• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo

Methylene Blue's Powerful Anti-Viral Properties

virus methylene blue red light sars hiv flavivirus coronavirus

  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic
⌛⇒ new years donation: support LE labs

#1 abelard lindsay

  • Guest
  • 844 posts
  • 217
  • Location:Mare Serenitatis Circumlunar Corporate Republic

Posted 04 February 2020 - 05:14 AM


I present to the forum two studies on the inactivation of very dangerous viruses by Methylene Blue in the presence of light.

 

 

Methylene blue photoinactivation of RNA viruses

https://www.scienced...166354203002596

 

We present a review of the current status of the use of methylene blue (MB) photoinactivation of viruses starting with the first early observations up to its current use to inactivate HIV-1 in blood products. Basic mechanism of action studies conducted with model bacteriophages indicate that MB-photomediated viral RNA-protein crosslinkage is a primary lesion and that oxygen, specifically singlet oxygen, is very important also. Basic studies on the mechanism of action with HIV are lacking; however, we do show new data illustrating that viral reverse transcriptase inactivation per se cannot account for MB-mediated photoinactivation. We also show data illustrating that MB photomediates the inactivation of West Nile Virus, a flavivirus, which poses a significant new threat to the continental US. MB photoinactivation of viruses show significant promise because the technology not only offers significant potency but the history of safe MB use in human therapy makes it attractive also

 

 

Inactivation of SARS coronavirus in human plasma by methylene blue/light method

https://europepmc.or...icle/cba/518857

 

SARS-CoV was isolated from the serum of SARS patient and reproduced by VeroE6 cell line. After added to the human plasma which contained different concentrations of methylene blue, SARS-CoV was treated with methylene blue/light for different periods of time and then the sample of plasma was taken to inoculate the cell line for assay of the cytopathic effect. About 30 minutes were needed to inactive SARS-CoV (6.5 lgTCID_(50)/ml) in the plasma which was exposed to visible light (40000 lx) in the presence of 1 #mu#mol/L of methylene blue and only 3 minutes were needed to inactive above titer of viruses if the concentration of methylene blue increased to 5 #mu#mol/L.

 

 

 

 

 

660nm is the red light that comes out of most commercial red light panels and is the frequency most highly absorbed my methylene blue.  The concentrations used to disinfect blood were trivially small and it took only 3 minutes.  I'm wondering: why can't we DIY this at home?  Just take a minimal amount of Methylene Blue and stand in front of a red light panel for a few minutes.  Presumably the 660nm penetrates the skin a little and interacts with blood directly in the blood vessels, so I can't see how this wouldn't work as an anti-viral.

 

Anecdotally, I've always noticed Methylene Blue helps me recover quickly from colds.  Perhaps this technique will supercharge it?  Red light panels are not cheap, but Methylene Blue sure is.  Thus, I think this treatment technique could probably scale really well in clinics, etc.

 

Thoughts?  Comments?

 


Edited by abelard lindsay, 04 February 2020 - 05:59 AM.

  • like x 2
  • Informative x 2
  • WellResearched x 1

#2 abelard lindsay

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 844 posts
  • 217
  • Location:Mare Serenitatis Circumlunar Corporate Republic

Posted 06 February 2020 - 12:02 PM

I've been trying this the last few days. I take abut 10 mcg of methylene blue and wash my face and nasal passages with some of it and gargle and swallow the rest and stand in front of my red light panel. I coughed a few times yesterday and today I didn't cough. Also, skin looks subjectively healthier with less inflammation in places.

Edited by abelard lindsay, 06 February 2020 - 12:03 PM.

  • Informative x 2
  • like x 1

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Click HERE to rent this MEDICINES advertising spot to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#3 jroseland

  • Guest
  • 807 posts
  • 85
  • Location:Europe

Posted 10 February 2020 - 12:29 PM

Do you guys have a source for MB?

 

I used to use Blue Brain's stuff but they don't carry it anymore, I don't think I want to consume the stuff sold by pet stores!

 

1*SwAJJg_PpUtiKZtzQ2WOoQ.gif

 



⌛⇒ new years donation: support LE labs

#4 abelard lindsay

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 844 posts
  • 217
  • Location:Mare Serenitatis Circumlunar Corporate Republic

Posted 10 February 2020 - 06:20 PM

Do you guys have a source for MB?

 

I used to use Blue Brain's stuff but they don't carry it anymore, I don't think I want to consume the stuff sold by pet stores!

 

 

Search "Buy USP methylene blue" on duckduckgo (not google).  You'll find some stuff.



#5 Hip

  • Guest
  • 580 posts
  • 229
  • Location:X

Posted 10 February 2020 - 10:12 PM

I present to the forum two studies on the inactivation of very dangerous viruses by Methylene Blue in the presence of light.

 

The above in vitro antiviral study found a solution of 1 μM methylene blue and 40,000 lux of light inactivated SARS coronavirus in 30 minutes.

 

In terms of safe oral dosages, I think it would be feasible to achieve in the bloodstream the 1 μM methylene blue concentration used in the antiviral study.   

 

I calculate you would need an oral dose of either 41 mg or 820 mg of methylene blue (depending on whether the free drug hypothesis holds in this case) to achieve a free blood plasma concentration of 1 μM.

 

Here is my calculation:

A pharmacokinetic study found that a single oral dose of 500 mg of methylene blue was given to human subjects. This resulted in a mean Cmax of 3905 ng/ml (= 12.2 μM) and a mean half-life of 18.3 hours. Ref: 1

 

So to achieve a plasma concentration of 1 μM, we require an oral dose of 41 mg.

 

But methylene blue plasma protein binding is 95%. Ref: 1  This means 95% of the methylene blue you take will get stuck to proteins in the blood (and the free drug hypothesis says that substances bound to blood proteins become inactive). Thus assuming methylene blue follows the free drug hypothesis (aka: free drug principle), we need 20 times the oral dose to achieve a free plasma concentration of 1 μM, which will be a dose of 820 mg. If it does not follow the free drug hypothesis, then an oral dose of 41 mg would be fine.

 

 

As a malaria treatment, methylene blue oral doses of 300–1000 mg per day total in divided doses (eg five times per day) were given. Ref: 1 So an oral dose of 820 mg appears to be safe.

 

Such high doses of methylene blue can cause serotonin syndrome, though, as methylene blue is a potent inhibitor of monoamine oxidase.  And methylene blue is contraindicated in G6PD deficient patients as it can cause severe hemolysis.

 

 

 

However, the problem is getting the 40,000 lux of light into the bloodstream. This level of light is equivalent to direct sunlight on a sunny day. But when you shine light through body tissues, it is very quickly attenuated. Red light penetrates more deeply than other colors, but after around 4 mm of tissue, the red light is almost completely attenuated.

 

This is obvious to see if you shine a bright flashlight through the skin and tissue of the cheeks of your mouth. Only a very dim red light appears on the other side of your cheeks. 

 

So I don't think you are going to be able to get a sufficiently bright light into your bloodstream.  

 

 

 

Also, the antiviral mechanism of methylene blue + bright light is via the creation of singlet oxygen, a highly reactive but very short lived form of oxygen (it lasts only microseconds in solution). While singlet oxygen might be safe as a virucide for donated blood products, I am not sure about the safety of generating singlet oxygen inside a living body. So this would need to be investigated.

 

Singlet oxygen is also generated by the action of light on hypericin, an active ingredient of the herb St John's Wort. One paper suggested that in the eye (where light can shine in), the singlet oxygen might damage the eye lens. And another person taking St John's Wort developed neuropathy as a result of the singlet oxygen — see here.


Edited by Hip, 10 February 2020 - 10:32 PM.


#6 abelard lindsay

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 844 posts
  • 217
  • Location:Mare Serenitatis Circumlunar Corporate Republic

Posted 10 February 2020 - 10:38 PM

 

However, the problem is getting the 40,000 lux of light into the bloodstream. This level of light is equivalent to direct sunlight on a sunny day. But when you shine light through body tissues, it is very quickly attenuated. Red light penetrates more deeply than other colors, but after around 4 mm of tissue, the red light is almost completely attenuated.

 

 

 

 

 

That's why I'm suggesting using 660nm red light which is the frequency most highly absorbed my methylene blue.  You can get some pretty bright 660nm red light panels. 

 

As an aside, I talked to a professional physicist and she said they don't even have good models for why materials are reflective or absorb light at given wavelengths, they just have to measure it empirically.  For example, teflon is extremely reflective of ultraviolet light, and that's just an empirical observation with no model or theory behind it.  I wear opaque tanning bed eye protection during the use of methylene blue and a red light panel. 

 

Sure singlet oxygen species aren't good for you, but the body has anti-oxidant defenses to quench free radicals and  it's how immune cells attack disease in the body.  Viruses and bacteria do not have anti-oxidant defenses, so they are much more easily killed.  Ozone therapy also takes advantage of this principle.

