WTF, Legend431, are you seriously insinuating that my position is “DCVax-L will be approved solely because JAMA published the trial results”? That’s not just wrong, it’s lazy.
You’re dodging the actual argument by attacking a strawman. My position has always been that DCVax-L’s path to approval is built on a multi-layered foundation:
--A rigorously executed, multi-country, double-blind Phase III trial
--Peer-reviewed survival data published in JAMA Oncology
--A validated GMP/HTA-licensed manufacturing facility (Advent)
--A regulatory submission accepted by the MHRA
--Placement on the HDC list for prioritized review
--Strategic infrastructure (Eden) to support scale and resilience
--A robust IP portfolio protecting the platform
So, if you’re going to claim my rationale is “completely wrong,” then do the work: state it accurately first. Otherwise, you’re just deflecting.
And your “ChatGBT says JAMA articles don’t guarantee approval” line? No one said they do. But JAMA doesn’t publish junk. It publishes data that meets rigorous standards. NWBO’s trial showed statistically significant survival benefit in glioblastoma, one of the deadliest cancers known.
If you want to challenge the science, the infrastructure, or the regulatory status—do it. But if all you’ve got is misquotes and vague AI anecdotes, you’re not proving me wrong. You’re proving you haven’t done your research.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
