Groundbreaking recycling process could prevent millions of pounds of clothing waste — here's how
It easily separates cotton from polyester, producing usable glucose from the former and leaving the latter undamaged, per a University of Amsterdam news release published by Phys.org.
The researchers, in partnership with sustainable chemicals company Avantium, used super-concentrated hydrochloric acid on polycotton waste. The acid breaks down the cotton into a glucose solution, and the polyester remains, "providing the ability to fully recycle both components in subsequent steps," the team wrote.
This sidesteps a major issue with textile recycling, as the fibers are difficult to disentangle, ScienceDirect noted in highlights about a different study. It also helps reduce the waste that is burying developing nations; Americans discard 21 billion pounds of clothes every year.
"Being able to recover glucose from the cotton in textile waste is a crucial contribution to this, as glucose is a key bio-based feedstock," said Gert-Jan Gruter, head of the industrial sustainable chemistry department at the Van 't Hoff Institute for Molecular Sciences at the University of Amsterdam. "Currently, it is produced from starch from corn and wheat. If and when we will be producing plastics from biomass on a large scale, the world will need a lot of non-food glucose."
Phys.org published a photograph that showed the results of the process: Just polyester seams and their labels were left after cotton shirts had been bathed in the acid.
"It is the first effective method for recycling both cotton and polyester components of polycotton with high efficiency," according to the release.
The project falls under the mixed cotton-polyester waste textiles umbrella, which is years in the making at the University of Amsterdam. It also included textile sorting and recycling company Wieland Textiles, sustainable workwear company Groenendijk Bedrijfskleding, Dutch industry trade association Modint, and polyester recycling technology company CuRe Technology.
The release states that the glucose from the cotton can be used in polymers, resins, and solvents; high yields and those industrial applications show that the method is scalable and affordable.
Amazingly, Avantium can also use the glucose to create "a crucial component" of polyethylene furanoate, a biobased material that can be used instead of polyethylene terephthalate, which is used to manufacture plastic containers and polyester.
Gruter said Avantium has "invested substantially" in the process with the hope that it leads to the first industrial polycotton textile recycling facility and the first commercially available non-food glucose.
"Many parties are trying to get either of these things done but no one has succeeded yet," Gruter said. "Our ambition is to advance this technology to the next phase of commercialization, together with partners. So we might very well be the first to market non-food glucose obtained through a bio-refinery approach."
Join our free newsletter for weekly updates on the latest innovations improving our lives and shaping our future, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Atlantic
16 hours ago
- Atlantic
The Two-Word Phrase Unleashing Chaos at the NIH
Since January, President Donald Trump's administration has been clear about its stance on systemic racism and gender identity: Those concepts—championed by a 'woke' mob, backed by Biden cronies—are made-up, irrelevant to the health of Americans, and unworthy of inclusion in research. At the National Institutes of Health, hundreds of research studies on health disparities and transgender health have been abruptly defunded; clinical trials focused on improving women's health have been forced to halt. Online data repositories that contain gender data have been placed under review. And top agency officials who vocally supported minority representation in research have been ousted from their jobs. These attacks have often seemed at odds with the administration's stated goals of fighting censorship in science at the NIH and liberating public health from ideology. But its members behave as though they have no dogma of their own —just a wholehearted devotion to scientific rigor, in the form of what the nation's leaders have repeatedly called 'gold-standard science.' This pretense—that the government can obliterate entire fields of study while standing up for free inquiry—is encapsulated by what's become a favored bit of MAHA rhetoric: All research is allowed, the administration likes to say, so long as it's 'scientifically justifiable.' On Friday, the phrase scientifically justified appeared several times in a statement by the NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya that set the agenda for his agency and ordered a review of all research to make sure that it fits with the agency's priorities. 'I have advocated for academic freedom throughout my career,' he wrote in a letter to his staff that accompanied the statement. 'Scientists must be allowed to pursue their ideas free of censorship or control by others.' But his announcement went on to warn that certain kinds of data, including records of people's race or ethnicity, may not always be worthy of inclusion in research. Only when its consideration of those factors has been 'scientifically justified,' he wrote, would a project qualify for NIH support. That message may seem unimpeachable—in keeping, even, with the priorities of the world's largest public funder of biomedical research: NIH-backed studies should be justified in scientific terms. But the demand that Bhattacharya lays out has no formal criteria attached to it. Scientific justifiability is, to borrow Bhattacharya's description of systemic racism, a 'poorly-measured factor.' It's imprecise at best and, at worst, a subjective appraisal of research that invites political meddling. (Neither the NIH nor the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees it, responded to my questions about the meaning and usage of this phrase.) Judging scientific merit has always been one of the NIH's most essential tasks. Tens of thousands of scientists serve on panels for the agency each year, scouring applications for funding; only the most rigorous projects are selected to receive portions of the agency's $47 billion budget—most of which goes to research outside the agency itself. All of the thousands of grants the agency has terminated this year under the Trump administration were originally vetted in this way, by subject-matter experts with deep knowledge of the underlying science. Many of the studies have been recast, in letters from the agency, as being 'antithetical to the scientific inquiry,' indifferent to 'biological realities,' or otherwise scientifically unjustified. The same language from Bhattacharya's email appears in other recent NIH documents. Last week, an official at the agency sent me a copy of a draft policy that, if published, would prohibit the collection of all data on people's gender (as opposed to their sex) by any of the agency's researchers and grantees, regardless of their field of study. It allows for an exception only when the consideration of gender is 'scientifically justified.' The gender-data policy was uploaded to an internal portal typically reserved for agency guidance that is about to be published, but has since been removed. (Its existence was first reported by The Chronicle of Higher Education.) When reached for comment, an HHS official told The Atlantic that the policy had been shot down by NIH leadership, but declined to provide any further details on the timing of that shift, or who, exactly, had been involved in the policy's drafting or dismissal. Still, if any version of this policy remains under consideration at the agency, its aims would be in keeping with others that are already in place. One NIH official told me that one of the agency's 27 institutes and centers, the National Institute for General Medical Sciences, has, since April, sent out hundreds of letters to grantees noting, 'If this award involves human subjects research, information regarding study participant 'gender' should not be collected. Rather, 'sex' should be used for data collection and reporting purposes.' Payments to those researchers, the official said, have been made contingent on the scientists agreeing to those terms within two business days. 'Most have accepted,' the official told me, 'because they're desperate.' (The current and former NIH officials who spoke with me for this article did so under the condition of anonymity, to be able to speak freely about how both Trump administrations have affected their work.) Collecting data on study participants' gender has been and remains, in many contexts, scientifically justified—at least, if one takes that to mean supported by the existing literature on the topic, Arrianna Planey, a medical geographer at the University of North Carolina, told me. Evidence shows that sex is not binary, that gender is distinct from it, and that acknowledging the distinction improves health research. In its own right, gender can influence—via a mix of physiological, behavioral, and social factors—a person's vulnerability to conditions and situations as diverse as mental-health issues, sexual violence, cardiovascular disease, infectious diseases, and cancer. The Trump administration has expressed some interest in gender-focused research—but in a way that isn't justified by the existing science in the field. In March, NIH officials received a memo noting that HHS had been directed to fund research into 'regret and detransition following social transition as well as chemical and surgical mutilation of children and adults.' That framing presupposes the conclusions of such studies and ignores the most pressing knowledge gaps in the field: understanding the long-term outcomes of transition on mental and physical health, and how best to tailor interventions to patients. (Bhattacharya's Friday statement echoed this stance, specifically encouraging 'research that aims to identify and treat the harms these therapies and procedures have potentially caused to minors.') According to the draft prohibition on collecting gender data, NIH-employed scientists would be eligible for an exception only when the scientific justification for their work is approved by Matthew Memoli, the agency's principal deputy director. Memoli has played this role before. After Trump put out his executive order seeking to abolish government spending on DEI, Memoli— then the NIH's acting director —told his colleagues that the agency's research into health disparities could continue as long as it was 'scientifically justifiable,' two NIH officials told me. Those officials I spoke with could not recall any instances in which NIH staff successfully lobbied for such studies to continue, and within weeks, the agency was cutting off funding from hundreds of research projects, many of them working to understand how and why different populations experience different health outcomes. (Some of those grants have since been reinstated after a federal judge ruled in June that they had been illegally canceled.) The mixing of politics and scientific justifiability goes back even to Trump's first term. In 2019, apparently in deference to lobbying from anti-abortion groups, the White House pressured the NIH to restrict research using human fetal tissue—prompting the agency to notify researchers that securing new funds for any projects involving the material would be much more difficult. Human fetal tissue could be used in some cases, 'when scientifically justifiable.' But to meet that bar, researchers needed to argue their case in their proposals, then hope their projects passed muster with an ethics advisory board. In the end, that board rejected 13 of the 14 projects it reviewed. 