> "The intranasal dose of TriSb92 that should be administered to susceptible persons prior to events involving a risk for SARS-CoV-2 exposure remains to be established but is likely to be substantially lower than extrapolation of our current data on mice that were challenged by inoculation of the rather massive amount of 2x105 PFU of SARS-CoV-2 into their respiratory tract."
Side effects might be an issue but that should show up in well-designed clinical trials. It sounds like something that people working in infectious clinical settings might want to use, maybe immunocompromised people who have to go out in public, but otherwise, for general use seems iffy in terms of efficacy.
The list of "things the FDA once recommended but retracted" is many orders of magnitude shorter than the list of "things someone on the internet shilled that turned out to be incredibly toxic and probably not beneficial at all"
I mean, that's a useless number unless I know the list of things that the FDA once approved and then did not turn out to be detrimental to patient's health.
I'd be more surprised if it didn't happen more than once in 117 years.
The former is a measure of how effective something is, in absolute terms.
OP might mean that because the protection isn't complete or permanent, it might not make sense for an otherwise healthy person to use it unless they expect to be in close quarters with a lot of possibly-sick people. Too early to say, ofc.
Same reason as any other medicine: because it's effective enough to be worth the costs.
Almost nothing is 100% reliable or effective in biological systems. In this case, the initial promising results are from a small study in mice (check out OP's source). Anything could happen in the clinical trials.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.28.474326v1....
> "The intranasal dose of TriSb92 that should be administered to susceptible persons prior to events involving a risk for SARS-CoV-2 exposure remains to be established but is likely to be substantially lower than extrapolation of our current data on mice that were challenged by inoculation of the rather massive amount of 2x105 PFU of SARS-CoV-2 into their respiratory tract."
Side effects might be an issue but that should show up in well-designed clinical trials. It sounds like something that people working in infectious clinical settings might want to use, maybe immunocompromised people who have to go out in public, but otherwise, for general use seems iffy in terms of efficacy.