Did You Try Patanjali Coronil? Is It Helpful to Fight the Coronavirus?

Recently, the attention towards alternative medicinal products has surged, with many seeking natural remedies to combat the coronavirus. One popular product, Patanjali Coronil, has gained significant traction in the Indian market. However, a critical analysis of its clinical trial reveals several red flags that question its efficacy and ethical practices.

Introduction to Patanjali Coronil

Patanjali Coronil has gained popularity due to its claims of preventing and treating coronavirus symptoms. However, a closer look at its development and supporting evidence reveals that its claims may not be backed by strong, scientifically validated data.

Conflict of Interest

One of the most significant issues in the clinical trial conducted by Patanjali is the conflict of interest. Acharya Balkrishna, who heads Patanjali and is one of the authors of the study, is also the company's chairman. Despite this key conflict of interest, the study fails to disclose any potential biases or conflicts of interest. This non-disclosure is a blatant lie and undermines the integrity of the research.

Insufficient Sample Size

The sample size in the clinical trial for Patanjali Coronil is alarmingly small, with only 45 individuals in the treatment group and 50 in the control group. Such a minimal number of participants is not adequate to draw meaningful conclusions or make clinical decisions. Moreover, the individuals included were only mildly symptomatic or asymptomatic, which means that many would likely recover without intervention, making the results less relevant.

Unreliable Outcome Measures

The outcome measures used in this clinical trial are also questionable. The study focuses on RT-PCR negativity on day 7 as a primary endpoint, which is problematic. Viral clearance rates depend on a combination of factors, including immune response, and not solely on a negative RT-PCR test. Additionally, the majority of complications and mortality occur in the second week, which means that negative test results on day 7 do not necessarily indicate that patients are cured. Mortality remains the primary concern, yet it was not a focus of this trial.

Unrepresentative Cohort and Gender Bias

The clinical trial sample consisted of a predominantly young cohort, with an average age of 33.4 years in the treatment group and 35.4 years in the control group. This sample does not accurately represent the general population, where the majority of severe cases and fatalities occur in the elderly. Furthermore, nearly 80% of the participants were male, which introduces a gender bias that may not reflect how the medication impacts both genders.

Statistical Significance and Data Interpretation

Statistical significance in the clinical trial was set at a P value of 0.05. Given the small sample size, a change of just 2-3 patients could affect the outcome of the study. A more significant improvement for reducing mortality rates with steroids has been reported with a P-value of 0.001. This inconsistency in how results are interpreted and presented calls into question the reliability of the data.

Discussion and Conclusion

The findings of the Patanjali Coronil clinical trial, while intriguing, are far from conclusive and require further validation through robust, independent studies. The large number of red flags identified in the study raise serious concerns about the methodology, ethical considerations, and scientific rigor. As an audience, it is essential to be discerning and rely on well-substantiated, evidence-based research when considering alternative treatments.

For those interested in analyzing the study further, a link to the clinical trial is provided below for your reference and critical examination:

Link to Clinical Trial