Bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) is a technique utilized to diagnose lower respiratory tract illnesses. The premise is you basically put a tube in the lung, inject sterile saline and suction it back and now you have a specimen to diagnose infections, including covid19. When he said "inject it, into the lungs it could clean it" he may have been saying they are looking at a way to directly kill the virus in the lungs. While I've never heard of BAL being used therapeutically in this way, I don't pretend to know what the CDC or any government run research has shown. It could be theoretically possible to inject a "disinfectant" (not fucking bleach) but something that kills the virus, into the lungs to sterilize them. The virus is not only present in the lungs however. But, it's an interesting thought. It would have to be something absorbed by the lungs and that either inhibits viral replication or viral entry into the cell. Just some food for thought
Comments (22)
sorted by:
Thanks for sharing. Would you be able to comment on this video also?
Edit: Its called Healight from AYTU bioscience
Sure! So the premise is a solid one, UV light does "kill" bacteria, mold and viruses. But interestingly, you cannot really "kill" a virus as you can with bacteria or fungi. A virus is really not an organism as in it isn't even a cell. A virus is essentially a strip of genetic material that relies on a host to replicate itself. To simplify it, the most basic purpose of each of our cells is to make more of our dna and keep the dna safe. Viruses cannot do that on their own, they must hijack another cell and utilize it to copy itself. The virus basically forces the cell to copy more and more then eventually the cell explodes and the virus flies out and goes to another 1000 cells (numbers are just ballpark for demonstration). As it does this more and more, each cell bursts then if it happens fast and aggressive enough, you die because you dont have enough good cells to carry out regular function because they are all exploding (again, this is an extremely watered down version but meant to be less jargon and more digestible).
Now, because a virus isnt really alive, if you consider being able to make your own genetic material as being alive, then you cant technically kill it. you can prevent it from entering the body, or entering cells, or from replicating, or from packaging itself up in the cell, or from leaving the cell. Medications treating covid19 hit all of these steps, zinc inhibits viral replication, HydroxyChloroquine blocks the virus getting into the cell and azithromycin decreases inflammation (aka SARS which is you die from your own immune response freaking the fuck out and causing your lungs to fail). The UV light denatures the protein, think of a freshly cracked egg now you start cooking it and now it becomes denatured or when milk curdles in lemon juice thats denaturing just a fancy way of saying the protein changes in such a way that it cannot change back. So, many air filtration systems utilize UV light for this reason which is great. Hospitals sterilize rooms and equipment with it etc it's already well proven to work.
Now for use inside of a human body. So UVB light causes sunburn (mostly), and yes they are filtering to just UVA with this light which is good. But, UVA can still cause sunburn, the "dose" has to be 1000x or so more than UVB to cause it. The problem is concentrating it and using it for the hour or so that you'd need it may cause burning of the organs, again I'm not sure because I've never seen it done or read any research on it. That's not to say it's not plausible, but there are other issues. When we use antibiotics, it causes the good bacteria to die along with the bad bacteria. This can allow resistant bad bacteria to take over, the good bacteria inside of you is there symbiotically - it makes shit for you that you can't make and it also keeps bad bacteria away. It's like a community of pedes pruning out the cucks. Now, if you silence all the pedes (reddit) the cucks take over. So if we kill all the good bacteria in the lungs of someone with covid, it may have no effect or they may get ventilator associated pneumonia, or pneumonia in general. The other problem is that the virus is pretty much throughout the body so if it cleans the airway you're getting most of it but not all, although this may still help since you're making it easier for the body to fight the rest of the infection.
I dont mean for this to come across the wrong way, because it might, but I am interested to see what new medical techniques and technologies come from this. I think that we are already really advanced but I think we have the potential to see some pretty crazy shit come from this, and this could be one of them. The only study I found so far was a lab study utilizing heat and UV to "kill" SARS from 2003. SARS is a different but very closely related coronavirus, as a matter of fact covid19 is actually technically named SARS COV2, COVID19 is just the name of the disease - not the virus strain. Anyhow they showed 60 min of UV light killed the infectivity. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14631830
Sorry for the wall of text, if you cant tell I fucking love medicine and am a really hardcore nerd about the body, as well as guns lol. I just get going and cant stop
That was really thorough and informative thanks! It seems that such a targeted therapy would only serve to reduce/eliminate the activity of the virus in the trachea but not the lungs. Correct me if I am wrong but the primary place for the virus to reside is in the airways and lungs and the severity of symptoms is dependent on viral load, so reducing the viral load in that area could be quite beneficial.
Also, is it possible to find a specific range of wavelengths that only effect viruses? That way perhaps a patients blood could be circulated through a uv disinfecting machine without killing the beneficial stuff? Or are there viruses that are beneficial also.
And are you sure it takes 60 minutes to kill the infectivity of the virus? This seems quite dependent on the wavelength and amplitude of the radiation
Yes reducing the viral load is very crucial and is the cornerstone in the treatment of severe viruses such as HIV and hepatitis, and now this. As far as beneficial viruses, I'm pretty hard pressed to think of any, so if we did find a UVA wavelength that was viral specific, and didn't damage our own cells or cause cancer, that would be awesome! As far as filtering the blood with UV, again it's a tough one since the blood is made up of so many different things - red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets, plasma, chemicals released by the cells, etc. If the UV light fucked the red blood cells up or the white blood cells or the rest of the immune system, that would be catastrophic. But I'm not sure what these effects would be, I would think it would be better to treat the lungs then give them medicine. But I'll try to find some literature.
