You must have missed the testimony of the dr who said the treatment had a 10-56% chance of helping Charlie. This dr has agreed to fly from NY to London to evaluate Charlie firsthand.
I am not relieved..... if this does not do more than just ‘ease his symptoms’ without change to his overall health condition....which he is dying.
We already know he will not see nor hear regardless of the treatment...the condition of his brain matter will determine much....I continue to stand where I have in this case.
And what, exactly, does that mean? How does a physician, whose training is *not* the minute molecular level detail of the body's function, and who thus may *not* be able to expertly assess how a drug would work, judge whether a specific treatment is likely to work or not? Especially when there is no empirical evidence to inform that judgment?