Home Unbiased and uncensored debate Covid-19 Iota-Carrageenan spray 90-100% efficacy at preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection?

  • Iota-Carrageenan spray 90-100% efficacy at preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection?

     Alberto updated 19 hours, 24 minutes ago 12 Members · 27 Posts
  • Alberto

    April 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.

  • Alberto

    April 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.

    • jeninmaine

      August 2, 2021 at 7:04 am

      Alberto, just gotta say – I watched Sully two nights ago and I just kept thinking about the medical heroes of this situation – nice to see someone else having resonance with that film.

      • Alberto

        August 17, 2021 at 3:24 pm

        Yeah, I can’t believe that such an amazing professional who saved all the lives from his passengers and crew had to go through such a harsh investigation while the idiots at the top of the responsibility chain in this pandemic are walking around free with well over 4 million deaths and counting. Amazing. (I just posted results from another trial at the end of the thread that proves once more who are we dealing with).

    • cjjohnson

      September 16, 2021 at 7:42 pm

      Ignorant statement about Sully.

      Like carrageenan tho.

      • Alberto

        September 16, 2021 at 11:33 pm

        Out of curiosity (and my natural predisposition to learn new things and not make mistakes over again), which statement about Sully is ignorant on my part?
        Carrageenan is good, yes. But harder to find now…

  • geofft474

    May 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.

  • Alberto

    May 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,


    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.

  • Alberto

    May 23, 2021 at 3:08 am

    Here’s another trial proving the efficacy of upper respiratory tract hygiene, this time using silver nanoparticles (AKA colloidal silver) for gargling and nose rinse:

    Evaluation of silver nanoparticles for the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection in health workers: in vitro and in vivo (preprint). Almanza-Reyes et al. 2021.

    We present a prospective randomized study of 231 participants that was carried out for 9 weeks (during the declaration of a pandemic). The “experimental” group was instructed to do mouthwash and nose rinse with the AgNPs solution; the “control” group was instructed to do mouthwashes and nose rinse in a conventional way. The incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection was significantly lower in the “experimental” group (two participants of 114, 1.8%) compared to the “control” group (thirty-three participants of 117, 28.2%), with a 84.8% efficiency.

    The number of adverse events reported was 0 (zero).

    And now for the propaganda agencies (AKA Fact-checkers):

    Colloidal silver has not been shown effective against new virus from China

    Social media users have most recently linked it to products to address the new virus that emerged from China. But experts have long said that the solution has no known function or health benefits and it comes with serious side effects. The FDA has taken action against companies promoting colloidal silver products with misleading claims.

    “There are no complementary products, such as colloidal silver or herbal remedies, that have been proven effective in preventing or treating this disease (COVID-19), and colloidal silver can have serious side effects,” Dr. Helene Langevin, National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health director, said in a statement.

    The NCCIH says colloidal silver has the power to turn skin blue when silver builds up in the body’s tissue.


  • Square-James

    May 24, 2021 at 2:09 pm

    I think the main problem with the Carrageenan angle is that this product needs Pharma support. If you start with food grade Carrageenan and adding water there could be bacteria or fungal contaminations. Who wants to spray black fungus into their own nose?

    • Alberto

      May 24, 2021 at 2:52 pm

      I don’t think that’s a problem. This is not something new. You can buy a nasal spray with iota-carrageenan in any pharmacy. It’s a product to protect against colds (which are often caused by coronaviruses):

      Nasal Spray

      That’s why it’s hard to understand that to prevent a pandemic of a virus that spreads through the upper respiratory tract they didn’t give any guidelines for hygiene/disinfection of the upper respiratory tract. Just “wash your hands”. That’s just not good enough.

  • Garbow

    May 24, 2021 at 8:55 pm

    Dr Mercola was supporting the use of both H2O2 nebulizer and povidone-iodine spray and gargle/mouthwash back around April/May 2020.

    As a result I prepared the required dilution of H2O2 and obtained PVP gargle for the purpose of prevention/post-exposure/symptomatic.

    I have collected a large database of Trials, anecdotal and media articles for both of these.

    Dr Thomas Levy has published a free book on H2O2 – Rapid Virus Recovery.

