151–160 of 172 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I were facing a 75-90% chance of dying, I think I’d be pretty happy to reduce that to 6-30%.
But I wouldn’t call the disease “cured”.
In other words, cure is probably the right word, just not for everybody.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
rule #2 of hn: High signal to noise is preferred over low signal to noise. HN > twitter.
To be fair, and when it comes to health and biology, Twitter >> HN. The comments on most bio-related posts here make me cringe.
I read HN regularly, but for health and biology related information, I'd much rather turn to the various professional communities on Twitter. HN is at best "Lies my Bio 101 Professor Told Me" most of the time, and at worst a worked example of physicist/engineer's syndrome.
There is no news I enjoy reading more than that a clinical trial had to be ended early because the treatment was so effective that it would be unethical to continue with alternative treatments (or a placebo).
Actually, it's quite terrifying when you remember that stopping a clinical trial early is a great way to create statistical fraud. https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2019/08/08/st... cites an example of a drug whose clinical trial was stopped early due to obviously effective success... only to discover later on that the "obviously effective" was a statistically spurious event, and the drug did not confer…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually, it's quite terrifying when you remember that stopping a clinical trial early is a great way to create statistical fraud. https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2019/08/08/st... cites an example of a drug whose clinical trial was stopped early due to obviously effective success... only to discover later on that the "obviously effective" was a statistically spurious event, and the drug did not confer…
no, when certain conditions lead to certain outcomes like cancer, infections and so on, you cannot really go wrong when results come in early and are so positive they are massively significantly different vs the usual course. effect size.
Heck, a lot of recent work on novel trial designs like stepped-wedge are specifically designed to balance equipoise and statistical needs.
It's great news, but they're observing a 30% mortality rate for the "cure". Absent medical intervention there is still a nontrivial survival rate (mortality rate of 75-90%). With supporting medical treatment before this new treatment - fluid support, etc - I think it's up to 50%? It sounds like the monoclonal antibody treatment has improved odds of survival from 1:10-1:2 to 2:3. edit: The 6% figure is population rest…
Of the 11 people who've been treated for Ebola in the US, only 2 have died. That's a small sample, but only an 18% mortality rate with the best available treatment, before this cure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does it really matter?
Well, most of the countries impacted by ebola are quite poor, but I think even ignoring humanitarian concerns, it's probably in wealthier countries' best interests to pay for it strictly from an epidemiological perspective
I want to know how long it will take for Ebola to evolve a resistance to this therapy.
This therapy is intended for use in an intensive care environment. If the patient is able to pass on their infection in that environment, something is very wrong.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/chinese-researcher-e...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of the 11 people who've been treated for Ebola in the US, only 2 have died. That's a small sample, but only an 18% mortality rate with the best available treatment, before this cure.
Several of those people got the therapies being tested in this trial.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of the 11 people who've been treated for Ebola in the US, only 2 have died. That's a small sample, but only an 18% mortality rate with the best available treatment, before this cure.
Several of those people got the therapies being tested in this trial.