Isoquercetin is 3-0 glucoside quercetin.
Nearly identical. The reason isoquercetin is used by the canadians is because the ec50 is slightly higher and the solubility is slightly higher. But to us this is negligible.
Quercetin has approx 1 to 2% oral bioavailability. So if you get an additional 10% its 1.1% or 2.2% max. You need too much of it to get an effect and as a result there are side effects.
Shield and defend uses quercetin niacin which we expect maybe 10x bioavailability min.
The version we are working on for a therapy or adjunct has a min of 20x increasenin bioavailability. So if its 1 we achieve 20.
If its 2 we see 40% bioavailability.
Why we don't use isoquercetin and do the same?
Quercetin is super easy to make and cheap as hell.
Isoquercetin is hard to make and 20x the price.
Our goal is to be able to offer the gov an option that can be easily and cheaply made, rapidly deployed, easily administered by the patient with no supervision or hospital, no injections, very low side effect profile and high user retention. Meaning people don't stop treatment due to hating injections or having to go to hospital etc.
For now isoquercetin is not the better choice.
I haven't even really been sure where to begin with this? The EC50 is slightly higher for isoquercetin? EC50 for what?
Simple research seems to indicate that Isoquercetin has about 5X the bioavailability of quercetin (which is what I think you meant with the EC50 - but that is not my definition of slightly more). Also, quercetin, as an aglycone, is converted to a number of other metabolites, including isoquercetin after it is absorbed. So even if you assume 50% conversion rate (which is high) - you would essentially need to increase the absorption of quercetin by 10-20X most likely just to be on par with isoquercetin.
And wait, you get side effects of something that isn't absorbed? What side effects? Because the listed sides of quercetin seem to be systemic - flushing, sweating, nausea, vomiting, difficulty breathing, tingling of the arms - most of which would require absorption from the gut? So if you take 1 gram and get 10 mg (your 1%) in your system - you will have less of those side effects than if you take 500 mg with 10X more absorption and get 50 mg in your system? I could agree if we were talking about the nausea, vomiting and GI sides. But what about the flushing, sweating, difficulty breathing, tingling, etc. And those sides are usually with injection, not oral, so even more indication it's the absorption that is the issue and not the "high unabsorbable dose".
Next up, you might be actually onto something - isoquercetin is hard to make and 20X the price. Quercetin is super easy to make (and source) and cheap as hell. Your "goal is to be able to offer the gov an option that can be cheaply made, rapidly deployed" - so why aren't you using straight quercetin? Oh yeah, because bioavailabiity. Right.
Since there is no supplier right now offering quercetin co-crystals as a stocked item and they would need to be custom manufactured for your product - which somehow you got done in less than a couple of weeks, kudos - it would require a significant change in manufacturing to source large amounts of these quercetin co-crystals. They aren't "cheap and readily available". But regular quercetin is. So, using your logic - you are not using the most tested, bioavailable source because you wanted to use something easier to manufacture so you went with a less tested, almost as difficult to source ingredient as the solution.
Further, it is interesting that when quercetin is questioned as having little data - you fall back on "these people think it is, so there's my proof" - but then when it is questioned why they are using isoquercetin and you are not - suddenly the sole group you are basing all your evidence on isn't good enough?
Also interesting - so now you're claiming outright that this is therapy? "The version we are working on for a therapy or adjunct"?
This is all very comical.
Notice the articles starting to pop up regarding quercetin as a treatment. That's not coincidence. Others are seeing what I see.
It isn't a coincidence - ONE source has been used to write multiple articles. There are no studies in Korea being done on this for Covid-19. There isn't even a study being done in China on this, per your original link. The group needs to raise funds to do it, they have just been offered access to 1000 patients. And since China is claiming they have control, other sources are saying the group may have to move the study back to Canada.
If I am wrong about ANY of this, post up some original sources showing there is an actual study under way, or that there is a single human trial for this being used as virucidal treatment.