[GreatATuin]

Double post:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-says-he-was-being-sarcastic-comments-about-injecting-disinfectants-n1191991

Trump was just being sarcastic folks.  He wasn't wrong.  He wasn't misinformed.  He wasn't an idiot.  He was just loling you all.

Wow. Seriously? He couldn't come up with anything better than "I was joking", the worst possible justification along with "the dog ate my homework"?

[Tom Bishop]

I would like to once again remind everyone that Tom is not a medical doctor and will blindly defend anything Trump says no matter how dumb.

Thomas E. Levy, MD from the article looks like a doctor to me - https://isom.ca/profile/thomas-levy/

You, however, do not.

[stack]

"And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning. Because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. So it would be interesting to check that. So, that, you’re going to have to use medical doctors with. But it sounds, it sounds interesting to me.”

This isn't a stupid question. There are natural disinfectants that the body produces that are bad for viruses.

https://www.medicaldaily.com/hydrogen-peroxide-treatment-coronavirus-infection-does-work-451710

Hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) appears to be another potential treatment for COVID-19. Health experts said the compound could help prevent virus from spreading across the body and from causing damage.

Hydrogen peroxide can be found both in stores and the human body. The immune system uses the compound to boost the natural functions of cells and prevent viral infection, Live Trading News reported Thursday.

Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, H2O2 may help fight the coronavirus, according to Dr. Thomas Levy. He said people can utilize hydrogen peroxide using its aerosolized form in a standard nebulizer.

Levy suggested using at least a 3 percent food grade hydrogen peroxide. It is important to know that some products have higher concentrations and people should inhale only 3 percent.

How Hydrogen Peroxide Works Against Coronavirus

The potential COVID-19 treatment mainly targets infected cells. Viruses move around the body by infecting live cells that replicate viral DNA and RNA.

A recent study, published in the Journal of Hospital Infection, shows that even just 0.5 percent hydrogen peroxide could kill human coronaviruses, such as those that caused SARS and MERS. The findings backed a 2009 research that found inhaling vaporized hydrogen peroxide could lead to 99 percent inactivation of virus activities.

...“Effective hydrogen peroxide nebulization quite literally, ‘chops the head off of the snake,’ and the virus present elsewhere in the body can then readily be mopped up when the new virus influx has been terminated,” Levy said. 

The health expert recommends using the nebulizer with hydrogen peroxide for 10 to 15 mins, 4 times a day, until the symptoms of the infection improve.

“As it is a completely non-toxic therapy, nebulization can be administered as often as desired,” Levy noted. “If done on a daily basis at least once, a very positive impact on bowel and gut function will often be realized as killing the chronic pathogen colonization present in most noses and throats stops the 24/7 swallowing of these pathogens and their associated toxins.”

Food Grade Hydrogen Peroxide drops are also a thing.

Oh No, not Dr Levy again, Mr. Vitamin C cures cancer guy. This from a Gizmodo article:

""To date, not a single virus has been tested that is not inactivated (killed) by a large enough dose of vitamin C (ascorbic acid)," writes Dr. Thomas E. Levy over at the completely disreputable anti-vaccination website NaturalHealth365. The article continues, word after misleading word, until you get to the bottom editor's note which not only includes a disclaimer, but also a sales pitch!:

There are two types of vitamin C that I personally use every day. The UltraFine Vitamin C powder [hyperlink redacted because NaturalHealth365 should be ashamed of themselves] plus a liposomal version of vitamin C. But, just to be clear, by no means should you ever think that any nutritional supplements can 'cure' any viral condition or disease.

It should probably be noted that despite Dr. Levy's deep interest in the topic (he published a book in 2002 called Curing the Incurable: Vitamin C, Infectious Diseases and Toxins) he has never published a peer-reviewed paper on the link between Vitamin C and disease.”
https://gizmodo.com/6-fake-ebola-cures-being-promoted-online-1642118276

See, and here’s where things get really dangerous. The statement in the article, "A recent study, published in the Journal of Hospital Infection, shows that even just 0.5 percent hydrogen peroxide could kill human coronaviruses, such as those that caused SARS and MERS."

Directly followed by this statement:

"The findings backed a 2009 research that found inhaling vaporized hydrogen peroxide could lead to 99 percent inactivation of virus activities.”

The Journal of Hospital Infection has articles on the use of Hydrogen Peroxide as a SURFACE DISINFECTANT and it’s efficacy. No mention of inhalation therapies.

Very dangerous, misleading information all around. Please be more careful with your unwavering support of Trump.

[Tom Bishop]

Oh No, not Dr Levy again, Mr. Vitamin C cures cancer guy

From what I understand, Dr. Levy is a Doctor of Medicine and you are not.

[JSS]

I would like to once again remind everyone that Tom is not a medical doctor and will blindly defend anything Trump says no matter how dumb.

Thomas E. Levy, MD from the article looks like a doctor to me - https://isom.ca/profile/thomas-levy/

You, however, do not.

The best you can do is link to a quack doctor being talked about on a quack site?

A writeup in the "Orthomolecular Medicine Hall of Fame" Really?

Hidden at the bottom of the page even they have to admit they aren't giving out real medical advice.

"This website contains information pertaining to nutritional intervention and the use of non-patentable molecules for improving outcomes in various medical conditions. The information provided may not reflect the current standard(s) of care in your jurisdiction, and is not intended to be a substitute for medical advice from a licensed physician or other qualified health care professional."

[stack]

Oh No, not Dr Levy again, Mr. Vitamin C cures cancer guy

From what I understand, Dr. Levy possesses an MD and you do not.

A Dr can be a charlatan just as easily as I can. Read again, "The Journal of Hospital Infection has articles on the use of Hydrogen Peroxide as a SURFACE DISINFECTANT and it’s efficacy. No mention of inhalation therapies." Yet the article makes it seem like they are speaking to the efficacy of inhaling Hydrogen Peroxide. An out and out lie.

[Tom Bishop]

The best you can do is link to a quack doctor being talked about on a quack site?

A writeup in the "Orthomolecular Medicine Hall of Fame" Really?

"This website contains information pertaining to nutritional intervention and the use of non-patentable molecules for improving outcomes in various medical conditions. The information provided may not reflect the current standard(s) of care in your jurisdiction, and is not intended to be a substitute for medical advice from a licensed physician or other qualified health care professional."

That disclaimer is fairly standard. It's also at the bottom of websites like WebMD and various government health websites. Are those quack websites too?

You can look him up and find that he is listed with an MD elsewhere.

Oh No, not Dr Levy again, Mr. Vitamin C cures cancer guy

From what I understand, Dr. Levy possesses an MD and you do not.

A Dr can be a charlatan just as easily as I can. Read again, "The Journal of Hospital Infection has articles on the use of Hydrogen Peroxide as a SURFACE DISINFECTANT and it’s efficacy. No mention of inhalation therapies." Yet the article makes it seem like they are speaking to the efficacy of inhaling Hydrogen Peroxide. An out and out lie.

Did the article say that it was referencing a study about internal use? No. It says that the study backs up research about internal use. Killing viruses in a petri dish is also a useful corroborating study.

It says:

"A recent study, published in the Journal of Hospital Infection, shows that even just 0.5 percent hydrogen peroxide could kill human coronaviruses, such as those that caused SARS and MERS. The findings backed a 2009 research that found inhaling vaporized hydrogen peroxide could lead to 99 percent inactivation of virus activities."

It does not say that the study was about internal use. It just says that hydrogen peroxide can kill coronaviruses, even in small concentrations. Internal or external studies both have merits. An external study shows that it kills coronaviruses directly, outside of other influencing factors.

[stack]

The best you can do is link to a quack doctor being talked about on a quack site?

A writeup in the "Orthomolecular Medicine Hall of Fame" Really?

"This website contains information pertaining to nutritional intervention and the use of non-patentable molecules for improving outcomes in various medical conditions. The information provided may not reflect the current standard(s) of care in your jurisdiction, and is not intended to be a substitute for medical advice from a licensed physician or other qualified health care professional."

That disclaimer is fairly standards. It's also at the bottom of websites like WebMD and various government health websites. Are those quack websites too?

You can look him up and find that he is listed with an MD elsewhere.

Oh No, not Dr Levy again, Mr. Vitamin C cures cancer guy

From what I understand, Dr. Levy possesses an MD and you do not.

A Dr can be a charlatan just as easily as I can. Read again, "The Journal of Hospital Infection has articles on the use of Hydrogen Peroxide as a SURFACE DISINFECTANT and it’s efficacy. No mention of inhalation therapies." Yet the article makes it seem like they are speaking to the efficacy of inhaling Hydrogen Peroxide. An out and out lie.

Did the article say that it was referencing a study about internal use? No. It says that the study backs up a study about internal use. Killing viruses in a petri dish is also a useful corroborating study.

It says:

"A recent study, published in the Journal of Hospital Infection, shows that even just 0.5 percent hydrogen peroxide could kill human coronaviruses, such as those that caused SARS and MERS. The findings backed a 2009 research that found inhaling vaporized hydrogen peroxide could lead to 99 percent inactivation of virus activities."

It does not say that the study was about internal use. It just says that hydrogen peroxide can kill coronaviruses. That study can be internal or external, and both have merits. An external study shows that it kills coronaviruses directly outside of other influencing factors.

We now know that the Journal of Hospital Infection is referencing surface disinfectant use only and as such DOES NOT BACK the internal use as the article suggests. I think we can all agree that there is a massive difference between the use of anything external versus internal.

So where's this "2009 research that found inhaling vaporized hydrogen peroxide could lead to 99 percent inactivation of virus activities."?

[JSS]

The best you can do is link to a quack doctor being talked about on a quack site?

A writeup in the "Orthomolecular Medicine Hall of Fame" Really?

"This website contains information pertaining to nutritional intervention and the use of non-patentable molecules for improving outcomes in various medical conditions. The information provided may not reflect the current standard(s) of care in your jurisdiction, and is not intended to be a substitute for medical advice from a licensed physician or other qualified health care professional."

That disclaimer is also at the bottom of WebMD and CDC websites.

You can look him up and find that he is listed with an MD elsewhere.

[/quote]

WebMD certainly doesn't say their information doesn't reflect standards of care. They are not pretending to be anything but a medical advice site on the internet, as opposed to whatever the heck that Orthomolecular Medicine site is trying to be. It's scary how people can go to these random bullshit quack sites and think it's real medicine. Scary and dangerous.

He's a real doctor, still a quack selling quack cure-all books.

[Tom Bishop]

WebMD certainly doesn't say their information doesn't reflect standards of care. They are not pretending to be anything but a medical advice site on the internet, as opposed to whatever the heck that Orthomolecular Medicine site is trying to be.

That consult-your-doctor disclaimer exists on many websites related to health. It has absolutely nothing to do with quack and non-quack websites.

He's a real doctor, still a quack selling quack cure-all books.

Point out the part where he said that Vitamin C or H2O2 can cure everything. Prove that he is a quack. I still see that he is a Doctor of Medicine and that you are not.

We now know that the Journal of Hospital Infection is referencing surface disinfectant use only and as such DOES NOT BACK the internal use as the article suggests. I think we can all agree that there is a massive difference between the use of anything external versus internal.

'We now know' - it was never claimed. That was your assumption.

Why do you think that in vitro studies are useless and are unnecessary in medical research?

Do you really think that scores of in vitro medical research is being performed, wastefully, if it is absolutely worthless and provides no corroborating information or evidence?

I say that credentialed medical researchers are probably correct that in vitro research has value, which is why it is preformed, and that an online forum credential-less opinion that it is useless is possibly incorrect.

[stack]

He's a real doctor, still a quack selling quack cure-all books.

Point out the part where he said that Vitamin C or H202 can cure everything. Prove that he is a quack. I still see that he is a Doctor of Medicine and that you are not.

We now know that the Journal of Hospital Infection is referencing surface disinfectant use only and as such DOES NOT BACK the internal use as the article suggests. I think we can all agree that there is a massive difference between the use of anything external versus internal.

'We now know' - it was never claimed. That was your assumption.

It's not an assumption. I went to the Journal of Hospital Infection and searched extensively. There are no reports/papers regarding internal use of Hydrogen Peroxide as a therapy. Only studies and such regarding it's use as a surface disinfectant. Your article is completely misleading/lying by saying that the Journal of Hospital Infection BACKS a 2009 internal use study. And that's horrifying.

Why do you think that in vitro studies are useless and are unnecessary in medical research?

Umm, where did I say that? Strawman much?

Do you really think that scores of in vivo medical research is being performed, wastefully, if it is absolutely worthless and provides no corroborating information or evidence?

Umm, where did I say that? Again, strawman much? Now you're just making up things because you know your article is dangerously misleading

I say that credentialed medical researchers are probably correct that in vitro research having value, and that your credential-less opinion that it is useless is possibly incorrect.

Where's that 2009 study the article cites performed by credentialed medical researchers?

[Tom Bishop]

It's not an assumption. I went to the Journal of Hospital Infection and searched extensively. There are no reports/papers regarding internal use of Hydrogen Peroxide as a therapy. Only studies and such regarding it's use as a surface disinfectant. Your article is completely misleading/lying by saying that the Journal of Hospital Infection BACKS a 2009 internal use study. And that's horrifying.

Why do you think that in vitro studies are useless and are unnecessary in medical research?

Umm, where did I say that? Strawman much?

You are claiming that in vitro research does not back up in vivo research.

You also appear to be claiming that in vitro research does have value for medical research and vivo research.

Which one is it? Does external-to-the-body research have value for internal-to-the-body research or not?

[stack]

It's not an assumption. I went to the Journal of Hospital Infection and searched extensively. There are no reports/papers regarding internal use of Hydrogen Peroxide as a therapy. Only studies and such regarding it's use as a surface disinfectant. Your article is completely misleading/lying by saying that the Journal of Hospital Infection BACKS a 2009 internal use study. And that's horrifying.

Why do you think that in vitro studies are useless and are unnecessary in medical research?

Umm, where did I say that? Strawman much?

You are claiming that in vitro research does not back up in vivo research.

You also appear to be claiming that in vitro research does have value for medical research and vivo research.

Which one is it? Does external-to-the-body research have value for internal-to-the-body research or not?

Of course it can have value. So why not show the value: Where's that 2009 study of internal-to-the-body use and its efficacy the article cites performed by credentialed medical researchers?

[Tom Bishop]

Of course it can have value.

Were you just arguing just for the sake of arguing then?

So why not show the value: Where's that 2009 study of internal-to-the-body use and its efficacy the article cites performed by credentialed medical researchers?

I posted it as evidence of its use by medical doctors. Write to the author if you want more clarification about details of the article.

[stack]

Of course it can have value.

Were you just arguing just for the sake of arguing then?

So why not show the value: Where's that 2009 study of internal-to-the-body use and its efficacy the article cites performed by credentialed medical researchers?

I posted it as evidence of its use by medical doctors. Write to the author if you want more clarification about details of the article.

How you can make the leap that articles say a substance is good for surface disinfectant means that it is good to inhale/ingest is beyond me. And no, you didn't post it as evidence of its use by medical doctors, plural. It was one Dr and a mention of a phantom study from 2009 which wasn't cited coupled with mentions of studies about surface disinfectants. And your one doctor, Dr Levy stating that, “Effective hydrogen peroxide nebulization quite literally, ‘chops the head off of the snake,'..." without a shred of evidence is irresponsible and dangerous.

Get your facts straight and your citations in order before you start spreading misinformation and hide behind it saying, "Write to the author if you want more clarification about details of the article."

[Lord Dave]

I like how Tom is appealing to the Authority of a degree in his argument.

I would also like to remind people that guns can kill the corona virus in laboratory studies.

[GreatATuin]

Appealing to the autority of just one man, when virtually everyone else in this field says "don't inject or ingest disinfectant", and when this man is also a proponent of orthomolecular medicine, which for some reason is categorized as health fraud. In other words, cherrypicking arguments from authority, nevermind how dubious the authority is.

Is anyone surprised?

[AATW]

Appealing to the autority of just one man, when virtually everyone else in this field says "don't inject or ingest disinfectant", and when this man is also a proponent of orthomolecular medicine, which for some reason is categorized as health fraud. In other words, cherrypicking arguments from authority, nevermind how dubious the authority is.

Is anyone surprised?

Not in the least. It's a very disingenuous way of arguing.
Every credible scientist is saying the earth is a globe, you can post articles backing that up all day long. But those people's expertise and experience count for nothing because, as Tom once said, I believe unironically, "we are smarter than those guys".

But Trump under fire for saying something dumb for the millionth time? Well that just won't do. Let me quickly Google that and cherry pick the first source I can find which possibly shows the president isn't deranged, no matter how credible the source.

Appeal to authority and expert opinion only count in Tom's book if they confirm his agenda - or in this case Trump's. And even if this doctor was credible, which it sounds like he is not, debates and research in fields like medicine go on all the time. Unless there is medical consensus about this - and there absolutely isn't - cherry picking a source you happen to agree with is a dishonest way of debating.

[Tom Bishop]

Actually, the FE Wiki is almost nothing except quotes from physcists and professionals. I do value professional expertise, who speak about their field.

In contrast, you guys link to Wikipedia articles for your proof. For 'some reason' some random person called something a fraud on Wikipedia, therefore it's true. Right. I'll stick with the MDs and trained and state certified Naturopathic Doctors who research and study that field rather than random Wikipedia articles or your untrained internet opinion that something is fraudulent. In order to really contradict those claims you would need to find other appropriately qualified persons who show experimentally that x treatment is useless. Your opinion and unsatisfactory sources do not cut it.

[AATW]

Actually, the FE Wiki is almost nothing except quotes from physcists and professionals. I do value professional expertise, who speak about their field.

You cherry pick and you take things out of context. You argue in bad faith.
Maybe not deliberately, but you are either being dishonest with yourself or us.
And, again, even if this doctor is highly regarded - which is disputed - he is only one doctor. Unless there is some kind of consensus then this is just one doctor's opinion. Which, if he is reputable, is more valuable than your opinion or mine maybe, but you always cherry pick the sources which fit with your world view and ignore or dismiss the ones which do not.