Ivermectin to be investigated as a possible treatment for COVID-19 in Oxford's PRINCIPLE trial

[MisterNiceKitty]

https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-06-23-ivermectin-be-investigated-possible-treatment-covid-19-oxford-s-principle-trial

23 June 2021

PRINCIPLE is one of UK Government’s national priority platform trials of COVID-19 treatments, and the world’s largest currently taking place in community settings looking for treatments at home.

Ivermectin, a widely used antiparasitic drug, has been added to the trial and is being evaluated in participants from today.

For COVID-19, ivermectin has shown promising results as a potential treatment in small studies in humans.

Anyone eligible and with COVID-19 symptoms can join the trial from anywhere in the UK, either online, over the phone or via their health care professional.

From today, ivermectin is being investigated in the UK as part of the Platform Randomised Trial of Treatments in the Community for Epidemic and Pandemic Illnesses (PRINCIPLE), the world’s largest clinical trial of possible COVID-19 treatments for recovery at home and in other non-hospital settings.

Led by the University of Oxford, PRINCIPLE is investigating treatments for people at more risk of serious illness from COVID-19 which can speed up recovery, reduce the severity of symptoms and prevent the need for hospital admission. The study has so far recruited more than 5,000 volunteers from across the UK.

Ivermectin is a safe, broad spectrum antiparasitic drug which is in wide use globally to treat parasitic infections."

It is not safe for use outside of a clinical trial .

related link: https://www.principletrial.org/news/ivermectin-to-be-investigated-as-a-possible-treatment-for-covid-19-in-oxford2019s-principle-trial

[LearnedHand]

1. Unclear why you are posting this here and now

From the NIH:

Authors' conclusions: Based on the current very low- to low-certainty evidence, we are uncertain about the efficacy and safety of ivermectin used to treat or prevent COVID-19. The completed studies are small and few are considered high quality. Several studies are underway that may produce clearer answers in review updates. Overall, the reliable evidence available does not support the use ivermectin for treatment or prevention of COVID-19 outside of well-designed randomized trials.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34318930/

Maybe you’re on the wrong forum?

[LAS14]

2. Thanks for this. I hope the OP author replies. nt

[multigraincracker]

3. pubmed is my trusted source.

that is all.

[The Magistrate]

5. I Was On A Jury For This, Sir

I voted to allow it to stay.

The link seems respectable, and it is not unreasonable there should be trials of this stuff.

They do sound a bit more optimistic than I think is warranted, certainly. Nor do I think trials establishing the drug useless will make much difference. Those who take this stuff up are not being moved by reasoned consideration, but by destructive attitudes ingrained in their outlooks and personalities.

[janterry]

9. I agree

science does not happen by PR campaign (on the left or the right). Ivermectin might not play a role in treatment for covid. I don't know what will happen down the line. There are researchers who are continuing to study it. I watch and wait.

[Hugin]

10. That's how science works...

Unfortunately, there are those who see 'being investigated' as 'useful'.

The hypothesis here is 'sheep dewormer is a possible COVID treatment'.

To which, the possible answers are: Not only is it not a treatment, it is worse than nothing. It has no effect on treating the COVID disease. It does provide therapeutic benefits for COVID.

Of course, those of us reading the news know that the answer is among the first two.

It's called the scientific method. Am I correct?

[LearnedHand]

16. I agree, which is why I didn't alert on the post

However, it would have been less suspicious had the OP given greater context for why they posted this article. Any maybe mentioned that vaccines are how we PREVENT COVID, or at least, prevent grievous illness from it?

[womanofthehills]

20. Have you researched online how many countries in the world are using Ivermectin?

Most of South America, northern India, southern Africa, Poland, Mexico, Czech Republic, Egypt plus more and now Japan might start using Ivermectin but it seems like some on here think open discussion of Ivermectin should be banned.

And, by the way, Ivermectin won the Nobel prize for saving so many lives (people) in Africa and third world countries for river blindness and many other diseases. PEOPLE of the world have taken 4 billion doses and Ivermectin has saved millions of lives but hush hush we cannot discuss this drug.

[LearnedHand]

25. Uh, I wasn't talking about its anti-parasitic use

And neither was the OP. Let’s don’t strawman the discussion, maybe?

