Report on CDS by Dr. Luis Prieto Valiente, PhD, is a professor at UCAM

Full text transcribed

Report by Dr. Luis Prieto Valiente, PhD, professor of Statistical Analysis and Research Methodology, on the on the relevance, or not, of using Chlorine Dioxide as an “unproven intervention” in covid 19 infections

1- The “Scientific Method”. Critical skepticism but not stubbornly denialist.

1- The “Scientific Method”: Critical skepticism but not stubbornly denialist.

The medical community wants to and must protect the population from the avalanche of miraculous remedies that are continually offered by unscrupulous individuals, with or without academic qualifications. The helplessness of human beings in the face of persistent health problems creates fertile ground for charlatans of all kinds. Therefore, any new unconventional remedy should be met with critical skepticism.

The best tool we have to determine the extent to which a new product is effective and safe is the set of logical resources we call the scientific method. This is not merely a list of recipes found in a manual often written by individuals with limited qualifications. It is a set of logical resources that help us better approach any inquiry we wish to undertake.

It should be clear that it is NOT the obligation of physicians to know research methodology in general and statistical analysis in particular. It is not a flaw to lack such training, as it takes many years of study and practice to acquire. Physicians need to devote all their time to the work and study of their subjects. However, they must be forewarned against those who appear knowledgeable but are not. To claim that a certain procedure or conclusion is invalid because it “does not conform to the scientific method” may impress the layman, but for the serious and prepared professional, it is an ambiguous phrase with little substance. It is necessary to specify which fact or reasoning contravenes which specific point of this so-called “scientific method.”

The scientific method consists of, let’s say, 60% common sense, 20% experiential learning in each field of study, and - in some situations - 20% statistical inference. Only the last 20% requires specific training achieved through years of study and practice. The other 80% is the common heritage of all people who think carefully about their subject matter. Remember that the mathematical reasoning included in statistical inference fundamentally relies on careful logical reasoning supported by efficient notation.

Young researchers in all fields of science and technology should not be urged to learn what the “scientific method” is from a “researcher’s manual,” which is typically authored by individuals with little research training. Instead, they should be encouraged to develop their analytical capacities to engage in orderly reflections on their field of study. They should recognize that Newton, Galileo, Maxwell, Planck, Maria Sklodowska, Einstein, Anna Sullivan, Florence Nightingale, and Ramón y Cajal—never consulted any manual on what the scientific method is. They exercised it by thinking systematically and clearly about the subjects they studied.

2- Let us not be impressed by individuals or organizations that appear to maintain a high scientific level but may possess power without reason.

We must recognize that holding a significant managerial position in any healthcare field does NOT necessarily imply having a scientific level superior to that of the average physician. In many instances, the dean of a medical faculty, the president of a medical association, or the director general of health are highly qualified professionals whose opinions must be considered valuable within the medical profession. However, in other cases, these positions are held by individuals of low caliber whose statements hold no particular value. The same applies to technical-administrative bodies. If the WHO or the FDA or the European or Spanish Drug Agency makes a judgment, it does not mean we should believe them blindly simply because they are official bodies. They must provide proof, like everyone else, as we all know that within these organizations there are, alongside highly qualified professionals, others who are mediocre and have infiltrated due to their “social skills,” rather than their technical capabilities. When they make judgments on a subject, they should be required to substantiate their assertions. If they do not, their words should not be regarded as the ultimate reference in that field.

I am not advocating for “extreme intellectual anarchy,” but rather for realism, prudence, and collaboration, so we can collectively achieve a slightly better world.

It is worth reiterating this reality: many who invoke the scientific method do NOT truly understand it. Instead, they simply repeat phrases they have heard from others. If they hold a POSITION OF CERTAIN LEVEL, their phrases may impress the average physician; however, in many cases, they hold little real content. There may also be more appearance than scientific rigor in some verdicts issued by official health agencies. The public should be aware that many of their decisions are influenced by political or commercial factors rather than technical qualifications. Therefore, their pronouncements should not be accepted as incontestable truths, but rather as assertions pending corroboration. Maintaining realism in this regard—without falling into defeatism—is part of the scientific rigor we demand of ourselves.

3- Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials (RCT): Three requirements dictated by common sense. However, there is life beyond them.

Today, the medical community demands that the efficacy of a medical procedure be demonstrated—whenever possible—through Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs). However, this should not be regarded as a dogma of divine revelation that is blindly repeated (often without those repeating it truly understanding the subject). It should be recognized that other types of more accessible studies—observational or interventional—can also yield very useful information.

