Here's some good news:

https://www.deccanherald.com/science-and...30063.html

As has been discussed many times in the media, this company will begin production of the vaccine immediately, taking the risk that the trials don't go as anticipated.

1976

---

Here's some good news:

https://www.deccanherald.com/science-and...30063.html

As has been discussed many times in the media, this company will begin production of the vaccine immediately, taking the risk that the trials don't go as anticipated.

1976

I admire your economy with words.  In fact, no words at all.  Just a number.  Kudos.  

But, perhaps you could add a little explanatory verbiage in this case.

---

Lung fluid probably transmits more UV light than it absorbs.  Depends how thick it is. But you have to bring the light right to the fluid. You can't rely on the body to "circulate" the light the way it does oxygen and glucose. So this means some sort of invasive process, akin to installing a ventilator. And even if you decided you were brave enough to try with a sebset of desperate patients, it's not likely that the extremely delicate cells in the lungs tolerate UV any more than the virus does.

The UV is claimed to be of a wavelength that doesn't harm cells. I'd be more worried about the optic fibers causing damage. And yes, this could only be used on the desperately ill who have to be intubated anyway. There are probably some other details that would need to be worked out too, and it may not work even then. But the point remains, this is not a totally ridiculous idea that the Leftist media (NYT, CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, WaPo, ...) made it out to be.

1) it can take a surprisingly high amount of UV at various wavelengths to inactivate a virus
2) the virus is inactivated because its RNA is damaged.
https://aem.asm.org/content/82/5/1468

3) DNA (what human cells use) is just as susceptible to UV light as RNA, perhaps more so.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

The UV is claimed to be of a wavelength that doesn't harm cells. I'd be more worried about the optic fibers causing damage. And yes, this could only be used on the desperately ill who have to be intubated anyway. There are probably some other details that would need to be worked out too, and it may not work even then. But the point remains, this is not a totally ridiculous idea that the Leftist media (NYT, CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, WaPo, ...) made it out to be.

1) it can take a surprisingly high amount of UV at various wavelengths to inactivate a virus
2) the virus is inactivated because its RNA is damaged.
https://aem.asm.org/content/82/5/1468

3) DNA (what human cells use) is just as susceptible to UV light as RNA, perhaps more so.

There is a lot of assumption that these UV treatments are directed more at the tissues. This is not the case. It is to lesson infection in the blood product. In the case of intubation, it is to get the light source as close to infection as possible. In any case, if you are at the stage of treating lung damage, you've waited too long. As I've posted before, the lung issue is a byproduct of the body's inflammatory response created by the coronavirus. It is dune to an overactive immune system. In the end, the UV light is a treatment protocal to lessen infection to help the body stay on top and not succumb to the issues caused by overactive immune response leading to cytokine release syndrome.

1.) Actually, no it doesn't. It takes a surprisingly low dose of UV-A or UV-C to kill a virus or mutate its protein without human cellular damage. You linked a polychromatic light source review.

2.) Yes, the virus like most needs a host protein whether it is ssRNA, ssDNA, dsRNA, or dsDNA. Corona is RNA based which allows it to mutate more rapidly.

3.) The genomic DNA of the body is not what is being mutated. It is the host cell DNA. Your body has a natural response to viral DNA mutations called DDR (DNA damage response). It is your body's way of searching out these damaged cells and arresting it so it can't replicate (apoptosis). This is a natural anti-viral response. The UV light jump starts this response. You seem to be confusing DNA mutation at the cellular level with gDNA mutation.

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaTYYk3HxOc

This is the full video of the two ER doctors.  The original full video, which I personally watched, had over 5 million views and was just removed from youtube for "violating community guidelines".  Here is another one with about 50k views, watch it while you can.  This is apparently what tech giants don't want you to see.

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaTYYk3HxOc

This is the full video of the two ER doctors.  The original full video, which I personally watched, had over 5 million views and was just removed from youtube for "violating community guidelines".  Here is another one with about 50k views, watch it while you can.  This is apparently what tech giants don't want you to see.

