Heparin nasal spray may prevent Covid and other viral infections
smh.com.au
smh.com.au
I suppose asymptomatic is possible but I also just don't go into crowded places much.
I cannot find the link, but the rate was something ridiculous, way north of 50%. I take it with a grain of salt, I can't easily tell if it's just more propaganda from the covid-ain't-real people.
Here's a paper from last year: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9321237/
Yes, it's Omicron, but 32.4% asymptomatic infection is not very rare.
Asymptomatic carriers are 75% as infectious as symptomatic individuals: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle...
Note that the study was conducted by companies that are in the business of conducting paid clinical trial for supplements manufacturers, and both were paid by the makers of XClear, so the study should be taken with a heaping grain of salt....
Especially considering that there is no other research suggesting that either xylitol or grape fruit extract is protective against COVID. Both are antimicrobials (i.e., antibacterial) but COVID is a virus.
There are pre-print studies suggesting antiviral activity.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.08.19.225854v1....
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.11.23.394114v1....
And the second link is just a precursor to the original study to make it seem like it was conducted separately (the researchers are the same). Even so, they found a concentration of greater than 80% was required for Xlear to have any statistical antiviral effects.
This is a claim that appears to be presented entirely without evidence, and - as written - is nonsensical. Nasal insufflation is an extremely common method for administering drugs, and it's readily absorbed directly into the bloodstream.
If there's a reason he believes heparin is not absorbed through this route, that's a notable and surprising claim.
This whole idea is predicated on the binding of heparin (a sulfated polysaccharide) to the spike. It’s known to be a co-receptor on cells for the spike protein, and people have designed very clever flow devices to exploit this binding to perform detection of spike. However, without carefully controlling the sulfation on heparin, I would be worried about all the other binding of proteins, and how effective this would be in real complex environments.
There are also open questions about how you would even retain the GAGs in the mucosal environment, and as I haven’t heard that they bind to mucins/mucus, I wonder how many other proteins they could possibly anchor to.
"Doesn't enter the bloodstream" "it coats the spike protein".
Seems like a nose plug or an N95 mask would be cheaper and more effective than wasting blood thinner down the back of your throat for makeshift bug repellant.
'Wondering' aloud to the press about it, though, places this firmly in Snake Oil territory. The man knows better, but he's doin' it anyways.
Should tell ya somethin'.
Masks of secondary effects: a global waste problem. It's time to stop promoting these as a "solution" to a non-existant problem.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/can-you-reuse-a-kn...
>It's time to stop promoting these as a "solution" to a non-existant problem.
What do you mean by non existent problem?
Step 1: People come up with a hundred hypotheses
Step 2: Six of them are confirmed in preliminary studies, five by fluke (false positives) and one true positive
Step 3: The one true positive is confirmed in multiple replication studies
Step 3 is when we get to a reasonable scientific theory or scientific fact.
The problem is step 1.5 or 2.5: Popular press picks up a hypothesis as "science" or (at 2.5) as peer-reviewed science, often promoted by the original researcher.
We absolutely should be investigating heparin, ivermectin, vitamin D, zinc, and other speculative drugs for effects. Outside of exceptional circumstances, we absolutely should not be recommending those for general use until they're validated.
As a footnote, machine learning supercharges this process. It can generate countless speculative drugs very rapidly. The vast majority are nonsense, but the tiny minority which work make it still worthwhile. If we have a something with a 1% chance of curing a disease, it takes, on average, 100 similar trials to cure that disease. For major diseases, that (or even much longer-shot cures) is completely worth it.
Is this actually happening right now or are we just creating a speculative future for ourselves. Who is running the sanity checks on these huge number of potential medications to make sure the drugs aren't obviously poisonous?
Hell my kids and wife have all had covid and the flu, and I've looked after them all and I haven't been sick beyond a dribbly nose in about 5-6 years. (oh with the exception of being bedridden for a few days FROM the vaccine :-P )
I keep telling him I want to send him to a lab.
If I hadn't been attending the other (actually third) event, I'd never have known.
I believe that people who have been consistently super-cautious and generally avoided indoor crowds may have avoided catching it. But most people who travel, shop in stores, go to indoor events, etc. have probably had it even if they can't prove it.
Chances are he got COVID and fought it off without particularly noticing which isn’t in any way unusual for healthy people. 1+ million dead Americans demonstrates it’s a serious disease, but that doesn’t mean everyone was hit equally.
Many people will fight off an infection in those 5 days, but it’s not considered a problem as asymptomatic people are unlikely to spread the disease. PCR accuracy of asymptomatic people is still surprisingly low, but again that’s not necessarily a problem.
I also never had covid, and never sprayed any weird shit up my nose.
But it just all has so much more meaning when there's a product to push...
I'm not particulaly introverted, did get vacinated and follow polite social practices (distancing, mask in public) but otherwise didn't take any special precautions. But then again, I'm not shilling for any product vendor either...
And there are peer-reviewed studies about its efficacy.
On the other hand, I don't have kids & wasn't in crowds very much, so there's that.
Do you have any links?
I find it hard to believe that bicarb has absolutely anything to do with preventing COVID, except maybe because it blocks your nose?
the bicarb & saline are purely for comfort. The one time I left them out, I was reminded why people shy away from putting water up their noses: it burns.
Searching Google scholar only shows one paper with about 60 people reviewed and an improvement of 30% from the control group not getting COVID, to 40% didn't get COVID if they washed their nose. Not exactly great numbers when you have so few people.
I don't see anything serious about your theory.
https://www.uclahealth.org/news/nasal-irrigation-may-help-wo...
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/09/220913110403.h...
sample size of 79
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7453155/Aside from the formal research, there is clinical support for it: just ask your doctor. Most likely he or she will say, "Sure, go ahead. A lot of my patients do it." That's what mine said.
And finally, I've found on previous social network discussions (including on HN) that the practice is fairly widespread.
And don't paraphrase me ("So you are saying..."). I said what I said.
Seems like you're not alone.
> People can participate in the trial if they live in Melbourne, are aged over five and have a household member who is also willing to take part. People who have a heparin-induced allergy or have had recent severe nosebleeds are ineligible
I'm just introverted and don't have kids.
Kids have the to be the biggest spreaders of sickness in the US.
Well before COVID, several people I know went on cruises and came home sick.
I thought that was funny, like an internet commenter still stuck in December 2020 but in person
Not saying thats you, your comment just reminded me how disconnected some people are