it’s usually because they can’t refute the actual argument.
I've refuted the argument. That you refuse to acknowledge that your thesis is absurd and unfounded, leads me to the conclusion that you are simple minded.
The July 15 NICE letter states that NWBO is still fully occupied and engaged with the MHRA and not yet in a position to submit to NICE
Again, this is the exact same position that NWBO was in last month. Last quarter. Last year. Absolutely nothing has changed. You cannot use this evidence as facts that NWBO has received approval and are in labeling. Something has to have changed for you to surmise that they have advanced from review to labeling. Nothing has changed. The fact that it's been in review for a long time doesn't justify this thesis in the slightest.
What you are basically saying is that NWBO has received approval "because it's been a while".
This is not about AI or speculation. It’s about process. NICE cannot legally begin appraisal until it receives a draft or final SmPC. That’s outlined clearly in their published guidelines (PMG24). The language in the letter matches that point in the sequence exactly.
This can all be true. It's not, but for the sake of this argument it can be. It being true doesn't prove DCVax-L is in labeling. It could still be in review. Towards the end of review? Sure, probably hopefully. But it still being in review does not discount anything in your statements from being true.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
