Ultraviolet Irradiation of Blood: “The Cure That Time Forgot”? (2018)

He absolutely is on record suggesting that injecting disinfectant would be a promising area of research, no summary required:

“I see the disinfectant where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute! And is there a way we can do something by an injection inside or almost a cleaning? Because you see it gets in the lungs... so it’d be interesting to check that.”

How are you going to check that injecting disinfectant into people won’t work against COVID-19 without injecting disinfectant into people?

He didn’t prescribe Lysol injections because he’s not a medical doctor and therefore not allowed to prescribe anything to anyone.

I am not so sure here. He does tend to use visual imagery in his speech.

Look at how he talks about the wall on the Southern border. I cannot say for certain what was meant here.

Its really hard to know what the intent is without being able to read someone's mind.

Indeed, red light therapy is very versatile. It increases the rate of stem cell maturation, helps cell to de-stress (by pushing out nitric oxide), increases energy production (by stimulating cytochrome-c-oxidase), and on top of that has systemic effects, too - the nitric oxide kills some pathogens and vasodilates (lowering high blood pressure), and, depending on where you shine the light, e.g. hormone production is increased. Those are all subtle improvements, but they add up.

> It does note that "only 5–7% of blood volume needs to be treated with UV to produce the optimum benefit", so you'd be left with enough functional blood.

The context leading up to that phrase puts the treatment in a different light (forgive the pun): "However the use of UBI (Ultraviolet blood irradiation) to treat septicemia cannot be solely due to UV-mediated killing of bacteria in the blood-stream, ...".

And UBI of course needs a machine hooked up to your arteries. It's not shining light in your body.

My intuition as someone who has a UV light on their drinking water is also that the blood would also be too opaque for direct irradiation, anyway.

(You need to filter your water before it hits the UV light, because if it is eg cloudy or has too many minerals in it, the water treatment salesman tells me, the UV light won't actually do anything.)

No, the bacterial problem is true. COVID-19 causes massive bacterial infections in the lungs. Think of the green slime you cough out with the common cold, but deep in your lung. It's almost the same virus after all. The virus itself causes something else in the red bloodcells prohibiting the transport of oxygen, but this is unlikely the major letal problem.

Yeah, that's the conclusion at the bottom - evaluate for drug-resistant sepsis as a last-ditch option.

The mechanism has to make sense, too, though.

I'm pretty sure that consuming any amount of elemental sodium should be discouraged.

Just insert some tide pods in the machine.

Thank you, that makes sense!

That should work as long as you can reasonably disable the plasma collection bit. If you're sick you probably want to keep that.

Hence the need to find around something that when appropriately distorted by biased media will make some of Trump's statements (exposing Covid-19 patients to UV) appear more legit to the uninformed, so that the whole "inject disinfectants" thing can be conveniently buried.

The paper is old, let's see how many news sources will magically remember about it to turn it into a PR stunt.

It’s extremely doubtful that this obscure anti-bacterial technique is what he was talking about; he was probably just confused by reporting on UV room sterilisation, which is a real, effective, practice, but not suitable for humans unless you’re not fussy about whether they survive.

Don't forget, he also suggested injecting disinfectant.

He didn't say using light or disinfectants were "promising". Please don't make me defend Trump, because I hate him, but I hate misinformation more. He suggested it might be possible, but clearly he was off script and had no idea what he was talking about and just making conversation, something that a president should not do. He shouldn't have said anything, but he didn't say it was "promising".

What you are saying is disinformation. Nobody has suggested injecting bleach. Bleach is a disinfectant, not all disinfectants(i.e agents that disinfectant) are bleach. It was poorly worded enough without you spinning it, the spin only strengthens his base of people who don't trust the media because of sophistry like this.

Oh, yeah, I mean, that's definitely why this is here, but it's extremely doubtful that it's what Trump was promoting; he was probably just confused about sterilisation vs treatment of humans, and grasping at straws.

The problem is the lungs are an incredible network of tunnels. If you spread out the surface area of your lungs, they would cover a tennis court (something I heard a long time ago, likely not exactly correct but generally right).

You could get UV light to the large bronchi but you couldn't get UV light into all the million little aveoli.

That's not an understanding, it's an observation and a very preliminary hypothesis for one of the major immediate causes of death. Huge difference.

