Categories
Clinical trials Medicine Science Skepticism/critical thinking

A blast from the early pandemic past: Healight to treat COVID-19

In April, I wrote about Healight, a device intended to treat COVID-19 by shining UV light directly into the lungs of patients on a ventilator. Its creators have finally published a clinical study. Unfortunately, it is…underwhelming.

Now that the pandemic is a full year old, I’m starting to find that certain topics that I wrote about early in the pandemic, only to forget about them for nearly a year, are starting to pop up again, like bad science or pseudoscience zombies coming to life after having been killed, à la the walkers in The Walking Dead. So it was that recently a “reader” (if you can call him that) sent me an indignant email about a post that I had written eleven months ago about an improbable bit of technology being touted at the time called the Healight. Basically, Healight is a device that would shine UV-A radiation into the lungs and thereby kill SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes COVID-19. Now, nearly a year later, the company is touting a clinical study to show that its device works. it’s a study that is—shall we say?—not particularly compelling. However, before I get to the study, itself, let’s go on a trip down memory lane, back to the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, a time when a device like Healight might have seemed not so wacky.

You might recall an incident in April last year when our former President Donald Trump “just asked questions” about using ultraviolet light or disinfectants internally—yes, internally—to treat COVID-19. So divorced from reality were Trump’s statements and wild speculations that they earned a bit of the ol’ not-so-Respectable Insolence and even led to Trump’s disappearing from the daily coronavirus briefings that had been so transfixing the nation (and not in a good way) up until then. In fact, I can’t help but repost this rather iconic reaction of Dr. Deborah Birx, as her President said these things:

What a difference a year makes! And, for once, actually in a good way!

Those wild and crazy early days (and not in a good way) of the pandemic aside, there actually was a device proposed whose inventors appeared to take advantage of the kerfuffle. Dubbed the “Healight,” the device was intended to treat COVID-19 by shining UV light internally into the lungs because, you know, UV light inactivates most viruses (and can kill many bacteria) and therefore you should be able to inactivate SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes COVID-19, by shining light into the lungs, right? At the time, I even noted that the company that had developed Healight, Aytu Bioscience, its CEO Josh Disbrow, and its scientists Drs. Mark Pimentel, Ruchi Mathur, Gil Melmed, and Ali Rezaie, who were working with Cedars Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles had developed a catheter with an LED emitting UV-A light. They had even presented an abstract at a gastroenterology conference testing their device in the colon to kill pathogenic bacteria and in a press release were proudly touting their plan to apply the device to the treatment of COVID-19.

At the time, I explained why Healight was so implausible as a COVID-19 treatment, even assuming that it worked exactly as claimed by Aytu (in vitro, at least) and killed only cells infected with SARS-CoV-2 while sparing surrounding normal cells. (Never mind that the majority of the cells in the respiratory epithelial lining of the bronchial passages are likely to be infected when the disease is severe enough to require intubation, the method by which Healight is designed to be introduced into the lungs—wait, sorry, I was trying to give Healight the benefit of the doubt.) I even further assumed that Healight does the same thing that Aytu claimed it did in cell culture when the light is inserted into the trachea via endotracheal tube hooked up to the ventilator. First of all, shining a light inside the trachea could potentially kill all those infected cells within range of the light en masse, rather than in a random fashion. What does that mean? It means that, instead of cells lining the inside of the trachea and bronchial tubes being killed over time by the immune system and through dying as virus is released, there would likely be a wave of cell death over a much shorter period of time, thus greatly exacerbating the inflammatory response that has damaged the lungs to the point where the patient needs to be on a ventilator.

Of course, that was also being generous and assuming that the light’s selectivity for virus-infected cells would perfect and that it wouldn’t damage normal cells as well. In medicine, there is no such intervention, be it drug or light (as in radiation therapy) that is perfectly selective for the target cells. Radiation therapy is selective for cancer cells because they replicate faster than normal cells and their DNA repair mechanisms are impaired, but still can damage and destroy normal cells that are replicating. The same is true of chemotherapy. The same, I thought, would be likely true of Healight.

I also noted another big problem with Healight, and it’s an obvious one. In brief, the Healight catheter only extends to the upper reaches of the trachea. It doesn’t even go past the bifurcation of the trachea into the right and left mainstem bronchi. Of course, I’m sure it could be pushed further down into the mainstem bronchi and even maybe into some of the larger bronchi that branch off from the mainstem bronchi. However, even if it were possible to do that and that the light could kill all the coronavirus-containing infected cells lining the trachea and the larger bronchi, given how many branches there are, it would be a painfully tedious process to treat them all. Of course, it isn’t just the tracheal and bronchial epithelial cells that are the target of SARS-CoV-2. It’s the type 1 and 2 pneumocytes, in the alveoli of the lungs. (The alveoli are the air sacs where oxygen and CO2 exchange occurs.) I saw no way that a catheter could get that far down the respiratory passages and to kill infected cells in the alveoli, and even if it could it would likely result in more fluid, more inflammation, and worse gas exchange. Again, that was assuming that the Healight works exactly as Aytu Bioscience claimed that it could. Worse, even back then we knew that COVID-19 was a multi system disease, with the virus infecting more than just the lung. What about all the other organs SARS-CoV-2 could potentially infect?

All of this brings us to a press release from last week:

Aytu BioScience , Inc. (NASDAQ:AYTU), a specialty pharmaceutical company focused on commercializing novel products that address significant patient needs, announced today that data from a first in-human, open label, clinical trial in SARS-CoV-2 patients has been released.

The pre-print publication titled “Endotracheal application of ultraviolet A light in critically ill severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 patients: A first-in-human study” concluded that endotracheal UVA light treatment was associated with a significant reduction of SARS-CoV-2 viral load and improvement in WHO clinical severity scores. Additionally, the endotracheal UVA light treatment did not result in any serious adverse device effects and was well tolerated.

And here’s the Healight study, published as a preprint on medRxiv. It is every bit as…impressive…as the press release says. (Yes, that’s sarcasm.) I couldn’t resist heading over to ClincalTrials.gov to look for the study, UVA Light Device to Treat COVID-19, noting that the study didn’t open until October 1, 2020 and that it took two months to recruit five patients. That made me ask: Why did it take two months to recruit five patients during the worst period of the pandemic, when Southern California hospitals were buckling under the load of COVID-19 cases, which by December health officials were characterizing as a “surge on top of a surge“? It should have been easy to line up five patients in a single week, much less over two months.

Far be it from me to be too critical about not being able to accrue enough patients for a clinical trial, having had my share of failures on that score myself over the course of my career, though; so I won’t dwell on this issue. (I know. It’s hard.) So let’s move on to the paper itself. The inclusion criteria included: age over 18 years, positive PCR test result for SARS-CoV-2 on nasal swab, and mechanical ventilation with an endotracheal tube inner diameter of ≥7.5 mm. Pregnant women were excluded. Subjects received all standard supportive care; concomitant use of any other COVID-19 treatments was permitted. In other words, patients received whatever care patients at the time were receiving.

Here’s a description of the intervention:

Within 24 hours of enrollment, subjects underwent 20 minutes of endotracheal UVA therapy, which was repeated once daily for a total of 5 consecutive days. All subjects received 100% FiO2 for 30 minutes prior to the procedure (see Supplemental Materials and Methods for protocol). The UVA catheter was inserted to the distal end of the ETT, with concomitant ventilator adjustments to flow rate and tidal volume to maintain optimal oxygenation. A plastic clamp fixed the catheter base to the access port to assure stability and consistent depth of catheter insertion throughout the 20-minute treatment session. The procedural instructional video can be accessed at: https://cedars.box.com/s/0lqm2slw1vlyt4j5em70xregfro4592t. UVA dosing was chosen based on the optimal response of coronavirus 229E-infected human primary tracheal cells to UVA exposure observed in in vitro experiments.[6] Controlled narrow-band UVA emission (peak wavelength 340-345nm) of maximum 2 milliwatt/cm2 was delivered at the level of tracheal mucosa. Predetermined criteria for treatment cessation and withdrawal of the UVA catheter included O2 saturation drop below 88% or hemodynamic instability.

