Wayne, you started off so well, and then fell away badly I'm...

Wayne, you started off so well, and then fell away badly I'm afraid. You are right about biomarkers and how they can be used. You are also right that the study presentation was all about whether candidate biomarkers correlate with physiological changes related to brain injuries. However, you are wrong to then make the leap to assuming....

"The trial of course is double blind so results cannot be assigned to drug vis-a-vis placebo. Nonetheless, the Doctor must have thought they revealed something of significance otherwise why present the findings."

Why present the findings? Well, go back to the first half of your post. The presentation was to tell others about whether different potential biomarkers were useful in tracking brain injury and recovery thereof. If some are useful, then they might be useful for tracking drug efficacy, including trial drugs. But they are separate studies entirely. The first step is to demonstrate the biomarkers are legitimate measures. Only then can they be applied to other studies.

And Kogorah - you are 'exactly wrong' I'm afraid. You are assuming the treated and untreated groups will deliver mutually exclusive results. This is very unlikely to occur. Even if the drugs work, there will be variability in control and treated groups. To know what the drug does, you will need ot wait untilt eh tria results are unblinded. be patient and don't look for little 'nudge nudge' signs. There aren't any.