Bad science Medicine Politics Popular culture

Healight: A highly implausible treatment for COVID-19

Last week, President Trump proposed using internal light to treat COVID-19. Partisans defended him by pointing to Healight, an experimental device to do just that. It didn’t help.

President Trump’s remarks late last week about potentially ingesting or injecting disinfectants, such as bleach, and shining ultraviolet light on or in the body to kill SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that is responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic were so divorced from reality and science that I thought I wouldn’t have to deal with them a second time. After all, just because a disinfectant or UV light can kill a virus on inanimate surfaces doesn’t mean that it will work internally. At the time, I expressed concern that Trump’s words would embolden the quacks who tout Miracle Mineral Solution (which releases chlorine dioxide, a form of industrial bleach, when mixed with dilute acid) as a cure all (they did) and the quacks who use UV blood irradiation, which involves circulating a patient’s blood through a devide that shines UV radiation on it through the clear tubing (it emboldened them too). What I did not anticipate (but should have) is that poison control centers would be flooded with calls about people ingesting Lysol, bleach, and other disinfectants in New York, Chicago, and elsewhere. Nor did I expect a company hawking a device called Healight to promote its dubious product, leading to Twitter lighting up:

You might ask why I’m not featuring Tweets by the company developing Healight, Aytu Bioscience. Simple. Twitter deleted the Tweets featuring the video and suspended the company’s official Twitter account, while YouTube removed the video as well. Unsurprisingly, Breitbart and other pro-Trump sources portrayed this ban as “censorship.” Ultimately Aytu’s account was reinstated, and you can now find its promotion of its device back on Twitter:

Let’s look at the claims made for the device. However, before we do that, let’s look at what was being said about Healight before Trump’s Thursday press conference. Three days before Trump’s ill-fated COVID-19 daily briefing, there were Tweets like this:

After the conference, of course, not everyone was enthusiastic:

So what are the claims being made by Aytu Bioscience through its CEO Josh Disbrow and its scientists Drs. Mark Pimentel, Ruchi Mathur, Gil Melmed, and Ali Rezaie, who are working with Cedars Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles? What is Healight? Basically, it’s a catheter with an LED emitting UV-A light. We even know that an abstract has been presented at a gastroenterology conference:

An abstract led by the team at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center was published in the United European Gastroenterology Journal, October 2019, titled “Internally Applied Ultraviolet Light as a Novel Approach for Effective and Safe Anti-Microbial Treatment.” Here, the authors show that UVA light exhibits significant in vitro bactericidal effects in an array of clinically important bacteria. Additionally, this is the first study using intracolonic UVA application, which reports that UVA exposure is not associated with endoscopic or histologic injury. These findings suggest that UVA therapy can potentially provide a safe and effective novel approach to antimicrobial treatment via phototherapy on internal organs.

You’d really think that actual doctors would know better than this. First, this abstract claims bactericidal effects. (SARS-CoV-2 is a virus.) Next, you would think that actual doctors would understand that, just because shining a UV light on an inanimate surface can kill microbes, that doesn’t necessarily mean that shining it on a living organ from the inside will do the same, nor does it mean that it will kill viruses. In a press release issued April 20, the inventors of Healight proclaimed:

Led by Mark Pimentel, MD, the research team of the Medically Associated Science and Technology (MAST) Program at Cedars-Sinai has been developing the patent-pending Healight platform since 2016 and has produced a growing body of scientific evidence demonstrating pre-clinical safety and effectiveness of the technology as an antiviral and antibacterial treatment. The Healight technology employs proprietary methods of administering intermittent ultraviolet (UV) A light via a novel endotracheal medical device. Pre-clinical findings indicate the technology’s significant impact on eradicating a wide range of viruses and bacteria, inclusive of coronavirus. The data have been the basis of discussions with the FDA for a near-term path to enable human use for the potential treatment of coronavirus in intubated patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). Beyond the initial pursuit of a coronavirus ICU indication, additional data suggest broader clinical applications for the technology across a range of viral and bacterial pathogens. This includes bacteria implicated in ventilator associated pneumonia (VAP).

“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,” stated Dr. Pimentel of Cedars-Sinai. Ali Rezaie, MD, one of the inventors of this technology states, “Our lab at Cedars-Sinai has extensively studied the effects of this unique technology on bacteria and viruses. Based on our findings we believe this therapeutic approach has the potential to significantly impact the high morbidity and mortality of coronavirus-infected patients and patients infected with other respiratory pathogens. We are looking forward to partnering with Aytu BioScience to move this technology forward for the benefit of patients all over the world.”

The company believes the Healight platform technology has the potential to positively impact outcomes for critically ill patients infected with coronavirus and severe respiratory infections.

Let’s just take a look at why this proposal is so implausible. First of all, let’s say Healight works exactly as claimed by Aytu (in vitro, at least) and killed only the cells infected with coronavirus while sparing the 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.) Let’s further assume that it does the same thing that Aytu claims it does 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 is likely to all those infected cells within range of light of high enough energy to do it is likely to kill them all en mass, rather than in a random fashion (as the virus likely does as it replicates in one cell, killing it and releasing virus in the vicinity to kill other cells). 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 will 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’s being generous and assuming that the light’s selectivity for virus-infected cells is perfect and that it doesn’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 is likely true of Healight.

Then there’s the issue of delivery. Let’s give Aytu every benefit of the doubt possible and assume that their Healight is perfectly selective for coronavirus-infected cells and doesn’t damage surrounding cells in human beings. Let’s even assume that it is 100% effective killing infected cells within its range. Now look at the video on the Aytu Bioscience website. Here are three screenshots I took from the video:

Aside from the disclaimer at the bottom of each screenshot, do you notice anything? The catheter only reaches 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 that. Let’s say that’s possible to do that and that the light kills all the coronavirus-containing infected cells lining the trachea and the larger bronchi. (Of course, given how many branches there are, it would be a painfully tedious process to treat them all.) What then? Because guess what? It’s not 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.) There’s no way a catheter gets that far down the respiratory passages and kills infected cells there, and even if it did it would likely result in more fluid, more inflammation, and worse gas exchange. Again, I’m assuming that the Healight works exactly as Aytu Bioscience claims that it does.

