Vitamin C, Zinc, or Both For COVID-19: A Randomized Trial

A well-conducted study doesn’t support supplementation.

Wouldn’t it be nice if there was a treatment for COVID-19 that was safe, effective, cheap, and out of the control of faceless pharma executives beholden more to shareholders than to patients? The dream of such a magic bullet has led to a number of similar claims that a given drug, or supplement in some cases, has dramatic effects against COVID-19. We saw it first with hydroxychloroquine, but similar hype surrounded Vitamin D, ivermectin, melatonin, Vitamin C, and of course Zinc.

What made the claims so compelling were two things: one, a dose of biologic plausibility — biologists could argue that there was some underlying reason why a given vitamin would help — usually citing beneficial effects on immune function or a reduction in inflammatory cytokines. But more than that, these drugs had something of an underdog story. These unassuming agents, with us for decades — or longer — could become our most powerful ally against this scourge of a virus. Preliminary data was often breathlessly hyped — but, as I pointed out in regards to Vitamin D — we’d been burned before. Many of us wanted to see the randomized trials before we committed to any of these potential cures.