quercetin, melatonin, zinc, curcumin, vitamin D, vitamin C, probiotics, aspirin, metformin…
Dear All,
As a PREAMBULE, i) the following comes from a website, https://c19early.com/, that is qualified by some as misinformation. We did not see at the ILA board in what regards it fundamentally is, but we inform you because if we were wrong then the following is false information. This website is maintained by an anonymous team of researchers, “@CovidAnalysis”, who collect articles on many potential treatments against covid, analyze each article, provide an analysis on the website, and try to assemble the knowledge about what works and what doesn’t in terms of prevention (prophyllaxis), early treatment (first covid symptoms or just tested positive) and late treatment. On the basis of a random sampling of a dozen articles, we did not see so far cherry picking nor a general bias in their interpretations, and the work done by this website seems of high quality to us, at this stage. ii) We strongly advize AGAINST trying medicines on your own without medical supervision. Health and life matter too much!
The INTERESTING thing here, and the reason why we share this, is that among the 29 potential treatments against covid they currently investigate, 9 are often considered to have anti-aging properties. Given that covid risks (before vaccines and treatments) are so aligned with aging (we organised conferences on that theme over the last year), one could think that many of such treatments act to some degree on covid — and this is what c19early finds! We could even imagine that efficient covid treatments may be beneficial against biological aging ? To be tested…
CONCRETELY, here are the macro results. By definition they mix different doses, treatment combinations and populations so you can click on the links to get to the corresponding pages and see the underlying details. There, every mentioned study comes with the original pdf as well as a web page on the interpretation by the @CovidAnalysis team. So you can make your own idea of whether the interpretation is correct. Would you find anything inadequate (biased interpretation, cherry picking, other), please mention it below (good to keep track) and please mention it to them (there is a form on their website).
| Quercetin (senolytics) – 79% covid risk reduction when taken early!? Based on 4 studies, all being randomized controlled trials | Melatonin (various) – 78% covid risk reduction when taken early!? Based on 11 studies including 5 randomized controlled trials | Zinc (immune system) – 74% covid risk reduction when taken early!? Based on 26 studies including 5 randomized controlled trials |
| Curcumin (senolytics) – 79% covid risk reduction when taken early!? Based on 4 studies, all being randomized controlled trials | Vitamin D3 (immune system, falls prevention) – 48% covid risk reduction!? Based on 51 studies including 9 randomized controlled trials | Vitamin C (think of Linus Pauling) – 43% covid risk reduction when taken early!? Based on 23 studies, including 7 randomized controlled trials |
| Probiotics (think of Ilya Metchnikov) – 34% covid risk reduction when taken early!? Based on 12 studies, including 5 randomized controlled trials | Aspirin (baby dose aspirin may be good for health if taken during meals and only when at cardiovascular risk) – 19% covid risk reduction when taken early!? Based on 21 studies, including 1 randomized controlled trial | Metformin (good for people at risk of diabetes, together with B12; its benefits and the benefits of physical activity increasingly seem to neutralize each other) – 15% covid risk reduction!? Based on 7 studies, including 1 randomized controlled trial |
Of note -as the question then arises- REGARDING very much discussed potential covid treatments, the @CovidAnalysis team perform metaanalyses of various kinds about ivermectin (67% covid risk reduction when taken early!? Based on 64 studies, including 30 randomized controlled trials) and hydroxychloroquine (64% covid risk reduction when taken early!? Based on 294 studies). The concise discussion sections are particularly *interesting* scientifically, here and here. As indicated in preambule above, some places qualify the c19early.com website as misinformation; these interventions are particularly debated and therefore at risk of biases, so we do not position ourselves on the matter. Also, they are not known as probable anti-aging treatments.