'They assembled a committee of people for whom nothing could be scientifically justified,' a former NIH official, who worked in grants at the time of the policy change, told me. 'I remember saying at the time, 'Why can't they just tell us they want to ban fetal-tissue research? It would be a lot less work.'' The NIH's 2019 restriction on human-fetal-tissue research felt calamitous at the time, one NIH official told me. Six years later, it seems rather benign. Even prior to the change in policy, human fetal tissue was used in only a very small proportion of NIH-funded research. But broad restrictions on gathering gender data, or conducting studies that take race or ethnicity into account, could upend most research that collects information on people—amounting to a kind of health censorship of the sort that Bhattacharya has promised to purge. The insistence that 'scientifically justifiable' research will be allowed to continue feels especially unconvincing in 2025, coming from an administration that has so often and aggressively been at odds with conventional appraisals of scientific merit. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the head of HHS, has been particularly prone to leaning on controversial, biased, and poorly conducted studies, highlighting only the results that support his notions of the truth, while ignoring or distorting others. During his confirmation hearing, he cited a deeply flawed study from a journal at the margins of the scientific literature as proof that vaccines cause autism (they don't); in June, he called Alzheimer's a kind of diabetes (it's not); this month, he and his team justified cutting half a billion dollars from mRNA-vaccine research by insisting that the shots are more harmful than helpful (they're not), even though many of the studies they cited to back their claims directly contradicted them. Kennedy, it seems, 'can't scientifically justify any of his positions,' Jake Scott, an infectious-disease physician at Stanford, who has analyzed Kennedy's references to studies, told me. Bhattacharya's call for a full review of NIH research and training is predicated on an impossible, and ironic, standard. Scientists are being asked to prove the need for demographic variables that long ago justified their place in research—by an administration that has yet to show it could ever do the same.
Newsweek
17 hours ago
- Newsweek
Coffee May Hide Secret to Diabetes Management
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Compounds found in coffee beans could offer a new way to help people living with diabetes manage their condition. Three compounds in particular have demonstrated significant inhibitory effects on α-glucosidase, a key enzyme in carbohydrate digestion. This could lead to new functional food ingredients targeting type 2 diabetes, according to the study by the Kunming Institute of Botany in China. Around 1 in 10 Americans (more than 38 million people) live with diabetes, of which 90–95 percent have type 2. This occurs when insulin doesn't work properly or there's not enough of it. Current management methods include checking blood sugar (or glucose) levels and keeping them close to a personal target level to prevent or delay complications. Healthy eating, being active and getting enough sleep may be enough to help manage the condition in some circumstances, or doctors may prescribe metformin, insulin or other medicines (along with lifestyle factors). Coffee beans in the hand's of a worker. Coffee beans in the hand's of a worker. Schwede-Photodesign/Getty Images Building on this, the new study shows promising anti-diabetic potential and helps to expand our understanding of coffee's functional components, according to the researchers. Functional foods are known for both their nutritional value and for delivering "biologically active" compounds with potential health benefits, like antioxidant, neuroprotective, or glucose-lowering properties. "Coffee diterpenes are a class of characteristic components in coffee, which have potential biological activities including the prevention of cancer, obesity, diabetes, and other diseases," the researchers wrote in their paper. "Due to the complex chemical composition of roasted coffee beans, analyzing the composition and potential activity of coffee diterpenes has always been a challenge." To solve this, scientists have been trying more advanced techniques called nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) and liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) to speed up the discovery of the bioactive molecules, as found in "chemically diverse" systems like roasted coffee. "Functional food ingredients could potentially help with managing glucose, in principle. But for an ingredient to be useful, we need to know the effective dose, safety, and bioavailability in humans," Signe Svanfeldt, lead nutritionist at Lifesum, told