Here's an excerpt from a paper published in "Journal of Inflammation Research" by Dove Press for a popular and controversial herbal supplement from India:

Coronil effectively inhibited the interaction of ACE-2 not only with the wild-type S protein (SWT) but also with its currently prevalent and more infectious variant (SD614G) and another mutant (SW436R) with significantly higher affinity toward ACE-2

Now assuming what the paper says is true, the herbal drug is mediating the interaction between spike protien and host cells.

In vaccination, the spike proteins are introduced to body through various methods, so that the immune system can interact with it and familiarize itself with the spike protein before hand.

But if the herbal drug, as claimed, reduces the interaction of spike protein itself, then is it a possibility that the drug can interfere in the efficacy of vaccine?

  • 1
    Wow. Excellent question. Upvoted. How popular is this supplement (hundreds of thousands of people taking it? millions taking it? hundreds of millions? over a billion?)? Also, I'm trying to learn more about the journal "Journal of Inflammation Research". Is it generally considered a quality and respected journal? Apr 30 at 2:35
  • @RockPapaerLz-MaskitorCasket Thank you. Its extremely popular. I'm not sure about the Journal of Inflammation Research. Apr 30 at 4:05
  • You're welcome. This certainly seems like a topic very worthy of research, especially given the current COVID-19 pandemic. Apr 30 at 6:12
  • I don't know anything about Coronil, but a quick search indicates it is likely an Ayurvedic substance. Following that lead, the English Wikipedia states "The theory and practice of Ayurveda is pseudoscientific.[3][4][5] The Indian Medical Association (IMA) characterises the practice of modern medicine by Ayurvedic practitioners as quackery.[6] Ayurveda is heavily practiced in India and Nepal, where around 80% of the population report using it." (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayurveda). It's concerning/fascinating that 80% of populations would use something deemed as "quackery". (continued...) Apr 30 at 6:32
  • 3
    @RockPaperLz Concerning perhaps, but not too surprising. Non-evidence-based practices, especially religious ones, are quite common all around. Everyone likes easy fixes and people selling them like making money. It takes a lot of regulatory effort to suppress them, and even in places with fairly strong controls over pharmaceuticals there are less regulated parts of the market where charlatans thrive. Apr 30 at 14:44

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.