In the end, I don’t think it matters if “ucla’s” autologous dc was manufactured exactly like the phase iii DCVax-l monotherapy trial, the point is that DCVax technology is licensed by NWBO, including the DC + poly trial. The point is poly-iclc helps DC therapy work better.
The point is, we have a license that gives us the privilege to commercialize. My guess, is that DCVax-l as it was made for the DCVax-l trial, is slightly better than the UCLA lab grade version for the dc + poly trial, and my guess is that the NWBO Eden version, which is better at selecting and collecting healthy and activated dendritic cells, while substantially the same as artisan DCVax-l, is slightly better/purer than artisan. My guess is that Eden’s DCVax-l + poly-iclc will provide even better results.
There was a white paper written a decade or so ago by the UK’s Royal Society, and in it, the author(s) foresaw immunotherapy manufacturing continuing to improve purity/selection during the decade or so of any given phase/1/2/3 trials for a particular immunotherapy, and they suggested to treat this like medicine trials treat dosing selection. Analogous. Aka: improving purity/selection is akin to titrating the best dose strength.
I kinda think EX and views opposite him are all missing the point.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
