AI
Saturday, June 10, 2023 5:03:23 PM
Thank you, Gary, for conceding my point about the data not being peer-reviewed. And I'll concede Dr. Bala's point I may have overstated my case when I called Dr. Bosch presentation "not scientific." The topic is certainly biomedicine/immunology, which of course is scientific.
But my main beef is that it hasn't been peer reviewed, and so far as we know it hasn't even been submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. There's been no vetting by an objective third party. The slide below is a good example. We're all taking this as if it's the gospel truth, but who else, besides NW Bio, has vouched for the accuracy of these data? The people who make decisions, for example formulary decisions, or treatment recommendations, and who will be held accountable for their actions by others, will wait until they see data that have been confirmed by publication in a peer-reviewed journal.
But my main beef is that it hasn't been peer reviewed, and so far as we know it hasn't even been submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. There's been no vetting by an objective third party. The slide below is a good example. We're all taking this as if it's the gospel truth, but who else, besides NW Bio, has vouched for the accuracy of these data? The people who make decisions, for example formulary decisions, or treatment recommendations, and who will be held accountable for their actions by others, will wait until they see data that have been confirmed by publication in a peer-reviewed journal.
