Doesn't the NYAS presentation itself constitute as peer review. While I believe the Journal will be far more comprehensive, I believe the company now should be free to discuss the information revealed in that presentation as peer reviewed data.
If the Journal isn't issued by the ASCO deadline for inclusion in the Experts Theater I believe the company is free to present or discuss information presented at NYAS. They ought to issue a TLD statement and with that would be free to discuss what's happened during the quiet period.
I'm certainly hoping the Journal is released, but if it isn't I cannot see the company not speaking about the results at ASCO, nor can I see them carrying the quiet period on through that and the Annual Meeting which should occur at some point in June.
I certainly could be wrong, I have been in the past, but I believe in the company and eventually they'll prove me right in the long run, that's really all that matters to me. I frankly still cannot see what has happened with the Top 100 patients both Dr. Liau and Ashkan have discussed, perhaps the Journal will clarify why more of them aren't seen in the K-M plots. Perhaps the Top 100 is compiled from all who've ever received the vaccine regardless of how they received it, it didn't sound like it, but that would make sense. There has been a great deal of use of DCVax-L that's been outside of the Phase 3 Trial, Dr. Liau probably has access to data from every use, not just what's been done in the trial.
We know that Dr. Liau is achieving superior results at UCLA with the inclusion of drugs like Keytruda, I don't know if that's anything the company can mention at ASCO, but it's clearly the case.
Gary
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
