[The_Reader_David]

No, a tiny sample of 13 patients with zero fatalities from a disease that normally has a 68% mortality rate is not meaningless. For a disease with that mortality rate a double-blind controlled study comparing with a placebo would not only be unethical in terms of medical ethics, it would be flat immoral. So, let's use the general infected population with its 68% mortality rate as a control group. Zero fatalities in a sample of 13 shows an effect significant at the p < 0.0000003 level of significance in comparison to standard treatments.

When the effect is large enough it shows up in even small samples.

As for his off the cuff statement: lumping together all ssRNA viruses could be ignorance of virology, justifying your accusation of quackery, or just way of communicating to a popular audience, who wouldn't sit though an explanation of the niceties for viral classification, the basis for his, seemingly justified, confidence that a drug developed for HIV would work against Ebola.

[Missouri gal]

He had 2 fatalities out of 15, or 13%. The stated fatality rate overall is 68%. It sounds great. Get that drug out there. But meanwhile, take a close look at whether it is meaningful data. How did he select the patients compared to those that were stated to be 68% dying? What is the experience on the frontlines? Get more numbers and keep trying alternatives, maybe mix the therapies in hope of saving more. We do have a decent system for emergency FDA approval of drugs needed to save lives. Recall how the Clintons used the emergency drug rule to get RU486 on the market. If our health care system isn’t totally ruined by now, this thing can be licked. But please don’t be so quick to fall for hysteria!