Question Interesting Livescience Article on Chlorine from 2018 led me to ask some questions on Covid-19

Aug 15, 2020
33
1
55
The article starts

"If you have ever taken a prescription medicine, driven a car or drunk tap water, you likely have been exposed to chlorine"

It is also clear that clinical study research looking at pharma based chlorine dioxide human treatments have been looked at for bird flu, SARS, the Human Retrovirus and many other conditions over many years. These studies are referred to in the clinical trial study links below as references - see in PDF in link below for most references

Livescience goes on to state that research has shown that Chlorine atoms have been effective in combating MRSA the antibiotic resistant bacteria.

"MacDougall pointed to a recent study on chlorine atoms found in a novel class of antibiotic compounds that have been discovered in tiny marine organisms in North Atlantic waters near Norway.

Those chlorine atoms are essential to the antibiotic activity of the compounds, which can be effective against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, a bacterium that causes hard-to-treat infections in people and is resistant to commonly used antibiotics, he said.

"The drug discovery community is very excited about these naturally occurring compounds because they are effective against MRSA," said MacDougall, who was not involved in the research, published in April 2014 in the journal Angewandte Chemie International Edition."


That got me wondering if any clinical studies had been done on Chlorine and Covid-19.

See links below for the data from US Govt web site about the clinical study terms and the published test results

I was a bit concerned about all this as Pres Trump said some things about Chlorine and Covid and anything Trump touched became a toxic matter.

Further Chlorine is used in poisons and is toxic in certain doses and should never be self administered medically without medical supervision

This statement also applies to many other drugs, medicines and chemicals.

However it seems there was a very limited phase 1 human clinical trial using Chlorine Dioxide in infected medical workers with very good results.

Only Covid-19 infected medical staff were involved in the control and treatment groups and all had tested positive for Covid-19 to be included in either group

Full Study Results showing 100% cure in 7 days confirmed by TR-PCR Tests - see page 10 of PDF study results below

100% of those treated with a chlorine dioxide solution were cured and effectively showed zero symptoms after 7 days while many in the infected control group continued to be infected and have symptoms during and after 7 days


RESULT Summary


FULL RESULT


The limited clinical trial used chlorine dioxide given to 20 people who were healthcare staff in hospitals who tested positive for Covid-19

The trial study outline says

Results confirmed by negative testing of covid19 [ Time Frame: 7 DAYS ]
amplification of coronavirus genes by RT-PCR

The control group of 20 infected hospital workers who did not receive the treatment and continued to test positive

It seems that extensive animal and further limited human trials could have been easily carried out to test these initial findings amongst health care workers and verify this as treatment alongside others being proposed particularly for people in healthcare settings

All very strange that there was no follow up ... however it seems there was no funding made available and the subject became a forbidden matter to research
 
  • Like
Reactions: Snorrie
Nov 12, 2020
160
31
130
I've used chlorine based sprays in a horse barn environment; the results were excellent for the long term controlling of unwanted bacteria and fungi. Also, some inadvertent human skin infections were eliminated via accidental product spillage on hands and arms. However, those sprays were not readily available at retail during the 2020 covid-19 period due to the demand for commercial and medical use. Given my favorable experience with chlorine based products, I too am surprised that further testing of chlorine dioxide was not pursued as a cheap, easily manufactured treatment for covid-19 which if proven effective, MAY HAVE avoided the current concerns about the many covid-19 variants due to chlorine's generic "killing" ability.
 
Aug 15, 2020
33
1
55
These are not replacements for vaccines but are additional treatments to reduce the spread of Covid-19 or stop infection


Many medical studies on Covid drugs funded by the US Govt which drug companies have no stake, such as Amodiaquine, seem to have been hidden, have very low status or simply seem very hard to find and not publicized or often written about omitting data about very successful animal trials even despite involving WHO critical drugs such as ivermectin

Amodiaquine was first made in 1948.[6] It is on the World Health Organization's List of Essential Medicines, the safest and most effective medicines needed in a health system.

Amodiaquine Covid-19 research .... was funded by military ...

in April [2020], tenOever’s funders at the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency asked him to run the tests. “I was really reluctant to do it,” he says, “but we did eventually come to try.”

The first time tenOever and his collaborators gave the drug to hamsters in his lab, in early June, it offered considerable protection against the virus that causes Covid-19. “We thought, ‘Oh, OK, that was weird. Let’s do it again,’” tenOever says. They kept repeating it and seeing good results. The research team, which includes Donald Ingber of the Wyss Institute in Boston, had already shown that, in human lung cells, the drug reduces levels of a harmless virus engineered to carry the same spike protein as the pandemic one. “It works beautifully,” tenOever says.

Benjamin tenOever, a microbiologist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York and one of the authors of the new study, describes amodiaquine as being “dirtier” than its cousins. That means that its effects on cells are more spread out, hitting a greater variety of molecular targets. As biochemist Bryan Roth once told Nature, a dirty drug may be less like a “magic bullet” than a “magic shotgun.”