[obamanut2012]

59. The poster you are replying to is against vaccines

And has been on this site for many years.

To anyone alerting: this is not a scurrilous unfounded accusation, that poster is an anti vaxxer.

[Xoan]

30. Have you researched the difference between parasites and viruses?

CoronaVIRUS is not a parasite.

[pnwmom]

39. So what? It works on an intestinal parasite. Does it blast viruses out of noses?

The fact that millions of people around the world are desperate enough to try ANYTHING, even a cattle dewormer, means nothing.

[viva la]

61. They should first try... the vaccine.

The danger is that antivaxxers present these pie-in-the-sky experiments as actual options, when just getting a shot will do far far more.

[pnwmom]

62. Of course. But they would rather trust a pill or paste approved by the FDA for de-worming,

than trust a vaccine approved by the FDA for helping us fight a deadly virus.

[Yonnie3]

52. I felt as well

Sir, you and I are in agreement.

It was a respectable source and had cautionary notes in the OP, so I voted it should stay up.

I am not anti-science. Things should be studied. Idiots can infer what they want.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

6. It's news, Oxford is well respected, ivermectin needs to be definitively shot down and buried

Oxford developed the Astrazenica vaccine. Perhaps you've heard of it and heard of them.

If they think it is worthwhile running it in a trial, then I think it is worthwhile hearing that.

[viva la]

21. Well, that would be useful-- definitively saying, "it's useless"

Not that the idiots who ignore all research about the vaccines would listen to this anyway.

I just hope the subjects aren't putting themselves at greater risk by forgoing real treatment and preventions.

[janterry]

7. did you review all of the data?

https://ivmmeta.com/

If ivermectin has no role to play in covid - well, that's a shame. Current research looks like it cannot play an active role for those with serious disease. Can it play a role earlier? I don't have any idea.

But I leave it for the researchers to continue to work and explore the possibilities.

[MisterNiceKitty]

11. thanks to you and bernardo for your comments

The WHO reports that the patent on this drug expired in 1996 (there might be some country specific extensions)

https://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/82/8/562.pdf

Note that link is from 2004

[MisterNiceKitty]

13. Oxford University started a clinical trial in June 2021

& The post you quoted says: "several studies are underway that may produce clearer answers in review updates."

[ecstatic]

48. Your link and the OP's link don't necessarily contradict each other

Your link is an author's conclusion after analyzing the current body of research on ivermectin. The author noted that there is not enough data to form conclusions at the moment, but that it doesn't look promising based on what they've seen.

The OP is referencing a new study that's currently underway that might help definitively answer some of the questions put forth by the researchers in the link you provided.

[obamanut2012]

57. Check their posting history

The OP loves keeping us updated about these... type of things. Sometimes several times a day.

[Beachnutt]

4. You can't shit the covid out....

[LearnedHand]

17. Well, I guess you can ...

… but it’s in the form of shed viral particles. I mean, they are tracking infections by studying sewage.

[pnwmom]

43. But it's also growing in the nose, and no amount of shitting will shit it out the nostrils. n/t

[LearnedHand]

45. I'm so pwned

[pnwmom]

60. . . .

[gab13by13]

8. Going to be a rush on feed stores.

SMH.

[womanofthehills]

26. There is Ivermectin for people and Ivermectin for animsls

similar formula based on weight. The animal Ivermectin is usually larger than the people dose.

Over decades, millions of HUMANS in Africa and third world countries have been saved by using 4 billion doses of IVM.

[viva la]

66. The ones I see on Facebook groups for the drug--

Are often going with the animal product, because they can get it without a prescription, and so they are asking on this FB how much to break up the pill for a dose for them.

One asked, "What fragment of this pill meant for a pig would be right for a 10-year-old?"

Somehow I don't think these people are likely to be using it effectively and safely.

They aren't even sure if they're using it for "prevention" (to keep Covid away) or for "treatment" (to cure a case of Covid).

[BGBD]

12. Maybe it'll prove helpful...maybe not

But if it does it will not be in a dose designed for horses.

[womanofthehills]

27. 4 BILLION people world wide have take the HUMAN dose

It’s only here, that’s it’s now become hard to get PEOPLE IVM. In Mexico you can buy people IVM in any pharmacy- not a prescription drug there.

