3 ms·
My point is that by saying that "more patients on the drug died", they're implying that the drug was itself killing people. With 35 patients, the 2% difference
by aheilbut 13y ago
My point is that by saying that "more patients on the drug died", they're implying that the drug was itself killing people. With 35 patients, the 2% difference is about one person. They stopped the trial because the drug wasn't doing anything, but it's misleading to suggest that it was contributing further to mortality.
- fpgeek 13y agoI don't think they are. I think I may have cut my quote in a bad place from that perspective. They continue: "That was the death knell for the drug. Most insurers stopped paying for it." I don't think they're implying that the drug killed people. I think they're saying that the study made it obvious it wasn't helping, so insurers stopped covering it and other consequences followed.