the full picture with other studies paints a different picture. This was an observational study looking back -- which to be fair is also what several other studies have been. It is not the same as a random, clinical study -- which also to be fair takes time and is hard in these settings when you are racing to try and save lives.

This study stands in opposition to several others. Why? One can't know for sure, but I could post several other articles that yours failed to reference how, for example, there were some other treatments often associated with this system -- such as some early steroid use which may be helpful with some of the worst inflamatory reactions. It could easily be that this aspect makes a bigger difference. There are other concerns as well. It still doesn't mean that perhaps something positive could be there at the right time, some unique combination, etc But that seems a real stretch to conclude looking at everything up to this point.

There have been ar least two well documented random-placebo clinical trials. Both had to be stopped mid-stream because they were showing no positive benefit and I believe real negative concerns. Touting one outlier study that flies in the face of numerous other observational studies and most importantly the clinical trials - that is not good science.

It is extremely depressing how politics can seemingly infect even something like this. Everybody wants positive results and to avoid things that are negative or a waste of resources. Who cares who is right or wrong?

[Post edited by fishhoo at 07/02/2020 11:35PM]