Gee, thanks for letting me know that trial exists and uses Oncovir;s Poly-ICLC.
Now, can you please explain how that supports the absurd statements made by dstock?
Per dstock (and now you, dd and others):
Poly-iclc has meaning only in combination with DCVax-L.
So all the other trials of Poly-iCLC are meaningless. Odd that Oncovir lists many of these meaningless P2./3 trials on their website and never mentions UCLA trial. Maybe they do not consider that their only reason to exist?
Oncovir must disclose the information about the efficacy of poly-iclc combined with DCVax-L which involves the confidential information concerning the third party, in this case, it is NWBO
Why must Oncovir disclose this? Is there some weird law about that?
The idea presented by dstock and supported by at elast a half doze longs that Oncovir is all about DCVax-L is total nonsense. They are a company that is raunnign a broad spectrum of trials with many partners,