With small enough sample math tells you exaclty how little confidence can you have in a given result.
And for a group of 1500 people it tells you how much confidence can you have. And it was more confidence than they demanded before starting the trial.
> Don't you agree that stopping an experiment once we get the result we were hoping for and are looking for from the start does raise doubts regarding the conclusion?
If you have a novel disease that's 99% fatal. And then you test a treatment that results in 30% people surviving 99% fatal disease. And you gathered enough data that that math tells you is enough to confidently claim that it isn't just a fluke.
Does stopping the trial and giving the medicine to the half of patients that you were keeping as a control group makes people raise doubts about efficacy of the drug or does that just make you not be called a second doctor Mengele?
Did they stop fluvoxamine trial? Or do they just mention that the effect was so strong that they could?
And for a group of 1500 people it tells you how much confidence can you have. And it was more confidence than they demanded before starting the trial.
> Don't you agree that stopping an experiment once we get the result we were hoping for and are looking for from the start does raise doubts regarding the conclusion?
If you have a novel disease that's 99% fatal. And then you test a treatment that results in 30% people surviving 99% fatal disease. And you gathered enough data that that math tells you is enough to confidently claim that it isn't just a fluke.
Does stopping the trial and giving the medicine to the half of patients that you were keeping as a control group makes people raise doubts about efficacy of the drug or does that just make you not be called a second doctor Mengele?
Did they stop fluvoxamine trial? Or do they just mention that the effect was so strong that they could?