No, it's not peer reviewed criticism. It is clearly and absolutely labeled EDITORIAL. There is no ambiguity. If your claim is that because it is written by 2 doctors, that constitutes "peer review", that is a mischaracterization and complete misunderstanding of what the term "peer review" means and would change the meaning for many papers written by entire teams of doctors in various journals that do not claim at all to be peer reviewed.
It's a misstatement of fact, plain and simple.
The language you highlighted distinguishes "reviews" and "editorials". The article to which you refer is clearly defined as an Editorial.
There is nothing to review in an editorial other than that it is accurate, and in fact, this peer review has inaccuracies.
There is no way to state that an SAP was post hoc, when there is no evidence on the planet suggesting it was post hoc. That was taking an editorial by Adam Feuerstein, repeating it, reviewing their source... Adam Feuerstein, and confirming it said that. THAT is NOT peer review. That is just checking sources and the writers and editors were not careful to actually review source material. Had they done so, they'd not have been so careless.
You misunderstand the meaning of editorial, and review, and the meaning of peer review.
I note you did not include an easily includable link to the page. Often that is done because most likely there is language there that contradicts an assertion. In this case, the language actually needed to be read carefully, which apparently you missed. The article was an EDITORIAL, not a REVIEW.
I own NWBO. My posts on iHub are always posted expressly as just my humble opinion (IMHO) and none are advice, just my opinion. I am NOT a financial advisor, and it is assumed that everyone is responsible for their own due diligence.
AI