In some cases, a blinded control group is not feasible, as occurs with many surgical or rehabilitation techniques or coronary interventions. In other instances, a control group is NOT justified; an informed patient would not accept it. Fortunately, this is NOT essential.

Let us suppose John is diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in its most aggressive form (average survival: 9 months), and someone offers him a therapeutic option claiming there are no undesirable side effects and that he could achieve an average survival of 4 years. However, as this presumed efficacy and safety remain unverified by a serious study, a highly qualified doctor (or so he claims) suggests John enter an RCT. Obviously, John would refuse—and rightly so—because he does not want to risk being assigned to the placebo group. He and all patients in his situation want to receive this new treatment.

If the highly scientific doctor (or so he claims) retorts that scientifically sound conclusions cannot be reached without a control group, he should be reminded that 100% certainty can never be attained in medicine and that his statement reflects a summary derived from his research manual (for modest-level readers) which fails to capture several nuances that come into play at an intermediate level.

“Historical controls” may sometimes serve as the only feasible option and are far better than nothing. In this scenario, if 36 patients treated with the proposed method had a median survival of four years (mean = 4 years; SD = 2) while testing the hypothesis that the population mean equals one year yields t(35) = 9 with P = 0.00000000000006; CI 95% (3.3 and 4.7)—then any reasonable person would accept this as very strong evidence (albeit always tentative) in favor of this treatment achieving greater median survival. And always pending confirmation and qualification with future data.

For historical control purposes, recent clinical histories from the same center would be utilized; appropriate multivariate analysis would control for recorded factors. Some readers may insist on normality tests; however, these are unnecessary because the Central Limit Theorem protects us. Others might mention nonparametric tests; again, these are unnecessary for the same reason. Even if the sample size were much smaller, ANOVA's proven robustness against non-normality would still apply.

Moreover, for the sake of “scientific rigor,” objections regarding the relatively small sample size may arise; yet those familiar with this subject (knowledge that does not require advanced mathematical understanding) recognize no such problem exists given the result obtained.

Finally, there will always be those who argue that providing P-values to excessive decimal places is unnecessary since what matters is whether it exceeds 0.05 (i.e., whether it yields a “statistically significant” result). However, those knowledgeable about this topic understand that evidence against the null hypothesis strengthens as P-values decrease; using a 5% threshold is an outdated concept inherited from times when we lacked proper calculus.

4- Many new treatments entered medicine as Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), driven by impotence and urgency in addressing critically ill patients—not after meticulous prior medical studies.

A - Penicillin was NOT tested in humans.

A Spanish professor of medicine with an excellent popular science blog stated in an interview—illustrating how complex drug development can be—that “Science provides solutions slowly. I always give my students the example of Fleming who observed penicillin’s effectiveness against certain bacteria in 1928 and treated his first patient in 1941.”

This statement suggests that penicillin was tested on humans after painstaking studies spanning 13 years; however, it does not accurately reflect reality. According to Wikipedia and The New York Times article published on June 9, 1999—the day Anne died—“Fleming struggled to cultivate penicillium in acceptable quantities and abandoned his research for several years. Florey, Chain, and Heatley resumed work on it in 1938. In 1940, J.M. Barnes infected mice with streptococci and found those treated with penicillin survived while those untreated did not. In 1941, patient Albert Alexander suffered a severe infection spreading throughout his face, shoulder, respiratory tract, and lungs. The sulfonamide treatment he received was ineffective.

Powerless, surgeons removed one of his eyes but ultimately decided to try penicillin ten months after Barnes’s mouse trial (February 1941). His health improved rapidly but doctors lacked sufficient antibiotic supplies—even recovering some from his urine proved insufficient—and he died on March 15 when all penicillin was depleted.

Penicillin ultimately saved Anne Sheafe Millerno’s life in 1942 in the United States after she endured high fevers and delirium from an infection for over a month without improvement from sulfonamides or transfusions.

Desperate doctors obtained a small quantity of what was then still an experimental drug for injection... Within hours her temperature dropped; she became coherent again and began eating... Anne lived until her 90s and died in 1999. That success led to penicillin saving countless lives during World War II.

Before Anne's doctors managed to save her life through penicillin treatment only limited experiments had been conducted on mice and humans—with mixed results.

