magic drugs against covid-19?

chemgeek said:
Wow. That's really a stretch, kind of like throwing spaghetti against the wall to see if it sticks. Ivermectin targets chloride channels in parasitic worm nervous systems. So I guess if it doesn't help your Covid, you'll get a good deworming. This is a macrocyclic lactone with no known viral target. Scratching my head why they thought it might be an effective antiviral.

I wish the medical folks would put on their chemistry and molecular biology hats and prioritize existing drugs and derivatives that actually have viral targets, like proteases and RNA polymerases. Or aptamers that interfere with cell binding. The "spaghetti" approach at best will identify drugs with weak, partially useful side effects.
Click to expand...
I suspect they are going through the papers that came out from the last SARS epidemic in China, and tried those compounds again. The cloroquines, for example, showed some weak activity back then, and they tested them again for this version of coronavirus, again showing weak activity. China was running trials a little before the French, and concluding chloroquines weren't so good about the same time our president brought them up. I think the only reason they pushed forward was that were were medicines, and figured "what do you have to lose?" During the last SARS, they just ran high-throughput screening on everything, then stopped work after that one ended. I, too, was wondering about some of these compounds until I saw they showed up when SARS was a problem.
 
chemgeek said:
Wow. That's really a stretch, kind of like throwing spaghetti against the wall to see if it sticks. Ivermectin targets chloride channels in parasitic worm nervous systems. So I guess if it doesn't help your Covid, you'll get a good deworming. This is a macrocyclic lactone with no known viral target. Scratching my head why they thought it might be an effective antiviral.

I wish the medical folks would put on their chemistry and molecular biology hats and prioritize existing drugs and derivatives that actually have viral targets, like proteases and RNA polymerases. Or aptamers that interfere with cell binding. The "spaghetti" approach at best will identify drugs with weak, partially useful side effects.
Click to expand...
The vet gives my dog ivermectin on occasion. We don’t share.
 
Huckster79 said:
Will ther be any FAA issues ingesting, inhaling or injecting disinfectants?

asking for a friend...
Click to expand...
Lemme tell ya....I’ve been using Clorox bathroom cleaner for years...trust me, if you’re not careful, the fumes definitely get inhaled.
 
To be clear, there was no mention what so ever of injecting household cleaners into the body. That was a twist the media put onto it (imagine that). It was stated as a query for the doctors to see if there was any medical injection that could treat the virus in a similar way, obviously before we get a stable vaccine. Funny thing is, one of the ideas mentioned that was totally blasted actually exists and has been developed by Cedars-Sinai, but the media never mentions it. DO YOUR RESEARCH!

https://aytubio.com/healight/
 
Ryanb said:
To be clear, there was no mention what so ever of injecting household cleaners into the body. That was a twist the media put onto it (imagine that). It was stated as a query for the doctors to see if there was any medical injection that could treat the virus in a similar way, obviously before we get a stable vaccine. Funny thing is, one of the ideas mentioned that was totally blasted actually exists and has been developed by Cedars-Sinai, but the media never mentions it. DO YOUR RESEARCH!

https://aytubio.com/healight/
Click to expand...

"I see the disinfectant that knocks it out in a minute, one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside or almost a cleaning?"

Draw your own conclusions.
 
Ryanb said:
To be clear, there was no mention what so ever of injecting household cleaners into the body. That was a twist the media put onto it (imagine that). It was stated as a query for the doctors to see if there was any medical injection that could treat the virus in a similar way, obviously before we get a stable vaccine. Funny thing is, one of the ideas mentioned that was totally blasted actually exists and has been developed by Cedars-Sinai, but the media never mentions it. DO YOUR RESEARCH!

https://aytubio.com/healight/
Click to expand...
Ryan- I saw the briefing. I saw and heard the president myself, during the briefing, not the "re-runs". I suppose the media altered it in real time? He certainly did mention injections in the context of disinfectants.
The link mentions use as an antimicrobial, not an anti-viral. The actual work was only presented as a poster (https://www.ueg.eu/education/docume...ive-and-safe-anti-microbial-treatment/208958/ ), not as a peer-reviewed paper. It's going to be difficult to do such an "UV endoscopy" in the lungs, with multiple branching in the lungs, as compared to the intestinal system which is normally a one-way system without branches.
 
Chip Sylverne said:
"I see the disinfectant that knocks it out in a minute, one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside or almost a cleaning?"

