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.
they also in conversations with the fda were required to change the end point um uh from laboratory confirmed infections right that that was the prior that was the that was the end point one of the endpoints in the phase two trial um to something else which involved owner reported or not owners sorry thinking about dog trials here patient reported symptoms as the end point and they didn't hit it
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.
the other piece though that I think is is worth mentioning is that trial was only half completed and the decision was made halfway through to stop the trial because they were not hitting their FDA mandated endpoint which was patient reported infections not laboratory confirmed patient reported