All Charges Against Dr. Charles Hoffe Have Been Dropped By the BC College of Physicians and Surgeons

I truly hope that History will remember Dr. Charles Hoffe as one of the first and most outspoken physicians in Canada (and the world) that decided to warn both the public and the authorities about the carnage he was seeing amongst the first patients in his practice that he “vaccinated” with novel mRNA gene therapy products (an act he quickly stopped in order to warn the authorities about their dangers).
 For those efforts, his career and livelihood were immediately, viciously, and unscientifically threatened.
 Does the recent dismissal of his case last week mean that the tide of lies, distortions, and suppressions of scientific data on the many dangers of the mRNA vaccines is now ebbing into obscurity? Who knows, but at least we are scoring some W’s for scientific truth and displays of moral and ethical integrity by physicians.
 This latest “reversal” could be part of a trend because it comes on the heels of the exoneration of another heavily persecuted physician in Australia 6 weeks ago, the case of Dr. Michael Bay who could not practice medicine for two years:

 Also, lets not forget my dear friend and colleague in the UK, Dr. Tina Peers an outspoken physician who did early treatment for Covid and called early public attention to the harms of the vaccines. Her Medical Council accused her of misinformation and not comporting with standards of care etc. Her case was eventually dropped last September as well. Apparently, the Council did not have a desire for a public hearing where she was going to call up her vaccine injured patients to testify on her behalf.

 However, although there are now three very public “dismissals” of cases against outspoken physicians in Canada, Australia, and the UK, I have to be careful to not overstate their importance. The reason is that I continue to be personally immersed in defending a number of other doctors whose livelihoods are still being threatened for speaking and practicing truths on the vaccines and early repurposed medicines in those same countries as well as the U.S.
 Further, my and Paul Marik’s own recent defenses against attacks by the American Board of Internal Medicine failed despite numerous appeals and eventually led to my Specialty Board Certifications being revoked, something that the “system” docs seemed to celebrate as this industry rag was quick to publicize:

 Know that the above “Specialty Board revocations” now make it much more difficult for me to serve as an expert witness in legal proceedings. I was just deposed yesterday in a workmen’s compensation case regarding a patient of mine who is now severely disabled after being forced to be vaccinated by her municipal employer. I submitted a lengthy, highly referenced report detailing both her illness and identifying the vaccine as cause. The municipal lawyer enjoyed doing the following:
 Entering into the court records that I have had all three of my Board certifications revoked (umm, so you know, this is not a good look for an “expert”).

 Reading my Wikipedia page and asking if all the things he read “appeared on my Wikipedia page.” Note he did not ask if they were true, he just asked if that is what appeared on the page (you know, because Wikipedia is the record of Truth).

 Asking me about my two Covid papers that have been retracted or that received an “expression of concern” (i.e. pretty typical actions for “inconvenient science” on “ The Kory Scale ”).

 Although I simply and calmly replied “yes” to all the above (because this was not my first rodeo), I did “lose it” later in the deposition when this same prick made an argument that because the patient I was doing this for was a pro-bono patient (which she was), my “advocacy” for her in this case was… so I could get compensated for her care in the future.
 Although it likely has no legal value in her case, I “completely lost it on the stand” (she is literally penniless and is now forced to live in her son’s one bedroom apartment). I started shouting (literally almost screaming) at the court recorder, “I just want to register my deep offense at this lawyer insinuating that I am here based on personal financial incentives, that is disgusting and I will not tolerate it” (after the deposition my partner came upstairs and asked me what all the shouting was about). I was livid. So pissed I couldn’t work for another hour. Am still pissed as I write this.
 Anyway, what caused these recent and highly public “reversals” by medical licensing authorities against self-proclaimed Covid experts? Is it the growing swell of previously systematically censored but now peer-reviewed and published paper s describing the scope and the scale of the medical catastrophe we docs have been long warning about?
 Check out these recent published papers with damning data showing the woeful inefficacy and massive toxicity of the mRNA platform (from Nicholas Hulscher’s excellent Substack ):

