DavidPerlmutterMD · 2020-04-02 · David Perlmutter, Michelle Norris (host)

Coronavirus Conversations - Day 21

Health

30 research-tied claims examined: 1 contradicted 2 overstated 5 context 20 supported 1 corroborated online 1 unverified

Needs context

0:15:07 David Perlmutterneeds contextlow

Lacking a restorative night of sleep increases amygdala activity by around 60%.

"We know that when you do not have a good restorative night's sleep, your amygdala, your impulsive, self-centered, fear, us-versus-them part of the brain is lit up, increased in its activity by around 60%." (said at 0:15:07)

The claim references a widely cited 2007 neuroimaging study (Yoo et al., Current Biology) that reported an approximate 60% increase in amygdala BOLD reactivity to emotionally negative visual stimuli. However, that study tested young adults following 35 consecutive hours of total acute sleep deprivation in a controlled laboratory setting (n=26), rather than naturalistic partial sleep disturbance or missing a single 'restorative night's sleep.' Subsequent fMRI research confirms that sleep loss impairs prefrontal-limbic functional connectivity and lowers the threshold for emotional activation, but attributing a generalized 60% increase across all contexts oversimplifies the laboratory finding.

context: Losing Neutrality: The Neural Basis of Impaired Emotional Control without Sleep. (The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience 2015) · cited 129x in the literature
"Sleep deprivation has been shown recently to alter emotional processing possibly associated with reduced frontal regulation... Altogether, our findings suggest that losing sleep alters emotional reactivity by lowering the threshold for emotional activation, leading to a maladaptive loss of emotional neutrality." (abstract, results)
pubmed full study (doi)

0:28:51 David Perlmutterneeds contexthigh

Alcohol works as a disinfectant against coronavirus as long as its concentration is greater than 70%.

"Lysol works, alcohol works as long as it's greater than 70%, which means not vodka, which maximum I saw was 80 proof, that's only 40% alcohol." (said at 0:28:51)

Alcohol (ethanol and isopropanol) is a highly effective disinfectant against enveloped viruses, including coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV-2. Standard public health guidance generally recommends alcohol concentrations of at least 60% (for ethanol) or 70% (for isopropanol), making typical 80-proof (40% alcohol) spirits like vodka suboptimal for reliable disinfection. However, framing greater than 70% as a strict threshold is slightly inaccurate, as peer-reviewed virucidal evaluations demonstrate that ethanol concentrations between 62% and 71% (and in some laboratory testing conditions, even lower concentrations) effectively inactivate coronaviruses within 30 to 60 seconds.

context: Persistence of coronaviruses on inanimate surfaces and their inactivation with biocidal ag… (The Journal of hospital infection 2020) · cited 3913x in the literature
"The analysis of 22 studies reveals that human coronaviruses such as Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) coronavirus, Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) coronavirus or endemic human coronaviruses (HCoV) can persist on inanimate surfaces like metal, glass or plastic for up to 9 days, but can be efficiently inactivated by surface disinfection procedures with 62-71% ethanol, 0.5% hydrogen peroxide or 0.1% sodium hypochlorite within 1 minute." (abstract, results, passage verified)
pubmed full study (doi)
context: The Efficacy of Common Household Cleaning Agents for SARS-CoV-2 Infection Control. (Viruses 2022) · cited 8x in the literature
"In contrast, ethanol was capable of inactivating the virus at dilutions as low as 40% v/v ." (abstract, results, passage verified)
pubmed full study (doi)

0:36:32 David Perlmutterneeds contextmoderate

The ACE2 receptor is primarily located in two places: the lungs and the gastrointestinal system.

"where the virus attaches to the ACE2 receptor, which is represented in two places primarily: in the lungs and in the gastrointestinal system" (said at 0:36:32)

While the respiratory tract (including lung alveolar epithelial cells) and gastrointestinal system (particularly enterocytes of the small intestine) are prominent epithelial surfaces where ACE2 acts as a functional entry receptor for coronaviruses like SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2, ACE2 is not restricted to or primarily confined to just these two organs. Histological and tissue profiling studies demonstrate that ACE2 is widely expressed across multiple organ systems, including high expression levels in the kidneys (proximal tubules), heart (myocardium and coronary vessels), testes, and arterial/venous vascular endothelium throughout the body.

context: Tissue distribution of ACE2 protein, the functional receptor for SARS coronavirus. A first… (The Journal of pathology 2004) · cited 5934x in the literature
"The most remarkable finding was the surface expression of ACE2 protein on lung alveolar epithelial cells and enterocytes of the small intestine. Furthermore, ACE2 was present in arterial and venous endothelial cells and arterial smooth muscle cells in all organs studied." (abstract, results, passage verified)
pubmed full study (doi)
context: COVID-19 and ACE2 Receptor in Different Tissues: From Pathophysiologic Function To Therape… (Archives of Razi Institute 2025)
"Since this receptor is present in various other tissues such as the heart, kidney, gastrointestinal tract, reproductive system, and sensory organs, it may contribute to pathological symptoms in these organs." (abstract, results, passage verified)
pubmed full study (doi)

0:53:40 David Perlmutterneeds contexthigh

A small study of 20 patients found that combining hydroxychloroquine with azithromycin was dramatically effective in clearing SARS-CoV-2.

"The combination of hydroxychloroquine with azithromycin, or Z-Pak if you will, has also in a very small study of 20 individuals proven quite dramatic in terms of ridding the body of the virus" (said at 0:53:40)

The speaker accurately describes the reported findings of an early open-label, non-randomized trial in France (Gautret et al., 2020), which treated 20 patients with hydroxychloroquine (6 of whom also received azithromycin) and reported complete viral clearance by day 6 in the combination group. However, asserting that this combination has been 'proven quite dramatic' is contradicted by the broader literature: the Gautret et al. study had critical methodological flaws, excluded patients who deteriorated or discontinued treatment, and was formally retracted. Subsequent systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials (such as Cochrane reviews) demonstrated that hydroxychloroquine with or without azithromycin does not improve viral clearance, reduce mortality, or improve clinical outcomes in COVID-19.

supports: RETRACTED: Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin as a treatment of COVID-19: results of an o… (International journal of antimicrobial agents 2020)RETRACTED · cited 4968x in the literature
"Twenty cases were treated in this study and showed a significant reduction of the viral carriage at D6-post inclusion compared to controls, and much lower average carrying duration than reported in the litterature for untreated patients. Azithromycin added to hydroxychloroquine was significantly more efficient for virus elimination." (abstract, results, passage verified)
pubmed full study (doi)
contradicts: Chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine for prevention and treatment of COVID-19. (The Cochrane database of systematic reviews 2021) · cited 221x in the literature
"HCQ may make little or no difference to the proportion of people having negative PCR for SARS-CoV-2 on respiratory samples at day 14 from enrolment (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.10; 213 participants; 3 trials; low-certainty evidence)." (abstract, results, passage verified)
pubmed full study (doi)

0:46:28 David Perlmutterneeds contextlow

Air sampling studies in Chinese hospital wards with COVID-19 patients found almost undetectable levels of SARS-CoV-2 in the air, but detected viral material on air conditioning grates and filters.

"Most of the research that has come out of China, even sampling the air in hospital wards where there are coronavirus patients, indicates that the level in the air is almost undetectable, but they were able to find virus on the air conditioning grates and filters and things like that." (said at 0:46:28)

Early environmental sampling studies in hospital wards treating COVID-19 patients in China found variable results depending on ward ventilation, disinfection, and sampler sensitivity. Several studies reported that SARS-CoV-2 RNA concentrations in hospital ward air were very low, infrequently detected (e.g., in only 6.8% of air samples in naturally ventilated wards), or undetectable, while viral RNA was more consistently recovered from surfaces, medical equipment, and air handling pathways. However, other hospital studies in Wuhan did detect viral RNA in aerosol samples up to 4 meters away from patients, particularly in intensive care units, indicating that airborne viral presence was not uniformly undetectable.

context: Aerosol and Surface Distribution of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 in Hos… (Emerging infectious diseases 2020) · cited 1143x in the literature
"Contamination was greater in intensive care units than general wards. Virus was widely distributed on floors, computer mice, trash cans, and sickbed handrails and was detected in air ≈4 m from patients." (abstract, results, passage verified)
pubmed full study (doi)
supports: [Detection and evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid contamination in corona virus disease… (Beijing da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Peking University. Health sciences 2020) · cited 4x in the literature
"No SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid was detected in the tested samples, including the 90 air samples from the COVID-19 wards including clean area, buffer room and contaminated area" (abstract, results, passage verified)
pubmed full study (doi)
supports: Breath-, air- and surface-borne SARS-CoV-2 in hospitals. (Journal of aerosol science 2021) · cited 122x in the literature
"Three of the air samples (n = 44) including those collected using a robot-assisted sampler were detected positive by a digital PCR with a concentration level of 9-219 viruses/m 3 ... lower positive rate of air sample (6.8%) was likely due to natural ventilation (1.6-3.3 m/s) and regular disinfection practices." (abstract, results)
pubmed full study (doi)

Unverified means no publication matching the claim was located; it does not prove the claim false. Spotted an error? See the corrections policy - disputes from the people quoted are prioritized.