The first thing to note is that, again, the catheter was only inserted to the distal end of the endotracheal tube. Endotracheal tubes are inserted so that their distal end is above the bifurcation of the trachea to the two mainstem bronchi, each of which heads to one lung. As a result, the light could not possibly have penetrated very deep into the lungs, down to the alveoli, consistent with my previous assessment.

The second thing to note is that this is a very small case series, with no control group. There’s nothing wrong with that as a proof of principle, but did this even prove the principle behind the Healight? Let’s look at the reported endpoints, first the primary endpoints:

Subjects had elevated viral loads at baseline (range 3.4×104 -1.64×107 copies/ml) except for study subject 2 who had an undetectable viral load at all time points, demonstrating that virus had cleared since the last nasal swab (Fig. S2). There was no significant correlation between symptom onset date and either baseline (Spearman rho=-0.70, p=0.23) or day 6 viral loads (Spearman rho=-0.21, p=0.83).

There was a significant reduction of SARS-CoV-2 levels in endotracheal aspirates during UVA treatment. The average log10 changes in endotracheal viral load from baseline to day 5 and day 6 were -2.41 (range -1.16 to -4.54; Friedman p=0.002) and -3.2 (range -1.2 to -6.77; Friedman p<0.001), respectively (Fig. 2, Fig. S2).

I note that subject 2 was the only one of the five patients who died. This patient apparently developed bleeding in the brain because of anticoagulation due to having been placed on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and was placed on comfort care.

Secondary endpoints were:

Among the secondary outcome measures, quantification of absolute endotracheal bacterial load at baseline ranged from 1×103 -1.7x 106 CFU/ml and remained statistically unchanged during the UVA treatment sessions (Fig. S3).

In other words, Healight had no detectable effect on bacterial load in the lungs. The authors also report a correlation with the observed decrease in coronavirus in the lungs and WHO severity scores by day 30 and try their best to make it sound as though this correlation equals causation. Unfortunately, given such a small number of patients, it’s impossible to know if this correlation is real or spurious, and, more importantly, without a control group it’s impossible to know if viral load wouldn’t have decreased anyway as the patient started to recover from severe COVID-19. Presumably, it would have in patients who got better, or at least have declined faster in such patients than in patients who did not.

So what do I say about Healight now? Certainly, I’m nowhere near as impressed as the “reader” (in reality someone who was likely Googling “Healight” and came across my old post on the subject) was. The best that can be said of this study is that it does indeed show that, at least, Healight is not dangerous and can be used on intubated COVID-19 patients. A sober assessment of its results is that it demonstrates nothing particularly compelling. Adding to that the implausibility of the principles behind the device, I can only conclude that this study is what I like to refer to as underwhelming. It is not compelling evidence, over a year into the pandemic, that a breakthrough has been made in treating critically ill COVID-19 patients on a ventilator. As time goes on and more and more people are vaccinated, thus decreasing (it is fervently hoped) the number of COVID-19 patients requiring mechanical ventilation to very low levels, one can’t help but wonder what the rationale is for such a device any more.

By Orac

Orac is the nom de blog of a humble surgeon/scientist who has an ego just big enough to delude himself that someone, somewhere might actually give a rodent's posterior about his copious verbal meanderings, but just barely small enough to admit to himself that few probably will. That surgeon is otherwise known as David Gorski.

That this particular surgeon has chosen his nom de blog based on a rather cranky and arrogant computer shaped like a clear box of blinking lights that he originally encountered when he became a fan of a 35 year old British SF television show whose special effects were renowned for their BBC/Doctor Who-style low budget look, but whose stories nonetheless resulted in some of the best, most innovative science fiction ever televised, should tell you nearly all that you need to know about Orac. (That, and the length of the preceding sentence.)

DISCLAIMER:: The various written meanderings here are the opinions of Orac and Orac alone, written on his own time. They should never be construed as representing the opinions of any other person or entity, especially Orac's cancer center, department of surgery, medical school, or university. Also note that Orac is nonpartisan; he is more than willing to criticize the statements of anyone, regardless of of political leanings, if that anyone advocates pseudoscience or quackery. Finally, medical commentary is not to be construed in any way as medical advice.

To contact Orac: [email protected]

47 replies on “A blast from the early pandemic past: Healight to treat COVID-19”

No no, you leftist meanies, Trump, that stable genius, was talking about a disinfectant, not bleach.
But you get the “injecting it in the lungs” part right.

Serendipity, I was just fencing with some maga troll about that episode yesterday on another blog.
It’s funny, he was studiously avoiding the parts where Trump was talking about inserting UV light into people.

“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? As you see, it gets in the lungs, it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it would be interesting to check that.”

O.K. He said “injection” but implied maybe some other way: “And then I said, supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or some other way

So, logically, what he meant to say was “Lysol nebulizer”. No matter, he said he was just being sarcastic anyways.

Wrong. Its actually very promising. Would have worked too, if only they were using the correct light frequency. (trade secret as I cannot patent it must not divilge) UV light is too harmful too healthy cells, after all. They should have contacted a light research institute for expert guidance, preferably ones that are experts in himan photosynthesis as well. There are many around the world.

Light is complicated. Only idiots default to UV-light cuz thats all they know. But there are hundreds of secret healing frequencies they could have alternatively used.

How little you know of light, Orac. You are a laymen.

“himan photosynthesis”

I hesitate to inquire.

“Light is complicated.”

Quanta! Quanta! Quanta!!!

“secret healing frequencies”

Shhh!

“light research institute”

Which are? Oh wait, it’s a secret.

“You are a laymen.”

How many perspex boxes are there?

@Renate: If it is a Poe then: well played, young Master Q!

If not, I’m glad my hope for the future of humanity already died long ago so isn’t around to see it. Because it would die all over again in excruciating agony, climb to the top of a very tall building, the jump off it just to make sure. Repeatedly.

Whats a poe?

No actually human photosynthesis is cutting edge science

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=nl&as_sdt=0,5&qsp=1&q=human+photosynthesis+melanin&qst=ib

But it is actually very inconvenient to white supremacists to admit BiPoCs have superior ability. Have you apologized to Bility yet Orac for your biased attack?

I have noticed the secret issue with Orac.
Heres his treatment of this antivaxer
https://respectfulinsolence.com/2021/01/18/did-the-pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-cause-dr-gregory-michaels-fatal-case-of-itp/
And heres his treatment of the other antivaxer
https://respectfulinsolence.com/2021/02/19/mercola-falsely-claims-legally-moderna-pfizer-covid-19-vaccines-are-not-vaccines/

Im not drawing conclusions, I will just point out that theres a pattern and that mercola is a Jew. History certainly rhymes.

How did Trump win election? Secret Trump voters, internalized white supremacy. Hidden among us everywhere. Pretending. Wheres the McCarthy for Trump voters?

I believe Orac’s historical start on the internet was countering holocaust denial on early forums Q. So if you really want to look for patterns of behaviour and attribute them to bigotry then you’ll have to try harder. Orac is an equal opportunity insolence provider.

It looks like I was wrong about Q.
My apoligies to Q Ball, who I thought was joking, but appears to be dead serious.

And both semiliterate and only vaguely coherent. I’d be quite surprised if it were from North America. There should be a Gerg Line to pass Go.

You forgot to mention how homeopathic light is treating the most distal pulmonary bronchioles and alveoli, even though not a single UV-A photon has can make it that far; for, as well all know, the ether has memory, just like the water.

