News Focus
News Focus
icon url

jesster64

10/26/25 11:53 AM

#794848 RE: GoodGuyBill #794790

"So why won’t you acknowledge that this mechanism directly supports the position that DCVax-L is cancer agnostic?"
Yes, I believe dc-vax is designed to be cancer agnostic and may very well be in the future. What I disagree with is that MHRA is taking so long because the application for treatment of glioblastoma is being upgraded to tissue agnostic from the current application.

For everyone, the mechanism is there , the research is there, the science is there. BUT they only applied for treatment of glioblastoma with the MHRA. How difficult is that to understand? You are claiming "the scope of the language" while I am standing by what she actually said. If you want to talk about reality, I am here. But I'm tired of arguing against the pumpers. Here is my standard reply from now on. I hope this helps with their delusion.

You're absolutely right. We will be approved for tissue agnostic worth billions, we will have a short squeeze worth billions, and lawsuit will net us billions
icon url

skitahoe

10/26/25 1:22 PM

#794870 RE: GoodGuyBill #794790

GGB, you've described what's happening very well. I don't believe anyone but the regulators, and perhaps the company, know what they're doing. It's very possible that they still haven't made up their mind and that's what's taking so long.

The enormity of this decision is immense. Not that patients with other cancers won't be able to get the vaccine off label, but a tumor agnostic label would eliminate a fight with insurance to gain financial coverage for it.

Gary