JAMA Oncology peers only saw what NWBO fed them. No FDA partial hold information, buried the statistical manipulation of the confounded nOS in the massive SAP versions, didn't provide details of the external comparator trials (aggregate data used, screeners, etc.), no reference to the post hoc, data dredged recurrent OS treatment arm, etc.
Peers didn't seem to be suspicious of Dr. Bosch as the corresponding author who managed all the statistical analyses, was an NWBO employee with significant stock holdings -- quite the conflict of interest. A significant red flag for peer review publications.
Where's you documentation of the pseudo-progression -- NWBO could only find on publication to reference -- not exactly conclusive documentation. Show us any more documentation as you are claiming. NWBO has the data on the clinical PFS vs. the pseudoprogression patients -- didn't seem to show that data did they? It is a secondary endpoint of the new protocol.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
