I stated my thoughts on the journal article. Note that authorship is not endorsement of a potential commercial product. Those authors simply made a meaningful contribution to the conduct of the trial and readout of its results. Also, adding more authors does not make a paper more (or less) convincing.
I happened to have worked with some of them in the past but don't do that much neuro-oncology stuff in my line of work (there's not been that much to talk about since the NVCR rampup and Celldex's interests a long time ago).
I'm not sure where it is that I disagreed with what the authors of that article stated. Yes, they found positive results. But yes, they conducted the trial in a very unusual way, which may lead to questions from regulators that end up delaying approval. I say "may" not to sow doubt, but to state the facts. I will not be surprised if they get an RFI because of the issues with this trial.
I do have a PhD. It's not particularly germane to the conversation whether I do or do not, and I wouldn't disqualify someone for NOT having one. Similarly, I don't think it's the PhD that qualifies me to do much of anything, but people want to know what your training is when you put information out in public.
But ultimately, what reputation do I have to be concerned about? Who here has read anything else I've written? People getting angry only seem to care about the fact that my mandated Buy and Sell "recommendations" are more often than not incorrect, never bothering to read what those even are.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