    At the same time obtaining updates of Professor Marik’s Treatment Protocol was a must

  • Andrew-Pearce

    May 28, 2021 at 8:18 am

    Garbow – I do the H2O2 nebulizing thing using 0.2% solution a few times a week. I got the idea from Dr. Mercola and Dr. Levy, but I use a slightly stronger solution than theirs because I don’t want to spend all day huffing on the nebulizer. If I’m a bit worried about the health of the people I’ve been around, I’ll add a single drop of nascent iodine to the 35 or so drops of the H2O2 solution. And I gargle at least once a day with original Listerine. Plus all the daily vitamins and supplements. So far, so good. No Covid, and no illness of any kind at all in over a year.

  • TheRealRestoreInc.

    July 29, 2021 at 7:35 pm

    Utah’s contribution to nasal spray therapeutics against COVID-19 is from the American Fork, UT company Xlear, Inc.



    Authors etc.</div><div>

    report peer-reviewed


    Potential Role of Xylitol Plus Grapefruit Seed Extract Nasal Spray Solution in COVID-19: Case Series

    Camille Celeste Go, Krunal Pandav, Marcos A. Sanchez-Gonzalez, Gustavo Ferrer<sup> </sup>


    Published: November 03, 2020 (see history)

    DOI: 10.7759/cureus.11315

    Cite this article as: Go C, Pandav K, Sanchez-Gonzalez M A, et al. (November 03, 2020) Potential Role of Xylitol Plus Grapefruit Seed Extract Nasal Spray Solution in COVID-19: Case Series. Cureus 12(11): e11315. doi:10.7759/cureus.11315



    The SARS-CoV-2 virus has created an unprecedented impact on healthcare globally. Being a novel virus, several treatments have been explored against COVID-19. During the early stages of the disease, treatment is mainly supportive. While several studies have suggested different treatment modalities, there is still no definitive treatment against COVID-19. Re-purposing already established medications, with excellent safety profiles, is a possible approach for treating the disease in its early stage. Having a mode of transmission as a droplet mode, several studies have supported how the nose can contain the primary route of entry of SARS-CoV-2. Hence, we postulated that re-purposing a commercially available nasal spray containing xylitol and grapefruit seed extract (GSE), namely Xlear Nasal Spray® (Xlear, Inc., American Fork, USA) could be used as an adjunct treatment of COVID-19. With a well-established safety profile, the components of this nasal spray have been studied and have been shown to have potential efficacy against viral pathogens, including coronavirus, and may potentially regulate pathways important in the initial entry of infection, replication, and systemic response to SARS-CoV-2. We present a series of three mild-moderate risks, symptomatic, COVID-19 patients, treated with the intranasal combination, as an adjuvant to their ongoing treatment, with rapid clinical improvement and shorten time to negativization on repeat intranasal swab test via PCR. No safety issues were noted during the course of treatment. Xlear nasal spray, containing xylitol plus GSE, given its established safety profile and compelling clinical results described here, could be a potential adjunct treatment option in mild-moderate COVID-19 cases.


    Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a novel virus and the causative agent of the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Currently, the management and therapeutic options for COVID-19 are limited, including self-quarantine and supportive care, usually indicated for mild cases. In contrast, a moderate disease in high-risk patients and patients with severe conditions generally require hospitalization [1]. COVID-19 has caused a significant impact on the healthcare systems of various countries across the globe. As of October 3, 2020, COVID-19 has infected over 34,790,000 and caused over 1,031,000 deaths worldwide. In the United States alone, over 7,379,000 COVID-19 cases and over 200,000 deaths have been reported [2]. This situation has led to an urgent need for therapeutic options prompting increased interest in re-purposing the existing medications that might play a role in the treatment of COVID-19. Interestingly, it has been documented that both angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and transmembrane serine protease 2 (TMPRSS2), which are present not only in the bronchial epithelium and alveolar type II epithelium cells but also in the nasal epithelium, are associated with the virus entry into the cell. Pharmacological agents such as nasal sprays might be optimal therapeutic candidates for providing better outcomes in COVID-19 patients if used in the early stages of the disease [1-3]. In their systematic review, Gengler et al. have reported that viral shedding appears to be largely from the nasal cavity further suggesting that the nasal cavity could be a major source of COVID-19 transmission. Moreover, the nasal shedding could place various healthcare workers, such as the ones participating in rhinologic procedures, at a higher risk of COVID-19 [4].

