I believe the publications are as follows: NP r
Post# of 153771
(Total Views: 708)
Posted On: 07/10/2020 2:55:53 PM
Re: StinkyPennies #42186
I believe the publications are as follows:
NP referenced NEJM publication (Montefiore Correspondence)
https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMc201...Tools=true
Dr. BP has never confirmed where his publication would end up. In fact he has flat out said he will not tell us even when asked directly in Q&A's. A prudent move if you have every done academic publishing as you need to get through peer review and the journal approval process first. The only hint we had was from a Dr. Yo comment on one of his first leronlimab videos where he said he spoke directly to Dr. Patterson and he had mentioned to him one of the Journal of Nature's. This was never confirmed by anyone however.
At this point we have the preprint which was put out there to circulate his analysis prior to publication (a standard practice given the length of time for peer review). Unfortunately I think NP referred to this as being "published" which is why there is so much confusion. It is "published" but not "peer reviewed and published"
process workflow
preprint publish>submit to journal>peer review>journal acceptance>publish
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020....20084673v1
Recently, NP referred to three new articles that were in the works. None of which have been submitted to preprint or journals yet. One was an additional article on the 11 Montefiore patients by Dr. Seetharaju, one was an article by Dr. Yang on the eIND patients and the third was an article by Dr. Nicholas Aggressie (sp?)
Individuals on the other boards have been in contact with Dr. BP regarding the journal article and he has said that it is still in progress. He also confirmed in an interview right before his TEDx talk that he submitted answers and additional data to address reviewer questions.
Back to the Dr. Sacha incident, NP said that he had Dr. Sacha's permission to announce the talk at CROI. Not to say that both sides don't shoulder some of the blame for the PR violating embargo policies but I don't think it's fair to pin that solely on NP. I think there was some sort of misunderstanding/miscommunication and both sides should have done due diligence on that conference's process. Regardless, Dr. Sacha was very excited regarding the data and I am happy that he got to present it this past week. He is a very smart and kind man and we are fortunate to have him on our team.
NP referenced NEJM publication (Montefiore Correspondence)
https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMc201...Tools=true
Dr. BP has never confirmed where his publication would end up. In fact he has flat out said he will not tell us even when asked directly in Q&A's. A prudent move if you have every done academic publishing as you need to get through peer review and the journal approval process first. The only hint we had was from a Dr. Yo comment on one of his first leronlimab videos where he said he spoke directly to Dr. Patterson and he had mentioned to him one of the Journal of Nature's. This was never confirmed by anyone however.
At this point we have the preprint which was put out there to circulate his analysis prior to publication (a standard practice given the length of time for peer review). Unfortunately I think NP referred to this as being "published" which is why there is so much confusion. It is "published" but not "peer reviewed and published"
process workflow
preprint publish>submit to journal>peer review>journal acceptance>publish
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020....20084673v1
Recently, NP referred to three new articles that were in the works. None of which have been submitted to preprint or journals yet. One was an additional article on the 11 Montefiore patients by Dr. Seetharaju, one was an article by Dr. Yang on the eIND patients and the third was an article by Dr. Nicholas Aggressie (sp?)
Individuals on the other boards have been in contact with Dr. BP regarding the journal article and he has said that it is still in progress. He also confirmed in an interview right before his TEDx talk that he submitted answers and additional data to address reviewer questions.
Back to the Dr. Sacha incident, NP said that he had Dr. Sacha's permission to announce the talk at CROI. Not to say that both sides don't shoulder some of the blame for the PR violating embargo policies but I don't think it's fair to pin that solely on NP. I think there was some sort of misunderstanding/miscommunication and both sides should have done due diligence on that conference's process. Regardless, Dr. Sacha was very excited regarding the data and I am happy that he got to present it this past week. He is a very smart and kind man and we are fortunate to have him on our team.
(4)
(0)