meirluc,
Well maybe, just maybe the answer to that question is the reason why NWBO and others do not respond to the question of whether or not an interim efficacy analysis of sorts was done by some group other than them as a result of a safety check. Maybe the answer to that question is the reason why Fraunhofer claimed only to have enrolled to the point “statistically necessary”. Those two words, “statistically necessary “, should have been the bell that went off in every investor’s head. Maybe the answer to that question is the reason that 17 SOC/placebo patients were deliberately left out of this trial, confirmed by the account of a German patient’s wife and his oncologist in a conversation they had about DCVax-L availability and the fact that her husband had been randomized to the control arm but not enrolled. Maybe the the distinction between randomization and actual enrollment is a distinction that keeps Les from being labeled a liar but not a coverup artist by his comments on randomization. Maybe, just maybe the answer to this question is the reason why I said about one year ago that this trial had been completely derisked except for time and I could have said the same in 2015 based purely on the ability of Linda Powers and friends to be able to keep everything moving forward to the finish line even if things had to be shut down for a while. There is no quit in Linda Powers and friends and there is an answer in your question. The answer is either DCVax-L is a questionable use risk associated (leukopheresis) placebo adjuvant or an active agent being compared with or without checkpoint inhibitor. Best wishes.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
