Claiming "95% Treatment Efficacy," But What Was the Reality of the Clinical Trial?

[Anchor]

Nominee Kim Seung-won explained that the background behind his petition to the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety was based on clinical trial results showing that "95% of COVID-19 patients recovered." We analyzed the reality of the clinical trial cited by the nominee and whether it underwent rigorous academic verification.

Reporter Han Sung-hee has the details.

[Reporter]

Regarding the background of his petition filed in October 2021 with then-Ministry of Food and Drug Safety Commissioner Kim Gang-lip, Minister of Justice nominee Kim Seung-won stated today (September 7):

[Kim Seung-won / Nominee for Minister of Justice: As a result of reviewing the materials after hearing the petition, it was a reporting material showing that the product was undergoing Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical trials overseas, and that the results were decent...]

He had previously stated, "I reviewed materials showing that 95% of COVID-19 patients recovered."

At the time the petition was delivered, the new drug data from the pharmaceutical company Genencell consisted virtually entirely of a company announcement and some news articles released in December 2020.

The content claimed that "the completion of Phase 2 clinical trials in India proved high efficacy, with more than 95% of COVID-19 patients recovering, which is vastly superior compared to India's standard treatment showing about 68% efficacy."

However, the contents of the Indian clinical trial paper published in January 2022, three months after nominee Kim's petition, were somewhat different.

The clinical research team divided 60 patients into two groups: one administered "the new drug candidate along with the standard treatment," and the other administered "the standard treatment and a placebo."

Patients took not only the new drug candidate but also India's existing standard treatment.

The clinical research team noted, "Conducting clinical trials with the new drug alone is something that must be done in the future."

A university hospital professor pointed out to SBS, "Even though superiority over the standard treatment was not proven for the new drug candidate, the company's notice was written as if the two were directly compared, leaving a high possibility of misguidance."

This paper was a preliminary disclosure paper that had not undergone peer review by fellow physicians, a so-called "preprint," and no formal paper has been published since.

Following nominee Kim's petition to the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety, Professor Kang, the founder of Genencell, sold 6.3 billion won worth of stocks.

Regarding whether he was aware of the limitations of the data at the time, nominee Kim's side reconfirmed their previous stance, stating, "The nominee is a non-expert in medicine and forwarded the petition after verifying the material showing that 95% of patients recovered."

(Video by Joo Yong-jin | Video Editing by Kim Jun-hee | Design by Hwang Se-yeon)

※