    Prior studies suggest that candidate agents with potential activity against SARS-CoV-2, which can be administered intranasally, might play a pivotal role in the treatment against COVID-19. In this vein, we have identified two candidate agents with potential activity against SARS-CoV-2 which can be administered intranasally, namely, xylitol and grapefruit seed extract (GSE). Moreover, the antiviral effects of xylitol as well as its antimicrobial properties are evaluated and have been documented [5]. Properties of GSE were evaluated in vitro with several viruses such as the avian influenza virus (AIV), Newcastle disease virus (NDV), infectious bursal disease virus (IBDV) and it showed activity against enveloped viruses such as the AIV and NVD but resistance with non-enveloped viruses namely IBDV [6]. In a study conducted by Bansal et al., they concluded that out of three samples of iota-carrageenan, all three were effectively able to inhibit the SARS-CoV-2 [5]. The third sample containing xylitol in combination with addition to iota-carrageenan was able to demonstrate an antiviral effect against SARS-CoV-2 at various concentrations which were tested in the study suggesting its potential role in COVID-19 [5]. Preliminary studies conducted by our group at two different laboratories have tested the individual components xylitol and GSE of commercially available intranasal spray (Xlear Nasal Spray®; Xlear, Inc., American Fork, USA). The results of the aforementioned preliminary studies seem to point toward the conclusion that the components exert a significant virucidal effect.

    Accordingly, taking into consideration the current COVID-19 pandemic situation and the antimicrobial and virucidal effects of xylitol and GSE, we hereby present a case series of three COVID-19 positive patients who were prescribed the commercially available Xlear nasal spray, which contains xylitol and GSE, for a duration of seven days. The present cases highlight the potential efficacy of intranasal xylitol and GSE, as a therapeutic aid for the management and treatment of COVID-19.

    Case Presentation

    Case 1

    A 16-year-old Hispanic female, with a past medical history of iron deficiency anemia, hemoglobin levels unknown, and was treated previously with ferrous sulfate, which was diagnosed three years ago, tested positive for COVID-19 on July 7, 2020. The patient is a non-smoker, with no past surgical history and not taking any maintenance medications. The patient complained of sore throat, dry mouth, nasal congestion, runny nose, productive cough with yellow sputum, anosmia, and ageusia, in addition to reporting waking up at night due to the coughing episodes, two days before consultation. Afebrile, no abdominal pain, diarrhea, no shortness of breath, weakness, or lethargy were reported. The patient also reported taking self-medication for two days with warm water and tea, which did not help alleviate the symptoms. A consultation with a primary care physician was pursued followed by a COVID-19 reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test via nasopharyngeal swab performed on the patient. Two days later, the patient tested positive, subsequently enrolled in this case series, and was given the experimental treatment. The patient was instructed to spray Xlear nasal spray twice per nostril four times a day every six hours for seven days, which was an adjunct to her self-medication. The patient continued to self-medicate with warm water and tea, and supportive treatment. On day 1, the patient complained of a stuffy nose, anosmia, ageusia, tiredness, cough, stuffiness, and congestion. Oxygenation 98% on room air, pulse rate 78 beats per minute, afebrile, with mild symptoms on Symptoms Assessment Score (SAS). Patients rated generalized pain as three on the Visual Analogue Score (VAS) and the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS). On day 3, an improvement was noted in her symptoms, particularly anosmia which she reported being able to smell strong substances. On average, the documented resolution of anosmia is two weeks [7]. An improvement of cough was also noted. The patient’s labs were drawn on day 4 with normal levels of c-reactive protein (CRP) and d-dimer (Appendices). On day 7, the patient noted an improvement in the overall symptoms with a reduced degree of tiredness, absence of cough, congestion, and stuffiness. Although mild ageusia is still present, it was markedly improved compared to day 1. The patient remained afebrile throughout the duration of the trial. Improvement of symptoms was noted during the trial duration. On day 7, the patient was retested for COVID-19 RT-PCR via nasopharyngeal swab with non-reactive results. Repeat testing of COVID-19 RT-PCR was also done on day 8 which also showed non-reactive results (Appendices). A follow-up was done on day 14 and the patient reported no symptoms with a return to baseline health.

