Live data from Hacker News

Ending respiratory infections

blog.interceptfund.com

51–60 of 146 posts

Re: Ending respiratory infections

#51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything should be voluntary philantrhopy! It seems like the ideal state if people are willing to do the pro-social thing by their own volition. Is it better if your child does their homework because they freely choose to, or is it better that they do it because you will beat them with a belt?

But people are not voluntarily philanthropists. There's a reason we had to introduce work regulations so you don't have children working 13 hours shifts in coal mines. It's way better if my children study by themselves, but if left to their own devises they'll just watch cartoons all day. (Not advocating for belting kids, just saying there's a gap between utopia and reality)

> There's a reason we had to introduce work regulations so you don't have children working 13 hours shifts in coal mines.

Coincidentally, the regulations appeared when it was no longer profitable to employ children. If you don't believe that, just imagine what jobs kids could do in your workplace. I can't think of any.

Coal mining today is done with industrial machines.

Re: Ending respiratory infections

#52
It's important to build on solid foundations, rather than on faulty assumptions. My experience is the standard medical approach to lung problems is basically wrong.

There was a submission ~6 years ago about using ethanol to sanitize people's lungs as a treatment for COVID-19. One of the comments shared a college story about how they were coerced into treating their sniffles with a spoon and vodka: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22745834

In early 2020 I started advocating using the classic herbal treatment for lung problems: apple brandy inhaled from a charred oak keg. The theory is simply that the ethanol is an antiseptic, and the apple and oak flavoring compounds stimulate the lungs to repair themselves.

I found a manufacturer and started selling little 3L kegs. My first customer asked, "can I try it?" I warned that the ethanol burns before you get used to it. I was impressed that he was able to fill his lungs with apple brandy fumes without coughing the first time. After a moment of held breath he darted off. When he came back 1 or 2 minutes later he said, "I'll take one".

He was a big guy. His problem was getting winded between his car and the store. That he could walk for one or two minutes on lungs filled with apple brandy fumes, when he couldn't normally walk without getting winded while breathing normally, was incredible.

2 hours later he called back. The husband of the woman he'd been the driver for that day was ~70 year old husband and coughing himself to death with a case of the COPD. He'd quit smoking ~20 years before, but his lungs never recovered.

Both of these men's lung conditions rapidly improved after they started inhaling apple brandy fumes. After he started huffing on apple brandy 4x/day, the COPD fellow's coughs went away, and his skin went from 'gray' to 'pink'. The other fellow caught the COVID-19 in June or July that year. I heard his lung capacity score was fantastic, the virus was just hitting his kidneys. He survived his hospitalization.

The modern tool that facilitates the inhalation of apple brandy is a nebulizer.

Different story: in 2021/2022 I was emailed by a woman who'd found my youtube video. In 2023 she came out to Arizona to visit, then to stay permanently. She always assumed that her lung problems were related to the asbestos she'd inhaled on 9/11. But since she's started using the apple brandy barrel, she's only had to use her inhaler once in the past 3 years: when she got a lung full of hairspray in the gym's bathroom.

As the submission in the link above indicated at the start of COVID-19, treatment with inhaled ethanol is a reasonable initial treatment for respiratory problems.

Re: Ending respiratory infections

#54

> We surveyed attendees ahead of the symposium. One of our questions was: if this doesn’t happen in the next ~10 years, what will the primary reason be? The number one reason cited was lack of funding, followed by technical feasibility. Why hasn’t this field attracted sufficient funding, especially given the enormous societal burden? Isn't a projected problem with technical feasibility an explanation for lack of fund…

Not really. They're trying to split up potential causes of failure between:

1. "Funding" meaning: We knew what we had to do but didn't have enough money to do it; if we had, this path would have worked (though why it says "TAM" here I don't quite get);

2. "Technical" meaning: We knew what we wanted to do but couldn't quite make it work; if we had, this path would have worked

3. "Uptake"/"Regulatory" (perhaps not the most natural pairing, though I see why they're together) meaning "We couldn't get people to actually do it"/"The authorities wouldn't let us do it"; if we had, this path would have worked

But that is missing a much different type of failure:

4. "Strategy" meaning "This path does not actually lead to our goal"

It's easy to see why in marketing material they'd leave out that last one. They want to build confidence! But for a moonshot like this, especially a biological one, it's kind of silly to think that this is definitely the best way to achieve this goal. I am, personally, quite skeptical; this reads like a mashup of SV and germophobes (with apologies to, well, both of those groups). I hope it works! And I won't stand in its way. But I won't be betting my own money on it. Probably we will learn something interesting no matter what.

More generally, this is a distinction that a lot of people miss (often intentionally, if PR/marketing is involved): strategy and tactics are distinct and they can succeed or fail independently. The best execution (tactics) here will not help if the plan (strategy) is flawed. And there are numerous other examples from research, business, and of course everyone's favorite hobby subject, war, of what happens when your tactics are good but your strategy isn't, or vice versa, or any of the other combinations. And, of course, making decisions about when to pivot (switch strategies) and all those other fun topics.

Re: Ending respiratory infections

#55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything should be voluntary philantrhopy! It seems like the ideal state if people are willing to do the pro-social thing by their own volition. Is it better if your child does their homework because they freely choose to, or is it better that they do it because you will beat them with a belt?

But people are not voluntarily philanthropists. There's a reason we had to introduce work regulations so you don't have children working 13 hours shifts in coal mines. It's way better if my children study by themselves, but if left to their own devises they'll just watch cartoons all day. (Not advocating for belting kids, just saying there's a gap between utopia and reality)

People who are voluntary philanthropists tend not to amass fortunes.

Re: Ending respiratory infections

#56
post #5

As someone who still masks (KN95) in all indoor settings where unmasked people are present, I am all for this. Very much looking forward to seeing where it leads.

What is it that motivates you to continue wearing a mask?

I take note of people who are still masking, but I have compassion for their fear so I don't say anything.

Re: Ending respiratory infections

#59
post #5

As someone who still masks (KN95) in all indoor settings where unmasked people are present, I am all for this. Very much looking forward to seeing where it leads.

What is it that motivates you to continue wearing a mask? I take note of people who are still masking, but I have compassion for their fear so I don't say anything.

Well, in my case it's because A: I have a gazillion underlying health issues and B: I haven't been "sick" since February of 2020, when I had a diagnosed type-B flu.

Re: Ending respiratory infections

#60

I'd be interested to see more concerted research into contagious/self-replicable vaccines that are self-replicating and spreadable to a wider swath of people. That seems like a step forward in public health prevention for seasonal illnesses that we have well-engineered and safe vaccines for. I understand the bar for deployment would need to be high to ensure that side effects are even rare compared to typical volunta…

Self-replicating vaccines? We already have those. They're called diseases.

I still amazed how so many people don't get this entire planet is one feedback loop system of competing life processes and they think hiding in their dusty houses with artificial cures will keep them away from competition and immune against death.
Post reply on HN