Hi Evaluate,
My apologies, I rushed my answer then, as I was not in a good situation to post at that moment.
I was trying to get AF to respond and give us a link to his past "prediction" that he is claiming was exactly on point. I'd like to see it. But thanks for your question as well.
I agree that they are somewhat vague in their PR, though they talk more about Direct than DCVax-L, and they are focused on Phase II. In this instance today, it was a Phase II for DCVax-L, so I think your assessment, in hindsight, is solid. But I want to see AF's prediction.
As to whether it is with BP and Direct or not, I think people also read that PR in the context of having seen the video lecture or talk that included Dr. Prins discussing their potential combination therapy prospects, and that they had certain intentions.
I agree that they implied that they were working on approvals to proceed previously.
Again, despite the negativity for all things American regulation, versus any other jurisdiction in the world (with socialized medicine, by the way) as being good... which is not really consistent (not you, others), I think the cancer moonshot program is why some things seem to be moving smoothly and why I think expediting measures are occurring earlier than they might otherwise, in a product development cycle like this, in the past.
On your other points, my apologies but it's late so I'll just get to each point:
1. UMC could be a "party". There's no reason to assume not, that I can think of.... They are the sponsor of that trial, and MSD Sharp... is certainly potentially a party. I don't see an issue there.
2. I doubt they would announce this if they did not know to some degree, already, that they had a receptive ear from the relevant manufacturers. A law firm would have potentially smoothed that, but I expect that they've been focused on this for some time.
But again, I was really just focused on getting that earlier prediction from AF, or so he said. Thanks for taking a moment to exchange some thoughts.
