Corona Virus Updates Part 6

originally posted by: butcherguy
They had people scrubbing and disinfecting their groceries and mail before it came into their homes, FFS.

I know some people posted in this thread they were doing that, but I didn't think it was justified myself, I never did anything I don't ordinarily do with groceries. Even before COVID-19 I always washed unpackaged produce like bulk tomatoes, I just kept doing that and for packaged foods I was maybe a little more careful when opening packages to avoid any contamination on the outside from getting inside but I thought people were going a little overboard, unless they were elderly, in which case such extra precautions may still be justified.

originally posted by: butcherguy
Now the WHO says that they were wrong yesterday when they said that asymptomatic transmission is rare.
WTF?
FOX

One thing I learned from this adventure is to not place much confidence in WHO statements, though she wasn't even making an official statement, but just answering a reporter's question. You might recall we got conflicting information on the issue of wearing a mask too, right?

In any case, you're better off reading the research papers yourself if you can, instead of relying on the confusion coming from the WHO. The papers don't exactly agree on how much asymptomatic transmission exists, plus you can't really tell the difference between asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic until the symptoms show up and that makes a difference too, with pre-symptomatic probably transmitting more.

There's also probably a propaganda angle where things were worded slightly more severely during the lockdowns and now with lockdowns over the propaganda may have a bias toward making people feel better about returning to work versus maybe a bias toward getting them to stay at home before.

www.newsweek.com...

A statement released after Trump's comments by the nonprofit healthcare organization said the research is currently in the preclinical stages. They hope to develop "a technology that harnesses intermittent ultraviolet. A light for treating viruses and bacteria." They said the treatment has not been tested on patients, but had signed a licensing agreement with Aytu BioScience in the hope it could be used to treat COVID-19 in the near future. Mark Pimentel, who is leading the research at Cedars-Sinai, said the technology—dubbed Healight—administers UV light using an endotracheal medical device. "Our team has shown that administering a specific spectrum of UV-A light can eradicate viruses in infected human cells (including coronavirus) and bacteria in the area while preserving healthy cells," he said in a statement from Aytu BioScience.

also being tested in russia for what it is worth but has not entered human trials yet but hopefully this works

a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

We select molecules and gas components that when inhaled remain activated and emit ultraviolet light directly in the lungs.

I'm having some trouble understanding this. I know that some atoms, after absorbing ultraviolet radiation will re-emit in the ultraviolet. But I think that, in accordance with quantum mechanics, this is pretty much a random occurrence and "remaining activated" isn't really how it works.

Arbitrageur?


Also, while respiratory problems seem to be the greatest problem with COVID-19, is the infection confined to the lungs?

a reply to: Phage
There is certainly reason to question what they are doing, and there's not much to go on when the article says "Further details on how the technique works and what tests had been carried out as part of the project were not available.

One way to get atoms to hang on to electrons in higher orbitals longer might be by elevating the temperature of the gas, but inhaling a gas hot enough to do this is likely to be worse than the virus. Alternatively if the atoms or molecules are excited with EM radiation, but if they are at room temperature, I share your thought that it doesn't seem likely they would "remain activated" for very long.

Then there's also the issue that UV-A, UV-B, and even some wavelengths of UV-C may cause tissue damage, so some external UV approaches aim to filter those harmful wavelengths out to a narrow band of UV-C which is claimed to be safer for human exposure can break up DNA of viruses without harming human tissue. If they did manage to get atoms emitting UV in the lungs they would be I think very lucky if they could find something that only emitted UV-C at the "goldilocks wavelength" that's not too short and not too long, and unlike with an external lamp I don't see how the UV-A, UV-B, and harmful parts of UV-C could be filtered out inside the lungs, and they aren't good for you.

“Unfortunately, conventional germicidal UV light is also a human health hazard and can lead to skin cancer and cataracts, which prevents its use in public spaces,” explained senior study investigator David Brenner, Ph.D

He is presumably referring to UV which strays too far from the supposedly "safe" wavelength of 222 nm.

They are using filters for the UV-C studies to limit the wavelengths to some kind of distribution centered around 222 nm:

we have earlier shown that far-UVC light generated by filtered excimer lamps emitting in the 207 to 222 nm wavelength range, efficiently inactivates drug-resistant bacteria, without apparent harm to exposed mammalian skin13,14,15. The biophysical reason is that, due to its strong absorbance in biological materials, far-UVC light does not have sufficient range to penetrate through even the outer layer (stratum corneum) on the surface of human skin, nor the outer tear layer on the outer surface of the eye, neither of which contain living cells; however, because bacteria and viruses are typically of micron or smaller dimensions, far-UVC light can still efficiently traverse and inactivate them...