Let’s take it one step further. Let’s say that you could somehow use Healight to kill all the infected cells in the lungs. (That’s a huge stretch, but, again, I’m giving Aytu every benefit of the doubt.) What about the rest of the body? We now know that SARS-CoV-2 infects a wide variety of organs, resulting in, for instance, GI symptoms (OK, I guess you could stick Healight into the colon, but what about the entire lenght of the small bowel?), renal failure, CNS symptoms, and clotting abnormalities? Even if you could sterilize the lung of SARS-CoV-2 without causing more damage, there’s the rest of the body. Remember, we’re talking about seriously ill COVID-19 patients here, not mild disease.

Unsurprisingly, right wing media is latching on to the existence of Healight to defend Donald Trump’s scientifically ignorant remarks last week:

President Trump has been mocked relentlessly for suggesting that ultraviolet light could be brought “inside the body” to kill the coronavirus, but there is ongoing research to do just that.

For example, the pharmaceutical firm Aytu BioScience announced on April 20, four days before the Trump remarks, that it has signed an exclusive licensing deal with Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles. The center has developed and is testing a UV-A “Healight” designed to be inserted via a catheter inside the trachea to kill pathogens, including the coronavirus.

Guess what? Healight doesn’t make what Trump said any less scientifically ignorant or ridiculous. Regardless of what Trump said or whether he knew about it before his disastrous briefing last week, from a scientific standpoint, Healight just doesn’t make sense if you understand basic anatomy and physiology, as well as how viruses work. It could well make some doctors rich before its failure becomes apparent. Twitter and YouTube were perfectly justified in deleting Aytu’s videos. Just because physicians and an academic medical center are supporting a dubious device doesn’t make it any less ridiculous, and, make no mistake, Healight is risibly dubious.

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]

102 replies on “Healight: A highly implausible treatment for COVID-19”

(Of course, given how many branches there are, it would be a painfully tedious process to treat them all.)

Or, possibly, one could deeply inhale about 1/4 pound of very tiny quartz crystals* which coat the entire area of bronchi all the way down into the alveoli thus refracting the UV throughout.

*These crystals would probably need to be manufactured from scratch by, say, heating silicic acid in a pressure cooker — I don’t think it would work to just take a hammer and powder a large crystal.

Scratch that, just found out about silicosis.

<The physical properties of PFC liquids vary substantially; however, the one common property is their high solubility for respiratory gases. In fact, these liquids carry more oxygen and carbon dioxide than blood.

Do perfluorocarbons transmit UV, I wonder? In any case, such methods would not aerosolize virus as with current methods (save for a hyperbaric chamber) for higher partial pressures to be applied.

Bit late there Tim. Humans have been suffering from silicosis since we first got into flint knapping.

I was going to comment that my great great grandfather died from too much silica in the lungs in 1889.

I wouldn’t put it past someone to promote such an idea as a control for COVID-19 seriously given some of the other nonsense we have seen.

” Donald Trump’s scientifically ignorant remarks..”

Oh, I know. Where did he get the background for his “scientific” speculation? Old sci fi novellas/ television shows circa 1962?

“Pathetic earthlings. Hurling your bodies out into the void, without the slightest inkling of who or what is out here. If you had known anything about the true nature of the universe, anything at all, you would’ve hidden from it in terror. ”

Ming the Merciless

Orac makes a very good point about simultaneous death of infected respiratory lining cells leading to a massive inflammatory response to the detriment of the patient (assuming of course that the UV treatment worked).

What happens if the treatment kills “a wide variety” of viruses and bacteria as claimed? What would be the secondary effects of suddenly wiping out the normal flora of the respiratory or digestive tracts? Patients who have their G.I. flora killed off by powerful antibiotics are at risk of devastating colitis caused by Clostridium difficile. You’d wonder if a similar mechanism could occur following UV-induced die-off.

Statements made by this treatment’s promoters remind me uncomfortably of 1claims made by bloodroot salve’s advocates, notably the one about the caustic salve only burning away cancer cells and magically leaving healthy tissue untouched. Also, manipulating wavelength and wattage to selectively kill a pathogen sounds uncomfortably close to what Royal Rife’s adoring fans think they’re doing with Rife machines, i.e. using specific frequencies to kill pathogens and treat a wide range of diseases.

Not to be a buzz-kill, but swatting down coronaviruses or other pathogens through internal UV rays seems a long, long way from prime time.


I must admit that I don’t know why ‘voltage’ gets a pass, but ‘amperage’ and ‘wattage’ are strictly bush-league.

Any chance to rip on Rife…, but yea very good points otherwise.

To be fair, antibiotics cause CDiff colitis by killing much (but crucially not all) of the gut flora, thereby relieving selective pressure on C difficile and leading to its overgrowth. I’m not disagreeing with your overall point, but C difficile would likely die by UV light as well (assuming this nonsense works.)

How far would this UV light be likely to penetrate? Bit of a waste of time to sun-blast the surface cells and miss all the ones just behind, and in the blood and everywhere else. I suppose you could wait for the peeling to finish and go back in for another go. Probably have to ram it up your nose too.

It can get through some layers of cells. UVB can penetrate enough to get through dead skin cells to cause a sunburn, UVA penetrates even deeper. But even if it could kill virus at intensity that doesn’t kill lung cells a much higher intensity would be needed to shine through large enough parts or lungs so you can treat the whole lungs.

“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,” stated Dr. Pimentel of Cedars-Sinai.

I think you are being too kind when you consider this to mean killing of infected cells; he is at least strongly implying that it kills the viruses inside infected cells. Which is a whole new level of ridiculous: a virus inside an infected cell is an RNA molecule, just like millions of other RNA molecules in that cell. You could possibly target it with an RNA binding protein or an antibody, but light?

As you can tell from my article, I was bending over backwards to give them every benefit of the doubt. It was a strategy to show that, even if you accept every claim, their product still can’t work.

