HyGro
Per your attached comments,
"The DCVax-L TLD hasn't been reviewed by ANY credible source -- not any regulator, nor any peer-reviewers for a journal. Although they can blow smoke with reviewers by not giving them all the data or the full story of the original protocol and failed PFS primary endpoint."
Doctors who have the right credentials are considered credible sources; we already know that no regulatory nor any peer-reviews for a journal have been issued.
"The only credible source that counts are the regulators -- that's why they have to do a large-scale, well-controlled clinical trial."
Not true at all, doctors in their field of expertise also count as credible sources.
"Sawston has nothing to do with the efficacy or safety of DCVax-L. NICE has been notoriously resistant to paying for high priced oncology drugs. But first MHRA has to approve it for commercial sale in UK. Canada is also the same."
We are not talking about efficiency of safety of DCVax-L. My comments are focusing on the facts, and NICE mandates that it is the responsibility of the specific company to be able to provide product in a timely manner to allow the patients to receive the product quicker. Based on the current manufacturing objectives at the Sawston, UK facility, there is a high probability that the MHRA should grant approvals. As for NICE resistance to paying for high priced oncology drugs, it all depends on what is high price. Lord knows that DCVax-L works and will be more cost effective than the current SOC, chemo poison that has destroyed the lives of many patients who have had cancer.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