Clearly, penicillin was NOT introduced after laborious systematic RCTs but was rather compelled by urgency. This action adhered to patients' demands and aligns with common sense and basic ethics.

The history of medicine records many similar stories where compassionate use criteria prevailed over strictly validated recourse criteria due to elementary logic.

B - Prontosil against staphylococci

We also read on Wikipedia: In 1933, Dr. Robert Foertser received in his office a 10-month-old baby diagnosed with staphylococcal septicemia. A colleague suggested prontosil, although it had only been tried in streptococcal infections, and he had no previous experience with staphylococci. Dr. Foertser had no other option that was likely to be successful and opted for prontosil. The baby healed and was discharged.

In 1935, the daughter of Gerhard Domagk (Nobel laureate for Medicine in 1939) was suffering from an insidious streptococcal infection that spread throughout her arm. He knew that his daughter would die soon because there were still no drugs capable of slowing the advance of the bacteria. He had prontosil (a sulfonamide synthesized at Bayer Laboratories in 1932), which in the first human trials caused serious side effects in some cases. The girl was already on the verge of death. Gerhard took several doses of the experimental drug home and injected his daughter with it. The infection was controlled, and the girl was saved, along with her arm.

C - Physostigmine against myasthenia gravis.

In the aforementioned blog, we read:

Dr. Mary Walker, in 1934, observed that a patient with myasthenia gravis looked very much like another patient suffering from curare poisoning and thought that physostigmine (the antidote for curare) could palliate the symptoms of myasthenia gravis.

He had a patient with myasthenia bulbaris, and everything seemed to indicate that he was going to die of aspiration pneumonia. He consulted with qualified colleagues, obtained permissions, and administered physostigmine subcutaneously to that severely affected patient. The muscle fatigue and palpebral ptosis clearly improved. Initially, not much attention was paid to this treatment. However, a year later, he was able to demonstrate with another patient at a meeting of the Royal Society of Medicine that this treatment reversed the symptoms of myasthenia, at least for a while. These first two cases were part of the medical thesis he presented at the University of Edinburgh.

A renowned Spanish professor comments: “The study has subsequently been criticized because it was based on a single patient! It was based on a single patient, n=1!” It is difficult to imagine greater nonsense and confusion. Evidently, it was not about any “study”, but rather an attempt to save a life.

5- Do not ignore, disqualify, and denounce. We must listen, teach, and invite participation.

In the history of medicine, there have been several findings that were initially not very credible. In the early years of the twentieth century, the locals of Onís and Cabrales believed that moldy bread left for several days in the damp caves that house Cabrales cheese helped cure stubborn ulcers. A young doctor who heard this contemptuously ignored the claims of the ignorant peasants. However, they continued to rely on this remedy, which often solved problems that Don Alfonso could not resolve. Years later, when he was older and able to help his patients with the first doses of penicillin that arrived in Spain, he recognized that the mold belonged to the penicillium family and could indeed help cure rebellious ulcers by alleviating bacterial superinfection. If he had paid attention to certain evidence before his eyes in his youth and shared it with a research-minded colleague, perhaps they would have been ahead of Fleming.

6- Interests unrelated to people's health can exert decisive influences.

a) “Western medicine” makes significant contributions to human health, and the control and quality standards we have imposed on ourselves are the best tools for advancing medicine—i.e., improving diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment.

b) About 80% of the drugs—many of which are very useful—in the current pharmacopoeia have been developed by private pharmaceutical laboratories, which have made huge investments in human and material resources. We owe them a vital part of our health.

c) In some cases, certain laboratories commit abuses to the detriment of patients. The same can be said of other types of companies that are generally useful and necessary but can be very harmful in specific situations. This reflects the human condition. Denying this painful truism is futile; we all know it to be true, even if we may disagree on our assessment of each specific situation. I have worked, work, and will continue to work regularly with several pharmaceutical laboratories. In all of them, I have met very qualified and honest researchers and managers. Some have honored me with their friendship, for which I am grateful and hope to maintain for life.

d) Also in the medical profession (to which I am fortunate enough to belong), there exists a minority that prioritizes their commercial interests over the needs of their patients. In some cases, they may favor or hinder the use of a drug or an exploratory or therapeutic technique for economic reasons. The underuse of Computerized Axial Tomography in lumbar spine problems is one example among many.

e) In certain sectors of the population, there is clear over-medication, and we are responsible for this. To a greater or lesser extent, patients, physicians, and the pharmaceutical industry share the responsibility. Joan Ramon Laporte, professor—now emeritus—of pharmacology at the UAB, provides very illustrative insights in this regard. Some of his statements can be found in an interview where he mentions that “half of the medicines prescribed are unnecessary and, in some cases, more harmful than beneficial” (https://catalunyaplural.cat/es/un-50-de-los-drugs-prescribed-in-the-health-system-are-unnecessary-and-in-some-cases-more-harmful-than-beneficial-more-harmful-than-beneficial/). Of course, not everyone will agree with what he says, but the quality, seriousness, and usefulness of his “Essential Information System in Therapeutics and Health” seem beyond any doubt (sietes.org).

f) When the medical community does not maintain a prudent yet open attitude, which is required of all honest doctors, one must suspect that obscure political and economic interests are hindering the normal course of events, preventing possible help from reaching patients—help that they, along with basic common sense and elementary ethics, demand.

7- REASONABLE INDICATORS of possible efficacy and safety.

I have seen and heard dozens of testimonials from patients and doctors (in some cases, both) reporting very positive effects and an absence of side effects from CD in various health issues. Some were shared with me live, some via phone, some through email, and many in videos on the internet (listed in decreasing order of credibility). Some of these testimonials make claims of positive effects and no side effects from CD on various problems. However, there are also less rigorous assertions and triumphalist statements with weak objective support, which do not help the cause. Nor does the label “miraculous” enhance credibility.

Obviously, each of these testimonials can be distorted, false, or mistaken, but collectively they constitute, in my opinion, a REASONABLE INDICATOR of possible efficacy and safety. As an example of the first type of testimonial, here is a letter from a highly qualified medical colleague recounting the impact of CD on his brother Ivan’s illness; Ivan is also a doctor with a very distinguished career. There are many similar testimonials. I reiterate that none of them provides definitive scientific evidence individually, but together they present, in my view, a reasonable indication of efficacy and safety. (I retain informal expressions typical of personal correspondence.)

“Ivan had been seeing urologists, nephrologists, dermatologists... for a long time due to a complicated urethritis that had worsened. He had spent a long period taking various antibiotics with no results. He experienced enormous discomfort when urinating, frequent “erratic” pains, significant weight loss, and very low spirits... When the pandemic arrived, he was confined to his home in Marbella. I called him to check on him and found him very “affected” and fearful of catching the virus! He did not want to go to any hospital!

Faced with this situation, I took the liberty of sending him information about CHLORINE DIOXIDE. Ten days later, he had studied all the information on this product and wrote to Germany to buy it... He informed me that he was taking it and that “it felt FRANKLY GOOD...(he himself was very surprised). He had stopped taking painkillers and antibiotics... Last Tuesday,”

We met for a family meal. We were all very surprised by his magnificent appearance. He had put on 3-4 kilos, lost all worries, and was exultant and ready to fight for the health authorities to start organizing serious studies.

There are many other prudent doctors and laypeople who do not intend to draw general conclusions from particular cases and call for a serious study of this product, using phrases like “it worked for me and others I know, so I am asking for studies to be done to see if it really works.” It does not seem sensible to ignore so many hundreds of testimonials, assuring that they are due to the placebo effect, a desire for prominence, a compulsive tendency to lie, a desire to harm others indiscriminately, or an attempt to obtain economic benefit. There can be, and probably are, exceptions to the last assumption because the product is very cheap and not patentable. Obviously, we repeat, each isolated case does not allow general conclusions to be drawn, but all of them together constitute, in my opinion, a reasonable indication of the possible efficacy of ClO2.

8- Separating the wheat from the chaff in information

Paradoxically, Internet communication, which immensely facilitates the ability to receive and give truthful information, is also a distorting factor that is impossible to avoid. Anyone can report great cures (real or invented) with the CD, and anyone can claim they are not true and report terrible side effects (real or invented). Even personal slanders that attribute crimes and/or delusions to “the others” are spread. This is the greatness and misery of the NETWORK, which requires a very good head and a lot of honesty to receive and give useful information.

Faced with this exuberance of true news and false news, the only possible remedy is to resort to:

(a) peer-reviewed scientific journals and (b) responsible media:

(a) Peer-reviewed journals only publish work done and presented with certain standards of rigor and internal logic, which can never guarantee 100% veracity but are the best approximation to it. It seems that some of them are under pressure from certain economic powers, but many of them resist.

