True. Though that is what I meant by what we might see as something that many might see, assuming there is no unknown factor, as suggestive of efficacy on its face. But regulatory proof might require some measure that doesn't fit an actually existing mold. I believe regulators are working on that mold, generally, not for this specific company, but as a general proposition, pursuant to statutory direction and the 21st Century Cures Act as well as evolving views on clinical trials. No regulatory issues are holding up DCVax that I know of. Some might ask, how is it that I can say that and what I said before? Because there is no issue with NWBO or DCVax, of which I know, and I have said that before, many times. None. I am not saying they need something, or need to get something approved. I've never said that at all. I hope people understand that. I am talking about things having nothing to do with the company or nothing to do with any pending approvals or decisions with regard to NWBO or DCVax and I have no such information about anything like that. They could have something of which I do not know, but nothing I have said suggests that they are waiting on an approval related to any application and I am not aware of anything like that pending. That may confuse some, my apologies that I'm being obtuse. There are reasons for that approach. I am just talking about something broader and not related to the company specifically, but is highly relevant from what I can see, and they will never talk about it, because it's not specific to them and the issue may really be about third-parties not related to the company.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
