
Ultraviolet Irradiation of Blood: “The Cure That Time Forgot”? (2018) - yoloswagins
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6122858/
======
mizay7
The political discussion in this thread is fascinating. There are people
advancing intelligent arguments about how the presidents podium remarks were
flippant but basically on topic and that he wasn't telling people to actually
drink bleach. While true, in my eyes it is obvious that he conflated
sterilizing a surface with killing infection in a human and then started
riffing on it.

It is incredibly strange and scary to me that not everyone is on the same page
here. If you want to be generous you could say that the president was fatigued
and had a 'brain fart' conflating the two. But this wasn't an issue with being
articulate or not, or off the cuff or not, or how prescriptive he was. The man
clearly thought that disinfecting surfaces relates to treating people. I find
it terrifying that our leader could make such a mistake, especially at this
stage of the pandemic.

~~~
monocasa
He's now said that "I was asking a sarcastic — and a very sarcastic question —
to the reporters in the room about disinfectant on the inside"

[https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/494519-trump-
say...](https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/494519-trump-says-remarks-
about-heat-light-disinfectant-were-sarcastic)

'It was just a joke, bro' has to be the lamest excuse.

~~~
atomi
Do not pity partisans, only consequence will force them to change.

------
hirundo
"Firstly UBI is clearly an example of the well-known phenomenon called
“hormesis” or “biphasic dose response’."

They're saying that the benefits are _not_ due to any germicidal effects, but
in response to the oxidative stress it imposes, which is generally considered
to be detrimental at higher levels.

To put it perhaps over-simply, it exercises the blood.

~~~
manmal
I recently read that COVID-19 counts decline after near infrared irradiation
of body tissue. The authors thought that this is due to the resulting nitric
oxide increase in the blood. Alas, I can’t find the paper right now.

~~~
swsieber
I recall hearing that red light therapy (shining red lights on the target
area) has been used to treat restless leg syndrome. I wonder how much untapped
potential light therapy has because it's a lot more fringe.

~~~
manmal
Indeed, red light therapy is very versatile. It increases the rate of stem
cell maturation, helps cell to de-stress (by pushing out nitric oxide),
increases energy production (by stimulating cytochrome-c-oxidase), and on top
of that has systemic effects, too - the nitric oxide kills some pathogens and
vasodilates (lowering high blood pressure), and, depending on where you shine
the light, e.g. hormone production is increased. Those are all subtle
improvements, but they add up.

------
ashtonkem
IIRC, your eyes actually irradiate a significant chunk of your blood per
minute. One of the trade-offs of wearing sunglasses is that you cut off this
process.

Unclear how large of an effect is has, probably less than removing blood and
irradiating it, since that process doesn’t have to balance against eye damage.

~~~
jcims
Whoa, never thought of that. If you look at how much blood needs to be treated
in the paper it's only 3.5ml per kg. So most likely enough blood is being
exposed on a daily basis.

However I think the major difference is going to be the intensity of the dose.
Cells get through the retina and sclera pretty quickly, less then a second,
and UV from sunlight isn't actually that intense on the ground (3mW/cm^2 [0]).
Dosing in the paper ranges from .1W/cm^ to 200W/cm^2 for anywhere from 10
seconds to 30 minutes. In the minimum case this is ~5 orders of magnitude more
UV.

On a side note, I really dislike the default layout of NIH reports. I always
have to pick the classic or PDF to be able to read them.

[0] -
[https://ag.tennessee.edu/solar/Pages/What%20Is%20Solar%20Ene...](https://ag.tennessee.edu/solar/Pages/What%20Is%20Solar%20Energy/Sunlight.aspx)

~~~
tsimionescu
The lens in your eye is also pretty opaque to UV light, which is why you can't
see UV light at all. There probably is some effect, but it will be very minor.

------
ceejayoz
Handy for purely/largely blood-borne diseases.

Useless for stuff that lives in the tissues, like SARS-CoV-2. Tough to
irradiate the lungs.

~~~
jacobush
Still super interesting. My (completely flawed) intuition was that the blood
would be fried useless by any dosage enough to kill bacteria!

~~~
syntheticnature
Ah, but as pointed out else-thread, it's not killing the bacteria. From the
Conclusions section:

"Many people therefore assume that UBI must act by killing pathogens
(bacteria, viruses or other microorganisms) circulating in the bloodstream.
However there is no evidence that this is actually the case."

The benefits are then ascribed to homesis, much like how low-dose ionizing
radiation actually seems to benefit the immune system.

~~~
saalweachter
My intuition as someone who has a UV light on their drinking water is also
that the blood would also be too opaque for direct irradiation, anyway.

