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!
(Oh, I rounded wrong and forgot I should have used a two-tailed test, it should have been p < .0000008. But heck, that's still good enough for a discovery in particle physics which has the tightest statistical significance standards of any scientific discipline.)
Okay taking his entire 15 person sample compared with the 68% mortality rate for standard treatments, we get p < .00004 . Not good enough for particle physics, but still clinically significant, small sample size notwithstanding.