 

I figure that blood vessels near the skin would receive an adequate light dose, and over several minutes, blood throughout the body should flow through them if the full body was exposed to a big 660nm light panel.  I imagine the brightness of the light, concentration of methylene blue, etc could all be experimentally tuned to optimize the effect and minimize side effects.

 

I imagine one could pull the blood out and run it through the 660nm light and pump it back in similar to a dialysis machine.

 

The thing I like most about this potential modality is it could theoretically be cheap and easy to scale up for use in thousands of patients and be dirt cheap if it can be perfected.

 


Edited by abelard lindsay, 10 February 2020 - 10:49 PM.


#7 Hip

  • Guest
  • 580 posts
  • 229
  • Location:X

Posted 11 February 2020 - 08:59 PM

I happen to have a bright red 660 nm LED bulb, and also a lux meter (I suffer from seasonal affective disorder, so a lux meter is a useful tool).

 

At point blank range, I measured 30,000 lux from this bulb. But then when I passed the light through my cheek and measured the lux on the other side, it was around 100 lux. I measured the thickness of my cheek to be about 8 mm. So just 8 mm of tissue is enough to attenuate red light from 30,000 lux down to just 100 lux. 


Edited by Hip, 11 February 2020 - 09:34 PM.

  • Informative x 1

#8 abelard lindsay

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 844 posts
  • 217
  • Location:Mare Serenitatis Circumlunar Corporate Republic

Posted 14 February 2020 - 04:58 AM

I happen to have a bright red 660 nm LED bulb, and also a lux meter (I suffer from seasonal affective disorder, so a lux meter is a useful tool).

At point blank range, I measured 30,000 lux from this bulb. But then when I passed the light through my cheek and measured the lux on the other side, it was around 100 lux. I measured the thickness of my cheek to be about 8 mm. So just 8 mm of tissue is enough to attenuate red light from 30,000 lux down to just 100 lux.


The blood they're sterilizing in the studies are probably in containers wider than 8mm, so the internal areas of the container are probably also similarly shaded.

#9 NLTCrow

  • Guest
  • 16 posts
  • 3
  • Location:NV

Posted 15 February 2020 - 07:49 AM

 

I figure that blood vessels near the skin would receive an adequate light dose, and over several minutes, blood throughout the body should flow through them if the full body was exposed to a big 660nm light panel.

 

If you were exercising vigorously while dosing yourself with the 660nm light, shouldn't the increased blood flow provide increased exposure to the light? 
 



sponsored ad

  • Advert
Click HERE to rent this MEDICINES advertising spot to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#10 abelard lindsay

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 844 posts
  • 217
  • Location:Mare Serenitatis Circumlunar Corporate Republic

Posted Yesterday, 05:16 AM

Someone picked up this research in 2020, and in this JUST PUBLISHED study, is using it to deactivate SARS-CORONAVIRUS!!!!

 

https://onlinelibrar....1111/vox.12888

 
Background

Emerging viruses like severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS‐CoV), Crimean–Congo haemorrhagic fever virus (CCHFV) and Nipah virus (NiV) have been identified to pose a potential threat to transfusion safety. In this study, the ability of the THERAFLEX UV‐Platelets and THERAFLEX MB‐Plasma pathogen inactivation systems to inactivate these viruses in platelet concentrates and plasma, respectively, was investigated.

Materials and methods

Blood products were spiked with SARS‐CoV, CCHFV or NiV, and then treated with increasing doses of UVC light (THERAFLEX UV‐Platelets) or with methylene blue (MB) plus increasing doses of visible light (MB/light; THERAFLEX MB‐Plasma). Samples were taken before and after treatment with each illumination dose and tested for residual infectivity.

Results

Treatment with half to three‐fourths of the full UVC dose (0·2 J/cm2) reduced the infectivity of SARS‐CoV (≥3·4 log), CCHFV (≥2·2 log) and NiV (≥4·3 log) to the limit of detection (LOD) in platelet concentrates, and treatment with MB and a fourth of the full light dose (120 J/cm2) decreased that of SARS‐CoV (≥3·1 log), CCHFV (≥3·2 log) and NiV (≥2·7 log) to the LOD in plasma.

Conclusion

Our study demonstrates that both THERAFLEX UV‐Platelets (UVC) and THERAFLEX MB‐Plasma (MB/light) effectively reduce the infectivity of SARS‐CoV, CCHFV and NiV in platelet concentrates and plasma, respectively.

 

 

 

  • Informative x 2
  • Good Point x 1





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: virus, methylene blue, red light, sars, hiv, flavivirus, coronavirus

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users