11) Shortages of many drugs may occur. 12) The average American will have more cash in their pocket. This will result in a big boost to the economy (at least for those without big pharma holdings).

UK Parliament House of Commons will meet on Wednesday 4/23/2025. Sarah Owens is a Member of Parliament. Ms. Owens will ask 2 questions about $NWBO #DCVax-L. The agenda for this meeting was published today & Ms. Owens is going to ask the UK Secretary of State for Health and Social Care: (1) when he expects the MHRA to make public their decision on approving & licensing DCVax-L, (2) does the Secretary plan to work with NICE to expedite market access to DCVax-L? Look at page 62 on the list of questions: commonsbusiness.parliament.uk/Document/93868…

$NWBO

Bloomberg Law @BLaw

2 years ago

Northwest Biotherapeutics Inc. can proceed with claims against seven firms including Citadel Securities and Virtu Americas LLC for depressing the company’s stock price through false sale orders, a federal court ruled. news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/cit…

18 138 315 41K 19

$NWBO This is big The market makers being sued by Northwest Biotherapeutics are headed to discovery. Pressure to settle is on Their attempt to get the $NWBO case completely thrown out is rejected. Courtesy: @RichFairgrieve @hoffmann6383

Hoffmann @hoffmann6383

2 years ago

🚨Report and Recommendation Adopted🚨 $NWBO more on what this means when I'm back in office. In short, discovery is coming.

18 46 222 33K 1

@hoffmann6383 @hoffmann6383 do they plan to apply to fda?