Draw your own conclusions.
Click to expand...
Ok, I will. Off the cuff, with the knowledge that there are ways of neutralizing the virus in a very short amount of time externally, the President asked if there was a way to neutralize it internally just as rapidly. PERIOD. "Is there a way?" He was also extremely clear about the absolute necessity of consulting with your doctor about ANY treatment and always has been. The entire exchange was soooo much more than that little snippet you provided, but even if it weren't, only an idiot would take even that single excerpt quote and equate it with the suggestion to ingest Lysol or Clorox.

Drawing your own conclusions based upon getting accurate information instead of relying on media misrepresentations is, indeed, an excellent idea.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
Ryan- I saw the briefing. I saw and heard the president myself, during the briefing, not the "re-runs". I suppose the media altered it in real time? He certainly did mention injections in the context of disinfectants.
The link mentions use as an antimicrobial, not an anti-viral. The actual work was only presented as a poster (https://www.ueg.eu/education/docume...ive-and-safe-anti-microbial-treatment/208958/ ), not as a peer-reviewed paper. It's going to be difficult to do such an "UV endoscopy" in the lungs, with multiple branching in the lungs, as compared to the intestinal system which is normally a one-way system without branches.
Click to expand...
I saw the briefing in real time too. To be clear, I’m not saying he didn’t mention injections in the context of disinfectants. I said he did NOT mention injecting household disinfectants...that was a twist by the MSM and their minions who just lap it up. In just about every vaccination, there’s various disinfecting agents present like formaldehyde and a slew of others, so it’s not some new phenomenon.

I think it’s important to note that just because an idea is mentioned, doesn’t mean it will work. Maybe it will or maybe it won’t, but until it’s tested you don’t know, and it doesn’t hurt anything to mention a theory and look into it. Every vaccine and medication on the market today was developed through trial and error.
 
Last edited:
Ryanb said:
I saw the briefing in real time too. To be clear, I’m not saying he didn’t mention injections in the context of disinfectants. I said he did NOT mention injecting household disinfectants...that was a twist by the MSM and their minions who just lap it up. In just about every vaccination, there’s various disinfecting agents present like formaldehyde and a slew of others, so it’s not some new phenomenon.
Click to expand...
Then he needs to speak better, more clearly. I know what I heard without "MSM" or anyone else interpreting it for me. As for formaldehyde, and other disinfectants, those are present, at most, in very low quantities, not at the levels the president suggested be used for injection.

https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-...ogics/common-ingredients-us-licensed-vaccines
"Formaldehyde is diluted during the vaccine manufacturing process, but residual quantities of formaldehyde may be found in some current vaccines. The amount of formaldehyde present in some vaccines is so small compared to the concentration that occurs naturally in the body that it does not pose a safety concern.

Formaldehyde is also produced naturally in the human body as a part of normal functions of the body to produce energy and build the basic materials needed for important life processes. This includes making amino acids, which are the building blocks of proteins that the body needs.
"
 
Cap'n Jack said:
Then he needs to speak better, more clearly. I know what I heard without "MSM" or anyone else interpreting it for me. As for formaldehyde, and other disinfectants, those are present, at most, in very low quantities, not at the levels the president suggested be used for injection.
....
"
Click to expand...
OK, I'll bite. At what levels did you hear the President suggest household cleaners should be injected? I can agree that his prose is far from being efficient, polished, and genteel, but that doesn't excuse deliberate misinterpretations of what he says.

If we're going to play "Fun with Semantics!," we use the phrase "infected with the COVID virus." We want to remove that infection....and any other harmful infections.. from our bodies. I.e., we want to disinfect ourselves. Virtually anything we use to make that happen could be considered a "disinfectant," ...an antiviral, an antibiotic...whatever...they are all disinfectants of some kind. Now, please, show me again the quote where President Trump said injecting household cleaners was a good idea.

I just removed a paragraph I had written countering the pervasive anti-Trump bias in many posts here. The mods have done a great job in a very difficult situation, and I donxt want to further add to their burden. Regardless of where you fall politically, please have the same courtesy.
 
In today’s rapid news cycle, and divise culture, I don’t want off-the-cuff, adlibs regarding medical or national security from anyone, regardless of voting preference. Those types of comments are only appropriate in private discussions, not nationally televised briefings or interviews.

And yes, we all know, there really are foolish, even stupid people out there. Tide pod challenge anyone?
 
MuseChaser said:
OK, I'll bite. At what levels did you hear the President suggest household cleaners should be injected? I can agree that his prose is far from being efficient, polished, and genteel, but that doesn't excuse deliberate misinterpretations of what he says.

If we're going to play "Fun with Semantics!," we use the phrase "infected with the COVID virus." We want to remove that infection....and any other harmful infections.. from our bodies. I.e., we want to disinfect ourselves. Virtually anything we use to make that happen could be considered a "disinfectant," ...an antiviral, an antibiotic...whatever...they are all disinfectants of some kind. Now, please, show me again the quote where President Trump said injecting household cleaners was a good idea.