I took pains to check original reference:
Dadachova E, Bryan RA, Howell RC, Schweitzer AD, Aisen P, Nosanchuk JD, Casadevall A. The radioprotective properties of fungal melanin are a function of its chemical composition, stable radical presence and spatial arrangement. Pigment Cell Melanoma Res. 2008 Apr;21(2):192-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-148X.2007.00430.x. PMID: 18426412.
You would notice that, to start with, this is fungal melanin (coloring agent)

“Human photosynthesis”

John Scalzi’s Old Man’s War books are science fiction, not science fact, and he’d be the first to tell you that.

I’ve been thinking on coiling such a thing up inside masks. I’ve no clue on how fast it might degrade the filter material (HEPA, in my case) but I guess for the N95s and duck-looking KN95s that they’re electrostatic and aren’t meant to be worn for days on end anyways.

Of course, that is for prophylactic. My concern now shifts to fashionable eye protection as the local morning yapper is condemning municipalities considering extending the mask mandate beyond the governer’s order that their political career would be doomed.

Source control; A difficult concept which we hicks don’t care about. Neil deGrasse Tyson put it pretty succinctly in that having these islands of
maskless areas was akin to “a designated spot to pee in the pool”: https://youtu.be/aMrWyUxFBOU?t=22

Tim:

I’ve been following Becker’s Hospital Review for daily positivity rates for months and your area has usually been at or near the top of the list – 25% today-
BUT AFAIK, you’ve avoided illness so you must be doing something right. Keep it up!

Trump lives rent free in each one of your heads.

For once Tim actually got something correct.

“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? As you see, it gets in the lungs, it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it would be interesting to check that.”

Trump was asking a question of a scientist (you know follow the science), the process would be similar to Leukapheresis, but with the target being Covid. Isn’t that what chemo does, poisons the body with hopes that it kills the cancer first before it kills you or low enough dose.

We still haven’t figured out were exactly the 6′ of safe space for Covid came from, as it is now down to 3, but you know “science”. But at least I haven’t had to read about the WOO HOO fighters or is it the FOO fighters from denice

Because Trump was well known for deciding that his opinions were correct, despite more knowledgeable advice. That makes any of his statements in this vein quite worrying. The fact that it made anyone with the slightest knowledge wince is just a bonus.

As far as the 6′ or 2m safe space is concerned. I have no idea if it was based on known data or was just a wild guess. However, it’s good to hold scientists to a high standard. I wish all anti-vaxxers put more stock in solid proof rather than opinions and guesses.

I think it is more like a gliding scale. The further away, the less viruscontaining droplets are in the air. It is not a kind of hard border. That’s why different countries use a different save space. We use 1.5 m in The Netherlands.

We use 1.5 m. Or the length of an average kangaroo (I kid you not). If the US had adopted metric, they could also have used 1.5 m, but 4 ft 11 in was never going to cut it.

Basically, the science says the further away the better. 1.5 m is a compromise that allows you to still talk to someone and hear, without getting too close. It also allows the kangaroos to hop right through without causing damage.

“Can I use dynamite to inflate my bicycle tires?” could also be a question directed to a scientist.

@JDM

The ‘braziness’ or speed of the flame-front is too high regardless of how small a piece is cut — it would blow a hole and the detonation wires would leave a leak anyways.

However, I have witnessed many a hard-to-seat tire being fixed with wd-40, propane, even hairspray. It is a very satisfying pop but very dangerous for a rim that is not restrained if something goes wrong. An engine broker here was terribly disfigured over just such an event involving ‘split rims’.

