Just an idiotic post. The fudster obviously hasn't published a single journal article in his life. In a journal article, the authors based the statements on an erroneous video statement? So, they haven't read the JAMA article. The authors' piece is not be relied upon.
Again, I'm wondering why, just as a courtesy, they didn't pass it by LL first. It's odd. I do wonder had LL been an author and not just Bosch, if that would've changed anything??
1) no, it wasn’t, LL’s error. The JAMA paper itself is the reference point, not interviews. It is very clear and they clearly did not do their work.
2) NWBO keeps the tumor, and can make more. They have said that. But more likely, they also reported and PR’d going back to get that kind of biomarker data, one of the delays to locking the trial, and you and I have discussed this point in the past, at length.
Such analyses include, for example, genetic profiles such as IDH mutations. For some of these analyses, it has been necessary to go back and obtain additional material due to the age of the samples. For other analyses, it has been necessary to have the analyses done by two separate experts as a cross-check.