The Ignored Treatments — Follow The Money

Treating SARS and COVID-19: Shared Threads and the Challenge of Proven Therapies

The SARS outbreak of 2002–2003 and the COVID-19 pandemic, both caused by coronaviruses, share striking similarities in their treatment approaches. From supportive care to managing inflammation and clotting, the lessons learned from SARS informed the fight against COVID-19. The MATH+ protocol, developed by the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), emphasizes low-cost, repurposed treatments like vitamin C, vitamin D, zinc, zinc ionophores (e.g., quercetin or ivermectin), and anticoagulants like heparin. While some of these therapies have proven effective, others face hurdles due to limited funding for rigorous testing. Let’s explore the overlap between SARS and COVID-19 treatments and why some promising options struggle to gain mainstream recognition.

The Common Ground: SARS and COVID-19

SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome), caused by SARS-CoV-1, infected about 8,500 people and was contained within a year. COVID-19, caused by SARS-CoV-2, became a global crisis, affecting millions. Both diseases cause fever, cough, and respiratory distress, often leading to severe inflammation and clotting complications. These shared traits led to similar treatment strategies, particularly in the use of supportive care, anticoagulants, and immune-supporting therapies, many of which are central to the MATH+ protocol for COVID-19.

Shared Treatment Strategies

Both SARS and COVID-19 rely on supportive care—oxygen therapy, mechanical ventilation for critical cases, and symptom management like fever control. But beyond the basics, specific treatments show overlap, especially when we look at the MATH+ protocol’s key components: anticoagulants, vitamin C, vitamin D, zinc, and zinc ionophores. Here’s what the evidence says about their effectiveness in both diseases.

Anticoagulants: A Proven Lifesaver

Blood clotting is a major issue in both SARS and COVID-19. During the SARS outbreak, clinicians in places like Hong Kong used heparin for severe cases with suspected coagulopathy, though limited data meant it wasn’t standardized. For COVID-19, the MATH+ protocol recommends heparin (e.g., enoxaparin) at prophylactic or therapeutic doses, based on patient risk and D-dimer levels. Large trials in 2021 showed heparin reduced mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients with clotting risks, making it a cornerstone of care. This shared use of anticoagulants highlights a critical strategy for both diseases: preventing deadly clots.

Vitamin C: Supporting the Immune System

Vitamin C (ascorbic acid) supports immune function and fights inflammation. In SARS, some hospitals used high-dose vitamin C experimentally, with anecdotal reports suggesting better outcomes, but no large trials were conducted due to the outbreak’s short duration. For COVID-19, MATH+ advocates high-dose intravenous vitamin C (1.5–3 grams every 6 hours) for hospitalized patients. A 2020 study in China showed improved oxygenation in critical cases, and observational data reported faster recovery in some patients. While large RCTs haven’t shown significant mortality benefits, vitamin C’s role in both diseases underscores its potential as a supportive therapy.

Vitamin D: Bolstering Defenses

Vitamin D wasn’t widely used for SARS, as its immune benefits were less understood in 2002–2003, but some clinicians tried it to support patients. For COVID-19, MATH+ recommends vitamin D3 (20,000–60,000 IU initially, then maintenance doses) to address deficiency, which is linked to worse outcomes. Observational studies from 2020–2021 found low vitamin D levels increased COVID-19 severity, and a 2020 Spanish trial suggested high doses reduced ICU admissions. Larger RCTs were less conclusive, but the focus on vitamin D in MATH+ echoes the early immune-support attempts in SARS.

Zinc and Ionophores: Targeting the Virus

Zinc can inhibit viral replication, but it wasn’t a focus for SARS due to limited research. For COVID-19, MATH+ includes zinc (75–100 mg daily) with a zinc ionophore like quercetin (500–1000 mg daily) or ivermectin (0.2–0.4 mg/kg daily) to enhance zinc’s antiviral effects. A 2010 in vitro study showed zinc with ionophores reduced coronavirus replication, and a 2020 case series using quercetin, zinc, and vitamin C reported improved lab markers. Large RCTs, like a 2021 zinc trial and ACTIV-6 for ivermectin, showed no clear benefit, but the concept builds on the same antiviral logic underexplored in SARS.

The Funding Hurdle: Why Promising Treatments Stall

Why haven’t all MATH+ components become standard? The answer lies in economics. Drugs like vitamin C, D, zinc, quercetin, and ivermectin are generic, off-patent, and dirt-cheap. Heparin, while more costly, is also generic. Unlike new drugs like remdesivir, which pharmaceutical companies fund heavily for trials to secure profits, these repurposed drugs offer little financial incentive for large-scale RCTs. Governments and academia rarely fill this gap, focusing instead on novel therapies. This leaves treatments with promising small studies—like a 2020 trial showing vitamin C’s benefits or clinical reports of MATH+ success—struggling to meet the RCT gold standard required by health authorities like the WHO or NIH.

For SARS, the outbreak ended too quickly for such hurdles to matter. For COVID-19, the lack of funding for rigorous testing of generics fuels frustration, as clinicians and patients see real-world benefits, especially in early treatment or resource-limited settings. The argument that these drugs “work in similar scenarios” (e.g., heparin in SARS, zinc’s antiviral history) resonates, but without big trials, mainstream adoption lags.

What Works and What’s Next

The similarities between SARS and COVID-19 treatments—anticoagulants for clotting, nutrients for immune support—show a shared focus on tackling inflammation and complications. Heparin is a proven success, saving lives in both diseases. Vitamin C, D, and zinc offer supportive benefits, especially for deficient patients or early treatment, backed by small studies and clinical experience. Zinc ionophores like quercetin or ivermectin have theoretical promise and some data, but inconsistent RCT results keep them controversial. The MATH+ protocol’s challenge reflects a broader issue: low-cost drugs rarely get the funding needed to prove their worth, despite their potential. As we learn from SARS and COVID-19, blending proven therapies with innovative, accessible options remains key to saving lives.

Have you seen these treatments in action or heard about their use? Share your thoughts in the comments, and let’s keep exploring what works!