This is the usual sleight of hand: cast artificial doubt, dismiss ethics, and wave vague timelines like red flags. He pretends this is an open academic debate, but it’s not, he’s laundering stale FUD as if it’s insight.
🔻 Ethics wasn’t a footnote, it was the reason.FDA and MHRA both recognized that prolonged enrollment into a placebo arm in a lethal disease with proven crossover benefit was no longer ethical post-2015. That’s why enrollment ended early. That’s why the external control arm became necessary. Pretending otherwise is revisionist and reckless.
🔻 He always slips in the same tells:
1. Assert expertise without offering any. 2. Claim “real experts” agree, but cite none. 3. Dismiss every regulatory delay as hidden wrongdoing, never logistics or reform. 4. Frame ambiguity as evidence of failure.
He’s not analyzing, he’s gatekeeping. This is not balanced skepticism. It’s soft sabotage dressed in condescension. Every post follows the same tired playbook: undercut the trial, discredit the platform, and plant doubt where there’s already clarity.
If invoking UroGen was meant to draw parallels, then congratulations, he just admitted the regulators are willing to approve “unconventional” trials under real-world conditions. That helps DCVax, not hurts it.
Bullish
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
