Talk:List of unproven methods against COVID-19

Arbidol

Please, remove Arbidol from this article. It has never been "falsified", and has scientific evidence of efficacy - http://www.chinaxiv.org/abs/202002.00065 + https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32171872 — Preceding unsigned comment added by AYaroslavsky (talk • contribs) 04:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

'Falsified' means that the medicine is marketed as a cure for COVID-19 before its effects are proven by evidence. Arbidol has clearly been marketed in Russia and other countries for COVID-19, despite not having evidence for substantiating that claim. The study you mentioned above is a pre-print and it is not peer-reviewed. My understanding is that Arbidol is not approved for medical use in Europe or the US. So, I would still consider it as a falsified medical product. --Netha (talk) 11:21, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

You may dislike preprints, but they are scientific evidence based on clinical data.
Legal status of medicine is not relevant here because a) it is country-specific b) nothing to do with clinical efficacy. Yet Arbidol is approved for COVID-19 treatment in China, included in "Coronavirus treatment plan" and produced in gross quantities AYaroslavsky (talk) 23:18, 9 April 2020 (UTC)AYaroslavsky

References

It may not be falsified, but it would count as unproven. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

AYaroslavsky, Graeme Bartlett. Do we have WP:MEDRS we could cite on Arbidol? I've posted to WP:MED about the main Arbidol article... HLHJ (talk) 01:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

This one https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jiph.2020.07.004 seems to be a review that includes arbidol. I am no expert on these references though. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:07, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Good Article in Nature

On this topic and may be helpful: [1] TylerDurden8823 (talk) 19:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

TylerDurden8823, Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic or even Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine might be better able to use that source; this article is very list-formatted and I can't see how to integrate it.. HLHJ (talk) 06:42, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

That's fine, I just thought it was worth suggesting. It's all good. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:51, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

heat and UV again

"Hot saunas and hand or hair dryers do not kill the COVID-19 virus.[40][16]"
UV-C light, chlorine, and high (over 56 °C) temperatures cannot be used on humans to kill the COVID-19 virus.[43][16]"

see my sections:
Talk:Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic/Archive 1#UV and heat might kill the virus
and
Talk:Coronavirus disease 2019/Archive 3#some stuff about UV rays to disinfect

What if it's a hot hair dryer?

Just how high can the covid-19 can take? Above 38°C, 39°C, 40°C (108°F)?

Could a good fever for a few hours kill it?

DMBFFF (talk) 16:10, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Sadly, a fever will not cure COVID-19; a 56-Celsius fever would kill the human. Boiling, UV, and chlorine can be used to sterilize objects; UV and chlorine can only sterilize surfaces that they can reach. All three methods are being used for disinfection in hospitals all the time. But if you tried to use them on humans, you'd kill the humans long before you got rid of the virus. Killing viruses is easy. Killing viruses while leaving the infected person alive is difficult, and people do postdoctoral degrees on small aspects of the problem. HLHJ (talk) 03:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

How do people feel about removing the picture of UV light being used to sterilize a BSC? This is commonly done but not recommended and the NIH and CDC are against it. UV doesn't work in shadow or on porus material and the lights can become ineffective without it being obvious to the user. https://www.who.int/ihr/training/laboratory_quality/3_cd_rom_bsc_selection_use_cdc_manual.pdf 72.2.55.254 (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Sunlight

There must be some way to change the statement that sunlight will not kill the virus. I keep hearing that it will. Example 1Example 2Example 3 There may be some specific way that it won't Example,(dead link) but that needs to be very specific.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

See WP:MEDRS, but I've clarified. HLHJ (talk) 04:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

To gain credibility the article needs to distinguish between the effects UV-C, UV-B and UV-A on viruses, the omission may mislead. Uv-C is all too effective in killing viruses, it damages the patient too much Damorbel (talk) 07:35, 2 January 2021 (UTC)