Okay, like if one company claims to have a gold standard for a particular ailment that extends lives 6-8 months versus the patient just capitulating?
Even if results are modest I should think it would be better than the alternative.
And
studies are not just halted if results are significant. Significant at what cost to the patient may be a reason to continue with a particular study as an example.
In this case results may be modest, but if you had Parkinson's and this drug was shown to decrease symptoms and extend your life you would have to ask yourself that question.