    Case 2

    A 60-year-old Hispanic male was tested positive for COVID-19 on July 7, 2020. The patient had a past medical history of leukemia, which was diagnosed in 2012. Currently in remission, post-chemotherapy and radiation therapy, a heavy smoker, and occasional alcoholic beverage user. The patient reported using maintenance medications: zolpidem 10 mg once a day and bupropion HCL 100 mg two times a day. Two days before consulting the primary care physician, the patient started to experience sore throat, dry mouth, sneezing, nasal congestion, runny nose associated with anosmia and ageusia, and a low-grade fever at 101 Fahrenheit (F). No abdominal pain, diarrhea, shortness of breath weakness, or increased tiredness were noted. Furthermore, self-medication with warm water and tea did not help alleviate the symptoms that were reported by the patient. Upon consultation with the primary care physician, the patient was tested for COVID-19 RT-PCR via the nasopharyngeal swab. Following the positive COVID-19 test, the patient was subsequently enrolled in the case series experimental group. The patient was instructed to use the Xlear nasal spray four times a day every six hours for seven days, which was an adjuvant to his self-medication. The patient self-medicated with acetaminophen for fever, multivitamins, tea, and warm water. On day 1, the patient complained of a stuffy nose, sneezing, congestion, sandy and watery eyes, with oxygen saturation at 97% room air and pulse rate of 86 beats per minute. The patient also complained of anosmia, fever, 101 F. Rated overall symptoms as mild on SAS and generalized pain as three VAS and NRS. On day 2, the patient was noted to have tiredness and productive cough, with awakenings at night time due to coughing episodes. The patient also noted increasing tiredness. The patient also complained of ageusia. However, the patient was now afebrile with stable oxygenation and pulse rate. On day 3, the patient noted improvement of symptoms with only sandy eyes, anosmia, and ageusia. The patient also noted that he was now able to start smelling strong substances. On day 4, the patient’s CRP and d-dimer were tested and were unremarkable (Appendices). On day 7, the patient reported symptoms of tiredness, ageusia, and anosmia with a 70-80% improvement of the ability to smell. The patient remained afebrile starting on day 2 with noted improvement during the entire seven days. Subsequently, on the same day, the patient was retested for COVID-19 with RT-PCR via nasopharyngeal swab with non-reactive results. The patient continued to smoke 10 tobacco sticks per day throughout the duration of the trial. A repeat test for COVID-19 RT-PCR was done and yielded a negative result (Appendices). A follow-up was done on day 14 and the patient reported no symptoms with the return to baseline health.

    Case 3

    A 38-year-old Hispanic male tested positive for COVID-19 on September 26, 2020. The patient had a past surgical history of arthroscopy 20 years ago and was currently taking n-acetyl glucosamine, vitamin C, and vitamin D daily. The patient has grade 1 obesity (body mass index 30), a non-smoker, non-alcoholic beverage drinker, and does not use illicit drugs. Two days before the consultation in urgent care, the patient started to experience cold-like symptoms, sinus pressure, night sweats, and unquantified fever. Consultation at urgent care was then pursued. On the chest X-ray, diminished lung volumes with hypoventilatory changes at the lung bases with basilar atelectasis were noted. The patient was prescribed azithromycin 250 mg for five days along with albuterol nebulization (Appendices). Five days after the consultation, the patient continued to feel worse despite taking the prescribed medications. The patient then opted to have himself tested for COVID-19 after learning that his uncle, whom he interacted with a few days prior, tested positive for COVID-19. The patient subsequently tested positive. The patient was then prescribed with Xlear nasal spray and was instructed to spray twice per nostril four times a day every six hours for seven days, as an adjuvant to his ongoing previously mentioned treatment. On day 1, the patient complained of a runny and stuffy nose, tiredness, productive cough, nasal congestion, diarrhea, with oxygen saturation at 94%, and afebrile. The patient also complained of headache, rated two on the VAS and NRS scale, and rated overall symptoms as mild. On day 3, the patient noticed an improvement of symptoms with only tiredness, nasal congestion, and cough. The patient demonstrated stable vital signs and oxygenation and reported that he has regained his sense of smell and his sense of taste. On day 4, the patient’s CRP and d-dimer were tested and were unremarkable (Appendices). On day 7, the patient reported symptoms of tiredness, and cough, although overall symptoms significantly improved as compared to previous days. The patient remained afebrile throughout the trial with noted improvement in all seven days. The patient was also retested for COVID-19 with RT-PCR via nasopharyngeal swab and showed non-reactive result (Appendices). Follow-up was done on day 14 and the patient reported no symptoms with a return to baseline health. No repeat chest X-ray was done post-treatment.


    These reported cases are the first to shed some light regarding the potential efficacy of utilizing intranasal xylitol plus GSE as an adjunct treatment against COVID-19 and reduction to the time of negativization on nasal RT-PCR. While it is difficult to have definitive proof of efficacy in a form of a case series, we believe that the present series provides a rationale for initiating larger randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials evaluating the utilization of xylitol plus GSE in the form of an intranasal spray in COVID-19 patients.

    The patients we reported also had risk factors that could increase the risk of morbidity and mortality: patient 1 had iron deficiency anemia, corrected with iron therapy; patient 2 had a significant risk factor given his smoking status and history of cancer, chemotherapy, and radiation; and patient 3, although relatively healthy, was mildly obese with history of arthroscopy. The above-mentioned patients have a higher than average risk of COVID-19 morbidity and mortality [8]. Neither of the patients progressed to severe disease and all patients showed improvement in the symptoms with the intranasal use of xylitol plus GSE, with a reduced number of days to testing positive to negative via COVID-19 RT-PCR nasal swab test.

    Two sprays per nostril every six hours were administered to these three patients. A standard dose per nasal spray contains up to 140 µL per spray. Based on the nasal cycle, each dose of 140 µL per spray delivered properly into the nasal cavity with an estimated nasal airway surface liquid volume in the range of 50-375 µL should remain in the cavity an average of four to six hours [9-14]. A study conducted by Hou et al. stated that there is a strong association between the high levels of ACE2 and SARS-CoV-2 infectivity [15]. Studies show a higher ACE2 level in the nasopharyngeal tract compared to the lower respiratory tract [15,16]. In a genomic map of COVID-19 by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, it was found that there is a gradient with greater expression of ACE2 receptors and SARS-CoV-2 infectivity in the nose compared to the peripheral lung tissue. These case series support our rationale that therapeutic strategies should aim at reducing viral load in the nose early in the disease using nasal sprays or lavages [17]. The underlying role of xylitol and GSE on influencing the ACE2 levels in the nasopharyngeal tract remains to be elucidated.

    Lastly, the time to negativization is important to note. The average time to negativization was found to be approximately an average of 14 days [18]. These cases have shown that by using xylitol plus GSE in the form of an intranasal spray (Xlear nasal spray), as an adjunct to the ongoing treatment, the time to negativization was reduced to seven days, a 50% reduction compared to the usually known average. It should be noted that in this case series, a combination of intranasal xylitol plus GSE nasal spray was mainly used as an adjunct therapy to ongoing treatments for COVID-19.


    In summary, the three patients reported in this article, with minimal to moderate risk for morbidity and mortality from COVID-19, demonstrated an improvement in the symptoms and a reduction in the clinical course post use of xylitol plus GSE in the form of a nasal spray, commercially available as Xlear nasal spray, as an adjunct to their ongoing treatment. This combination could play a potential role in improving the outcome in mild to moderate COVID-19 patients. While relatively safe for general use, larger randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial studies are mandated which could shed further light on this topic.


  • Alberto

    August 17, 2021 at 3:19 pm

    Another clinical trial (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04559035 ), this time a nasal irrigation with a saline solution. 2 groups, one adding baking soda to the saline solution, the other one adding Povidone-iodine to it. The outcomes of the participants in the trial were compared to outcomes in the CDC national database for the same time period. Results have just been published in a preprint (https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.08.16.21262044 ).

    Conclusion: Patients who initiated mechanical isotonic saline nasal debridement within 24 hours of a positive COVID-19 PCR test were 19 times less likely to be hospitalized than the national rate.

    Now let’s see what the Fact Checkers say about this again:

    FACT: Rinsing your nose with saline does NOT prevent COVID-19

    As usual, no reference to back such a bold claim. NOTHING. But here you have other two references that show the opposite is probably true:

    – Hypertonic saline solution inhibits SARS-CoV-2 in vitro assay (preprint). Machado et al. 2020.

    – A pilot, open labelled, randomised controlled trial of hypertonic saline nasal irrigation and gargling for the common cold. Ramalingam et al. 2019.

    By the way, that imaginary “FACT” quoted above comes directly from the WHO’s site: https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/myth-busters

  • raguilo

    August 19, 2021 at 9:15 am

    Re: Betadine Nasal Spray
    I live in NY. When I clicked on the Betadine link provided, it took me to the Amazon.Ca site.

    So far so good. Before ordering, I did a separate search on the Amazon.com site. The product is nowhere to be found. I then did the same with Walmart, and Walgreens, with the same results. I tried to order it from the Amazon.Ca site, and the result: “This product can’t be shipped to your location.” What the hell? The Betadine brand is not an unknown brand in the U.S., yet ALL products in this same “family” are unavailable (only the other Antiseptic products are) in the Amazon.com site.
    I dug deeper and I found a Canadian pharmacy that sells and ships to the U.S., and also takes PayPal:

    Queensborough Community Pharmacy

    1028 Ewen Avenue New Westminster BC Canada V3M 5E1

    One has to ask if this particular line of products is being kept out of the American market on purpose.

    • McIver

      August 19, 2021 at 9:25 am

      Can’t find it on Amazon.com? Is this a coincidence? If you can’t find Betadine, try Salinex Protect but this might not be also in the US as this is made in Canada. Alternatively, try <b style=”font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit;”>Xlear Nasal Spray with Xylitol, not iota carrageenan based but there are studies that Xylitol is also as effective as carrageenan. Good luck!

    • Alberto

      August 19, 2021 at 10:41 am

      It’s quite amazing, but I can confirm that several products that work have been mysteriously disappearing from the stores. Here, in a small country in Europe, Colloidal Silver had been available for years, and early on in this pandemic we couldn’t find it. Apparently they had some “problems” importing it. So we bought in the neighbour country where it was produced for years. But next time we went to buy, it was nowhere to be found. And ever since.
      And in general I’ve had a hard time finding nasal sprays for common cold and similar things. So what you say about Betadine Nasal Spray going missing in the US doesn’t sound new or too surprising to me.
      At least they can’t remove water and salt from the market, in case they can do away with everything else.

      • raguilo

        August 19, 2021 at 2:12 pm

        It’s on its way from Canada.

  • Alberto

    September 12, 2021 at 5:46 pm

    The paper with the trial results mentioned above that used colloidal silver is now formally published, no longer a preprint:

    Evaluation of silver nanoparticles for the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection in health workers: in vitro and in vivo. Almanza-Reyes et al. 2021.

  • sewf1230

    September 15, 2021 at 8:49 am

    Betadine is the new “horse paste” on Twitter: https://twitter.com/i/events/1437912969220800512

    Predictable, infuriating, and (almost) amusing. Just wait. XClear is next.

    • Alberto

      September 15, 2021 at 9:08 am

      Amazing. They kind of somehow admit that there is actually a specific formulation for gargling, but adding that it was “meant to treat a mild sore throat, not prevent Covid”. Of course it was not meant to prevent Covid-19, since it didn’t exist. It’s an antiseptic and inactivates many viruses, including SARS-CoV-2 (documented in several studies). Why would anyone warn against its use for exactly what it is intended for (gargling to disinfect the throat)? Anti-vaxxers tactics! How far can this propaganda go???

    • McIver

      September 15, 2021 at 4:03 pm

      But there’s Betadine Cold Defense Nasal Spray which using iota-carrageenan as the main ingredient.

      • AndisSho

        September 17, 2021 at 12:02 am

        Carrageenan sprays:

        Carragelose is the name to search for as content, and you can look up 40 local product names in 40 countries.

        0,12% iota- and 0,04% kappa-carrageenan ad 0,4% salt water.

        Naming and production is local. Interesting concept 🙂

        See launched products for a countries list:


        Inhaleen will be the name of inhalable 0,15% iota-carrageenan in 0,4% NaCl water.

        Hope I’m allowed to name this.

        I always try to be democratic though.

        So lets name Xlear = Xylimed for us. The 11% pure xylitol and liq. grape seed extract fraction.

        I donnot know of other names.

        And Taffix (pH=3,5 Hypromellosis) (Israel?)

        And SaNOtize (nitric MonOcyde producing solution, a third principal of action). Looked up at defense of cells. Canada I think.

        As desinfectants, H2O2, ClO2, Octenisept (in US same name? Octenidine dihydrochloride), and Povidon-Iodine seem all to do the job.

        Queation is rather how thin these have to be to let some bacteria of biome survive, which help us, as they eat away pollen and viruses.

        For once every 3 days this is ok, if biome recovers overnight.

        That’s what I meant with caring for mucosa, there must be a lot of things to strengthen the biome, (not only birch tree sugar:).

        If you have ideas or found antivirals not changing the biome, please add.

        But without a court forcing to recommend it in each nation or for the WHO it won’t happen to go viral since alteady censored. This article would not survive on yt or elsewhere due to medical instructions and unproofed claims regarding covid, not so harsh on vaccines though misused as protection of others but never measured!