[pnwmom]

44. They take it for parasites in the intestines and on the skin, not viruses in the NOSE

and respiratory tract. There's no reason to think it will remove the viruses from inside the nose.

[NickB79]

46. Taken it, to treat parasites

Not for viral infections

[viva la]

64. You can also get penicillin in the pharmacies in Mexico.

And that's a safe and effective drug used by billions.

It still doesn't work for Covid.

[ananda]

14. What? There's something about this that smells very fishy.

It makes me want to know what money, and what kind of
money, is behind this... and what politics.

[AkFemDem]

37. It's actually very cheap...

Although if it becomes an actual standard treatment I imagine suddenly prices will soar.

[ananda]

42. I'm talking about the money/politics behind the study.

I mean, why have a study about a drug we ALL already
know is unsafe.

[Klaralven]

15. Previous PRINCIPLE trial results

Inhaled budesonide, a common corticosteroid, is the first widely available, inexpensive drug found to shorten recovery times in COVID-19 patients aged over 50 who are treated at home and in other community settings, reports the PRINCIPLE trial in 1,779 participants. The drug is now available to treat COVID-19 on a case-by-case basis in UK primary care.

In January 2021, PRINCIPLE demonstrated that the antibiotics azithromycin and doxycycline are not effective treatments for COVID-19 in the early stages of the illness, changing clinical practice in the UK and internationally. PRINCIPLE continues to investigate the effects of treatment in the community with colchicine, a commonly used anti-inflammatory, and favipiravir, an antiviral used in Japan to treat influenza.

https://www.principletrial.org/news/asthma-drug-budesonide-shortens-recovery-time-in-non-hospitalised-patients-with-covid-19

The current study compares NIH standard of care with favipiravir or ivermectin.

There are at least half a dozen other therapeutics from convalescent serum to antibody cocktails to various antivirals like favipiravir that provide some benefit to some patients some of the time. Ivermectin may do the same. However, in all of these treatments the effect is weak and hard to measure with statistical confidence.

Since repurposing existing drugs is not profitable for big pharma, they are not going to do proper trials. It's incomprehensible why the FDA, NIH, CDC or some other US Government body does not step up and spend the comparatively few million to do proper trials.

[MisterNiceKitty]

19. very interesting

I hope the reason isn't agency capture

[viva la]

65. Maybe because in a pandemic with thousands dying, putting money and research scientists on this

is very probably a waste of time and resources that could be better spent working on perfecting regimens that have already shown actual promise?

[viva la]

18. I wonder how they can get subjects for the trial.

I guess they got 5000, but for what? Are they going to take it as a preventative?
Are they unvaxxed?
Wouldn't that pose a real harm? (It's not a really safe drug-- causes problems even if used as prescribed.)
And to have actual human subjects forgoing more effective treatment for this claptrap.... doesn't sound ethical.

I was in several clinical trials for a condition I have. The problem alway is-- are subjects going to NOT use the treatments that actually work in order to help determine if this unproven drug will also work?

The ones I was in were very carefully designed to be only with subjects who had tried the standard treatments already without much success, so that no one was taking on too much more risk. and the upside was already possibly huge (potential total remission), so that the risks might be worth it.

I'm really not sure how "worth it" this drug would be-- is there really enough evidence to suggest it would have any positive effect?

Oh, well. I hope they are careful and don't end up inadvertently discouraging these subjects from doing the sensible prevention measures.

[womanofthehills]

31. Not true - IVM is listed as a very SAFE drug

Ivermectin proved to be even more of a ‘Wonder drug’ in human health, improving the nutrition, general health and wellbeing of billions of people worldwide ever since it was first used to treat Onchocerciasis in humans in 1988. It proved ideal in many ways, being highly effective and broad-spectrum, safe, well tolerated and could be easily administered (a single, annual oral dose). It is used to treat a variety of internal nematode infections, including Onchocerciasis, Strongyloidiasis, Ascariasis, cutaneous larva migrans, filariases, Gnathostomiasis and Trichuriasis, as well as for oral treatment of ectoparasitic infections, such as Pediculosis (lice infestation) and scabies (mite infestation).14) Ivermectin is the essential mainstay of two global disease elimination campaigns that should soon rid the world of two of its most disfiguring and devastating diseases, Onchocerciasis and Lymphatic filariasis, which blight the lives of billions of the poor and disadvantaged throughout the tropics. It is likely that, throughout the next decade, well over 200 million people will be taking the drug annually or semi-annually, via innovative globally-coordinated Mass Drug Administration (MDA) programmes. Indeed, the discovery, development and deployment of ivermectin, produced by an unprecedented partnership between the Private Sector pharmaceutical multinational Merck & Co. Inc., and the Public Sector Kitasato Institute in Tokyo, aided by an extraordinary coalition of multidisciplinary international partners and disease-affected communities, has been recognized by many experts and observers as one of the greatest medical accomplishments of the 20th century.15) In referring to the international efforts to tackle Onchocerciasis in which ivermectin is now the sole control tool, the UNESCO World Science Report concluded, “the progress that has been made in combating the disease represents one of the most triumphant public health campaigns ever waged in the developing world”. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043740/

