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.
but this is done in an open label fashion what that means is they're not randomizing patients to one drug versus the other typically they can but usually it's now we think we know one or two doses that are going to produce efficacy they were deemed safe in the phase one we're now going to [Music] take patients and give them this drug and look for an effect and a lot of times if there's no control arm in the study you're going to compare to the natural history
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 goal of phase two is to continue to evaluate for safety but also to start to look for efficacy but this is done in an open label fashion what that means is they're not randomizing patients to One Drug versus the other typically they can but usually it's now we think we know one or two doses that are going to produce efficacy they were deemed safe in the phase one we're now going to take patience and give them this drug and look for an effect and a lot of times if there's no control arm in the study you're going to compare to the Natural History