Regarding my statement "I don't know of any compounds that have such a broad spectrum of activity against pathogens in vivo," I guess I should have gone into detail to explain my thinking. I was specifically talking about the subset of molecules that are safe to administer to humans. I'm not saying that a single compound cannot be a disinfectant. The existance of lysol proves that point. Same with ethylene oxide, formaldehyde, and a whole range of other chemicals.. If a chemical can denature lipids and proteins strongly enough, or disrupt lipids or membrane, then it will be a disinfectant. But none of those compounds are safe to take, and none of them have chemical properties like 2-oxo-PCM and ketamine.
But that issue is really a distraction. I brought it up because arylcyclohexylamines have been tested for tox and in humans in hundreds of trials, and several examples are routinely used in human and vet medicine. No one has ever noticed such broad-spectrum antimicrobial activity. It would be very suprising to find that a member of the class has such different activity. Not impossible of course. But everyone should be skeptical of such a report without air tight evidence. Yes, there was one paper showing that ketamine can inhibit the growth of some strains of bacteria, but that is a far cry from having action against virusus and other classes of pathogens.
In any event, the latter point has no bearing on the action of 2'-oxo-PCM. I really can't believe that there are people with a grounding in science who would believe claims without wanting to see evidence. Even worse, these claims are being made by inventors who have an obvious conflict of interest. Doesn't that make you a wee bit more disinclined to take their claims at face value? The bare minimum standard for showing evidence of efficacy would be for the inventors to conduct a controlled experiment, either in vitro or in vivo (preferably both), to show activity.