>The fact this is your takeaway, even after I used numeric values to explain the overpromise of the headline... wow
I covered the overpromise and even explained why it's still a big enough development. This part was making another point that also went wooooosh (about how such findings rarely materialize to treatment, and people shouldn't get their hopes high from headlines to begin with, even IF the finding they write about covers all or most of the cases and not just 55% of 38% of them - and that this is a general rule, even if in this case one can just trivially try the treatment themselves without waiting for a new drug).
I mean, one has to spell it out, and it still IS pedantically misread.
