InvestorsHub Logo

Milner1

05/16/17 8:41 AM

#117639 RE: flipper44 #117636

that is true; but the fda requires it; does NOT mean fda approval is any more or less likely.

HappyLibrarian

05/16/17 9:26 AM

#117644 RE: flipper44 #117636

If HE and EAMS are any guide the validation is mostly talk, and little action.

I suspect any head start is mostly illusory and the excuse will be lack of money.

EODCoCo

05/16/17 12:07 PM

#117682 RE: flipper44 #117636

You're absolutely right Flip. The puzzle pieces are there and it only makes sense considering that if L is approved, other lines could quickly follow. It's the technique that's the most important, the vaccines are made to the subject. If the process is correct, so then, will be the vaccines. It's the beauty of patenting DC technologies, IMO.

antihama

05/16/17 3:42 PM

#117728 RE: flipper44 #117636

It would be difficult to know then, in May 2017, where the company exactly is when it states, "going forward, we will have to undertake process validation work," because they have already conducted validation work throughout the trial processes.

Exactly right! From the get go they will have a validated process raring to go upon approval but it won’t be enough for all the potential patients hence they'll need to expand the manufacturing capacity that DCVax-L will treat e.g. get those clean rooms up to snuff. Or perhaps it’s to get a closed system validated? Or to get Sawston going? As you say it’s difficult to know but IMHO all very positive.