The NAD+ Long COVID Theory

Jonathan Edwards said:
This reads like a complete commercial pseudoscience set up. It is an advertisement is it not?
Real science does not come remotely like this. Can you imagine Anthony Fauci presenting things like this?
It might even be produced by a bot.
Click to expand...

I’m just putting out info for members to discuss and judge, not necessarily a believer or proponent of this theory.
 
Isn't this just an old recycled theory of what 'causes' ME, that didn't pan out.

Pretty sure I've seen it before, years ago, in the context of ME not long covid (as long covid is a 'new' thing)

Not all recycling is a good thing.
 
Wonko said:
Isn't this just an old recycled theory of what 'causes' ME, that didn't pan out.

Pretty sure I've seen it before, years ago, in the context of ME not long covid (as long covid is a 'new' thing)

Not all recycling is a good thing.
Click to expand...

I would agree and say there’s only one problem with the analogy, we do not generally know what treatments would’ve worked for many ME patients very early on in the illness, whereas LC patients are trialing things quite early on.

Not saying this would work, but it’s a big unknown as most pwME don’t start trialing treatments until later on in the disease course and the illness does appear to change over time. I know it could all be meaningless and nothing would work even early on but we just don’t know.
 
I would question whether this is a 'treatment' tho.

From my point of view, despite it having being proposed for 'a while' no one, other than those who make the stuff, or are employed by them, directly or indirectly, has even bothered to do any 'studies' on it.

It looks to me like long covid has come along, with lots of symptoms resembling those of ME, and some bright spark has come up with marketing it on that basis - despite it not having worked for thos symptoms in any reliable or predictable manner for their last little venture.

i.e. have treatment now what can we persuade people it's for.

I don't know of course, but that is my, unqualified, impression.
 
Jonathan Edwards said:
But is this really info, or just an advertisement? It is not as if it was a scientific paper.
Click to expand...

Just because something isn’t a scientific paper doesn’t necessarily mean it’s an advertisement. Papers are referenced in the YouTube video and OP article. Whether you think the way they try to tie the referenced papers to the theory is poor is another matter and that’s totally valid.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
From studies cited in the linked document first post:

Conclusions
This study, for the first time, revealed the niacin-associated molecular functions and pharmacological targets for treating CRC/COVID-19, as COVID-19 remains a serious pandemic. But the findings were not validated in actual CRC patients infected with COVID-19, so further investigation is needed to confirm the potential use of niacin for treating CRC/COVID-19.

https://academic.oup.com/bib/advance-article/doi/10.1093/bib/bbaa300/5964187

This was a letter to the editor:

As with most ecological studies, our study has several important limitations. The association between hair selenium and COVID-19cure rate that we note is based on city population selenium statusdata, mostly dating from 2011, although some data are considerably older. Furthermore, we were unable to collect city- or patient-level data for the following likely confounders: age and comorbidities such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, chronic respiratory disease,hypertension, and cancer (16). We also lack information on variation in medical facilities and therapy protocols (including the use of traditional Chinese medicine or anti-viral therapies). Clearly, we were not able to adjust for these possible confounders in the analysis.We are fully aware, therefore, that the association shown is far from being robust to criticisms of confounding. At best, it points towards the need for further research, particularly when viewed in the context of associations between selenium status and disease outcome found with other viruses (3,5–7). In due course, more individual-level data will emerge, and the association between the severity of COVID-19 and many factors, including selenium, can be explored.
Click to expand...

https://sci-hub.se/10.1093/ajcn/nqaa095

I don't have the capacity to look further with regard to cited papers.
 
As I noted elsewhere, most of these supplements were recommended to ME/CFS patients here in Australia in the late 1990s. I received my diagnosis in 1998 as well as assorted jars and bottles of this stuff in the same appointment. None of it worked for me (or for many others it seemed).

Everything old is new again.
 
Last edited:
leokitten said:
Just because something isn’t a scientific paper doesn’t necessarily mean it’s an advertisement.
Click to expand...

I didn't say that it looked like an advertisement because it wasn't scientific paper. It just looks like an advertisement. Somebody wants to sell an idea for whatever reason. Quite a lot of scientific papers are advertisements too.

With this sort of randomly jumbled connection of apparently biological ideas there is little point in attempting a critique because there is no substance to the claims all the way through.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom