My point is that by saying that "more patients on the drug died", they're implying that the drug was itself killing people. With 35 patients, the 2% difference is about one person. They stopped the trial because the drug wasn't doing anything, but it's misleading to suggest that it was contributing further to mortality.
I don't think they are. I think I may have cut my quote in a bad place from that perspective. They continue:
"That was the death knell for the drug. Most insurers stopped paying for it."
I don't think they're implying that the drug killed people. I think they're saying that the study made it obvious it wasn't helping, so insurers stopped covering it and other consequences followed.
