OncoJock : If a partnership or buyout is destined to happen within 30 days of MAA approval(8/1/23), there is not time for a peer review journal to be published. The big boys have all the data they need to make their decisions.But the BODs will want to see the MAA granted before writing the big checks.
Additionally, regarding (" I also know there's a big difference between an assertion of fact in a promotional slide deck meant to appeal to investors and industry at a major medical meeting and an assertion of fact in an original research manuscript published in a top-tier medical journal") , I believe the intended audience for the talk and slidedeck is threefold: 1) the 10 biggest biotech-pharma companies in the world who are in the process of contemplating bidding or partnering . , 2) the major regulators in the world, 3) and lastly, all the oncology thought leaders in the world.
Re: muee88 post# 600305
Sunday, June 11, 2023 4:24:33 PM
Post#
600491
of 600525
Muee8, I can see your point and perhaps I chose my words poorly.
I am sorry. I will try again.
To your point, yes, the topic of the presentation is biomedicine, especially immunology and the mechanism of action of a dendritic cell vaccine. Since that is undoubtedly a scientific topic, I must concede you were right and I was wrong.
However.... the type of "science" I'm talking about is the type where a scientist conducts an experiment, makes a discovery, and then submits his or her findings to a journal that is edited by other researchers in the same field, and those researchers are tasked with evaluating the quality of the research, the accuracy of the findings, and also the originality of the contribution to the field.
Then the journal hands the manuscript over to trained and skilled sub-editors who prepare the work for publication. A great deal of value is added during this process, and it help explain why certain high-impact journals like New England Journal of Medicine, Lancet, Nature Medicine, etc. are so highly regarded and widely read. (And also why you must pay to subscribe!)
Peer review and publication also affect the credibility of the research. If something is published in the NEJM, for example, it is regarded as more highly credible, and therefore more impactful, than something published in a journal no one has ever heard about or read.
And the reason for all this, by the way, is the advancement of science, which as many who read posts on this board know, comes from the Latin word scientia, which means knowledge, or to know.
So... back to Marnix Bosch and his ASCO presentation. He makes a lot of assertions of scientific fact in this slide deck which are new and potentially groundbreaking. Since I'm a shareholder in NW Bio, I hope they're all true. But, as a reader of many articles in peer-reviewed medical journals, I also know there's a big difference between an assertion of fact in a promotional slide deck meant to appeal to investors and industry at a major medical meeting and an assertion of fact in an original research manuscript published in a top-tier medical journal. This is why I wrote that the slide deck is unscientific.
This is also why I'm hesitant to assign the same degree of credibility to the facts in Marnix Bosch's slide deck as I am to the facts published in an article in NEJM or Nature Medicine or Journal of Clinical Oncology, JAMA Oncology, Lancet Oncology, etc.
It also explains why I'm super-hesitant to use these facts as a foundation upon which to build high-stakes, multi-billion-dollar commercial development scenarios based on dendritic cell vaccines becoming the new cure, or even just a new treatment, for all types of solid tumors not just GBM, and then for lots of other disease types not just cancer. That just seems to much of a stretch, at east for this shareholder.
If you wish to remain super-excited and enthusiastic, that's your prerogative. I'm trying to remain a bit more grounded, down-to-earth, and level-headed.
Best wishes,
-- OJ
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
