And the funny thing is that the original commenter was looking at a trivial math problem. It wasn't even a question of statistical validity, it was just "What does it mean to compare percentages to each other?" That's grade-school mathematics.

I see this kind of error pretty frequently, and it's usually not a failure of mathematics... Most often, the person has some pre-existing negative emotional reaction to the stated conclusion, and their brain searches for something to criticize, in order to soothe those negative emotions.

I could only speculate as to why the original poster doesn't like hearing that an existing drug shows promise in treating COVID. Maybe they're a big Ivermectin booster, and they don't like the idea of another drug threatening their favorite?

I think you might want to reconsider your opinion of others. I believe the OP was referring to this result being on the edge of statistical significance given: The effect size relative to the base population; The fact that many similar trials are performed and discarded with similar drugs; And as we see when looking deeper, there are other issues such as early stopping. It is not unreasonable to suspect the effect could disappear given more data.

YOU are raising some valid points... but based on the OP's other comments, they seem to have a very limited knowledge of statistics--and yet, they are pushing a very critical line on this topic.

OP is asking other posters to do quite a bit of homework for them... As in, "Is this study big enough?" <<YES>> "OK, but how big does it need to be to prove X?" ... At a certain point, it seems clear that OP is not arguing in good faith, because they feel compelled to make the critical statements, first, without understanding the topix.

I would caution you to not extend sympathy to OP's cause, simply because you happen to share a critical eye for this study. There is a HUGE difference between being right for the right reason, vs the wrong reason... and that's how we get crap like Ivermectin for COVID.