A study came out that tried to prove that MMS cures COVID 19. It is common knowledge it does not cure, it harms. The quacks keep on trying, nonetheless. Like many quack studies, it is highly flawed and has a lot of errors. They funded their own study, there was no grants. They even cite natural news as a source in this study.
Study in a Predatory Journal and Not Peer Reviewed
This study is in an open access journal called the Journal of Molecular and Genetic Medicine. This study was not peer reviewed. This publication is no ta reputable journal. It is a predatory journal. It looks legitimate but it is not a peer reviewed medical journal. The publisher is Hilaris, which is listed as a
publisher of predatory journals.
The “Medical” Part of the Study
This study was to research the mechanism of action of chlorine dioxide on viruses by consuming MMS solution orally. They were to investigate the toxicity. This investigation was “quasi experimental.
The criteria to be considered for the study was that the PCR test for COVID 19 needed to be positive, they must be symptomatic, and be between 18-80 years of
age. They would not test people who had heart failure, people who take anticoagulants, or stage 4 or 5 renal failure. That is because MMS causes those conditions.
They tested 20 patients with active COVID 19 infections who have not been treated with MMS and only 3-7 post infection. This means that some of these infections would have been naturally resolved by the time they participated in the study.
The observation period per patient in the test group was 21 days. The observation period for the control group was 14 days. The test group received MMS and the control group received anti inflammatories, antibiotics, antihistamines, corticosteroids and supportive measures. They fail to say that antibiotics and anti histamines are ineffective against viruses. This was not a true control group. A control group was receive a placebo.
The test participants were from Boliva (14), Peru (2), and Ecuador (4). The control group was from Ecuador (8), Bolivia (7), Mexico (3) and Peru (2).
There was a control group of 20 participants. The sample group was not randomized and this sample size is very small for the “science” they want to prove. . Therefore the participants chosen could have been chosen with a bias. This study was not blinded in any way. The patients and the researchers knew who was getting the treatment. This negates the placebo effect that researchers look for and depend on when testing a drug.
The only objective COVID 19 specific test was a RT PCR test. A viral load test was not performed. This is crucial data they would be missing if this were a valid study.
The only other test was a simple blood test and they asked participants to self report vague symptoms like fever, cough, throat pain, headache, which could be or could not be related to COVID 19.
THEY DID NOT MONITOR OXYGEN SATURATION by pulse oximeter but claimed that those on MMS had better oxygen saturation. How can they claim something in a study that they did no test?
They also claim that there is a 100% effective rate in this study. There is NO STUDY that is 100%.
This is where they were supposed to have a literary review. It should not even be called that. When researching scientific information about Chlorine Dioxide, they used Google, Google Scholar, PubMed, LILACS, Cochrane Library, Science, MedScape. They searched for articles in English and Spanish. They searched for terms like “chlorine dioxide” or “chlorine dioxide protocol.”
After this they did a regular Google search. From these searches, the researchers, if you can call them that, determined what the safety and mechanism of action that chlorine dioxide takes.