I think the term for what Orac has done here is the “steel man” argument. This is in contrast to the straw man argument so beloved of the illogical. While a straw man argument will distort and weaken an opponent’s argument to the point that it is ridiculous and easily refuted, a steel man argument charitably strengthens an opponent’s argument to its best possible version. If the argument still doesn’t stand up to scrutiny even then, well, it must be really terrible and untenable then.

Do not practice steelmaning with people willing to jump on any small concession you might make to ridicule you. Or do so with great talent and at your peril.

I’ve successfully gone to great length with such a loon on another blog. For two weeks. To the enjoyment of a select few on the blog and the annoyance of the majority. When the blog author/moderator has steel nerves, it can be a very enjoyable personal experience to steelman loons. Not very productive but mightily fun.

Well imo the lungs carry blood and mucus and so when it’s killing the virus it’s actually killing the virus in the blood stream because of the thin layer of the lung, by doing this the antibodies can then dispose of it. So leaving it there would essentially kill the virus in the blood stream and then the patient can receive further meds of antibodies to eventually heal. The lungs are a perfect place to use this for accessing the bloodstream without exposing the bloodstream. I’m up for a critique though. I also think inflammation would be worse before treatment and the body would naturally cough up what was needed. The body is amazing.

There is one promising application for this new-fangled approach to killin’ stuff:

Cleaning up afterwards all the little pre-Timmahs just loitering about, not having any real impetus to make something more of themselves, save for the unfortunate occasion of some libtard-funded brownian motion big brother program do-gooders pushing them in the right direction.

No, wait. Can I actually get more money by staying at home making kids and pirating netflix than being forced to work getting minimum wage as an ‘essential worker’? WTF?

I wonder how the informed consent process is working in the center that agreed to test this in their patients.

I have some concerns.

I wonder how the informed consent process is working in the center that agreed to test this in their patients.

said every bicurious guy ever, “hells yea!”

Ohh. The lungs? never mind.


Kim Jong-Un is all like “I don’t want to go on the cart” and that was last week… sister is kinda cute, I’d let her nuke me.

p.s. They supposedly do not have sars there because that one guy that had it was executed because the only way he could have got it was to sneak across the border.

Oh! my point exactly (except you got it backwards). That is what happens to guys that inject testosterone for a 20 min workout and then are flamming assholes for the rest of the day (like every cop ever and like my body builder model friend) because the testosterone drops quickly, leaving the estrogen and it is like they are ‘on the rag’.

Thus, the invention of the menstrual shed about two hours after man discovered knives.

Its not all bed news, I saw this today, while not nearly going far enough imo, its a start, now they need to do the same with AV Dr’s and other assorted physicians who push pseudoscience and quackery such as the ones highlighted here.

ACEP-AAEM Joint Statement on Physician Misinformation
The American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) and the American Academy of Emergency Medicine (AAEM) jointly and emphatically condemn the recent opinions released by Dr. Daniel Erickson and Dr. Artin Messihi. These reckless and untested musings do not speak for medical societies and are inconsistent with current science and epidemiology regarding COVID-19. As owners of local urgent care clinics, it appears these two individuals are releasing biased, non-peer reviewed data to advance their personal financial interests without regard for the public’s health.

COVID-19 misinformation is widespread and dangerous. Members of ACEP and AAEM are first-hand witnesses to the human toll that COVID-19 is taking on our communities. ACEP and AAEM strongly advise against using any statements of Drs. Erickson and Messihi as a basis for policy and decision making.

I see that Aytu Bioscience – the marketing side of the operation – was already gaining a reputation as “Corona-portunists” even before this Healight debacle, when they were selling a batch of dodgy COVID tests that fell off the back of a Chinese lorry. One prescient market analyst was advising investors to sell stock before the testing bubble burst, as their business model of “Buy the rights to niche pharma products and sell them at a mark-up, without any biomedical expertise” did not seem especially viable.

Then the testing bubble burst (because the Chinese manufacturer’s tests weren’t reliable), leaving Aytu in desperate need of a new bubble, so this whole untested unlicensed “colonic sunburn” brain-fart got rebranded as a “tracheal sunburn” cure for COVID

Oddly enough this article does not have an article. It emerged from the quantum foam after an unusual space-time event associated with a rare celestial configuration. No one knows when the next spontaneous article will appear. We can only wait and wonder…

The Boltzmann brain argument suggests that it is more likely for a single brain to spontaneously and briefly form in a void (complete with a false memory of having existed in our universe) than it is for our universe to have come about in the way modern science thinks it actually did. It was first proposed as a reductio ad absurdum response to Ludwig Boltzmann’s early explanation for the low-entropy state of our universe…

…In Boltzmann brain scenarios, the ratio of Boltzmann brains to “normal observers” is astronomically large. Almost any relevant subset of Boltzmann brains, such as “brains embedded within functioning bodies”, “observers who believe they perceiving 3° microwave background radiation through telescopes”, “observers who have a memory of coherent experiences”, or “observers who have the same series of experiences as me”, also vastly outnumber “normal observers”. Therefore, under most models of consciousness, it is unclear that one can reliably conclude that oneself is not such a “Boltzmann observer”, in a case where Boltzmann brains dominate the Universe.

“their business model of “Buy the rights to niche pharma products and sell them at a mark-up, without any biomedical expertise”” – ah yes, the ever popular pharma-bro model. I’ve been on one of the receiving ends of that (’cause they’re not doing the makers of that niche product any good), and my feelings haven’t lessened for having escaped.

Those guys can eff off all the way to the Fyre festival.

At the time, I expressed concern that Trump’s words would embolden the quacks who tout Miracle Mineral Solution (which releases chlorine dioxide, a form of industrial bleach, when mixed with dilute acid) as a cure all (they did)

I am led to believe that it was the MMS junkies who put the idead in Donald Trump’s head in the first place. It has obviously been really galling for Donald Trump, who has made a life out of pulling fast ones on unsuspecting people, to find he has been conned spectacularly and publically himself.

