What astounds me, at times, is not only that there

What astounds me, at times, is not only that there's nothing close to fact-checking on Seeking Alpha articles. Okay, right, that's fairly terrible. But there's also, at times, no way to comment -- no way to correct something that is obviously wrong -- no way to contact the author.

So today we have a Seeking Alpha writer who says in his bio he has "a knack for analyzing clinical trials," and then in his article writes this about CD12 and the obvious need for more weekly doses:

"The most obvious flaw in the seemingly impeccable argument is that patients were followed up every week during the 28-day period. If there was any survival benefit compared to placebo by day 14, then it would have caught the attention of the FDA. But there wasn't."

I don't have to tell this board how wrong this dude is. I only wish I could tell him, and ask him to print a retraction. But I guess the truth is not the point.