The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
we enrolled patients with pre-specified comorbidities and pre-specified an analysis of them independently, we did doses we did five milligrams and 10 milligrams we did a different schedule we did 10 twice a day and we did a combination with arapalog rad001 with the primary endpoint of decreased respiratory tract infections we also extended the dosing period to cover a winter cold and flu season so now we're dosing 16 weeks uninterrupted uninterrupted okay
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
there was not a decrease in respiratory tract infections there but there was an increase in immunity or was that that was a secondary outcome that was assessed but it hasn't been talked about yet
so the design of the phase two trial was um one r it was it was uh structurally very similar to the to the first phase ii trial right so you have older adults same sort of age range i think they had to be 65 they couldn't have a pre-existing age-related condition significant age-related condition they had a control placebo arm everelimus alone rtb 101 alone and both and and i'll be honest with you i don't remember the dosing on the rtb 101 um and so they looked at vaccine response and then they also looked at in this study upper respiratory tract infections over the next season