Newsweek. "Many promising lab results never translate into practical benefits. So, while functional ingredients may support glucose management, they are always adjuncts to diet, activity, and medication—not replacements." In this study, the team developed a three-step, activity-oriented strategy to efficiently identify bioactive diterpene esters in roasted coffee arabica beans. Arabica is the most popular of four main types of coffee beans, alongside Robusta, Liberica and Excelsa. "The study isolated specific molecules from coffee beans, not brewed coffee itself. Normal coffee consumption has previously been linked in large population studies to a lower risk of developing type 2 diabetes and better survival in people with diabetes. Both regular and decaf coffee show this, suggesting compounds beyond caffeine are beneficial," said Svanfeldt. The scientists' goal was to discover both abundant and trace-level compounds with α-glucosidase inhibitory activity, while minimizing the use of solvents and analysis time. "The structures of the three new compounds were determined through comprehensive spectral analysis," the researchers wrote. The new isolated diterpene esters were named caffaldehydes A, B, and C. In the study, these compounds, differing in their fatty acid chains, showed a moderate α-glucosidase inhibitory activity with values more potent than the control drug acarbose. Acarbose is sometimes used to help people with type 2 diabetes when changes to diet, or other medications have been unable to bring down blood sugar levels to their target range. It slows down the digestion of starchy foods like potatoes, pasta and rice from the gut, meaning blood sugar levels rise more slowly after meals. "To explore trace active diterpene esters of the same type in coffee, a molecular network based on LC-MS/MS was constructed, and three novel coffee diterpene esters were identified," the authors added. These three additional unknown compounds were closely related to caffaldehydes A–C, sharing "common fragment ions but featuring different fatty acids". Their absence in compound databases confirmed their novelty. The findings demonstrate the effectiveness of this approach in discovering structurally diverse, biologically relevant compounds in complex food matrices (structures and interactions) like roasted coffee, according to the study. It could also pave the way to developing new functional food ingredients or nutraceuticals derived from coffee, targeting glucose regulation and potentially aiding in diabetes management. Happy mature woman checking blood sugar level at home with monitor. Happy mature woman checking blood sugar level at home with monitor. stefanamer/Getty Images "The new compounds in this paper are not proven to have effects in humans yet. Drinking coffee is fine as part of a healthy lifestyle, but it shouldn't be seen as a treatment for diabetes," said Svanfeldt. The researchers also said the strategy used in their study could be adapted for rapid screening of bioactive metabolites in other complex food matrices. Next steps will include exploring the biological activity of the newly identified trace diterpenes and assessing their safety and efficacy in vivo. While Svanfeldt said, if developed further, these findings would most likely lead to an "add-on to standard care", she emphasized: "Coffee, or these compounds, cannot replace CGMs, glucose testing, medications, or lifestyle measures. "Caffeine tolerance is highly individual. While up to 400mg of caffeine per day—about three to four cups of brewed coffee, is generally considered safe for most healthy adults, some may experience side effects such as anxiety, sleep disturbances, or gastrointestinal discomfort at lower levels." Newsweek has reached out to the researchers for additional comment. Do you have a tip on a health story that Newsweek should be covering? Do you have a question type 2 diabetes? Let us know via health@ Reference Hu, G., Quan, C., Al-Romaima, A., Dai, H., Qiu, M., Hu, G., Quan, C., Al-Romaima, A., Dai, H., & Qiu, M. (2024). Bioactive oriented discovery of diterpenoids in Coffea arabica basing on 1D NMR and LC-MS/MS molecular network. Beverage Plant Research, 5(1).
Business Wire
19 hours ago
- Business Wire
ImmunityBio Announces Phase 2 Study of ANKTIVA ® in Patients with Long COVID
CULVER CITY, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--ImmunityBio, Inc. (NASDAQ: IBRX), a leading immunotherapy company, today announced the opening of a new Phase 2 study to assess the BioShield™ platform, anchored by ANKTIVA ® (nogapendekin alfa inbakicept-pmln), in patients with long COVID. An estimated one in five Americans with a previous COVID-19 infection has long COVID, which is comprised of a broad range of symptoms that can substantially impact a patient's quality of life. Long COVID remains a significant public health challenge with no currently available established therapies. The new study, called COVID-4.019-Long, further expands the company's clinical research efforts to assess ANKTIVA's potential beyond cancer or cancer-related diseases. Currently, ANKTIVA is being evaluated alone and with other agents in multiple studies for different forms of bladder cancer, non-small cell lung cancer, glioblastoma, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, Lynch syndrome, ovarian cancer and Human Papillomavirus (HPV) associated tumors. ANKTIVA is also being studied in Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) and lymphopenia. The primary objective of the exploratory, single-arm study (NCT0712372 7) is to evaluate the safety of ANKTIVA, injected under the skin (subcutaneously), in participants with long COVID. The secondary objective is to assess the effect of ANKTIVA on absolute lymphocyte count. Exploratory objectives include evaluation of ANKTIVA's ability to improve post-COVID natural killer (NK) cell and CD8+ T cell counts, and assessment of the immunological function of NK cells and CD8+ T cells. 