I believe Doc logic that you may have been right when you wrote
that EDENS may have been a part of the MAA submission to the MHRA.
This is also my guess and is based on LP's statements made on October 13
2023 in which she discussed the delay in the submission. She told us that
after overcoming an unexpected delay, the MAA submission could soon be finalized.
Maybe the unexpected delay was based on the assumption a few months earlier
that the EDEN manufacturing protocol was already up to par and could be included
in the submission but thereafter they found out that it was not yet ready, hence the delay.
Then unexpectedly they overcame that problem during a relatively short time with the
result that the EDEN manufacturing protocol was included in the MAA.
Perhaps LP's quote below emphasizes that it was important to submit a full strength
MAA to the MHRA (including EDEN?) because NWBO planned to submit the
application to multiple regulators. I know that I am speculating but LP may have
meant that it would be okay to send to the MHRA an MAA that only included the
manual method because that is adequate for the UK clientele but it would be especially
important to include EDEN in the submission since that methodology can be easily
utilized to serve the many more patients in other jurisdictions.
[quoteThe Company strongly believes that after so many years of work on the DCVax-L program, taking some additional time to help ensure that the full MAA package is as strong as it can be is especially important since the Company plans to submit applications to multiple regulators. ][/quote]
Bullish