MemberApril 29, 2021 at 8:19 pm
The results from a clinical trial ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04521322 ) have been recently published in a preprint:
Efficacy of a nasal spray containing Iota-Carrageenan in the prophylaxis of COVID-19 in hospital personnel dedicated to patients care with COVID-19 disease. A pragmatic multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (CARR-COV-02) (Preprint). Figueroa et al. 2021. ( https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.04.13.21255409 ).
394 participants. 196 in the intervention arm and 198 in the placebo arm. In the placebo arm there were 10 infected persons, while in the intervention arm there were 2. However, looking at the timeline, the first of the two infected in the intervention arm was positive on day 2 since randomization, so that’s probably a case of preinfection. That would leave it as 10 vs. 1 infections. The second infection in the intervention arm seems to have occurred at day 5, just as the first one in the placebo arm. I guess it’s debatable whether those can be considered preinfections or not. However, it does leave us with 9 vs. 0 infections after day 5 and in the next 20 days in this high risk cohort. So from day 5, 100% efficacy (or from day 2, 90%?). I think this trial’s results deserve some attention.
MemberApril 29, 2021 at 8:26 pm
And now some reflection about prophylaxis and the management of this COVID-19 pandemic.
From the very beginning of this pandemic we know that this virus (SARS-CoV-2) is incubated in the upper respiratory tract and transmits through it to other person’s upper respiratory tract. We also know that it has a long incubation period compared to other viruses (influenza, etc…), and while that allows it to spread more because it stays under the radar for many days, it also means that it’s very vulnerable if we do know it’s circulating around. Proper hygiene and disinfection of the upper respiratory tract makes it not only extremely difficult for it to incubate and propagate the infection in the host, but also to propagate to another host.
However, the measures taken by the authorities from the beginning have been: Wash your hands and stay at home. Washing your hands is good, but not enough. Why this emphasis on washing and disinfecting your hands but not your nose, mouth and throat which are the key areas for this virus to replicate and spread? Only several months later they started to recommend (and make mandatory) to wear a mask to protect yourself and others, I guess based on the same rationale as the one required to have proposed from day one to clean and disinfect your upper respiratory tract, plus some observational evidence maybe. Again, wearing masks can help in certain situations but as has been proved it’s not enough and not the best approach.
The other day I was watching the movie called “Sully” (with Tom Hanks, directed by Clint Eastwood) which is based on the real case of a pilot who took off from New York’s airport with 155 passengers onboard and while still flying over the city had an incident that blown both engines. He made the decision to make a forced landing in the Hudson River and almost miraculously made it safely. He immediately became a hero for the press, but then he was subject to a very harsh investigation to see if he had made the right decision. Apparently he could (and should) have turned around as instructed by the air controller and land back in the airport. Even though no one died in the accident it was still required to investigate if he had put at higher and unnecessary risk all those lives, because he was a professional that had certain responsibilities.
So what about this pandemic that has caused over 3 million direct deaths, many more indirect ones, destroyed economies and wrecked havoc in at least a billion or two people’s lives. Who’s going to examine the possible responsibilities for this unprecedented disaster?
Because let’s go back to the facts outlined above: If you have a virus that first attacks and spreads the upper respiratory tract, why wouldn’t you target it right there? If you kill the virus from the mouth, nose and specially the throat, not only it dramatically reduces the chances for it to spread to the rest of the body, but also to other persons. And if those other persons are also taking the same measures to keep their upper respiratory tract clean and disinfected then the chances of spread are virtually zero.
And how do you do that (kill the virus or avoid its replication)? Well, the clinical trial posted at the top is an example of how you do it. You use antiseptics and many other simple methods to wash your nose, mouth and throat. Note that in the trial above they are only using a nose spray and only the health care workers. If they gave the same spray to every patient (who are the ones who can potentially infect them) the results would have been much better (like probably no infections in the placebo group either, though that would have made the trial uninformative, probably). And if in addition to a nose spray they were using a mouthwash also 3 times per day or any other method (here is an article with a good bibliography about it: https://clo2info.wordpress.com/2020/12/26/stay-safe-protect-yourself-against-viral-infections-during-the-winter/ ) the efficacy can only go up.
One could say: “But there is no evidence that such things work.” Well, before going into the evidence let’s hear the rationale about why such things wouldn’t work. Because some things are so obvious that they don’t need to be proved specifically (for example, there’s no specific evidence that if you throw a blue whale from an aircraft at 10.000 feet altitude it will fall down. But it’s inevitable to think it will based on all we know. If someone claims that it might float in the air or even go up, they should first explain the reasons why and those reasons must make good sense). So the rationale for why it must work is very clear and hard to argue against. But maybe someone has arguments that make it somehow doubtful that it works? Ok, let’s hear them (and let’s not forget: the measures that they did implement like lockdowns or mandatory face masks, apart from the recommendation to wash your hands, are mostly based on a rationale and maybe some very generic observational data, and not on solid scientific evidence).
