4 ms·

Did you not read the whole article? The author explains why his defense of this study and the players involved is wrong, and why they are "furious about every a

• jvanderbot 5y ago
  I did. I had trouble editing my comment. In the end, they do propose that it would have been valuable to continue with the study, and others like it, provided many changes were made: ```Sixth, in the final review, the NIH made no attempt at cost/benefit analysis. Their final report is a fair summary of the problems with the trial. But it doesn’t consider the information that was lost by cancellation, or the fact that that there was little cost to taxpayers. (Though Collins’ letter to Senator Grassley reveals the NIH did pay around $4 million out of pocket.) Could a different principal investigator be put in charge? Could the study design be modified to address the concerns? Could the monitoring bodies have been strengthened so people could trust the results? Maybe the trial was unsalvageable, but it’s telling that the NIH didn’t bother to make that argument.```