Man you have told your unpleasant personal experience multiple times, which may have led to your grudge and stiffness of a view where it applies.
The same situation you claimed you had been gone through was an uncomfortable one which I fully understand if true, while others who have also gone through the same treatment may not agree with you because that (only) treatment may have saved their lives.
When patients have run out all the treatments, anything that gives hope is something deserve to try, but there is always a price to pay, even an FDA proved drug may kill someone. So one ought to take thing in perspective.
You can cite all you want and how much you want to from FDA or any source relevant to prove what you want to say, as long as approval or not of a candidate drug/treatment by FDA, the rule of thumb or the principle for the decision has been always and will always be the ratio of benefit/risk.
If DCVax-L can be proved to have some benefit and almost no risk except low fever, etc., I bet it will be approved. I can tell you almost all documents of FDA, developed or under the development are pivoted around this principle regardless of the forms, shapes or lengths of the documents !
So don't fool yourself while thinking you can fool someone else too. But unfortunately it seems you do have some success to drag a lot of posters, including those seemingly "sophisticated ones" into these FUD-effect discussions in this investment (note not an patient advocate) board.
Pity those who have engaged in such discussions with you over the years, knowing who you are, including myself in this post or maybe that post before. Many investors have all come to know this, but always readily forget when they reading a long FUD post like yours. It has been and no sign to see it will change anytime in the near future that
SOME BENEFIT DIVIDED BY LITTLE OR NO RISK = SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT, particularly in the treatment of GBM.
FDA cannot deny its own golden rule!
[so what that means: as some benefit is in essence average (median) benefit, so that some patients may experience no improvement at all or even deteriorating, but more patients may experience substantial improvement or even cure, and the rest just a bit improvement in a sense that its overall benefit will be greater than risk. Most importantly, the majority of patients will experience an improved quality of life. For terminally ill patients, this is very important. At least in my view, a quality of life is better than a couple or a few months of life improvement, although for political correctness or commercial reason, we have not been at that yet.]
