It didn’t start with a headline. More like a fragment. A comment. Something someone said on a wellness forum, then shared again without a source. The idea? That green clay — argile verte — could treat or even prevent COVID-19. It wasn’t part of any official advice. Still, the claim began to circulate. And once it did, it didn’t entirely go away.
Mentions appeared in French-language spaces throughout 2020. The statement re-emerged several times, often reworded, often reshared, with slight variations. Some versions were casual, framed as personal tips. Others took on a more confident tone, suggesting remedies long “hidden” or ignored. Regardless of framing, the green clay COVID remedy claim gained visibility in places where alternative treatments are regularly discussed.
Origin of the Statement
There is no singular author tied to the green clay COVID remedy narrative. It seemed to emerge collectively, mid-2020, during a period of intense online speculation about natural immunity. The earliest archived instance connected to the French site Journalistes Solidaires appears in September 2020, but the language indicates it had already been circulating.
The post didn’t frame green clay as just another wellness trend or daily supplement. It went further — calling it a remède. Not casually, either. In French, that word walks a fine line: part home tradition, part medical hope. The meaning hung there, unanchored. The claim suggested viral relief, though how — or why — was never quite pinned down. There were no case studies, no structured protocols. Just language that leaned on intuition and experience, not science.
It’s worth noting that similar claims around clay treatments had circulated before COVID. The difference here was timing — and the virus’s global reach.
Content of the Claim
The idea wasn’t exactly new — but the context gave it weight. Green clay, some said, could help the body cope with COVID. How? That depended on who was talking. Some spoke of drinking it. Others used compresses. A few hinted at more experimental uses, though never with much detail. It was less instruction, more suggestion.
In some versions, clay “pulled” toxins out. In others, it “neutralized” something unseen. The terms shifted. One person called it “ancestral logic,” another “medicine from before medicine.” There was no list, no protocol. Just rhythm — and memory.
The metaphors did most of the work. Green clay became a sponge. A listener. Something that didn’t fix, but responded. And that response — whatever it meant — was enough for many to try.
Nothing in these descriptions drew from science directly. But that wasn’t the point. The language didn’t aim to explain — only to resonate.
Dissemination Timeline and Channels
The first visible waves of the claim coincided with France’s second national lockdown in autumn 2020. Facebook groups focused on natural healing saw spikes in discussion. Posts were most active late at night or on weekends, when users seemed to scroll longer and share more freely.
Telegram channels also played a role. Screenshots of green clay recipes, written on paper or photographed beside jars, were forwarded without attribution. Some included links to video testimonials, though few remained online for long. The tone in these spaces leaned informal. Nothing declarative. Just “this helped me” and “worth trying.”
Patterns repeated. A sudden spike. A lull. Then the same claim, framed slightly differently, surfaced again. Not louder — just elsewhere.
No Medical Endorsement or Scientific Support
Green clay was never included in any formal COVID treatment protocols in France. The Ministère de la Santé didn’t reference it. Nor did national medical agencies. If anything, public health professionals advised distance — not rejection, but caution. The kind that comes when information spreads faster than confirmation.
In research literature, green clay appears mostly in relation to skin use or digestive aid — and even there, under narrow conditions. Viral treatment? There’s no scientific backing. None of the posts circulating in 2020 linked to studies. No footnotes. Just voices — layered, sometimes confident, sometimes vague.
Still, the claim didn’t vanish. It moved differently. Not with authority, but with familiarity. For some, that was enough. In moments when structure fell short — or felt too slow — repetition filled the space. Not to persuade, exactly. More to stay close. And that proximity, over time, began to feel like something else —
Not proof, perhaps. But presence.
Comments are closed