        Find a mid sized foundation wanting to be the humanitarian hero.

        • Alberto

          September 17, 2021 at 5:45 am

          Thanks for the info. Very useful for anyone looking for a product with Carrageenan.

          I think that for substances with antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2 there are many alternatives if they are to be ingested that should not pose any risk to the microbiome. Drinking green tea or black chokeberry (aronia) juice is perfectly fine. For mouth washing/gargling stronger products can be used, since you should not ingest those (and a hypertonic saline solution is not a big deal, anyway). The article I’ve linked above about staying safe during the winter has many options and keeps being updated as new research comes out. So I guess that anyone can find what’s most appropriate for them to prevent or at least minimize infection.

          Yes, don’t wait for any organization or government to support any of that. They actually fight against that kind of information with embarrassing articles and misinformation. I hope that more doctors and scientists start to stand up against such practices, but I won’t hold my breadth. It’s a complicated world we’re living in.

  • AndisSho

    September 16, 2021 at 5:53 pm

    WHO : Do Agressively Await The Respirator.

    Me: but I am frightened.

    WHO: that is fine.

    Seriously, our Jens Spahn told a Professor of Hygiene, if he brings a study that Povidone works, ONLY THEN he will recommend gargling to the people.

    The professor said it won‘t happen because it was done 50years ago and no resistances are reported. The he said: Desr Mr. Spahn, if you have a disrupted SI, and I should do a bowel wash, we can do it or make a trial if it is the right treatment. You have 15mins to decide.

    I called it: if WHO has more power, they will demand RCTs that breathing will prevent suffocation.

    And here the problem lies:

    WHO decides and writes down what is PROPER PROOF of Efficacy.

    In „Good Study Practice“ guidelines.

    In history, it did a good job.

    This should be rewritten in Court FAST for addition of pandemic proofing if Efficacy for generally SAFE procedures, methods, repurposed (tea) drugs or protection equipment.

    There should not be TWO MEASURES, one for vaccines, and the much harsher one for totally safe every-day and traditional remedies like spray salt water every 10mins.

    I consider the policy of big money already have dissolved democracies throughout the world.

    Do we want this?

    To protect and CARE the MUCOSA, against allergic and immune system weakening smoke, fine dust, pollen etc.,

    PROOF is only needed by this linear dependency:

    0..500 Pollen / m³ <=> 0..20% influence on the R-Value !!!

    Paper: https://www.pnas.org/content/118/12/e2019034118

    This 20% is crazy >>> 20x of „Closing Schools“ influence <<< !

    And there is factor 2-3x MORE that is damaging mucosa, to be discussed speparately!)

    More digestible than paper is (deleted) news on this. (wayback, I love you, you postpone orwell’s 1984 history-rewriting!):


    To test a measure:

    I would like to install and claim to be accepted as milder means to fight pandemic:

    PCR on wastewater measured controlled multi-witnessed notary controlled Epidemiologic Experiment

    You can proof in a suburb in 1-2 weeks that a certain spray works, send it with mass distribution postal service together with comic as instruction and feedback leaf for next letterbox or QR code for online documentstion how many use it, redundantly asked by questionnaire of statistically representative part.

    Repeat with other means or same, in twin suburbs, or bigger cities, and test all the old grannies flu tips like propolis in glycerine 5x a day between meals/drinks, 2 drops on tongue.

    Or use spray with (microdestilled or sterile filtrated / aetheric) artemisia annua extract. (Amentoflavone)

    Or use Xylitol plus 50 µg/ml Ivermectin an test for long term solvability (or degration of concentration meaning it would stick to walls after a few days) see https://c19ivermectin.com/carvalloprep.html and IVM spray (more convenient than drops):


    Or use vinegar pH3,5 (and propolis and glycerine) or lin seed slime as stay on. (Keep away from teeth in the long run!)

    Or trial the use of Behavioural Improvement:

    “Balance every risk with a counterweight” in general. Specific: highest risk asides from aerosols: direct or indirect (floating) high-viral-load droplets.

    Sneeze Cough Nose-cleaning:under t-shirt collar ober nose-face-line, OR with 3m distance, 30sec guarded space (no more CDC RKI blabla : sneeze in tissue or elbow — to help the virus spread um’s eck, err, around the corner. )



  • Alberto

    April 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.

Viewing 1 - 14 of 14 replies

Original Post
0 of 0 posts June 2018