Because of all the additional attention, it would be unsurprising for doctors to seemingly discover all kinds of previously unexamined phenomenon which have always been present, or to confuse increases in certain phenomenon as peculiar rather than simply reflecting the fact that you have a ton of patients with the same type of illness. For example, in one of the articles about blood clots a doctor is quoted as saying something to the effect of, "we're used to seeing these types of blood clots in the ICU, but only in 1 or 2 patients at a time, never in this number". For the sake of argument, maybe that's just because they've never had an entire ICU full of patients in viral-induced acute respiratory distress, that such blood clots happen to be more prevalent in such cases, and if you examined all such ICU patients over time (COVID, flu, w'ever), you'd see a similar pattern. (Because it's usually the elderly who die from respiratory infections, not alot of attention is paid to mechanisms of death. "Pneumonia" is something of a catch-all term, especially with an older cohort.) Maybe it's typical of anything that can incite such immune reactions--the article hinted that the mechanism may be related to how Ebola works, except with opposite outcomes (clots instead of bleeding out), which suggests the mechanism might be more a reflection of the severity of the distress than anything peculiar to the infectious agent, per se. Maybe younger cohorts are more likely to clot, but before COVID-19 they rarely died or had such severe symptoms, so nobody quantified prevalence. And if so, treating the clots might not significantly reduce fatality rates; or maybe it would, not just for COVID-19 but any similar viral ailment.

To expand on the unknown method of action. It could for example be removing other pathogens from the blood that lets the immune system focus on covid-19. Alternatively, random cellular damage could clause a useful immune response. Etc etc.

Medicine has often found treatments that works without any real understanding of why.

Vitamin D?

Interesting, but if it boosts the immune system in the wrong way a side effect could possibly be a cytokine storm.

Directly via inhalation, or by physical introduction of the virus from the hands onto a mucosal membrane (eyes, nose, mouth)

That appears to be the case. That's why you ought not touch your face or your nose, and why wearing a mask is recommended.

Presumably it depends on the virus, but tissues of the respiratory tract, from the nose/mouth all the way down to the lungs, have many of the same receptors. Typically a cold or flu virus infects the surface tissues in your nasal passages and then replicates its way down into your lungs, assuming it cares to reach that far.

At least, that's how someone who researched rhinoviruses once explained it to me many years ago, but probably using more accurate terminology.

Also, AFAIU, these viruses have also evolved other exploits. It's no coincidence that cold viruses induce sneezing and other sinus irritations; the viral fragments themselves have evolved to trigger this behavior, which is why it can happen after a live infection is gone--your tissues are still shedding viral fragments.

No- that's the opposite direction I was trying to describe. Not a closed loop system. Draw, treat, replace.

Whole blood drawn into a bag as if you were donating, then treated separately (maybe even sent to a lab), and then transfused back into the patient.

The closed loop systems are what create a lot of the complication and expense. ECMO (or similar) definitely doesn't simplify anything.

It's not about sterilizing the blood.

The blood is typically not where the virus or bacteria are concentrated.

Also, "treating" the blood would also destroy red and white blood cells which we need to survive. ...not to mention the 10^6 other proteins, antibodies, and many unknown structures in the blood. ...things we'd be breaking that we don't even know what they do yet.

Yeah the blood irradiation approach avoids skin cancer risk by skipping straight to blood cancer!

Nadal cavity. Already exists...

I’m not sure why anyone would assume that at this point.

If we were ever lacking a clear counter-example of intelligence as a singular metric, we certainly aren't lacking any more.

I don't think that Trump is stupid, I think he is completely handicapped by a massive case of narcissism rendering him incapable of seeing anyone else as his equal in any arena and taking any questioning as a personal insult. This is so complete in him that he thinks any idea that pops into his head is genius and expects everyone else to do the same as they are lessers. He also sees loyalty to him as the most important quality in any advisor. This leads to insane statements and total mismanagement of most things. This has also led to others recognizing this and understanding that they can personally profit from it by just going along with it. There are also true believers who follow him in much the same way cult leaders have always been able to convince people to do illogical things.

Just remember that a little more than half of America is below average, and you will be comforted.

The FDA seems pretty set where the alternative medicine practice of ozone therapy falls in terms of both safety and effectiveness as a medical therapy.

https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFR...

