3 ms·
> That was a first run trial without the Zpak. The following trial with both showed 100% efficacy after 5-6 days. Is that twitter reply accurate?
by JohnJamesRambo 7y ago
> That was a first run trial without the Zpak. The following trial with both showed 100% efficacy after 5-6 days.
Is that twitter reply accurate?
- sfteus 7y agoNo, that trial has some glaring flaws. Several threads go into them way better than I could. https://twitter.com/GaetanBurgio/status/1241201751916568576 https://twitter.com/GaetanBurgio/status/1241201751916568576 https://twitter.com/MicrobiomDigest/status/1241429544847863808 https://twitter.com/MicrobiomDigest/status/12414295448478638...
- JohnJamesRambo 7y agoThank you for the links! I didn’t know about those gremlins in the supplementary info. Hopefully the WHO trials recently announced will give us a better answer soon.
- Khelavaster 7y agoBoth trials have glaring flaws: they're tiny.
- sfkdjf9j3j 7y agoWhat's wrong with the size of the 30 patient experiment?
- cycrutchfield 7y agoThe French study? Aside from the fact that it wasn't a randomized study and 6 patients dropped out from the treatment group (1 died, 3 went to ICU)?
- sfteus 7y ago30 patients would be statistically significant. Problem is that they were non randomized, open-label, and they seemingly discarded some of the bad results. They also measured viral load, not cure, and the measurement was not done correctly in all cases. It's basically a "there could potentially be a causal link here; needs way more research" type of study.
- sfkdjf9j3j 7y ago30 was the size of the study in the linked tweet.