Seekinganswers,at the risk of perpetuating a pointless argument, nobody can predict what any of NICE's decisions will be without knowing the evidence on which it's decisions will be based. Neither you nor I know what constitutes the factual evidence that NWBio submitted to the MHRA and which will be integral to NWBio's future submission to NICE, yet you feel able to state unequivocally; "If you think NICE is gonna pay 150K - 250K for DCVax, on top of surgery, chemo and radiation costs....". All that you and I know is that the Phase III study showed that DCVax-L produced a statistically significant (modest) extension to survival times with a greatly increased number of long term survivors (ie cured patients) as compared with controls. However, you then expose the weakness of your own thesis by claiming that the Phase III study was flawed - "many of scientists questioned" the Phase III study (but only a small minority, nearly all with a vested interest in seeking the trial's failure). Resorting to this spurious claim, already refuted on many occasions, demonstrates that your case is so weak that you feel the need to bolster it with misleading facts. (This is also found in the case of global warming deniers who persistently bolster their arguments by claiming that there are scientists who dismiss current global warming as being man-made, forgetting to mention (as seekinganswers also forgets) that these denying scientists are a small minority and have vested interests in making their contrary views known.)
It is blindingly obvious that your only purpose for being on this board is to try and persuade others to reject NWBio; that it's case for DCVax-L to be accepted by NICE onto the approved list of drugs to be paid for by the NHS is doomed to failure. Inclusion on that list is based solely on financial facts - on the medication's cost-effectiveness. That is why you quote only the results of the Phase III study (modest improvement) and willfully disregard what has since transpired (stupendous improvement). Since the Phase III results were released there have been significant advances such as the addition of poly-ICLC pre-DCVax-L with or without pembrolizumab after the DCVax-L has been started. These have been shown to increase DCVax-l's efficacy considerably - median survival (ie 50% still alive) increased to over of 5 years. (Both poly-ICLC and pembrolizumab are adjuvants, having little or no effect when used on their own.) How much of this later information do you think might be now included in NWBio's submission to the MHRA and later to NICE? If you think none, then you are either an ignoramus or are deliberately disregarding this later data because it goes against the thesis that you are trying to promote. You are clearly not an ignoramus, nor are you a fool, so why you are deliberately misusing your skills in this way must be left to each reader's own judgement.
You blatantly cherry pick the science that suits your narrative and ignore the rest. This is the reason why I labelled your claim as "arrant flim-flam". Since I do not subscribe to cherry picking of data to make my points, I reject your suggestion that I am the pot calling you (the kettle) black.
As to your apparent need to explain to me how NICE adjudges requests from drug companies, I would simply advise you not to try and teach your grandmother how to suck eggs.
Market Data 
Markets 
