Nice article! That actually cleared up some of the uncertainty I had about why they issued the retraction of use. Looks like it was just easier for people to sign up for it out of trial, and there...
Nice article! That actually cleared up some of the uncertainty I had about why they issued the retraction of use. Looks like it was just easier for people to sign up for it out of trial, and there wasn't any good information being collected on efficacy in the form of randomized controlled trials. Except there was some good data being collected in the form of a large scale retrospective. That study came out just after the announcement, and it seems they're putting a hold on the retraction for now.
The whole pandemic has opened up a lot of cracks in the veneer. This is definitely one of them. It can be difficult to coordinate between what's best for humanity and what's best for the person in front of me. The discussion of the importance of both approaches has opened up and there is a lot to be sussed out about how be to cooperate in efforts.
Mayo spokespeople declined to make Joyner available for an interview this week, but he has said on Twitter that funding sources turned his group’s trials down, that they were more interested in pursuing hyperimmune globulin, a more specific type of blood-derived immunotherapy. Another researcher, who was involved in the construction of the expanded-access program, likewise tells me that they met resistance to their efforts to run randomized trials from the start. “We drew up these trials, and we approached multiple federal agencies and private funders to immediately get these trials going, and we actually didn’t have a lot of luck with that,” says Jeffrey Henderson, a physician and infectious disease researcher at Washington University St. Louis. “We had all these trials in the hopper. We were ready to ride the first wave. We figured, we’re not going to have enough to give to anybody anyway, let’s run trials. We just could not get traction. The studies we’re coming out with now are not the studies we wanted to do. It’s people making the best of the situation.”
Nice article! That actually cleared up some of the uncertainty I had about why they issued the retraction of use. Looks like it was just easier for people to sign up for it out of trial, and there wasn't any good information being collected on efficacy in the form of randomized controlled trials. Except there was some good data being collected in the form of a large scale retrospective. That study came out just after the announcement, and it seems they're putting a hold on the retraction for now.
The whole pandemic has opened up a lot of cracks in the veneer. This is definitely one of them. It can be difficult to coordinate between what's best for humanity and what's best for the person in front of me. The discussion of the importance of both approaches has opened up and there is a lot to be sussed out about how be to cooperate in efforts.
From the article: