The first article was an academic publication. This is a news story on a scammer from 4 years ago. It says nothing about the efficacy of the technology from the previous one.
No, the first url is a chapter from some guys book. He reviews dog experiments done in the 1940s.
Call me when he's finished a double blind trial with a significant number and cross section of participants. Until then, it's all just people clutching at straws (just like yesterday's smoking study or last week's Chloroquine study).
On the other hand just because charlatans sell something doesn't mean that it doesn't work - there are crooks selling masks, fake COVID-19 infection and antibody tests. Theranos were crooks, but there is a whole bunch of companies who are presumably for real selling similar stuff
https://www.medicalstartups.org/top/bloodtest/
I think you might reconsider this comment if you look up what others mean when they say "charlatan" and also what Theranos did wrong.
Many businesses sell a mix of proven products and snake oil (homeopathic meds mixed into real ones, for example). That doesn't make them charlatans, although the sellers of those homeopathic remedies might be.
Inventing or promoting an ineffective product with the knowledge that it's ineffective is what makes someone a charlatan. The people selling these ineffective Covid-19 remedies are only charlatans because they're selling bad remedies. If they weren't, the label wouldn't fit.
I think you may have accidentally put the cart before the horse here.
Did you submit this after seeing this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22968075
Either way, good article with timely content, upvoted!