Wet blanket here: there's a difference between an
Post# of 72447
(Total Views: 389)
Posted On: 04/19/2020 9:20:41 PM
Wet blanket here:
there's a difference between an inhaler like the kind used for asthma, and an inhalation system that actually gets the drug into the lungs. Neither is likely to be useful for treating severe COVID-19 cases. IV is much more likely.
Ask anyone who remembers what asthma inhalers were like 10 years or so ago, when they used a powerful propellant that got the asthma drug (albuterol or similar drugs) deep into the lungs. Then it was decided that the huuuuge amount of propellant used by asthma patients was damaging the ozone layer, so they forced manufacturers to use a much less effective propellant. The result, of course, is that more people have had to seek ER care or died of asthma attacks because of ineffective medication -- it just doesn't get into the lungs well. And, for any who didn't get the sarcasm, the amount of toxic chemicals spewed in one day by one big factory or refinery are more than the amount of propellant in all the inhalers used in the U.S. in a year.
So if there is ever an inhaled form of Brilacidin for serious illnesses, you can bet that it will have to be administered by nebulizer -- and this would be EXTREMELY unsafe to do for a contagious disease, because the nebulizer technology involves people inhaling and then EXHALING into the room, through the device. This would be incredibly unsafe -- they'd be spewing the virus all over the place -- and it is why, despite the articles you may have seen, it is NOT safe to use a CPAP machine in place of a ventilator for COVID-19 patients. That technology also involves the patient's breath being sent out into the room. Yes, they can probably develop some kind of filter technology -- but why do that, when an IV would get the drug into the patient systemically, so that any secondary lung infection, and any inflammation in other parts of the body, would be treated too?
there's a difference between an inhaler like the kind used for asthma, and an inhalation system that actually gets the drug into the lungs. Neither is likely to be useful for treating severe COVID-19 cases. IV is much more likely.
Ask anyone who remembers what asthma inhalers were like 10 years or so ago, when they used a powerful propellant that got the asthma drug (albuterol or similar drugs) deep into the lungs. Then it was decided that the huuuuge amount of propellant used by asthma patients was damaging the ozone layer, so they forced manufacturers to use a much less effective propellant. The result, of course, is that more people have had to seek ER care or died of asthma attacks because of ineffective medication -- it just doesn't get into the lungs well. And, for any who didn't get the sarcasm, the amount of toxic chemicals spewed in one day by one big factory or refinery are more than the amount of propellant in all the inhalers used in the U.S. in a year.
So if there is ever an inhaled form of Brilacidin for serious illnesses, you can bet that it will have to be administered by nebulizer -- and this would be EXTREMELY unsafe to do for a contagious disease, because the nebulizer technology involves people inhaling and then EXHALING into the room, through the device. This would be incredibly unsafe -- they'd be spewing the virus all over the place -- and it is why, despite the articles you may have seen, it is NOT safe to use a CPAP machine in place of a ventilator for COVID-19 patients. That technology also involves the patient's breath being sent out into the room. Yes, they can probably develop some kind of filter technology -- but why do that, when an IV would get the drug into the patient systemically, so that any secondary lung infection, and any inflammation in other parts of the body, would be treated too?
(1)
(0)