HUNGARIAN: Miért működhetett volna a klór-dioxid a Covid-19 kezeléseként? – Andreas Ludwig Kalcker elhallgatott összefoglalója 2020-ból
The video is a true time capsule: it was recorded in April 2020.
At a time when the world had just been locked down, when vaccines were not yet available, and when the official narrative was still trying to understand the nature of SARS-CoV-2. Today, with the experience of the years since then behind us, the words of Andreas Ludwig Kalcker appear in a very different light.
Even back then many suspected it, and today the debate continues: there are still numerous unanswered questions surrounding the virus. It is worth pausing for a moment. Moderna filed patents years before the COVID-19 pandemic that referenced certain spike protein–related technologies used in vaccine development. For some observers this timing raises questions. Was it merely coincidence, or part of a broader chain of scientific developments that later intersected with the pandemic?
In his video, Kalcker points out that COVID-19 is not a classic pneumonia, but a systemic hypoxia. The virus does not primarily attack the lungs themselves, but the blood: it damages the structure of hemoglobin, making the blood unable to transport oxygen. This explains the “ground-glass” opacities seen on CT scans and the sudden organ failures observed in patients.
This is where chlorine dioxide (ClO₂) comes into the picture. According to Kalcker, this substance:
Selectively oxidizes the viral envelope, destabilizing it.
Acts as a secondary oxygen carrier: as a small molecule (67 g/mol), it can reach the cells even where damaged hemoglobin has already failed, and directly oxygenates the tissues.
It is thought-provoking: if the official machinery — driven by the pharmaceutical lobby and the globalist elite — had not immediately rejected chlorine dioxide, hydroxychloroquine, or ivermectin, how many lives might have been saved?
How many fewer restrictions would there have been? How much trauma could our children and the global economy have been spared? If cheap and accessible solutions had existed, panic would not have taken hold. And without panic, the crisis task forces would not have frightened the public every day like a soap-opera drama, repeating the slogan #weareallgoingtodie.
The goal, however, was precisely to maintain fear. Without panic, it would not have been possible to impose a completely untested, experimental gene technology (the mRNA “vaccines”) on humanity under emergency authorization.
Let us recall the October 29, 2019 summit in Washington, where Anthony Fauci and his colleagues spoke about exactly this:
“We cannot simply pull the plug and say that everyone should take a new vaccine that we have not yet tested on anyone… but there may arise a need to create a kind of societal excitement that allows all the rules to be overturned — something that frees us from every bureaucratic and procedural regulation.”
This “state of excitement” became COVID. A technology was introduced that had previously failed every test. And today we have reached the point where, according to the FDA, even studies are no longer required for future modified mRNA vaccines. Just “straight into the arm,” and that’s it.
While censorship was raging here, events were unfolding elsewhere. As an interesting reference, I attach the May 2020 documentation of the Ecuadorian Association of Integrative Medical Experts (AEMEMI): an experimental study that claimed chlorine dioxide to be an effective therapeutic tool against SARS-CoV-2.
Their experience was brief and straightforward: somehow everyone recovered…
The title of the study: “Chlorine Dioxide: An Effective Therapy for the Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19).”
Summary of the experimental research contained in the document
The study was conducted in Guayaquil, the most heavily affected area of Ecuador, between March 26 and April 10, 2020, in response to the overload of the conventional healthcare system.
The main objective of the investigation was to evaluate the effectiveness and toxicity (potential harmful effects) of chlorine dioxide (CDS) in patients who were COVID-19 positive or showing respiratory symptoms.
The research was a quasi-experimental observational study involving a total of 104 voluntary participants.
The sample included confirmed COVID-19 patients, individuals with suspected symptoms, and people who had been in contact with confirmed infected individuals.
The most affected age group among participants was between 30 and 50 years old. The most common initial symptoms reported by patients were dry cough, back pain, loss of smell, muscle pain, sore throat, and fever.
After receiving information about the treatment, patients followed two different chlorine dioxide (CDS) protocols depending on the severity of their condition.
“F” Protocol (Intensive/Loading dose):
20 ml of CDS dissolved in 500 ml of water, from which 65 ml was consumed every 15 minutes for 2 hours.
“C” Protocol (Maintenance dose):
10 ml of CDS dissolved in 500 ml of water, with one portion consumed every hour (a total of 8 doses per day).
Severe cases began with the “F” protocol for 2–3 days, and after improvement they switched to the “C” protocol for an additional 7 days.
The document reports the following outcomes:
Rapid symptom reduction:
In 82.2% of patients, a clear and general reduction in symptoms was observed by the 4th day of treatment.
Mild residual symptoms:
The remaining 18.8% experienced only mild lingering symptoms, such as dry cough or back pain.
Zero mortality and toxicity:
Among the 104 participants, no deaths were recorded, and no harmful side effects or toxicity related to chlorine dioxide use were reported.
The authors of the document conclude that CDS not only selectively destroys pathogens (viruses and bacteria) but may also increase oxygen availability in the body, potentially improving blood oxygen levels.
Based on their results, the AEMEMI physicians recommended introducing the protocol to health authorities, arguing that CDS could represent an extremely inexpensive, widely accessible, and—according to their observations—highly effective alternative for addressing the pandemic.
At the same time, they emphasized the need for further research, including broader and more extensive laboratory-supported studies, to evaluate the approach more comprehensively.
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.