This theory appeared recently on Facebook in the form of an open letter to the Australian prime minister. At least I think it did, because Facebook deleted it, it seems, because they are deleting all posts about COVID-19 except official ones. Certainly all of the "I am a medic and this is what you need to know about COVID-19" posts that were so common in the early days of he pandemic have disappeared.
Regardless of Facebook's censorship, the idea that the virus makes us poison ourselves with carbon monoxide is an interesting one. It is not as if anyone else has come up with a mechanism by which the symptoms of the virus arise and CO poisoning has such similar symptoms to COVID-19 that websites of keeping safe from CO describe the symptoms of poisoning as "like COVID-19".
Whilst looking for the censored post, I came across this which is also interesting. It's dated December 2016 and I don't know how far the scientists have got with their cure for CO poisoning, but if COVID-19 kills by CO poisoning and there's a cure for that, then there's a cure for COVID-19.
That is, of course, if it doesn't end up in the "Not Invented Here" black hole.
Thursday, 23 April 2020
COVID-19 is a leaky exhaust?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
The trouble is that you are treating the symptom. You are not treating the disease, so yes, this may be completely correct and the source of the carbon monoxide is internal, not external. OK, what now?
The correct treatment for carbon monoxide poisoning is oxygen. Hence, ventilators for reduced lung capacity. Treating the symptom, not the disease is a bad idea, but it is an expediency here in that it buys time for your immune system to clear the virus out.
The idea that this is being censored is idiotic.
Do we have a stockpile of neuroglobin? No, so it's not a solution. Cue John Ward, shitting himself in outrage about state complacency.
Mark,
the mechanisms are different. CO binds to the haemoglobin molecule and prevents it transporting oxygen.
There is some evidence that COVID-19 attacks haemoglobin and removes iron from it. So it can't absorb oxygen, no matter how much is present.
See e.g.
https://www.jewishpress.com/news/us-news/ny/scientists-study-coronavirus-attack-on-hemoglobin-test-new-treatments-with-old-standbys/2020/04/10/
On a more practical, less medical point, the scandal is that the gas emergency service does not carry or use equipment to test the air or the emissions from the gas appliances for carbon monoxide (CO). The gas emergency service operators have a personal alarm for CO but because the person calling the service is told to turn off the gas and open windows, nearly always the CO will have disappeared before the operator arrives.
CO leaves the breath and blood or a survivor quickly so there is a danger of a false negative if breath and/or blood are tested.
Those suffering from carbon monoxide (CO) have symptoms similar to any virus including Coovid-19. However, there is no free or easily available test for Covid-19 at the moment and this can cause the survivor huge problems. Please see https://www.eveningtelegraph.co.uk/fp/mum-recovering-from-pneumonia-claimed-angus-council-initially-refused-to-fix-gas-because-they-believed-she-had-coronavirus/
Stephanie Trotter, OBE office@co-gassafety.co.uk
VFTS, this was Bayard's post not mine.
B, I am in a Whatsapp covid conspiracy group, people have added various articles suggesting that standard treatment (ventilation) completely misses the point and might make things worse. I have no idea whether these are reliable.
"The trouble is that you are treating the symptom. You are not treating the disease, so yes, this may be completely correct and the source of the carbon monoxide is internal, not external. OK, what now?"
The problem does not lie with the disease. There are many coronaviruses that can infect us and we remain unaware or only mildly affected. The problem lies with the symptoms, which can kill. If COVID-19 did not interfere with our breathing, it would not be the problem that it is, so if we can remove that particular symptom, while it is not a cure, it does remove the problematic nature of the disease.
"The idea that this is being censored is idiotic."
It was on Facebook, then it was deleted by Facebook. That is censorship by Facebook. Are you claiming that Facebook never censors its posts?
VFTS, is it known for sure that the reaction of the body to the COVID-19 infection is not to produce excess CO? If so please point me to something that confirms this. I don't want to be giving some nutter the oxygen of publicity.
In response to 'View from the Solent' yes I appreciate the cause is different but the effect is similar i.e. lack of oxygen.