I think even more predictable is the apologist tour the day afterwards trying to convince us the American President is not, in fact, a moron.

Here's the briefing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsQnfpfIa_o.

Can you please point out the timestamp when Trump attempted to clarify?

The closest I found was at ~31:00, some reporter asks for confirmation that there's no scenario in which disinfectants would be injected into the body. Bryan declines to comment, Trump responds with "maybe it works, maybe it doesn't work," which doesn't really provide any clarity.

And then at ~50:00 he asks Bryan to "talk to the medical doctors" to look at applying light and heat as a cure. Then he says "maybe it works, maybe it doesn't. I'm not a doctor, but I am a person with a very good you-know-what."

Some reporter suggests that the President of the United States should not spout random stuff and say "maybe it works, maybe it doesn't", Trump responds with "I'm the president, and you're fake news."

On the one hand it's incredibly sad that they have to make announcements like that. On the other hand, this reaalllly feels like evolution in action.

> there’s no advantage in depicting the officials responding as incompetent, , because that minimizes the threat

In this case it's not typical incompetence of officials, it's an official with huge influence derived from their office endangering people by recommending injection of disinfectants into their bodies. That itself a huge threat.

Given the rush of people snatching up hydroxychloroquine, it's really not a matter of if, just how many.

Help me understand.

"So, supposing we hit the body with a tremendous, whether its ultraviolet or just very powerful light, and I think you said, that hasn't been checked but you're gonna test it. And then I said, supposing it brought the light inside the body, which you can either do either through the skin or some other way, and I think you said you're gonna test that too, sounds interesting. And I then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in one minute, and is there a way you can do something like that by injection inside, or almost a cleaning. Because you see it gets in the lungs, and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. So it'd be interesting to check that."

What does this mean? It certainly sounds to me like he is talking about using disinfectant to clean the virus out of the lungs.

that's the magic of his very stable genius

You underestimate the power of racism and sexism.

There are several factors in US politics that led to Trump's election (including foreign involvement), and none of them are "Trump was someone who was qualified to be a capable leader."

Whether it's the anti-intellectualist trend that lurks in some segments of the US population, or the way that the Republican party successfully intertwined themselves into American religious institutions several decades ago to make Republican party loyalty be perceived as an odd form of "cultural-Christian" piety by many who were swept up by the "religious Right" and "moral majority" movements, or the straight-up disinformation campaigns targeted at the most willful audiences....not one factor was tied to Trump being a good people leader or an intelligent strategist. It's more that he was the guy that happened to be there when a confluence of other efforts came to fruition, and he was crazy/manipulable/stupid enough to be useful for the role of "candidate".

>What seems like a paradox to me is how he can be so smart at playing crowds, working the political system, etc. He beat a Clinton in a race for president - that's no mean feat. But then he does things like this that reveal he's actually a bit on the dumb side. I don't think there's any other way to square that.

It is easy to square; it's social class. It's very important to a rather large segment of the country that it feel intellectually superior. He provokes them into talking about how superior they are, and that shores up his base.

One further dynamic.. people in the media and professional classes can be destroyed by using the wrong word or by speculating off-handedly. That is why they flip out when Trump does it. It's partially envy of his freedom.

The problem in this case is not necessarily that President Trump is dumb (he may well be), but rather that he is dangerously overconfident in his abilities. He is one of those people who assumes that he knows more than the experts in those areas, and no amount of counter-examples dissuades him from that.

This is a horrible attribute in a president, who constantly has to deal with an array of issues that no one person could ever be expert in.

> He beat a Clinton in a race for president - that's no mean feat.

> But then he does things like this that reveal he's actually a bit on the dumb side.

The second thing is part of the reason he achieved the first thing. His smarts is knowing what sells to his base, and what consolidates them.

Part of that is saying "dumb" or offensive stuff, with a lining of rhetoric that echoes with their anxieties.

One of the women from Shark Tank described him as the single best salesperson she has ever seen. She said he could hone in on a person's weakness and use that to make a sale and it worked.

That's basically what he did during the election. He honed in on the single worst characteristic about the other candidates, "Low Energy Jeb", "Lyin' Ted", "Crooked Hillary", etc. And it worked.

The problem is that he's a salesman, he's not an intellectual. So a lot of the stuff he says is off the cuff and colloquial which is dangerous and unpresidential. He succeeded in business by bullying his opponents and using his power against them by squeezing them. But it's not something that works in politics, because his opponents are generally much smarter than he is.

This is his shtick. Every speech is intended to shore up his base and tweak his opposition. And they eagerly let him do it.

Guy is a genius level troll in manipulating people and controlling the message. People didn’t get it in 2016, and they don’t get it now.

We’re in for another 4 years if people focus on whatever he twittered today and not their own message. That’s not an election strategy.

We saw the video. We know what he said. He's mentally unfit for office. He should resign and let Pence take over.

> https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-suggests...

In the video linked you can see that he clearly mentioned "disinfectant" then suggested injecting it. There's no other way to spin that.

No, it was clearly disinfectant.

The whole quote:

“ Supposing we hit the body with a tremendous, whether it’s ultraviolet or just very powerful light, and I think you said that hasn’t been checked but you’re going to test it. Supposing you brought the light inside of the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way. And I think you said you’re going to test that too. Sounds interesting. And then I see the disinfectant where it knocks it out in a minute. And is there a way we can do something, by an injection inside or almost a cleaning? It would be interesting to check that. That you’re gonna have to use medical doctors with.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-suggests...

That's simply not true. He clearly says "and then I see the disinfectant where it knocks it out in a minute, and is there a way we can do something like that with injection inside or almost a cleaning because you see it [presumably the virus] gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number."

I thought the same as you. But when I watched it again, he was talking about how you can disinfect in under a minute. He clearly was talking about the point the previous person said about how rubbing alcohol killed the virus is 30 seconds. I don't think he's talking about people injecting alcohol or bleach into their blood, but it's very easy to misinterpret that, and what he was saying was dangerous.

The maker of Lysol had to release a public message stating 'we must be clear that under no circumstance should our disinfectant products be administered into the human body (through injection, ingestion or any other route).'

I can guarantee their comms department spent a long time looking at his speech and the fallout from it before deciding that they had to issue this to prevent people from dying.

https://www.rb.com/media/news/2020/april/improper-use-of-dis...

> at least Trump knew what they were

There is zero evidence that Trump has any clue UIB exists.

Our great leader has been calling himself an “expert” in various fields for years now, so I’m not sure why you’re surprised by how he’s doing the same thing now...

He has also been culling any form of dissent from his government, so it’s now essentially an echo chamber.

Noone said he’s getting it from Facebook. Just that they were noting the similarity.

Trump has been shown several times however to disregard expert advice and tweet or act based on input from Fox News, so in that way, it’s not really any different.

To act like he is only ever reporting information from experts is the real pure fantasy. He’s much more likely to be citing “opinion” peddlers instead.

He sits and watches a particular television station for _hours_ a day. To think that he listens to the CDC and not his friends on TV is extremely naive.

The president was suggesting and shilling hydroxychloroquine for weeks based on the advise of the CDC? The president went on TV last night and mused about and got his staff to commit to investigating drinking / injecting / huffing disinfectant and putting 'powerful' light into bodies based on the advice of the CDC?

I really doubt that.

Now you may be right that he gets his info from advisors but the quality of advice is only as good as the advisors. Considering he has removed a vast number of competent experienced people and replaced them with sycophants with no experience may reduce that quality. His daughter and son in law are special advisors.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/people/ivanka-trump/

Also I did not say he gets his info from facebook, I said he is similar to people who do.

https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-jared-kushner-fa...

I think it's a reasonably safe assumption that the CDC didn't suggest to him that injecting disinfectant would be a good idea. Or tell him that promoting chloroquine would be a good idea, for that matter.

It's just a form of trolling and gaslighting. Trump never mentioned this treatment. Everyone who watched him speak of ultraviolet light and disinfectant yesterday knew what he was saying and suggesting. The stupidity of the words were readily apparent.

Yet, here we are, being told that we're all morons because it's obvious that this treatment is what he was talking about. Even though he never mentioned this treatment, and there's no reason to think that he was talking about this treatment in particular.

Edit: Trump is claiming today that the question was just "sarcasm"...

I suspect a form of buyer's remorse; people can be very defensive of a bad voting choice.

