Folks, the review article does what a review article should do: poking holes and criticizing things of the work that have previously been done, if you know how academic world works. Yes, during this due process, there would be personal things thrusted into the supposed neutral view of the authors. In this case, the authors, even from their honest disclosure are of conflict of interests -- they themselves have been developing other kind of dc vaccines, and they have had interests from NVCR, etc. And as some posters have pointed out, their review article has not been well written and even grossly mistaken the fact of the part of DCVax JAMA paper for stating DCVax trial excludes all patients with residual tumors which is of course not true as flipper pointed out.
Well, it's generally a not out of bound review all in all. In academics, authorities (reviewing authors) always want to find faults from existing achievements to prove their "higher" existence and to pave the way for future proposals for funding so as to keeping their research new life, giving their graduate students something to do...
Its their jobs to do to find imperfection from perfection, and surprisingly it's not very difficult to do if you are familiar with the field. So if a review article on something doesn't tear it apart besides normal statement of facts, then it should not be called a review.
In my academic years, I have written several high profiles reviews. I am kind of sorry today for the folks I criticized, or should I?
