Chlorine Dioxide clinical trials

Doomsday Prepper Forums

Help Support Doomsday Prepper Forums:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

DrHenley

Top Poster
Global Moderator
VIP Supporter
Joined
Sep 7, 2013
Messages
17,685
Reaction score
60,086
Location
Columbus, GA USA
This thread is not to argue about chlorine dioxide but to disseminate information about clinical trials involving chlorine dioxide treatment for COVID-19.

This study is to try to understand the mechanism of molecular action of chlorine dioxide on the SARS-COV-2 virus.
https://www.hilarispublisher.com/op...mechanism-of-molecular-action-in-sarscov2.pdf
This study is to determine the effectiveness of using chlorine dioxide in the treatment of COVID-19
https://ianvincent.files.wordpress....ness_of_chlorine_dioxide_in_the_treatment.pdf
 
Reading through that 2nd study and the first concern I have is that the authors didn't even mention that a type II error may exist due to such a small sample size.
 
If DR. Jenner or any other DR. Wants to stop people from dieing of covid once they are in the ICU, CDS has over a 99% cure rate in all stages of the covid disease. A great video that explains many uses and breakdowns of using Chlorine Dioxide in its various forms.

https://www.brighteon.com/bfa446b0-7b92-4fb1-8dc9-90904c986a97
 
Reading through that 2nd study and the first concern I have is that the authors didn't even mention that a type II error may exist due to such a small sample size.

OMG DR. JENNER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I am an old Anthropology student who went to grad. school, briefly. We kept fulfilling our assignments in a particular course using medical journals, JAMA and The Lancet. The woman teaching the course was primarily a biologist. She set us up with an assignment and oral presentation and let us all go through the motions. We all felt so informed, citing these journals. Then this professor questioned each one of us on sample size. We said, things like Well, it was a clinical study of 57 people so it must be ok. The professor asked us what a clinical study was. Nobody really had an answer. She said it is who ever goes in the clinic. She posed the questions: Did they control for gender, race, age, occupation? Of course they did not (for anthropology these are huge issues). Then she asked us if the numbers cited in any of the studies we mentioned were statistically significant. We did not know since there was no mention of it. She said "If they don't say the numbers are statistically significant, they are not". (Statistical significance is a formula involving range of variation and sample size). Believe me, we all came away that day with a totally new perspective on medical studies.
 
OMG DR. JENNER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I am an old Anthropology student who went to grad. school, briefly. We kept fulfilling our assignments in a particular course using medical journals, JAMA and The Lancet. The woman teaching the course was primarily a biologist. She set us up with an assignment and oral presentation and let us all go through the motions. We all felt so informed, citing these journals. Then this professor questioned each one of us on sample size. We said, things like Well, it was a clinical study of 57 people so it must be ok. The professor asked us what a clinical study was. Nobody really had an answer. She said it is who ever goes in the clinic. She posed the questions: Did they control for gender, race, age, occupation? Of course they did not (for anthropology these are huge issues). Then she asked us if the numbers cited in any of the studies we mentioned were statistically significant. We did not know since there was no mention of it. She said "If they don't say the numbers are statistically significant, they are not". (Statistical significance is a formula involving range of variation and sample size). Believe me, we all came away that day with a totally new perspective on medical studies.
Exactly which is why a lot of these studies should be taken with a grain of salt. There is a lot of bogus science and it’s sometimes difficult to determine what is bogus and what is real. Believe it or not scientists can have conflicts of interest and be funded by shill organizations… 🥴
thank you for sharing.
 
Exactly which is why a lot of these studies should be taken with a grain of salt. There is a lot of bogus science and it’s sometimes difficult to determine what is bogus and what is real. Believe it or not scientists can have conflicts of interest and be funded by shill organizations… 🥴
thank you for sharing.

Chlorine dioxide is definitely real and exactly what science says it is. Anyone with average intelligence and basic research skills can verify it. Then you clearly see why big pharma lies about its uses.
 
Meta studies on Chlorine Dioxide are inconclusive simply because there haven't been large enough clinical trials using good practices. That doesn't prove anything other than that there is insufficient data.

I keep hoping for someone somewhere to do a large enough trial using good practices.
 
Chlorine dioxide is definitely real and exactly what science says it is. Anyone with average intelligence and basic research skills can verify it. Then you clearly see why big pharma lies about its uses.
My post was intended to be broad and not specifically about chlorine dioxide.
 
Meta studies on Chlorine Dioxide are inconclusive simply because there haven't been large enough clinical trials using good practices. That doesn't prove anything other than that there is insufficient data.
Exactly.
 
Meta studies on Chlorine Dioxide are inconclusive simply because there haven't been large enough clinical trials using good practices. That doesn't prove anything other than that there is insufficient data.

I keep hoping for someone somewhere to do a large enough trial using good practices.

And you don't know why there hasn't been?
 

Latest posts

Back
Top