Vicks First Defence Nasal Spray, Microgel Formula to Help Stop a Cold in its Tracks, 2 x 15 ml (Twin Pack)

Product Information

Don't get too close to people coughing, sneezing or with a fever. The NHS says keep two metres away.

Reading the third study, RT-PCR at three different time-points was used to identify virus-positive participants (text pasted below). To my knowledge, RT-PCR is extremely sensitive. It is therefore likely that someone, who disqualifies for testing virus-negative, did not actually have a cold virus. It seems sensible to me to restrict this study to confirmed positive cases, as the product promises to treat viral colds, and not cold-like symptoms of any other cause. I’m sharing this information with you, not to stop you from using the product, because it has worked for me over and over in the last six months; but to say if this side effect happens to you, you know it’s not just you. Coronavirus latest - get straight to the latest news and advice from our money, travel and health expertsTo study the ability of AM-301 to prevent or reduce SARS-CoV-2 infection in the nasal mucosa, we used a well-established model of primary human nasal epithelium also for viral infections, including SARS-CoV-2: MucilAir [ 29, 30, 31, 32]. AM-301 was studied to determine its safety in MucilAir, its efficacy in preventing MucilAir from being infected by SARS-CoV-2, and its ability to mitigate an established infection in MucilAir without any previous treatment. The debate about whether or not masks should be worn by the general public has gained steam as the pandemic develops. Because viral replication was unhindered in the matrix-treated samples, we can infer that bentonite within the AM-301 formulation is primarily responsible for the effect. Boots Pharmaceuticals Cold & Flu Defence Nasal Spray is an easy to use nasal spray with antiviral properties containing clinically proven Carragelose to defend against colds and flu, as well as help shorten the duration and severity of both colds and flu.” So not wholly convincing, really. On the other hand, the study did show quite an impressive effect on the secondary outcome of viral load, with a 6-fold increase from baseline to day 3 or 4 in the placebo group, but a 92% decrease in the active group. This was statistically significant at P = 0.009.

But even then, the results were distinctly underwhelming. The active and placebo treatments were only significantly different in the virus-positive per-protocol population, a set of just 103 patients: less than half the total number recruited. And even then, the results were only just statistically significant, at P = 0.037. The duration of disease was reduced from 13.7 days in the placebo group to 11.6 days in the active group. But I agree with another commenter that Adam has more to learn about human psychology than he does about statistics (perhaps like many numbers-focused stats guys). The tenor of his post is one of cynicism throughout (rather than healthy scepticism), with every effort made to minimise reporting of the positive outcomes. This actually makes many readers in turn cynical towards Adam’s conclusions (not to mention his responses to such readers) – as you can see from the comments.Antibody tests - to detect whether you've previously had the virus - are not yet available to the general public. Private firms selling these tests have been instructed to stop while the MHRA verifies the accuracy of the tests. In the pre-viral load assay (prophylaxis), MucilAir inserts were apically treated with test items for 10 min before exposure to SARS-CoV-2 (SARS-CoV2 WT: MOI = 0.5; SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant: MOI = 0.1), and viral replication was measured over 4 days with daily apical treatments with the saline solution, the matrix, or AM-301. In the experiment evaluating the ability of AM-301 to prevent SARS-CoV-2 WT infection ( Figure 2A,C), TCID50 measurements were performed on three independent replicates per group. In the experiment evaluating the ability of AM-301 to prevent a SARS-CoV2 Delta variant infection, TCID50 measurements were performed on five independent replicates per group ( Figure 2B,D).