Catheter With Ultravoilet Light Could Help Coronavirus Patients

Internally applied ultraviolet light could help treat coronovirus patients. The Healight is a catheter embedded with small LED lights that emit UVA.

The Healight technology delivers intermittent ultraviolet (UV) A light through an endotracheal catheter and according to the company, it is being studied as a potential treatment for coronavirus and other respiratory infections.

First developed in 2016 by the research team of the Medically Associated Science and Technology (MAST) Program at Cedars-Sinai and led by Mark Pimentel, MD, Healight has shown potential as an effective antiviral and antibacterial treatment. The device uses UVA light, because of all three forms of UV light, UVA has been shown to have the least amount of harm to mammalian cells while still killing viral and bacterial cells.

Aytu is working alongside a research team at Cedars-Sinai Hospital on an expedited regulatory process to try to use the technology faster for critically ill intubated patients. The company notes that along with being a potential treatment for viral and bacterial pathogens, Healight may also be helpful in treating bacterial infections in ventilator-associated pneumonia.

Internally Applied Ultraviolet Light as A Novel Approach for Effective and Safe Anti-Microbial Treatment (Oct 2019. United European Gastroenterology Journal Volume 7 Issue 8 (Supplement), October 2019. Research at Cedar-Sinai Medical Center.

It has been proven in the lab that at the right wattage ultraviolet light can kill viruses and bacteria (including coronavirus).

Testing at Cedar Sinai Medical Center looks promising.

SOURCES- United European Gastroenterology Journal, Aytu Bio, Nurse.org
Written by Brian Wang, Nextbigfuture.com

56 thoughts on “Catheter With Ultravoilet Light Could Help Coronavirus Patients”

  1. No, because chlorine dioxide is a volatile gas which dissipates is a few minutes, but by then it has killed the pathogens.

    Reply
  2. This might be a form of photo-chemotherapy. UVA is used in conjunction with sensitizing agents which concentrate in the skin as one treatment for psoriasis.

    Is lung tissue without melanin nearly transparent to UVA? Psoralen when photo-activated, suppresses DNA replication in dermal treatment applications. There may be agents which with UVA exposure, alter viral replication activity. All blood passes through the lung’s vascular system, thus may present as a target for a therapy.

    Reply
  3. The virus has different susceptibilities. The light would just have to penetrate the tissue enough so the virus is killed there and the surface can heal. In theory.

    Reply
  4. Thanks for your concern Mark but I drink small doses of ClO2, not bleach. Jim Humble, the guy that discovered the benefits of ingesting ClO2, is still going strong at age 88. I’m only 81.

    Reply
  5. The lungs isn’t an air bag. Think of it like a tree with branches and leaves spread all out. A catheter will only reach inside the main branches. It won’t reaches into the leaves. Also regular UV is dangerous to human tissue.

    Reply
  6. /jk
    But c’mon…a week after the national media mocks potus for suggesting this?
    I do believe it was posted with forethought, and therefore was expecting to generate a small amount of controversy. And fwiw, controversy is a positive indicator of healthy argument.

    Reply
  7. Given that WHO has changed their minds on several issues, completely reversing on face masks for example, that means that any opinion would be going against some WHO guideline.

    Reply
  8. Um, if most lung tissue is unaffected by the UV-A light, how exactly would such a device materially destroy the virus infecting said tissue?

    Reply
  9. Maybe we should wait until it is actually demonstrated to do anything before we trumpet how amazing it is. Destroying some viruses on the surface of the lung tissue does not change the fact that there are billions of viruses infecting cells that cannot be reached by such a device. It may not do any harm (I would hope they at least got that right), but it is not obvious to me that it would make any material difference to an infection of COVID-19. You cannot ask me to grant any more than that until data demonstrating its efficacy in a rigorous way is brought forward. There are many do-dads that one can suggest might help COVID-19. It is more likely than not that they won’t be helpful. So the responsible position it to assume they are ineffective until we have evidence of efficacy. Wishful thinking is for fools.