Radiation also causes cancer, yet we have radiotherapy. I mean this is really basic, think-a-tiny-bit-below-the-surface stuff that anyone not afflicted by TDS seems capable of.

But he didn't say that. He had a scientist up to announce promising results, and he suggested some avenues for further research or invention. At no point did he turn to the camera and say "so you see folks, if you're worried about the coronavirus, just reach into your kitchen cupboard and pour yourself a nice glass of bleach." I don't know why you're pretending otherwise.

The small studies were flawed too. We are witnessing incompetence across the board.

The treatment in the "good" studies that, let's be real, most people are gunning for because they go against the president's tweet, they administered the drugs to critically ill patients. The original proposed mechanism of action is solid, came from a Dutch paper in reference to SARS, and ideally the treatment is administered sometime before the patient is already dying.

Just look at what's going on on this website! Anything remotely supportive of Trump is automatically voted down. This is a board of learned professionals who have clout and their lack of objectivity is representative of academia and industry at large right now. Let's not pretend you could openly support Trump at almost any major institution right now.

And this isn't about Trump. This is about getting over petty rage and not leaving treatments on the table to stick it to the man.

As the head of the executive branch, that's exactly how it works.

Edit: Not sure why I'm being downvoted. Public statements in the official capacity as president are absolutely policy statements for the executive when they aren't affecting independent bodies like the Department of Justice. The Department of Health and Human Services isn't an independent body, and so the president's statements in a damn press briefing are policy positions.

This is like saying that a CEO's press statements somehow aren't policy positions of the company.

Many people have been trying to figure out if that's true or not.

Like all the times the President has announced a new policy on Twitter, but none of the people who would be responsible for implementing it knew about it or understood the specifics of what he actually wanted to happen.

> He also won, with fewer votes than his competition, while only half of eligible voters cast ballots.

I don’t think that’s right. The presidential vote count in the 2016 election was 304 Trump to 227 Clinton [0]. And all 50 states voted. What system are you going by?

> You're allowed to view this person as illegitimate

Yes, you are. The constitution grants all sorts of protections from the government for ideas right or wrong. However... If you are using said constitution’s rules for how STATES vote for president, not people vote for president...

[0] https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/2016

Edit: I’m confused by reaction, where is the incorrect part here?

Edit2: Oh, the reaction is emotional. I see

I’m confused, can you clarify you are referring to?

Edit: In what way was Trump “selected” and not elected by the rules laid out in the constitution?

Edit2: So not selected, and yes entirely by the rules we’ve always used.

That isn't how the Electoral College works these days. It varies by state, but generally each candidate chooses their own slate of Electors who are loyal to the candidate, and upon winning a plurality of votes, that candidate's entire slate of Electors are made, by state law, the Electors for that state.

It's important to note that in no possible way can Electors be considered elected representatives. This often isn't even public information available prior to the election, and your ballot contains none of the names of these Electors. Your vote for presidential candidate A, is really a vote for presidential candidate A's slate of chosen and loyal Electors.

This is in contrast to Federalist 68, which describes a system whereby non-politicians chosen by the people from among the people, at a state level, are to become the Electors for that state. The intent was to make the College both a deliberative body, and external to state politics.

In practice, Federalist 68's vision of how the Electoral College would work never happened. Early on in the country's history the president was indirectly chosen by state legislatures choosing the Electors.

In any case, what we have today are arguably the absolute worst people possible chosen to be Electors: party loyalists. In most states they are even required by law to be non-deliberative, i.e. not vote their conscience but strictly for the candidate who selected them. Since none of the details of how the Electors are chosen or the process they use to make decisions is constitutional law, the states can change how it works.

Please don't add nationalistic flamebait to partisan flamebait on HN. Adding damage to damage doesn't lighten hearts.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Just because some of his trial balloons are abandoned to drift away on the winds of public ridicule does make it OK. What of the fact that his tweets are often followed up with orders that do have the force of law?

Who is also rapidly approaching 80. It's really sad that the whole political establishment in the US is so old. Pelosi, McConnell, Trump, Biden. And they don't let young people come up. With "young" I mean 50 and still at the peak of their abilities and not going downhill.

He seems to have trouble reading off a teleprompter and making a complete sentence. It seems intermittent.

