When one conducts research, she selects a setting where an outcome is likely to be visible. For new drug approvals, one selects patients who are as sick as reas

When one conducts research, she selects a setting where an outcome is likely to be visible. For new drug approvals, one selects patients who are as sick as reasonably attainable (ie before unrelated secondary effects arise) The fact that the very needy children benefit the most in no way implies that other children will be harmed. To make that statement without data is irresponsible for the authors, and I don’t see their data anywhere. So this is essentially both-sides-ism. They present one reasonable if flawed idea and its totally unreasonable counterpart