It’s too bad Trumps not a Catholic. He would be recommending chartering planes to fly people to bathe in the waters at Lourdes. Oh, wait, he isn’t a medical scientist nor an epidemiologist; yet still recommends treatments that may actually cause more harm than good, so, maybe he will eventually recommend the “healing” waters at Lourdes. And if so many people did this, well, I wonder what the possibility is of the waters becoming contaminated, resulting in some getting additional infections?


Oops! I sent a good friend who is a devout Catholic the above. Her e-mail reply was: “Want my personal opinion… That comment, referring to some people’s religious beliefs, will definitely not win any friends or followers on the blog. It started out going after Trump’s comments about treatments and/or cures for COVID-19 but turned into a mocking of people’s religious beliefs about the Shrine at Lourdes. …Not a good idea.” I should have thought it through before posting.

My response to my friend is: “Sorry. Wasn’t my intention to mock religious beliefs, just to point out that Trump grasps at anything. The belief in the healing power of the waters of Lourdes, is simply that, a belief, whether true or not is beside the point, it isn’t a scientifically-validated finding. In fact, from my point of view, we know that the human body is quite capable of many things and if people, who are sick, don’t take a lot of harmful remedies, try to stay calm, try to get enough sleep, sometimes this allows the body to do its own thing. So, bathing in the waters of Lourdes might just result in the aforementioned. And if it is some miracle, so be it; but not science. In any case, sorry, should have run it by you before posting.”

My apologies if I offended anyones religion.

In the future, I’ll do my best to try to not mention religious beliefs.

The offense is of her own thin skin–it offends me that she belives in something like Lourdes in the 21st century–or the 19th for that matter.

@ Joel

There’s a time and a place for mocking either alt-med or religious beliefs. You did nothing wrong. Maybe you lacked tact, but nothing wrong per se.

@ brainmatterz

People have ambiguous perceptions of religion. On matters such as these, the mind of quite a number of people seem strangely compartimentalised. They can hold belief A and non-A simultaneously, as long as they find any convoluted mental mechanisms to hide the contradiction to themselves.

I know devout catholics who, technically, are staunch atheists. It’s completely fascinating how people can utterly reject the concept of God, while at the same time being completely immersed in the religious culture for their own peculiar personal, social and cultural reasons. When you dig in as to why people’s mind can be so compartimentalised, one explaining factor I found was that people who identify as religious, even if they really do not believe in God, tend to do so because they conceive of ethics and morality as being in essence above secular law.

They may know that Lourdes is utter bullshit while being simultaneously enthralled by all the mythology. They do not believe that Lourdes works, but they are attached to the existence of such dreamy illusions in the minds of other people. A bit like Santa Claus… Social illusions that are preserved and defended because they serve an implicit purpose.

@ F68.10

You write: “There’s a time and a place for mocking either alt-med or religious beliefs. You did nothing wrong. Maybe you lacked tact, but nothing wrong per se.”

Perhaps you didn’t understand why I apologized. I’ll try once more. My intent was to simply give another example of what Trump might do without any thought or reflection; but it could have been misconstrued, as my friend saw it, to equate a BELIEF in the healing powers of the waters of Lourdes with Trump’s lack of understanding science and pushing unscientifically validated treatments. A religious belief is on a different plane and shouldn’t have been equated with matters that science deals with. So, my intent wasn’t to mock religion.

I know devout catholics who, technically, are staunch atheists.

I know orthodox Jews who sport FSM T-shirts.

@ Joel

“A religious belief is on a different plane and shouldn’t have been equated with matters that science deals with.”

That’s precisely the point I disagree with. You cannot clearly demarcate these. Gould was wrong.

@ F68.10

You write, first quoting me: ““A religious belief is on a different plane and shouldn’t have been equated with matters that science deals with.”

That’s precisely the point I disagree with. You cannot clearly demarcate these. Gould was wrong.

No, you can’t completely demarcate beliefs from science; but as i’ve pointed out in numerous comments to antivaccinationists, the world isn’t extremes of black and white. And it is a belief system that science should be the final arbiter. It was “science” that promoted eugenics. It is “science” that builds weapons of mass destruction. If a religion tried to incorporate funding of trips to Lourdes in health insurance, that would be a problem; but they don’t. And is it science that we keep 20,000 people a day in permanent vegetative states alive? Everything we do is based on some form of belief. Science can tell us what works and doesn’t work within a delimited sphere; but not which option should be taken. The choices are based on beliefs.

I would much prefer to have people like Dietrich Bonhoeffer and the 18th Century Quakers than the vast majority of Americans today. Everyone has a belief that underlines their lives, just some are more open than others. Many Americans believe we are a democracy and have moral leadership of the world. What a joke! We have gerrymandering, voter suppression, 100s of million of dollars for 30-second soundbites, and the electoral college (created mainly to protect the slave states), etc. and we have 5% of world’s population and almost 25% of prisoners. Various studies estimate about 100,000 are TOTALLY innocent; but the various innocence projects can, at best, take on 1% of cases because, even with overwhelming evidence, our legal system is biased against admitting errors. And our prisons, especially possibly the only for-profit prisons in the world, are barbaric institutions, overcrowded, violent, etc. So, I prefer Bonhoeffer and others like him to many Americans, religious and not.

And I, a Jew, prefer Pope Francis to not only Trump; but every President we’ve had since I began voting. Nope, don’t agree with everything he does; but compared to what? The fact that he basis his actions on his interpretation of Jesus is irrelevant to me, it is his actions that count.

You come off as as self-righteous and certain of your BELIEFS as antivaccinationists, etc.

@ Narad

As I’ve said before, sometimes you actually contributed to the discussion and sometimes appear to just want to irritate.

You write, first quoting me: Bonhoeffer also corresponded with Gandhi


Bonhoeffer was safely in the United States. Everyone who knew him tried to stop him from returning to Germany; but he did to help Jews, Gays, Handicapped, etc., knowing he was putting his life at risk. Yes, he admired Gandhi and hoped to visit him; but is that the only thing your petty mind sees as positive? Maybe complexities escape you???

