Nov 14, 2021Liked by Mathew Crawford

Have you seen James Lyons Weiler's article on QUATS


One of the many reasons I refuse to fly.

There's an indoor playground I like taking my preschooler to in the oppressive Texan summer. On their Facebook page they showed how "safe" they were being by having a grown man in a full hazmat suit spraying some unnamed cleaning chemical on the playground

It did not go as they planned.

They have since switched to a hydrogen peroxide solution.

I am way more scared of the cleaning chemicals used in gym or church nurseries than any infectious disease. UV lights would be a huge improvement.

Expand full comment
Nov 14, 2021Liked by Mathew Crawford

This is already a thing. Like, they have robots already that will go into hospitals and flash high-powered UV lights in empty rooms to disinfect surfaces. Also, there has been some research on an intravenous UV light that could be used as a treatment for people with certain diseases...I think that's what Trump might have been referring to but everyone jumped on it as if he was suggesting people drink bleach.

Expand full comment

There are $100k robots that hospitals have a hard time buying, but they run around the grounds. For closer to $200 you could have one on the wall or ceiling that would disinfect air before virion particles could pressure-fill a poorly-ventilated room [which is how most transmission takes place].

Expand full comment

I had one installed in my ac/heat system. I had it installed because I had a mold spore in the main exchange, it was recommend, to kill this mold spore and any that would think about developing in the future. I can’t smell it anymore but it has a peroxide smell. It’s called Reme*Halo and I think they sell them now at big box stores.

Expand full comment

Yes, there was a sort of proof-of-concept video from a biotech company, using computer animation to demonstrate their product: a UV catheter which could be inserted into the lungs via the trachea and used to kill pathogens. It was on YouTube when Trump made his remarks; I found it shortly after the press brouhaha started.

Of course it was almost immediately banned as "medical disinformation", because ... reasons. It had nothing at all to do with covid, that I am aware, but because Trump had mentioned something like it, and many of us were gladly sticking it in the smug faces of those mocking everyone who didn't jump on their ideological bandwagon, it had to go, apparently.

Iirc, there was another therapy I saw at the time using IV methods of UV delivery deeper within the arteries and heart.

And, of course, IV hydrogen peroxide therapy has been looked into at least a bit; it is also used fairly widely as an oxidative therapy by alternative and holistic practitioners.

The saying about dismissal without investigation always comes to mind when dealing with the media and their sycophants.

Expand full comment

Yes Stephanie, I do remember early on, as I track robotic technology, that the UV light on robots in foyers, hospitals, etc, was a big deal. But then it sort of vanished - not much about the development and distribution of this seemingly effective technology. There was techniques whereby people had to be out of the room for higher powered UV treatment and other, obviously lower powered options, where robots could meander though public spaces and do a low-grade sterilization (not sure about the health implications in that case).

Expand full comment

Let's not be too unduly dismissive of chemical disinfectants either.


Expand full comment

I love the idea of decreasing toxic chemical use. At work I use plain old 70% rubbing alcohol or hydrogen peroxide for wiping down surfaces--they both seem fairly benign. My daughter worked at restaurant where they use UV light to sterilize the menus, tables, chairs and more. She actually quit the job because of the staff's carelessness with the UV wand. She said many servers would wave it around in hers and people's faces, seemingly w/o any concern for UV light safety (skin cancer, blindness) in mind.

Expand full comment

Why didn't osha mention uv in air filters for covid is puzzling? uv in air filters is safe as is internal to the machine. Wonder why vaccine mandate is the only to go

Expand full comment

There was discussion early on of performing a dialysis-like procedure that would expose the blood to UV light thus destroying the virus.

Expand full comment

My daughter’s dance studio has been using these since spring 2020. The owner thought it was the most cost effective way to deal with COVID and kids.

Expand full comment

Any idea which product they use? I am looking at the ones made by Far UV Technologies.

Expand full comment

I can ask this week. I know she ordered from Amazon, got only one which she moves from room to room while studio is empty.

Expand full comment

Noblesse oblige indeed. The Gates Foundation is currently sine qua non of noblesse oblige...

Expand full comment

Hair dressers used to put their instruments in a UV like box all the time when I was a kid.

Expand full comment

The excimer lamps featured in the article which are eye-safe yet effective are in their (manufacturing) infancy and extremely expensive, hundreds of dollars per, even for low wattage lamps. They *could* be made low cost in the course of time. The lowest I've priced them is in the neighborhood of $400 for a single 10 watt lamp and driver.

Short wavelength LED's are also new and very expensive. However, there are a few Japanese studies showing the far cheaper and readily available (and eye safe) 365nm UVA LED's, a wavelength not normally associated with germicidal activity, actually appear to have a strong germicidal effect. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11517-007-0263-1

(Haven't read this one all the way through) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/26820608_Suitability_of_ultraviolet_A-light_emitting_diode_for_air_stream_disinfection

Expand full comment

Also, it was found during WWII that a low density fog of polyethylene glycol had a strong germicidal effect, and posed little risk of side effects, even for asthmatics.

The plain old disco fog machine. Polyethylene glycol (PEG) may sound scary, but it's not to be confused with Polypropylene glycol (PPG), which has a tendency to cause anaphylaxis when injected as a vaccine component. PEG has been used in inhaled medications for decades and has a pretty well proven safety profile, plus when used in effective concentration, it's not even visible. It's kind of a forgotten technology. It was brought up sometime last year, but didn't gain any traction because it wasn't going to make anyone rich.

Expand full comment

(PEG and/or glycerine are currently also used in e-cigs, and was *not* related to the mystery vaping illness rash of 2020)

Expand full comment

(A quick search shows most of the work on germicidal properties are on propylene glycol, but PEG merits a further look)

Here's an article from a 1942 edition of Time https://web.archive.org/web/20080923010241/https://time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,932876,00.html

Expand full comment

These guys have done much of the research on the subject already https://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/threads/a-germ-killing-vapor.1734/

Expand full comment

(Bear in mind this was written in 2008, before e-cigs threatened the industry and had been demonized) One of the forum members wrote


"Last January, while writing an article on e-smoking, I corresponded several times with the world's leading e-smoking researcher, Dr. Murray Laugesen of New Zealand. Thursday, I again emailed the doctor, asking if the studies spelled out in the first post in this thread could be as important as I think they are. I provided a link to this thread on our forum. He visited our forum and read the posts.

Dr. Laugesen replied within hours. He wrote that he is authoring a report for the World Health Organization on e-smoking and he promptly drew up an addition to the WHO report. In his emailed reply, he included a first draft of the addendum and asked if I'd like to post it. Yes, yes I would.


Murray Laugesen

Public health physician www.healthnz.co.nz

Bob Bowden, Florida contributor to e-cigarette-forum.com, raises the question whether e-cigarettes, apart from avoiding smoking and future lung cancer risk, actually confers immediate short term positive benefits, by reducing the risk of its users inhaling live viruses and bacteria from room air. This is mind-blowing enough, but could its possible benefits also protect others close by? Is the e-cigarette more than a tool for reducing harm? Is it also potentially a talisman to ward off infection?


That propylene glycol (PG) may protect users of the e-cigarette from airborne bacterial and viruses dates back to World War II. ‘Air Germicide’, a story in Time magazine Nov 16, 1942, reported the research of Dr. Oswald Hope Robertson at Chicago's BillingsHospital. He showed that half a part per million of PG in air could kill bacteria and viruses in that air within seconds. He found PG could protect mice from influenza virus, and that monkeys could well tolerate living in air containing PG. On the face of it, e-cigarette users might indeed be better off.

Second hand PG

For e-cigarette mist to have any chance of protecting non-users of e-cigarettes depends on whether e-cigarette users exhale sufficient PG, and this is doubtful. While the mouth smoke inhaled contains PG at 300 parts per million, in the next breath the exhaled mist is invisible and PG is only about 5 ppm. Several PG users, however, might exhale enough to maintain a viricidal concentration of PG. PG is mostly absorbed, and broken down to carbon dioxide and pyruvate, which is burnt for energy. And so PG mainly benefits the user, not the surrounding air space.

Protecting air travelers

Air travel is a weak point in defending ourselves internationally from fatal respiratory infections. Bird flu and pandemic influenza can spread globally at the speed of jet travel, as one infected person can infect many others through air-conditioned, re-circulated air. Governments are spending millions on how to contain or just even slow the spread of such epidemics. Perhaps PG should be seriously considered.

Even the tuberculosis bacillus can infect passengers seated some distance from the infected passenger on a flight between San Francisco and Hawaii, as CDC (US Centers for Disease Control) has reported.

PG is not used to sterilise aircraft air, and airlines medicating cabin air via air-conditioners could incur unwanted legal claims. Permitting the use, however, of e-cigarettes on passenger flights might at least help protect the e-cigarette user, and just possibly, those in the adjacent seat. Airlines would not need to do a thing, apart from inform in-flight staff that e-cigarette use is permissible.

