Replies to post #559952 on NorthWest Biotherapeutics Inc (NWBO)

[Roman516]

The JAMA Oncology indicated that the data was in fact true and legitimate, and we all know this to be true with no errors. In addition, we all know that the OS data was also better than expected. Last, we all know that there are more doctors, scientists, and professionals are in agreement that the data is true and worth for NWBO to go forward. This is further proof that DCVax-L works and should be approved soon, weeks not months or years. All the best!

Per your comments
"Errors in the articles published in medical journals are common and longstanding. As far back as 1950, librarians were debating how to correct errors in medical journals. We have seen considerable progress in this area in recent decades and most journals now have policies to correct errors, as well as for dealing with fraud and scientific misconduct, in research articles."
WOW, since the 1950's for real?????


Linting documents for errors
What tool is used to validate a document for plagiarism errors.
https://www.techjockey.com/blog/top-7-best-plagiarism-checker-software-2019#:~:text=Plagiarism%20Checker%20X%20is%20one%20of%20the%20best,plagiarism%20in%20documents%20like%20assignments%2C%20reports%20and%20articles.

https://www.grammarly.com/plagiarism-checker?q=plagiarism&utm_source=bing&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=384728726&utm_content=&utm_term=how%20to%20check%20for%20plagiarism&matchtype=p&placement=&network=o&&msclkid=41038a746b2813b8ee7ae9b23bd9702d&gclid=41038a746b2813b8ee7ae9b23bd9702d&gclsrc=3p.ds

https://www.scribbr.com/plagiarism/best-plagiarism-checker/

All the best!

[kabunushi]

It's called peer review, that's what the PROFESSIONAL REVIEWERS do. You claiming to find issues that professional reviewers did not is crazy. Yes, you can disagree but you are a MB random poster without a name claiming that you know more than the peer reviewers and that they didn't do their jobs. You have neither credentials nor credibility.

[X Master]

So what you saying is NWBO has misled 70 doctors who put their career on the line and YOU the anonymous poster, with no apparent credentials or credibility here on this board have figured it out and you are trying to save us?
Your job here is apparent and disgusting.

[biosectinvestor]

There are many journal articles that are not peer reviewed and not in the top journals in the world. That is why they went with a journal like Jama Onc., because of baseless allegations like the one you suggest, which is flatly absurd. The issues you raise were actually discussed just not in the manner you want them to be discussed. You apparently want them to apologize for the FDA making them have a crossover and go into great detail in a scientific paper about how they are very, very sorry.... They said it all factually, with no such unnecessary further detail. This no doubt makes shorts unhappy because they thought there was literally much more wrong than apparently there was, and not having those hooks to grab onto, they find their critiques lacking power and authority. But that doesn't make the article wrong or deceptive. It doesn't make the doctors who wrote it or the JAMA peer reviewers incompetent or not thorough. It just is not written the way some would prefer it to be written to allow for criticisms that have no merit.

[norisknorewards]

Hahahahahaha rotflmfao

[norisknorewards]

Hahahahahaha rotflmfao