I'm not saying these guys are wrong; I'm just posting a little counterbalancing view:  

https://calmatters.org/health/2020/04/de...nclusions/

"In a rare statement late today, the American College of Emergency Physicians and the American Academy of Emergency Medicine declared they “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.”"

and

[font=interstate, Helvetica, arial, sans-serif]"Drs. Dan Erickson and Artin Massihi, who own urgent care centers in the region, had called a press conference to release their conclusions about the results of 5,213 COVID-19 tests they had conducted at their centers and testing site. They claimed the results showed that the virus had spread further in the area, undetected, and thus wasn’t all that dangerous.[/font]

"But public health experts were quick to debunk the doctors’ findings as misguided and riddled with statistical errors — and an example of the kind of misleading information they are forced to waste precious time disputing.

[font=interstate, Helvetica, arial, sans-serif]"[/font]The doctors should never have assumed that the patients they tested — who came for walk-in COVID-19 tests or who sought urgent care for symptoms they experienced in the middle of a pandemic — are representative of the general population, said Dr. Carl Bergstrom, a University of Washington biologist who specializes in infectious disease modeling. He likened their extrapolations to “estimating the average height of Americans from the players on an NBA court.” And most credible studies of COVID-19 death rates in reality are far higher than the ones the doctors presented."

Personally, I hope they're right, and that Covid-19 is not as deadly as we thought, that it's spread a lot farther than we thought, and we're a lot close to herd immunity than we thought.  But that doesn't mean I swallow every assertion that reinforces my hope.   I'm not going to believe every oddball that comes out of the woodwork and tells me what I want to hear.  

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaTYYk3HxOc

This is the full video of the two ER doctors.  The original full video, which I personally watched, had over 5 million views and was just removed from youtube for "violating community guidelines".  Here is another one with about 50k views, watch it while you can.  This is apparently what tech giants don't want you to see.

I'm not saying these guys are wrong; I'm just posting a little counterbalancing view:  

https://calmatters.org/health/2020/04/de...nclusions/

"In a rare statement late today, the American College of Emergency Physicians and the American Academy of Emergency Medicine declared they “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.”"

and

[font=interstate, Helvetica, arial, sans-serif]"Drs. Dan Erickson and Artin Massihi, who own urgent care centers in the region, had called a press conference to release their conclusions about the results of 5,213 COVID-19 tests they had conducted at their centers and testing site. They claimed the results showed that the virus had spread further in the area, undetected, and thus wasn’t all that dangerous.[/font]

"But public health experts were quick to debunk the doctors’ findings as misguided and riddled with statistical errors — and an example of the kind of misleading information they are forced to waste precious time disputing.

[font=interstate, Helvetica, arial, sans-serif]"[/font]The doctors should never have assumed that the patients they tested — who came for walk-in COVID-19 tests or who sought urgent care for symptoms they experienced in the middle of a pandemic — are representative of the general population, said Dr. Carl Bergstrom, a University of Washington biologist who specializes in infectious disease modeling. He likened their extrapolations to “estimating the average height of Americans from the players on an NBA court.” And most credible studies of COVID-19 death rates in reality are far higher than the ones the doctors presented."

Personally, I hope they're right, and that Covid-19 is not as deadly as we thought, that it's spread a lot farther than we thought, and we're a lot close to herd immunity than we thought.  But that doesn't mean I swallow every assertion that reinforces my hope.   I'm not going to believe every oddball that comes out of the woodwork and tells me what I want to hear.  

They cross refrenced their statistical findings with the emerging serology studies.  Stanford University isnt some offshoot right wing establishment.  The greater infection rate isnt seriously in dispute.  That means a lower infection mortality rate than confirmed case fatality rate is inevitable.  

In reality we never should have used case fatality.  The CC fatality rate of the flu is actually higher than COVID.  to justify these measures we used the CC mortality rate of COVID against the infection mortality rate of the flu.  That's bad science, even worse public policy.

---

1) it can take a surprisingly high amount of UV at various wavelengths to inactivate a virus
2) the virus is inactivated because its RNA is damaged.
https://aem.asm.org/content/82/5/1468

3) DNA (what human cells use) is just as susceptible to UV light as RNA, perhaps more so.

There is a lot of assumption that these UV treatments are directed more at the tissues. This is not the case. It is to lesson infection in the blood product. In the case of intubation, it is to get the light source as close to infection as possible. In any case, if you are at the stage of treating lung damage, you've waited too long. As I've posted before, the lung issue is a byproduct of the body's inflammatory response created by the coronavirus. It is dune to an overactive immune system. In the end, the UV light is a treatment protocal to lessen infection to help the body stay on top and not succumb to the issues caused by overactive immune response leading to cytokine release syndrome.

1.) Actually, no it doesn't. It takes a surprisingly low dose of UV-A or UV-C to kill a virus or mutate its protein without human cellular damage. You linked a polychromatic light source review.

2.) Yes, the virus like most needs a host protein whether it is ssRNA, ssDNA, dsRNA, or dsDNA. Corona is RNA based which allows it to mutate more rapidly.

3.) The genomic DNA of the body is not what is being mutated. It is the host cell DNA. Your body has a natural response to viral DNA mutations called DDR (DNA damage response). It is your body's way of searching out these damaged cells and arresting it so it can't replicate (apoptosis). This is a natural anti-viral response. The UV light jump starts this response. You seem to be confusing DNA mutation at the cellular level with gDNA mutation.

1) yes, the light source described in the article I linked is polychromatic.  If you can link to any experiments done with monochromatic sources that harm viruses but not human cells, do so. Per my reading, monochromatic UV is created with light filters and not especially practical, but maybe you see something else.

2) Yes, RNA cannot correct errors if damaged. However that's only half the story. Influenza viruses get errors in their RNA, but those errors still produce an infectious virus, just a different one than before. Early indications are that errors in the replication of this coronavirus don't produce any kind of infectious virus at all.

3) Here you acknowledge that the human cells will die.  At 1, though, you said this would not happen.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I'm not saying these guys are wrong; I'm just posting a little counterbalancing view:  

https://calmatters.org/health/2020/04/de...nclusions/

"In a rare statement late today, the American College of Emergency Physicians and the American Academy of Emergency Medicine declared they “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.”"

and

[font=interstate, Helvetica, arial, sans-serif]"Drs. Dan Erickson and Artin Massihi, who own urgent care centers in the region, had called a press conference to release their conclusions about the results of 5,213 COVID-19 tests they had conducted at their centers and testing site. They claimed the results showed that the virus had spread further in the area, undetected, and thus wasn’t all that dangerous.[/font]

"But public health experts were quick to debunk the doctors’ findings as misguided and riddled with statistical errors — and an example of the kind of misleading information they are forced to waste precious time disputing.

[font=interstate, Helvetica, arial, sans-serif]"[/font]The doctors should never have assumed that the patients they tested — who came for walk-in COVID-19 tests or who sought urgent care for symptoms they experienced in the middle of a pandemic — are representative of the general population, said Dr. Carl Bergstrom, a University of Washington biologist who specializes in infectious disease modeling. He likened their extrapolations to “estimating the average height of Americans from the players on an NBA court.” And most credible studies of COVID-19 death rates in reality are far higher than the ones the doctors presented."

Personally, I hope they're right, and that Covid-19 is not as deadly as we thought, that it's spread a lot farther than we thought, and we're a lot close to herd immunity than we thought.  But that doesn't mean I swallow every assertion that reinforces my hope.   I'm not going to believe every oddball that comes out of the woodwork and tells me what I want to hear.  

They cross refrenced their statistical findings with the emerging serology studies.  Stanford University isnt some offshoot right wing establishment.  The greater infection rate isnt seriously in dispute.  That means a lower infection mortality rate than confirmed case fatality rate is inevitable.  

In reality we never should have used case fatality.  The CC fatality rate of the flu is actually higher than COVID.  to justify these measures we used the CC mortality rate of COVID against the infection mortality rate of the flu.  That's bad science, even worse public policy.

Confirmed case fatality rate is only part of the story.
The other part is how contagious the thing is, how many people will get it.
Even with social distancing, in the United States, more people have already died of coronavirus than have died of the flu in any recent flu season. 
One reason is that there is no vaccine for covid 19. even though we know flu vaccines were never perfect, they do help matters.  But probably a bigger reason is that this Coronavirus gives a lot of asymptomatic carriers. We don't know who these carriers might be. Until we do some robust contact tracing like more authoritarian places like South Korea and Singapore, we just have to tell everybody to stay home as much as possible because they might be one of the asymptomatic carriers.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

1976

I admire your economy with words.  In fact, no words at all.  Just a number.  Kudos.  

But, perhaps you could add a little explanatory verbiage in this case.

In 1976 we adopted a mass vaccination program to combat what we thought was a strain similar to spanish flu.  We rushed a vaccine. The epidemic never materialized and 33 people developed Guillain-Barré as a side effect of the vaccinations.  

We can come up with a compound tomorrow.  The 12 to 18 months is to determine the bodies inflammatory response to the synthetic compound and a.) If it will build effective antibodies with durable immunity to the target disease and b.) If its toxic to the body , produces a disease state, or provokes an immune response that's harmful to the body.  

In the case of covid 19, we already know that the genetic material precipitates cytokine storm in patients that are immune compromised.  Weve seen that as a complication in some attempts to develop vaccines for other branches of the corona family.  Skipping the necessary safety steps could lead to more complications than the disease when the head of the NIH is advocating mandatory vaccinations.

---

There is a lot of assumption that these UV treatments are directed more at the tissues. This is not the case. It is to lesson infection in the blood product. In the case of intubation, it is to get the light source as close to infection as possible. In any case, if you are at the stage of treating lung damage, you've waited too long. As I've posted before, the lung issue is a byproduct of the body's inflammatory response created by the coronavirus. It is dune to an overactive immune system. In the end, the UV light is a treatment protocal to lessen infection to help the body stay on top and not succumb to the issues caused by overactive immune response leading to cytokine release syndrome.

1.) Actually, no it doesn't. It takes a surprisingly low dose of UV-A or UV-C to kill a virus or mutate its protein without human cellular damage. You linked a polychromatic light source review.

2.) Yes, the virus like most needs a host protein whether it is ssRNA, ssDNA, dsRNA, or dsDNA. Corona is RNA based which allows it to mutate more rapidly.

3.) The genomic DNA of the body is not what is being mutated. It is the host cell DNA. Your body has a natural response to viral DNA mutations called DDR (DNA damage response). It is your body's way of searching out these damaged cells and arresting it so it can't replicate (apoptosis). This is a natural anti-viral response. The UV light jump starts this response. You seem to be confusing DNA mutation at the cellular level with gDNA mutation.

1) yes, the light source described in the article I linked is polychromatic.  If you can link to any experiments done with monochromatic sources that harm viruses but not human cells, do so. Per my reading, monochromatic UV is created with light filters and not especially practical, but maybe you see something else.

2) Yes, RNA cannot correct errors if damaged. However that's only half the story. Influenza viruses get errors in their RNA, but those errors still produce an infectious virus, just a different one than before. Early indications are that errors in the replication of this coronavirus don't produce any kind of infectious virus at all.

3) Here you acknowledge that the human cells will die.  At 1, though, you said this would not happen.

I have linked study after study that you have yet to read. If you had, we wouldn't be having this conversation. You are completely missing the point in all of this in that UV light in a narrow wavelength such as UV-A and UV-C have and will kill the virus. I also see were you keep mentioning the killing of human cells as a detriment. The body does this naturally and sometimes needs help. I mean, [BLEEP], a virus needs a human host cell to replicate does it not? What I think you are trying to say is that you believe full-spectrum light source can cause tissue damage (cell), therefore, possible organ damage. In that case, yes, FULL SPECTRUM can do this but so can several other pharmaceutical treatments. Keep in mind these are last stage treatment options, not cures.

1.) You linked full spectrum. Closed spectrum or concentrated wavelengths of UV-A and UV-C are been in use for some time. The newest research has it being used to treat blood product in a dialysis fashion whether through intravenous methods or arterial methods. The is another product testing through intubation to get even closer to lung pathways. My opinion is the last will be useless in treating lung disease as a byproduct from corona.

2.) Welcome to immunology 101!

3.) As previously mentioned, there is a difference between tissue cells and host cells in this discussion. You're confusing the two and muddying the waters.

---

I admire your economy with words.  In fact, no words at all.  Just a number.  Kudos.  

But, perhaps you could add a little explanatory verbiage in this case.

In 1976 we adopted a mass vaccination program to combat what we thought was a strain similar to spanish flu.  We rushed a vaccine. The epidemic never materialized and 33 people developed Guillain-Barré as a side effect of the vaccinations.  

We can come up with a compound tomorrow.  The 12 to 18 months is to determine the bodies inflammatory response to the synthetic compound and a.) If it will build effective antibodies with durable immunity to the target disease and b.) If its toxic to the body , produces a disease state, or provokes an immune response that's harmful to the body.  

In the case of covid 19, we already know that the genetic material precipitates cytokine storm in patients that are immune compromised.  Weve seen that as a complication in some attempts to develop vaccines for other branches of the corona family.  Skipping the necessary safety steps could lead to more complications than the disease when the head of the NIH is advocating mandatory vaccinations.

This.

I've posted about this response several pages back. This is why respirators have actually killed a majority of those that ended up on them. A strong dose of anti-inflammatories and anti-biotics should be the treatment upon onset. The reason why doses of hydroxychloroquine and z-packs have been successful when started early is that the malaria drug is an antirheumatic. It interrupts the body's overactive or cytokine release response. With that said, there are better anti-inflammatories that can be used with lesser side effects. The question is why aren't these being used at early onset instead of sending patients home to wait for a cytokine response and eventual ICU care? If we are supposed to sit around and wait for a vaccine, we're in trouble! Mutation has already been seen and we'll be behind the curve. What we need is something like MIT's DRACO...

https://news.mit.edu/2011/antiviral-0810

---

I wish he'd set an example for the rest of us by drinking bleach.

He has a teflon stomach. Nothing would happen to him.

---

The funny thing is, Trumps ideas will probably branch off into a whole new area of R&D for UV light and virus treatment.

Knee pads dude. Knee pads.

---

They cross refrenced their statistical findings with the emerging serology studies.  Stanford University isnt some offshoot right wing establishment.  The greater infection rate isnt seriously in dispute.  That means a lower infection mortality rate than confirmed case fatality rate is inevitable.  

In reality we never should have used case fatality.  The CC fatality rate of the flu is actually higher than COVID.  to justify these measures we used the CC mortality rate of COVID against the infection mortality rate of the flu.  That's bad science, even worse public policy.

Confirmed case fatality rate is only part of the story.
The other part is how contagious the thing is, how many people will get it.
Even with social distancing, in the United States, more people have already died of coronavirus than have died of the flu in any recent flu season. 
One reason is that there is no vaccine for covid 19. even though we know flu vaccines were never perfect, they do help matters.  But probably a bigger reason is that this Coronavirus gives a lot of asymptomatic carriers. We don't know who these carriers might be. Until we do some robust contact tracing like more authoritarian places like South Korea and Singapore, we just have to tell everybody to stay home as much as possible because they might be one of the asymptomatic carriers.