(b) Most responsible media (press, radio, and TV), which check the information before publishing it, depend directly on economic powers, but some of them try to preserve a certain independence in favor of truthful information, and many journalists succeed in doing so.

9- Rejecting a product without the evidence we demand to accept it

It is very striking and worrying that in the face of the reasonable indications of possible efficacy and safety of CD, most journalists and physicians do not respond with medical curiosity and scientific concern, offering to collaborate in studies that would help to overcome the doubt. For them, there is no doubt. They categorically state that there are no such indications, that CD is useless and harmful.

Such forceful phrases from individuals in positions of relevance are very impressive to the layperson. However, this forcefulness is not always supported by objective reasons. To my surprise, the position of the detractors is generally more drastic—and sometimes overbearing—than that of the defenders, although there are exceptions on both sides.

Proponents of CD assume that the outright rejection by many physicians is partly conditioned by specific commercial interests, as sales of certain germicides could be seriously affected. This may indeed be the case in some instances. However, inertia and resistance to change among many physicians also contribute to the situation.

A typical example is that of a colleague who, after reading a draft of this paper, replied: “Not a minute should be spent on CLO₂ because:

a) It's lay and

b) Trump recommends it.

” Another colleague reading this comment applauded him enthusiastically. However, the second statement is an example of incoherence. The fact that a public figure recommends it provides no information about the usefulness of the product. The first statement is blatantly incorrect.

It is obvious that sodium chlorite (NaClO2) is NOT common bleach, i.e., sodium hypochlorite (NaClO). The difference between the two molecules is one atom of oxygen, just as the difference between water (H2O) and hydrogen peroxide (H2O2). This type of assertion undermines the credibility of the person making it, at best. At worst, it fuels suspicion that there are obscure interests unrelated to the pursuit of truth.

It is surprising—and wrong—the reaction of my colleagues to the work done by a group of doctors in Ecuador. They invested their time and money to administer oral DC to 100 COVID-19 patients who, having been informed, requested it. They documented the evolution of these patients in an orderly fashion and claim to have found remarkable improvement within five days in 90% of the cases, with no side effects. This represents an enormous advantage over patients not treated with CD. They have no training in research methodology and communicate their findings as best they can.

Two points arise: a) Their study does not meet the quality standards we require to accept the results as scientific evidence in favor of CD, and b) These data, even with their imprecision, would suggest to any unbiased observer that they merit urgent attempts to be reproduced in an EMR. The reason my Spanish colleagues emphasize point “a” and do not mention “b” remains a mystery that inevitably leads us back to point 6 above.

This suspicion seems to be confirmed when we consider that Dr. Pablo Campra, with a Ph.D. in Chemistry and a B.S. in Biology from the University of Almeria, published two videos discussing this work, highlighting its notable shortcomings and stating that it seemed worthy of being considered as a starting point for a more comprehensive study. His exposition is entirely prudent, respectful, and offers calm reflection. Both videos have been removed from the network and are no longer accessible. This appears to be a clear attack on freedom of expression, which will likely result in criminal proceedings with appropriate penalties for those responsible. Let us trust in our rule of law.

10 - Initial Outline of Medical Study to Determine Efficacy and Safety

In hospitals where patients with medium or severe clinical stages are being admitted, the next 300 patients will be randomized into three arms:

(a) The best treatment currently available.

(b) The best treatment currently available plus oral DC, if accepted.

(c) The best treatment currently available plus intravenous CD.

The assessment of each patient will be conducted by a team of three blinded physicians, who will evaluate the health condition during that period and conduct initial and final interviews with each patient. Of course, this is an embryonic project, but after two or three hours of meetings with a small team of internists and intensivists, it could be completed. The associated red tape could also be resolved in a few hours, not weeks or months of endless paperwork disguised as scientific and ethical rigor.

Depending on the outcome, the study will either be abandoned or continued, as is standard in all medical research. It is known that The Lancet reported on May 22, 2020, that chloroquine does not seem to have a positive effect and has negative side effects. This has been studied in many thousands of patients. It was reasonable to conduct such research; there is no reproach to anyone. Only by testing can we determine whether it is useful and if it has negative side effects. Simultaneously, this article has faced several criticisms questioning its conclusions and has indeed been withdrawn (16). However, it seems that other publications, which are not as heavily scrutinized, yield similar results.

11 - Demands from the Health Authority, Including Through Legal Channels

Special mention should be made of the "Health Authority," which appears particularly intent on penalizing dissidents who dare to use this product. One would think it would be much more appropriate to counteract “erroneous information” (according to this authority) with “correct information.” However, when the force of reason is lacking, one must resort to the unreasonableness of force. All colleagues who inform me of encouraging results with CD do so while asking me to respect their anonymity for fear of reprisals. Unbelievable but true. I hope to secure the pro bono involvement of a qualified law firm to help alleviate this situation and ensure that those responsible face the corresponding administrative and/or criminal consequences.

The medical community must be engaged, but demands should be placed on the health authority:

(a) When faced with a therapeutic option that has REASONABLE INDICATIONS of efficacy and safety, it should comply with its duty to definitively assess it.

(b) If, after compiling the available information, these REASONABLE INDICATIONS of efficacy and safety are confirmed, it should immediately proceed to conduct PILOT studies that BEGIN TO shed light on the subject, remembering that CCPs are the preferred option but not the only one. Furthermore, it should publish the results of these studies with full transparency and promptness.c) Demand that they do not prevent citizens (doctors and laymen) from expressing their personal opinions and reporting their experiences, always their personal opinions and report their experiences, as long as they do it correctly and respecting all the rules of the rules of coexistence.

d) Demand that they stop pressuring social networks to censor information regarding CD. As long as this information is respectful and does not violate the fundamental values of our coexistence and our Constitution, it must be respected.

e) Demand that if information is disseminated that could lead citizens to perform acts harmful to their health, it should be counteracted by disseminating truthful, serious, and educational information about these dangers, demonstrating with real data that such dangers exist.

f) Finally, demand that persons who are not qualified to carry out the functions that correspond to the health authority be removed from their posts and that these positions be occupied by qualified individuals.

____________________

references

1. Russell B. “Principles of mathematics” 1903 Norton & Company. NY 2nd Edition Pa V)

2. Casas, A. “The LHC and the frontier of physics” CSIC 2009

3. Feynmann R. “The character of physical law” Tusquets edit. 2000. Pg. 45

4. Armitage P. “Statistical methods for medical researchers”. 4th Ed. Blackwell. 20017.

5. Fisher, R. “The design of experiments”. Hafner Press. N.Y. 1935. Pp. 1-2.

6. Prieto, L., Herranz, I., Matinez-Sellés, M., Alonso,R. “Tests of significance vs tests of hypothesis Far east

journal of theoretical statistics, Volume 21 No.1) pp. 97 -111 (2007)

7. Abellán-Huerta j, Prieto-Valiente l. The myth of sample size. Rev Esp Cardiol. 2020.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.recesp.2020.04.017

8. Romero R. and Zúñiga L. “Métodos Estadísticos en Ingeniería”. Ed. UPV. 2005 ( Page 3).

9. Prieto Valiente, L. and Herranz Tejedor, I. “What does statistically significant mean? The fallacy of the

The fallacy of the 5% criterion in scientific research”. Diaz de Santos Edit. Madrid . 2005

10. Martinez-Sellés, M., Prieto, L, Herranz I. “Frequent errors in statistical inference of biomedical data”.

Italian heart journal: 6 (2): 90-95 (2005)

11. Feinstein A.R. “Clinical epidemiology: the architecture of clinical researche”. Philadelphia, WB saunders

. 1985. Quoted by F.L. Redondo. “The error in clinical diagnostic tests”. Diaz de Santos. 2002.

Harrington D, D'Agostino RB Sr, Gatsonis C, et al. New guidelines for statistical reporting in the journal.

journal. N Engl J Med. 2019;381:285-286.

13. 20. Wasserstein RL, Schirm AL, Lazar NA. Moving to a world beyond “p < 0.05.” Am Stat 2019; 73:Suppl

1:1-19.

14. Testimonials https://redaccionglobal.blogspot.com/p/testimonios-dioxido-de-cloro.html

15. www.thelancet.com PublishedonlineMay22,2020 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31180-6

16. K. KALY-KULLAI , at al. Can chlorine dioxide prevent the spreading of coronavirus or other viral

infections? Medical hypotheses. Physiology International 107 (2020) 1, 1-11 DOI:

10.1556/2060.2020.00015

17. Zhu Z, Guo Y, Yu P, Wang X, Zhang X, Dong W, Liu X, Guo C. Chlorine dioxide inhibits the replication of

porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus by blocking viral attachment. Infect Genet Evol.