I also like Gandhi; but also Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King, Oscar Schindler, and many others. I personally know doctors who have risked their lives with Doctors Without Borders to go to South Sudan and elsewhere, people who have served in the Peace Corps and Job Corps, some guided by their religion, some not, so what? For me what is important is what they do, how they treat their fellow human beings. And, actually I “believe” that even atheist actually, when acting morally, without being aware of it, are acting on values from various religions that permeate our lives, consciously or unconsciously. Unfortunately, as I already wrote, people can twist religion to confirm their own prejudices and needs.

@ Joel

“Science can tell us what works and doesn’t work within a delimited sphere; but not which option should be taken. The choices are based on beliefs.”

I am perfectly aware that science can morph into ideology. But more to the point than the valid examples you gave, here’s in my opinion, how the morphing occurs and its only possible antidote.

It’s a statement of fact that beliefs are indeed rampant even in people who strive to avoid them. But that doesn’t mean that this state of things is a manifestation of fate. That’s why I tend to disagree with you on this specific point. For instance, I do not believe that moral values or ethics are just up for grabs or that we should stand in awe in front of bronze age moral values that people got from a voice in a whirlwind. At all. There are right and wrong ways to select one’s values, and ignorance of that, which I hold to be a fact, whether the ignorance be willful or unwilling, is a key barrier to having more rational discussions about morality and values. So I do not draw the lines of science or rationality where you seem to draw them.

However, there are better and worse people, whether religious or not. Pope Francis is a case in point. There clearly could be worse people in that position. But instead of focusing on making the world a better place, it’s worthwhile to sometimes step back and simply think of making it a less worse place. It’s a question of methodology. That’s why, inasmuch as I do have a rather positive opinion of Pope Francis (to take your example), I cannot stop at a personal evaluation of my fondness towards him, and feel obliged to keep criticising religious beliefs and institutions. Including the Pope. I do not stop at good looks.

However, to get back to your original problem, criticism of religion is something I find vital. If it needs to be done with a total lack of courtesy, then so be it. Most of the time, we can afford being polite, though. But I do not believe politeness or the Pope’s good looks ought to be construed as anything worthy of stifling criticism.

I only just noticed this entry while looking for a fresh comment that the page tail may have prematurely advertised.

And, actually I “believe” that even atheist actually, when acting morally, without being aware of it, are acting on values from various religions that permeate our lives, consciously or unconsciously

Like sands through an hourglass, so are the days of the Cosmic Mind.

@ brainmatterz

You write: “The offense is of her own thin skin–it offends me that she belives in something like Lourdes in the 21st century–or the 19th for that matter.”

My friend was neither claiming the truth nor falsity; but simply pointing out that it was an uncalled for offense to people of faith. And she was right. What was intended against Trump wasn’t well thought out by me. And I find it offensive that you sit on your high horse and judge people.

I recently read a biography of one of my all-time heroes, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a German Protestant minister who from the beginning opposed the Nazis. When In U.S. he visited Abyssinian Baptist Church in Harlem and became good friends with Pastor, road trip with him through the South and hated segregation. He was also good friends in Germany with many Jews, helped some escape from the Nazis and was executed 2 weeks before we liberated prison he was at. Those who witnessed this said they NEVER saw anyone so serene, he devoted his time in prison to comforting others and went to the gallows with a smile on his face. He was going to Jesus. He also wrote one of the best books I’ve read on Christianity or any religion, “The Cost of Discipleship” where he discusses “cheap grace” and “costly grace.” “Cheap grace” is going to Church, giving money to charity, etc. “Costly grace” is dying (your ego) and being reborn as the vesicle that Jesus lives through, the Jesus of love, compassion, forgiveness, caring for ones fellow man, e.g., Matthew: when you gave drink to the thirsty, when you gave food to the hungry, when you cared for the sick, when you did this to the LEAST of your brothers you did unto me.” One of the most beautiful inspiring passages in the New Testament. Bonhoeffer also corresponded with Gandhi and was planning to visit him in India. He was only 45 when executed. Had he lived, maybe he would have given a lecture tour of U.S. and since I read his book back in 1960s, I could have met him.

II doubt someone like you would devote their lives to all people, especially the poor and oppressed as Bonhoeffer believed Jesus called him to do. And it was Quakers who began the abolition movement in the United States, not self-righteous people like you. I am of little faith and often envy people of faith who use it for compassion, justice, etc. We have crosses everywhere in the US, the highest percentage of church goers; but I “believe” if Jesus were really to return that many would reject him because they reject what he taught (many Evangelicals oppose Medicaid, Welfare, etc); but that doesn’t change the fact that many also do listen and follow what he taught. One can say this about any belief system, including political beliefs. As La Rochenfault said in the 19th Century: “Hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue.” Religion has been both a positive force and a negative force in history; but the negative wasn’t what the religion taught, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism; but people who twist it to suit their own prejudices and needs. People who follow the actual teachings usually display compassion and caring for their fellow man.

So, if someone is dying and there is no current medical remedy, going to Lourdes may give them a peace of mind that dying in a sterile hospital environment won’t. Who am I to judge them?

One phrase in the Bible I do like, when applied properly: “Judge not, less ye shall be judged.”

@ Joel

“As La Rochenfault said in the 19th Century”

Very good reference. It’s a must read.

But it’s not the 19th century but the 17th century. The century of the birth of intelligence in real social life. One of the major turning points in human history. I feel that we failed to live up to the expectations of these major figures of this century.

Mary Shelly, consort to cuck Percy Bitch Shelly (who also had a weird limb anomaly though I’m not sure he was from chicago), would tend to agree with you. Little slut.

Not sure if folks saw it, but Aytu had a column on the op-ed pages for the Wall Street Journal this morning. I only skimmed it but it was intended to justify/defend their promo material and cry about how politics is getting in the way of wonderful innovations.

Things people claim get in the way of innovation:

Things that actually get in the way of those specific innovations:

(There are other, real barriers to innovation, like money and access, but the people who whine the loudest are the ones who’s “innovations” just won’t work.)

