Quantcast

Using UV light to kill Covid 19????

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

Hadstuff

Full Member
2+ Year Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2016
Messages
101
Reaction score
107

Members don't see this ad.
I am curious as to what your opinions are on UV light therapy being used inside the body to treat covid-19? Reason I ask this question is because it appears to be a massive political issue about "Trump being right" or "Trump being wrong". I don't care about that, I just want to know why some scientists may be thinking UV light is a plausible therapy for Covid-19 infections.

In my personal opinion( I am a lowly medical student, so maybe I am not thinking about this properly), I don't see it being effective because:

A. UV light is toxic to normal cells (one of the companies claims theirs is not toxic), and we are exposing cells that are not used to being exposed to UV radiation, to UV light.

B. UV light is typically used to disinfect "floating" viral particles on surfaces, not necessarily infected cells.

C. even if the UV light killed viral particles in the throat, It wouldn't necessarily kill intracellular viral particles, unless the UV light was cytotoxic.

D. It would theoretically require quite a long term exposure to UV light inside the body to have any significant effect on viral replication.

E. for the vast majority of patients, Supportive care is extremely effective, so it likely is not to be statistically beneficial to give UV light as a therapy.



Any opinions are welcome! I just want to know if anyone else with more experience than my lowly medical student brains has thought of this from a different perspective!
 

Seihai

The dog is always the real hero.
2+ Year Member
Joined
May 24, 2017
Messages
619
Reaction score
1,017
I am curious as to what your opinions are on UV light therapy being used inside the body to treat covid-19? Reason I ask this question is because it appears to be a massive political issue about "Trump being right" or "Trump being wrong". I don't care about that, I just want to know why some scientists may be thinking UV light is a plausible therapy for Covid-19 infections.

In my personal opinion( I am a lowly medical student, so maybe I am not thinking about this properly), I don't see it being effective because:

A. UV light is toxic to normal cells (one of the companies claims theirs is not toxic), and we are exposing cells that are not used to being exposed to UV radiation, to UV light.

B. UV light is typically used to disinfect "floating" viral particles on surfaces, not necessarily infected cells.

C. even if the UV light killed viral particles in the throat, It wouldn't necessarily kill intracellular viral particles, unless the UV light was cytotoxic.

D. It would theoretically require quite a long term exposure to UV light inside the body to have any significant effect on viral replication.

E. for the vast majority of patients, Supportive care is extremely effective, so it likely is not to be statistically beneficial to give UV light as a therapy.



Any opinions are welcome! I just want to know if anyone else with more experience than my lowly medical student brains has thought of this from a different perspective!


Can you provide a citation for:

"some scientists may be thinking UV light is a plausible therapy for Covid-19 infections" ?

Th only way to rebut why people might think UV light is viable in this regard is to know what their arguments/justifications even are. If they're just parroting what our president has said, then they don't have reasoned justifications that you could ever rebut effectively.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Lucca

Will Walk Rope for Sandwich
Staff member
Administrator
Volunteer Staff
7+ Year Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2013
Messages
8,595
Reaction score
19,815
Id suggest you calibrate what arguments are even worth thinking about or discussing in the first place or you will spend a lot of energy on nothing.

Re: the UV stuff: to paraphrase Pauli on pseudoscience, the question and answer are formulated so poorly that they’re “not even wrong”.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Top