[GUEST ACCESS MODE: Data is scrambled or limited to provide examples. Make requests using your API key to unlock full data. Check https://lunarcrush.ai/auth for authentication information.]  Andrew Caravello, DO [@andrewcaravello](/creator/twitter/andrewcaravello) on x 1073 followers Created: 2025-07-06 22:42:51 UTC Absolutely agree with your point, @d_stock07734 and I’d take it one step further. If Mayo Clinic’s dendritic cell (DC) technology were a truly independent, scalable, and commercially viable competitor to Northwest Bio then one of the major players( Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, etc) would have likely moved on it already. They would have acquired Mayo’s platform, used it to pressure or bypass NWBO, and consolidated any overlapping IP. That’s the standard playbook for pharma when they spot a vulnerable or parallel platform, buy it, co-opt it, or kill it. But that hasn’t happened. And it’s not for lack of visibility. What has happened is this: Mayo Clinic licensed key DC culture technologies, particularly its human platelet lysate (hPL) cell culture media, to a spinout company called Mill Creek Life Sciences. That media is cGMP-grade and is used in clinical trials for growing dendritic cells. Mill Creek exists specifically to commercialize Mayo’s media and manufacturing IP, and has done so under license from the Mayo Clinic for years. Importantly, this same class of hPL-based media is commonly used in GMP dendritic cell production protocols, and NWBO itself has previously referenced using hPL media in its own technical descriptions. While NWBO has not named Mill Creek directly in public disclosures, the overlap in technology origin, trial period, and therapeutic class makes it highly likely that Mill Creek’s Mayo-licensed media is part of NWBO’s production ecosystem, especially in earlier trials or R&D batches. That’s a grounded inference based on industry practice, timing, and shared infrastructure, not speculation. There’s no evidence that Mayo Clinic, or Mill Creek, has positioned its DC platform as a competing therapeutic product. You won’t find a trial, a pipeline asset, or a commercialization plan that conflicts with NWBO’s DCVax platform. Mayo’s contribution appears to be upstream: supporting infrastructure, not rival endpoint. Meanwhile, if you look at how Merck has behaved strategically, it tells you even more. In 2019, Merck didn’t buy Mayo’s DC IP. Instead, it acquired Immune Design, whose lead asset (G100) is a TLR4-based intratumoral immune primer, a molecule designed to boost the effectiveness of DC-based therapies, not replace them. That move reinforces the logic: pharma giants are looking for amplifiers, not replacements, to dendritic cell strategies. If Mayo had an autonomous, therapeutically packaged DC vaccine platform, Merck would’ve moved. That they didn’t, and haven’t, strongly suggests that Mayo’s position is integrative, not competitive. In this context, NWBO holders should view Mayo and Mill Creek not as threats, but as likely quiet infrastructure partners, contributors to the supply chain or technical process. Their technologies may already be embedded in the vaccine production pipeline, particularly under the Specials programme or in UK/EU applications. And because no major player has acquired Mayo’s platform or moved to co-opt it, it strengthens the case that NWBO’s IP position is not just intact, it’s central. If DCVax succeeds, and especially if approved under MHRA or expanded IFR frameworks, then Mayo’s role will be to support, not to challenge. This isn’t a rivalry. It’s a quiet collaboration. And the longer no one moves against NWBO, the clearer that becomes. XXX engagements  **Related Topics** [stocks technology](/topic/stocks-technology) [mayo](/topic/mayo) [$mrk](/topic/$mrk) [stocks healthcare](/topic/stocks-healthcare) [$bmy](/topic/$bmy) [$pfe](/topic/$pfe) [Post Link](https://x.com/andrewcaravello/status/1941991259628790045)
[GUEST ACCESS MODE: Data is scrambled or limited to provide examples. Make requests using your API key to unlock full data. Check https://lunarcrush.ai/auth for authentication information.]
Andrew Caravello, DO @andrewcaravello on x 1073 followers
Created: 2025-07-06 22:42:51 UTC
Absolutely agree with your point, @d_stock07734 and I’d take it one step further.
If Mayo Clinic’s dendritic cell (DC) technology were a truly independent, scalable, and commercially viable competitor to Northwest Bio then one of the major players( Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, etc) would have likely moved on it already. They would have acquired Mayo’s platform, used it to pressure or bypass NWBO, and consolidated any overlapping IP. That’s the standard playbook for pharma when they spot a vulnerable or parallel platform, buy it, co-opt it, or kill it.
But that hasn’t happened. And it’s not for lack of visibility.
What has happened is this: Mayo Clinic licensed key DC culture technologies, particularly its human platelet lysate (hPL) cell culture media, to a spinout company called Mill Creek Life Sciences. That media is cGMP-grade and is used in clinical trials for growing dendritic cells. Mill Creek exists specifically to commercialize Mayo’s media and manufacturing IP, and has done so under license from the Mayo Clinic for years.
Importantly, this same class of hPL-based media is commonly used in GMP dendritic cell production protocols, and NWBO itself has previously referenced using hPL media in its own technical descriptions. While NWBO has not named Mill Creek directly in public disclosures, the overlap in technology origin, trial period, and therapeutic class makes it highly likely that Mill Creek’s Mayo-licensed media is part of NWBO’s production ecosystem, especially in earlier trials or R&D batches. That’s a grounded inference based on industry practice, timing, and shared infrastructure, not speculation.
There’s no evidence that Mayo Clinic, or Mill Creek, has positioned its DC platform as a competing therapeutic product. You won’t find a trial, a pipeline asset, or a commercialization plan that conflicts with NWBO’s DCVax platform. Mayo’s contribution appears to be upstream: supporting infrastructure, not rival endpoint.
Meanwhile, if you look at how Merck has behaved strategically, it tells you even more. In 2019, Merck didn’t buy Mayo’s DC IP. Instead, it acquired Immune Design, whose lead asset (G100) is a TLR4-based intratumoral immune primer, a molecule designed to boost the effectiveness of DC-based therapies, not replace them. That move reinforces the logic: pharma giants are looking for amplifiers, not replacements, to dendritic cell strategies.
If Mayo had an autonomous, therapeutically packaged DC vaccine platform, Merck would’ve moved. That they didn’t, and haven’t, strongly suggests that Mayo’s position is integrative, not competitive.
In this context, NWBO holders should view Mayo and Mill Creek not as threats, but as likely quiet infrastructure partners, contributors to the supply chain or technical process. Their technologies may already be embedded in the vaccine production pipeline, particularly under the Specials programme or in UK/EU applications.
And because no major player has acquired Mayo’s platform or moved to co-opt it, it strengthens the case that NWBO’s IP position is not just intact, it’s central.
If DCVax succeeds, and especially if approved under MHRA or expanded IFR frameworks, then Mayo’s role will be to support, not to challenge.
This isn’t a rivalry. It’s a quiet collaboration.
And the longer no one moves against NWBO, the clearer that becomes.
XXX engagements
Related Topics stocks technology mayo $mrk stocks healthcare $bmy $pfe