[LearnedHand]

35. Please clarify what you are arguing in favor of

No one disputes the use of Ivermectin as a successful anti-parisitic. But that’s not the topic of this thread, which is about studying the use of Ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID. As another poster has already pointed out, COVID is a virus, not a parasite.

[viva la]

55. We've seen this before-- with AIDS-- these "crank" treatments crowd out the effective

Those taking Ivermectin are probably not getting vaccinated. If they're taking it as a "preventive," they will feel little need to get a real preventive-- the vaccine. They probably think, "If I get sick, I'll just take more Ivermectin." Why bother to wear a mask, right?

They will be listening not to the doctors and scientists and public health officials, who know as much as there is currently to know about what works, but to the likes of Milo Yiannopoulus and Tucker Carlson who -- for their own perverse and usually commercial reasons-- are suggesting this as an alternative to what actually works.

This drug might be "safe" in the sense that the risks are acceptable to get the results the drug is meant to cause-- a way of getting rid of and preventing the parasites that cause river blindness and other parasitical diseases (which are quite rare in the developed world, and have nothing to do with a virus). But the drug does have side effects, and those are increased of course when the drug is not prescribed and monitored by a doctor, and are in fact self-administered without regard to the proper dose or mode.
So we see the execrable Milo Y supposedly injecting a dose of the drug meant for pigs.
(Now I very much doubt he actually injected it. The photos I saw showed the needle, then his arm with a dot of blood-- not the needle sticking out of the arm, LOL. He's likely just pretending for whatever weird reason these rightwing showmen do their weird things.)

This Oxford study might have the benefit of encouraging the gullible to wait and hear the evidence (Which will probably be-- as the studies so far have shown-- no results worth the risk).

But if it gives them another hope in hell that they can avoid the twin terrible dangers they are so terrified of-- vax and mask-- well, that's not a good thing.

Both of those are not only safe, but also do (within limits) what we hope they will do-- prevent most infection and transmission (especially in combination).

They're not some wild guess like, you know, Clorox kills germs on my kitchen counters, so it'll probably cure Covid.

[BlueIdaho]

36. It's all about dosage.

It is safe as a primary treatment for a variety of “critter infestations.” My understanding is - those who seek it as a Covid treatment are using dosages near its toxicity dosage.

[viva la]

54. Great drug for parasites.

Wonderful.

This is a virus.

[Klaralven]

32. Don't know about the UK but in the US the standard of care for outpatients is "go home, feel better"

See Figure 1 on page 43 "Therapeutic Management of Non-Hospitalized Adults with Covid-19" in "Covid-19 Treatment Guidelines" at https://files.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/guidelines/covid19treatmentguidelines.pdf

The guidelines do say that if the patient is at high risk for disease progression and hospitalization, then monoclonal antibodies can be administered. Both antiviral drugs and steroids are recommended against.

The treatment of the 80% of symptomatic Covid-19 patients who do not require hospitalization has been pretty neglected by the government. The absence of orthodox treatments is part of the reason why people search around for unorthodox treatments.

And if half the cases are asymptomatic, and if 80% of the symptomatic cases don't require treatment, people might think Covid-19 is not that serious.

