#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]).
#211 ¿Y qué concluyes de eso? ¿Cómo aplicarías eso para eliminar la infección dentro del cuerpo? ¿Cual es la ruta del ClO2 en la sangre? Unas veces hablamos de en aire y otras disuelto. Aclarate cual de ellos es el bueno.
Creo que en uno de los enlaces anteriores salía en los productos en los que se iba transformando al reaccionar tanto ingerido como inyectado.
#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.
#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
#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.
#209 ¿Todavía estás con esas? Espero que al menos estés aprendiendo algo.
Repito: los virus están dentro de las células, hay que matar esas células o impedir la replicación de esos virus.
https://gacetamedica.com/investigacion/covid-19-un-antiviral-en-investigacion-muestra-su-eficacia-en-celulas-pulmonares-humanas/
Ese texto que me pones tampoco habla de cómo va a conseguir eso. Hace unas suposiciones acerca de cuánto ClO2 puede ser respirado sin daños, y dice:
We suggest that animal experiments should be performed to obtain experimental values for
the pulmonary toxicity of ClO2
O sea, que tampoco demuestra nada.
Es cómo lo del estudio en ratones que hablaban de eliminar el virus del aire con ClO2, pero no hablaba de curarlos en ningún momento.
Por otra parte:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3818415/#!po=35.4167
#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]).
#211 ¿Y qué concluyes de eso? ¿Cómo aplicarías eso para eliminar la infección dentro del cuerpo? ¿Cual es la ruta del ClO2 en la sangre? Unas veces hablamos de en aire y otras disuelto. Aclarate cual de ellos es el bueno.
Creo que en uno de los enlaces anteriores salía en los productos en los que se iba transformando al reaccionar tanto ingerido como inyectado.
#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.
#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
#206 me encanta la ciencia
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.
papers relacionados
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3717754/#!po=0.806452 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2869126/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3818415/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3187125/
Este de Sars cov 1
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7112909/
#164 este artículo habla del hipoclorito sódico no del dióxido de cloro.