• Welcome to Phoenix Rising!

    Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of and finding treatments for complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia (FM), long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.

    To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.

Antivirals Effective Against Coronavirus?

bertiedog

Senior Member
Messages
1,736
Location
South East England, UK
I guess the alcohol is used with the herb to preserve it. Just downed some of the tincture and my throat is now extremely warm and tingling and this lasts for a couple of hours especially when the throat is red which mine is at the moment.

Pam
 

Cipher

Senior Member
Messages
811
But for a full spectrum virucidal solution that kills most viruses, 95% ethanol is the best concentration.


Interesting! I found this great review paper covering different hand hygiene methods:

Epidemiologic background of hand hygiene and evaluation of the most important agents for scrubs and rubs.


Abstract
The etiology of nosocomial infections, the frequency of contaminated hands with the different nosocomial pathogens, and the role of health care workers' hands during outbreaks suggest that a hand hygiene preparation should at least have activity against bacteria, yeasts, and coated viruses. The importance of efficacy in choosing the right hand hygiene product is reflected in the new Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guideline on hand hygiene (J. M. Boyce and D. Pittet, Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 51:1-45, 2002). The best antimicrobial efficacy can be achieved with ethanol (60 to 85%), isopropanol (60 to 80%), and n-propanol (60 to 80%). The activity is broad and immediate. Ethanol at high concentrations (e.g., 95%) is the most effective treatment against naked viruses, whereas n-propanol seems to be more effective against the resident bacterial flora. The combination of alcohols may have a synergistic effect. The antimicrobial efficacy of chlorhexidine (2 to 4%) and triclosan (1 to 2%) is both lower and slower. Additionally, both agents have a risk of bacterial resistance, which is higher for chlorhexidine than triclosan. Their activity is often supported by the mechanical removal of pathogens during hand washing. Taking the antimicrobial efficacy and the mechanical removal together, they are still less effective than the alcohols. Plain soap and water has the lowest efficacy of all. In the new Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guideline, promotion of alcohol-based hand rubs containing various emollients instead of irritating soaps and detergents is one strategy to reduce skin damage, dryness, and irritation. Irritant contact dermatitis is highest with preparations containing 4% chlorhexidine gluconate, less frequent with nonantimicrobial soaps and preparations containing lower concentrations of chlorhexidine gluconate, and lowest with well-formulated alcohol-based hand rubs containing emollients and other skin conditioners. Too few published data from comparative trials are available to reliably rank triclosan. Personnel should be reminded that it is neither necessary nor recommended to routinely wash hands after each application of an alcohol-based hand rub. Long-lasting improvement of compliance with hand hygiene protocols can be successful if an effective and accessible alcohol-based hand rub with a proven dermal tolerance and an excellent user acceptability is supplied, accompanied by education of health care workers and promotion of the use of the product.


I skimmed through it, here's some notable quotes:

In-use tests.

The effect of a social hand wash “in real life” has also been studied. Among 224 healthy homemakers, a single hand wash had little impact on microbial counts (mean log counts before hand wash, 5.72 ± 0.99; mean log counts after hand wash, 5.69 ± 1.04) (307). In a study with 11 volunteers who washed their hands for 15 s with water alone 24 times per day for a total of 5 days, a slight increase of the bacterial counts was observed (mean log bacterial counts: prewash, 4.91 ± 0.46; postwash, 5.12 ± 0.44); when bar soap was used, a similar result was found (mean log bacterial counts: prewash, 4.81 ± 0.46; postwash, 5.07 ± 0.47) (299). Other authors, too, have found paradoxical increases in bacterial counts on the skin after hand washing with plain soap (299, 371, 611). In contrast, another study showed that a 5-min hand wash with regular bar soap reduced the resident hand flora by 0.33 log10 units (326). The use of a nonmedicated soap by a surgical nurse for the preoperative treatment of hands even led to eight cases of surgical-site infection after cardiac surgery, which underscores the limited efficacy of nonmedicated soap (226).

Some studies have examined only microorganisms that are left on the hands after a hand wash. Washing hands with soap and water has been described to be ineffective in eliminating adenovirus from the culture-positive hands of a physician and patients, indicating that mechanical removal was incomplete (235). Transient gram-negative bacteria remained on the hands of health care workers in 10 of 10 cases despite five successive hand washes with soap and water (187). Furthermore, transmission of gram-negative bacteria from hands has been shown to occur 11 of 12 cases when a simple hand wash is carried out (129).


(iv) Risk of contamination by a simple hand wash.

One risk of using soap and water is the contamination of hands by the washing process per se. This has been reported for P. aeruginosa (143). A possible source is the sink itself, when splashes of contaminated water come in contact with the hand of the health care worker (119). The reason is that the microorganisms are not killed during the hand wash but only removed and distributed in the immediate surroundings of the person, including the clothes. Nonmedicated soaps may also become contaminated and lead to colonization of the hands of personnel and to NIs, e.g., with S. marcescens (492) or Serratia liquefaciens (183).
Although the data involving nonmedicated soap suggest that a simple hand wash has some effect on the transient hand flora, it must be borne in mind that, in reality, a simple hand wash often does not last longer than 10 s (121, 145, 176, 177, 180, 300, 334, 450, 552).

Effect on human skin.

Each hand wash detrimentally alters the water-lipid layer of the superficial skin, resulting in a loss of various protective agents such as amino acids and antimicrobial protective factors. Regeneration of the protective film may be insufficient if many hand washes are carried out in a row. This may lead to damage of the barrier function of the stratum corneum by inhingement of intercellular putty substances. The transepidermal water loss (TEWL) increases, and the skin becomes more permeable for toxic agents. At the same time, the superficial skin cells dry out, resulting in dehiscence of the stratum corneum, initially on the microscopic level and in due course on the macroscopic level (280).

A questionnaire study conducted at the end of the trial found that more than 85% of nurses felt that the alcohol hand rub caused less skin dryness than did washing with soap and water and that they would be willing to use the product routinely for hand hygiene (69). In another study of 77 operating-room staff who used either an alcohol-based hand rub or an antiseptic liquid soap for surgical hand disinfection, skin dryness and skin irritation decreased significantly in the group using the alcohol rub whereas they both increased in the group using soap (416).

Ethanol has a strong immediate bactericidal activity (297) that is observed at 30% and higher concentrations (383, 444, 448, 449). Against S. aureus. E. faecium, or P. aeruginosa, its bactericidal activity seems to be slightly higher, at 80% than at 95% (110). According to the tentative final monograph for health care antiseptic products, ethanol is considered to be generally effective at between 60 and 95% (21). The spectrum of bactericidal activity of ethanol is broad (198).Ethanol is also effective against various mycobacteria. Ethanol at 95% killed M. tuberculosis in sputum within 15 s, 70% ethanol required a contact time of 30 s, and 50% ethanol required 60 s (524), which was also required against M. smegmatis (54).

The difference in bactericidal activity between 80% and 95 % ethanol seems to be negligible, as the log reduction factor was about 6.8 for the former vs 6.3 for the latter for the 3 bacteria tested. The difference wasn't statistically significant according to the paper. A 6-log reduction is equivalent to a 99.9999% reduction in CFU. Also, according to this table, the mean removal rate of the resident hand flora (log10) with 95 % Ethanol was 2.1, compared to 1.5 for 80 % and 1.0 for 70 %. It doesn't seem like 95 % ethanol have lower bactericidal activity compared to 70-80%, it may even be more effective against most bacteria.

Ethanol is also effective against various mycobacteria. Ethanol at 95% killed M. tuberculosis in sputum within 15 s, 70% ethanol required a contact time of 30 s, and 50% ethanol required 60 s (524), which was also required against M. smegmatis (54).

Comparison to antimicrobial soaps or nonmedicated soaps usually reveals the superior efficacy of ethanol on the resident hand flora or on artificial contamination of hands with E. coli or S. marcescens (32, 34, 66, 80, 267, 318, 377, 406, 419, 476). To date, there is only one study with a 2-min application time, yielding the opposite result (319). Other test models have been investigated as well. Compared to washing hands with plain soap, a 30-s hand disinfection using 70% ethanol was significantly more effective in reducing the transfer of Staphyloccocus saprophyticus (344). The higher bactericidal efficacy of ethanol than of antimicrobial soaps is even more pronounced in the presence of blood (296, 297).

TLDR: Hand washing with soap and water is not very effective against pathogens compared to using 95 % ethanol hand sanitizers. I'm very surprised, as I've always thought hand washing was a very effective hand hygiene method. I find it very disturbing that most national public health institutes around the world like the CDC is misleading the public by not informing people about the ineffectiveness of regular hand washing compared to 95 % ethanol hand sanitizers.
 
Last edited:

Hip

Senior Member
Messages
17,801
So all in all, a 95% ethanol + 5% water solution is going to be the best all round killer of pathogens, whether they are bacteria, enveloped viruses or non-enveloped viruses.

I had a quick look online for a pocket-sized hand sanitizer gel bottle containing around 95% ethanol, but could not find any. Most hand sanitizers are around 70% ethanol. 70% ethanol should be good enough to kill the Wuhan coronavirus; but if you want something that kills even non-enveloped viruses, then a gel containing around 95% ethanol would be better.

I guess you could buy a bottle of surgical spirit (which is usually ethanol mixed in with substances that prevent people drinking it), then dilute that to 95%, and place in a small spray bottle, which you could carry in your pocket for hand sanitization.
 

Cipher

Senior Member
Messages
811
@Hip There is an absence of 95% ethanol hand sanitizers here in Sweden as well. The only denatured ethanol here in Sweden that contains 95%+ ethanol contains acetone among other things might not be skin friendly. However, in Germany there is a product called Sterillium Virugard that contains 95 % ethanol. It's available for purchase in many German shops. The only downside with 95 % ethanol might be that it's more rough on the skin, but how it compares to 75 % ethanol or regular hand washing w/ soap, I don't know.

Here's the efficiency of Sterillium Virugard at different contact times (source):

clip000.PNG
 

Ecoclimber

Senior Member
Messages
1,011
To date reported treatement for #CoV2019 #2019nCoV #coronavirus is as follows:

Initial treatment outlined in NEJM was
of 650 mg of acetaminophen every 4 hours and 600 mg of ibuprofen every 6 hours. He also received 600 mg of guaifenesin and approximately 6 liters of normal saline over the first 6 days along with supplememtal oxygen

With increasing severity, Vancomycin (a 1750-mg loading dose followed by 1 g administered intravenously every 8 hours) and cefepime (administered intravenously every 8 hours) was initiated.

Finally, investigative anti-viral therapy remdesivir was used

Anecdotal report of Wuhan doctor recovering using Lopinavir, remdesivir, ritonavir n=1

Thailand Sees Benefit From Using Drug Mixture on Coronavirus

A cocktail of antiviral drugs appeared effective in treating a seriously ill patient infected with the coronavirus that’s spreading around the world, a Thai health official said.

The HIV medicines lopinavir and ritonavir, sold by AbbVie Inc. as Kaletra, was used on three patients along with the anti-flu medication oseltamivir, sold by Roche Holding AG and Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. as Tamiflu, Somkiat Lalitwongsa, director of the Rajavithi Hospital in Bangkok, told reporters Monday.

So the reported count is now n=6. Bias is still an issue with coctail of antiviral drugs since there could be unreported failures. Except for the NEJM patient who remains hospitalized. He is afebrile, and all symptoms have resolved.

https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/...esult-from-using-drug-mixture-on-coronavirus?

[/Font]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Murph

:)
Messages
1,793
Screen Shot 2020-02-05 at 9.43.26 pm.png

I made this. Each day the number of case gets larger, but more importantly, the number of new cases gets larger - the definition of exponential growth.
 

Hip

Senior Member
Messages
17,801
Just found an of an interesting paper published Feb 2020 on disinfectants for coronavirus.

If you look at table 2 of the paper, you see that isopropyl alcohol (2-propanol) and ethanol are very effective.

But even more interesting is that povidone-iodine, even just a 0.23% solution, is a remarkably effective disinfectant for coronavirus. This is what surgeons use to disinfect their hands before an operation. Povidone-iodine has the advantage of being a persistent disinfectant: it continues protecting the skin hours after it is applied. Whereas alcohol quickly evaporates from the skin, so although it sterilizes, it does not offer any persistent protection from re-infection of the hands.

It might be an idea to make up a 0.23% hand sanitizer with povidone-iodine. You can buy 10% povidone-iodine online (that possibly 10% may be a bit too strong though for regular use, because quite a bit of the iodine is systemically absorbed). Then you could apply this 0.23% povidone-iodine hand sanitizer before you go out shopping etc, and it would help protect the hands from contamination. Also has the advantage of not drying out the skin like alcohol hand sanitizers.
 

godlovesatrier

Senior Member
Messages
2,512
Location
United Kingdom
Having tried many anti viral herbal preparations I can safely say getting the dosing right and the type of brand you take is a real million to one. Get it wrong and your just wasting money and it won't help get rid of a nasty virus in any way. What works for me is all the strongest herbs I've been able to find. Pukka branded andrographis paniculata used to treat two strains or dengue fever in india. Lomatium dissectum fresh preparation in gleycerite from the states where it grows naturally used to treat the flu pandemic 1920.

Then I also take pukka branded mushroom complex gold. A complex of 4 mushroom extracts to boost various immune responses. Wonderful for asthma and asthma attacks too. Then Siberian ginseng extract. I take these 3 x a day when a virus hits.

Even with all these my body still struggles. This is where dosing is important. I noticed with andrographis I have to take 12 to 18 grams a day for if to have any real effect on a nasty virus and I do mean virus. Aches and pains, painful tonsil swelling, sore throat, blocked nose, headache etc. Anything over 16g is considered harmful and high dose lomatium isn't considered very safe either. So you can begin to see the very real danger and indeed the potential to literally throw money down the drain.

Still this will be my first line of defence if I get sick. That and ubiquinol which is doing wonders for my immune strength. I've also recently found magnesium ascorbate which is brilliant. Although pretty convinced magnesium and vitamin c are not useful at all when dealing with flu or a virus like covid19. I don't believe any of the hype around vit c in high doses being useful unless possibly it's added daily via IV drip in very large doses.
 

Wayne

Senior Member
Messages
4,277
Location
Ashland, Oregon
Below is the introductory paragraph from THIS ARTICLE: When I first started hearing about the Coronavirus, my first thought was that it could likely be relatively easily treated with IV Vitamin C, which has been demonstrated to cure polio, H1N1, and much more...

by Andrew W. Saul, Editor
(OMNS January 26, 2020) The coronavirus pandemic can be dramatically slowed, or stopped, with the immediate widespread use of high doses of vitamin C. Physicians have demonstrated the powerful antiviral action of vitamin C for decades. There has been a lack of media coverage of this effective and successful approach against viruses in general, and coronavirus in particular.
 

Hip

Senior Member
Messages
17,801
Looks like a clinical trial of intravenous vitamin C as a treatment for Wuhan coronavirus infection is in the planning:
Vitamin C, also known as ascorbic acid, has antioxidant properties. When sepsis happens, the cytokine surge caused by sepsis is activated, and neutrophils in the lungs accumulate in the lungs, destroying alveolar capillaries. Early clinical studies have shown that vitamin C can effectively prevent this process.

In addition, vitamin C can help to eliminate alveolar fluid by preventing the activation and accumulation of neutrophils, and reducing alveolar epithelial water channel damage.

At the same time, vitamin C can prevent the formation of neutrophil extracellular traps, which is a biological event of vascular injury caused by neutrophil activation.

So we should soon know whether IV ascorbate has any benefits for the Wuhan virus.
 

tdog333

Senior Member
Messages
171
In regards to ACE-2 i'm a bit confused, does it make sense to inhibit or boost this? You would want to boost it if I understand correctly, since the virus enters the cell via that pathway, creating a lot of it would create more work for the virus? Can someone clarify?
 

pamojja

Senior Member
Messages
2,378
Location
Austria
So we should soon know whether IV ascorbate has any benefits for the Wuhan virus.

Do you know how much ascorbate IV they are using? The sad storry of course is, that in most vitamin C trials too little a dose is used. Also usually blood-levels aren't tested - the only way to titrate to the effective doses.