you don't make much sense. efficacy was demonstrated in a mid-stage trial in human participants, clearly stated in the article we both read. that means it has passed all pre-clinicals just to get to this point. yes a phase III trial with a large pool of participants is needed for FDA approval, but for a new drug target to make it this far many, many milestones have been met. So much for "haven't even finished a small initial pilot study." in any case, this is not touted as the next big breakthrough. but these type of innovations can help change how we view treatment options. the drug itself does not need to be a breakthrough drug/blockbuster to fundamentally change this therapeutic area.

as to statins, true they are efficacious for only about 25% of the population, but for that 25% the drugs work wonders. nobody is a mind reader, but i'm curious how would you suggest collecting 10 years worth of data? as for independent researchers, those stories come out all the time in the news, and more-so in scientific journals. problem is that we are focused on frying anyone in bigpharma, and everything else flies below our radar. that, or, we don't spend the time reading or comprehending scientific peer-reviewed articles and instead get 100% of our health news from, well, journalism majors at msnbc. so, please don't spread typical conspiracy theories, i know you are mad at life and think the world is out to get you, but that doesn't mean any story that could potentially show health benefit or improves peoples lives must be rubbish.