The enemy uses neuro-linguistic programming in an effort to control your thoughts. - The Great Awakening

Bleach is a substance that bleaches things (ie, removes stains, usually). There are a few compounds that are legally and scientifically considered "bleach."

I don't think you actually read the study about the chlorine dioxide, because it was an in vitro experiment that basically proves this bleach kills MRSA. In a dish. Not in the body. Note, from your paper:

While this stay is safe enough (being at least 3 orders of magnitude longer than the death time) to inactivate all bacteria in the surface of the body is too short for ClO 2 to penetrate deeper than a few tenths of a millimeter; therefore, it cannot cause any real harm to an organism that is much larger than a bacterium.

They mention that people use it as a medication, but it wasn't what they tested. They demonstrated that bleach kills bacteria in a dish. Which we knew. Which is why we use it as a bleach. This is pretty clearly stated in the paper if you read it. They want you to believe that it might be okay to drink, but their study doesn't even explore that possibility, because again, they did this experiment in vitro, not in vivo.

I don't accept Amazon reviews as scientific proof of anything other than the notion that people sometimes write and post stuff on Amazon.

I am not contesting that Ivermectin could be useful against COVID. I don't know. What I do know is that horse dewormer is a mystery vial that happens to contain Ivermectin.

If you're afraid of what might be in the vaccine, despite it having an ingredients list in which every component has been tested and approved for humans, then I can't understand why you'd rather eat a paste that is absolutely chock full of stuff that was never intended for human consumption nor ever tested on humans.

And I have absolutely no love of Big Pharma. Whatsoever. But being against Big Pharma doesn't mean trusting absolutely any random passerby that isn't Big Pharma. The world is not binary. Knowledge is much bigger than having only two sides.

permalink parent save report block reply

▲ 7 ▼

– bgny [S] 7 points 3 years ago +7 / -0

I don't think you actually read the study about the chlorine dioxide

You looked at one study on the page and then act like it is the only one there because you are a dishonest piece of shit. The study RIGHT NEXT TO IT is one about chlorine dioxide being used internally with no ill effects.

This is why scumbag shill liars should not be allowed on this sub, because you willfully spread misinformation about potential life saving effects of these drugs and everything else.

I have no idea why the mods let you waste everyone's time with your dishonest bullshit here.

From the study, one of many at the link:

This is the first study to try to determine the effectiveness of an aqueous solution of chlorine dioxide in preventing the development of symptoms similar to those of COVID19. We demonstrate 90,4% efficacy in preventing the outbreak of COVID19-like symptoms under the given conditions. The blood test did not reveal any systemic abnormalities after the consumption of CDS. Our results suggest that the correct use of ClO2 as a solution is safe for human consumption in an adequate concentration and dose. Therefore, we consider that the recent findings on chlorine dioxide justify conducting RCTs to assess its efficacy against SARS-CoV-2. Furthermore, this may open up a new field of research on the potential use of new compounds to solve current and future public health problems. Finally, we invite more research groups to consider this solution for future studies.

permalink parent save report block reply

▲ -6 ▼

– ARandomOgre -6 points 3 years ago +2 / -8

If you want me to read a specific study, then send me a link to a specific fucking study, dude. I'm not the one wasting time when you throw a bunch of papers at me, some of which are clearly garbage for your argument, and act like I'm the one putting you out by not digging through them. I'm not getting paid for my time talking with you.

Are you talking about this one?

https://andreaskalcker.com/en/coronavirus/clinical-study-with-chlorine-dioxide/a-retrospective-observational-study-on-the-efficacy-of-chlorine-dioxide-for-the-prophylaxis-of-symptoms-similar-to-those-of-covid19-in-relatives-living-with-patients-with-this-disease.html

It's important to note in this study that they didn't actually test anything. They just talked with people who said they took this particular chemical while having symptoms that were apparently close enough to COVID-19.

The first of all is that it is a retrospective observational study, which means that conclusive evidence of the effectiveness of the CDS cannot be established because we could only use the information available in the medical records of the relatives, and we could not have any control . on the variables. Second, there is a misinformation bias as family members report initial and clinical information. Third, many relatives did not undergo diagnostic or confirmatory tests for SARS-Cov-2 due to the economic situation and the high cost of these in Mexico. Therefore, it was impossible to establish with certainty that family members who reported any symptoms similar to covid19 had COVID19. Fourth, the results of the studies used to compare our results are obtained from different populations and collected under other conditions, so these comparisons should be interpreted with caution. Fifth, the general interpretation of the findings may be restricted due to a lack of additional information (eg, personal care, eating habits, proximity and relationship with patients, etc.). These and other variables must be taken into account in future studies.

As someone who has read thousands of scientific papers, that is a LOT of serious limitations for this to be a decisive study. Which is why they don't claim it is a decisive study.

This study proves nothing. It's an exploratory study that is commonly done specifically to create opportunity for actual studies later on down the road. They tested nothing, just made observations after talking to people.

Or was there another study? I'm doing a lot more legwork than this deserves, considering your unnecessary hostility toward me.

permalink parent save report block reply

▲ 8 ▼

– deleted 8 points 3 years ago +8 / -0

▲ 5 ▼

– RussianBotButNot 5 points 3 years ago +5 / -0

Bleach is a substance that bleaches things (ie, removes stains, usually).

You can put lemon juice in your hair, and the sun will bleach it. By your definition, putting lemon in your tea is drinking bleach.