[muriel_volestrangler]

67. The participants are symptomatic, with a positive Covid test

To take part, you need to:

1. You have had a positive test for COVID-19, AND are unwell with symptoms of COVID-19 which have started in the last 14 days. These symptoms may include, but are not limited to:
...
The study is for people with ongoing symptoms. People who feel they are already well on the way to recovery should not take part.
...
You will either receive usual care, or usual care and a study drug which will be delivered from your GP, or directly from the research team. All study drugs are already widely used in the NHS and have been approved as safe for use in this study. The study will use a computer programme to decide by chance whether you get the drug or not.

https://www.principletrial.org/participants/how-to-join-the-trial

[BannonsLiver]

22. Next up: Antibiotics as a cancer treatment.

[NickB79]

23. The TOGETHER Trial ended badly for ivermectin

https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2021-08-11/ivermectin-no-effect-covid

I doubt this one will come to any better conclusion.

[womanofthehills]

34. So why are so many countries in the world using it?

Sounds like it’s being used for Covid in over 30 countries. In parts of Mexico, if you go to the hospital or drs, you are given a home treatment kit that includes IVM, antibiotics, other drugs and vitamins. seems to be part of an early regimen- not a cure all by itself

[NickB79]

38. Because they're a) desperate and b) often run by mini-Trumps

This isn't that hard. Vaccines are still scarce for many, medical care is lacking, and they're throwing whatever they've got at it in a desperate attempt.

Just like they did with hydroxychlroquine. Are you going to defend that next?

[viva la]

63. My PCP is Russian and first trained there.

She said they often had nothing but vitamins, vaccines, and anti-bios.

So they'd prescribe those for everyone pretty much. It's all they had.

She's happy to have access to all the Western drugs now-- still is certain to check vitamin levels in blood work, and makes sure we get every vaccine.

But she'd never now prescribe antibiotics instead of BP medicine.

The other countries are doing the best they can, but I bet most of the doctors there would rather have vaccines and monoclonals.

[herding cats]

49. Because of a severely flawed study and a preprint which didn't stand up to peer review.

It's a sign of how desperate people are when such generates so much hype without scientific evidence. We're in a pandemic which is killing people who feel defenseless and they're willing to try desperate measures in countries where proven vaccines are still rare and/or all but impossible to obtain.

This is the facts which are known today. They're not sexy or particularly hopeful looking but at least they're honest. The new studies (this isn't the only one) will more than likely send ivermectin off into the land of hydroxychloroquine (which was also given several respectable studies before being dismissed) as far as Covid is concerned.

One of these was a trial by Ahmed Elgazzar from Benha University in Egypt. In this trial of patients with severe Covid-19, one group received ivermectin while the other, the control group, received hydroxychloroquine (people in this group should have received a placebo). According to the researchers, there was a 90% reduction in deaths in the ivermectin group, a degree of effectiveness strikingly at odds with most other studies of ivermectin and considerably better than even FDA-approved therapies for Covid-19.


A British medical student, Jack Lawrence, was assigned to evaluate the Elgazzar paper for a course and encountered a potpourri of apparent plagiarism and data fabrication. The Elgazzar paper had not been formally published in a medical journal, but had appeared instead on a preprint website called Research Square. Upon learning of Lawrence’s analysis, Research Square promptly retracted the paper.

Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, an Australian chronic disease epidemiologist who also reviewed the Elgazzar data, found faults similar to Lawrence. Researchers often summarize large bodies of literature by statistically synthesizing trials in what are called meta-analyses. “If you remove this one study from the scientific literature,” he told The Guardian “most meta-analyses that have found positive results would have their conclusions entirely reversed.”

Where to look for higher quality data? A group called the Cochrane Collaboration spends its time conducting meta-analyses of the best-conducted clinical trials. After excluding dozens of ivermectin studies with “high risk of bias,” the collaboration left little room for optimism: “Based on the current very low- to low-certainty evidence, we are uncertain about the efficacy and safety of ivermectin used to treat or prevent Covid-19.” The group recommended that ivermectin use be restricted to clinical trials that might actually generate high quality data.
https://www.statnews.com/2021/08/25/ivermectin-for-covid-19-abundance-of-hype-dearth-of-evidence/

In many countries people are scared and desperate. They want something to work which might save them which they can have access to easily.

That's not what's happening here in the US. Here some people are just gullible and looking for something to fit into their chosen narrative when proven methods are available to them. They don't elicit much sympathy from me.

[Arazi]

24. Good. It's best we get a study to determine if this works or not

Like hydroxychloroquine was tested and demonstrated to be ineffective, let's do the same for ivermectin.

