The History Of Chlorine Dioxide

I believe that my writings on chlorine dioxide are the most important (and the most dangerous) work I have yet done on Substack. Although several experts have written extensively on this topic previously ( here , here, and here) , this similar effort of mine simply results from my wish to become as knowledgeable as possible about this critically important therapeutic (there is no better way to do so than personally researching and writing about a topic).
 This is the 3rd in my ongoing series of posts. In the first two I presented the political context in which chlorine dioxide has been attacked during Covid (“ Trump’s Bleach Conference ”) and in the 2nd post I detailed the success achieved by Bolivia’s national chlorine dioxide program against Covid.
 In this post I will review its discovery, chemical properties, industrial applications, and therapeutic mechanisms. Upcoming posts will cover the history of the attacks faced by the pioneering researchers and practitioners, followed by a review of the safety studies of oral ingestion and a compilation of studies showing efficacy in a number of diseases. Be sure to subscribe so as not to miss out on these critical upcoming posts.
 Subscribe now
 Ultimately, what me and my growing network of clinical and scientific experts of this therapeutic compound want to achieve, is for the FDA (and the copycat regulatory agencies worldwide) to lift its restrictions on performing clinical research trials of chlorine dioxide in human diseases . If anyone from MAHA is reading this right now (and I know some are), please add chlorine dioxide (and DMSO) to the list of therapies currently being suppressed by the FDA that need to be reversed (RFK Jr listed more than a dozen other such therapies in the below recent tweet):

 Note that, in the below, many (but not all) references were found from the superlative theuniversalantidote.com’s website, from their “ interactive reference guidebook ” document.
 Chlorine Dioxide - What It is, What It Isn’t
 Chlorine Dioxide is a small, volatile and strong molecule consisting of 1 chlorine atom and 2 oxygen atoms.
 It is a gas at normal temperatures and pressures.

 Yellowish/green color and has an odor similar to that of chlorine.

 Denser than air and is water soluble at standard temperatures and pressures up to 2500ppm.

 Explosive in air at concentrations >10%. It is therefore normally generated in-situ (on-site) within an aqueous solution at <0.3%

 Chlorine dioxide is a biocide. This means it kills all bacteria, viruses, and fungus on contact through a process of oxidization.

 Chlorine dioxide was initially discovered in 1814 by Sir Humphrey Davy and was commercially produced in 1940 as a bleaching agent. It is labeled as a strong oxidizing agent, microbicide, and antiseptic. Based on these references here and here , chlorine dioxide is also known to have the ability to “neutralize various toxins, pesticides, herbicides, and pharmaceuticals contaminating drinking water.”
 As an added bonus, it can do all of that without producing any harmful organic compounds as occurs with nearly all other disinfectants (like bleach - which contrary to FDA “warnings,” chlorine dioxide certainly is not).
 Chlorine dioxide is more effective as a disinfectant than chlorine in most circumstances against waterborne pathogenic agents such as viruses , bacteria, and protozoa – including the cysts of Giardia and the oocysts of Cryptosporidium .
 Chlorine dioxide has been extensively studied within multiple fields (commercial, industrial, healthcare) and by multiple entities including: EPA, HHS, USDA, CDC, NIH, NASA, DOD, independent laboratories, and universities worldwide.
 Chlorine dioxide is registered as a sterilizer and biocide and is used to sterilize medical facilities and laboratories including BSL-3 and BSL-4 labs which handle the world's most deadly pathogens. It was used to decontaminate the Senate offices in 2001 after the anthrax attack, and was also used in Ebola hot spots .
 From this systematic review paper on chlorine dioxide as a disinfectant:
 Different chemical structures with properties of disinfectants have been identified. These chemical structures include alcohol, aldehydes, anilides, biguanides, bisphenols, diamidines, halogen-releasing agents, halophenols, heavy metal derivatives, peroxygens, quaternary ammonium compounds, phenols, and cresols. However, each disinfectant attacks different target areas of the micro-organisms. Disinfectants can be divided into two broad groups: oxidizing and non-oxidizing disinfectants . Disinfectants containing halogens such as chlorine, iodine, and oxygen releasing materials are called oxidizing disinfectants , while disinfectants that bond to structures such as quaternary ammonium compounds and amphoterics are known as non-oxidizing disinfectants.
 Oxidizing agents like chlorine dioxide are chemical compounds that accept electrons from “electron donors.” This is important because relative to chlorine dioxide, all pathogens (disease causing organisms or substances) are electron donors.
 So what happens to chlorine dioxide after it reacts and oxidizes the pathogens? In aqueous systems, chlorine dioxide eventually decomposes into generally safe byproducts that naturally occur in our environment, i.e. chloride ions (like in table salt), oxygen (O₂), and other non-toxic residues.
 From Chat GPT when asked to contrast chlorine dioxide with bleach :
 Chlorine dioxide and bleach (sodium hypochlorite) are both powerful oxidizing agents commonly used as disinfectants, but they differ significantly in their chemical structure, mechanism of action, and applications. Here's how they compare:
 1. Chemical Composition
 Chlorine Dioxide (ClO₂): A gas at room temperature, typically dissolved in water for use. It is a single molecule composed of one chlorine atom and two oxygen atoms.

 Bleach (Sodium Hypochlorite, NaOCl): A liquid solution containing sodium hypochlorite as the active ingredient, along with water and small amounts of other chemicals.

 2. Mechanism of Action
 Chlorine Dioxide: Kills microorganisms by disrupting their metabolic processes and breaking down cell membranes and proteins. It primarily reacts with organic matter through oxidation.

 Bleach: Also acts as an oxidizer, generating hypochlorous acid (HOCl) in water, which destroys bacteria and viruses by disrupting their enzymes and proteins.

 3. By-products
 Chlorine Dioxide: Produces fewer harmful by-products , primarily chlorite and chlorate ions (initially), which are less persistent in water systems compared to bleach by-products.

 Bleach: Can produce potentially harmful chlorinated organic compounds (e.g., trihalomethanes and chloramines), especially when reacting with organic matter in water. ( Editorial note: this is extremely important, trihalomethanes are suspected carcinogenic disinfection by-products [ associated with chlorination of naturally occurring organics in raw water .

 4. Effectiveness
 Chlorine Dioxide: Remains effective over a wide pH range (4–10) and is less affected by the presence of organic matter, making it suitable for challenging disinfection tasks.

 Bleach: Its efficacy decreases significantly outside a pH range of 6–8 and in the presence of organic matter.

 5. Applications
 Chlorine Dioxide:
 Water treatment (municipal, industrial, and potable water systems).

 Food and beverage sanitation.

 Medical disinfection and biofilm removal.

 Bleach:
 Household cleaning and laundry.

 Pool and spa disinfection.

 Surface disinfection in healthcare and other settings.

 6. Safety and Stability
 Chlorine Dioxide: Typically generated on-site because it is unstable as a concentrated gas and can decompose explosively. However, it is considered safer for certain applications due to fewer toxic by-products.

 Bleach: Stable in liquid form but degrades over time, particularly when exposed to light and heat. It has a strong, recognizable smell and can be irritating to skin and respiratory systems.

 7. Odor and Residue
 Chlorine Dioxide: Has a less pronounced odor and does not leave a strong chemical residue or taste in treated water.

 Bleach: Has a strong chlorine smell and can leave noticeable chemical residues.

 Summary:
 While both are effective disinfectants, chlorine dioxide is often preferred for applications requiring minimal by-products and effectiveness in diverse conditions, whereas bleach is more common for general-purpose household and industrial disinfection.
 TIMELINE OF ITS ADOPTION ACROSS INDUSTRIES
 Taken from pioneer Jim Humble’s website , here I provide a short paraphrased history of its use in industry where I also dug up the references:
 1811: Chlorine dioxide is discovered by Sir Humphrey Davy, when he adds sulfuric acid (H2SO4) to potassium chlorate (KClO3). In the early 1900’s it was recognized as an antimicrobial biocide and became known for its disinfectant properties.
 1930’s: Due to concerns about the logistics of safely transporting the gas, sodium chlorite began to be manufactured as a relatively safe precursor chemical , and the industries using chlorine dioxide would then generate the gas onsite as needed . Because of chlorine dioxide’s solubility in water, it starts being used as a water treatment.
 1944: First commercial application . Used as a biocide/taste and odor control agent in domestic water at Niagara Falls in the USA.
 1950’s: Increasing use of chlorine dioxide in water treatment plants and swimming pools in the U.S.A. Likewise it is discovered that chlorine dioxide destroys biofilm , the algal slime that collects in cooling towers, among other places and harbors harmful bacteria. Chlorine bleach by contrast cannot kill biofilm .
 1956: Brussels, Belgium, switches to chlorine dioxide from chlorine for its drinking water disinfection operations. This marks the first large scale use of chlorine dioxide for potable water treatment.
 1967: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of the United States first registers chlorine dioxide as a disinfectant and sanitizer . The registration is for chlorine dioxide in the liquid form. Indicated uses include food processing (!), handling and storage plants, bottling plants, washing fruit and vegetables (!), sanitizing water, controlling odors, and treating medical wastes.
 1970’s: The EPA begins recommending using chlorine dioxide instead of chlorine bleach to treat water . Hundreds of municipal water systems successfully convert to chlorine dioxide. This happens across the United States and Europe; more so for the latter. The conversion is catalyzed by a safer environmental profile of chlorine dioxide over chlorine, because chlorine dioxide does not produce any harmful byproducts , as does chlorine bleach.
 1977: Three thousand municipal water systems achieve biological control using chlorine dioxide ( EPA document here )
 1980’s: Chlorine dioxide gradually replaces chlorine in many industries – in the pulp and paper industry as a bleaching agent, in industrial water treatment as a biocide and as an odor control agent, in food processing as a sanitizer.
 1983: The EPA recommends chlorine dioxide as a solution for the problem of trihalomethanes (THMs) . When chlorine is used to disinfect water and make it potable (chlorination), THMs are produced as a by-product . THMs have been linked to cancer (i.e., they are carcinogenic). Chlorine dioxide does not produce THMs .
 1988: The EPA registers chlorine dioxide as a sterilizer . This means chlorine dioxide is both safe and effective to use in hospitals, healthcare facilities, and laboratories.
 1990: Use of chlorine dioxide as a disinfectant, sanitizer and sterilizer grows across many industries and countries. Some of the industries are the beverage industry , fruit and vegetable processing plants , pulp and paper industries, and industrial waste treatment sites. These industries are spread across the United States, the United Kingdom and Europe.
 2001: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and other government agencies use chlorine dioxide to decontaminate buildings contaminated with Anthrax . The chlorine dioxide was completely effective against the tiny Anthrax spores. The buildings, walls and furnishings suffered no damage from the treatment.
 2005: FEMA again uses chlorine dioxide. It is used to eradicate mold infestations in homes damaged by the flood waters from Hurricane Katrina. After a 12-hour treatment, a New Orleans restaurant is able to banish all mold inside without rebuilding.
 2010: The United States Food and Drug Administration issue a warning on using the chlorine dioxide formulation called Miracle Mineral Solution (MMS - made by combining sodium chlorite with hydrochloric acid) and pioneered by Jim Humble in his numerous treatment protocols. The FDA repeatedly describes it as industrial bleach while at the same time approving chlorine dioxide for use in mouthwashes, toothpastes, and as a food service disinfectant, citing it as being a better alternative than chlorine.
 2014: The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) registers ProKure V and PERFORMACIDE® as disinfectants against the Ebola virus . Both contain chlorine dioxide. ProKure V claims it “begins to kill pathogens in a matter of seconds, whereas other commonly used, more traditional disinfectants take minutes. The rapid speed in which ProKure V kills pathogens makes it a product of choice for helping contain infectious-disease outbreaks and keeping public facilities cleaner and safer for everyone.” Chlorine dioxide is a potent virucide.”
 EFFICACY AND SAFETY AS A BIOCIDE
 Chlorine dioxide is one of, if not the fastest known and “complete spectrum” disinfectants, killing all forms of bacteria (aerobic, anaerobic, gram positive and negative), viruses, fungi and yeast, typically within a minute of contact, (spores a little longer), and notably without damage to animal cells, or even tissue culture cells .
 In this mouse study (know that mice are more sensitive than humans to toxicities for many but not all compounds), they found that at concentrations between 5 and 20 ppm (this concentration becomes highly relevant in a later post when I discuss safety of oral treatment dose concentrations), chlorine dioxide killed almost all of the bacteria and fungi present while no damage to lung cells, eyes, or other organs was observed, even when 40ppm was added to their drinking water sub-chronically. The study concluded “chlorine dioxide showed favorable disinfection activity and a higher safety profile tendency than in previous reports.”
 This is a very short list of papers showing in vitro and/or in vivo (animals) efficacy against a number of viruses and bacteria (more on this in a later post).
 Typhoid , Norovirus , Hepatitis C virus , HPV , HIV , Influenza A Virus , E.Coli , Listeria , Rotavirus , Mycobacterium Avium , Hepatitis A Virus , staph aureus , also hospital pathogens like Acinetobacter baumannii, Escherichia coli, Enterococcus faecalis, Mycobacterium smegmatis, and Staphylococcus aureus .
 Moving away from in vitro data in order to show that it can cure infectious disease in animals (in vivo study), in a randomized controlled trial from 2008 they exposed 10 mice to aerosolized influenza A and aerosolized chlorine dioxide at (0.03 ppm) simultaneously for 15 minutes. A control group of 10 mice were exposed to only the aerosolized influenza A for 15 minutes. Sixteen days after exposure, none of the mice exposed to the chlorine dioxide influenza A group had died, but 7 out of 10 mice in the influenza only control group died. That is a 70% fatality for the mice that did not receive aerosolized chlorine dioxide . Did you catch that? Extremely low doses of chlorine dioxide protected 100% of those mice from influenza.
 Moving past in vitro and in vivo trials, in a later post I will review the efficacy of chlorine dioxide in the treatment of infectious and other diseases in humans. There I will provide a compilation of all published human clinical trials and studies (which are artificially few due to the suppression of clinical research using chlorine dioxide.
 A comprehensive list of all organisms it has been studied and shown efficacy against is beyond the scope of this post, however, know that in a 2010 study , concentrations ranging from 1 to 100 ppm inactivated ≥ 99.9% of the viruses with a 15 sec treatment. The antiviral activity of CD was approximately 10 times higher than that of sodium hypochlorite which is standard bleach.
 NASA actually referred to chlorine dioxide as “A Universal Antidote” back in 1988 (p.118 from this Annual Report ), where these statements appear:
 The special properties of the Alcidem formulation, which has been approved by U.S. regulatory authorities, enable it to destroy mold and fungus, as well as bacteria and viruses, with minimal harm to humans , animals or plants

 NERAC conducted a computer search of more than a dozen databases and uncovered scores of applications , among them treatment of viral, fungal and bacterial infections in animals ; treatment of human skin diseases ; disinfection and sterilization of medical facilities;

 The University of Connecticut Medical School is studying the effects of the Alcide compound on human wound healing and scar tissue suppression.

 At Israel's Hebrew University Dental School, trials are in progress on a plaque reducing mouthwash and in England researchers are meeting success in human clinical trials of treating herpes and other sexually transmitted diseases.

 I cannot over emphasize the importance of the above NASA document from 1988. In it, they admit that it treats a broad range of infections in animals, aids in wound healing (I have a lot on that later), and was having success in treating herpes and other STD’s. Never forget this when you read statements from regulatory agencies across the world where they repeatedly warn that it is a “toxic bleach,” “bleach like substance,” and is “dangerous for ingestion.” Absurd.
 Also take note of the fact that NASA never refers to it again in such a positive way. The next mention by NASA was in 1991 when referring to its use in the space shuttle where they caution of the risk of developing hemolytic anemia and disturbing thyroid function (such risks are negligible to non-existent in clinical practice).
 Overall, studies and treatment experiences reveal that treatment with chlorine dioxide:
 is broadly antimicrobial against nearly all infectious pathogens

 reduces inflammation

 prevents scarring

 aids in wound healing

 is non-toxic when orally ingested (in appropriate concentrations)

 reduces oral plaque

 treats oral atrophic candidiasis

 is a potent deodorizer

 has in-vitro anti-cancer cell effects , stimulates an in-vivo anti-cancer cell immune response and is also effective when injected intra-tumorally , or via a combination of oral, enema, and IV administration.

 This combination of properties is not found in any other compound. The therapeutic uses for chlorine dioxide are endless . And therein lies the problem. Stay tuned for my upcoming post which compiles the studies and trials in a diverse set of human diseases.

 ** Please know that I am not recommending that anyone use chlorine dioxide orally given it is not FDA approved for oral ingestion in any medical condition, nor has it been approved by any foreign regulatory agency, nor is it classified as a food supplement. What I am trying to do is amass the critical information needed to petition the “new” FDA (and other regulatory agencies worldwide) to remove their restriction on performing human subjects research with orally ingested chlorine dioxide.
 Subscribe now
 If this post whet your appetite for learning more about chlorine dioxide and you appreciate the time and effort I put into researching and writing my posts, please consider a paid subscription. My next posts will contain more detailed and referenced information on the safety and efficacy of oral, topical, and IV administration

 .

Summary: Chlorine dioxide was discovered over 200 years ago. It's use has steadily expanded into many industries and therapeutic applications despite a near global regulatory blockade on clinical research.


Bolivia's Use Of Chlorine Dioxide Led To The Best Outcomes In South America

In my first post in this series, I introduced the topic of chlorine dioxide as a therapeutic within its “political” context, not scientific. After a cursory introduction regarding its safety along with a few citations of its efficacy, I highlighted the regulatory, media, and judicial attacks against any who manufacture, recommend and/or sell chlorine dioxide for medicinal purposes via oral ingestion.
 A key point I brought attention to is the bizarre prohibition against “oral ingestion” that “they” are trying to block at all costs (despite studies of both oral and IV administration showing little to no toxicity and the fact that there are numerous products already on the market for oral and/or dental applications).
 In this post, I will share what I recently learned of what happened in Bolivia around chlorine dioxide. I think it is a story the world needs to hear. Again, these are the first of a series of posts on chlorine dioxide with later ones going more deeply into the data on safety and efficacy fas well as treatment approaches for various conditions. If you don’t want to miss the rest of the series, I suggest you subscribe now:
 Subscribe now
 THE BOLIVIAN EXPERIENCE
 The most notable event around chlorine dioxide in Bolivia was when a group of parliamentarians managed (somehow) to pass a law which allowed for the manufacture and distribution (and use) of chlorine dioxide in Bolivia on October 14, 2020:

 Although this was a national law, one of the largest of the 9 departments in Bolivia, that of La Paz, had already passed a similar version on Sept 9, 2020:

 However, before these laws were passed in Bolivia, media attacks on the legislators responsible already began in June 2020. This one is a doozy:

 “A chemical discredited to exhaustion by the world scientific community.” You can say that again.
 To give what the Bolivians did some additional context, know that other South American countries also attempted such legislative efforts: a similar petition action was taken by Brazil’s chamber of deputies a year after Bolivia, but the law was quickly rescinded after the president changed from Bolsonaro (right) to Lula (left) - i.e. the latter’s administration quickly ended the petition:

 And then in Peru, a group of parliamentarians passed a resolution to “study its use” in Covid (49 parliamentarians to be exact). However, as this newspaper article outlines, the fight over the resolution and over chlorine dioxide was both highly political and either willfully or negligently misinformed by the health authorities in opposition. To wit, this is the concluding paragraph of the article:
 “The issue is how to investigate a substance harmful to humans. I do not believe that any ethics committee in Peru approves such an investigation. Who is going to want to enroll in a study where informed consent tells you that it can cause heart arrhythmia, liver failure and you can die ? ”, asks, laughing, the doctor.
 Also know that in Peru in June 2020, the Chief of the Covid Command in Ayacucho, a region of 100,000 people, was dismissed for treating patients with chlorine dioxide:

 A similar pro-chlorine dioxide petition effort also took place in Paraguay’s Chamber of Deputies. Below is a screenshot of the title and cover page followed by a ChatGPT translated summary:

 1. Scientific Findings and Arguments
 The document discusses the potential uses of chlorine dioxide, particularly emphasizing its purported benefits in health treatments. Proponents claim it has antimicrobial properties and can treat various conditions. However, it lacks recognized scientific validation, and health authorities generally caution against its medical use due to safety concerns.
 2. Legal Implications and Proposed Regulations
 The legislative proposal aims to legalize and regulate the production, distribution, and use of chlorine dioxide within Paraguay . Key points include:
 Setting standards for its manufacturing and quality control.
 Establishing protocols for medical administration.
 Outlining penalties for misuse or non-compliance.
 3. Controversies and Public Health Aspects
 The proposal is controversial because global health organizations, such as the WHO and FDA, warn against using chlorine dioxide for medical purposes, citing potential toxicity and lack of proven efficacy. Supporters argue for its potential benefits, while critics highlight the risks of promoting unapproved treatments to the public.

 THE BOLIVIAN EXPERIENCE
 Lets get back to Bolivia now because that is where the “action” really happened around chlorine dioxide in South America.
 After the law supporting the manufacture and use of chlorine dioxide was passed, the Bolivian Ministry of Health quickly issued a press release attacking the law and also the idea that chlorine dioxide was safe or that there was evidence it had anti-viral properties (which is astounding given it is likely the broadest and most effective viricide in use).
 The Ministry tried to assert their authority by stating that the law was in opposition to its guidelines as a health authority and its responsibility to protect the health of the general population in Bolivia. Of course the “health of the Bolivian people” was their primary institutional concern! Who would ever openly question that?
 I bolded the most relevant parts of the Bolivian Ministry of Health release below (translated using google translate). Before you read it, I think it will be helpful to remind you of the definition of an “appeal to authority” argument which is used incessantly in the media and by public agencies around chlorine dioxide (and ivermectin, HCQ, Vitamin D etc, etc).
 Definition of “appeal to authority” argument:
 a type of logical fallacy where someone claims that a statement or proposition is true solely because an authority figure or expert in the relevant field has endorsed it .
 Now read the Health Ministry’s release below and notice how I helpfully bolded for you the number of times that they used this type of “logical fallacy” - they referred to a “disapproving expert” no less than thirteen times in 4 paragraphs to be exact:
 The Ministry of Health informs the public that the "Law that regulates the preparation, marketing, supply and consented use of the Chlorine Dioxide solution (SDC) for the prevention and treatment of the coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19)" sanctioned by the Plurinational Legislative Assembly, is in stark contrast to what is established by this State portfolio in its capacity as the governing authority in health matters in the country and whose fundamental responsibility is to protect the health of the population.
 We regret that the members of the Plurinational Legislative Assembly have been surprised in their good faith and have not gone to experts or institutions knowledgeable in the matter to be appropriately advised before approving this law. (Ed: “Experts” and “Institutions” eh?)
 It is necessary to note that various national and international institutions have spoken out about the health risk of consuming this product, such as the Bolivian Academy of Medicine, various Scientific Societies affiliated with the National Medical College, the College of Biochemistry and Pharmacy, the Committee Scientific advisor to the Ministry of Health, national universities such as UMSA, UAGRM and the Universidad San Francisco Xavier de Chuquisaca. The latter institution has just published the results of a clinical investigation in which it concludes that “Chlorine dioxide has no antiviral effect.”
 This study was carried out by professors from the Faculty of Medicine and the Departmental and Municipal Health Directorates. At the international level, the WHO and PAHO do not approve it and chlorine dioxide is not part of the international list of medicines. Prestigious international institutions in the field of drug regulation such as the Federal Drug Administration of the United States (FDA) and the European Medicines Regulatory Agency (EMA), have a clear position with scientific foundations against the use of chlorine dioxide for therapeutic purposes. In practice, there is no country, at least in our hemisphere, where it is legally authorized, because there is no scientific evidence, there is no evidence to demonstrate its preventive or curative properties, its promoters resort to testimonies from people, supposedly treated, and the testimonies have no scientific validity if the product is not supported by controlled clinical studies that demonstrate its effectiveness in the sense that it has curative properties and demonstrate its safety and that it does not produce adverse reactions. On the other hand, it is noted that the approved law incurs in contradictions in the following articles: Article 4. (Marketing of chlorine dioxide).
 b) It authorizes pharmacies to market it “without the need for a medical prescription and with the full consent of the buyer” ( Ed: Amazing!)
 Article 6. Administration.
 “Medical professionals may administer chlorine dioxide solution, with the informed consent of the patient or a family member, in accordance with the established protocols”
 Article 7. Use. (Ed: I included only the concluding paragraph for brevity here:
 … Therefore, the Ministry of Health, in its capacity as the national governing authority whose main responsibility is to ensure the health of citizens, maintains its position that, since chlorine dioxide has no scientific evidence demonstrating its therapeutic or preventive nature and since it is not registered as a pharmaceutical product, it will maintain its prohibition at the national level and will hold legally responsible any authority or person who, in an irresponsible manner, has caused damage to health by encouraging the consumption of that product.
 Now, although the law was passed in La Paz on September 9, 2020, interestingly, already back in July, there were reports of Bolivian universities producing chlorine dioxide to treat Covid:

 Now watch this short news interview below with a physician who served as a Bolivian military representative to announce the distribution and treatment program. The below is subtitled, and a transcript in English can be found here , it is less than two minutes:

 Unsurprisingly, after Bolivia passed the law allowing for the manufacture and distribution of chlorine dioxide, newspapers (gleefully?) reported that this action directly defied the PAHO (a specialized health agency of the United Nations) as reported in this news article ):

 A paragraph from the article:
 Furthermore, the Pan American Health Organization ( PAHO) issued a warning against the use of chlorine products as treatments for Covid-19 . «PAHO does not recommend using products based on chlorine dioxide or sodium chlorite orally or parenterally (intravenous, intra-arterial, intramuscular, and subcutaneous) in patients with suspected or diagnosed Covid-19, or in any other case, because there is no evidence on their efficacy and the intake or inhalation of these products could cause serious adverse effects , is stated in the document.
 Check out CNN jumping in with coverage of the Bolivian legislator’s efforts:

 Know that the physician in the video above was asked to represent the military’s program at the time (although she is not in the military). Her name is Dr. Patricia Callesperis and she has become a new and trusted colleague and friend to me as I pursue my research into chlorine dioxide. Here is a short bio of Dr. Callisperis:
 Dr. Patricia Callisperis Vieira Dias holds a medical degree from the Pontifical Catholic University of São Paulo, with a specialization and subspecialty in Pediatric Traumatology and Orthopedics from the Federal University of São Paulo (UNIFESP). With 25 years of experience, she has held leadership roles, including Director of the Children’s Physical Rehabilitation Center (2001-2006), and currently serves as Director of Clínica del Sur in La Paz, Bolivia, while actively contributing to professional organizations such as the Bolivian and Brazilian Societies of Orthopedics and Traumatology, and the Ponseti Associations in Bolivia and Latin America.
 More pertinent is that during the last ten years of her career, she became professionally dedicated to researching and promoting the use of chlorine dioxide as an alternative therapy. The “origin” story of her interest into chlorine dioxide as a therapeutic is both visually and emotionally telling:
 “I used to have these lesions in my mouth every month or every couple of months. That type of lesion would appear repeatedly. I received treatment from various doctors, and I even traveled to the United States to a center because they told me it could be lichen planus, coxsackie, a herpes mutation, and so on. I received many diagnoses, but nothing improved. I used balsiclovir, I tried many vitamins to boost my immunity.

 They wanted to perform a biopsy, and that’s when I discovered chlorine dioxide. I started taking chlorine dioxide and since then, I’ve never had those lesions again. I’ve been able to practice my profession normally and perform surgeries because the lesions even started appearing on my fingers, preventing me from operating. Now, I’m fine.”
 After overcoming the chronic lesions in 2017 with chlorine dioxide, she began using it to treat and publish reports of patients with varicose ulcers, diabetic foot , and other conditions, achieving promising results.
 During the COVID-19 pandemic, she applied chlorine dioxide for hospital disinfection and in patients without access to hospitals, making a significant impact. In 2021, she organized the first Oxidative Therapies Congress in Santa Cruz de la Sierra, bringing together specialists from 16 countries and advocating for scientific research to support the use of chlorine dioxide. She is currently committed to the responsible validation and application of these innovative therapies.
 Here she is more recently, with all lesions in the distant past:

 Back to Covid now: when I asked her for the published results and/or data on the impacts of the national and military chlorine dioxide program, she informed me that, unsurprisingly, the Bolivian “FDA” (known as AGEMED) denied her and her colleagues' application to do a prospective double blinded study (even though they had manufactured a “placebo” - i.e. a solution that tasted like chlorine dioxide but was inert). Dr. Callisperis pointed out that the “pharmaceutical division” of AGEMED actually did approve the study but the “higher-ups” in AGEMED then rejected it.
 Then AGEMED went even further and denied their application and access to data to be able to do a retrospective observational study . This was shockingly unsurprising to me (odd paradox I know) just as it would be for the vast majority of my readers.
 Thus the actual scientific and clinical data results of the Bolivian program are not accurately known (which I would argue is as intended) however, as you will see below, the epidemiological and anecdotal evidence is overwhelming (including reports of eradication of Covid in certain cities).
 The below interview televised on “El Pais” is fascinating given that El Pais is one of the largest media outlets in Bolivia. Unlike the way the U.S media treated the topic of ivermectin, El Pais “presented both sides” by interviewing one clinical researcher who stated its safety and efficacy and then they interviewed a pharmacy regulator who stated there is insufficient evidence for chlorine dioxide and that it is dangerous to patients. The actually broadcast contrasting opinions instead of having someone simply call it a horse dewormer (or toxic bleach in this case) over and over again. Worth a watch (I added English subtitles, 6:16 total):

 One statement from the clinician expert in chlorine dioxide jumped out:
 “over 50,000 in Cochabamaba were using chlorine dioxide, and the lines to get treated were up to 500-800 people a day.”
 I swear that was my initial vision/fantasy after discovering the potent efficacy of ivermectin in Covid - I first imagined a U.S national ivermectin distribution program! I had thought we could just “copy” the 40 year old WHO ivermectin distribution programs against parasitic diseases that had been conducted across Africa and other continents. Do you guys remember Fauci’s national ivermectin distribution program for Covid in the U.S.? I didn’t think so.
 Anyway, let’s contrast some statements from the “regulator” and the “expert clinician:”
 Chlorine Dioxide Expert Clinician:
 So, when they threaten us with trials , they think they are going to shut us up. This is something that is not going to stop anymore. This is something that has already grown in such a way that it is impossible for any human power, no matter how much, I don't know how no human power, no matter how many, what do I know, high level authorities want to stop it. They are not going to scare me with a process because I am not doing any harm. They have to prove to me that I have done any harm.
 Ed: His statement “they are going to threaten us with trials,” really resonated with me given that is what they did with ivermectin - health authorities across the world refused to recommend its use until “they” could publish trials deliberately manipulated to try to show ivermectin did not work.
 This is extremely important to be aware of because I am certain that if they ever remove the restriction on chlorine dioxide research, the first trials to be conducted and published will be trials manipulated to obtain “negative” results. This is a tactic from the Disinformation Playbook called “The Fake” as I have harped on many times before and is literally the primary tactic at which they suppress, prevent, and distort evidence of efficacy of safe, inexpensive, widely available therapies that produce little profit to industry:

 Bolivian Health Regulator comments:
 “ there is a weakening of the institutional structure, of the confidence institutional structure, of trust in the organs of the state, of trust in public institutions . And that is part of the problem here and we regret that it is that it has ended up into something so harmful to the population. ( Ed: I wish he had expanded upon why such a widespread loss of trust in these “organs of state” was occurring ).
 People are taking it either too much or in an artisanal way and they are hurting themselves. The people who are taking it are uninformed and are doing what they can with a very difficult time that all Bolivians are going through a very difficult moment that all Bolivians are going through. It is a very difficult moment in which there is a lot of fear, desperation and little information. The people are clamoring for something that will help them to maintain their health, not to die, in other words .
 Ed: Notice how he provides no data to support that people are hurting themselves.
 As I detailed in my first post, recall that the worlds “authorities” moved against chlorine dioxide even before their later coordinated attacks on HCQ and then ivermectin.
 So, with all the fervor and national attention on chlorine dioxide in Bolivia, the powers that be hit back.. with lies (if you read the article below they mention 5 people being poisoned but no links or references to this statement were given, plus, even more absurdly, if you look at the sub-headline, they mention 10 people being “poisoned.” Isn’t it weird that a simple number was so different in the headline and the text of a major media newspaper?

 Dr. Callisperis recently told me,
 “The universities started to produce chlorine dioxide too. And then in some of the cities ( Ed: all hyperlinks go to news reports showing evidence they were doing this ) like Universidad Técnica de Oruro , Universidad Gabriel René Moreno , and Escuela Militar de Ingeniería in La Paz. and they started giving it out for free to all the people.”
 This is further substantiated with this interview with a Rector of a Bolivian University on this news program (in subtitles):

 The interview above was held with the Vice Rector of the Gabriel René Moreno University, Dr. Osvaldo Ulloa. He first admits that the university was producing it for their workers and students:
 our University Social Security, directed by Dr. Méndez is justly using it, he has said so publicly and its effects are quite beneficial and that is very important because what we want is to collaborate.
 Well, actually we have developed it and we have donated it, we can say, to the university insurance and the idea is to produce it to distribute it in a totally free way.
 For that, of course, we need the support of the authorities such as the governor, the mayor's office, so that they are the actual owners, right ?
 Those responsible for managing the first, second and third level hospitals in our capital. So, therefore, doctors in some way depend on the Ministry of Health and of course also municipal governments and the government.
 So, in order to use it in the treatment of these people who are hospitalized, we necessarily need their authorization. We know that there is a controversy at this moment, right?
 From the Ministry of Health, which issued at a certain time a ban on consumption, since it claimed that it is a toxic product that we have done the research into . Doctors must control the supply of this product, even though we are aware that the product is not toxic , what is more, paradoxically I could tell you that if someone wants to commit suicide or, for example, has the idea of committing suicide and wants to commit suicide with chlorine dioxide, it is not you will be able to get it (sic: done) because it is not really toxic.
 So rather with any other the drugs that are being used it would be much easier to do so. ŸOusand then that shows us that this product in the quantities and in the measurements of its components, as established and as indicated, could be very beneficial to combat the coronavirus and above all to give life expectancy to people, that is the objective that we pursue . We are aware that so far there is no definitive protocol that says this definitively cures the coronavirus (Ed: How can there be if authorities refuse to allow publication of the data or to do prospective research?)
 All the medications that have had good results are still in research and that research is still ongoing.
 Basically, if you listen to the whole interview, the Rector of the University states that they were having excellent results treating students, staff, and the community while pointing out that “ the Ministry of Health calls it a toxic product. ” Further he points out that in order to treat the patients in the hospitals, they “ need the collaboration of the Ministry and municipal governments and federal government” (which they were not getting).
 Interestingly, the head of Human Rights for Bolivia ended up intervening on the side of the chlorine dioxide program by going after the Ministry of Health for not drafting the regulations on the use of chlorine dioxide which the law demanded they do . This article below called out the “administration” for not obeying the law of the people. Imagine that?

 On the issue of the University Rector calling out for collaboration with authorities to help the patients in hospitals, in the below article, the Mayor of San Juan De Chiquitos boldly proclaimed that they “emptied their ICU of 16 critical patients” after using chlorine dioxide and that “he was bringing the records of all 16 patients to La Paz” (Ed: like data makes a difference).
 Again, here is another anomaly in reporting - read the translated headline below and then go read the article, you will find a massive discordance between the headline and what is actually written in the article which is almost all positive towards chlorine dioxide!

 So, a law was passed allowing for the production and use of chlorine dioxide and the military and universities started producing and treating Bolivians ill with Covid and Bolivians were lining up all over the country to receive treatment. What were the impacts of this campaign? Since the clinicians and researchers were not allowed to gather nor publish data in an organized way we are left with, once again, epidemiological data. Let’s see, from Our World in Data:

 As you can see, Bolivia suffered a sudden and unprecedented spike (even for South America) in Covid deaths in early September 2020, where on Sept. 8, they were recording 133 deaths per million and then 6 weeks later, they recorded the lowest in S. America at 2 per millio n. But notice the sharpness of the spike - soon after the first of “the laws” were passed in La Paz, the rates and deaths disappeared rapidly and within a month, Bolivia had the lowest death rate in S. America. Coincidence?
 Does the “sharpness” of the spike on the graph of Bolivia remind you of India’s delta wave in Uttar Pradesh (from my previous series called “ The Miraculous Success of Uttar Pradesh ”) where they distributed ivermectin using 160,000 workers (who were all taking ivermectin prophylactically) that visited 97,000 villages, testing widely and treating all positive cases with ivermectin and prophylaxing all family members of positive cases with ivermectin. This is the graph of cases that resulted in Uttar Pradesh:

 Another graph that one of my subscribers just sent me is this one:

 Next, the below article highlights the fact that the first city to adopt chlorine dioxide in a coordinated program, San Jose De Chiquitos, found that their program led to “ epidemiological silence” for 39 straight days at the time the article was published on Nov. 8, 2020:

 Bolivia, with a population of 11.6 million people and a health expenditure of 11.52% of its budget (2017), according to Datamacro Expansion, has had fewer than 100 daily Covid-19 cases in Novembe r. While Costa Rica, with a population of 5 million people and a health expenditure of 26.91% of its budget (2017), has had more than 850 daily cases of Covid-19 in November.
 As can be seen in the tables of daily variation, the Bolivian curve has managed to flatten, a goal that no other country in America has yet achieved.
 Bolivia’s performance in combatting Covid with chlorine dioxide, like Uttar Pradesh’s performance with ivermectin, did not go unnoticed by the WHO. Recall t his report from the WHO that celebrated Uttar Pradesh’s success without mentioning their systematic use of ivermectin! Same thing happened with Bolivia - the below WHO report on Bolivia’s success also somehow did not see fit to mention the nation’s use of chlorine dioxide. Curious no? See below, translated awkwardly by Google:

 From above:
 “In the last three months, Bolivia has experienced a significant reduction in cases and deaths from COVID 19 per 100,000 inhabitants compared to neighboring countries such as Argentina, Chile, Paraguay, Peru and Brazil, which have remained at levels 2 to 4 times greater and even increasing its progression,” said Auza.
 Now, one of the most compelling and sincere testimonials regarding the efficacy of chlorine dioxide against Covid was this below testimony by a Mexican surgeon who treated three thousand patients with 99.6% success (4 deaths out of a 1,000).
 In addition, he was forced to treat the patients at home and not at his clinic, because he claims that when they were reporting the near 100% effectiveness of chlorine dioxide, he says the “authorities” came and closed down the Covid unit of his clinic.
 He was then forced to individually treat patients in their home without his medical staff to support him or the patient. I excerpted this clip via “fair use” from the documentary “The Universal Antidote.” Please watch:

 He ends with:
 “I know that I have seen thousands of patients getting better with this treatment and I will never stop using CDS (chlorine dioxide solution) in the treatment of Covid-19, no matter what. ”
 Now, just for kicks, I sent the above video to a friend and colleague of mine who is a world expert in detecting “deception” or “dishonesty.” His name is Louis Conte and besides being the guy who recruited me to SkyHorse publishing to write my book The War on Ivermectin , he is also considered one of the world’s experts at polygraph testing. However, know that polygraph data analysis is only one tool he uses in determining truthfulness, the rest relies on the voice, facial expressions/movements, mannerisms, tone, speech, etc.. Check out his assessment of truthfulness after I asked him to watch the video and comment:
 I listened and watched again. I read him as being truthful.
 His facial expressions line up with the underlying emotions of his statements, and there is no facial expression that I saw that was discordant.
 I did not observe any increase in blink rate or indicators of dry mouth (licking lips, words, getting stuck or reaching for water to hydrate). These would be indicators of the fight, flight, freeze response.
 I read him as being an honest doctor.
 Poor bastard.
 (Ed: I laughed out loud reading the last line… until I remembered it’s not funny :)
 CONCLUSION
 I have spent many weeks researching numerous aspects of chlorine dioxide and, in my opinion, I believe there currently exists a “wealth of evidence” of its safety and effectiveness against a broad array of microbes including viruses, bacteria (even multi-drug resistant), parasites, and fungi. Its efficacy in a broad range of non-infectious diseases also appears promising and I will be sharing evidence of that in future posts.
 I now believe, like ivermectin, HCQ, nitazoxanide, and DMSO, chlorine dioxide should be a critical component of the medicine cabinet of every family’s household that is intent on preserving their health against future viral and/or bioweapon pandemic assaults.
 If it is a living organism making you ill, I believe there is likely a single effective treatment for it and that is chlorine dioxide. To prove that, a lot of work needs to be done to overcome the regulatory barriers on research, however I have joined a promising international group of clinicians and researchers who are all collaborating on this mission. More will be revealed (I hope).

 If this post whet your appetite for learning more about chlorine dioxide, please subscribe because my next posts will contain more detailed and referenced information on its safety and efficacy, as well as how to source and use chlorine dioxide in treatment of infectious (and other) diseases.
 Subscribe now

Summary: Chlorine dioxide is a broad antimicrobial that is safe for ingestion. Bolivian MP's passed a law supporting widespread use to combat Covid. This action led to a massive reduction in deaths.


Trump's "Bleach" Conference Alluded To The Antidote For Future Pandemics

This is the first post in a series I plan on doing on chlorine dioxide, a broad and powerful anti-microbial and disinfectant that is, contrary to the propaganda surrounding it, safe for human ingestion at therapeutic doses. I promise that what you will come to learn (especially in later posts) will massively impact your ability to protect your health, especially in regards to any future pandemics that may arise from bioweapons research (I suggest subscribing now so you don’t miss out on the rest of this series).
 Subscribe now
 Let’s start by recapping what one news site called “Trump’s Craziest and Most Surreal’ Press conference. You know, the one where literally everyone across the world thought Trump was either out of his mind or a complete imbecile for thinking that “bleach” could be injected as a treatment for Covid.

 Fun foreshadowing fact: By the end of this post, I hope to convince you that the treatment many thought that Trump was referring to (e.g. chlorine dioxide which is NOT bleach (bleach is sodium hypochlorite) is not only an extremely safe and highly effective treatment for Covid, but it also works against a diverse and likely complete array of pathogenic organisms.
 You also won’t be surprised to learn that nearly every single health or regulatory agency in the world refers to chlorine dioxide as “bleach” or “bleach-like” and they maintain that there is “insufficient evidence” to recommend it as a treatment (and also that it is “very dangerous and should never be ingested.” Sound familiar?
 By now, most of my readers can already call bullshit. Statements from authorities like the ones above are indefensible given the fact that over 500 U.S public water treatment plants add chlorine dioxide to the water full time and as many as 900 use it either part time or seasonally ( Leister 2021 ). Safety levels of orally ingested doses have been well established and are far above therapeutic dosing ranges, period.
 Further, numerous oral care and dental products on the market contain chlorine dioxide and a number of trials using intravenous chlorine dioxide have been done safely.
 It would appear, once again, that like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, chlorine dioxide is the target of a Disinformation campaign given how broadly effective, inexpensive, and widely available it is as a therapeutic. To demonstrate how “dangerous” chlorine dioxide is to the powers that be, know that chlorine dioxide was attacked as a proposed treatment for Covid -19 even before HCQ and ivermectin. It literally was one of the first therapeutics “they” tried to discredit as physicians across the world were searching for effective therapeutics for our patients We were simply told to stay away from “bleach” (which seemed reasonable to me at the time).
 To wit, know that Jim Humble and Mark Grenon, two of the most well known “pioneers,” used the original formulation called of chlorine dioxide called Miracle Mineral Solution (MMS) to treat many tens of thousands of patients in Africa and South and Central America since 1996. Later, a biophysicist named Andreas Kalker devised a method of making pure chlorine dioxide which he calls “chlorine dioxide solution” or CDS. Both have been used widely, but MMS is the original formulation. Further, a number of experts who have worked with Jim Humble have told me that he felt MMS was superior to CDS because having inactivated sodium chlorite and hydrochloric acid enter the stomach has its own benefits (CDS only contains chlorine dioxide and distilled water).
 In 2010, Humble and Grenon formed an entity called the Genesis II Church Of Health And Healing, thinking that as a church, they would be immune from regulatory attack. In a way, they were, that is, until April 8, 2020, when suddenly the FDA went after them with a “warning letter”:

 Please answer me why they were openly treating patients for over a decade but it was only when Covid broke out that the feds went after them, and hard too. The Feds tracked their clinic location in Colombia and then raided, arrested, and extradited them.

 Grenon and his sons were all convicted and sent to jail, largely because they were making and selling (and marketing) such a “dangerous,” “unapproved” product:

 First line of the article:
 Three months after a Florida man and his three sons were convicted of selling toxic industrial bleach as a fake COVID-19 cure through their online church, a federal judge in Miami sentenced them to serve prison time.
 Two of the sons got 151 month sentences, while Mark and his other son got 60 months in prison. Not sure how much wisdom I am displaying here in writing about the topic of chlorine dioxide, but one thing I do know is that it would be hard to run a practice selling “toxic industrial bleach” to people for them to ingest. If it truly were “toxic bleach,” the practice would die after the first patient did.
 Let’s get back to President Trump and what he actually said. For this, I will use an article from the “fact-checking” site called Snopes, where they wrote:
 What's True
 During an April 2020 media briefing, Trump did ask members of the government's coronavirus task force to look into whether "disinfectants could be injected inside people to treat COVID-19. But when a reporter asked in a follow-up question whether cleaning products like bleach and isopropyl alcohol would be injected into a person, the then-president said those products would be used for sterilizing an area, not for injections.
 What's False
 However, at no point did Trump explicitly tell people they could or should inject bleach into their bodies.
 THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. So I asked Bill a question that probably some of you are thinking of, if you're totally into that world, which I find to be very interesting. So, supposing we hit the body with a tremendous — whether it's ultraviolet or just very powerful light — and I think you said that that hasn't been checked, but you're going to test it. And then I said, supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way, and I think you said you're going to test that too. It sounds interesting.
 ACTING UNDER SECRETARY BRYAN: We'll get to the right folks who could.
 THE PRESIDENT: Right. And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning. Because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. So it would be interesting to check that. So, that, you're going to have to use medical doctors with. But it sounds — it sounds interesting to me.
 Trump then clarified his opening (and admittedly bizarre) remark above:
 "It wouldn't be through injection. We're talking about through almost a cleaning, sterilization of an area. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn't work. But it certainly has a big effect if it's on a stationary object."
 The global media then went to town on Trump, immediately collecting quotes from highly pedigreed doctors ridiculing both of Trump’s notions, none more viciously than this article from the BBC which used quotes from three different doctors to “hit” at Trump:
 Pulmonologist Dr Vin Gupta told NBC News : "This notion of injecting or ingesting any type of cleansing product into the body is irresponsible and it's dangerous.
 "It's a common method that people utilise when they want to kill themselves. "
 Kashif Mahmood, a doctor in Charleston, West Virgini a, tweeted : "As a physician, I can't recommend injecting disinfectant into the lungs or using UV radiation inside the body to treat Covid-19.
 "Don't take medical advice from Trump."
 John Balmes, a pulmonologist at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital , warned that even breathing fumes from bleach could cause severe health problems.
 He told Bloomberg News : "Inhaling chlorine bleach would be absolutely the worst thing for the lungs. The airway and lungs are not made to be exposed to even an aerosol of disinfectant.
 "Not even a low dilution of bleach or isopropyl alcohol is safe. It's a totally ridiculous concept.”
 I agree with the “esteemed” doctors above that injecting bleach is an insanely dangerous suggestion but remember, chlorine dioxide is NOT bleach, explained clearly and succinctly by this physician below (1:44 duration):

