The comment letter speaks for itself.
This should raise a red flag or two for investors. While amateur oncology statisticians will be cheerleaders and repeat whatever companies spoon-feed them in press releases, this is an example of how the real-world works. Clinicians, especially academic clinicians, are more circumspect when evaluating trial results. When a researcher from an institution such as Imperial College (generally very well-regarded and deemed comparable in quality to Harvard, Mayo Clinic, MD Anderson, etc.), then NWBO lacks buy-in based on this data.
That is important news to an investor that expects significant and immediate revenues out of Sawston. When the top neuro-oncologists from the leading NHS Trust hospitals don't accept the data, don't expect that MHRA and NICE are going to give DC Vax a free pass to reach the market. Neither MHRA nor NICE have subject matter experts in every technical field, so they rely on input from outside experts just as the FDA relies on Advisory Committees for recommendations. It is foolish to think that the physicians signing the comment letter published in JAMA Oncology aren't going to be part of that evaluation process, or that they won't highlight the lack of a contemporaneous control arm.
From an investor's viewpoint, it is critical to remember that there is a fundamental difference between getting regulatory approval and persuading physicians to write a prescription. The NHS is perennially underfunded, and UK physicians are careful to shoot their expensive silver bullets at diseases where they are likely to do some good since the bullet supply is limited. Regardless of what NICE recommends, physicians are careful to not waste precious healthcare funding unless they believe that the patient will benefit. GBM is not something treated outside of specialized cancer hospitals, and it is not a favorable indication when those same hospitals question the published analysis.