(You need to filter your water before it hits the UV light, because if it is
eg cloudy or has too many minerals in it, the water treatment salesman tells
me, the UV light won't actually do anything.)

------
pacman83
I've actually received a version of whole blood UV treatment about 10 years
ago. For whatever reason I ended up feeling euphoric, memorably so, one of the
best days of my life. It may have something to do with the fact that I was
given oxygen after I started to faint after I saw the blood being withdrawn.

I collected a lot of papers about this modality and related ones. I can share
them if anyone would like. I will not be able to comment on them and I am not
a medical professional. Perhaps this was simply the placebo that appealed to
me.

But the reason I sought out this treatment is that it is practiced by a doctor
who was recommended to me by an MD PhD neurologist at Mayo Clinic. That doctor
now does more with ozone gas than he does with ultraviolet blood irradiation.
he considers it to be part of a class of "oxidative therapies" including very
high doses of vitamin C.

~~~
Mencious
Fancinating. Would like the papers you collected. Thanks in advance.

------
swader999
Similar to this tech that uses the nasal cavity to irradiate blood at a
beneficial wavelength. "The nasal cavity is saturated with blood capillaries
and five major arteries connect directly to the circulatory system – making it
the perfect location for non-invasive systemic photobiomodulation.

Vielight systemic photobiomodulation technology is hypothesized to boost the
immune system and increase blood oxygenation levels."

[https://vielight.com/systemic-
photobiomodulation/](https://vielight.com/systemic-photobiomodulation/)

~~~
hamilyon2
Hypothesised? In Krimea they give nasal photobiomodulation as actual treatment
and I was subject to it more than once.

~~~
swader999
Yeah, I think this company is very cautious in their claims. There's decades
of research on this if you want to dig into it.

------
isoprophlex
From the article, which I found relevant wrt. COVID:

> _These observations led to application of UBI in patients suffering from
> pneumonia. In a series of 75 cases in which the diagnoses of pneumonia were
> confirmed by X-rays, all patients responded well to UBI showing a rapid
> decrease in temperature, disappearance of cyanosis (often within 3–5 min),
> cessation of delirium if present, a marked reduction in pulse rate and a
> rapid resolution of pulmonary consolidation. A shortening of the time of
> hospitalizations and accelerated convalescence was regularly observed._

Of course I have no idea how this generalizes to the pneumonia you get from
coronavirus...

~~~
ceejayoz
That's from the pre-antibiotics era, to be clear.

It's likely there's good reason antibiotics supplanted it.

~~~
isoprophlex
Yeah, clear. Reading your other comment made me realize there's of course the
important distinction between viral and bacterial disease to be made, too...

~~~
rurban
No, the bacterial problem is true. COVID-19 causes massive bacterial
infections in the lungs. Think of the green slime you cough out with the
common cold, but deep in your lung. It's almost the same virus after all. The
virus itself causes something else in the red bloodcells prohibiting the
transport of oxygen, but this is unlikely the major letal problem.

~~~
jimsmart
Covid-19 is a coronavirus, the common cold is usually a rhinovirus. They're
not 'almost the same virus' as you assert, they're completely different virus
families [1].

For starters, coronaviruses are enveloped, and rhinoviruses are naked.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus_classification](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus_classification)

~~~
tlb
15% of common colds are caused by coronaviruses.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_cold#Viruses](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_cold#Viruses)

~~~
jimsmart
Sure, and that’s why I said “/usually/ a rhinovirus”.

But saying the common cold is “almost the same virus” as coronavirus still
isn’t true as a blanket statement: the vast majority of common colds (up to
85% by your stats) are a caused by completely different virus family.

------
specialist
How is it we're talking about this and not the concrete steps towards the
millions of daily tests needed safely end social isolation?

I've received UVA and UVB phototherapies. To treat GVHD. Works great. Last I
checked, no one really knows how or why.

UV is totally worth investigating.

It's totally inappropriate (dangerous) for the POTUS to speculate on TV during
a pandemic. Especially while actively thwarting or malignecting actual proven
useful treatments and mitigations.

Shame on media (and us) for the ongoing attempts to divine a coherent
narrative from the blather of a madman.

~~~
tanto
> It's totally inappropriate (dangerous) for the POTUS to speculate on TV
> during a pandemic.

He is not speculating. Lets face it. He is a crook and a total retard.
Idiocracy happend.

------
tarcyanm
There are also those proponents of nebulizing (dilute) peroxide. While I
wouldn't try this myself, peroxide modulates lymphocytes and would surely
result in a decrease in viral load. Peroxide is not unknown to the body, given
the various endogenous peroxidases that catalyze it. Dilution would seem to be
critical, though. I have wondered whether it wasn't worth some controlled
studies, if they haven't happened already ( _shrug_ )

~~~
ceejayoz
> peroxide modulates lymphocytes

This is kinda like saying "sodium is important in the body so it's fine to eat
a chunk of it".

~~~
tarcyanm
The dose makes the poison.

~~~
rsynnott
I'm pretty sure that consuming any amount of elemental sodium should be
discouraged.

~~~
robocat
Salt in liquid water is just elemental sodium ions and chlorine ions, each
surrounded by h2o.

A speck of elemental sodium is not dangerous.

A hunk of elemental sodium could be (depending on how you handle it!)

------
leptoniscool
Will sunbathing or going in a tanning machine incur the same benefit?

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
There's an established link between Vitamin D deficiency and compromised
immune system response.

Unless you live in a hot sunny country or spend a lot of time outdoors in the
winter, the chances are good you're somewhat deficient.

But this is easy to check, and easy to fix with supplements.

~~~
qorrect
I believe D3 specifically is needed to fix that deficiency just as an FYI.

------
HAPMCEZ
From Section 25 point 1, Historical Introduction

> In 1801 Johann Wilhelm Ritter, a Polish physicist working at the University
> of Jena in Germany discovered a form of light beyond the violet end of the
> spectrum that he called “Chemical Rays” and which later became “Ultraviolet”
> light

 _Chemical Rays_

------
anonu
Not related - but tangential: this reminds me of blue light therapy for
neonatal jaundice

------
CodeSheikh
‘However with the development of antibiotics, UBI use declined and it has now
been called “the cure that time forgot”.‘

It says antibiotics. Is it me or UBI was used to treat bacterial infections or
the OP is desperately correlating this study with the “effectiveness” of
testing viruses with UBI? I feel like a lot of partisan users are getting the
boot from Reddit and they are channeling out their frustrations here. Guys
let’s keep HN pure with tech only posts.

------
blincoln
It may be worth looking into further, but the section near the end of this
very long article that recommends quack treatment websites really calls into
question the quality of the rest of it and the motivations of the authors, if
you ask me. E.g.:

"The web-site entitled 'Infections cured'
([http://infectionscured.com](http://infectionscured.com)) is also worth
checking out."

------
gzu
Does UV light from sitting in the sun reach the blood vessels near the surface
of the skin?

~~~
moftz
It may but your eyes are definitely a path for UV exposure of blood.

------
carbocation
Assuming that this works (which I will do for the point of this conversation,
not that I believe it):

1\. You'd have to create a bunch of hemo-irradiators (which don't currently
exist).

2\. You'd have to train perfusionists or nurses to use them.

3\. You'd have to place large-bore dialysis-style catheters into patients for
the purpose of using these devices.

4\. You'd have to have 1:1 RN staffing to use these machines (just like we do
for continuous veno-venous hemofiltration devices for renal failure patients
in the ICU).

Lots of downstream things to think about beyond just whether the concept is
feasible.

~~~
new299
I assume by “works” you mean in relation to COVID19?

Sars-Cov2 is a respiratory disease. I guess it maybe present in blood, but it
doesn’t seem like removing it from blood would help with the respiratory
issues it causes.

I can’t see how you would easily get UV light into the lungs. But maybe
there’s a way... seems a bit far fetched.

~~~
SamBam
My understanding of the article was that it doesn't need to be a blood-borne
disease. The authors point out several times that, while most people would
assume this works by directly killing germs (i.e. like sterilizing water with
UV), this is not the mechanism. The exact mechanism is still unclear (which is
one of the reasons it was never as widely adopted), but it seems more likely
to be boosting the immune system.

So there would be no need to shine UV light directly into the lungs.

~~~
Retric
To expand on the unknown method of action. It could for example be removing
other pathogens from the blood that lets the immune system focus on covid-19.
Alternatively, random cellular damage could clause a useful immune response.
Etc etc.

Medicine has often found treatments that works without any real understanding
of why.

~~~
klenwell
Isn't this true of Pasteur and his initial application of vaccines?

While he identified the mechanism of inoculation, my understanding is he
theorized that it was due to the attenuated pathogen outcompeting the virulent
one for nutrients rather than due to stimulation of the immune system.

I think I got that from a lecture by a science historian once. This idea seems
to be glossed in the Wikipedia article on Pasteur here:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Pasteur#Anthrax](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Pasteur#Anthrax)

Do I have that right?

~~~
belltaco
>While he identified the mechanism of inoculation, my understanding is he
theorized that it was due to the attenuated pathogen outcompeting the virulent
one for nutrients rather than due to stimulation of the immune system.

How could it outcompete the actual virus if the actual virus isn't there yet
at the time of vaccination?

~~~
klenwell
Good point. Maybe the theory was the attenuated pathogen would consume
available nutrients thereby depriving the real pathogen when it arrived?

------
wyldfire
I can't help thinking that this may have been the subject of the rambling,
inarticulate speech recently given by POTUS? When I hear these crazy
headlines, I think that he didn't come up with this stuff on his own, so did
he hear this from a sane advisor or some kook on his staff? After he went to
the mat for hydroxychloroquine, it's pretty natural for everyone to be
skeptical, though.

~~~
ceejayoz
> I can't help thinking that this may have been the subject of the rambling,
> inarticulate speech recently given by POTUS?

Given his mention of disinfectants at the same time, it's far more likely they
just told him how they disinfect surfaces like doorknobs and countertops and
he ran with it.

~~~
eloff
What seems like a paradox to me is how he can be so smart at playing crowds,
working the political system, etc. He beat a Clinton in a race for president -
that's no mean feat.

But then he does things like this that reveal he's actually a bit on the dumb
side. I don't think there's any other way to square that.

~~~
ping_pong
One of the women from Shark Tank described him as the single best salesperson
she has ever seen. She said he could hone in on a person's weakness and use
that to make a sale and it worked.

That's basically what he did during the election. He honed in on the single
worst characteristic about the other candidates, "Low Energy Jeb", "Lyin'
Ted", "Crooked Hillary", etc. And it worked.

The problem is that he's a salesman, he's not an intellectual. So a lot of the
stuff he says is off the cuff and colloquial which is dangerous and
unpresidential. He succeeded in business by bullying his opponents and using
his power against them by squeezing them. But it's not something that works in
politics, because his opponents are generally much smarter than he is.

~~~
arcticfox
> He succeeded in business by bullying his opponents and using his power
> against them by squeezing them

That was my impression before the election, when I didn't pay any attention. I
thought he was a successful bully, which wouldn't necessarily be the worst
combination for a President.

After learning about his actual business history (Thanks, Trump Inc.! podcast)
I think the 'succeeded' part is pretty arguable. He was born unbelievably
wealthy, had a string of some unbelievable business failures, and was
subsequently bailed out by some known (Deutsche Bank) as well as unknown shady
actors and practices.

Now that I understand his business history, I wouldn't consider him to have
succeeded in business. He could have been _vastly_ more wealthy today by doing
nothing other than invest in index funds, which to me counts as largely
unsuccessful.

~~~
1958325146
> He could have been vastly more wealthy today by doing nothing other than
> invest in index funds, which to me counts as largely unsuccessful.

Isn't that unknowable without knowing how much he has spent along the way?

~~~
zaphar
No that's easily derivable from public information about his businesses and
the performance of index funds over time. The most knowing how much he spent
could tell us is whether he would have been able to spend more or less than he
did.

~~~
1958325146
You are comparing

\- Case A: Donald Trump runs his companies starting at year X and meanwhile
leads a lavish lifestyle, ending up with N1 dollars.

\- Case B: Donald Trump puts all his money in index funds and spends nothing,
ending up with N2 dollars.

As far as I can tell, you are saying N2 > N1, therefore he would have been
better off investing in index funds. But you are comparing apples to oranges
if you have different spending habits between the cases. It could be that
running his private plane or plating things in gold or whatever would have
drained his index fund investment totally.

------
LatteLazy
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22969986](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22969986)

------
martythemaniak
It's pretty interesting that as soon as a certain famous snake oil peddler
starts yammering about his n-th insane theory, HN immediately jumps on it and
starts serious consideration and deliberation. It's very much the same way he
ended up with billions worth of free coverage during the campaign because the
media could not help themselves but constantly entertain and discuss his
ramblings.

Occam's Razor: He's just a senile old coot full of quack theories about
everything. There's tons of people like him, you don't have to waste your time
on them.

~~~
basementcat
This "famous person" was selected to serve as the head of state by the
citizens of the country with the second largest nuclear weapons arsenal. His
pronouncements have the force of official public policy.

~~~
dicknuckle
After he lost the popular vote. Other elected representatives selected him.

~~~
SlowRobotAhead
I’m confused, can you clarify you are referring to?

Edit: In what way was Trump “selected” and not elected by the rules laid out
in the constitution?

Edit2: So not selected, and yes entirely by the rules we’ve always used.

~~~
cyphar
In the US, the public doesn't vote for the president directly. They elect
electors for their state who then vote for the president. This system is
called the electoral college and the net result is that a candidate can win
the popular vote (the majority of voters voted for them) without winning the
presidency. This has happened many times in US history, and it happened most
recently in 2016.

~~~
rsynnott
Well, only four times:

1867: Tilden (4,288,546) - Hayes (4,034,311) - Hayes wins. 1888: Harrison
(5,443,892) - Cleveland (5,534,488) - Harrison wins. 2000: Bush (50,456,002) -
Gore (50,999,897) - Bush wins 2016: Clinton (65,853,514) - Trump (62,984,828)
- Trump wins.

To further confuse the issue, 2 Republican electors and 5 Democratic electors
_voted for other candidates_ in 2016, though it wasn't significant in the end.

------
ck2
Oh come on. Not this nonsense here too.

Science and researchers don't "forget" things.

Things that aren't effective or practical are retired.

This is just someone trying to make the president seem less stupid but of
course there is no way he's ever read anything about blood radiation and all
the failed experiments over the years.

------
zer0n1ght
Almost the entire briefing was about UV light killing viruses. Ultraviolet
light is classified as a non-chemical disinfectant, and Trump was asking if we
can bring it into the body. In his comment he said "The whole concept of the
light that kills under one minute, thats pretty powerful". Nowhere anywhere
did he suggest injecting chemicals. In fact, it was one of the dumb reporters
that asked him a question about injecting bleach, not Trump. It's like people
are not even watching the same press briefing. This media manipulation is
getting blatant and outright mad, and I am watching people all around me
hypnotized by it. What the heck is going on?

------
nwatson
So now Trump is an idiot-savant?
[https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/24/health/sunlight-
coronavir...](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/24/health/sunlight-coronavirus-
trump.html)

~~~
BitwiseFool
If you look at how Trump talks you can see a pattern where he likes to repeat
ideas that he's heard about and then hype them.

My hunch is that he heard about this as a _potential_ treatment from some
doctor/advisor and then put his usual spin on it. This could work, it could be
great, it's very promising, why don't we try it?

~~~
Loughla
Benefit of the doubt for Trump: He is actually just trying to maintain a
positive attitude about there being a solution.

Cynical response to Trump: He only half listens to the people around him, and
genuinely believes he knows better than everyone in the world.

Not sure which of those it actually is, but I'm sure it's one of the two.

~~~
twomoretime
This is a good take. I'm genuinely sorry you're being downvoted. Anything
remotely positive about Trump is just destroyed and it's absolutely
ridiculous. There's no objectivity - people online interpret everything he
does in the absolutely worst way.

~~~
Loughla
Honestly. Maybe I should've put the line in there that I deleted calling him
an idiot. Because apparently I need to be clear, I think this is complete
idiocy. But there are always 2 sides to every coin.

~~~
BitwiseFool
Heck, I got downvoted for talking about a pattern I noticed. I never even gave
an opinion good or bad about him.

------
SlowRobotAhead
So I woke up to some “news” about said ridiculous statements and said snake
oil sales. So as I do now, I went and got the actual source and not the media
interprition of it.

Can you find where in this clip he says to inject Lysol or sells snake oil?
[https://youtube.com/watch?v=zu60uj0_-Nw&feature=emb_title&ti...](https://youtube.com/watch?v=zu60uj0_-Nw&feature=emb_title&time_continue=1538)

Because I saw him ask questions to his medical professional and make very
general statements that are objectively true but at worst impractical or
irrelevant.

Can anyone time stamp the snake oil for me?

~~~
theplague42
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHkzqejFKbM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHkzqejFKbM)

he is clearly talking about injecting disinfectants

~~~
SlowRobotAhead
Did you not see I already posted that link, except mine has more context?

I see him ask his medical professional to confirm they are indeed looking into
various options. Are you perhaps looking intentionally for the worst possible
take and using that in place of an objective fact?

~~~
theplague42
You asked for a timestamp; I posted the specific segment. "Various options"
includes injecting disinfectants.

~~~
SlowRobotAhead
Do you HONESTLY think the president was asking Dr. Birx to inject bleach or
isopropyl alcohol into coronavirus patients? Like really honestly? Or are you
just hopeful to imply that to hurt Trump?

Because that just wasn’t my take watching the full stream. You are obviously
free to believe whatever makes you feel good.

This wouldn’t even be the first time that he’s mentioned convalescent plasma
therapy which it would not be unfair to describe as “injecting blood into
someone to clean the virus from them”

------
Vysero
Sounds great, but I would prefer just injecting some Lysol myself.

~~~
dang
Please don't do this here.

~~~
theplague42
Why do you think this link got posted?

~~~
dang
That's a separate question.