I just removed a paragraph I had written countering the pervasive anti-Trump bias in many posts here. The mods have done a great job in a very difficult situation, and I donxt want to further add to their burden. Regardless of where you fall politically, please have the same courtesy.
Click to expand...
See post 48.
As for "disinfectant", see: https://www.cdc.gov/oralhealth/infectioncontrol/glossary.htm
"Disinfectant: a chemical agent used on inanimate objects (i.e., nonliving) (e.g., floors, walls, sinks) to destroy virtually all recognized pathogenic microorganisms, but not necessarily all microbial forms (e.g., bacterial endospores). The EPA groups disinfectants on whether the product label claims “limited,” “general” or “hospital” disinfectant"

The other things you mentioned are far more specific in nature and are intended for use on a living organism rather than an inanimate object. Bleach is a disinfectant while hydroxychloroquine is not.

Feel free to report the thread and posts.
 
murphey said:
In today’s rapid news cycle, and divise culture, I don’t want off-the-cuff, adlibs regarding medical or national security from anyone, regardless of voting preference. Those types of comments are only appropriate in private discussions, not nationally televised briefings or interviews.

And yes, we all know, there really are foolish, even stupid people out there. Tide pod challenge anyone?
Click to expand...

The briefings are live, the questions are not given to the President and other participating officials ahead of time, and the answers are not prepared, meaning written ahead of time. I did use the term, "off the cuff," which can have a slight negative connotation indicating a degree of carefree attitude or with lack of forethought. I meant to convey the reality that he was speaking on the spot, in real time, improvising what he was trying to say in real time. If you took "off the cuff" as meaning "without care, regard, or preparation," then I would agree with you...I don't want to hear any official speak that way either. That's not what I meant to convey.

We've had a recent President or two previously who weren't exactly wonderful without a prepared speech on a teleprompter, and a current presidential candidate who isnt exactly a stunning example of consistent vocal clarity. Perhaps we'd all be better served by attempting to understand what speakers are truly trying to say rather than play "gotcha" by using every possible misinterpretation against those we've decided to hate. For instance, although you included people eating Tide pods in this discussion, I doubt very much you meant to indicate that President Trump was responsible for that. Yet, someone could erroneously draw that conclusion, especially if they already wished to,
 
I found what appears to be a complete recording of the press conference. The remarks that are the subject of this controversy start at about the 32:23 mark.

 
Last edited:
Cap'n Jack said:
See post 48.
As for "disinfectant", see: https://www.cdc.gov/oralhealth/infectioncontrol/glossary.htm
"Disinfectant: a chemical agent used on inanimate objects (i.e., nonliving) (e.g., floors, walls, sinks) to destroy virtually all recognized pathogenic microorganisms, but not necessarily all microbial forms (e.g., bacterial endospores). The EPA groups disinfectants on whether the product label claims “limited,” “general” or “hospital” disinfectant"

The other things you mentioned are far more specific in nature and are intended for use on a living organism rather than an inanimate object. Bleach is a disinfectant while hydroxychloroquine is not.

Feel free to report the thread and posts.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply. I'm aware of the clinical differences in those definitions, and you are of course correct in that post. Words are not relegated solely to their clinical, or even proper, usage. One of my pet-peeves as a musician is the way the term "tone-deaf" has become co-opted to mean something it doesn't, but the general populace doesn't know any better. I'd wager that, to many people, a "disinfectant" is something that removes an infectant...something that causes an infection. Again, going back to the briefing quote in question, there really isn't any way an unbiased mind could hear or read that and think, "He just said we should try intravenous Clorox." You just can't. The media suggested that's what he meant, and it caught like wildfire.
 
MuseChaser said:
The briefings are live, the questions are not given to the President and other participating officials ahead of time, and the answers are not prepared, meaning written ahead of time. I did use the term, "off the cuff," which can have a slight negative connotation indicating a degree of carefree attitude or with lack of forethought. I meant to convey the reality that he was speaking on the spot, in real time, improvising what he was trying to say in real time. If you took "off the cuff" as meaning "without care, regard, or preparation," then I would agree with you...I don't want to hear any official speak that way either. That's not what I meant to convey.

