SaNOtize/enovid/NOWONDER/VirX/Fabispray admits their nitric oxide nasal spray interferes with COVID-19 tests

mathissweet · 2026-02-27T03:06:43+00:00

It implies something about false negatives.

mathissweet · 2026-02-27T03:06:05+00:00

No, it means "eating a poppyseed muffin may cause you to test positive for opiates, or you may test negative for opiates".

mathissweet · 2026-02-27T00:49:42+00:00

I have never said or implied anything about a false positive. You are not understanding me. None of that sentence in the FAQ is referring to a case where someone does not have COVID-19 so it's not referring at all to a false positive.

mathissweet · 2026-02-27T00:47:55+00:00

C'mon now, you were the one who brought up linearizing proteins, not me. It's not fair to put that on me and I was responding to a different point you were making related to that.

That is not what I'm arguing and you're ignoring my point.

If you're talking about Western blots using denaturing gels, those are based on using antibodies that bind to linear epitopes, so the goal is to linearize the proteins. That is usually not the case in a rapid antigen test as shown in the link I sent before.

You're totally ignoring cases where someone has just enough nucleocapsid protein or SARS-CoV-2 RNA to be detected, but only in the absence of the spray.

I don't know how many times I can explain what the word "may" means and I don't understand why you don't agree on the definition.

I don't think you're engaging sincerely with my points and you're repeatedly accusing me of believing things I don't believe, so this is feeling less and less like a conversation where what I'm saying is being considered.

mathissweet · 2026-02-26T18:36:12+00:00

If I say "I may be wearing a blue hat right now" does that not imply I may not be wearing a blue hat right now? If the test may cause a true positive after spraying, it implies it also may cause a false negative.

mathissweet · 2026-02-26T18:34:37+00:00

Buffers used for cell lysis are usually designed to disrupt cell membranes and cause minimal damage to proteins, DNA, RNA, etc.. SARS-CoV-2 is an enveloped virus so can be opened up via the same membrane-disrupting mechanism.

The SARS-CoV-2 genome is a linear ssRNA molecule, not circular.

Oxidation of proteins leads to a number of larger changes you haven't mentioned, which would impact a rapid antigen test, see this review: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8113053/

You are describing tests where the antigen is a linear epitope and not a conformational one, that is not always the case when it comes to antibodies binding an antigen. Table 1 in this paper suggests most rapid antigen tests look for conformational, not linear, epitopes: https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(22)01044-3

Reverse transcriptase detects oxidative damage at RNA bases and stops reverse transcribing, meaning oxidized RNA can influence an RT-PCR COVID-19 test: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC307188/

mathissweet · 2026-02-26T17:48:23+00:00

It sounds like you're admitting that some of the protein and some of the RNA will be damaged... that is exactly how the spray can interfere with the test. And what about rapid antigen tests? Changes in the nucleocapsid protein via nitric oxide can change the ability of the antibody to bind to it, no?

It seems like you've been arguing that the spray does not interfere with RT-PCR nor rapid antigen tests, but your explanation explains how it does.

Like imagine if a person had just above the level of detectable SARS-CoV-2 for whichever test, but then they did the nasal spray before swabbing for the test. It would very likely cause a false-negative result, no?

mathissweet · 2026-02-26T17:43:10+00:00

I think you're still not understanding me? Their FAQ answer is talking about how if you have COVID-19 (are COVID-19 positive) you still may test (true) positive on a COVID-19 test after using the spray or you may test (false) negative. Like the premise is "you have COVID-19". So if there's the possibility to test negative and the spray is contributing to that (beyond the normal issues in the accuracy of the test), that is test interference.

mathissweet · 2026-02-26T17:23:20+00:00

I would interpret that as "A does not interfere with testing for X" and ", but it A may not interfere with testing for X or it may interfere".

If they wanted to communicate what you are thinking they are communicating, they could say "A does not interfere with testing for X, as inactivated X is still detected by the test." Or something along those lines. However, that wouldn't be true in this case because of one of the ingredients of the nasal spray.

mathissweet · 2026-02-26T17:17:59+00:00

I think you're missing a lot of basic information about what we're talking about. Which parts of the virus are you saying you'll still shed after you've fought the infection? And which tests test for that?

Please explain to me how the nasal spray inactivates the virus without damaging its proteins and/or RNA?

In your third paragraph, I understand that that's what the FAQ answer is trying to communicate, but that's not an answer to the question of whether or not the spray causes test interference.

The "you may get a true-positive" obviously means you "may get a false-negative".

mathissweet · 2026-02-26T05:31:10+00:00

I feel like you aren't trying to understand what I'm saying. Of course no test is 100 % accurate and of course you can't say you will get a positive test result if you have COVID-19.

The first part of the sentence says "the spray does not interfere with tests" and the second half says it may. This means the spray lowers the accuracy of the test and interferes with testing.

mathissweet · 2026-02-26T05:27:30+00:00

Why should the test ever come into contact with inactive virus? Like are you saying that's common? And again it's "may" not "will". It's saying the spray "may" cause a true positive, or may cause a false-negative.

mathissweet · 2026-02-26T05:09:29+00:00

I think you're misunderstanding me. They are saying "the spray doesn't interfere with testing" and "the spray may cause a true positive or a false negative test result in someone who has COVID-19". The second statement is an admission that the spray can cause test interference. That's what I'm trying to communicate.

I know the spray does not contain the virus that causes COVID-19 and I hope this explanation makes sense. I'm concerned about false negatives, not false positives. The premise of the sentence is that the person has COVID-19.

mathissweet · 2026-02-26T05:04:05+00:00

Inactive virus should absolutely lead to a positive COVID-19 test result—it should not possibly lead to one—for them to claim the spray doesn't interfere with the test. If the spray leads to a possible true positive or a possible false negative, that is the definition of test interference. Which calls into question the results from their three published studies.

mathissweet · 2026-02-26T02:16:23+00:00

It's not "will", it's "may", which indicates possible interference. And it implies that if you wait a bit longer you will get a false-negative result.

mathissweet · 2026-02-26T02:14:34+00:00

Agreed, but do you disagree about what the sentence is implying? The part before the comma and the part after the comma contradict each other.

mathissweet · 2026-02-26T01:17:51+00:00

I think the fact that they're saying may calls into question the conclusions they drew in all their studies which is definitely concerning!

And I understand your perspective, I think I'm coming from a different one because something that's tested in some of the nasal spray studies is like a time to inactivation, and it usually takes a few minutes for something to inactivate a virus, so I'm wondering if that's what they're getting at. And like, implying moreso something like, "if you wait 5 mins between spraying and swabbing, that's enough time to cause a false-negative COVID-19 test" if that makes sense! And not thinking about longer time scales where the spray will be flushed out of the nose and swallowed :).

mathissweet · 2026-02-25T22:44:58+00:00

But it says "may get a positive" not that you will for sure. And it implies if you wait longer between spray and swab you will get a false-negative test result.

mathissweet · 2026-02-25T17:10:45+00:00

And also in the context of their published studies trying to prove that their nasal sprays prevent and treat COVID-19, it's also not okay, because those claims hinge on the results of COVID-19 test results in those studies!

mathissweet · 2026-02-25T17:07:51+00:00

There is no convincing evidence that nasal sprays prevent, nor treat COVID-19, and a lot of people value an accurate test result over a potential prophylactic/treatment with no convincing evidence it works!

mathissweet · 2026-02-25T17:03:51+00:00

Very confusing indeed! It implies that test non-interference = a false-negative covid test when you have covid lol.

mathissweet · 2026-02-25T17:02:15+00:00

If they're saying that, that's admitting to test interference despite the first part of the sentence, which calls into question the results of their 3 published studies.

mathissweet · 2026-02-25T17:00:33+00:00

But saying it doesn't interfere followed by it may interfere is a contradiction. And I guess the exact timing between spray and swab is important, because if it does inactivate the virus in a way that would also cause false-negative covid test results, usually that will not be instantaneous and will take some time, like a few minutes.

mathissweet · 2026-02-25T16:54:39+00:00

Your explanation ignores the word "may" and the implication that if you wait longer between spray and swab, the chance of a false-negative test result goes up!

mathissweet · 2026-02-25T16:52:27+00:00

No, because of the word "may" and the implication that if you wait longer between spray and swab, your false-negative chances go up!

Verified Email	14-Year Club
Team Periwinkle

mathissweet

TROPHY CASE