Lukapheresis. I love it when people find stuff they think looks cool and start suggesting we are all jerks for not using this amazing “Thing” or “Hiding” it’s miraculous abilities from everyone. Setting aside how it won’t work because of how small virons are…I’ll ask the same questions I always ask:

Do you know how much it costs? (Hint: about $8,000 per session) Do you know how long it takes? How many sessions are required to reach the target? How is it to be measured? How do we get all of these people to a center that provides it and get each of them a “Chair?” For that matter…How available is it? Do you know? Do you know what the contraindications are? Do you know what the possible complications are? (Hint: One is renal failure) yada yada

“Hiding”

In the age of worldwide communications, open data, open fora and the sum total of human knowledge available at a click of a mouse there are more secrets being hidden than ever before in the history of creation.

Do you know how many Tums or cartons of chocolate milk you have to supply the patient with to counteract the numbness and tingling of the lips caused by calcium loss due to the anti-coagulant?

Scott Allen claims to be 10 people but he’s not even three 8 year olds in a trench coat.

Trump was asking a question of (sic) a scientist

Wasn’t it a White House press conference? I would have thought that POTUS’ role was to give answers, not to ask questions.
Or at least to point to people who can give answers.
Surprising his advisers with a question out of nowhere and expecting an immediate and correct answer doesn’t count.

Anyway.
Two questions, actually. Doing my best to parse these ramblings, it comes to this:
1 – could you find some molecule which acts like a disinfectant and kill viruses when injected into people?
(injecting into the lungs, most likely – but who knows what Trump really meant? And anyway, anything going into your lungs may as well be injected into your veins. More or less. That’s why smoking works)
2 – could we try to irradiate people with some virus-killing light from the inside?

Re: 1
Gosh, we are in the middle of a nasty viral epidemic, and we don’t have proven antivirals at hand.
Thanks god Trump was here to tell us we should try to find a new antiviral. We would never have thought of that on our own.

Re: 2
Either Trump spent too much time watching sci-fi movies, has a dismal understand of biology, or we are on the brink of some major medical/technical discovery.
The formers are far more likely. If the latter, I would have appreciated some details.
OK, todays we finally got these details, and it’s (not) overwhelming.

More generally, that irked me with this intervention was this childish approach to a worldwide catastrophic event. “Just do that”. Just find that one miracle solution which will solve everything. No mutli-pronged approach, no wide perspective. Oh, and above all, no personal involvement.
Yaka fokon yfoke, as we say in French.

If Trump had come really prepared to the press conference, and was anything closer to a real businessman/leader – in short, a real decision-maker – , he would have said “people have been talking to me about these wonderful possibilities. WE are going to provide some founding and help people develop these approaches.”

“We”. Not “you should work in that general direction”.

My major question about this study is: how significant is the measured reduction in “endotracheal viral load”, and is such a measurement a valid indicator of the success of an antiviral therapy? Did they do proximal washings of only the trachea, or did they collect samples from more distal tissue?

One common procedure for evaluating pathogens in lung tissue, typically done as a qualitative procedure for diagnostic purposes, is bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL), which samples actual lung tissue. I’m not sure about the usefulness of quantitative BAL in the setting of Covid-19, but it strikes me as potentially providing more information than what a quantitative tracheal washing would tell you.

Is there good reason to believe that observed reductions in endotracheal viral load correlate reliably with better clinical outcomes?

I’m glad that pulmonologists have a new toy to play with though.

Probably not much more dangerous than doing nothing is actually a more positive result than I expected.

The fact that it was not different to doing nothing for COVID is not really a plus of any sort in my book. It would have to be better than doing nothing to counteract the risks of the intervention.

But, yes it could have been much worse.

No different than doing nothing? Well, we will know for sure with a larger sample size, but not one of the 5 died from Covid so that’s a lot better than if a couple died.

What could it be? I mean, I could drink a dilution of sodium hydroxide and expect nothing more than a sore throat. Liver damage? Must be some heavy metal or cadmium or something liberated under the alkylinity.

In boy scouts, we were cautioned not to drink from certain springs because the water was too ‘hard’ (karst/caves around here) but the effect was not liver damage but constipation. I always drank from them anyways and never had a problem.

On one of those scout hikes there was a trickling waterfall with some big foam trash (couch cushion, or something) below. The first year I noted that the foam was raised up and stiff under the trickle. The second year it was a foot-tall foam stalagmite.

Similarly, I always drank from a spring on a hill behind the house which had calcified twigs along the edges. I watched their progression over several months and thought “that’s where petrified wood comes from”. Liver still here in spite of daily pickling with ethanol.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/03/complaints-mount-after-5-kids-suffer-liver-failure-linked-to-alkaline-water/

In boy scouts, we were cautioned not to drink from certain springs because the water was too ‘hard’ (karst/caves around here) but the effect was not liver damage but constipation.

Yah. Kind of the opposite when I was in Morocco.

“Kind of the opposite when I was in Morocco.”

Yeah, I also tend to avoid gravy water that smells funny and much of the molecules belong to organisms. Which reminds me; Many people on this planet only have access to really nasty water. What is up with that?

Typo here?

“It took two months to recruit five patients. That made me ask: Why did it take three months…”

That paper Q-ball points to is neither science nor “cutting-edge,” being a decade old: “Twelve years later we concluded that the main source of energy for the human retina is water, not ATP. And this is also true for the entire human body.”

This Healight is silly, and interrupting the intubated airway or critically ill patients for this trial was a waste and unnecessary risk. Why didn’t Healight simply light-pipe the UV down the endotracheal tube (most of which are clear to slightly opaque and show transmit UV-A down their length quite well)? I used light pipes in grad school for visualizing micro-dissection of invertebrate ganglia and as a pediatrician the best ear-wax removal curette is made of clear acrylic so it can pipe LED light right where you need it in the ear canal. Again, I don’t believe for one second in Healight having clinical use.

This is all old hat. In the original Star Trek series they radiated the UV directly from the Enterprise to eliminate the contagion on the planet below. The drama point was that Spock was blinded, but only temporarily of course. The UV penetrated rock and walls, no problem.

‘Operation Annihilate’ was one of my favorites. They reason that brightness at the surface needed to be simulated to the exact level the Denevan declaired himself free of his ploppy when flying into the sun. The illumination was delivered via a constallation of 210 UV satellites, not Enterprise.

“The drama point was that Spock was blinded, but only temporarily of course.”

Ahh, yes. The extra drama point was that McCoy only realized after the test that he need not have exposed him to the full spectrum of blinding white light. This miffs Kirk to no end. Niether of them knew of Spock’s bright Vulcan sun protective inner eyelids kicking in.

https://youtu.be/Pe0LqkcVVkc?t=25

“The UV penetrated rock and walls, no problem.”

To the show’s credit; it does appear that the more shaded ones take longer to snuff out (well, maybe not so much but I watch it that way anyways. Maybe air gives enough scatter at UV?): https://youtu.be/Bi3-CEbsxvA?t=23

This sounds nice

Israel and New Zealand have given interim approval for the sale of biotech firm SaNOtize Research and Development’s Nitric Oxide Nasal Spray (NONS) which could help prevent transmission of the COVID-19
.
.
Last week, SaNOtize and Ashford and St Peter’s Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust in Surrey, UK announced results of clinical trials showing that NONS was an effective antiviral treatment that could prevent the transmission of COVID-19, shorten its course, and reduce the severity of symptoms and damage in those already infected.

https://news.trust.org/item/20210322142323-9i5gq

At least, it’s not expected to be harmful. Vasodilator so maybe — probably less so than grinding up and snorting Viagra.

I’ve heard of using NO for smelly shoe remediation but directly up your nose? Also it oxidizes so quickly there must be an issue with delivery of the reaction product, nitrites/nitrates.

If everyone is vaccinated, no use for it? Ummm, what about a future pandemic, how great it would be to have Healight there for use.

Want to respond to Orac? Here's your chance. Leave a reply! Just make sure that you've read the Comment Policy (link located in the main menu in the upper right hand corner of the page) first if you're new here!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.