I've been in a clinical study years ago, but introduced to the idea in hospital (cancer).
My understanding and experience is there are extensive documents, much of which are highly technical, detailing the proposed clinical trial, procedures, any studies or evidence that led to thinking a clinical trial was worth while, etc. I asked for some explanations. There was a nurse assigned for that purposes for all the members of the group (we never met as a group). It was much more invasive, chemotherapy (including an experimental drug) incl. both oral and IV meds, surgery, etc. so the precautions & cautions were extensive. I think they put me through every test known to man or beast, both before & after. A few years after, I thought to look up the study, found the journal article - and the references made by others since. Obviously, this isn't at that level.
I'm not opposed to this, or its appearance here, just giving us another look at how we might be able to evaluate it all.
Is it a double-blind study, somehow?
I'd look at the cautions & caveats. I did do the clinical trial, & by the numbers. I'm alive now when the odds weren't necessarily good. Remember, I'm one of many, so who knows exactly why I was one of the ones "cured". It became an approved treatment, then. (probably there is better, now).
It was like this proposed study. Of course the drug company wanted to make a profit if the drug worked out. The only complaint I might have is the CEO of the drug company shouldn't be making $320 million dollars a year when the secretary is barely getting by.
Anyway, 50% would be great. Certainly better than anything I've heard of yet.
Good luck, do your due-diligence, and God Bless.
Take care 