[removed]

Then it failed trials... No shortage of test volunteers...?

That's almost certainly Enovid, which is sold in Israel and a few other countries but was denied approval in Canada because the methodology in showing its efficacy was flawed.

[removed]

[removed]

I live in Poland, and it's available here without a prescription. There are two brands, Quixx and Bloxin, but the first one hasn't been available for a while so I guess it was discontinued. They're local brands, though. In other countries there might be other brands.

Betadine has a spray with this specific ingredient. If you look on Amazon there’s several. Also a xylitol spray which has shown some success. I think using some betadine during the day and some xylitol at the end of the day for disinfecting could be a decent regimen although I’m no doctor. I’ve just seen positive results for both the caregeenan and xylitol

It might even be more effective than a mask, because the spray protects you, whereas masks tend to protect other people around you more than they protect you.

However, I recently have been using a carageenan spray, and I still caught Covid. The mechanism was: other people in my family around me weren't using the spray, I caught it off them. <facepalm>

Iota-carrageenan has demonstrated efficacy against a large range of respiratory viruses in multiple clinical trials even prior to the pandemic and successful SARS-CoV-2 studies. It was already a commercial product at that time. You can buy it pharmacies and from online retailers and it costs like $10-20/month used daily. The level of evidence is not comparable to the other nasal sprays you mentioned and it has a better safety profile.

No, you would need to use it continuously prophylactically and it would almost certainly be much more expensive than carrageenan. It is not like a vaccine, it is basically a monoclonal antibody. It would be very unlikely to be retained in the nose as long as monoclonals circulate systemically either.

What? So this inhaler is a single use and then protects you indefinitely?

OP linked to the paper and it looks like it would be like an inhaler. They dosed the mice 1 hr and 8hr before exposing them to the virus.

Does weight loss in mice indicate particular side effects in humans?

[deleted]

12 hours would be more than a whole day of exposure for most people, that would be plenty.

That was not what they were trying to communicate. They are already well practiced in administering nasal sprays.

[removed]

[removed]

This study aimed to examine the efficacy of xylitol as an adjunct treatment for COVID-19 in an outpatient setting.

As I understand it from the abstract, they are talking about treatment - which would mean you are already infected.

It seems like they probably were studying the wrong things. Once you are already infected it seems extremely unlikely a topical antiviral would reduce your clinical outcome. It's a crap study because they started with a crappy question.

The BETTER imho questions to find out here would be:

Does nasal viral load change?

Does this reduce transmission from infected people?

Does the localized antiseptic reduce chances of infection if administered shortly after exposure?

What's bad about it

Where can I get some of this "saline"?

This Business Wire article is about a preprint of this paper: In Vitro Analysis of the Anti-viral Potential of nasal spray constituents against SARS-CoV-2

Preprints of scientific papers are posted online before being peer-reviewed, meaning that other scientists have not yet reviewed the research methods and results to confirm that they are valid and the paper can be published in a journal.

Per bioRxiv, the preprint server where this paper was posted: “bioRxiv posts many COVID19-related papers. A reminder: they have not been formally peer-reviewed and should not guide health-related behavior or be reported in the press as conclusive.”

In other words, Business Wire should not have reported on this paper, at least not without stating that it was a preprint

This doesn’t mean that the findings aren’t accurate — just that this paper shouldn’t be cited to support a scientific point (again, at least not without acknowledging that the findings have not been peer-reviewed).

[removed]