Friday, June 19, 2020 3:08:26 AM
And when I say 'disruptive', disruptive is the operative word!
It could, in time, represent a disruption to the established order in cancer treatment, and the pre-eminence of those BP guys.
Anyway, on the information war:-
Why should ruling elites be allowed to speak with 'unvarnished honesty' in private forums?
We can probably never avoid having 'elites', but 'ruling elites'?
Unelected elites shouldn't be allowed to rule.
Surely you wouldn't disagree?
Simple as that for me. Especially when they are shaping policy behind closed doors.
It's the antithesis of democracy.
It was Richard Horton himself, who made the now infamous remark about half of all scientific literature perhaps being false, in his commentary piece in the Lancet back in 2015.
Full piece here:-
https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736%2815%2960696-1.pdf
Of course he was talking about scientific literature in general.
He wouldn't be daft enough to say that half of everything in the Lancet itself was false!
But if he believed what he said in 2015, perhaps he should have worked harder to ensure that the Lancet bucked the trend he was talking about, and tried to maintain a reputation for quality, honesty, and rigour.
And the publishing of the Surgisphere 'paper' on HCQ amply demonstrates that the Lancet simply doesn't deserve its lofty reputation, in my opinion. That was supposed to have been 'peer-reviewed'. And the NEJM is just as bad, because they published the other Surgisphere paper (which I assume was equally rubbish). And when the whole Surgisphere thing was rumbled, both the Lancet and the NEJM issued 'letters of concern' and subsequently fully retracted within an hour of each other.
Surely if Horton had honour he would have resigned by now.
The open letter signed by the researchers from around the world (over 200 in the latest version) apart from demonstrating that the paper had to be false, stated or asked the following:-
And:-
My bolding.
Now these are eminently reasonable requests.
But ones that will never be met, of course.
If the Lancet made available the peer review comments, it would inevitably show what a complete meaningless sham peer review actually is, at least in this case.
This leak from Chatham House comes into the realm of legitimate whistleblowing, as far as I'm concerned.
As does the video record of the nurse working in that 'hospital' in NY.
So those 200 plus researchers from around the world know that it's all a sham, because of the Lancet's continuing refusal to be transparent about how they came to publish something totally false.
Personally, I take it as read that the peer reviewers for the Lancet, the NEJM and any other 'top' scientific journals are 'remunerated' by Big Pharma in one way or the other, and have simply no objective credentials.
Though even a good peer reviewer couldn't be expected to pick up on every shortcoming in the reporting of clinical trials.
We know the sort of thing; use of dodgy control arms, hiding toxicity profiles, no mention of changes to study outcome measures etc etc etc.
And the other side to this, is that these same 'top' journals that are willing to publish both blatantly fraudulent stuff, but also the stuff that suffers from the type of flaws mentioned above, will also not touch stuff that they don't want to touch.
And that really means anything that potentially threatens the pre-eminent position of the Big Pharma companies.
We saw this with the DCVax-L interim report. I don't factually know, but I know in my bones that this was first submitted to one or more of the top journals. And they either got flat refusals or a succession of queries or requests for amendments (anything to delay), such that 6 - 12 months was wasted. And we know in the end it went to JTM.
Now some have questioned just how fast JTM got it out, and how could there have been proper peer review in such a short time.
But the fact is, it is open access, and anybody around the world can see it, and so it is open to more scrutiny than anything in the Lancet or NEJM.
So that episode, and other occurrences such as the 18 month partial hold lead me to hypothesise that NWBO will be 'slowed down' at every stage.
Right now, on the delay to achieving datalock, I just assume it is other parties (bad actors, if you like) that are causing the delay by putting impediments in the way. That's why I think that all this stuff about the company themselves wilfully protracting things, is just so much baloney.
We hear all the time on this Board about the potential of Direct and its widespread applicability, and the projections for so many billions of revenue down the line.