If you read the WSJ op-ed (by Josh Disbrow, the company’s CEO) make sure your irony meters are well-shielded. Excerpts:

”My team and I knew the president’s comments could trigger a backlash against the idea of UV light as a treatment, which might hinder our ability to get the word out. We decided to create a YouTube account, upload a video animation we had created, and tweet it out. It received some 50,000 views in 24 hours.”

A more compelling explanation for the social media blitz is that the company wanted to take advantage of Trump’s remarks to push its product.

”These days, politics seems to dictate that if one party says, “The sky is blue,” the other party is obligated to reply, “No, it’s not, and you’re a terrible human being for thinking that.” That leaves no room for science, in which the data speak for themselves, regardless of ideology, and only when they’re ready.”

Yes, Mr. Disbrow, the data does speak for itself, and it’s saying pitifully little. Using complaints of ”censorship” to cover up that fact is sleazy.

Their video animation hurt my brain. In their idea of human anatomy the larynx is right at the back of the tongue, and the lungs are up in the shoulders.

Mr Disbrow’s business is all about buying the rights to someone else’s niche pharmaceutical products and resell them with a profit margin. How they work or whether they work is not his area of expertise.

The Cedars-Sinai patent for their LED-suppository is an informative document. Mainly about colonic applications, with a few claims about oral administration as well to treat esophagal and stomach problems. The bizarre concept of threading it down a patient’s trachea had never crossed their minds… this COVID-opportunism is very much a last-minute act of desperation to drag Aytu out of its disastrous situation.

Woo-meisters and anti-vaxxers continue apace…

The usual suspects ( RFK jr, the Bolen Report, the High Wire, AoA, PRN etc) encourage their readers to suspect SBM information about Covid-19 and leaders with this perspective on the pandemic ( such as Drs Fauci, Redfield, the CDC, WHO, Governor Cuomo) because THEY KNOW BETTER. Question authorities they say! Like they would be able to judge that!

In other news.. Covid reality
I personally have lost someone to this illness: he was a physician who worked primarily with the elderly, visiting them in ICU and at a rehab facility. He caught the virus and was in ICU himself for over a month.
So many people have died that it is difficult to find appropriate sympathy cards. Fortunately, I have many postcards of artists’ work from galleries I used to frequent so I wrote my thoughts on one of those for his family who are also doctors.

I appreciate that.

The late doctor represents an illuminating contrast to alt med big mouths who don’t risk anything for patients.

I am not a physician or clinician – just an electrical engineer with an engineer’s grasp of the effects of high intensity UV wavelength radiation on human tissue. I agree that stuffing UV emitting devices down one’s trachea is non-sense.

On the other hand I have not seen credible evidence that Trump’s remarks are causing otherwise sane people to drink bleach. Rather Trump’s remarks remind of occasions where non-technical managers have implored my team to “think outside the box” in order to achieve elusive solutions.

What is alarming is how almost all of the comments here appear to support the filtering of information and the suppression of the free exchange of ideas – the fact that you all fail to see the danger in this folly is horrifying. The COVID-19 virus is bad, to be sure, but even more threatening is this assault on our liberty. How can you not see?..not see how we are lurching towards totalitarianism.

This virus is not just killing us as individuals…it is destroying us as a nation..a nation that is founded on the principles of individual freedom. Our freedom, once surrendered, will never be returned.

Criticizing bad science, pseudoscience, and opportunistic doctors is NOT the “suppression of the free exchange of ideas.” You seem to be equating harsh criticism with “censorship.” That’s utter nonsense.

@ Thomas Ward

First, our nation wasn’t founded on the principles of individual freedom. The author of the Declaration of Independence, the co-signers, and also the Constitution, many were slave owners and women had NO rights. In fact, many considered democracy rule of the mob. Second, freedom is one side of a coin, it is balanced with responsibility. Your freedom ends at my nose. Third, what an absolutely moronic statement, an extreme view of black and white to claim what is going on is a sacrifice of the “freedom” we actually never had. Freedom is a relative term, not an absolute.

And, as Orac clearly states, no censorship; but it isn’t thinking outside the box to ignore science, to grasp at straws that potentially, as the latest studies have found with hydroxychloroquine, actually is killing people. It is you who are advocating censorship when you want people like Orac to not criticize stupidity. As La Rochefoucauld wrote 150 years ago: “Hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue”.

If you really advocate for freedom you might start with our “criminal” justice system, 5% of world’s population, 25% of imprisoned with about 100,000 TOTALLY INNOCENT and the various innocence projects can only take on about 1% of cases because our system is BIASED against admitting mistakes and fights tooth and nail against overturning convictions, even when overwhelming evidence is presented. Tell your concept of freedom to these 100,000. Or that once someone serves their time, almost no chance to start over, even denied the vote in many states. Someone should advocate that in these states, they should be exempt from all taxes, sales, property, income, after all, its taxation without representation if they can’t vote.

As for sane people drinking bleach. First, bleach is just one example of Trump; but desperate people do desperate things. And we live in a society where studies have found that around 80% of population don’t understand the basics of science. If one looks at some of the alternative medicines, just as dangerous, e.g. chelation therapy for autism has actually killed kids. Chelation won’t remove mercury from brain and even if it did, killed nerve cells don’t regenerate; yet parents claim they immediately noticed changes. And on and on it goes, so why is it impossible that someone might use bleach? And, actually historically some deadly toxins have been used, e.g. first successful treatment of syphilis was a derivative of arsenic and many cancer chemotherapies use toxins, etc. But how, when, amounts, etc. were determined by science! ! !

Indeed “Freedom is a relative term..” in this moment just as it was at the time of the founding. The fact that injustice exists does not obviate the principle that we all enter this world with the same set fundamental rights..”inalienable rights”.

I ended up here because information about this ridiculous Healight device was being scrubbed. I don’t give a damn about the fortunes of Aytu, but I do become a bit animated when confronted with the claim that it’s ok to tweak search engine algorithms, shut down twitter accounts, spike news feeds, etc. in order to protect us “sheep” from ourselves – we “80%” that you have piously referred to.

