Ann: Remestemcel-L Survival Outcomes in COVID-19 ARDS Patients, page-29

Yes, but there's no guarantee they will get the same result. It's like if you throw like 50 coins in the air saying "I will throw 25 heads and 25 tails!" and then by some chance you throw 45 heads and 5 tails. One conclusion is "wow! I have some coins that overwhelmingly land on heads, this is going to make me a tonne of money tricking people in Vegas!" and it may well be true! but the other conclusion is that maybe you got that result by chance. You weren't looking for it but you got it. The only way to know if it is chance or not is to repeat the experiment testing for your guess, but the fact that you got that unusual result is not a sure indicator that something amazing is happening, because almost every time you collect data there is something remarkable in the data, usually by chance, but sometimes just something you didn't expect.

The existence of significant results in a post hoc analysis is expected because you only need to check for 20 things to have a great chance of getting a 95% confidence interval result. MSB trials generally have lots and lots of secondary endpoints... something is bound to turn up every time, and the trick is whether or not it's a genuine result.

I think this has been the case in the heart trial if I am not mistaken where they played around with endpoints in the phase 2 and phase 3 trials and missed the mark.

The bright spot for holders is that the sub-65 age cohort does align with an increase in covid mortality generally, so it could work out in the 2nd phase 3, just don't assume that this is some kind of forgone conclusion.