As far as the 60 mins that's the direct quote from the research article, I haven't found other times, medicine is very dependent on having the research to back it up so I would say if you theoretically did this, 60 mins would be the minimum until proven otherwise "Viruses stayed stable at 4 degrees C, at room temperature (20 degrees C) and at 37 degrees C for at least 2 h without remarkable change in the infectious ability in cells, but were converted to be non-infectious after 90-, 60- and 30-min exposure at 56 degrees C, at 67 degrees C and at 75 degrees C, respectively. Irradiation of UV for 60 min on the virus in culture medium resulted in the destruction of viral infectivity at an undetectable level."
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-21058-w
Wavelengths in the far-UVC range (around 222nm) appear to be harmless to human tissue while effectively inactivating viruses. This could allow for the treatment to last much longer than an hour if true. If most of the virus is concentrated in the trachea then it seems this could be a very effective way to reduce viral load. I wonder how helpful this would be in practice though
Also on the topic of guns, would you happen know missouri gun laws? Im a grad student in missouri with a washington state id looking to buy my first gun (recommendations are appreciated). I also live off campus in my own apartment.
Regardless, I would still appreciate any recommendations because ill figure out the laws at some point
Specific recommendations based on guns I've shot/owned:
Rifles:
Marlin 22 lr https://www.marlinfirearms.com/rimfire/xt-series/model-xt-22
Ruger pc9 (9mm carbine)
https://ruger.com/products/pcCarbine/models.html
Savage axis 2 - 308 win
https://www.savagearms.com/content?p=firearms&a=product_summary&s=57093
AR15: ruger 556 or a for a cheaper ome palmetto state armory or diamond back (decent cheaper one) I would get a 556 chambered one as it can fire .223 or 556 (.223 is the civilian round, 5.56 is the "military round", performance wise theres negligible difference between the 2 but the 5.56 makes more pressure and a gun made for 223 cannot safely shoot it, the benefit is you can buy 223 or 556 which makes it more flexible)
https://www.ruger.com/products/ar556/models.html
Pistols:
Smith and wesson m&p shield 9mm great first pistol. Reliable, accurate (enough) and used by a lot of law enforcement friends of mine. https://www.smith-wesson.com/firearms/mp-9-shield-0
Sig p365 is literally the best pistol I've ever shot in my life, a lot of money, but literally insane accuracy.
https://www.sigsauer.com/products/firearms/pistols/p365/
I'm not at all a glock guy, which pisses a lot of gun guys off, but I do not like them. I hate that they don't have a safety, yes I know the trigger has a built in safety where if you don't intentionally pull it, it wont fire but I've seen too many accidental discharges during my time in the ER to want one. I also think they feel cheap as fuck. But a lot of my cop and military buddies hate on me.
If I had to pick 2 guns to have for the rest of my life, the ruger pc9 carbine and the sig p365 without a doubt. I love my AR and my other guns but the ruger has a button where the barrel comes off and it fits in a back pack or in my case a bug out bag. The sig shoots the same 9mm, I bring all the same ammo with me and I'm ready to rock. Next would be the 308 if I got a 3rd so I can do bigger game hunting.
I don't, I'm up north unfortunately but I do know I bought guns in VA where my med school was with my NY ID and was fine. Any rifle off the shelf is good to go
So it looks like you don't need a permit for a side arm there either, idk if you were looking for a rifle or a side arm but looks like you're fine. If they want you to, you can go to a court house and get a formed signed to let you buy one. A lot of people do that in PA to buy pistols being NY residents. https://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/state-gun-laws/missouri/
I'd recommend a rifle as first firearm, specifically I would go for a .22 lr, they don't have a lot of stopping power but to learn gun safety and shooting techniques and practice, they're your best bet. You can buy a bolt action for less than $100 and you can get 500 rounds for literally next to nothing. Go shoot it as much as you can, get good with it then upgrade to either something like a 9mm carbine (about 500 bucks) but 9mm is still cheap to shoot or a .223 like an AR15 (can be had around 50p bucks) or ruger mini ranch 14 (about 800 if you dont want an ar15 shoots the same load). Side arms are harder to be accurate with, but if you do decide on one - again I'd go 9mm. Stopping power is comparable to a 40 which used to be the standard for law enforcement, but changed to 9mm due to less kick and better accuracy. 9mm is ubiquitous and you can find it from Walmart to you local bait and tackle. If you want something with more stopping power 308 win or 30-06 is my go to. More expensive 15 bucks for 20 but again they're able to be had literally anywhere. When I purchase a gun, I look for the round that will meet my needs and is also available enough that if shit hit the fan I can get it anywhere. Newer rounds like the 6.5mm creedmotor or russian rounds like 7.62 are good and available for the most part at big places but if you're out hunting and low on ammo you may not be able to buy or borrow some.
I saved your comment and will definitely reference it before purchasing my first gun. Really appreciate the research you put in. Looks like I should be able to walk in no problem since MO is known for lax gun laws.
The p365 looks incredible. I want it but it might be hard to justify the price