We've had a recent President or two previously who weren't exactly wonderful without a prepared speech on a teleprompter, and a current presidential candidate who isnt exactly a stunning example of consistent vocal clarity. Perhaps we'd all be better served by attempting to understand what speakers are truly trying to say rather than play "gotcha" by using every possible misinterpretation against those we've decided to hate. For instance, although you included people eating Tide pods in this discussion, I doubt very much you meant to indicate that President Trump was responsible for that. Yet, someone could erroneously draw that conclusion, especially if they already wished to,
Click to expand...
Same argument here....you assumed I referred to the recent briefing at the White House. My remarks can be attributed to a number of people being interviewed in the national media. If I start to name any, I’ll be banned.

But it might be worth it.

Let me simplify my comment. When I’m teaching, or when I’m briefing O6 and higher, if a question is asked of me, it’s absolutely my responsibility to say “I’m not sure, will look into it and get back to you [later today or whenever] “
 
To put an aviation spin on this, I liken it to a a group of pilots sitting around jawboning about " wouldn't it be cool if we could bolt a J47 to a Cherokee. In reality, not gonna happen and all but the most naive in aviation and engineering know that. But in the right circumstances a conversation that could be had even if not grounded in reality.

However, if the company was headed for disaster it would be pretty disturbing and raise legitimate questions of judgement to hear the CEO of Piper discuss the possibility in a serious context.

Just my take.
 
murphey said:
Same argument here....you assumed I referred to the recent briefing at the White House. My remarks can be attributed to a number of people being interviewed in the national media. If I start to name any, I’ll be banned.

But it might be worth it.

Let me simplify my comment. When I’m teaching, or when I’m briefing O6 and higher, if a question is asked of me, it’s absolutely my responsibility to say “I’m not sure, will look into it and get back to you [later today or whenever] “
Click to expand...
I agree, and thank you. I taught public school for 31 years and at several universities, too, and you're absolutely correct about the need to say, "I'm not sure...I'll look into it and get back to you." Strangely enough, the very next statement President Trump made immediately after the out-of-context quote was, "It would be interesting to check that...we're going to have to use medical doctors..." which is simply saying "will look jnto it and get back to you," is it not?
 
A few years ago a nicely-dressed feller on TV told me there were 57 states, despite everything I'd been taught otherwise. However, common sense and subsequent research proved there are 50 states. I didn't hold it against the guy for making such a blunder. It happens to everyone, even to fellers wearing spiffy suits on TV.
 
MuseChaser said:
Thanks for the reply. I'm aware of the clinical differences in those definitions, and you are of course correct in that post. Words are not relegated solely to their clinical, or even proper, usage. One of my pet-peeves as a musician is the way the term "tone-deaf" has become co-opted to mean something it doesn't, but the general populace doesn't know any better. I'd wager that, to many people, a "disinfectant" is something that removes an infectant...something that causes an infection.
Click to expand...
I'll just say I'm not going to guess what how people may define a "disinfectant". Any discussions along those lines makes assumptions which may, or may not be true.

MuseChaser said:
Again, going back to the briefing quote in question, there really isn't any way an unbiased mind could hear or read that and think, "He just said we should try intravenous Clorox." You just can't. The media suggested that's what he meant, and it caught like wildfire.
Click to expand...
I'll guess we will have to agree to disagree, in light of the whole set of questions by the president to the person at the podium.
 
ETres said:
A few years ago a nicely-dressed feller on TV told me there were 57 states, despite everything I'd been taught otherwise. However, common sense and subsequent research proved there are 50 states. I didn't hold it against the guy for making such a blunder. It happens to everyone, even to fellers wearing spiffy suits on TV.
Click to expand...
Did that feller later claim that he was just being sarcastic?
 

I'll probably get the post locked and banned for this, but it is funny.

The only viral treatments I can come up with off the top of my pointy ugly gray bald head are gancyclovir and its derivatives for Herpesviruses (took many decades to develop), antiretroviral drugs for HIV (took a decade to develop) and Tamiflu for Influenza (took a LONG time to develop, flu's been around a long damn time).

I find it hard to believe anyone is going to come up with a treatment for COVID19 in a time frame that will be useful for anyone.
 
steingar said:

I'll probably get the post locked and banned for this, but it is funny.

The only viral treatments I can come up with off the top of my pointy ugly gray bald head are gancyclovir and its derivatives for Herpesviruses (took many decades to develop), antiretroviral drugs for HIV (took a decade to develop) and Tamiflu for Influenza (took a LONG time to develop, flu's been around a long damn time).

I find it hard to believe anyone is going to come up with a treatment for COVID19 in a time frame that will be useful for anyone.
Click to expand...
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/...et-scientists-take-the-lead-new-yorks-did-not

Not behind a paywall. And Quite accurate.
 
Stewartb said:
Alcohol! I've been intoxicated for 6 weeks and haven't gotten sick. That's a more reliable summary than CNN has offered!!!
Click to expand...

