PJYoung said:

---

Quote:

---

https://news.yahoo.com/cholesterol-drug-cuts-coronavirus-infection-133526795.html

Quote:
A drug meant to treat cholesterol was found to reduce coronavirus infection by 70% in lab studies, with researchers calling for additional clinical trials among hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

A team of researchers from the U.K. and Italy published findings in the Frontiers in Pharmacology journal Friday, finding that fenofibrate and fenofibric acid resulted in a significant reduction in coronavirus infection in human cells when the drug was used in safe and approved concentrations, according to a news release posted Friday.

"Our data indicates that fenofibrate may have the potential to reduce the severity of COVID-19 symptoms and also virus spread," Dr. Elisa Vicenzi of the San Raffaele Scientific Institute in Milan and co-author, said in the release. "Given that fenofibrate is an oral drug which is very cheap and available worldwide, together with its extensive history of clinical use and its good safety profile, our data has global implications."

The team called for added clinical trials to explore use of the drug as a potential COVID-19 therapy, while noting studies are ongoing at the University of Pennsylvania and Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Dr. Farhat Khanim of the University of Birmingham and corresponding study author, cited viral variants spurring rising infection rates and deaths in countries around the world.

"Whilst vaccine programmes will hopefully reduce infection rates and virus spread in the longer term, there is still an urgent need to expand our arsenal of drugs to treat SARS-CoV-2-positive patients," Khanim wrote.

Another author noted that significant proportions of populations in most low-and-middle countries will likely go unvaccinated until 2022.

---

---

Why do I somehow think our "leaders" will try and suppress it then?

Because you have been paying attention the last 18 months and are capable of critical thought.

In vitro data is crap.

HTH

Well, more plausible than a horse de-wormer.

torrid said:

---

Well, more plausible than a horse de-wormer.

---

Why?

I have a challenge for those of y'all that are jumping way ahead of yourselves to claim that 1) this is an effective treatment and 2) the government will suppress it. Explain in your own words:
- how this drug has been tested for covid effectiveness
- what testing you would require before taking it yourself to treat covid

coolerguy12 said:

---

Because you have been paying attention the last 18 months and are capable of critical thought.

---

No someone that is capable of critical thought can see that this is only in vitro data, and only shows it could possibly help. There would need to be a RCT with it to see if it has any effect in people. You see that is how all drug therapies work not just for COVID.

winmck said:

---

Placebo's work better than anything

---

You know what they work pretty good, the mind is amazing. If you think something will help it often will that is why the supplement industry can get away selling all the stuff they do because of testimonials from individuals. That is why a RCT is the only way to know what really works be separating from placebo. All of these Ivermectin and HCQ people think its some sort of conspiracy, they could have cared less about this process before. I am not even saying Ivermectin might not help, I think it might; however, it has not been proven to do so yet. It needs more RCT to see, but its not a conspiracy.

uhhhh, because they know who got the placebo...

BourbonAg said:

---

Quote:

---

You know what they work pretty good, the mind is amazing. If you think something will help it often will that is why the supplement industry can get away selling all the stuff they do because of testimonials from individuals. That is why a RCT is the only way to know what really works be separating from placebo.

---

Not to get too far into left field, but if the placebo group believes they got the real thing (and thus you have the mental aspect of making it work) then wouldn't that skew the results? How do they account for the placebo effect I guess is what I am asking?

---

It is double blinded, so neither the providers nor the patients no whether they got the placebo or the real thing. This eliminates bias on both sides. The real drug should separate from the placebo group in a statistically significant manner with at least a p value of at least < or equal to 0.05. That would indicate a strong evidence against a null hypothesis as there is less than 5% probability the null is correct. Sometimes the p value is even stronger which might give something a p value of 0.01.