Why bother with chlorine bleach - just drink your Kool-Aid, Jerry!
Yours sanctimoniously
Jim from Jonestown
Yours sanctimoniously
Jim from Jonestown
...but while it might work in very diluted form, such experimentation needs to be conducted in medical trials because people can get into terrible problems with home recipe. The sarcastic thrust of my comment was directed at the (already indicated) comic aspects of Jerry's comments, particular his invocation of that great healer the Daffy Duckmeister!What was the point? Maybe you should consider deleting this?
I will report some positive experimental results on my use last night of hypochlorous acid (0.01%) on my biofilm infected tear duct. I applied 3 drops and had no pain, as with some other agents, including from antibiotics more recently. It felt a tiny bit weird and my focus in that eye was a bit off. I woke up with a large amount of crust and muck around my eye, but still no pain, and my focus has returned to baseline. As such, I'm guessing the focus issue was caused by the biofilm breaking up.
I should have done this a long time ago.
Of course, this says nothing about effectivity with viruses and it is only being used topically. It's rather expensive in any case.
When only ~10% of medical 'professionals' even know what the term 'biofilm' is, much less treat it, then one must either experiment or perish. Ironically, the solution was originated by a (relatively) new pharma company that focusses on biofilm treatments. But this solution was released - licensed to the OTC market strictly as a wipe for the surface of the eyelids. I do have to credit my eye doctor with turning me onto the product (after I told her about my wider biofilm experiences), albeit she only said to use it as directed.One thing my medical training taught me was to be very conservative with medical treatments, not just official medical experiments but home remedies too - primum non nocere! Good luck with the eye-duct problem though.
...but from what you write the medication has had some sort of testing - and your eye doctor gave it at least qualified approval. Biofilms are usually due to a mutually supportive association of different species of bacteria, such that some form of more general treatment (i.e. not targeted antibiotics) including wiping is a good idea. Cleaning one's teeth is the most obvious example of biofilm removal!When only ~10% of medical 'professionals' even know what the term 'biofilm' is, much less treat it, then one must either experiment or perish. Ironically, the solution was originated by a (relatively) new pharma company that focusses on biofilm treatments. But this solution was released - licensed to the OTC market strictly as a wipe for the surface of the eyelids. I do have to credit my eye doctor with turning me onto the product (after I told her about my wider biofilm experiences), albeit she only said to use it as directed.
Second application went slightly different. A few minutes after application a typical (from other methods) deep, dull ache appeared, but only lasted about 15 minutes. Woke with a lesser amount of crust and it feels pretty good, including good focus.
Unfortunately, people can also get into terrible problems by going to the doctor. Not the least of which is the financial challenge: a trip to the hospital for covid-19 could easily run up a bill of $30,000 or more. Not everybody in the US has health insurance, and not everybody can afford such an expense.people can get into terrible problems with home recipe.
We learnt that at medical school in Australia - so what do we get? Australia copying the US model!Unfortunately, people can also get into terrible problems by going to the doctor. Not the least of which is the financial challenge: a trip to the hospital for covid-19 could easily run up a bill of $30,000 or more. Not everybody in the US has health insurance, and not everybody can afford such an expense.
The American medical system and pharmaceutical industry have modernized the concept of treatment by blood sucking leeches.
The answer is clear with a bit of medical knowledge. Chloroquine causes macular blindness - meaning one is unable to read with the loss of central vision. Just the qualification one needs to be a pro-science Democrat-ass! Larry Genius is dead but the macular degenerate-donkey lives on!Goodman also points out that Wanda Lenius has been a very active donor to the Democratic Party, including a "pro-science" PAC. Hardly the sort of person that would take medical advice from Donald Trump at face value.
Lenius said that she and her husband each took a teaspoon of the chloroquine, which Goodman says is at least four times the lethal limit.
What I don't see here, is any explanation how Wanda survived, if she really took a full teaspoon like her husband did.
Goodman appeared on Fox News this week to discuss the case: