Given that regulators in the US and the UK approve of the manipulation (if you want to call it that) approval is unaffected by the manipulation and as shareholders that is what we care about, approval and commercialization.
If the helmet can get approved on the strength of decent and inferior data (arguably manipulated, by your standard at least) then DCVax-L is a shoe-in.
So that now that we've established that manipulation (as you define it) has no impact on the approval of DCVax-L (since again, the regulators and the peer reviewers are complaisant in it) we don't near to hear about how unfair it is that NWBO is going to get a product approved on manipulated data.
Who cares?
As long as the product is safe (it is) and as long as it does a better job than SOC (it does, even if you want to share a few percentage points off the results due to what you call manipulation) it's getting approved.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