In that a major pathway for the spread of influenza A is aerosol transmission3, we investigate for the first time the efficacy of far-UVC 222-nm light for inactivating airborne viruses carried by aerosols – with the goal of providing a potentially safe alternative to conventional 254-nm germicidal lamps to inactivate airborne microbes.

So basically they are saying they think 222-nm UV-C is relatively safe and 254 nm UV-C isn't safe, (and maybe below 200 nm isn't safe either) so you have to wonder if they feel it's necessary to apply filters to their 222 nm lamps to limit the wavelengths, would UV light inside the the lungs without any filters be safe, even if they could manage it somehow?

Also, while respiratory problems seem to be the greatest problem with COVID-19, is the infection confined to the lungs?

Apparently it's not limited to the lungs but if someone is having severe problems with viral load in their lungs presumably reducing that load might help even if the virus is also elsewhere in the body. The patient might remain sick, but they might not suffocate, possibly, as a result of helping the lungs in particular, and suffocation does seem to be a problem for some patients.

However if they used the "safe" 222 nm UV wavelength inside the lungs, I don't see how it would help much with cells that were already infected with the virus; it's "safe" because it doesn't penetrate the cells, and works on the exposed virus before it enters the cells, which may not be the problem that needs solving inside the lungs if the cells are already infected with virus. If they use unsafe UV wavelengths, that could be bad, maybe worse than the virus.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: RalagaNarHallas
...
Also, while respiratory problems seem to be the greatest problem with COVID-19, is the infection confined to the lungs?

No, kidneys is also a big one (an area under attack by the disease). The Doctor in the video further below explains as he's explaining how HCQ gravitates towards and accumulates in the lungs, kidneys, liver and spleen, for a very efficient targeted defense (mitigating the toxicity issue of a substance that increases your Ph to reduce various functions within cells, endosomes, lysosomes and several functions that are involved with the cytokine storm, i.e. HCQ also helps to dampen the cytokine storm). As I explained in another thread:

originally posted by: whereislogic

Also, there's a crucial point made after 17:58 about HCQ gravitating towards the lungs, liver, kidneys and spleen; very important cause it's primarily the lungs and kidneys where corona (the virus) and Covid-19 (the disease) attacks and does the most damage (the lungs is usually the point of the initial assualt on your body with the virus, the disease pretty much hits all those organs I think, but primarily the lungs and kidneys again). I've tried to emphasize this point on ATS when comparing HCQ with supplements like quercetin or other medications that are suggested to distract from the need to absolutely use HCQ as your first and foremost line of defense against corona and Covid-19. I think quercetin for example doesn't gravitate there.

From my research into the subject, I got the impression that CQ and quinine also gravitate towards the same organs, but they are less effective and more toxic overall compared to HCQ, which is much more effective at getting into cells, lysosomes and endosomes, exactly where it needs to increase the Ph to help your immune system fight corona. Not to mention that the increasing Ph function (which quercetin doesn't have) also helps provide anti-inflammatory immuno-modulating (dampening) effects in relation to the cytokine storm. This is one of the things that makes HCQ so effective compared to other antiviral medications or supplements, even CQ and quinine. It's a targeted defense with high efficiency at a very specific task. If you were using CQ/Quinine, you'd have to use way more for the same effect, which means the toxic effect of a Ph-increasing substance, is more of an issue.
...

Mechanism of action of HCQ and why the increasing Ph function is so crucial, is discussed after 11:49, although you may want to start the video a bit sooner concerning the point regarding facial masks (since the topic came up in this thread about conflicting information regarding that subject, first comment on this page; this comment after all is for anyone who might read it; ):

Don't give yourself cancer please, or allow Big Pharma to turn you into another longterm cancer patient cashcow. "Be wise, my son." (Pr 27:11)

Hmmm, perhaps the stuff I mentioned about HCQ being more effective at getting into cells, lysosomes and endosomes compared to CQ/Quinine (because of the hydroxyl group attached to CQ making HCQ), to increase the Ph level there, and why this is so efficient against corona and covid-19, and thus a crucial attribute of HCQ, would make more sense if I add this video:

The subject why HCQ is better at getting into cells, lysosomes and endosomes compared to CQ/Quinine, to increase Ph level there, is discussed in the video below from 2:12 - 5:40 (don't watch anything else, you may get the wrong impression; at the very least if you can't resist watching anything else, at least watch Dr. Raoult's response to the so-called "VA study" first):

Argh, the stuff about the hydroxyl group having been added to CQ to make HCQ more effective at getting into cells, lysosomes and endosomes compared to CQ/Quinine is not there (specifically designed to make it more effective like that and thus less toxic), or at least not in that timeframe. That was sort of the reason why I wanted to share that video, annoying that I can't remember which doctor I heard it from, perhaps I read it in a publication. Anyway, that is the situation of the matter (a biochemist or synthetic chemist would know what I'm talking about), and Drbeen (Dr. Been?) still has valuable other points to make in that timeframe that he didn't make in the other video (or at least not with the same detail).

Numbers Update for Europe, and Elsewhere (No Bno) :






www.worldometers.info...

Missed yesterday, forgot whilst watching a film.

more information on the correlation with severe covid and vitamin D deficiency.

French study take supplements if patient admited with covid > 60 give high dosage to boost levels.

more information with Links to the virus release from a lab - it does occur, and it doesn't behave as any other virus.


Seems to getting more traction that we are being lied to once again.

U.S. Rioters destroy 70 Covid-19 Testing Sites.

www.theblaze.com...

a reply to: carewemust

I’m guessing that the previous endorsement of the protest was because no one wanting to be the first to say they shouldn’t protest and feel the social media wrath of the zealots among the protestors. With what we know about how it the virus spreads protesting is an invitation for it to propagate. I’m assuming the test sites weren’t destroyed on purpose, unless there’s something more insidious at work. The irony that most of those protesting are the more at risk group Is heartbreaking.

Numbers Update for Europe, and Elsewhere (No Bno) :






www.worldometers.info...

A couple of updated graphs from the Financial Times Coronavirus Page, by John Burn-Murdoch :

a reply to: McGinty

Some of us think the virus was created and spread to depopulate the world.

Some of us think the protests have been organised and financed from some very powerful individuals.


I'll leave the rest to your imagination so as not to derail the thread.

a reply to: Aldolas

I’ve long suspected that if it wasn’t created for this purpose, then some are indeed repurposing it to social engineering.

In the U.K. every single choice and task the government has undertaken has been fumbled and mismanaged. Many In the U.K. are happy to blame this on Boris Johnson thanks to his carefully cultivated bafoon act.

Personally I think that no one, particularly a world leader with the experts they surround themselves with are this dumb (ok, there’s one exception that springs to mind). All of Boris Johnson’s ‘mistakes’ make perfect sense if you view them from a perspective of money and eugenics.

originally posted by: McGinty
a reply to: carewemust
The irony that most of those protesting are the more at risk group Is heartbreaking.

Really? The rioters were all obese diabetics, or sick people with other serious health conditions?

Probably the most amusing mental gymnastics I'm seeing is how the deniers will tell you that the WHO and CDC cannot be trusted when they are issuing a statement that goes against the deniers preconceived notions. Then, if they turn around and say something that does agree with the the denier's preconceived notions, they share it like it's the gospel. Suddenly, the groups you they just got finished trashing as completely untrustworthy are completely trustworthy.

a reply to: McGinty
Well perhaps with a few guided measures we can cause the spread - some interesting info on Gain of function research.




So if they spread multiple strains we can get 80% no symptoms 20% with symptoms
then get a vaccine to protect that is cheap , very profitable and most of all able to add population controls "for the sake of the children"

Unable to miss an opportunity for showing smartness - a Leader or 2 blabbed some conclusions or treatments.

When science is proving the measure wrong they will hound the messenger.
Why else would WHO keep contradicting experts v mouthpieces.

a reply to: McGinty
Could the head of the WHO be celebrating something here?

twitter.com...

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: McGinty
Could the head of the WHO be celebrating something here?

twitter.com...

You should have put an eye warning on that.

originally posted by: drussell41

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: McGinty
Could the head of the WHO be celebrating something here?

twitter.com...

You should have put an eye warning on that.

Sorry..here's something more newsworthy..

The Justice Department is urging states and localities to apply the same rules to George Floyd protests as they would to people opposing coronavirus lockdowns and those wanting to hold religious gatherings.

The DOJ intervened in several state and local matters this week, advocating the same protections under the First Amendment be applied to all matters of political protest and religious services.

More: www.foxnews.com...