> A company called Pharmasset Inc. (a hepatitis C drugmaker Gilead bought in 2011) investigated molnupiravir’s main ingredient around the turn of the century, but it abandoned development over concerns that it was mutagenic, meaning it could lead to birth defects.
Actually the article is slightly wrong, mutagenic is causing mutations in the host's germ or somatic DNA, teratogenic is causing birth defects. Most mutagens are teratogens too. From the Dr Bright complaint filing, Bright was concerned about reproductive toxicity (teratogenicity) so I'm not sure if the article meant to say teratogenic, or the concern is that the drug is both mutagenic and teratogenic (polymerase drugs tend to be both).
Subsequent tests seem to have shown a lack of mutagenic activity in hosts (eg Painter 2021), at least enough to get through safety trials, which is excellent. But looking at it from a structural activity point of view, molnupiravir is way, way more likely to have a DNA-affecting mechanism than mRNA. It has also shown mutagenic effect in vitro [2]. Nonetheless, a small increase in cancer risk years down the road (especially in the over-70 crowd) is likely worth the 50% (!) reduction in mortality.
It's probably fine, as long as you aren't pregnant. Like all drugs, it's about risk/benefit ratio. The covid vaccine has a much more favorable profile and should still be the preferred option. I doubt it'll be approved for pregnant women without a reproductive toxicity study.
1 - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-03-25/merck-mrk...
2 - https://pesquisa.bvsalud.org/global-literature-on-novel-coro...
Search for 'β-D-N4-hydroxycytidine safety' if you wanna dig deep.