E-cigarettes, being flameless, and not producing harmful gases, are not banned by laws against second-hand smoke or use in flight. Their use in the aircraft toilet will not activate the smoke alarms. And until research confirms or denies it, the PG in e-cigarette mist just might have health protection benefits for other passengers. Non-smokers desiring enhanced personal protection could use e-cigarettes containing zero nicotine.

Further research

We already know there is no way e-cigarettes can cause lung cancer. Equally, they do not cause fires. E-users would also like to know whether switching to e-cigarettes reduces coughs, colds and flu compared with smokers who have simply quit nicotine altogether. Everyone would like to know whether permitting e-cigarette use on long haul flights reduces respiratory infection risk for passengers."


Murray Laugesen: New Zealand health science association administrator, director. Registered in public health medicine Medical Council New Zealand, 1991. Named Queens Service Order, Government New Zealand, 2000; recipient Tobacco or Health award creating a smoke free society, World Health Organization, 1998. Member of College Community Medicine, Royal College of Surgeons, RACP, Action Smoking and Health (life)

Expand full comment

Thank you so much!

We nebulise what inorganic antiseptic we have, all have “safety papers”, one can use as additional “choice” besides UV.

Use for rooms, or inhaled.

Preventive or therapeutic.

Even without some machine doing prevention in room air for ClO2(aq) 0.3% called CDS, chlorine dioxide solution: 10ml/10m² room area.

(Source: COMUSAV’s physicians.)

(Not smellable <0.1ppm, ideal 0.01..0.1ppm.

(Danger: Inhalable only up to 5ppm.

No even slight coughing urge tolerable!

Irritating = self warning.

Damage for >10ppm at alveoli is possible.

So safety margin 10ppm/0.1ppm is nice 100x. And self warning. Show me another….)

Here is the publication that found ClO2 reduces the “absenteism in school children” by factor (!) 2.6 if applied by 0.03ppm in classrooms of one group of schoolchildren vs others without the air “deodorant”.


They used a machine to have reproduceable concentration .03pm, but this is not necessary, imho.

From FFP2 N95 mask “mandates” we know: aerosols are not the culprit. Otherwise they would produce a step down 10days after issued in first derivative of incidence in respect to time, which they did not. Let’s overlay all mask mandate introduction points of time for arbitrary precision.

It’s all the fault of fine droplets suspended in air as some fluid, ballistically shooting 3m on nose blow, cough or sneeze, perhaps some snoring, then sinking down in 40secs.

Fluid: they get perfectly reflected from an “elbow”; or mask as it lifts from skin while sneezing of course. And still shoot 3m unpredictably deflected from elbow or the slit between mask and skin they het out sideways-behind.

So let us use inorganic antiseptics as virtual mask where infections start, 1/5 in saliva glands, 4/5 in throat ring, and only some 1% in upper lungs or nose.

So gargling alone is reaching 99% of primary infection sites.

Inhaling nebulised inorganic antiseptics of course is most effective both for prevention as well as therapeutic. Papers are there for many orthogonally working remedies.

Expand full comment

I bought a UV disinfection lamp for this purpose in April 2020. I remember being surprised at the time that it wasn't harder to get one, since it's such an obvious solution to a problem. This was back when toilet paper was still sparse on shelves around here.

Expand full comment

As a child when we went to a barber, not a hairdresser, they used to have a UV steriliser cabinet on the shelf to sterilise the tools of the trade , scissors, razors and combs.

Expand full comment

Do we have a heads up on this?

“If DNA damage cannot be properly repaired, it will contribute to the amplification of viral infection-induced pathology. Therefore, we aimed to investigate whether SARS–CoV–2 proteins hijack the DNA damage repair system, thereby affecting adaptive immunity in vitro.”

“Together, these data show that the SARS–CoV–2 full–length spike protein inhibits DNA damage repair by hindering DNA repair protein recruitment.”

“This suggests that the use of antigenic epitopes of the spike as a SARS–CoV–2 vaccine might be safer and more efficacious than the full–length spike. Taken together, we identified one of the potentially important mechanisms of SARS–CoV–2 suppression of the host adaptive immune machinery. Furthermore, our findings also imply a potential side effect of the full–length spike–based vaccine. This work will improve the understanding of COVID–19 pathogenesis and provide new strategies for designing more efficient and safer vaccines.”


Expand full comment

Stew Peters interviewed an anesthesiologist about this technology a few weeks ago, and mentioned a company that has already been installing 222nm products (faruv.com). Has anyone heard of any such installations? I’m thinking of having them installed at my daughter’s school.


Expand full comment

When I started first grade in 1952, my school had UV lights in every classroom. Of course, we had measles, polio, chicken pox, etc. to contend with.

Expand full comment