As has been posted in other links the FDA and EMA are taking very narrow, industry-centric views shunning low cost, generic repurposed drugs while expressing more open and opportunistic interpretations for industry-centric products.

For example, while the pivotal WHO Solidarity trial shows remdesivir doesn’t help with COVID, this doesn’t stop FDA and EMA supporting the drug and the sponsor—this has led to over $3 billion in revenue in less than one year.

The pandemic reveals a clear and present bias in favor of high-priced, experimental drugs over generic, repurposed, low cost drugs.

Hence why Steve Kirsch put up the recent challenge to pay anyone $25,000 cash who can prove right now that Fluvoxamine doesn’t have all the evidence needed for authorization.


So there seems to be a general reluctance to look at repurposed human or animal drugs such as

1. Fluvoxamine

2. Ivermectin

3. GS-441424

4. Many others such as Amodiaquine

As the above drugs have proved effective and safe for human or animal use often for many years and exhibited strong anticovid responses in animal or human trials there seems little reason not to extensively test them in humans plus look at the data already available from existing users of the drugs.

GS 441524 which is successfully used to treat an almost 100% fatal cat coronavirus and has been shown to be effective against Covid-19 but testing has been stalled by Gilead and the FDA due to what critics say are clear conflicts of interest and despite reluctantly agreeing to do rapid research in August 2020 little happens

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The National Institutes of Health (NIH) will expeditiously conduct preclinical studies of GS-441524 as a treatment for COVID-19 and will make the results readily available to the scientific community, as requested in a letter sent to the agency by Public Citizen.

On Aug. 4, Public Citizen and two university-based drug researchers urged Gilead Sciences, Inc. and several government agencies, including the NIH, to advance development of GS-441524 as a potential treatment for COVID-19, because evidence shows it may offer significant advantages over the closely related antiviral drug remdesivir.

Public Citizen received a response letter from the director of the NIH’s National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, Dr. Christopher Austin, on Aug. 22, stating that “Scientists in our Division of Preclinical Innovation have reviewed the literature and agree that [GS-441524] merits further exploration,” and that NIH scientists will quickly conduct preclinical studies of the drug.

“Public Citizen applauds the NIH’s commitment to conducting the necessary preclinical studies of GS-441524 as a potential treatment for COVID-19, and we await those results with great anticipation,” said Michael Abrams, health researcher at Public Citizen and lead author of the letter. “Such further study of the drug is long overdue, especially given the evidence that GS-441524 may be cheaper and easier to manufacture and more amenable to administration in inhaled or oral forms than remdesivir.”

“We hope that Gilead will respond similarly and commit to working collaboratively with the NIH to study the potential of GS-441524, even if it means the company may reap lower profits than expected from the marketing of remdesivir,” Abrams added.




The study, a collaboration between the university’s Department of Psychiatryand Division of Infectious Diseases, involved 152 patients infected with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Researchers compared the outcomes of those treated with fluvoxamine to the outcomes of those given an inactive placebo. After 15 days, none of the 80 patients who had received the drug experienced serious clinical deterioration. Meanwhile, six of the 72 patients given placebo (8.3%) became seriously ill, with four requiring hospitalization.

The study is published online Nov. 12 in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

“The patients who took fluvoxamine did not develop serious breathing difficulties or require hospitalization for problems with lung function,” said the paper’s first author, Eric J. Lenze, MD, the Wallace and Lucille Renard Professor of Psychiatry. “Most investigational treatments for COVID-19 have been aimed at the very sickest patients, but it’s also important to find therapies that prevent patients from getting sick enough to require supplemental oxygen or to have to go to the hospital. Our study suggests fluvoxamine may help fill that niche.”


The majority of the nearly 40 studies involving ivermectin as a Covid-19 treatment actually show safety and efficacy and there are myriad ways to overcome differences in the various studies as showcased by prominent meta analysis.

Safety But…

EMA, of course, acknowledges that ivermectin is generally safe and well-tolerated at doses authorized for other indications and cautions that side effects could increase with the much higher doses that would be needed to obtain concentrations of ivermectin in the lungs that are effective against the virus. Toxicity when ivermectin is used at higher than approved doses therefore cannot be excluded. But again EMA fails to dive deeper into the dozens of studies showing that perfectly safe doses are used with positive results.


Ivermectin has never been reported as causing extensive, serious or fatal human health reactions even at 10 times the FDA approved dosage
 
Aug 15, 2020
33
1
55
In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 2 trial that evaluated 79 confirmed cases of COVID-19, SaNOtize’s early treatment for COVID-19 significantly reduced the level of SARS-CoV-2, including in patients with high viral loads. The average viral log reduction in the first 24 hours was 1.362, which corresponds to a decline of about 95%. Within 72 hours, the viral load dropped by more than 99%. The majority of these patients had been infected with the UK variant, which is considered a variant of concern. There were no adverse health events recorded in the UK trial, or in over 7,000 self-administered treatments given in earlier Canadian clinical trials.

 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS