If the many saying that ATL-DC and DCVax-L are different and UCLA holds all the rights to ATL-DC are right, where would that put UCLA. Has any pivotal study ever been done with ATL-DC? Has it been peer reviewed? Has UCLA announced the intent to put it into a pivotal trial, spend potentially hundreds of million to eventually gain an approval? Is UCLA violating any of NWBO's patents with ATL-DC?
I certainly don't know the specifics of what UCLA may gain with the approval of DCVax-L, but I suspect that they'll see something. As for ATL-DC, if a person has a disease that could benefit from DCVax-L but it's not approved in the US yet, if they were lucky and could get into a trial using ATL-DC at UCLA, they'd see the same benefit there. I think their trials are rather limited, but it would be worth a shot. Perhaps UCLA would even do a one person trial and make the ATL-DC for you there, but I don't believe you can buy it there. You might get it if you endowed them with a new building, or something like that, I really don't know. They can't sell ATL-DC there any more than NWBO can sell DCVax-L here as neither is yet approved in the US.
Of course if you believe Dr. Liau and others at UCLA who say they're the same, you know that UCLA is proud of their relationship with NWBO and is cooperating with them fully to advance DCVax-L toward approval. Once approved in the US, I don't know if UCLA will still run additional trials with ATL-DC or if they'll say it's with DCVax-L and they're making it in an EDEN unit from NWBO.
Gary
Bullish
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
