Melatonin produced in the lungs stops nov... - Cure Parkinson's
Melatonin produced in the lungs stops novel coronavirus infection
Hmmm... but how to get melatonin to lungs...?
Melatonin passes to all tissues of the body including the lungs and easily crosses the blood brain barrier.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl...
Art
ohhh ok, got it, so regular consumption, got it, thanks 
From the write-up....
"We found that when MEL-Index was high the entry points for the virus in the lungs were closed, and when it was low these 'doors' were open. When the doors are shut, the virus wanders around for a time in the pulmonary airspace and then tries to escape in search of another host," Markus said.
Because lung melatonin inhibits transcription of these genes that encode proteins for viral entry point cells, application of melatonin directly into the lungs in the form of drops or spray could block the virus. More research is required to prove that this is indeed the case, however, the researchers note.
Another idea could be to use MEL-Index, the pulmonary melatonin metric, as a prognostic biomarker to detect asymptomatic carriers of SARS-CoV-2.
Now we just need to know what lowers the MEL -Index, if high or why a person would have a low index, and as asked above, what that value is that can be classified as High.
Over to Art to fill that hole.
Melatonin levels decline very significantly from the time we are in the 7 year old to 10 year old age range and the decline is much steeper from puberty on. By the time we are 60 years old plus, melatonin levels are close to nil. Take a look at the chart at the very beginning of this link to clearly understand how low are melatonin levels are once we are senior citizens and you will have a better understanding of what the problem is.
healthunlocked.com/parkinso...
The above graph shows that melatonin levels peak around age 7 to 10 and decline from that point forward. That 7 to 10 year old age group seems to fair pretty well against Covid-19. Bats have levels about 5 times higher and though they are thought to carry the virus, they do not seem to die from SARS-CoV2.
One of the important things that Dr. Neel has seen in the over 1,000 Covid-19 patients he has seen is that because of the very potent antioxidative stress and antiinflammatory effects of melatonin, the cytokine storm, ARDS and pneumonia are essentially avoided. He has not reported any deaths in his patients.
Melatonin may act as a preventative, but if this is true, the effective dose is not yet known for certain.
I am continuing to rely on melatonin and Xlear Nasal Spray as a basic treatment plan for Covid-19 because at high enough dosing, Covid-19 patients already on a ventilator have a better survival rate if they start taking melatonin.
Another important consideration since this virus has shown a significant propensity to mutate, is that there is still the possibility that the vaccines may not work if the virus mutates too much, but because of the known methods of action of melatonin against Covid-19, it seems likely that it will still be effective against mutations and imo is worth keeping as a backup plan just in case.
There is also chatter of the possibility that some people who have gotten a first shot of the vaccine may not be able to get the second shot if the supply is not available. So having a contingency plan makes sense to me.
Art
Going off topic here a little bit, but: It has been reported that among people who have had shots conferring 95% protection -- of those who do get infected, nobody (zero) dies. To me, the question of whether to rush wide spread coverage with one dose could possibly be determined by how many who do get infected become seriously ill or die. If almost none get very sick or die that would point in the direction of one dose until most are inoculated -- and the opposite of course.
I'm not sure what you are saying Patrick? Are you saying that you want to see if people who only get the first injection of the vaccine, but not the second injection, do okay if they get infected with Covid-19? Sounds risky.
I'm not thinking that Pfizer or Moderna are doing the second injection for almost no reason. Since some people have had a bad reaction after the first injection, I can see where they divided the dose as possibly a safety precaution among other things. I am very doubtful that the first injection alone is going to be very effectual against Covid-19 as it may only be a minor priming of the immune system that is to weak by itself to have enough activity against the virus. A friend of mine who got the first injection is currently in the waiting period to get his second injection soon. It seems that there may be more issues or reactions with the second injection. The first people to get the vaccine are supposedly at higher risk. My friend is over 80 with PD.
Art
Risky? I wouldn't suggest playing around with it -- but only if some solid stats had built up like they have with the 95%-5% folks.
That 95% is based on two doses, not one. I think those cases receiving only one of the two doses their immunity drops significantly and fades quicker. (there are one or two vaccines that supposedly are designed to use only 1 not 2).
Your supposition amounts to an experimental hypothesis. Without knowing the true, evidence based answer, your idea would mean that fewer people would receive the known effective immunization of two doses, and more still would have just one, when the single dose's true value is presumably not actually known (or maybe it is known, but unpublished...for all we know one-dose may already have been subjected to experimentation for all we know...in fact, since one dose could be given to twice as many people as two, there is an implication that it would have already been tried, and the scientists already deciding it not good enough to submit to FDA and WHO... you'd think that being able to be distributed farther and sooner than two-doses, one_dose would therefore have been desirable to test right away, right? And yet, it hasn't been offered or approved...a telling omission don't you think?).
Myy usual response to such thinking is "Ok, you first." That, and "how will you make it up to me if you're wrong, or if something goes wrong, maybe really really wrong (which I describe below)?"
Now it is quite well known that for those who are seriously ill but not killed, their heart muscle fibers are cut into pieces, with those muscles less able to push blood to where it needs to go, and many serious disabling sequelae from the virus to many structures and organ systems, including brain, kidneys, liver, lungs. Some of those are of unknown length and resolution, and gendering quite huge long-term suffering without clear resolution in sight for those weakened individuals. I'm sure we would rather know if one dose prevents those or fails to prevent those, where two doses are already known to prevent those. I wouldn't be willing to risk it myself or anybody I cared about. not a good risk reward preposition compared to the two dose which we already know works.
Also there are new mutations or variants now and it's not certain how the current vaccines immunize against them, at least one is not significantly stopped apparently (the South Africa).
I am not supposing anything. WHEN the numbers come in it will be interesting to see what happened (past tense) to one shot only people who get infected. THEN we go from there -- I'm only saying keep our eyes open for a possible lucky opportunity. There's lots of the medical community who think it may (hopefully) turn out to be very good.
Ok, if you say so. It's how I read what you said. And it's not the medical community who would know, it's the scientific community that do the investigation who would know. Doctors apply it. You know the old joke, we turn our doctors into gods, whether they ask for it or not.
So far, so good:
"We're 85% effective at preventing severe disease, which we define as disease that makes you feel particularly sick at home, or may go to the hospital, or worse," Dr. Mathai Mammen, global head of research and development at Johnson & Johnson, told CNN.
"And we are right now completely protective, it would appear 100% protective, against disease that actually does make you go to the hospital, we're 100% protective against death."