So whom shall be ordained make the lofty decision as to who will be heard and who will be silenced? Corporate media? Some anonymous programmer sitting in a cube up on the third floor of “Bldg F”? How about JournoList? Hogwash!

Let’s demand a truly open internet – unfiltered – the “wild west” if you will – let the chips fly! “How reckless! dangerous!” the elites will shout..”How will we continue our march towards utopia?!”

I choose freedom and all it’s attending perils.

I ended up here because information about this ridiculous Healight device was being scrubbed.

“Respectful Insolence is not the obviious place to come because of Twitter’s & Youtube’s business decisions. Were you under the impression that Orac was responsible for their removal of the Aytu advertisements?

Someone noted above that the Wall Street Journal gave Aytu an entire Op-Ed column to whine about the suppression of their skeezy little scam.

Some anonymous programmer sitting in a cube up on the third floor of “Bldg F”? How about JournoList? Hogwash!

Invoking “JournoList” as a shibboleth of “Liberal Bias in the Media” is very old-school. What next? Rules for Radicals?

@ Thomas Ward

You write: “Let’s demand a truly open internet – unfiltered – the “wild west” if you will – let the chips fly! “How reckless! dangerous!” the elites will shout..”How will we continue our march towards utopia?!”

I choose freedom and all it’s attending perils.”

Yep, let’s let Nazis post absolute lies about Jews with the resultant recent increases in attacks. Let’s let racist post rants and lies about minorities. Let’s let anonymous people posts claims that someone is a child molester, drug dealer, etc. I could go on and on. Lies and hate do have consequences. For most people, a rational rebuttal will do the job; but for some, the consequences to innocent people can be devastating. The question is not a black and white, dichotomous, approach to free speech; but where to draw the line. Too far in one direction suppresses alternative points of view; but too far in the other results in violence and other harms to individuals and society.

Your approach ignores or show a callous disregard for the innocent victims that absolute freedom of the internet would lead to. Not surprising given what else you wrote in your comments.

What next? Rules for Radicals?

That reminds me that I need to replace my worn-out IWW T-shirts.

Thomas Ward: “I choose freedom and all it’s attending perils.”

What I find amusing about all of those signs saying “freedom”, etc are then followed by legislating limiting women access to medical care. Looking at you Texas and a few other states.

Please get your fact straight. It was VERY HIGH DOSES of CHLOROQUINE (much higher than used in malaria treatments) who was found to significantly increase mortality in A SUBGROUP of Covid19 patients in Brazil due to cardiac arrythmias. . NOT HYDROXYchloroquine.

Also TRUMP NEVER said to “drink bleach” You and the media put those words in his mouth in reporting what he actually said. He was SIMPLY asking questions to his science team during the press conference about out of the box ideas to fight this virus.

Please get your fact straight.

What reason do you have to suppose that HCQ and CQ have different cardiac safety profiles?

The COVID-19 virus is bad, to be sure, but even more threatening is this assault on our liberty….

…This virus is not just killing us as individuals…it is destroying us as a nation..a nation that is founded on the principles of individual freedom. Our freedom, once surrendered, will never be returned.

Elon Musk agrees with you.

“Frankly, I would call it forcible imprisoning of people in their homes against all of, their constitutional rights, in my opinion,” he said. “It’s breaking people’s freedoms in ways that are horrible and wrong and not why they came to America or built this country. What the f—. Excuse me. Outrage. Outrage.”

…”If somebody wants to stay in their house, that’s great and they should be able to,” he said. “But to say they cannot leave their house and that they will be arrested if they do, that’s fascist. That is not democratic — this is not freedom. Give people back their goddamn freedom.”

And I always agree with Elon -master race. The scales have peeled off my eyes! Thanks, Thomas Ward.

I actually do agree that some of the orders are way out of bounds but the problem is that people, in general are acting stupid not ‘distancing’ at all, given an inch, and not even wearing masks.

Consider who wants to force things before treatments are tuned:

Georgia’s brash reopening puts much of the state’s working class in an impossible bind: risk death at work, or risk ruining yourself financially at home.

… Some residents think pressure from the state’s most influential business owners—people who would be shielded from the dangers their employees would face—was a likely factor in the decision to reopen. Others have speculated that the move is intended to bolster the state’s budget, possibly by making thousands of people ineligible for unemployment benefits if their employers reopen. “Every indication thus far is that you as an employee can’t stay home and continue to collect unemployment simply because you fear infection,” Mayor Girtz told me. “You of your own volition have made that decision, in terms of how the system views you.”

…“They’ve long prioritized policies that they believe support businesses, even though those same policies might not be good for workers or for the communities that those workers come from.”

…They’re going back to a job that places them at increased risk for exposure to coronavirus, and they don’t have access to Medicaid, because we haven’t expanded it,” he explained. Across America, black and Latino people have died from COVID-19 at rates far outpacing that of white people.

…it may be two or three weeks before hospitals see a new wave of people whose lungs look like they’re studded with ground glass in X-rays. By then, there’s no telling how many more people could be carrying the disease into nail salons or tattoo parlors, going about their daily lives because they were told they could do so safely.

…In the meantime, local leaders whose municipal shutdowns have been overruled by state law are relying on other methods to keep their communities safe: disseminating information… He’s lived in Athens a long time, and was worried that in a town known for revelry, a few people partying outside could turn into a lot of people partying outside. “They were drinking beer on the curb,” he recalled. “I just had to say, ‘Y’all, enjoy your time to the degree that you can, but at least go up on the damn porch.’”

It looks like Iowa is doing the same thing.

At least epidemiologists at the University of Iowa are speaking out.

Last week, seven epidemiology and biostatistics professors from the University of Iowa advised the governor not to loosen social-distancing restrictions, KWWL reported. They wrote a research paper for the governor after they were commissioned by the Iowa Department of Public Health.

“We observe a huge range of possible outcomes, from relatively low fatalities to catastrophic loss of life,” the paper said.

