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.