Oral administration of D-glucosamine confers broad-spectrum protection against human coronaviruses including SARS-CoV-2
Qi et al. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41392-023-01483-8
These results suggest that GlcN effectively inhibits SARS-CoV-2 replication and infection in vitro…
Overall, our work demonstrated that GlcN shows potential efficacy against multiple HCoVs including SARS-CoV-2, 229E and OC43 in both cell-based and mouse infection model. GlcN has been clinically applied for the treatment of osteoarthritis for more than 50 years. As a nutrient supplement, orally administrated GlcN at daily-doses ranging from 750 to 3500 mg is well tolerated in human subjects. Given the safety profile and its broad-spectrum anti-HCoVs activity, GlcN may serve as a promising drug for preventing the spread of SARS-CoV-2 and its emerging variants in healthy populations.
I didn’t read beyond “Dear Editor”…other than to note that the letter pertained to rodent research (not even an animal model that’s been implicated in zoonotic diseasetransmission, right?). In a letter to a journal, you’re not even reading a document that’s undergone so much as rudimentary peer review…as in, it’s not even a pre-print of a study. It’s a letter. Not worth taking note of. Probably why it’s a “letter” as opposed to an actual publication…and probably destined to remain that way.
No idea on the supernova. So far out of my sphere of knowledge, I’d probably make a similar gaffe if I allowed myself an opinion. Mind, at least I know enough to know.
Neither is it common practice to publicise meaningful research in a letter to the editor…unless it’s been rejected by multiple journals for actual publication and the authors are seriously desperate to get their names in print.
Let me rephrase my original question…did you read the letter in full and understand what you were reading? I noted multiple abbreviations and acronyms in the first 2 paragraphs… sufficient to alert me that, all else aside, it was such a deep dive into molecular biology and virology that it was way above my pay grade. So far above, in fact, that pretending to any sort of interest/ability to understand would be, well … pretentious…and that reading it “purely for interest” might have the potential to leave a little skid mark of bamboozlement BS behind.
Oh, well that’s a good point. There have been plenty of instances where folk post nonsense here that even I can spot…along with stuff I can’t. Whether or not their knowledge base includes formal training in economics, there are enough board members who’re willing and able to point out errors of fact, poor inference drawing and plain old nitwittery to keep me on my toes about who to “listen” to and the others. It’s only fair that I reciprocate in some small way.