More contagious but not more deadly. We are already learning that almost 50% of the population has had it and herd immunity is in progress. The problem is hot spots like New York saying every death is COVID-19. We also no this to be highly skewed and doctors have admitted to such. It isn't happenstance that Flu/Pneumonia deaths have dropped drastically during the peak of the season. What is contract tracing going to fix? It is just another emotional direction with little effect. COVID-19 isn't a death sentence and there should be two sides to attacking it. 1.) Ramp up pre-cytokine treatments when testing positive. 2.) Continue work on a broad spectrum vaccine for both influenza and corona. Life should go back to normal during this research. If you are compromised, take extra precautions. Over 98% of us will be just fine.

---

In 1976 we adopted a mass vaccination program to combat what we thought was a strain similar to spanish flu.  We rushed a vaccine. The epidemic never materialized and 33 people developed Guillain-Barré as a side effect of the vaccinations.  

We can come up with a compound tomorrow.  The 12 to 18 months is to determine the bodies inflammatory response to the synthetic compound and a.) If it will build effective antibodies with durable immunity to the target disease and b.) If its toxic to the body , produces a disease state, or provokes an immune response that's harmful to the body.  

In the case of covid 19, we already know that the genetic material precipitates cytokine storm in patients that are immune compromised.  Weve seen that as a complication in some attempts to develop vaccines for other branches of the corona family.  Skipping the necessary safety steps could lead to more complications than the disease when the head of the NIH is advocating mandatory vaccinations.

This.

I've posted about this response several pages back. This is why respirators have actually killed a majority of those that ended up on them. A strong dose of anti-inflammatories and anti-biotics should be the treatment upon onset. The reason why doses of hydroxychloroquine and z-packs have been successful when started early is that the malaria drug is an antirheumatic. It interrupts the body's overactive or cytokine release response. With that said, there are better anti-inflammatories that can be used with lesser side effects. The question is why aren't these being used at early onset instead of sending patients home to wait for a cytokine response and eventual ICU care? If we are supposed to sit around and wait for a vaccine, we're in trouble! Mutation has already been seen and we'll be behind the curve. What we need is something like MIT's DRACO...

https://news.mit.edu/2011/antiviral-0810

+1

Behind hcq+z, remdezovir and convalescent plasma the next line of off label therapeutic treatment are anti inflammatories for the reasons you just mentioned, and we should be devoting more resources to that line of treatment instead of building 100k ventilators with a 12% survival rate.  

We should also be looking @ high dose vitamin c.  It regulates the immune response with virtually no risk.  It's only drawback, from a bureaucratic point of view, is that it's cheap.

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaTYYk3HxOc

This is the full video of the two ER doctors.  The original full video, which I personally watched, had over 5 million views and was just removed from youtube for "violating community guidelines".  Here is another one with about 50k views, watch it while you can.  This is apparently what tech giants don't want you to see.

Upon further review, 

The major conclusions and themes the doctor expresses are sound and sobering.  

He makes one major statistical error.  He takes the % of + diagnostic tests and extrapolates them. That's statistically errant.  Those sample groups are screened to provide higher + results and the tests were random.  He should have either a.) Established correlation for those #s to the random serological #s or just b) used the #s from the serological study.

---

1) yes, the light source described in the article I linked is polychromatic.  If you can link to any experiments done with monochromatic sources that harm viruses but not human cells, do so. Per my reading, monochromatic UV is created with light filters and not especially practical, but maybe you see something else.

2) Yes, RNA cannot correct errors if damaged. However that's only half the story. Influenza viruses get errors in their RNA, but those errors still produce an infectious virus, just a different one than before. Early indications are that errors in the replication of this coronavirus don't produce any kind of infectious virus at all.

3) Here you acknowledge that the human cells will die.  At 1, though, you said this would not happen.

