I don't know if you're equipped to comment on my investing track record, since you don't have access to my investing accounts.
As for the "right" to question the relevance of clinical trials, you'll find it's a field open to anyone, regardless of their level of education. And frankly, my PhD training, even being focused on cancer medicine, didn't even come close to training me to begin to interpret these studies. Totally different ballgame to go from cell signaling and lead compound discovery into analyzing really messy clinical trials.
JAMA is not the bible. You can and should look for flaws in the edifice if you want a better understanding. And the circumstances surrounding that phase 3 study presented some serious flaws. It's why you haven't seen any other studies in the last 10 years conducted that way, regardless of whether PFS was positive or not.
Beyond that, none of you responding to that ever address my main point, which you could do by offering some answers to the following:
Do you have any issues with how the POLO trial was conducted?
What about ADAURA?
What about IMbrave150?
Why bring up studies that are totally separate from DCVax? Because I'm trying to make the point that flawed trials get published in big journal, with many top-tier authors, and they come out and meet controversy.
And they still get approved, made available, and reimbursed. And the real-world data and nationwide use of these therapies gets to inform the extend of their use.
So, do please answer the question, any of those three, if you're going to bother responding again. I do not care about your opinion of my education.
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
