Vaxxers read this. Link provided
- Thread starter ellal
- Start date
Sponsored Links
Domestos? I'd better get some in before there’s a shortage. 
Hydroxycholoroquine? Bleach? No, they haven't.
Regeneron, which you probably are talking about was experimental and so was discussed as not necessarily a good idea but I don't think anyone said he was a lunatic for that. Unethical because he got access to a drug that wasn't available to others, yes.
It was a gamble, that it paid off doesn't mean it was a wise gamble to take, or that gambling on something else just because it hasn't been approved yet is automatically a goo idea.
see there you go did he mention bleach in any way nope try listening to the actual speech bit like straight away people laughing when he said about using light .Then people pointed out that light is used to treat various health conditions including cancer
Sponsored Links
Yeah, the light thing was even worse. Also not approved on the NHS.
you do realise UV light is being used to kill the corona virus in various situations
https://www.ajicjournal.org/article/S0196-6553(20)30756-2/fulltext
And if you actually listened to the interview he was asking if it was possible
- Joined
- 22 Aug 2006
- Messages
- 5,854
- Reaction score
- 718
- Country
Have another look JohnD, you're being silly. Humans have been taking it 40 years - check Wikipedia. The link I gave provided a map of cell biology which nobody in this forum is likely to have been familiar with until covid came along. If you dig into it you'll find commonalities between why it's useful in different applications.
It's no way an anti-vaxxer drug. but a useful-looking thing for those countries where 90+% of the population can't get a vaccine.
So is bleach. Bleach is excellent at killing germs and viruses. He asked if we could bring the light inside the body. Sticking a UV light up your rectum is unlikely to cure Covid. Bathing under a UV light strong enough to decontaminate your skin is likely to give you sunburn.
Irradiating a person internally to kill off a virus is completely different to UV sterilisation of objects or surfaces. We call that X Ray, nuclear therapy or perhaps just Chernobyl. It's also completely different to treatment of cancers.
UV light is absorbed by the skin at a very shallow depth. It can't penetrate. To penetrate you need a higher frequency, which is where we start leaving UV and getting to X-rays. They can kill viruses too, but just like bleach and UV light they can be very bad for you.
- Joined
- 22 Aug 2006
- Messages
- 5,854
- Reaction score
- 718
- Country
Some of them are not in those categories, have a look... The link I gave provides details of a lot of trials.
At leasty some of the people doing trials with it in hospitals would have reported problems as well as successes. Perhaps you'd like to cite them.
Are you making that up?
What's your evidence?
Sure, so you test. You see it work, you use it if it's all you have. Several drugs which would be nice to have aren't available in many countries.
Hydroxycholoroquine was used early on - ask Tom Hanks, it made him ill. Nobody much said it was working well so it's dropped. That has no bearing.
No-one is suggesting that IVM is a "cure" either. Paracetamol is used as an anti-inflammatory, it's one of its effects.
In that it's the same as IVM.
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2007
- Messages
- 17,155
- Reaction score
- 2,398
- Country
Yes, for disinfection.
From your link "We demonstrated that SARS-CoV-2, even at high viral titers, could be inactivated rapidly by UVC irradiation, revealing that this method is reliable not only for disinfection purposes in health care facilities but also for preparing inactivated SARS-CoV-2 material for research."
- Joined
- 22 Aug 2006
- Messages
- 5,854
- Reaction score
- 718
- Country
Short wavelength UV is good for killing virions, and bacteria, because it has powerful photons, which do not penetrate the skin at all - even the moisture layer on the front of your eye. EMitters aren't particularly cheap/easy but I expect we'll see a lot more of it..
Yes, the Together Trial was hospital based (so not prophylactic). They dropped it because it showed no benefit.
I don't have time to read through 60+ trials. Together might have encountered negative side effects, when they publish full results on the Ivermectin arm it'll be worth a read
Your link, or an ivermectin site that was linked from it.
It is completely relevant. There were a large number of small low grade studies that showed potential. That's exactly how it should be done. Then it went up to the well designed, funded and scaled studies that showed Hydroxycholoroquine caused more harm than good. It killed people in the trials, thankfully not many because they were well run, but it was worse than nothing.
So far we have a number of small low grade studies showing potential, and at least one large well designed study showing no benefit for ivermectin.
You might not be, but people are. Paracetamol is not an anti inflammatory. Seriously, come on.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11307652/#:~:text=Paracetamol has potent antipyretic and,but no anti-inflammatory effect.
How do you feel about dexamethasone?
I doubt it. It's more expensive than bleach and surface contamination is a tiny part of Covid transmission. The major method of transmission is airborne. Unless you had UV walls between people it's not going to help, and the Ozone it produces would make that dangerous.
Where they are being used it's not to use UV to kill the virus, but to generate Ozone. The science fiction trope of having UV lights to sterilise you is mostly myth.
https://nation.cymru/opinion/why-we...e-dangerous-disinfection-machines-in-schools/
If you flip a coin enough times, you will eventually get ten heads in a row.
If you disregard all the others, and your biggest run of heads was a fake, you can convince yourself that you have the knack.
Your link has no value.
It starts out by saying "maybe we should look at existing drugs to see if any of them work" and it ends by saying the same thing.
"repurposing of approved drugs such as Ivermectin could be worthy of attention"
"repurposing of approved drugs such as Ivermectin could be worthy of attention."
Just some numbskull hoping to get his number of published papers up with a bit of copy and paste work.
And here are you, recommending horse-worming tablets.
Sponsored Links