2019 Jan;67:78-87. doi: 10.1016/j.meegid.2018.11.002. Epub 2018 Nov 3.

18. Schijven J, Teunis P, Suylen T, Ketelaars H, Hornstra L, Rutjes S. QMRA of adenovirus in drinking water

at a drinking water treatment plant using UV and chlorine dioxide disinfection. Water Res. 2019 Jul

1;158:34-45. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2019.03.090. epub 2019 Apr 1.

19. Kingsley DH, Perez-Perez RE, Niemira BA, Fan X. Evaluation of gaseous chlorine dioxide for the inactivation of Tulane virus on

inactivation of Tulane virus on blueberries. Int J Food Microbiol. 2018 May 20;273:28-32. doi:

10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2018.01.024. Epub 2018 Feb 1.

20. Jui-Wen Ma , Bin-Syuan Huang , ,Efficacy and Safety Evaluation of a Chlorine Dioxide Solution Int. J. J.

Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 329; doi:10.3390/ijerph14030329.

21. Takanori Miura and Takashi Shibat. Antiviral Effect of Chlorine Dioxide against Influenza Virus and Its Application for Infection Control.

Application for Infection Control The Open Antimicrobial Agents Journal, 2010, 2, 71-78.

22. Mandeep R Mehra, Sapan S Desai, Frank Ruschitzka, Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or

without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis.

23. Takessi sanekata, toshiaki fukuda at al. “ Evaluation of the antiviral activity of chlorine doioxide and

sodium hypocliorite against Feline calcivirus, human influence virus, canine distemper virus, human herspervirus, human adenovirus, human adenovirus, and canine adenovirus.

herspervirus, human adenovirus, canine adenovirus and canine parvovirus” Biocontrol Science, 2010,

Vol 15, No 2 , 45-49 17

24. K. KALY-KULLAI , at al. Can chlorine dioxide prevent the spreading of coronavirus or other viral

infections? Medical hypotheses. Physiology International 107 (2020) 1, 1-11 DOI:

10.1556/2060.2020.00015

25. Zhu Z, Guo Y, Yu P, Wang X, Zhang X, Dong W, Liu X, Guo C. Chlorine dioxide inhibits the replication of

porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus by blocking viral attachment. Infect Genet Evol.

2019 Jan;67:78-87. doi: 10.1016/j.meegid.2018.11.002. Epub 2018 Nov 3.

26. Schijven J, Teunis P, Suylen T, Ketelaars H, Hornstra L, Rutjes S. QMRA of adenovirus in drinking water

at a drinking water treatment plant using UV and chlorine dioxide disinfection. Water Res. 2019 Jul

1;158:34-45. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2019.03.090. epub 2019 Apr 1.

27. Kingsley DH, Perez-Perez RE, Niemira BA, Fan X. Evaluation of gaseous chlorine dioxide for the

inactivation of Tulane virus on blueberries. Int J Food Microbiol. 2018 May 20;273:28-32. doi:

10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2018.01.024. Epub 2018 Feb 1.

28. Montazeri N, Manuel C, Moorman E, Khatiwada JR, Williams LL, Jaykus LA. Virucidal Activity of Fogged

Chlorine Dioxide- and Hydrogen Peroxide-Based Disinfectants against Human Norovirus and Its Surrogate, Feline Calicides.

Surrogate, Feline Calicivirus, on Hard-to-Reach Surfaces. Front Microbiol. 2017 Jun 8;8:1031. doi:

10.3389/fmicb.2017.01031. eCollection 2017.

29. Ma JW, Huang BS, Hsu CW, Peng CW, Cheng ML, Kao JY, Way TD, Yin HC, Wang SS. Efficacy and

Safety Evaluation of a Chlorine Dioxide Solution. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2017 Mar 22;14(3). pii:

E329. doi: 10.3390/ijerph14030329.

30. Maria E. Alvarez and R. T. O'brien. Effects of chlorine concentration on the structure of poliovirus.

applied and environmental microbiology, jan. 1982, p. 237-239 vol.43,no.1 0099-2240/82/010237-

03$02.00/0

31. Maria E. Alvarez and R. T. O'brien Mechanisms of inactivation of polioviruses by chlorine dioxide and iodine.

iodine. Applied and environmentalmicrobiology,nov.1982, p.1064-1071 vol.44, no.5 0099-22

32. J. P. Bercz at al. Subchronic Toxicity of Chlorine Dioxide and Related Compounds in Drinking Water in the Nonhuman Primate.

the Nonhuman Primate. Environment Vol 43, pp 47-55, 1982

33. R P Smith and C C Willhite Chlorine Dioxide and Hemodialysis Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 1990.