In the case I referred to there is a danger that those suffering symptoms of either carbon monoxide (CO) or Covid-19 are having the causes of their symptoms ignored due to a lack of test for each.
In response to Andrew Mooney
I do hope there is no censorship but how can anyone be sure of this? I'm all for proper investigation not a jumping to conclusions but the great British establishment hardly seemed the fastest government to take action on Covid-19 did it?
We have been lobbying for over 25 years for the gas emergency service to be able to test the air in a person's house and ideally the emissions from their gas appliances. This was recommended by HSE in 2000 but not implemented due, we think, to lobbying by the wealthy gas suppliers.
Testing for Covid-19 does appear to have prevented the spread of the virus in some countries. We argue that CO should be tested for as well. Testing the survivor for CO can provide a dangerous false negative.
Now due to the confusion in symptoms, it is surely vital to test for both Covid-19 and the emissions and air for CO?
In response to Andrew S Mooney I do agree that buying time is helpful.
"The idea that this is being censored is idiotic."
B - I should have written that more clearly, this theory is something that I've seen elsewhere. The fact that we're all talking about it means it is escaping censorship.
I think it should be clear to anyone by now as well that Facebook has never been a reliable news source...
Loved the comment that the fact we're talking about it proves there isn't censorship. I agree.
Although on the whole I prefer listening to experts, not ordinary citizens, I'm afraid I don't always think experts get it right. Sometimes they are just lazy, for example gorillas were always said to be vegetarian and we got a shock at the zoo once, when one of our children dropped a ham sandwich near a gorillia and his hand came out, picked off the horrid white flabby bread and delicately selected the ham and ate it with relish. Sometimes (possibly it could be argued most of the time) vested interests pay for research. Then again researchers can genuinely overlook the obvious. I think keeping an open mind and allowing everyone and anyone to ask questions is helpful, if what you want to do is to seek the truth.
ASM, whence "The idea that this is being censored", then? I never said that the COVID-19/CO theory was being censored in the way that us talking about it makes untrue. All I said was that Facebook had censored it. Where do you think I found the link, then, if the censorship was general? You must think I'm pretty stupid not to have noticed that.
I think we've had a misunderstanding. I was just making a general comment about censorship. I am sorry I've offended you.
"ASM, whence "The idea that this is being censored", then?"
Well, from people like YOURSELF. You are the one who is asserting this simply by claiming it.
"I never said that the COVID-19/CO theory was being censored in the way that us talking about it makes untrue. "
I don't fully understand what you are saying there. I wonder, what you are getting so defensive about? All you have to do is acknowledge that our discussing the theory is free speech. I pointed out that I knew this theory from elsewhere, hence it isn't censored, and if your sole source of news is garbage like Facebook, then you really shouldn't be exclusively relying upon it.
Is that clear enough? Oh god, apparently not.
"All I said was that Facebook had censored it. Where do you think I found the link, then, if the censorship was general?"
MY POINT EXACTLY. THE INTERNET IS A BIT BIGGER THAN THAT ONE WEBSITE.
"You must think I'm pretty stupid not to have noticed that."
I noted the fact that "idiotic" is a bit strong and rephrased it. Other than that I have made no remarks about your intelligence at all, that is simply you trying to personalise the matter. Stop fishing for arguments, or worse, stop pretending to be offended. You're going to go on and on all day over this aren't you?
ASM, Sorry really is the hardest word for you, isn't it?
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. Let's make this simple:
I said that Facebook had censored the post.
You said that claiming the post was censored was stupid.
I pointed out that, if Facebook had censored it, then saying Facebook had censored it was not stupid.
You tried to justify your remark about me being stupid by saying that, if we could read it elsewhere on the internet, then it wasn't censored.
I pointed out that I wasn't saying that it was generally censored, that I was only saying that it was censored by Facebook.
You accused me for making a mistake that I hadn't made, but you had, shouted at me for doing so and further accused me of pretending to be offended.
It might also help if you re-read my post, carefully, and see what I actually wrote, not what you think I wrote.
Post a Comment