Does anyone honestly think that BP is going to say 'well done guys' and step aside quietly when a better immunotherapy (DCVax) comes along?
Are the regulators going to be objective?
Well, putting regulator and 'objective' together is the epitome of oxymoron.
The whole HCQ thing and how the journals, the regulators, the World Health Organisation have all come together to undermine HCQ, shows how bad things are.
And then the FDA puts out stuff like this without any real evidence or data at all:-
https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/coronavirus-covid-19-update-fda-warns-newly-discovered-potential-drug-interaction-may-reduce?utm_campaign=061520_PR_FDA%20Warns%20of%20Drug%20Interaction%20With%20Drugs%20Authorized%20to%20Treat%20COVID-19&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Eloqua
OK, so what is this non-clinical lab study?
We will never know.
Here is another example of an extremely important piece of research that the 'top' journals wouldn't touch with a barge pole...
And the authors eventually took it to Sage Open Medicine, who understandably took it through rigorous peer review, and once satisfied, went ahead and published.
Once you see what it is about, you will know why!
And mainstream media will never, ever, print a word about it..
But if new parents are to be allowed to make informed choices, they should have this information easily accessible.
Which it never will be.
Regards.
Recent NWBO News
- Biophma Announces Exclusive In License for Dendritic Cell Technology, Sending Shares Higher • AllPennyStocks.com • 06/17/2024 04:40:00 PM
- Form 8-K - Current report • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 06/04/2024 09:11:16 PM
- Form DEF 14A - Other definitive proxy statements • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 06/03/2024 09:22:55 PM
- Form PRE 14A - Other preliminary proxy statements • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 05/22/2024 08:13:36 PM
- Form 10-Q - Quarterly report [Sections 13 or 15(d)] • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 05/10/2024 09:04:57 PM
- Form NT 10-K - Notification of inability to timely file Form 10-K 405, 10-K, 10-KSB 405, 10-KSB, 10-KT, or 10-KT405 • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 03/01/2024 10:04:38 PM
- Form 4 - Statement of changes in beneficial ownership of securities • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 12/02/2023 01:31:35 AM
- Form 8-K - Current report • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 11/16/2023 10:11:54 PM
- Epazz, Inc. (OTC Pink: EPAZ) ZenaDrone Demonstration to Defense Departments of UAE and Saudi Arabia • InvestorsHub NewsWire • 11/15/2023 12:19:31 PM
- Form 10-Q - Quarterly report [Sections 13 or 15(d)] • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 11/09/2023 09:30:39 PM
- Epazz, Inc. (OTC Pink: EPAZ) US Navy Collaboration ZenaDrone 1000 • InvestorsHub NewsWire • 11/09/2023 01:00:34 PM
- Epazz, Inc. (OTC Pink: EPAZ) US Navy Collaboration ZenaDrone 1000 Extreme Weather Demo • InvestorsHub NewsWire • 11/07/2023 12:29:43 PM
- Form 10-Q - Quarterly report [Sections 13 or 15(d)] • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 08/09/2023 08:36:14 PM
VAYK Exited Caribbean Investments for $320,000 Profit • VAYK • Jun 27, 2024 9:00 AM
North Bay Resources Announces Successful Flotation Cell Test at Bishop Gold Mill, Inyo County, California • NBRI • Jun 27, 2024 9:00 AM
Branded Legacy, Inc. and Hemp Emu Announce Strategic Partnership to Enhance CBD Product Manufacturing • BLEG • Jun 27, 2024 8:30 AM
POET Wins "Best Optical AI Solution" in 2024 AI Breakthrough Awards Program • POET • Jun 26, 2024 10:09 AM
HealthLynked Promotes Bill Crupi to Chief Operating Officer • HLYK • Jun 26, 2024 8:00 AM
Bantec's Howco Short Term Department of Defense Contract Wins Will Exceed $1,100,000 for the current Quarter • BANT • Jun 25, 2024 10:00 AM