 So, Trump was NOT referring to bleach at all. In fact, Trump was probably not even referring to chlorine dioxide. My close colleagues (AMD) was in communication with an expert group that had advised the White House at the time on a promising new COVID treatment ( pioneered by Cedars Sinai ) where harmless UV light was directly applied into the lungs to eliminate COVID-19 and in contact with clinicians around the country using ultraviolet blood irradiation to treat COVID-19:
 “So, supposing we hit the body with a tremendous - whether it's ultraviolet or just very powerful light,"
 "And then I said, supposing you brought the light inside of the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way. And I think you said you're going to test that too. Sounds interesting."
 AMD argues correctly that when Trump talked about “injecting disinfectant” this could equally apply to UVBI given that ultraviolet light is also a powerful disinfectant that was used to decontaminate public spaces from SARS-CoV2.
 Know that ultraviolet blood irradiation (UVBI) is a highly effective anti-microbial therapy that first came into use almost 100 years ago for severe and fatal infections. In the 1940’s, prominent media outlets like The New York Times , Time Magazine , and The American Weekly featured articles on its success.
 “I think personally that [Knott’s discovery] is one of the greatest contributions to medicine ever made by a citizen of the United States.” — George Miley MD (1940)
 Up until the 1950’s, it was used in hospitals across the country with truly remarkable efficacy. That is, until the AMA “killed” it with a negative study, forcing the entire medical system to switch to using antibiotics instead . There is no better expert on UVBI and its history in American medicine than A Midwestern Doctor who detailed the long and ultimately sad history of UVBI in this masterful review. My professional lack of enthusiasm for UVBI is that, although safe, it is expensive, invasive, and difficult to access. Thus it is not scalable to the masses in early treatment of a pandemic (although admittedly, with the resources and ingenuity available in the U.S that could change overnight).
 Despite the above, I and many others initially thought that Trump was referring to chlorine dioxide, similar to the doctors quoted in the BBC article that thought he was referring to bleach. The NY Times even suggested he was referring to chlorine dioxide by making fun of him for thinking “bleach” might be a valid therapy. In the article, they, like the FDA and other regulatory authorities, again describe chlorine dioxide as similar to bleach:.

 To wit, they write:
 The F.D.A. has moved to tamp down on merchants online that have encouraged the ingestion of products made with disinfectants and cleaning agents, including chlorine dioxide, a compound commonly used as a bleach . The products have found favor with conspiracy theorists and fringe activists online who peddle chlorine dioxide as “Magical Mineral Solution,” or M.M.S.
 “ Conspiracy theorists and fringe activists who “peddle.” Where have I heard that before? Oh yeah:

 The reality is that when Covid broke out, many clinicians from Central and South America were pleading for permission and strongly advocating for the use of chlorine dioxide in regional and national protocols. Why?
 That is because many clinicians knew chlorine dioxide to be a safe, widely effective anti-microbial that can be used against a broad (if not total) range of viruses, bacteria, fungi, and parasites. One tragedy about chlorine dioxide’s suppression is that it has even been shown to be effective against multi-drug resistant bacteria, an issue that is becoming an ever larger problem across the world. Back in 2019, the WHO estimated that antibiotic resistance directly led to 1.2 million deaths and “contributed” to a further 5 million deaths. Imagine if we could solve that overnight?
 So then, it should come as no surprise, especially to my readers, that I will again tell a story of a simple, safe, highly effective, inexpensive, and widely available therapy that could have stopped Covid in its tracks across the world. Just add chlorine dioxide to the list of treatments that were similarly blocked like ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, and many other therapies effective against Covid.
 Lets never forget how many treatments you have never heard about (or been told of by authorities) that have been shown effective against Covid in clinical trials and observational studies. Just look at the below comprehensive “Forest Plot” compiled by the masterful and anonymous c19early.com group . To interpret the chart, know that any medicine with a diamond to the left of the grey center line means it is effective and the farther to the left the diamond is, the more potent the therapy (conversely, any diamond to the right was shown to be ineffective or harmful). The treatments are also rank ordered from top to bottom in terms of potency. I circled ivermectin for you :). Also note the grey diamonds next to the first 5 treatments above ivermectin indicate that there were only 4 trials or less completed, indicating uncertainty:

 So, why isn’t chlorine dioxide on the chart above?
 The reason why is that chlorine dioxide is under a seemingly impenetrable global research blockade by the FDA and other regulatory authorities that follow FDA’s lead. They consistently reject investigator applications to do human trials on it, instead repeatedly mischaracterizing it as “bleach” or “bleach-like” despite hundreds of studies showing safety for use in foods, water, ingestion, oral care, and wound healing.
 To wit, I recently met Dr. Mitchell Brent Leister from the University of Colorado who, early on in Covid, submitted an IRB application to do a trial of chlorine dioxide. Despite submitting an immense amount of research proving the safety for human use/ingestion, he was denied. He instead went on to author this masterful review paper below:

 A shocking aspect about the topic of chlorine dioxide is that hundreds of in-vitro, animal, human toxicologic, and human efficacy studies have been done of food, water, sanitation, industrial, pharmaceutical and disinfecting applications, along with many dozens of oral and dental conditions like halitosis and atrophic candidiasis (tongue fungus). Further, studies of topical administration find that it eradicates wound infections and promotes robust wound healing (of really nasty wounds too - see later post).
 However, very few studies have been published using oral ingestion for internal treatment of infectious diseases (or any other medical disorder for which it is claimed to be effective). However, although few, the studies that have been done with oral ingestion of chlorine dioxide are beyond compelling, like this one done in Cameroon where they treated 500 people with malaria and all became asymptomatic in two days while the blood became completely free of parasites by Day 6. Whoa.
 But why is there a paucity of published studies? I maintain that this is the result of a global regulatory blockade of performing research using orally ingested chlorine dioxide. As a result, despite its known and well established scientific safety for oral ingestion, chlorine dioxide is not FDA approved for any condition nor has it been approved for any condition by any regulatory agency in the world.
 I can give you one hint of evidence supporting my assertion above by asking a question: Why did the International Red Cross “bury” (i.e. erase from history) a highly successful trial of chlorine dioxide in malaria?
 Learning of that event really grabbed my attention. It is a documented fact that in 2012, the local Red Cross in Uganda did a highly successful study of orally administered chlorine dioxide to treat malaria. Like in the later Cameroon study of 500 patients, the Ugandan Red Cross treated 154 malaria patients with chlorine dioxide and reported that all became asymptomatic within 2 days (which, if you know anything about malaria, is a shockingly positive result).
 However, this highly positive study was never published (or publicized). And that is because the leaders of the International Organization Of The Red Cross . (i.e. those “at the top”) pressured the local Ugandan Red Cross Officials to deny the study ever took place. This scandal is briefly described in this article which also includes this link to the Ugandan videographers documentary of the trial on Youtube. Unsurprisingly, when you click on the video link for YouTube, you get this:

 They also put it on Brighteon, and you get this:

 One place you can still view this short documentary (17 minutes) is on Odysee here (thank god for no-censorship platforms).
 I suggest you watch it, however, for me, the most compelling and concise description of what happened in Uganda comes from this interview excerpt from the documentary called “Quantum Leap” in 2016 (3 minutes):