At least there will be a reputable study to point to when this becomes a shouting match at Thanksgiving

[Disaffected]

29. IIRC,

a similar study for similar reasons was performed on laetrile by the NIH or some-such to demonstrate once and for all that it had no efficacy in the treatment of cancer.

[hlthe2b]

28. The single study showing INVITRO effectivenss was withdrawn by the authors after accusations of

data manipulation and analytic misfeasance. But, even if you take that study at face value, the doses required were so far above the safe threshold in humans that the premise collapses on its own due to safety issues.

Yes, the low doses required for treating guinea worm or intestinal ascariasis, or headlice are safe. Beyond that, this is not a blanket statement that the OP or anyone else should be making.

The lay public (and even some physicians and others who should know better) do not understand that any number of compounds are tested to show decreased replication of newly emergent infectious agents, including viruses and bacteria. Yet of those compounds that show such early promise in the lab, the minute percentage that actually shows effectiveness in humans (or animals) is incredibly low. The conflation of the two is not only naive' it is dangerously uninformed. We've had decades of HIV data as but one example and the percentage of usable drugs coming out of those innumerable lab "trials" is minuscule.

Apparently, some learned NOTHING from the hydroxychloroquine debacle which, within the lab setting, the promise of the drug being effective was based on its blocking effect of one binding site used by COVID-19 virus (SARS-COV2) to enter cells. Unfortunately, we now know that this virus is capable of using another readily available binding site upon which hydroxychloroquine has no impact. So, it has ALWAYS been worthless in prevention or treatment.

There is a reason why most physicians are not an expert on ALL aspects of COVID-19. And if they are not, then why the hell do some believe the anonymous posters on FACEBOOK or FOX pundits to be?

Somehow I doubt many of us will live sufficiently long to explain this phenomenon.

I have no problem with Oxford performing rigorous actual double-blinded studies. That is a good thing. What is abhorrent and intensely naive' is those who point to the fact it is being studied to conclude it MUST be effective (before the first participant is even enrolled). We study all manners of things that end up showing negative benefit.

[NickB79]

47. You know what they say about efficacy in petri dishes

[hlthe2b]

50. Perfect cartoon, thanks!

[MisterNiceKitty]

51. I'm sorry what blanket statement am I making?

you wrote:

"Yes, the low doses required for treating guinea worm or intestinal ascariasis, or headlice are safe. Beyond that, this is not a blanket statement that the OP or anyone else should be making."

[hlthe2b]

53. I said the OP, which in this case is coming from the posted article:

"Ivermectin is a safe, broad spectrum antiparasitic drug which is in wide use globally to treat parasitic infections."

That is only true at the recommended doses for treatment of these parasites and in human formulations. --a much-needed addendum to the statement in the posted article that SHOULD have been included by its author.

[dawg]

33. I hope you understand that most liberals would love it ...

if Ivermectin, or some other cheap and easily available drug, turned out to be a miracle cure for Covid.

We all want this to be over.

We all want our lives to get back to normal.

But, at least for now, the evidence is lacking.

Except for, you know, the evidence supporting the efficacy of the vaccines.

And also the evidence for masking and social distancing.

So, go tell it on the mountain. Tell it across the sea. Tell it on the causeway. Tell it under the bridge.

We'd love it if this stuff were to work.

It just isn't very likely that it does.

[ecstatic]

40. covid19 is the weirdest virus. It responds/yields to a lot of random drugs

from heartburn medication to high blood pressure medication, but only when it wants to. When it doesn't want to, you're fucked.

[AkFemDem]

41. Great!!!

More studies of more potential treatments, vaccines and cures are good because obviously we haven’t found a magic bullet, every tool possible should be explored.

Current and future studies will either show this Med is not effective (or dangerous) and should not be used… or they’ll show it works as another tool to fight this awful virus. I’m not so married to my enjoyment of a good horse paste meme, that I want to discount or ignore every possible option out there for relief.

[Azathoth]

56. In other words, the conspiracy theory that it's being "suppressed" is a lie

It's been in clinial trial since at least June.

Pretty sure if it was a miracle drug, there would already be excited reports of preliminary data.

[struggle4progress]

58. I think I heard sodium oxide will kill COVID in a petri dish