BY AMEEN KAMAL

Firstly , it is essential to note that this is merely for the consideration of careful replication of the experiments referenced herein , to investigate its truthfulness , and if positive , to proceed with larger investigations . It is not a call for public use .

The warnings and risk profile by the World Health Organisation ( WHO ), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ( CDC ) and US Food & Drug Administration ( FDA ) on CL02 remains that it is a toxic chemical .

The association of CL02 with fringe groups , controversial figures labelled as pseudoscientists , unapproved products presented as “ miracle ” with reports of severe adverse outcomes , alongside Trump ’ s infamous reference on the use of disinfectants have given it a bad press - pushing any notion of the chemical to be quickly discarded as bogus , unacceptable and grouped with other fake news .

However , a recent study titled “ Determination of the Effectiveness of Oral Chlorine Dioxide in the Treatment of Covid-19 ” surfaced on March 8 , 2021 , with extraordinarily relevant claims that deserve verification and calls for further independent and transparent investigations .

The researchers claimed to have conducted a “ quasi-experimental investigation ”, which could be considered a sort of very early-stage human trial , on the use of oral water-soluble CL02 in the treatment of 20 patients with active Covid- 19 infection , compared to a control group of 20 patients not treated with CL02 .

The study claimed to have achieved 100

EMIR-SING

BY AMEEN KAMAL

per cent negative RT-PCR tests from all the cases at seven days , and observed a fast symptom reduction in patients particularly for fever , cough , dyspnea , asthenia and general pain in 70 per cent of cases seven days after treatment , 100 per cent for sore throats , and almost 80 per cent reduction of low back pain , which revealed significant improvement in patient morbidity .

This sounds almost too good to be true . Even so , the loss of dismissing a potential solution for many is more than the potential loss of proving something fake . The said human trial , listed under US ClinicalTrials . gov with the identifier NCT04343742 , appears to be the initial study needed to address the controversy and open up a potentially effective , cheaper treatment for Covid-19 .

After all , unlike proprietary vaccines , no one owns the intellectual property rights to CL02 and the production technology has long been established . Unfortunately , for unknown reasons , no results have been posted in ClinicalTrials . gov despite the expected conclusion of June 1 , 2020 .

Don ’ t brush aside potential solutions

Instead , it was published by Hilaris , in the Journal of Molecular and Genetic Medicine . The problem is credibility because Hilaris appears to be in Beall ’ s list of predatory journals .

In addition to the association with controversial organisation and figures , the experiment ’ s methodology has inherent weaknesses such as the absence of a double-blinded test ( admitted by authors ), possibly resulting in the study not being published in more mainstream channels . Nevertheless , it doesn ’ t discount the importance of the claimed findings , especially when we need all the tools to combat the pandemic .

Concerning CL02 and the treatment of Covid-19 , fact-checking websites appear to mention or allude to “ no evidence ” of such effectiveness or safety but contain no conclusive or categorical statement of otherwise .

Despite methodological weaknesses and questionable publisher credibility , brushing aside any potential solutions to a global problem without proper studies are antithetical to scientific reasoning .

Indeed , higher doses have shown to be very toxic and can cause death . Despite this , and in addition to the claimed human trials , there are past studies conducted on animals ( rats , monkeys , pigs ) using varying doses , which indicate tolerable consumption by the body in small doses .

On this note , many other chemicals are generally “ toxic ”. For example , the WHO states that “ Alcohol is a toxic and psychoactive substance with dependence producing properties ”, but the CDC specifies clear dietary guidelines for alcohol consumption .

Similar to CL02 , alcohol is also a disinfectant . Therefore , mere labelling of toxicity on a certain chemical is not as helpful as more specific details that can cause toxicity .

This is especially important if smaller controlled quantities can potentially have a therapeutic effect , where the benefits are greater than the risk – a common

stand for the approval of many drugs and vaccines . Caffein , for example , is said to be lethal at about 10 grams , but smaller doses are approved for use in various foods and beverages .

Thus , thorough studies elucidating parameters such as metabolism , pharmacokinetics , and safety of CL02 based on varying duration and concentrations are precisely what is needed .

In a 2019 paper published in the journal of Infections , Genetics and Evolution the Chinese researchers studied how CL02 could help with porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus ( PRRSV ), a significant source of economic loss to the global swine industry .

Better designing future studies

The researchers empirically linked viral inhibition by CL02 to the degradation of the PRRSV genome and proteins , confirmed CL02 potential in reducing expression of inflammatory cytokines induced by PRRSV ( pointing to symptom-reducing potential ), and concluded CL02 ’ s inhibitory properties against PRRSV infection and replication in vitro .

Most importantly , the study found no toxicity in the mammalian cells used . The successful in vitro test on PRRSV viruses acting on complex mammalian cells is a positive step towards in vivo experimentation that may pave the way to human trials , specifically for Covid-19 viruses .

CL02 is not a “ new ” chemical and it has been used as a water disinfectant , discolouration and deodorant since decades ago . Thus , older studies related to human oral consumption have been conducted and some report no toxic signs observed after oral intake of tap water containing five parts per million ( ppm ) of CL02 for 12 weeks .

Notwithstanding the WHO ’ s criticism of old studies as being limited in design and / or quality , the organisation did not dispute the results of these studies , which showed no systemic toxicity from repeated oral exposure of drinking-water administered with CL02 . However , following the criticism by WHO , future studies need to be better designed , and account for other parameters such as mutagenicity ( mutation-causing