Chlorine dioxide: the patient’s lawyer did not rule out any hypotheses

Martin Sarubbi

Sarubbi includes a third possibility that until now was not considered in the case and that has to do with the extraction of the nasogastric tube, something that had caused an appeal for protection to reverse that decision of the Otamendi sanatorium.

Finally, faced with the questioning about the use of chlorine dioxide, García Rúa’s lawyer commented that it is a treatment that is not prohibited and that they, as a defense, do not rule out any medical practice, “This assessment should be done by justice, it is not authorized, but it is not prohibited, the other thing is that there was a judicial order and having a judicial order the medical body had no other option but to comply with it.

It is worth remembering that ANMAT was blunt about the case: “Due to the circulation of information on social networks and digital media related to the use of chlorine dioxide for the treatment of COVID-19 or other diseases, it is recalled that the mentioned product It does not have studies that demonstrate its effectiveness and it does not have any authorization from this body for its commercialization and use ”.

Share on facebook
Share on pinterest
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on email


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.