ATL, you are right that a third error was uncovered by Sentiment Stocks that demonstrated that Chen et al. falsely claimed that the JAMA scientists failed to report the incidence of IDH mutations and who knows whether even additional careful reading of that garbage would perhaps uncover additional unforced review errors.
I strongly believe that given enough time, this article will represent a debacle and a low point for SNO and its editorial board. It is one thing for scientists to occasionally make mistakes while tackling results whose interpretation presents difficult challenges. It is very different when lay people on a message board have no trouble in identifying a number of blatant errors in a scientific review article.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