I like your thinking. Plus, it is actually safe to ingest (in appropriate quantities). Ufortunately I'm partial to certain potions from the land of curling (Scotland). My treatments are expensive, and not covered by insurance. :(
 
DaleB said:
My research so far indicates that Bourbon is 100% effective in preventing not only COVID-19, but influenza as well. And a bunch of other stuff. Now, it's an admittedly small sample size... but I'm going with it.
Click to expand...
Alcohol is the devil's brew, saith the Lord. 8 hours from bottle to hell. But I'll keep drinking it for medical reasons. Nothing is said about that,right?
 
Chip Sylverne said:
Hard to argue with anything in that piece. While the authors recognize cultural differences, they gloss over the obvious; Seattle is a city of 755,000, and New York 8.5 million. That alone makes the challenge orders of magnitude more difficult, even if roadmaps were followed.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure why you think they glossed over that. In any case, the differences just made it all the more important for New York City and State politicians to follow the health officials' advice.
 
Palmpilot said:
I'm not sure why you think they glossed over that. In any case, the differences just made it all the more important for New York City and State politicians to follow the health officials' advice.
Click to expand...

Maybe because the only reference is to NYC as having a population "somewhat denser" than Seattle. A bit thin on the compare and contrast, don't you think? Kind of like saying the 747 has somewhat different handling characteristics than a 152.
 
Chip Sylverne said:
Maybe because the only reference is to NYC as having a population "somewhat denser" than Seattle. A bit thin on the compare and contrast, don't you think? Kind of like saying the 747 has somewhat different handling characteristics than a 152.
Click to expand...
I thought they mentioned the much higher use of public transportation, and the difference in the personality of New Yorkers as well.

What more would you like them to have said about it?
 
Palmpilot said:
I thought they mentioned the much higher use of public transportation, and the difference in the personality of New Yorkers as well.

What more would you like them to have said about it?
Click to expand...

For single example, there are 1.1 million student in over 1,800 public schools in NYC. There are 113 public schools and 47,000 students in SEA. If you had to make a decision to close public schools, which system do you think would have further reaching social and economic impacts, in addition to public health as ramifications? what metrics would you use to evaluate those decisions? What external resources would be required to meet the additional strains on the impacted social systems? Are those resources available?

These are complex questions, against the backdrop of national leadership assuring us at the time that all would resolve itself.
 
murphey said:
In today’s rapid news cycle, and divise culture, I don’t want off-the-cuff, adlibs regarding medical or national security from anyone, regardless of voting preference. Those types of comments are only appropriate in private discussions, not nationally televised briefings or interviews.

And yes, we all know, there really are foolish, even stupid people out there. Tide pod challenge anyone?
Click to expand...

Yes, and I will point out that state poison control hotlines were apparently receiving calls about the safety of ingesting household cleaners after the President's musing. The mind boggles on many levels.
 
Chip Sylverne said:
For single example, there are 1.1 million student in over 1,800 public schools in NYC. There are 113 public schools and 47,000 students in SEA. If you had to make a decision to close public schools, which system do you think would have further reaching social and economic impacts, in addition to public health as ramifications? what metrics would you use to evaluate those decisions? What external resources would be required to meet the additional strains on the impacted social systems? Are those resources available?

These are complex questions, against the backdrop of national leadership assuring us at the time that all would resolve itself.
Click to expand...
Shouldn't we really be comparing the number of students and schools per capita? Higher population means higher resources too.
 
chemgeek said:
Yes, and I will point out that state poison control hotlines were apparently receiving calls about the safety of ingesting household cleaners after the President's musing. The mind boggles on many levels.
Click to expand...

Amen. When it comes to national emergencies, thinking out loud/brainstorming should probably not be done in front of a microphone.
 
Last edited:
FYI,
I have deleted my posts in this thread because they probably violate the TOS.
Several of my posts have been quoted by others. You may do as you like, but I would prefer you delete those as well.

We should all be in this together and not fighting over the semantics of someone that has horrible semantics.
 
Chip Sylverne said:
Maybe because the only reference is to NYC as having a population "somewhat denser" than Seattle. A bit thin on the compare and contrast, don't you think? Kind of like saying the 747 has somewhat different handling characteristics than a 152.
Click to expand...
From what I've been told by those who have done both, a 747 handles very much like a cub, so long as you fly it by the numbers. Its way bigger and thus things can get way more deadly in the blink of an eye. But if you stop trying to fly it by the seat of your pants (like you can get away with in a cub) and actually listen to the engineers (scientists) and just fly it by the numbers, it handles just like a cub. There's a lesson in there I think.
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top