Far infrared has been found in medical studies and double blind studies to be beneficial for wound healing and against cancer cells, among a number of uses mentioned when reviewing other studies in:
Far infrared radiation (FIR): its biological effects and medical applications, by Fatma Vatansever and Michael R. Hamblin, which can be viewed at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3699878/
One advantage of trying it on coronavirus is that it's not liable to have a negative effect, and if it does, it can be quickly stopped, unlike a medication which stays in the body for sometimes an period of time.
The first disadvantage is availability.
This isn't even a hypothesis, merely an idea of something that could be tested. Whether will be beneficial will be unknown. But where it is available, it is non-invasive, easy to stop and therefore safer to test, and unlikely to do harm.
Cheaper red light therapy devices will still provide some infrared oh, if it is found that this is beneficial.
If beneficial, using infrared devices would be easier and thus better with patients who are able to use the equipment themselves, because medical personnel are at a premium right now.
If it's found to be particularly beneficial, then at least it could be done by untrained hospital staff, people who are not as overburdened as the doctors and nurses are at this time.
It is possible, although not necessarily at all likely, that coronavirus could be weakened by certain colors of light. This could be tested by putting full spectrum light through colored plastic, among other ways.
I am not advocating putting a lot of effort into this, but for people who have access to coronavirus or to people who have coronavirus, this would be something that could be tried out with very little effort. It could be something a researcher could do while waiting for some other more comprehensive and scientific test to have results.
-
Whether coronavirus would be killed by light therapy, which I consider unlikely, red light therapy and far-infrared have been found to be beneficial to the human organism itself.
The difference is like the difference between magnesium, which in the form of enzymes is necessary to help combine things in the body, and pull things apart, the way it helps build fibrogen. Enough magnesium and you have a better fibrogen. It doesn't clot is easily.
If you put magnesium on fibrogen, as a direct topical contact, it doesn't stop the clotting. But if you put zinc directly on it, it has a direct chemical effect to stop clotting. You don't have to have a lot of zinc in advance to make the fibrogen not clot, you just have to put it on topically when it gets exposed and starts to clot.
-----
©Deborah Barges July 2020 open access