Feb;11(1):42-62. doi: 10.1016/0273-2300(90)90006-w.

Judith R. Lubbers at al. Controlled Clinical Evaluations of Chlorine Dioxide, Chlorite and Chlorate in Man.

EnvironmentalHealthPerspectives Vol. 46, pp. 57-62, 1982.

35. JAMES M. VAUGHN at al. Inactivation of Human and Simian Rotaviruses by Chlorine

Appied and environmental microbiology,Feb.1986,p.391-394 Vol.51,No.2 0099-2240/86/020391- 04$02.00/0

F I N

If Juan, 60 years old, has serious symptoms typical of COVID-19 and the PCR confirms it, and after 15 days he suffers progressive worsening and requires hospitalization, his prognosis is approximately as follows:

60% of patients like him will end up being cured without needing admission to the ICU (though we do not know with what sequelae).

30% of patients like him will end up in the ICU and, after several weeks, will recover (though it appears that they may have quite serious sequelae).

10% of patients like him will end up in the ICU and, after several weeks, will die.

At that point, if I tell him that several doctors and dozens of “civilians” I know are taking DC with no short-term side effects and with apparent benefits in curing various types of infections, I propose that, in addition to all the treatment prescribed by his doctors, he takes DC at the doses suggested by those with experience, under the supervision of his doctors. Are there any patients who refuse to try it?

Is it not logical that, given this very poor prognosis (and without the possibility of modifying it), this alleged remedy should be tried on all those admitted to the hospital? In all those admitted, a decision could be made based on their evolution whether to continue or discontinue it.

It remains to be read. Pending incorporation, perhaps.

Uncritical followerism and the law of minimum effort—“that is not allowed.”

To question a procedure on the grounds that “that is not the usual thing to do” is not the most appropriate approach. Nor is it usual, for example, for a pandemic to cost hundreds of thousands of lives. It is typical of Homo sapiens to generally abide by the rules but to adapt them with prudence and lucidity to the circumstances of each moment, rather than adhering blindly to them.

In the text that follows, I request that serious medical studies be conducted immediately to determine if CD has benefits in the prevention or cure of certain diseases without notable side effects. Due to the urgency of the situation, I further request that the shortest paths within the methodology of medical research be followed. I affirm that common sense, scientific rigor, and medical deontology not only allow this “abbreviated route” but demand it.

Any possible remedy that appears on the horizon should be studied rigorously in case evidence emerges that it is effective (in prevention or treatment) and safe (without undesirable side effects). The “Scientific Method” in general and Controlled Clinical Trials (CCTs) in particular should be utilized in this search, rather than being wielded as a weapon against those who are unfamiliar with these tools.

It should NOT be dismissed out of hand by asserting that it is not only useless but also harmful while attempting to prevent and penalize its use. By doing so, we run the risk of overlooking something that could be beneficial.

Dr. Jose Ramon Alonso, https://www.eldiario.es/catalunya/Jose-Ramon-Alonso-neurobiologo_0_1021898269.html

Dr. Elena Campos, CSIC researcher and president of the Association to Protect the Sick from Pseudoscientific Therapies (APETP).

In this document, they do not justify their assertions with data and bibliography. They say “in Canada”... They should specify where one can consult what the Canadians say.

Those who support a product are required to provide OBJECTIVE and well-documented PROOF that it is effective and safe. I fully support that requirement; that is what I dedicate my professional life to.

The same should be demanded of those who disapprove of that product.

A young American doctor named Crawford Williamson Long noticed that his friends were insensitive to pain even though they had hurt themselves while staggering around under the effects of ether at a party. He considered its potential application to surgery. One student at the party had two small tumors he wanted removed but kept postponing the operation out of fear of pain. When Long proposed performing the operation under ether anesthesia, Venable agreed. On March 30, 1842, the operation was performed without pain. However, Long did not make his discovery public until 1849.

N2O Nitrous oxide. Dentist Horace Wells performed a tooth extraction on November 12, 1844. (This study has since been criticized because it was based on only one patient, n=1!)