Very useful. Will look at it. Thanks for the short post.

One of the main challenges of photodynamic therapy is that biological tissues absorb and scatter the light used in the therapy.^[1]  This seems to limit the effectiveness of such therapies to tissue depths less than 1-2cm.

The review article cites three studies as examples of in vivo photodynamic therapy; however, none of these overcome the challenge of tissue penetration.  The first study ^[2] is a skin xenograft model (which needs very little tissue penetration and does not seem obviously superior to topical therapy), the second ^[3] pre-treats virus before inoculation (technically not an in vivo model of photodynamic therapy), and the third ^[4] was in oysters and used curcumin^[5].

1. ^{^}

   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-infrared_window_in_biological_tissue

2. ^{^}

   https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4459584/

3. ^{^}

   https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22153019/

^{^}

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26117199/

^{^}

https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/curcumin-will-waste-your-time

Show all footnotes

Why does this need charitable funding rather than existing profit incentives being sufficient? Is the assumption that non-pandemic use wouldn't be profitable enough?