I agree that is what top line results are revreboot. They do...

I agree that is what top line results are revreboot. They do however seem to have been very confident, but they where careful never to infer any knowledge of the likely outcome of the trial in any announcement I read. The videos showing how HA-I "worked" where probably the nearest they came. Perhaps the strongest evidence of their belief has been the marketing deal which we only discovered after the failure.

I also agree that TB is amongst those that need to sort out that which can be from the wreckage, but I don't agree she should be "held to account" as such. This is not because I have a soft spot for her, it is because I believe the work done seemed to be proving up the science, and as such, that's all she had to go on.

I am unsure what control the lab had over the trial design, my guess is much of that would have been a balancing of costs v likely outcomes. This should be apparent in the analysis, if indeed trial design proves to be a significant factor in the results.

In my line of work I often put tireless hours into trying to solve somebody's problem. Usually I am successful, but occasionally I'm not. When I'm not money gets burnt, usually some of mine and some of someone else's. I would feel a bit miffed if each failure I was held to account for failing to solve a difficult problem. This is why I'm not a fan of sitting someone who has endeavored to do their best on a podium and throwing eggs at them until everybody but them feels better.