I think that a Fexinidazole trial could be justified because it's not as risky as Suramin and also an oral medication for poor countries, so no money-grabbing is involved that reserves the medication to a few in the end. From my perspective, every trial is justified when the risk-benefit ratio of the treatment outweighs the damage of a disease for which there is no recommended treatment at all.
I completely agree.
What do you mean by theory of action?
Apologies, I meant to say - how is the drug (Fexinidazole) understood to work on pathogens/parasites? 'Mechanism of action' might have been clearer! (I'd have the same question for Suramin). If it's a drug that's already gone through extensive safety testing, can be taken in tablet form, and is potentially effective not just on one but potentially on a range of chronic parasitic infections that affect the central nervous system (CNS) and pass the blood brain barrier, then it seems interesting to me and I'd be keen to research further and learn more. Of course, the 'CFS-as-latent-infection-or-failure-to-clear-pathogenic-microbe' thesis is only one thesis among several, and no drug will help all ME/CFS patients, but on the face of it the risk/benefit profile of trialling this kind of drug seems good to me, given the possible trypanosomes connection that Davis identified. That said, I have no medical background and have probably missed something obvious.
Not to my knowledge, but I'm not the best-informed when it comes to small trials and case studies. There are so many. Every naturopath thinks that their vitamin injection can cure CFS/ME. Oftentimes, they are not controlled studies, so might just be placebo effects.
Agree with this sentiment too. If only we could have more blinded RCTs with proper inclusion criteria, placebo controls and statistically significant patient numbers using drugs that have already been proven safe and don't cost the world. So much else is just noise.
Thanks for taking the time to reply - it's appreciated.