#149 aqui tienes material para apoyartehttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/340247214_Can_chlorine_dioxide_prevent_the_spreading_of_coronavirus_or_other_viral_infections_Medical_hypotheses
#139 en serio? No te mandan papers científicos explicándote el mecanismo de inactivacion selectiva y los mecanismos biologicos de protección de la célula viva?
#211 The effect of ClO
2
on the lung
While human tissues are not very sensitive to ClO
2
in general, lungs should be considered
differently. This is because the interalveolar septum separating the airspace of an alveolus from
the blood stream of a capillary lumen is very thin. That diffusion barrier in the human lung is a
mere 2
m
m thick [1] in order to facilitate an efficient diffusional exchange of oxygen and carbon
dioxide between the air and blood. The alveolus is covered by a thin layer of lining fluid called
epithelial lung lining fluid (ELF) or hypophase. The ELF is only 0.2
m
m thick in rat alveoli [1,
13]. It contains glutathione [3] and other antioxidants such as ascorbic and uric acids [5]. It is
remarkable, that the ascorbic acid concentration is 2.5 times, and the glutathione concentration
is more than 100 times higher in the ELF than in the plasma. The normal function of these non-
enzymatic antioxidants in the ELF is to protect the epithelial cells from reactive oxygen species
(ROS) like superoxide radicals or hydrogen peroxide, which are toxic products of the meta-
bolism. They can also defend the lung against other toxic gases such as ozone (O
3
), nitrogen
dioxide (NO
2
) or ClO
2
#213 Disinfection of the mouth and the upper respiratory track with gargling. The current epidemic
coronavirus is known to be present in the mouth and both in the upper and lower respiratory tract,
but causes severe infections only in the lower respiratory tract, especially in the lung. The incu-
bation period of the disease is several days, but the virus can often be detected in samples taken
from the upper respiratory tract a few days before symptoms appear. As discussed in a previous
chapter, chlorine dioxide will certainly inactivate the virus. With gargling, the upper respiratory
tract is accessible except for the nasal cavity, but that is also accessible using e.g. nose drops or
impregnated tampons. These parts can be disinfected by rinsing them regularly with high-purity
chlorine dioxide solutions available commercially [31], thus the number of the viruses can be
significantly reduced in the mouth and in the upper respiratory tract. We cannot be sure that such a
treatment would be enough to prevent the development of the illness, as viruses living in other parts
of the body can survive. However, inactivating part of the viruses with such a treatment surely helps
theimmunesystemtofight against the disease.
#21 The protective role of glutathione against ClO
2
oxidation in a living cell
According to Ison et al. [12] glutathione reacts with ClO
2
at a rate, which is even higher than the
rate of the very fast ClO
2
–cysteine reaction. When ClO
2
contacts a living cell containing
glutathione, at first the ClO
2
concentration remains very low even at the point of entry into the
cell due to this rapid reaction. As a small molecule, glutathione can also diffuse rapidly to the
point of entry from other parts of the cell consuming most of the ClO
2
there, and preventing it
from reaching the cysteine, tyrosine, and tryptophan residues of the proteins in the bulk of the
cytoplasm. Consequently, the initial low ClO
2
concentration cannot make harm.
#210 Potection of human tissues against the oxidative effect of ClO
2
Human cells also contain glutathione in mM concentrations, as well as other antioxidants like
vitamin C and E, which work together with glutathione to reduce ClO
2
[7]. As a human cell is
much larger than a bacterium, consequently its glutathione reserve and glutathione production
potential are also greater, so even an isolated human cell can survive much longer in a ClO
2
environment than a planktonic bacterium. Considering that human cells are not isolated but
form tissues, their glutathione stock may be many orders of magnitude greater than that of a
planktonic bacterium. Additionally, in multicellular organisms circulation transports antioxi-
dants continuously to the cells of the tissue affected by a ClO
2
attack, helping them to survive.
This strengthens the size-selectivity effect, and explains the surprising observation [15] that
ClO
2
solutions that are able to kill planktonic bacteria in a fraction of a second may be
consumed, because they are safe for humans to drink in a small amount (e.g., drinking 1 L of 24
mg/L ClO
2
solution in two portions on a single day caused no observable effects in humans
[15]).
#201 Disinfection of the lower respiratory track.
The first problem is how ClO
2
can be safely
introduced into the lower respiratory tract. For this purpose any inhalation technique could be
applied using aerosols of water droplets containing ClO
2
[14].
The second and more important problem is how much ClO
2
can be inhaled without damaging
the lung? It would be helpful to know the dose of ClO
2
that is not yet harmful for the lung. To our
knowledge such direct data are not available in the literature, but can be calculated from other
data. The starting point for such a calculation is the OSHA STEL value [30], according to which
0.30 ppm ClO
2
in the workplace atmosphere is tolerable for a 15 min period without any damage.
The volume of air inhaled by a worker during 15 min is 15 times the so-called “minute volume
ventilation”[32]. According to Table 3 of ref. [32], during light activities e.g., when sitting in a car
the minute volume is around 12 L, thus the total inhaled air is about 180 L. In the case of 0.30 ppm
concentration the total inhaled amount of ClO
2
is 54
m
L, which is (at 20 8C) 2.25
m
mol ≈0.15 mg
ClO
2
. Assuming a more vigorous activity it can be two times more, 0.30 mg.
This rough calculation indicates that approximately this is the amount of ClO
2
,whichcanbe
tolerated by the lung. The OSHA limit probably applied high safety factors, thus the real limit should be
higher.
We suggest that animal experiments should be performed to obtain experimental values for
the pulmonary toxicity of ClO
2
. Furthermore, it would be important to check in additional
animal experiments, whether ClO
2
applied in a nontoxic amount is able to treat infections of the
lung caused by bacteria or viruses.
Disinfection of the lower respiratory track. The first problem is how ClO
2 can be safely introduced into the lower respiratory tract. For this purpose any inhalation technique could be applied using aerosols of water droplets containing ClO
2
[14].
The second and more important problem is how much ClO
2
can be inhaled without damaging
the lung? It would be helpful to know the dose of ClO
2
that is not yet harmful for the lung. To our
knowledge such direct data are not available in the literature, but can be calculated from other
data. The starting point for such a calculation is the OSHA STEL value [30], according to which
0.30 ppm ClO
2
in the workplace atmosphere is tolerable for a 15 min period without any damage.
The volume of air inhaled by a worker during 15 min is 15 times the so-called “minute volume
ventilation”[32]. According to Table 3 of ref. [32], during light activities e.g., when sitting in a car
the minute volume is around 12 L, thus the total inhaled air is about 180 L. In the case of 0.30 ppm
concentration the total inhaled amount of ClO
2
is 54
m
L, which is (at 20 8C) 2.25
m
mol ≈0.15 mg
ClO
2
. Assuming a more vigorous activity it can be two times more, 0.30 mg.
This rough calculation indicates that approximately this is the amount of ClO
2
,whichcanbe
tolerated by the lung. The OSHA limit probably applied high safety factors, thus the real limit should be
higher.
We suggest that animal experiments should be performed to obtain experimental values for
the pulmonary toxicity of ClO
2
. Furthermore, it would be important to check in additional
animal experiments, whether ClO
2
applied in a nontoxic amount is able to treat infections of the
lung caused by bacteria or virus.
#201 los mecanismos de inactivacion selectiva estan detalladamente descritos en el paper de la universidad de Hungria que te mandé, veo que o no te lo has leído o no lo entiendes. Pero es normal, es de tercero de biologia..tiene que ver con los aminoacidos sobre los que actua el CDS selectivamente en la capsula del virus y de los aa 's que protegen a la celula www.researchgate.net/publication/340247214_Can_chlorine_dioxide_preven
#199 pues que seria seguro tomarlo inhalado o nebulizado para tratar la infección pulmonar o interrumpir el desarrollo de la infección en las vias aéreas en los dias de incubación. Incluso es seguro como enjuague bucal www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2831889/
CD gas up to 0.1 ppm, exceeding the level effective against microbes, exposed to whole body in rats continuously for six months was not toxic, under a condition simulating the conventional lifestyle in human.
#187 no hay negocio en una sal mineral barata no patentable. Lo puede haber en el nombre Mms. Pero el clorito sodico es muy barato de obtener. No te he comprado con Hitler, si no con sus metodos cientificos inviables hoy dia..aunque uno de ellos , un científico judío protegido por Hitler Otto Warburn fue el que descubrió el poder oxidativo del CDs frente a tumores y el que desarrollo el tema de la importancia de la alcalinidad en el tratamiento del cáncer. Fue el inicio de la Dieta alcalina y abrió los cauces de la Nueva Medicina Germánica. Aunque puedes hacer eso que dices de pin pan bloqueado...tu mismo. Ante los papers científicos que comparto ninguno es válido para ti pero me da igual. Mi intención no es intentar convencerte si no refutarte con tus propios argumentos. La Ciencia. A ver si tienes algo en contra también de este último paper. El gas dióxido de cloro ya se esta usando para desinfectar espacios y superficies sin dejar olor ni residuos y eso es innegable.
#185 no se puede en la situación actual tener un grupo control de infectados sin tratar que no les importe morir..... te das cuenta de lo imposible, inmoral e inhumano de lo que pides? No se puede ver a los emfermos como ratas..A lo mejor los científicos de hitler harían lo que pides...mientras tanto, claro que va a haber conflicto de intereses...pero la sustancia en cuestion no es una fórmula propiedad de nadie..es copyleft...por lo que no hay negocio farmacológico ni interés economico. dioxidodecloro.wiki/Budapest_University_CLO2.pdf
#173 juanyho 
www.researchgate.net/publication/340247214_Can_chlorine_dioxide_preven 