Sure is... Exactly right. That quote reflects the legal reality under SI 2025 No. 87, not a hypothetical.
Before SI 87, the MHRA’s Specials framework allowed one-off use of unlicensed medicines, but it wasn’t designed for personalized cell therapies like DCVax-L. It didn’t support decentralized production, kit-based combinations, or cross-border logistics.
Now it does.
SI 87 formally allows:
• Patient-specific ATMP kits (like DCVax-L + Hiltonol) to be manufactured and delivered without full MHRA approval, so long as each dose is labeled for a named patient.
• Modular manufacturing, closed-loop devices like Flaskworks can now be deployed across sites under a single Control Site license.
• Combination delivery, DCVax + Poly-ICLC, G100, or Decoy can be paired in real time without triggering new authorizations.
• Export and return, tumor tissue can be shipped to a licensed facility (like Sawston), and cryopreserved vaccine returned for injection.
• Named-patient labeling not a brand, just a person.
That’s what this system is built around.
So yes, the regulatory model no longer requires traditional approval for what DCVax is already doing under Specials.
This isn’t a workaround.It’s codified law.
And it’s already live.
Now ask yourself (God forbid), if you or your loved one had stage 4 metastatic carcinoma that was inoperable and 100% lethal, would you be willing to pay out of pocket?
got DCVax?
Bullish