I have no idea on his current mental capabilities, but I want to remind everyone that is trying to diagnose him that he has a well documented and lifelong battle with a speech impediment. Stammering, stuttering, or mixing up words is more likely to be a sign of that condition than of dementia.

He certainly does not appear capable of coherent thought or speech which is a little concerning given the job he is applying for.

They don't. All of the "evidence" here is cherry-picked clips where Biden stumbles for 2 seconds within an hour-long speech. Even now, Biden's a far better speaker than all the people snidely passing these clips around.

Oh, I see. Thanks for the missing context!

This thread might make me quit visiting this site.

I partly agree but would put it differently. When an obscure topic (like ultraviolet blood irradiation) is connected to some trigger in the daily news, people will end up arguing about the daily news rather than delving into the obscure topic. So from an HN point of view, that's the worst time for the topic to appear. HN should be countercyclical instead. This case has made that even clearer to me than it already was.

At the same time, HN is not for internet ragewar and users here should know enough not to feed those flames.

What HN needs in order to function well is not be taken over by political rage-threads, which are not about intellectual curiosity (for one thing, they're all the same).

Right, I'm using the word "trollish" in the sense of the effects the post had. That's the only thing that can be observed and the only thing that matters for moderation: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... (I was careful not to call you a troll; this is about posts, not persons.)

"Asking people for introspection" is a skewed way of describing your original comment. If that was your intent, you should go about it in some way that isn't guaranteed to start a flamewar. I don't think these "allergies" are in any way obscure.

Ditto for "very benign opinions". If that was your intent, you should not be breaking the site guidelines.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Edit: I realized that it might be helpful if I mentioned the other aspect of why I posted what I did. You have a long history of breaking the site guidelines. We've asked you many times to stop that. If this weren't a longstanding pattern I'd probably have reacted differently, but it is a longstanding pattern, so please fix it.

> To be honest, baiting people into discussing this quackery is the actual troll here and I'm genuinely interest why people take the bait. When the media does this, the simple explanation is that they're optimizing for ads. Great, that makes sense, but what's happening here?

I imagine it's a feeling of "I'm smart enough to rise above partisan politics" or "I'm smart enough to go against the status quo." In other words, people who believe they're smart enough to avoid getting manipulated, when in fact it's not a matter of smarts at all.

> In the COVID-19 case the major problem is the bacterial sepsis caused by the infection.

This does not appear to be at all true.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/04/how-does-coronavirus...

> Considering how much weight the words of a president have I wonder if some of his underlings will now go out and spend energy on investigating these ideas

In fact it was reported last week that Rick Bright was fired from HHS because he tried to resist the chloroquines spin and push traditional vaccine development instead. It seems almost certain that significant bandwidth will be tied up in the bureaucracy because of the desire in the executive branch to provide evidence backing up POTUS statements.

He’s never once faced any consequences of his words or actions. In fact, he’s only ever been rewarded for behaving the way he does.

Why wouldn’t he just say whatever pops into his head, regardless of whether it’s remotely plausible at all?

I think there’s almost no forethought given to a lot of his words/actions. Nobody could set up a long game like this for 70+ years to become President.

This is a good take. I'm genuinely sorry you're being downvoted. Anything remotely positive about Trump is just destroyed and it's absolutely ridiculous. There's no objectivity - people online interpret everything he does in the absolutely worst way.

Relevant XKCD: https://xkcd.com/1217/

"And then I see the disinfectant where it knocks it out in a minute. And is there a way we can do something, by an injection inside or almost a cleaning?"

Bleach, isopropyl alcohol, hydrogen peroxide...

Whichever disinfectant he was suggesting injecting into the body, it's not a good idea.

Immediately following someone stating that disinfectants like alcohol and bleach can destroy the virus, the president did say it's worth trying out injecting disinfectants. [1]

He didn't specifically say "mainlining bleach", but he was referencing injecting one of the aforementioned disinfectants. It's kind of hard to say he didn't.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtgVxGkrX1Y#t=2m5s

Why don't you use the most good-faith interpretation of the comment, which was that it was a tongue-in-cheek characterization of how foolish people might misinterpret the president's careless remarks?

I literally watched the interview and never said a thing about censorship. Check your own biases.

You asked for a timestamp; I posted the specific segment. "Various options" includes injecting disinfectants.

That's a separate question.