I have linked study after study that you have yet to read. If you had, we wouldn't be having this conversation. You are completely missing the point in all of this in that UV light in a narrow wavelength such as UV-A and UV-C have and will kill the virus. I also see were you keep mentioning the killing of human cells as a detriment. The body does this naturally and sometimes needs help. I mean, [BLEEP], a virus needs a human host cell to replicate does it not? What I think you are trying to say is that you believe full-spectrum light source can cause tissue damage (cell), therefore, possible organ damage. In that case, yes, FULL SPECTRUM can do this but so can several other pharmaceutical treatments. Keep in mind these are last stage treatment options, not cures.

1.) You linked full spectrum. Closed spectrum or concentrated wavelengths of UV-A and UV-C are been in use for some time. The newest research has it being used to treat blood product in a dialysis fashion whether through intravenous methods or arterial methods. The is another product testing through intubation to get even closer to lung pathways. My opinion is the last will be useless in treating lung disease as a byproduct from corona.

2.) Welcome to immunology 101!

3.) As previously mentioned, there is a difference between tissue cells and host cells in this discussion. You're confusing the two and muddying the waters.

I recall one link you said was a study was actually a press release for likely vaporware.  Anything else?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

They cross refrenced their statistical findings with the emerging serology studies.  Stanford University isnt some offshoot right wing establishment.  The greater infection rate isnt seriously in dispute.  That means a lower infection mortality rate than confirmed case fatality rate is inevitable.  

In reality we never should have used case fatality.  The CC fatality rate of the flu is actually higher than COVID.  to justify these measures we used the CC mortality rate of COVID against the infection mortality rate of the flu.  That's bad science, even worse public policy.

Confirmed case fatality rate is only part of the story.
The other part is how contagious the thing is, how many people will get it.
Even with social distancing, in the United States, more people have already died of coronavirus than have died of the flu in any recent flu season. 
One reason is that there is no vaccine for covid 19. even though we know flu vaccines were never perfect, they do help matters.  But probably a bigger reason is that this Coronavirus gives a lot of asymptomatic carriers. We don't know who these carriers might be. Until we do some robust contact tracing like more authoritarian places like South Korea and Singapore, we just have to tell everybody to stay home as much as possible because they might be one of the asymptomatic carriers.

1.) We sent positive covid patients into  nursing homes
2.) We dont have an effective standard of care/therapeutics
3.) They're cooking the books.

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaTYYk3HxOc

This is the full video of the two ER doctors.  The original full video, which I personally watched, had over 5 million views and was just removed from youtube for "violating community guidelines".  Here is another one with about 50k views, watch it while you can.  This is apparently what tech giants don't want you to see.

Upon further review, 

The major conclusions and themes the doctor expresses are sound and sobering.  

He makes one major statistical error.  He takes the % of + diagnostic tests and extrapolates them. That's statistically errant.  Those sample groups are screened to provide higher + results and the tests were random.  He should have either a.) Established correlation for those #s to the random astrological #s or just b) used the #s from the astrological study.

Say what now?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I have linked study after study that you have yet to read. If you had, we wouldn't be having this conversation. You are completely missing the point in all of this in that UV light in a narrow wavelength such as UV-A and UV-C have and will kill the virus. I also see were you keep mentioning the killing of human cells as a detriment. The body does this naturally and sometimes needs help. I mean, [BLEEP], a virus needs a human host cell to replicate does it not? What I think you are trying to say is that you believe full-spectrum light source can cause tissue damage (cell), therefore, possible organ damage. In that case, yes, FULL SPECTRUM can do this but so can several other pharmaceutical treatments. Keep in mind these are last stage treatment options, not cures.

1.) You linked full spectrum. Closed spectrum or concentrated wavelengths of UV-A and UV-C are been in use for some time. The newest research has it being used to treat blood product in a dialysis fashion whether through intravenous methods or arterial methods. The is another product testing through intubation to get even closer to lung pathways. My opinion is the last will be useless in treating lung disease as a byproduct from corona.

2.) Welcome to immunology 101!

3.) As previously mentioned, there is a difference between tissue cells and host cells in this discussion. You're confusing the two and muddying the waters.

I recall one link you said was a study was actually a press release for likely vaporware.  Anything else?

Lol

---