'We are excited to study ANKTIVA for the treatment of long COVID, a substantial public health concern,' said Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong, Founder, Executive Chairman and Global Chief Scientific and Medical Officer of ImmunityBio. 'Early in the pandemic, the common assumption was SARS-CoV-2 would prove to be a transient infection, as is the case with coronaviruses in general. But we now know viral nucleic acid and proteins can be in the gut mucosa months after infection. As such, an antiviral strategy looks insufficient to treat or cure long COVID. Based on clinical insights to date, we believe ANKTIVA may be a new therapeutic option for this chronic and potentially disabling condition by enhancing immune function, facilitating viral clearance, and addressing underlying contributions to long COVID.' The study, which is being conducted by ImmunityBio and aims to recruit up to 40 participants who meet the long COVID criteria, as established by the World Health Organization (WHO), is now accepting patients for initial screening to determine study eligibility. The safety and tolerability of ANKTIVA for long COVID is also being assessed in a separate Phase 2 study conducted at the University of California – San Francisco. Both studies are supported by ImmunityBio. To learn more, visit ANKTIVA is currently approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration with Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) for the treatment of patients with BCG-unresponsive non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) with carcinoma in situ (CIS), with or without papillary tumors. About Long COVID Long COVID is a serious illness that can cause chronic health conditions requiring comprehensive care. It may also lead to disability. 2 Long COVID impacts approximately 1 in 5 Americans adults who had a previous COVID-19 infection. 1 It can include a wide range of ongoing symptoms and conditions that can last weeks, months, or even years after COVID-19 illness. 1 Some of the common among the more than 200 identified symptoms include fatigue, brain fog, coughing, shortness of breath, heart palpitations and change in smell or taste. 3 Anyone who had a SARS-CoV-2 infection, the virus that causes COVID-19, can experience Long COVID, including children. 1 Long COVID remains a significant public health challenge with no currently available established treatments. About ANKTIVA ® (nogapendekin alfa inbakicept-pmln) The cytokine interleukin-15 (IL-15) plays a crucial role in the immune system by affecting the development, maintenance, and function of key immune cells—NK and CD8+ killer T cells—that are involved in killing cancer cells. By activating NK cells, ANKTIVA® overcomes the tumor escape phase of clones resistant to T cells and restores memory T cell activity with resultant prolonged duration of complete response. A key component in the company's BioShield platform, ANKTIVA is a first-in-class IL-15 agonist IgG1 fusion complex, consisting of an IL-15 mutant (IL-15N72D) fused with an IL-15 receptor alpha, which binds with high affinity to IL-15 receptors on NK, CD4+, and CD8+ T cells. This fusion complex of ANKTIVA® mimics the natural biological properties of the membrane-bound IL-15 receptor alpha, delivering IL-15 by dendritic cells and driving the activation and proliferation of NK cells with the generation of memory killer T cells that have retained immune memory against these tumor clones. IMPORTANT SAFETY INFORMATION INDICATION AND USAGE: ANKTIVA® is an interleukin-15 (IL-15) receptor agonist indicated with Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) for the treatment of adult patients with BCG-unresponsive non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) with carcinoma in situ (CIS) with or without papillary tumors. WARNINGS AND PRECAUTIONS: Risk of Metastatic Bladder Cancer with Delayed Cystectomy. Delaying cystectomy can lead to the development of muscle-invasive or metastatic bladder cancer, which can be lethal. If patients with CIS do not have a complete response to treatment after a second induction course of ANKTIVA® with BCG, reconsider cystectomy. DOSAGE AND ADMINISTRATION: For Intravesical Use Only. Do not administer by subcutaneous or intravenous routes. Please see the complete Prescribing Information for ANKTIVA ® at References: Robertson MM, Qasmieh SA, Kulkarni SG, et al. The Epidemiology of Long Coronavirus Disease in US Adults. Clin Infect Dis. May 3 2023;76(9):1636-1645. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Long COVID Basics. July 2025. Available at U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Long COVID Signs and Symptoms. July 2025. Available at About ImmunityBio ImmunityBio is a vertically-integrated commercial stage biotechnology company developing next-generation therapies that bolster the natural immune system to defeat cancers and infectious diseases. The Company's range of immunotherapy and cell therapy platforms, alone and together, act to drive and sustain an immune response with the goal of creating durable and safe protection against disease. Designated an FDA Breakthrough Therapy, ANKTIVA is the first FDA-approved immunotherapy for non-muscle invasive bladder cancer CIS that activates NK cells, T cells, and memory T cells for a long-duration response. The Company is applying its science and platforms to treating cancers, including the development of potential cancer vaccines, as well as developing immunotherapies and cell therapies that we believe sharply reduce or eliminate the need for standard high-dose chemotherapy. These platforms and their associated product candidates are designed to be more effective, accessible, and easily administered than current standards of care in oncology and infectious diseases. For more information, visit (Founder's Vision) and connect with us on X (Twitter), Facebook, LinkedIn, and Instagram. Forward Looking Statements This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, such as statements regarding potential implications to be drawn from preliminary clinical study results, clinical trial enrollment, timing, data and potential results to be drawn therefrom, anticipated components of ImmunityBio's CancerBioShield™ platform, the potential health conditions associated with Long COVID, potential patient populations and implications thereof, the development of therapeutics for cancer and infectious diseases, potential benefits to patients, potential treatment outcomes for patients, the described mechanism of action and results and contributions therefrom, potential future uses and applications of ANKTIVA alone or in combination with other therapeutic agents across multiple tumor types and indications and for potential applications beyond oncology, potential regulatory pathways and the regulatory review process and timing thereof, the application of the Company's science and platforms to treat cancers or develop cancer vaccines, immunotherapies and cell therapies that have the potential to change the paradigm in cancer care, and ImmunityBio's approved product and investigational agents as compared to existing treatment options, among others. Statements in this press release that are not statements of historical fact are considered forward-looking statements, which are usually identified by the use of words such as 'anticipates,' 'believes,' 'continues,' 'goal,' 'could,' 'estimates,' 'scheduled,' 'expects,' 'intends,' 'may,' 'plans,' 'potential,' 'predicts,' 'indicate,' 'projects,' 'is,' 'seeks,' 'should,' 'will,' 'strategy,' and variations of such words or similar expressions. Statements of past performance, efforts, or results of our preclinical and clinical trials, about which inferences or assumptions may be made, can also be forward-looking statements and are not indicative of future performance or results. Forward-looking statements are neither forecasts, promises nor guarantees, and are based on the current beliefs of ImmunityBio's management as well as assumptions made by and information currently available to ImmunityBio. Such information may be limited or incomplete, and ImmunityBio's statements should not be read to indicate that it has conducted a thorough inquiry into, or review of, all potentially available relevant information. Such statements reflect the current views of ImmunityBio with respect to future events and are subject to known and unknown risks, including business, regulatory, economic and competitive risks, uncertainties, contingencies and assumptions about ImmunityBio, including, without limitation, (i) risks and uncertainties regarding participation and enrollment and potential results from the clinical trial described herein, (ii) whether clinical trials will result in registrational pathways, (iii) whether clinical trial data will be accepted by regulatory agencies, (iv) the ability of ImmunityBio to fund its ongoing and anticipated clinical trials, (v) the ability of ImmunityBio to continue its planned preclinical and clinical development of its development programs through itself and/or its investigators, and the timing and success of any such continued preclinical and clinical development, patient enrollment and planned regulatory submissions, (vi) potential delays in product availability and regulatory approvals, (vii) ImmunityBio's ability to retain and hire key personnel, (viii) ImmunityBio's ability to obtain additional financing to fund its operations and complete the development and commercialization of its various product candidates, (ix) potential product shortages or manufacturing disruptions that may impact the availability and timing of product, (x) ImmunityBio's ability to successfully commercialize its approved product and product candidates, (xi) ImmunityBio's ability to scale its manufacturing and commercial supply operations for its approved product and future approved products, and (xii) ImmunityBio's ability to obtain, maintain, protect, and enforce patent protection and other proprietary rights for its product candidates and technologies. More details about these and other risks that may impact ImmunityBio's business are described under the heading 'Risk Factors' in the Company's Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on March 3, 2025, and the Company's Form 10-Q filed with the SEC on August 5, 2025, and in subsequent filings made by ImmunityBio with the SEC, which are available on the SEC's website at ImmunityBio cautions you not to place undue reliance on any forward looking statements, which speak only as of the date hereof. ImmunityBio does not undertake any duty to update any forward-looking statement or other information in this press release, except to the extent required by law.
