Glock Forum - GlockTalk banner

1 - 6 of 6 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,706 Posts
PicardMD has spoke of this. The light wand is not small enough to get down into the deeper part of the lung where it is needed. Maybe they will get it figured out.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
35,021 Posts
PicardMD has spoke of this. The light wand is not small enough to get down into the deeper part of the lung where it is needed. Maybe they will get it figured out.
Fiber optics. They transmit light very well.....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,706 Posts
Fiber optics. They transmit light very well.....
Yes it does. From what I gather, the problem is getting the light deep enough into the lung to do any good.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
35,021 Posts
I can send a lot of 1064nm light down a 200micron fiber optic cable. Can send enough to ablate metal. That fiber is 10 meters long.
 

·
Make It So!!
Joined
·
3,243 Posts
Below are quotes of two posts I made on this topic in another thread.
I'll give a quick summary here:

1) First of all UVC does not penetrate cells very well - that's the whole point, you don't want to damage human cells. Cedars-Sinai published the technology in an obscure European journal using it on colonoscope, where the scope traverses the entire colon and the light application is essentially intra-luminal. Colon is a straight shot single lumen tube. Our breathing tree splits into two at every branch, to 23 generations down to single cell width. Do you math on how many branches are there. And regardless of how thin our current fiber optic lines are, how do you navigate down to each of the 23 generations down to cell width without damaging cells again? Some Star Trek technology someone wish to share?

2) Some will say that you don't need to shove the cable down very far, light will travel the rest. That sounds nice in a clear hollow tube. Infected lung produces mucus that blocks airways. That's one of the causes of hypoxia - ventilation-perfusion mismatch. Infected airway tissues are inflamed and mucus plugged. If air cannot get through, how does a light that doesn't really penetrate cells that well get through again?

3) Most likely scenario is Cedars-Sinai developed this technology to be used in the colon as a part of a colonoscope. The technology is still in its infancy and Aytu Bioscience was partnered to work on the manufacturing side. It was never meant to be used in a bronchoscope because it doesn't make sense anatomically or pathophysiologically. President Trump mis-spoke and mentioned UV light. So Aytu's PR people took this as an opportunity for publicity for themselves as a publicity stunt, knowing that it will never work and was never intended for the lungs. But free publicity is still publicity - we're talking about it here, aren't we?




Citing infowars as a source is not better than citing some ultra-liberal political pundit source for the other side.

Is there a link to the video taken down by YouTube that is actually put out by Cedars-Sinai? The purported re-posting of the video on Aytu's website looks like a commercial video put out by a biotech company. Cedars-Sinai's website doesn't say a whole lot.

The only thing I can find from Cedars-Sinai is an article they submitted to a somewhat obscure European journal using the Heallight technology in colonoscopy to alter gut flora. From anatomical standpoint, bacterial flora standpoint, and even technical aspect standpoint, that's apples and oranges comparing to using it in the lungs.

If all Cedars-Sinai has done is it's use in colonoscopy as proof of concept, it is actually very, very far away from being a realistic option for COVID patients even if it actually works. We are talking about COVID 20, COVD 21 or beyond, and most likely never if it's based on endoscopic UVC technology.

In a colonoscopy, the scope has direct access to the entire mucosa in the colon, so the light does not need to go through human tissue to affect bacterial flora inside your colon.

In the lungs, the bronchoscope reaches a very, very, very small percentage of your actual bronchial tree (it gets too small for any instruments beyond the first few branches). So overwhelming majority of the bronchial tree is not accessible by bronchoscope, meaning overwhelming majority of lung tissues, including 100% of lower lung tissues where COVID does damage, is inaccessible to a bronchoscope. AND, UVC lights have very poor penetrance in living human tissues, so it's not going to go very far from inside the bronchial tree... it is very unlikely for UVC lights to get into the actual lung tissues where COVID is.

Interesting concept, but the application is more likely in the GI system and not the pulmonary system.
So where is the video? There are plenty of other platforms. The video was supposedly reposted by Aytu Bioscience, but the only video on their website is a commercial video that is nothing more than a bad infomercial with no sources identified. The ONLY source Aytu Bioscience identified is a Cedars-Sinai article about its use in colonoscopy in an obscure foreign journal.

And, Cedars-Sinai did not mention it being applicable in bronchoscopy, FDA has not approved it, and Aytu BioScience is being very vague on how this will work when any second year medical student with a year of gross anatomy under their belt knows that it doesn't make sense anatomically.

The most likely explanation is, Cedars-Sinai really has nothing to do with this other than having this technology they were hoping to explore for colonoscopy use, and Aytu is the biotechnical/manufacturing avenue for it. And Aytu just used COVID 19 as a free publicity tool while the actual intent is use for colonoscopy all along.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jame and Hines57
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
Top