The scientists said there was still “considerable uncertainty” over how many deaths the state may eventually have; the projections range from 150 to over 10,000 deaths.

“We have found evidence of a slowdown in infection and mortality rates due to social distancing policies, but not that a peak has been reached,” the paper said. The professors said that did not mean measures should be eased: “Therefore, prevention measures should remain in place. Without such measures being continued, a second wave of infections is likely.”

I came here during a search for information regarding the Healight while researching in general the germicidal application of UV light – particularly interested in the use of UVC radiation in the 200~220 nm range which has very limited tissue penetration (absorbed in epithelium) – safe on bare skin / naked eye – safe to use in operating rooms, hospitals, public transport, etc. for the purpose of killing virus/bacteria on SURFACES (also effective on airborne aerosols, droplets).

This is very different from the concept of the Healite – using a device that emits UVB wavelength radiation to PENETRATE living tissues/organs at levels sufficient to kill viruses – this would cause massive damage to the patient’s lungs – while not penetrating deeply enough to have any effect. We absolutely agree on a total lack of merit regarding Aytu’s proposed Healite application – ’nuff said

While there is a big difference between these two applications, the distinction is probably not apparent to the “80%” – and certainly not evident to the president or the media. But does that mean we should block everyone’s access to information regarding the medical/clinical use of UV radiation? I think not.

Liberty vs Responsibility (ethnicity / safe spaces / protected classes): My children are mixed race – my 2 older kids are nearing graduation in biomedical engineering and electrical engineering, respectively. They have been raised with the mantra “your ethnicity does not define you – you must succeed on your own abilities and hard work”. They also seem to know when to put-up and when to shut-up – no safe spaces – they hang tough.

Think about it..controlling the spread Covid-19 is a lot like trying to control the flow of information. Containing a virus requires a sacrifice of our physical freedom while limiting the dissemination of “toxic” ideas on the internet requires the suppression of our freedom of expression. And to what ends? Can we really control either one? It seems we can only delay the process because ideas, like viruses, eventually achieve ubiquity. (vaccination is a false analogy unless you propose lobotomies for all)

Freedom – how much do we give up?..and to whom do we prostrate ourselves?


Ryan West, the deputy director of Iowa Workforce Development, told Radio Iowa that there were some exceptions, such as workers diagnosed with COVID-19.

I should think that if one’s SARS-COV-2 has progressed to COVID-19 then it is probably prudent of them to grant such an exception.

Bob, if you could remove your ‘throat thing’ for the rest of the presentation, that would be great.

Thomas, perhaps you could do everyone a favor and explain in your own words the difference between ‘liberty’ and ‘freedom’.

I would love to know who Orac works for. Deep State? China?? Be careful buddy. The sheep are waking up. Your

Hm. An anonymous attack on a doctor whose name, work record and research history are available at the touch of a button. How convincing…

I am fascinated by the number of people who assume that anyone who supports science-based medicine is being paid.

It sounds to me like a bit of projection.

Who is paying you, Finny? And if no one, then why do you assume other people are being paid?

Found Q-anon. Trust in Trump’s plan, buddy.

Who can figure out the true meaning of “covfefe” ??? Enjoy!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 31, 2017

@ Finny

You left out the Illuminatis, the Catholic Church, the Masons, the Elders of Zion. All have been seen by nutcases in the U.S. as part of some vast conspiracy. Or, perhaps, he has multiple memberships??? ?

“Be careful buddy. The sheep are waking up. Your”

Looks like the Deep State got Finny. 🙁

I am disgusted by the author and this articles. To criticize a potential therapy for coronavirus and other respiratory pathogens using an endotracheal UV light device by making ignorant assumptions of how it works by pulling them out if his A*SJUST BECAUSE IT MADE TRUMP’S REMARKS LOOK GOID is absolute desperation on the author’s part. His Trump Derangement Syndrome is showing.

To cast aspersions on the researchers and other people at Aytu Bioscience simply because Orac appears to suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome and can’t allow ANYTHING that could make President Trump look reasonable is weak and pathetic. IT IS OK FOR PEOPLE , INCLUDING THE PRESIDENT, TO ASK QUESTIONS AND THINK OUT OF THE BOX when coming up with ideas to combat Covid19!. NO IDEAS should be dismissed by the media out of hand, as the UV therapy question and subsequent discovery that Aytu Bioscience was actually working on that idea shows.

Aytu’s product is still in the development stage, and its final version and capabilities ARE NOT YET KNOWN BY ORAC. It may lead to additional benefits beyond Covid19, such as the lessening of other hospital acquired lung infections while on a respirator for future patients of all types. So some humility and open mindedness oh ORAC’s part would be a very wise thing indeed.

@ Hugo

Gorski is not only a medical doctor; but a published researcher. In science, claims are made with peer-reviewed published articles and then others can look at the methodology, etc. and critique it. I’m also a trained researcher and that is how I work. I really don’t care if it is Trump or Alfred E. Newman who ignores science, has made it clear they don’t seek the advice of scientists, and jumps at anything at the spur of the moment. You don’t like the article, so, critique it, point by point. Otherwise your posts are just moronic rants.

And what is your level of scientific training????

TDS is strong in this group.

Misconstruing context. Where’s the intellect or honor in that?

The data coming in is that we handled this with the wrong approach. Isolate the sick and vulnerable, not the healthy. More people had it then thought.
England – Full lock down 433 deaths per million
Sweden – Controlled open 245 deaths per million

Well imo the lungs carry blood and mucus and so when it’s killing the virus it’s actually killing the virus in the blood stream, by doing this the antibodies can then dispose of it. So leaving it there would essentially kill the virus in the blood stream and then the patient can receive further meds of antibodies to eventually heal. The lungs are a perfect place to use this for accessing the bloodstream without exposing the bloodstream. I’m up for a critique though. I also think inflammation would be worse before treatment and the body would naturally cough up what was needed. The body is amazing.

I see that you are screening these comments and that lets me know everything I need to.

Comments are closed.


Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading