STAT⁠44%

931 days. The drug approval scandal hiding in plain sight ⁠28%

By Adam Feuerstein⁠43%

7/9/2026, 10:30:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 24 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Framing Effect, and Halo Effect, with Attempt to Sell a Product or Service as the most egregious example at 24.9% saturation with 87 hits. Analysis detected 590 faulty-reasoning hits from 350 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 38.9% and a BS Rank of ⁠28% (15,826 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 72.30% of the article peer group.

Opinion Adam’s Biotech Scorecard 
931 days. 
The drug approval scandal hiding in plain sight 
Why the extra-long delay on a review of Northwest Biotherapeutics’ brain cancer treatment? 
Senior Writer, Biotech 
Adam Feuerstein is a senior writer and biotech columnist, reporting on the crossroads of drug development, business, Wall Street, and biotechnology. 
He is also a co-host of the weekly biotech podcast The Readout Loud and author of the newsletter Adam’s Biotech Scorecard. 
You can reach Adam on Signal at stataf.54. 
This story first appeared in Adam’s Biotech Scorecard, a subscriber-only newsletter. 
STAT+ subscribers can sign up here to get it delivered to their inbox. 
Northwest Biotherapeutics, a public biotech company developing a treatment for brain cancer, submitted a marketing application to U.K. regulators in late December 2023. 
The review was supposed to take 150 days, under an expedited regulatory pathway for drugs that address serious unmet medical needs. 
As you’re reading this newsletter, two years, six months, and 18 days have elapsed without an approval decision. 
Why the extra-long delay? 
Regulators at the U.K’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, or MHRA, won’t comment, telling anyone who inquires, including me, that it’s up to Northwest Bio to provide an update on its brain cancer treatment, called DCVax. 
STAT+ Exclusive Story 
Already have an account? 
Log in 
This article is exclusive to STAT+ subscribers 
Unlock this article — plus in-depth analysis, newsletters, premium events, and news alerts. 
Totals $468 per year 
for 3 months, then $399/year 
Savings start at 25%! 
$300 Annually per user 
To read the rest of this story subscribe to STAT+. 
biotechnology , Cancer , drug development , Pharmaceuticals , STAT+ 
Submit a correction request Reprints 
Adam's Biotech Scorecard 
STAT Plus: Halfway into the year, biotech is booming 
STAT Plus: In pancreatic cancer, Patrick Soon-Shiong makes promises he has not kept 
STAT Plus: ‘Synthetic lethality’ could trigger another round of biotech M&A 
STAT Plus: Does Revolution Medicines’ pancreatic cancer drug have even greater potential? 
STAT Plus: An ASCO preview: What to watch for at cancer research’s big meeting 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Adam Feuerstein: 3.0%STAT: 3.4%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.6%Adam Feuerstein: 1.3%STAT: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.6%This article: 8.3%Adam Feuerstein: 1.4%STAT: 3.9%Availability Heuristic8.3%This article: 0.0%Adam Feuerstein: 0.3%STAT: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Feuerstein: 0.0%STAT: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Feuerstein: 0.4%STAT: 1.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 12.9%Adam Feuerstein: 11.1%STAT: 8.2%Framing Effect12.9%This article: 4.9%Adam Feuerstein: 1.3%STAT: 0.7%Loss Aversion4.9%This article: 6.0%Adam Feuerstein: 0.8%STAT: 0.9%Status Quo Bias6.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Feuerstein: 0.0%STAT: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 5.7%Adam Feuerstein: 8.5%STAT: 3.3%Optimism Bias5.7%This article: 7.1%Adam Feuerstein: 0.6%STAT: 1.8%Pessimism Bias7.1%This article: 14.6%Adam Feuerstein: 7.9%STAT: 8.5%Negativity Bias14.6%This article: 0.0%Adam Feuerstein: 1.1%STAT: 1.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 10.6%Adam Feuerstein: 0.0%STAT: 0.4%Fundamental Attribution Error10.6%This article: 0.0%Adam Feuerstein: 0.0%STAT: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Feuerstein: 0.0%STAT: 0.4%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Feuerstein: 0.3%STAT: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 12.0%Adam Feuerstein: 3.1%STAT: 1.3%Halo Effect12.