“A Nutrient Mix Designed at the Dr. Rath Research Institute is Effective Against Different Types of Coronavirus.” With these words (and the picture below), the ‘Dr. Rath Research Institute’ recently announced its sensational finding on Twitter.
Clicking on the link they provided, got me to the following article:
In this new study we wanted to find out whether certain natural substances could help fight against SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19), and another type of coronavirus known as HCoV-229E which infects humans and is associated with the common cold and its symptoms.
The importance of the study relates to the fact that COVID-19 is still a big problem, especially for older people and those with weak immune systems. Current approaches using RNA- and DNA -based vaccines are not effective in preventing the infection and spread of SARS-CoV-2, or its variants such as Omicron. The anti-viral drugs used against the pandemic are similarly not fully effective. It is therefore important to develop other approaches, especially those involving safe, natural substances, that could be used alongside or instead of conventional treatments.
For the study, scientists at the Dr. Rath Research Institute used a combination of natural substances including vitamin C, polyphenols, and other nutrients. They gave the nutrient mix to mice infected with one or other of the two types of coronaviruses, to see if it could reduce the numbers of viral particles and spike proteins in the animals’ lungs.
Based on our earlier work using human cells growing in culture we already knew that the combination of nutrients in this mixture was effective in controlling key cellular mechanisms of SARS-CoV-2 infection, including inhibiting the multiplication of the virus.
We had found that the nutrient mix could inhibit an enzyme, RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp), which is needed for a virus to make copies of itself. The mix was also effective in preventing viral spike protein from binding to cell surfaces and entering cells. It additionally worked in decreasing the number of so-called ACE2 receptor proteins, which are expressed by cells in the lungs, blood vessels, and other organs, and that help the virus to get into cells.
In this latest study the nutrient mix was administered daily to mice infected with either SARS-CoV-2 or HCoV-229E, to see if it could reduce infectivity in terms of the amounts of viral particles and spike proteins found in the lungs. Infected mice in the control group were fed a normal diet without nutrient supplementation. The amounts of viral particles and spike proteins in the lungs were evaluated using special molecular-based tests. We also examined the effects of the nutrient mix on the presence of immune cells in the lungs, as an indication of tissue inflammation.
The results showed that, compared to mice in the control group, the nutrients significantly reduced the amounts of viral particles and spike proteins in the lungs of infected mice. Moreover, the mix was equally effective in mice infected with either of the two types of coronaviruses. This indicates that the nutrients affected common mechanisms of infection and were not specific to a particular type of virus. It also explains the results of our previous studies, which showed that the nutrient mix was effective in stopping SARS-CoV-2 and several of its mutated forms, including Omicron variants, from entering the cells.
Crucially, we found the nutrient mix affected not only the virus itself; it also reduced the ability of the virus to enter cells by decreasing the number of ACE2 receptors on cell surfaces. In the presence of inflammation, which is commonly associated with infections, there were similarly less ACE2 receptors on cells. Nutrient anti-inflammatory effects were also observed in the lung tissue of the mice.
In conclusion, our study showed that the nutrient mix could help reduce the infectivity of SARS-CoV-2 and the associated common cold virus HCoV-229E in mice at different stages of infectivity. The fact that different mechanisms were affected simultaneously demonstrates the superior efficacy of nutrients compared to drugs, the latter of which usually target only a single mechanism and allow the virus to escape by mutating.
The unique composition and efficacy of our nutrient mix has been awarded US and international patents. While more research is needed in order to fully confirm its efficacy in human clinical trials, the application of this safe micronutrient combination as soon as possible should ultimately benefit people worldwide and save on healthcare costs.
So, the claim that a Nutrient Mix is “Effective Against Different Types of Coronavirus” rests on some lousy experiments on rats?
Might we call this misleading or dishonest?
And what is the Dr. Rath Research Institute?
Could it belong to the Dr. Rath Foundation?
The very foundation that once published this about me:
Professor Edzard Ernst: A Career Built On Discrediting Natural Health Science?
Professor Edzard Ernst, a retired German physician and academic, has recently become a prominent advocate of plans that could potentially outlaw the entire profession of naturopathic doctors in Germany. Promoting the nonsensical idea that naturopathic medicine somehow poses a risk to public health, Ernst attacks its practitioners as supposedly having been educated in “nonsense”. Tellingly, however, given that he himself has seemingly not published even so much as one completely original scientific trial of his own, Ernst’s apparent attempts to discredit natural healthcare approaches are largely reliant instead on his analysis or review of handpicked negative studies carried out by others.
SAY NO MORE!
33 Responses to “A Nutrient Mix Designed is Effective Against Different Types of Coronavirus” TRUE OR FALSE?
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Nice to see that you’ve maintained pure objectivity…NOT!
And for the record, you have conducted your own research. I remember a study you did using a homeopathic medicine for varicose veins. But you don’t like to remember it because you showed a positive effect!
Oh, Dana!
You are hopeless
https://edzardernst.com/2015/07/professor-ernsts-very-own-positive-trial-of-homeopathy-oh-dear-have-i-been-found-out/
Congratulations for choosing to make-up your own personal definition of what is a homeopathic medicine…and what is so great about your definition is that it has no reference to a single state or governmental body that accepts or even suggests your definition as having any degree of legitamacy. Three cheers for you! You stand alone…with your feet firmly planted in mid-air. WooHoo! You are such a pioneer!
many thanks, Dana!
@Dana Ullman
There is no such thing as a ‘homeopathic medicine’. There are medicines, which have therapeutic effects for certain conditions and/or symptoms, and there are homeopathic preparations, which have no effect whatsoever, medicinal or otherwise.
Ah, you disagree? Well, then simply name just one homeopathic preparation 12C+ that has consistent, independently verifiable effects in any experiment that you may choose. So far, you failed to come up with just one such homeopathic preparation.
About what counts as a homeopathic preparation and what not: it is first and foremost homeopaths themselves who use no consistent definition; in their fantasy world, anything ranging from 100% water without any active ingredients to suspensions with clearly visible iron filings are called ‘homeopathic medicines’. In your nanobabble, you consider water contaminated with small metal particles to be homeopathic (hahaha) “medicine’ – even though you never contributed even a nanofraction of evidence that those metal nanoparticles have any effect at all(*).
So please enlighten us: what defines a homeopathic preparation? Is it diluting and shaking? Then a case can be made that virtually all real medicines could be considered homeopathic preparations. After all, most medicines contain diluted amounts of the active substance, and they inevitably have been subjected to a certain amount of shaking during manufacturing and transport.
*: Even the most potent chemical substances usually only start having effects in doses of micrograms or more. Only a few substances (e.g. botulin toxin) have clear effects in true nanodoses, i.e. a couple of dozen nanograms. Your ‘nanodoses’ don’t do anything.
Homeopathy may actually be of use, as a ’null’ reference.
https://www.jclinepi.com/article/S0895-4356(23)00010-0/fulltext
That reminds me of an example of a homeopath study that did almost everything wrong but showed that a medicine doesn’t work. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1550830705003794
The author’s conclusion was that the homeopathic ointment could replace diclofenac gel. I think this conclusion is actually correct as the medicine is equipotent to the ‘null’ 🤓 both are useless.
Mr. Ullman, you have not yet explained why you told a blatant and outrageous lie in this Blog, claiming to have “many times” named a laboratory that can distinguish homeopathic water from other water, when you haven’t done so once.
Now, you can STFU:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167732222010388
What a real pleasure it is to again show you that there is repeatable evidence from multiple and independent researchers that there IS a significant and sometimes substantially significant difference between a homeopathic medicine and a water control.
Now, I look forward to hearing about your new decision to study homeopathy (LOL). Actually, I know that your cogniative dissonance will never allow you to admit error…but hopefully, others who read this who are invested in being REAL SCIENTISTS will chose to “follow the science,” rather than you and your pseudo-scienetific attitude will ever allow.
Oh dear Dana
At the bottom of that piece of specious bumwash of a paper, what does it say?
Which hasn’t happened, has it.
And won’t.
A scientist would have noticed this. But you didn’t because you are an ideologically-blinded halfwit incapable of seeing beyond your own bias and not a scientist.
And if we look at the papers cited, what do we find?
And as we work through the others, there was no suggestion of blinding in any of them. Which means we can dismiss each and every one as an exercise in confirmation bias.
As ever, your ignorant flailings remain only as a source of amusement and you remain a pathetic, insignificant, lying clown.
Lenny Lenny Lenny…
Yes…I saw all of that…but please show me where I referenced the original Conte work. You can’t!
This work which has multiple independent replications (which you just happened to NOT quote!) was NOT dependent on the findings of Conte…and it stands separately from it.
Instead, you are simply showing your own super biased and ill-informed reading of this REVIEW of research that has repeated and independently relicated…but heck, I’m not interested what you think…but at least NOW, you cannot repeat your uninformed trope…you’re done.
Dana
How convenient for you that you failed to notice or mention the lack of blinding in each of the papers. This is because you’re happy to credulously swallow any garbage which appears to support your faith in the magic powers of shaken water. And having a bunch of fellow homeopathic loons corroborate your findings does NOT count as independent replication.