 I maintain that the seemingly coordinated global regulatory barrier to doing research on the oral ingestion of chlorine dioxide ensures it remains both a controversial and feared treatment. It also suggests that, like Vitamin D and ivermectin, it is a treatment which threatens the profitable markets of numerous existing therapeutics and diseases. It also leads to the present (and unique) reality which is that chlorine dioxide is a therapy which, instead of being supported by numerous clinical trials in humans via oral ingestion, instead uniquely sits on an evidence base of thousands and thousands of anecdotes of oral ingestion, many of them beyond compelling .
 The anecdotes of success in an unbelievably wide range of diseases is truly astonishing. If interested in reviewing this “evidence base” I suggest the following sources:
 The Universal Antidote.com - compiled by a veteran critical care nurse of 25 years, this site contains references to many safety and efficacy studies as well as video and written testimonials. The most comprehensive source of data available.

 mmstestimonials.co - catalogued by disease and condition, you can click and either read or watch a video testimonial of a patient reporting how their suffering was relieved from a myriad of conditions

 Telegram group called “The Universal Antidote Videos” with over 85,000 members. Here you can search for a disease and read testimonials of people’s experience using chlorine dioxide as treatment

 Robert Yoho’s Substack called “ Surviving Healthcare ” - he is a retired physician who has deeply studied chlorine dioxide and written about it extensively

 Now, although experts in the study of chlorine dioxide have dubbed it “The Universal Antidote,” due to the wide variety of diseases and conditions it purportedly treats, for me, where I am at this point in my study of chlorine dioxide, is that I am more comfortable calling it “The Universal Anti-Microbial.”
 As in, based on the current available in-vitro, in-vivo and clinical evidence against a diverse array of microbes, I believe it is likely that it can treat the majority if not all infectious diseases (even Avian Flu, Disease X, TB etc). Just as with ivermectin, I now believe it should be in the cupboard of every household. Bold statement I know, however, I have already successfully treated a nasty viral illness that I had contracted with chlorine dioxide alone (I recovered quickly). One anecdote from me!
 Although my colleagues have differing opinions on whether a Disease X or Avian Flu pandemic will follow the “highly successful” Covid pandemic, I was recently shocked by the statements of Jenner Furst, the director of the documentary “Thank You Dr. Fauci.” He was recently interviewed by Tucker Carlson, and below I include a snippet that is more than worth a listen (sorry if it is upsetting to contemplate):

 Ultimately, at this point, although I am moved by the diverse number of positive testimonials of chlorine dioxide treating non-infectious conditions, it is difficult to find peer-reviewed and published evidence for those.
 Until last week that is! I was invited to a Zoom meeting of chlorine dioxide practitioners and researchers from all over the world. A group of Spanish biostatisticians presented a recently completed a literature review of clinical studies of chlorine dioxide.
 Interestingly, they found published trials of “patented” versions of chlorine dioxide (i.e. different scientific name and slightly different formulations but same active ingredient). WF10 and NP001 (compounds where chlorine dioxide is the active ingredient) were shown, in randomized controlled studies, to be effective in ailments as diverse as radiation mucosisits in head and neck cancer , diabetic foot ulcers , advanced AIDS , hemorrhagic cystitis and neuroinflammation associated with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) . In all of these trials, the formulation was administered intravenously with no toxicity found.
 One sentence from their paper jumped out:
 Finally, regarding CDS (chlorine dioxide solution), beyond clinical trials in which ClO2 has been used as a mouthwash on oral mucosa [67,68], we do not yet have a published peer-reviewed controlled study with CDS being used orally or parenterally, we have only heard of preprints and personal communications.
 Not so fun fact: the study authors have not been able to publish (yet) as the journals they have tried have all rejected the paper from consideration. I have vowed to help them find a receptive journal.

 **This post gave a brief overview and context to the topic of chlorine dioxide. I invite you to subscribe to ensure you read the rest of the series on this topic, with the next one being a description of how Bolivia adopted chlorine dioxide in their Covid response to great success. Later, I will go into the scientific mechanisms, disease applications, published studies, and treatment protocols.
 Subscribe now

 P.S. Merry Christmas To All!

Summary: Globally ridiculed for his comments, Trump was erroneously thought to be referring to chlorine dioxide, a treatment nationally deployed by Bolivia which led to the best outcomes in South America.


We Published An Op-Ed In Mainstream Media On The Weaponization Of the Term "Misinformation"

Although it is unclear what impact this Op-Ed will have on captured health agency and media behavior, I believe it crystallizes this critical issue and the growing expectations (and past disappointments) of the American populace. Enjoy:

 In a seismic political shift, Republicans have laid claim to an issue that Democrats left in the gutter—the declining health of Americans. True, it took a Democrat with a famous name to ask why so many people are chronically ill , disabled and dying younger than in 47 other countries. But the message resonated with the GOP.
 We have a proposal in this unfolding milieu. Let’s have a serious, nuanced discussion. Let’s retire labels that have been weaponized against Robert F. Kennedy Jr., nominated for Health and Human Services Secretary, and many people like him.
 Start with discarding threadbare words like “conspiracy theory,” “ anti-vax,” and the ever-changing “misinformation.”
 These linguistic sleights of hand have been deployed—by government, media and vested interests—to dismiss policy critics and thwart debate. If post-election developments tell us anything, it is that such scorn may no longer work for a population skeptical of government overreach.
 Although RFK has been lambasted for months in the press, he just scored a 47 percent approval rating in a CBS poll.
 Americans are asking: Is RFK on to something?
 Perhaps, as he contends, a 1986 law that all-but absolved vaccine manufacturers from liability has spawned an industry driven more by profit than protection.
 Maybe Americans agree with RFK that the FDA, which gets 69 percent of its budget from pharmaceutical companies, is potentially compromised. Maybe Big Pharma, similarly, gets a free pass from the television news media that it generously supports . The U.S. and New Zealand, incidentally, are the only nations on earth that allow “direct-to- consumer” TV ads.
 Finally, just maybe there’s a straight line from this unhealthy alliance to the growing list of 80 childhood shots , inevitably approved after cursory industry studies with no placebo controls. The Hepatitis B vaccine trial, for one, monitored the effects on newborns for just five days . Babies are given three doses of this questionably necessary product—intended to prevent a disease spread through sex and drug use.
 Pointing out such conflicts and flaws earns critics a label: “anti-vaxxer.”
 Misinformation?
 If RFK is accused of being extreme or misdirected, consider the Covid-19 axioms that Americans were told by their government.
 The first: The pandemic started in animals in Wuhan, China. To think otherwise, Wikipedia states , is a “conspiracy theory,” fueled by “misplaced suspicion” and “anti-Chinese racism.”
 Not so fast. In a new 520-page report, a Congressional subcommittee linked the outbreak to risky U.S.-supported virus research at a Wuhan lab at the pandemic epicenter. After 25 hearings, the subcommittee found no evidence of “natural origin.”
 Is the report a slam dunk? Maybe not. But neither is outright dismissal of a lab leak.
 The same goes for other pandemic dogma, including the utility of (ineffective) masks, (harmful) lockdowns, (arbitrary) six-foot spacing, and, most prominently, vaccines that millions were coerced to take and that harmed some.
 Americans were told, wrongly, that two shots would prevent Covid and stop the spread. Natural immunity from previous infection was ignored to maximize vaccine uptake.
 Yet there was scant scientific support for vaccinating babies with little risk , which few other countries did; pregnant women (whose deaths soared 40 percent after the rollout), and healthy adolescents, including some who suffered a heart injury called myocarditis. The CDC calls the condition “ rare ;” but a new study found 223 times more cases in 2021 than the average for all vaccines in the previous 30 years.
 Truth Muzzled?
 Beyond this, pandemic decrees were not open to question. Millions of social media posts were removed at the behest of the White House. The ranks grew both of well-funded fact-checkers and retractions of countervailing science.
 To read the conclusion of the Op-ED, go to Real Clear Politics here .
 Dr. Pierre Kory, M.D., a pulmonologist and critical care specialist, is president emeritus of the FLCCC Alliance. Mary Beth Pfeiffer is an investigative reporter and author.

 *If you value the time and effort I put into researching and writing my posts, Op-Ed’s and pro-bono doctor defenses, support in the form of paid subscriptions would be appreciated.
 Subscribe now

Summary: Published in RealClear Health, I helped the investigative journalist Mary Beth Pfeiffer make a very public call for authorities to end "misinformation" attacks and increase transparency and oversight.