    Reply
  10. Well, I was hoping it wasn’t so…

    There’ve been on-going rumors that at least some states were badly misrepresenting their case or death numbers. Often it is alleged to be intentional, to ‘get more money’. While that type of corruption is as yet unproven, the CDC has admitted that at least some states have been reporting counts of both viral and antibody tests and test results. This would increase the absolute number of cases, but lower the estimate of cases per test. Unknown if they also double counted any individuals…

    This makes a hash of the data. Regardless of whether there is deliberate state level corruption involved, it is at least negligence on the part of the CDC – failing to provide necessary oversight and checking of state reported numbers prior to this. Assuming the CDC at least told states to only count viral tests and results, ignoring that advice amounts to a corrupt practice by the states, given the vital importance of the data.

    And now we must wonder how accurate the states’ other reported numbers are. At minimum, they have opened themselves up to a MASSIVE wave of civil lawsuits from every business kept closed, regardless of whether those closures would be justified by the real data – because we now know that we don’t know that data.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/05/cdc-and-states-are-misreporting-covid-19-test-data-pennsylvania-georgia-texas/611935/

    Reply
  11. Read the report dated May 1 on the LA Times site. The technology has not been tested on patients for covid. The company touting it Aytu Inc is deep in debt and Cedar-Sinai have had nothing to do with the covid “research”. There is no peer checked research to back up the claims from the debt ridden company, just some animations and research from 2019 which was on bacteria and the lab, not inside people. It’s unproven at best, snake oil at worst.

    Reply
  12. Exactly. The criticism was much ado about nothing. But it’s still sweet to see that this is a real thing.

    And it’s interesting to note that following a complaint lodged soon after Trump’s remarks the company’s own promotional video was taken down by YouTube, supposedly for violation of YouTube’s terms and conditions. YouTube later clarified that any content which went against WHO guidelines would be considered a violation, which a: Is not the business of a content platform, and b: STILL doesn’t have anything to do with the content of the video….

    Reply
  13. I think that when Trump spoke about ingesting “disinfectant” he may have been repeating what he had heard from people that have tried taking activated sodium chlorite which when activated produces chlorine dioxide (ClO2). ClO2 is vehemently attacked by medical professionals and Big Pharma. They claim it like taking bleach. That’s inaccurate. ClO2’s big fault is it’s dirt cheap and poses a threat to the sickness industry.
    Thousands have cured malaria with ClO2. I have personally cured a stubborn bladder infection with a few doses of ClO2. Amazon, Google, and facebook are shills for Big Pharma and will quickly stomp out any positive info on medical use of Clo2. Andreas Kalcker’s book on ClO2 was banned. The following youtube will probably be banned as soon as it’s brought to attention of the censors.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6V9Kyc2wUOs

    Reply
  14. I have been wondering if this strange thing that just popped up with kids could be from drinking bleach, taking pet drugs or some other suggested drug but without a doctor’s prescription: https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/cdc-confirms-link-of-inflammatory-syndrome-in-children-to-covid-19-145-potential-cases-in-nyc/2421547/
    I suspect a treatment rather than the virus because only a fraction of the 145 kids tested positive for the virus. Either kids self-medicating or their parents giving them these things. Or possibly, some criminals have been selling stuff saying it is some drug or another for the virus…and it is actually something else.

    Reply
  15. Well, where’s the fun in THAT? Far better to take the idea and immediately twist it into an impossible thing in order to show how much smarter you are than the people who actually have worked on it.

    Reply
  16. Sorry, it must be discarded and denigrated by our ‘political elite’ because Trump mentioned it.

    Anything he mentions, even if only the briefest comment and in passing must be immediately misconstrued and misinterpreted.

    That, apparently, is the new normal.

    Reply
  17. I’m just going to stick to injecting harmful household chemicals into my body like the rest of the weirdos. Maybe plug a few Tide pods. What a fun day!

    Reply
  18. Yes, I’d heard about this tech for cleaning lungs meant for transplant, doing it in vivo was an interesting but not insane extension of that.

    Reply
  19. I think the idea is to kill/denature microbes oh the surface of the interior of the lungs, where antibodies have a difficult time reaching. Sort of like antiseptics can help with infections on the surface of the skin.