That piece of specious garbage will be ignored by science. It will gain attention from blinkered zealots like yourself but will obviously change nothing because you are an inconsequential, lying fool and nobody pays any heed to your empty words. Stamp and shout all you like, Dana. All anyone does is point and laugh.
Nitric acid? Why on earth would a homeopath be interested in it…
“STFU”? Classy response, not.
Mr. Ullman, please name a laboratory that can distinguish between homeopathic water and other water (sixty-sixth time of asking)
and
Please explain why you told an outrageous lie in this Blog, when you claimed to have done the above “many times” but you have not done so once.
So are you of the mind that anything can be called “homeopathic”, regardless of content and method of manufacture / compounding? Apparently you are, as in the Poikiven study, while the product was labeled “homeopathic”, it clearly was not, but was an herbal drug with actual contents.
If all things can be labeled “homeopathic”, where does it end? Will the fading group of homeopathics claim that ACE inhibitors and fluoroquinolone antibiotics are homeopathic, in order to have “proof” that “magic-based homoeopathy works”?
Please search the term “whataboutism”. That is what are doing independent of your other meaningless and scientifically wrong comments.
?? I can’t find any link to this mouse study that they refer to, or even an abstract. Did I overlook something?
The only reference I see is to a rather older in vitro study which does not exactly show spectacular results, as in: most ‘mixes’ tested appeared to have some effects – which usually doesn’t translate to any real effects in vivo. (Also notice the bio about the ‘Executive Director of the Dr. Rath Health Foundation’ at the bottom …)
I can’t say that I’m impressed, and it actually smells quite fishy to be honest. I wouldn’t be surprised if there isn’t any proper mouse study, and that this is just the usual promotion of quackery.
@Dana Ullman
Rath is a vitamin pill pusher who has contributed to the death of hundreds of thousands of South Africans by convincing the SA government to give HIV patients useless supplements instead of proven effective antiretroviral medicines. I wouldn’t trust this person to give me the time of day.
In addition, the man has tried to silence his critics with lawsuits instead of scientific arguments.
yes, DUllman is as predictable as he is hilarious.
My post was marked as ‘satire’ – but it only became truly satirical through DUllman’s contribution!
Not my thing but I think it’s reference 11.
https://akjournals.com/configurable/content/journals$002f1886$002faop$002farticle-10.1556-1886.2023.00010$002farticle-10.1556-1886.2023.00010.xml?t:ac=journals%24002f1886%24002faop%24002farticle-10.1556-1886.2023.00010%24002farticle-10.1556-1886.2023.00010.xml#B11
11. Goc A, Niedzwiecki A, Ivanov V, Ivanova S, Rath M. Inhibitory effects of specific combination of natural compounds against SARS-CoV-2 and its Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, Kappa, and Mu variants. Eur J Microbiol Immunol (Bp) 2022;11(4):87–94.
@DC
No, that’s the same in-vitro study that I already mentioned. There’s no mouse study to be found.
And digging a little deeper, I find that this is not the first time that these people make remarkable claims about ‘studies’ that aren’t proper studies at all.
For instance here they claim that a “Placebo-controlled clinical study documents that Vitamin C greatly reduces mortality in patients at life-threatening stage of COVID-19: Effective, safe, and readily available way to help control the global pandemic” – but when you click the actual link, you end up with a laughably weak (only 56 patients) pilot trial that was never followed up, not a solid, peer-reviewed study.
The words ‘liars’ and ‘quacks’ come to mind …
My 81-year-old father also believed in the hocopocus of Dr. Rath for 5 years, that he put off the visit to the orthopedist because of his knee arthrosis until the operation was canceled due to a Covid infection and 3 weeks later he suffered a heart attack and a 3- vascular disease was diagnosed.
That’s the result of walking on the empty promises of a Dr.Rath listens to his son, who was financed to study medicine and not trained as a marketing specialist or barker.
It is to despair!
And my wife, family doctor, eats “joint food” that she is given by the company “Dr. Loges”. This advertises “rediscover naturopathy”.
🙈 🙈 🙈
The fatal flaw in the study is not the use of mice, but the use of “engineered SARS-CoV-2 virions”. Instead of real SARS-CoV-2, the study uses a modified vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV). The Materials & Methods in the publication (doi: 10.1556/1886.2023.00010) describes rVSVΔG-SARS-CoV-2-S-D614Gd21-NLucP as “a recombinant vesicular stomatitis virus, in which the native glycoprotein has been replaced with the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein lacking the last 21 residues of the cytoplasmic tail and contains the D614G amino acid change (SMet1D614GΔ21)”
Despite Rath’s claim (cited in Dr. Ernst’s post): “that the combination of nutrients in this mixture was effective in controlling key cellular mechanisms of SARS-CoV-2 infection, including inhibiting the multiplication of the virus”, the study wasn’t designed to measure SARS-CoV-2 replication. Again, the Materials & Methods state that recombinant VSV “virus is capable of interacting and entering cells through the SARS-CoV-2 spike, but once fusion occurs, it replicates using the vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV) machinery.” You can’t measure SARS-CoV-2 replication when there’s no SARS-CoV-2 to replicate.
@DAC
Interesting – so we’re talking about this study: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371177136_Phytochemicals_and_micronutrients_in_suppressing_infectivity_caused_by_SARS-CoV-2_virions_and_seasonal_coronavirus_HCoV-229E_in_vivo
Did I overlook the link somehow?
And yes, it seems pretty obvious that measuring VSV replication in mice says nothing about coronaviruses in humans. The effect size found also seems rather modest, to put it politely.
“Did I overlook the link somehow?”
Yes. DAC provided the document’s digital object identifier (DOI):
doi: 10.1556/1886.2023.00010
To retrieve the above document using its DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1556/1886.2023.00010
Hey Lenny…Please tell us what the IMPACT FACTOR of that journal is…you know, the Journal of Molecular Liquird, which just published an article that is a review of research with MULTIPLE (!) independent replications.
Please tell us…oh, let me tell you: 6.61! Thank you…we’re done here.
Hey Dana …Please tell us what the IMPACT FACTOR of that journal is https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16165225/ …you know, the ‘Trends Pharmacol Sci’ which published my review of homeopathy.
Please tell us…oh, let me tell you: 17.6! Thank you…we’re done here.
We’re not done here, Mr. Ullman.
You haven’t: 1) Named a laboratory that can distinguish homeopathic water from other water, and 2) explained why you told an outrageous lie in the Blog by claiming to have done so.
If you can now answer these two questions, and do so without recourse to swear-words, however abbreviated, that may be appreciated.
Sixty-seventh time of asking number 1).
Hey Dana.. Please tell us who’s taken any notice of it?
And, no. The supposed replications were NOT independent. And neither were they blinded. It’s another piece of insignificant, fatuous garbage produced by ideological zealots who wouldn’t recognise decent science if it but them on the arse.
It is of no significance. Like you.
Now.
Name that laboratory, shithead. You’re a lying, bluffing idiot.
Bluffer! You have just verified that you didn’t read the article.
You’re a total joke. I’m done with YOU! You made this too easy…
And it is so sweet to see Ernst brag about an article that he wrote for a high impact journal…it would be better if an article in a high impact journal conducted a real study…he didn’t (needless to say).
“it would be better if an article in a high impact journal conducted a real study”
Ontological confusion rears its ugly head, again. Two previous examples:
@Dana Ullman
Have YOU read the full article?
The problem here is that there is just the abstract plus a few snippets of text, so all we can do is take Demangeat – a True Believer in homeopathy for several decades – at his word. This also means that it is unclear which 5 NMR studies he refers to. Maybe you can shed some more light at this? From what I see, Also, at least two of those ‘independent’ studies were in fact carried out by Demangeat himself. And Lenny does have a point that no mention is made of blinding anywhere. Then of course there is the question how many studies/experiments in total were reviewed in order to find the 5 positive ones mentioned. If we’re talking about hundreds of studies, then those few positive results were most likely statistical flukes.
Then there are questions about the NMR experiments themselves: what was the observed effect size? (My guess: tiny, as in almost all homeopathic experiments). What equipment was used? And what is this reference to a frequency from 0.02 to 600 MHz? This latter sounds highly suspicious; what physical phenomenon produces consistent measurements over a frequency range covering more than three decades? It can’t be the Larmor frequency of hydrogen nuclei, which typically starts at a couple of MHz for weaker NMR magnetic fields.
So no, I don’t think this one review abstract is convincing evidence at all for the viability of homeopathy. Only when other, independent scientists (including non-believers) can repeat these results and reliably tell homeopathically diluted shaken water apart from plain shaken water, might there be a reason for further investigation.
Mr Ullman,
Please name a laboratory that can distinguish homeopathic water from other water (sixty-eighth time of asking).
Please explain why in this Blog you told an outrageous lie, in claiming that you have done the above “many times” when you haven’t done so once.
No, Dana. You’ve just shown that you haven’t. Or, if you did, you didn’t understand it. Which is likely given that you are scientifically-ignorant goon.
I pointed out where the problems were. You were unable to disprove those facts so, as ever, you splutter and stamp and call names because you’re a bluffing, lying, grifting, mendacious idiot. Your lack of consequence is always amusing to document.