$NWBO #DCVaxForBraelyn
𝗖𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗿 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀𝗻’𝘁 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗰𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗲. 𝗗𝗖𝗩𝗮𝘅 𝗶𝘀 𝗱𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼.
Her own cells. Her own tumor. Teaching her immune system what to recognize and attack.
Braelyn crossed an ocean for that opportunity. The next family should have a path at home.
xitter.cf/andrewcaravello/status…
pgsd $nwbo @alphavestcap
Tuesday, October 27, 2026 3:51:31 AM
Diamantas touts new rare disease framework, greater emphasis on patient voice
Acting US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Kyle Diamantas touted the agency’s new rare disease framework as the best mechanism for modernizing rare disease development and incorporating the patient voice into scientific reviews for orphan therapies during a fireside chat at the NORD Breakthrough Summit on Monday.
FDA announced the new framework earlier this month as a fit-for-purpose approach to orphan drug development with a more tailored regulatory review process. The framework is focused on building shared resources and integrating the patient voice in the drug review process for small patient populations. (RELATED: FDA launches rare disease framework initiative, Regulatory Focus 15 October 2026)
“We have to do a better job at FDA,” of incorporating patient involvement in developing treatments for rare diseases, Diamantas said.
He added that “the science has never been more promising. I think that this is absolutely true with genomics characterizations, gene editing, [and] precision medicine. All these things are becoming more modernized when you think back to a couple of years ago. The science is changing tremendously. That gives us the opportunity to change our regulatory approaches to account for the evolution in science.”
Despite this evolution, he noted that only 5% of rare diseases have a cure. “Tremendous work” needs to be done in this space to get treatments out to patients, he added.
According to Diamantas, FDA’s new rare disease framework would ensure that reviews are more predictable across the different review divisions and that those reviews will better accommodate patient feedback.
Diamantas acknowledged recent criticism that the agency has been inconsistent in its review of rare disease drugs. “You may go to one review division, and you may get a totally different outcome when you go to different review division,” he said.
Diamantas also mentioned that the patient perspective isn’t always explicitly considered. He said he recently spoke with a review team about an orphan product that was subject to an advisory committee meeting.
“I asked them how often have you been talking to patients about their perspective? And they said this is the first time they have ever heard of a patient advocate. Yet by this time, it is too late in the game. […] The decisions have been made. We’ve got to do a much better job of using our processes to account for things like the patient voice,” Diamantas said.
When asked about the changes needed in the regulatory framework to accommodate the new system, he stated that his goal is to establish a framework that is fit-for-use. To achieve this, the FDA will issue rulemaking and guidance. Additionally, Diamantas mentioned that the FDA will routinely engage with the reviewers.
Diamantas acknowledged that implementing new processes will take time. “Our ultimate goal is to end up in a situation where we account for the nuances and the realities of the rare disease or condition” in drug reviews.
When asked what approach the framework will take with respect to clinical trial designs for rare diseases, he emphasized the importance of maintaining an open mind. He said that efforts are now underway to standardize the criteria for clinical trial design and mentioned that FDA is looking to expand its guidance on this topic.
Diamantas also urged the public to attend a workshop the agency is hosting on Wednesday at its White Oak campus to solicit feedback on the rare disease framework.
raps.org/resource/diamantas-…
$nwbo @alphavestcap
$nwbo 's patented proprietary manufacturing process is the product (LP). Where else can solid tumor cancer patients get such no-side- effects survival extension ? Finally, politicans and regulators are beginning to understand the consequences to humankind(20 million new cases annually) of allowing the financial power of legacy cancer therapies to stall dc vax 's regulatory approval.
Google AI:" Cancer is the global health condition that "trumps" or vastly eclipses other major statistics, with nearly 20 million newly diagnosed cases annually on the globe. [1, 2]
According to data compiled by organizations like the World Health Organization (WHO) and the National Cancer Institute, the burden of newly diagnosed global cancer cases is projected to rise to approximately 35 million annually by the year 2050. [1, 2]"
"NHS Blood and Transplant’s Therapeutic Apheresis Services (TAS) and Cellular and Molecular Therapies (CMT) teams are supporting the UK production of DCVax®-L – a treatment for Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM), an aggressive form of primary brain cancer, as well as all solid tumours."
nwbio.com/northwest-biothera…
""When the trial is published, the data will become publicly available. " Sounds like we are waiting for a peer review article on (NCT04201873)(poly iclc, dc vax L, keytruda) , which ended 8/31/26, per UCLA-Liau. Will it be available by the $nwbo 11/14/26-SNO presentation ? - what % of patients were alive at 5 years? - 6% alive at 5 years with SOC. 2 year survival 50% versus 18-25% with SOC ?"
"The clamour appears to be building from American solid tumor oncologists who want to use (NCT04201873).WHY? Starting with GBM , the Liau combo date suggests that while MOS for SOC is 16.5 months(and has been that way since 2005) , with the LIAU combo formula, the GBM patient has a shot at living 5-10 years. Furthermore, as
@HollensbeAmanda
says, "it works on all solid tumors.". (xitter.cf/HollensbeAmanda/status…)"
"Linda Liau, M.D., Ph.D., MBA, Professor & Chair of Neurosurgery at UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine: “Immunology and immunotherapy research represents one of the most transformative frontiers in modern medicine.”"
investorshub.advfn.com/board…
xitter.cf/alphavestcap/status/21…
$nwbo @alphavestcap @smith348572 @glen_bwrhr42
"When the trial is published, the data will become publicly available. "
Sounds like we are waiting for a peer review article on (NCT04201873)(poly iclc, dc vax L, keytruda) , which ended 8/31/26, per UCLA-Liau. Will it be available by the $nwbo 11/14/26-SNO presentation ? - what % of patients were alive at 5 years? - 6% alive at 5 years with SOC. 2 year survival 50% versus 18-25% with SOC ?
flipper44
Re: FormalMHRAconsultant post# 842471
Tuesday, September 29, 2026 5:52:47 PM
I agree that Dr. Prins should provide more mature combination (tail) data at SNO on November 14, but the November 2 abstract will be exactly the same as the EASMO abstract. (I’ve been saying this, because both abstracts were submitted to both conferences in May)
We’ve all been waiting on Merck for years, and they’ve obviously been in the background with the completed combination pre-trials and successfully completed Phase I trial.
I do not think November 14, 2026 is a binary date however. It’s not meant to be. You kinda went drama king there, especially when you yourself do not expect an MAA decision until late November/early December. November 14 is not do or die.
@alphavestcap $nwbo
xitter.cf/FlemmingBruce/status/2…
xitter.cf/d_stock07734/status/21…
xitter.cf/andrewcaravello/status…
xitter.cf/alphavestcap/status/21…
xitter.cf/kshaughnessy2/status/2…
mauinews.com/opinion/columns…
xitter.cf/HollensbeAmanda/status…
xitter.cf/digitalkey01/status/21…
xitter.cf/FlemmingBruce/status/2…
prnewswire.com/news-releases…
xitter.cf/ErikAbramsEsq/status/2…
xitter.cf/HollensbeAmanda/status…
$nwbo @alphavestcap @NorthwestBio @SpimacoAddwaeih @aljedai @MHRAgovuk @NHS @NHSEngland @andrewcaravello @HollensbeAmanda @HollensbeBrae @BenHollensbe @ThomasOwenMcCa1 @LisainNJUSA @WSJ @nytimes @nypost @BBCWorld @ABC @NBCNews @CBSNews
xitter.cf/alphavestcap/status/21…
Replying to @alphavestcap
@alphavestcap $nwbo
ANSWER: $200 million in annual "campaign contributions"(xitter.cf/xMarketNews/status/173…) ( the residual reverts to the S-C when leaving office) to Senators-Congressmen controls their instructions to the FDA.
bakersfield.com/opinion/step…
xitter.cf/andrewcaravello/status…
xitter.cf/alphavestcap/status/21…
xitter.cf/HollensbeAmanda/status…
(0:00) The piece you wrote, Op-Ed, pushing for the FDA to let us try new cancer treatments. (0:08) So my question is, how can the FDA keep us safe while expending access to experimental (0:13) treatments and drugs? (0:15) So thank you, by the way, for covering this story, because it's a really important one. (0:19) In this particular case that I outlined in the article, this is a woman who, at the time (0:26) she was a girl, she was 17 years old.
(0:28) She developed brain cancer. (0:30) She had a brain tumor that was as big as a cue ball in a pool in her head, and she tried (0:39) an experimental treatment that has basically reduced the tumor. (0:45) She's now 19 years old.
(0:47) She's leading a very functional life. (0:50) She's in college right now. (0:51) But here's the thing.
(0:52) She has to travel to London, England once every couple of months to get the treatment (0:58) because she cannot get the treatment here in the United States, even though it was developed (1:02) by American scientists and American laboratories, an American company, and she has to go to (1:07) London to get the treatment for a near-fatal disease. (1:12) And so this is inhumane. (1:13) It's cruel.
(1:14) The FDA is holding on. (1:16) Right now they have 8 to 10 major breakthrough drugs that are sitting on the shelf waiting (1:22) to be approved while people are dying. (1:24) And so my view, I don't know how you feel about this, I think if you've got a really (1:28) chronic disease or a crippling disease and you want to try a new treatment, why not let (1:34) them do it? (1:35) Yes.
(1:35) And no liability on the part of the manufacturer of that drug or treatment. (1:39) Exactly. (1:39) No, no.
(1:40) I take the risk. (1:41) I volunteer to take the risk. (1:43) Give it to me.
(1:44) I'm with you totally. (1:45) And by the way, Trump is on board this. (1:48) He signed legislation called Right to Try that allows people to do this.
(1:53) But the FDA is not approving the drugs. (1:55) They're not allowing it. (1:56) It is an outrage.
(1:57) The FDA should be, you know, whatever happened to my body, my choice. (2:02) If you've got a terrible disease and you want some hope, let people have that hope. (2:08) Let them try these.
(2:09) What could go, even if it doesn't work, what's the harm? (2:12) Right. (2:13) Maybe President Trump will get in and get on this and some action will come. (2:17) I hope he's watching right now.
(2:18) Mr. President, you've got to get this FDA to approve these drugs on an experimental (2:23) basis for people who have no hope. (2:25) Okay. (2:26) Fair enough.
$nwbo @alphavestcap
xitter.cf/digitalkey01/status/21…
xitter.cf/FlemmingBruce/status/2…
prnewswire.com/news-releases…
xitter.cf/ErikAbramsEsq/status/2…
xitter.cf/HollensbeAmanda/status…
xitter.cf/d_stock07734/status/21…
$NWBO
Joanna Stanson has great understanding about the important potential of DCVax technologies. She published papers about dendritic cells even 20 years ago. Here are just several publications by her for illustration.
Antigen-processing machinery in human dendritic cells: up-regulation by maturation and down-regulation by tumor cells
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1526…
Transfection of human monocyte-derived dendritic cells with native tumor DNA induces antigen-specific T-Cell responses in vitro.
tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.4…
Production of a Dendritic Cell-Based Vaccine Containing Inactivated Autologous Virus for Therapy of Patients with Chronic Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Infection
journals.asm.org/doi/full/10…
A phase 2 study of intravenous pembrolizumab and intratumorally injected autologous dendritic cells (DCs) in refractory colorectal cancer (CRC).
ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO…




