Wondering if you could explain what I’m missing about the “it’s too effective” argument, as I see you making it every weak, and I keep scratching my head. The idea that the testing was halted for ethical reasons for the drug being “too effective” seems appropriate to me for the reason that keeping the trial running, which means denying certain participants treatment, and thus them dying, is, in my mind, unethical. Whether or not that means the drug has the chance to make it through the red tape of legality proceedings efficiently seems like a completely separate issue. So, shouldn’t the argument be directed more toward why seemingly effective drugs take so long to be approved, and not on how moronic it is to stop trials when things see so lopsided? Mind helping me understand the point you’ve been making? I just keep stumbling over it on the weekly, and I want to move on! Thanks. :)
If the drug hasn’t been approved, then those participants weren’t going to get it anyway, so they’re no worse off in the trial.
I think the point is, they could have had other interventions had they not been in the trial. Which is why I believe they stopped it. Those that got placebo were stuck having to be denied other forms of intervention so as not to corrupt the study. (as I understand it)