    Reply
  20. This is designed to PREVENT lung infection for patients under artificial ventilation. It cannot act on an already active infectious process, be it vital, bacterial or fungal.

    Reply
  21. The device uses UV-A, according to the article. That does penetrate a bit. It might only be able to kill viruses in the outer layer of the lung tissue, but perhaps that would be enough to be helpful. I have no idea whether the thing will prove effective, but it does not deserve to be dismissed without trying it. The technologists at Cedars-Sinai have been working on it for a few years, so I have to believe that it has shown some potential.

    Reply
  22. Did you read the article, or just the headline? The device uses UV-A, which does penetrate a bit. I have no idea whether the device will be effective, but the technologist have been working on it at Cedars-Sinai for around three years, so I have to believe it has shown some potential. If you are letting your political views cloud your technical judgement, that is a bad habit you probably ought to try to curb.

    Reply
  23. Donald Trump pulls a rope-a-dope by putting out sound information in a way that leads the opposition into a corner. Ever notice how his pronouncements are vindicated as being absolutely straight-dope from insider knowledge, after every angle is exhaustively tossed about in the media?

    Just as a good Legal Eagle never raises a question without knowing all the answers, the Don never makes a statement without irrefutable facts backing his word. The cards are held closely in this game. His stagecraft provides false ‘tells’ to lull the players into overconfidence. The cards hit the table—watch what turns up.

    Reply
  24. Bear in mind, random commentor — your ignorance of the subject in no way diminishes the knowledge or work of those who do know it. You could talk to the people who make the device.

    Reply
  25. I think it can be killed in the blood now. I don’t think that is the problem. It is the stuff in the lungs and the damage already done to various organs that is the real problem. And light down your trachea is not likely to do anything as the lungs branch maybe a million times. The fraction exposed to the light is going to be very small.
    But heck, the downside is probably low for those already intubated. They have about 80% chance of dying.
    You know what? Maybe it could work in the lungs if you were breathing that oxygen holding liquid. Light in liquid bounces around, and should, in theory, reach most of the lung surface.

    Reply
  26. I am not a Trump fan either. But if he hadn’t mentioned it, would you condemn it as a dumb idea as well?
    I had the impression that when he mentioned it, it was more a rhetorical question anyway.

    Reply
  27. All the info I have on the subject is from the above article. But “Research at Cedar-Sinai Medical Center” has a good reputation.
    For the sake of the intubated people who seem to have only an odd chance for survival I hope they are right and it can be applied.

    Reply
  28. Particularly who they used to work for and what goes in and out of any bank accounts and funds associated with them.

    Reply
  29. How could this possibly help? UV doesn’t penetrate tissue much, and the tissues are full of virions. Nevermind lungs that have a massive surface area, more like a sponge. UV works on surfaces–do you think a UV light would do a good job of sterilizing a sponge?

    Reply
  30. Trump knew what he had been briefed on, which included UV therapy… That’s more than I can say of the ORANGE MAN BAD #resistance fighters.

    You do realize the the subject of this article, Healight, had it’s videos temporarily removed from YouTube and Twitter account temporarily suspended, as a consequence of your cohort’s ORANGE MAN BAD hysteria?

    https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/techwatch/alexander-hall/2020/04/28/youtube-removes-video-potential-covid-19-treatment

    Reply
  31. Right in the sense that this is a real thing that exists and medical researchers are looking into it.

    I’m not crediting him with actual medical tech inventing ability.

    Reply
  32. With the power of ultraviolet light and injected disinfectants, we might have this coronavirus licked. Thank you, stable genius, for helping us through this pandemic. (Please note that disinfectants and ultraviolet light can be bad for biological organisms.)

    Reply
  33. BS. The extreme UV that kills viruses has very limited ability to penetrate tissue therefore it won’t be useful for treating people.

    Reply
  34. I doubt it, The extreme UV that kills viruses has very limited ability to penetrate tissue therefore it won’t be useful for treating people.

    Reply
  35. If people had bothered to research UV therapy when the talking heads exploded over Trump’s inarticulate comments, they would have understood what Trump was talking about.

    Reply

Leave a Comment