I think to participate in blame game on negative results is not...

I think to participate in blame game on negative results is not a good look. The science behind all these trials is good but maybe still needs to be explored so that it can be applied in the best way to give benefit to patients.
I mean, to aim for 43% mortality benefit in a short duration of time, with a small cohort of patients, with a new virus( of which the scientific community in discovering new things every day) whose effects on human body we still don't fully understand is and was a huge task.
They could have died due to X number of reasons.... multi-organ failure just to name one.
If it was an Acute respiratory distress syndrome trial, the end point of mortality benefit...not sure.

GVHD - amazing and high hopes, CLBP- not sure ( purely based on cost/benefit ratio)
Anyway, i feel a bit let down by the blase speculations and blame gaming tactics from the management and scientists. Better would be to wait for full data analysis and dissecting it to see what can be done or improvised.

As for further new trials on ARDS, has to be approved by ethics commitee, no?!