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Feuerstein: 0.0%STAT: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Feuerstein: 0.0%STAT: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.1%Adam Feuerstein: 2.4%STAT: 1.6%Recency Bias5.1%This article: 0.0%Adam Feuerstein: 0.0%STAT: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Feuerstein: 0.2%STAT: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 3.7%Adam Feuerstein: 0.2%STAT: 0.4%Ad Hominem3.7%This article: 0.0%Adam Feuerstein: 0.0%STAT: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 10.6%Adam Feuerstein: 3.4%STAT: 4.7%Appeal to Authority10.6%This article: 3.7%Adam Feuerstein: 1.2%STAT: 1.5%False Dilemma3.7%This article: 0.0%Adam Feuerstein: 0.0%STAT: 1.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Feuerstein: 0.0%STAT: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 5.7%Adam Feuerstein: 1.8%STAT: 4.6%Hasty Generalization5.7%This article: 0.0%Adam Feuerstein: 1.0%STAT: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Feuerstein: 0.8%STAT: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 3.7%Adam Feuerstein: 3.8%STAT: 3.6%Appeal to Emotion3.7%This article: 4.6%Adam Feuerstein: 1.4%STAT: 0.9%Begging the Question4.6%This article: 3.1%Adam Feuerstein: 1.0%STAT: 2.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)3.1%This article: 0.0%Adam Feuerstein: 0.0%STAT: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 1.1%Adam Feuerstein: 0.0%STAT: 0.7%Burden of Proof1.1%This article: 0.0%Adam Feuerstein: 0.0%STAT: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Feuerstein: 0.0%STAT: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Feuerstein: 1.3%STAT: 3.3%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Feuerstein: 0.0%STAT: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 1.1%Adam Feuerstein: 2.1%STAT: 2.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)1.1%This article: 0.0%Adam Feuerstein: 0.0%STAT: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Feuerstein: 0.0%STAT: 0.3%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Feuerstein: 0.0%STAT: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Feuerstein: 0.0%STAT: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Feuerstein: 0.0%STAT: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 10.6%Adam Feuerstein: 0.7%STAT: 1.5%Unattributed Quote10.6%This article: 2.3%Adam Feuerstein: 0.7%STAT: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection2.3%This article: 5.7%Adam Feuerstein: 4.4%STAT: 6.0%Biased Writer Voice5.7%This article: 0.0%Adam Feuerstein: 0.7%STAT: 2.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Feuerstein: 0.0%STAT: 0.9%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Feuerstein: 0.0%STAT: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 24.9%Adam Feuerstein: 15.2%STAT: 3.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…24.9%

350 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers56%attributed speech153writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageAdam Feuerstein • 21 words • 100.0% coverageAdam Feuerstein • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageSTAT+ • 13 words • 100.0% coverageNorthwest Biotherapeutics • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageMedicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, or MHRA • 37 words • 100.0% coverageSTAT+ • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 100.0% coverageSTAT+ • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageSTAT+ • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageAdam Feuerstein • 3 words • 0.0% coverageSTAT+ • 9 words • 0.0% coverageSTAT+ • 13 words • 0.0% coverageSTAT+ • 11 words • 0.0% coverageSTAT+ • 12 words • 0.0% coverageSTAT+ • 14 words • 0.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
37 attributed words19% of attributed speech75% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, or MHRA: 100.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -23.5 ptsWriter: 23.5%Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, or MHRA: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-13.1 ptsWriter: 13.1%Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, or MHRA: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-5.2 ptsWriter: 5.2%Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, or MHRA: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.