(Total Views: 580)
Posted On: 04/04/2025 10:50:10 AM
Post# of 154602
I just read this re: a study published in the science journal Nature:
"A widely cited survey in the journal Nature found that a staggering 70% of scientists surveyed reported failing to reproduce published research. Worse still, in a landmark study by Dr. Glenn Begley, only 11% of oncology studies that were reviewed could be replicated—meaning that 89% of these supposedly groundbreaking cancer studies were essentially worthless."
If that is even close to being true - and assuming we can trust the results that have been relayed to us re: the tnbc patients who received LL - then our molecule just might be a whole lot better vs the competition than we assume.
For the cancers that propagate via CCR5 (how many is that, btw?), we could very well be the absolute best in class for every single one.
"A widely cited survey in the journal Nature found that a staggering 70% of scientists surveyed reported failing to reproduce published research. Worse still, in a landmark study by Dr. Glenn Begley, only 11% of oncology studies that were reviewed could be replicated—meaning that 89% of these supposedly groundbreaking cancer studies were essentially worthless."
If that is even close to being true - and assuming we can trust the results that have been relayed to us re: the tnbc patients who received LL - then our molecule just might be a whole lot better vs the competition than we assume.
For the cancers that propagate via CCR5 (how many is that, btw?), we could very well be the absolute best in class for every single one.
(13)
(0)
