That’s B.S. there are a few editorials. Zero Peer reviewed journal articles making the argument you indicate. Some are just comments. And they were all written by Novocure researchers who 1) initially or never disclosed their conflict of interest, it has to be pointed out; and 2) they would all lose a fortune and at least a decade of work on a treatment that literally failed its initial trial and then redid it with no placebo either and is completely cracked and based on horrible science in comparison. So yeah, believe that junk science.
As for the external comparison arm and the final change, it was PUBLISHED and finalized then. It clearly took years to do and the FDA published a paper to allow it to years before that even if it was a general policy, appeared well timed to ensure it would be possible.
Thirdly, virtually every other treatment approved not only did not extend survival, but was problematic in showing ANY benefit. This treatment has 70 … 70 top doctors and their top research institutions therefore behind it. Its research WAS published in top journals and each article WAS peer reviewed.
The fact is, the evidence AND the science here is rock solid. There is nothing you can do about that but make crap up and rant.
And the only reason you do that is GREED.
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
