[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.]

![alphavestcap Avatar](https://lunarcrush.com/gi/w:24/cr:twitter::2830703777.png) alphavestcapital.com [@alphavestcap](/creator/twitter/alphavestcap) on x 1872 followers
Created: 2025-07-21 11:19:15 UTC


$nwbo @alphavestcap 


📷Slave1

Re: Slave1 post# 777003
Sunday, July 20, 2025 10:30:29 PM

Post#  of 777020

Now that the facts are out in the open, let’s talk about what they actually mean.

That February X press release didn’t just mention Flaskworks, it spelled out the entire process:

• Advent would perform final qualification and validation
• Engineering runs would be used to generate data
• That data would be submitted to regulators to approve the system for patient use
• The product was declared substantially comparable to the manual DCVax-L process

That’s validation. That’s comparability. That’s regulatory submission.

And all of it was publicly disclosed, months ago.
But here’s the piece that matters now: the law.
Before SI 2025 No. 87, the MHRA didn’t have a legal path to approve a system like Flaskworks without treating it as a major post-approval change, a Type II Variation.

SI XX changes that.

It was laid before Parliament on June 17, and becomes enforceable on July XX. It creates a new legal pathway for modular, patient-specific manufacturing systems like Flaskworks to be approved up front under the UK “Specials” framework, no delay, no variation needed.
And here’s what makes this even more specific:
Only therapies that meet all of the following criteria qualify for the updated “name-on-packaging” provision under SI 2025/87:

• Autologous (made from the patient’s own cells)
• Per-patient and non-interchangeable
• Returned post-GMP manufacturing
• Used immediately at the clinical site
• Delivered under a named-patient “Specials” license

DCVax-L is the only known therapy that matches all of those requirements.

And just in case there was any doubt:

SI 2025 No. XX wasn’t written with a category in mind, it was written with a specific therapy in mind.

The structure, the timing, the wording, all of it lines up with one real-world use case: DCVax-L.

According to the case study “How Linda Powers’ Testimony Shaped MHRA and NICE Reform”:

• Linda Powers was the only CEO to testify from the oncology cell therapy sector during the APPGBT inquiry.

• Her testimony laid out the problems with placebo-controlled trials in glioblastoma and the logistical barriers of autologous manufacturing.

• She proposed external controls for evidence, and a hub-and-spoke model for manufacturing.

• Those exact blueprints became the foundation for the MHRA’s new policies:
• The May 2025 External Control Arm guidance
• The Modular Manufacture and Point of Care law : SI 2025 No. XX

“This framework is a perfect logistical fit for DCVax-L. NWBO’s manufacturing strategy, with its large GMP-certified facility in Sawston, UK, as the ‘hub’ and its planned rollout of the automated Flaskworks system for decentralized ‘spokes,’ maps directly onto this new legal model.” 

And here’s the clincher:

“Only therapies that are autologous, per-patient, returned post-GMP, used immediately, and delivered via UK Specials qualify for name-on-packaging under SI 2025/87.” 

That eliminates everything mRNA, off-the-shelf, or cryo-stored.

DCVax-L is the only known therapy that fits the rule.
So if you’re asking why this wasn’t activated earlier, that’s why.

NWBO didn’t miss anything.They were waiting for the rulebook to change.

And let’s be honest: The rulebook didn’t just change.
It was created for one therapy, and one CEO who saw it coming.


XXXXX engagements

![Engagements Line Chart](https://lunarcrush.com/gi/w:600/p:tweet::1947255043658260955/c:line.svg)

**Related Topics**
[$nwbo](/topic/$nwbo)

[Post Link](https://x.com/alphavestcap/status/1947255043658260955)