Then, if (and that’s a big if) those arguments make sense, we can move onto the evidence to back the claims from each side. In the article mentioned just above there is a good amount of evidence that supports that those measures work. Let’s see how much evidence there is that backs the possible arguments against it.
And if there is indeed evidence that backs those arguments as strongly as the evidence that backs the opposite ones, then we arrive to a decisive place, where we have some measures that may or may not work to stop that virus at the very beginning (let’s say fifty-fifty chances). At this point is where it’s necessary to evaluate the risk vs. benefit of implementing those measures. So if it does work, we avoid the pandemic we have. If it doesn’t, what are the risks associated to them? We’re talking about products that many people already have at home (from warm water with salt, to mouthwash, to green tea) and that if it can be bought in the supermarket around the corner or over the counter in a pharmacy. All of them with a much lower risk that any over the counter painkiller, anti-inflammatory drug or the like. So a negligible risk vs. an enormous benefit.
So if this is such a clear cut situation, why didn’t the people who are responsible recommended these type of measures from day one? Why such an outrageous mismanagement of this very critical situation with catastrophic consequences? Well, that’s a good question, but one that they should answer. Probably in a court.
MemberApril 30, 2021 at 9:27 am
This is amazing…others should see it soI’ll post it as a discussion.
Here is a link to data pertaining to your discussion topic
MemberApril 30, 2021 at 11:00 am
Thanks! I do hope that we can all do something about what’s happened (and continues to happen). We can’t afford something like this to ever happen again, and that requires some action from us all.
MemberMay 1, 2021 at 5:06 am
This use of carrageenan backs up Carvallo’s work. Such a relatively simple way to reduce the risk of transmission for border staff, health and aged care workers including police, emergency response crews, quarantine staff including cleaners, aircraft and public transport cleaners, bus drivers and more.
MemberMay 1, 2021 at 2:58 pm
<div>This is a link for further searches on carrageenan</div><div>
MemberMay 1, 2021 at 5:52 pm
Carrageenan containing nasal spray has proven to be safe and effective. But I think that the key point is that proper hygiene of the upper respiratory tract is indeed effective (especially with a virus that takes 5-6 days to incubate there), both to prevent infection progress and transmission.
There’s a lot of in vitro and in vivo evidence (again, check the bibliography in the already linked above article, but just to mention clinical trials (small, pilot mostly):
Beneficial effects of a mouthwash containing an antiviral phthalocyanine derivative on the length of hospital stay for COVID-19. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-330173/v1
Regarding the clinical trial, the median LOS [Length of hospital stay] of the AM [active mouthwash] group was
significantly shortened (4 days) compared with that of the NAM [No active mouthwash] group (7
days) (p=0.0314). Additionally, gargling/rinsing with APD was very
helpful in reducing the severity of symptoms (no ICU care was needed)
compared to not gargling/rinsing with APD (28.6% of the patients in the
NAM group needed ICU care, and 50% of this ICU subgroup passed way,
EARLY VIRAL CLEARANCE AMONG COVID-19 PATIENTS WHEN GARGLING WITH POVIDONE-IODINE AND ESSENTIAL OILS – A CLINICAL TRIAL. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.09.07.20180448
Five confirmed Stage 1 COVID-19 patients were recruited for each arm.
The age range was from 22 to 56 years old. The majority were males. Two
respondents had co-morbidities, which were asthma and obesity. Viral
clearance was achieved at day 6 in 100%, 80%, 20% and 0% for 1% PVP-I,
essential oils, tap water and control group respectively.
A randomized trial on the regular use of potent mouthwash in COVID-19 treatment. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.11.27.20234997
Our findings showed statistically significant improvement in terms of a
higher conversion rate to “COVID19-negative PCR” by five days of
treatment (6/46 Vs 0/46), improvement in “symptoms severity” after two
days of treatment, and less intubation and mortality (0/46 Vs 3/46) with
all P-value < 0.05.
All these are with persons already infected. If used for prophylaxis the effectiveness should be very high (together with other measures, like air disinfection -see linked article-) it would have stopped this virus from spreading back in March 2020.
MemberMay 1, 2021 at 8:20 pm
Thanks. The officials should add “gargle” and “spray” to their outdated, medically-free advice of mask, isolate, wash…
I’m with you.
Log in to reply.