1) I have not seen the Recovery trial on convalescent. 2) this trial postulates a strong dose-response relation which Recovery may not have been designed to pick up and 3) this trial is an early administration. It is from Mayo, details will be out, at some point.
-
-
Nobody has seen the Recovery results yet AFAIK. Which means with their protocol the results must be as yet not strong enough to call. Possibly the study differs significantly.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
I don't think it's possible to conclude anything about efficacy from the information presented here. Could be entirely useless, we wouldn't know because the trial is basically not described at all!
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @MagnetsOh @OYCar and
Wow. So if I'm reading correctly, they had the opportunity to run a decent trial on the subject, but instead chucked a Raoult and now we have no idea whether it works or not What a waste
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @MagnetsOh and
That was my reading too. A complete fiasco.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
I'd guess the WSJ anonymous researchers are same people behind the 5000 person safety study?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @alchemytoday @OYCar and
That had a 7-day mortality rate of 14.9% and said it was promising for this population.pic.twitter.com/AGNxDiGEtA
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
Without a control group the number is uninterpretable. Slightly lower than some population risk means nothing if the populations are different
-
-
yes that's what I thought too
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.