 Know that I am “borrowing” from Hulschers recent work because, after over three years, I stopped investigating, researching, or writing about adverse vaccine data. I did this around the time the DNA contamination issue and its implications exploded (thanks to the work of Phillip Buckhaults , K evin McKernan , and Jessica Rose among others). Since that aspect of the vaccines dangers was “out of my scientific wheelhouse” and that its implications would now be the most important facet in getting these shots pulled off the market, I quietly “passed the baton” to my gene sequencing expert colleagues.
 Again, the implications of the DNA contamination makes it pointless for me to gather more adverse epidemiologic or medical data. If the regulatory agencies are going to ignore the fact that the vaccine vials universally contain DNA fragments that can integrate and alter not only our genome but that of successive generations, whats the point?
 On this issue, if you have time, I think it is worthwhile to watch this shocking video recently put together by the team over at Steve Kirsch’s VSRF.

 As painful as it may be to watch, in the video above, the VSRF team expertly juxtaposes the scientific assertions by the team of mRNA experts with the “public service announcement” videotaped by Paul Offit who tries to reassure and minimize the implications of the DNA contamination findings.
 Recall that Offit is a member of the FDA’s Vaccine Advisory Committee and former member of the CDC Vaccine Advisory committee, and, as per his Wikipedia page is “ one of the the most public faces of the scientific consensus that vaccines have no association with autism.”
 If you didn’t watch the video, the VSRF tweet text accompanying it says it all here , which I will expound upon in slightly more detail from the video:
 SCIENTIFIC FACT: DNA is different than mRNA given that mRNA last hours to days while DNA has the potential to last for a very long time, maybe a lifetime or for generations. The vials were only supposed to have mRNA in them.
 Dr. Kevin McKernan, R&D lead Human Genome Project at MIT/WIBR. Founder- Medicinal Genomics:

 We've never done vaccines like this before. The central dogma of molecular biology is that DNA gets transcribed into RNA, and then RNA gets translated into protein. This is just how life runs. Why does this matter? Well, DNA For the purposes of this discussion, DNA is a long-lived information storage device. What you were born with, you're going to die with and pass on to your kids. Dna lasts for hundreds of thousands of years, and it can last for generations if you pass it on to your kids. So alterations to the DNA, they stick around. Rna, by its nature is temporary. It doesn't last. That feature of RNA was part of the sales pitch for the vaccine. The pseudo uridine was supposed to make the RNA last a little bit longer, but still it's a transient phenomenon. We're talking hours to days. Then proteins. Once proteins are made, they also don't last forever. They last for hours to days. But something that makes its way into DNA has the potential to last for a very long time, maybe a lifetime.
 SCIENTIFIC FACT: There are immense amounts of pre-existing published data showing that foreign DNA integration into our genome can cause serious illness like cancer and sudden death and autoimmunity, all of which have been strongly temporally associated with mRNA vaccination .
 Dr. Buckhaults testimony from a public hearing on the dangers of DNA contamination:

 Decades of research have demonstrated the risks of foreign DMA integrating into human cells, leading to potentially catastrophic outcomes. Synthetic DMA contamination, as detected in Australian vials of the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines by David Spieffer presents risks for genomic instability which can manifest as cancers, immune disorders and predatory diseases.
 In Dr. Paul Offit’s “Public Service Announcement” video rebuttal, he adopts a calm, affable, authoritative and explanatory tone, all intended to “reassure” the public that these “scientists” are “scaremongers” and the risks they describe are “virtually impossible.”
 Although subtle, it is important to note that Offit, in his video, was forced to correct himself. He states integration would be “impossible” at the 8:58 time stamp, but instantly corrects himself and says “virtually impossible.”
 Hmm, hey Paul, is it “virtually impossible or impossible?” If it is the former, then there is a “possibility” it could occur. Should we rule out that possibility first before launching this product into the arms of billions across the world?
 Problem - Offit’s main argument that it is “virtually impossible” to occur relies on his claim that the DNA “cannot get into and survive in the cytoplasm of the cell” nor can it “enter the nucleus.” McKernan rebuts these patently false assertions (e.g what used to be called lies) by presenting the results of his own experiments which found that the DNA fragments, because they are enveloped in protective lipid nanoparticles, (LNP’s) not only survive in the cytoplasm but, as per McKernan:

 We do this in the lab all the time. We take pieces of DNA, we mix them up with a lipid complex like the Pfizer vaccine is in. We pour it onto cells, and a lot of it gets into the cells, and a lot of it gets into the DNA of those cells, and it becomes a permanent fixture of the cell. It's not just a temporary thing. It is in that cell and all of its progeny from now on, forevermore in. So that's why I'm alarmed about this DNA being in the vaccine. It's different from RNA because it can be permanent. This is a real hazard for genome modification of long-lived somatic cells, like stem cells. It could cause, theoretically, this is all a theoretical concern, but it's pretty reasonable based on solid molecular biology , that it could cause a sustained autoimmune tact toward that tissue. It's also a very real theoretical risk of future cancer in some people. Depending on where in the genome this foreign piece of DNA lands, it can interrupt the chemo suppressor or activate an oncogene. I think it'll be rare, but I think the risk is not zero, and it may be high enough that we are to figure out if this is happening or not.
 McKernan continues:

 You should not be reversing the burden of proof saying that it's impossible, reversing possible for this to happen. You should show us that it isn't possible . That's the point of the FDA. The numbers that came out of that FDA study at 4. 7 micrograms per shot, those would put you in the range of 23 trillion molecules of DNA for 200 bases each. So 23 trillion, you have about 30 trillion cells. All about, let me see, one-fiftieth of this DNA is the SV40 promoter. That's about 500 billion SV40 promoters which are known to go straight to the nucleus.
Why is this important? Because the probability of a DNA piece of DNA integrating into the human genome is unrelated to its size. So your genome risk is just a function of how many particles there are (Ed: as above, 23 trillion). So it's like if you shoot a shotgun at a washboard, if you shoot a slug, you have some probability of hitting it. And if you shoot buckshot, you have a bigger probability of hitting it with some shot.
 Offit then resorts to a brazenly illogical assertion to further minimize the dangers of exposure to “foreign DNA” by arguing:

 The sphere of foreign DNA is a little far-fetched. First of all, we are colonized with trillions of bacteria, including trillions of bacteria that lie in our intestinal tract, which is a vast amount of foreign DNA to which we're exposed. Also, assuming that we live on this planet and that you eat animals or plants on this planet, you are ingesting foreign DN A, some of which ends up in your circulation, especially plant DNA, at much larger quantities and in much larger fragments than we see with these small DNA fragments in vaccines.
 Mckernan rightly calls out the absurdity of this argument:

 E ating DNA is not the same as injecting LNP’s to protect the DNA. I mean, I'm shocked to have to say this to someone who claims to be an MD. There's a reason why when you eat drugs, you get very different responses from when you inject them. Ozempic is an example. It has only 1% of the ability to eat it, but people are injecting it because it's much more active there. So, yes, injecting DNA and injecting aluminum is different than eating these things because your GI tract destroys stuff with acid, but your bloodstream bypasses that and this it gets all over your body and into your brain.
 McKernan then makes a super obvious and wise recommendation as a genetics expert:

 In my view, somebody should go about sequencing DNA samples from stem cells of people who are vaccinated and find out if this theoretical risk has happened or not. I think this is a real serious oversight, regulatory oversight that happened at the federal level, and somebody should force this to happen.
 Offit finishes with this re-assuring proclamation to the public:
 I'm trying to reassure you that this isn't a problem. I think it's unfortunate that that physician scientist tried to make it sound like a problem because all he did was scare people unnecessarily.
 Now you know why I no longer even try to take down the mRNA platform anymore? We have launched ourselves so far into reckless, willful and incomprehensible lunacy that I can no longer muster the energy to combat this aspect anymore.
 I instead pivoted to devoting nearly all of my “spare” time to focus on researching solutions (broad, safe, inexpensive, widely available, multi-mechanistic therapies) with large potential to relieve the suffering of the vaccine injured (i.e DMSO, CL02 etc) and/or combat any real or planned future pandemics (CL02 ).
 Luckily, it appears that I have some time to do so given the recent shuttering of USAID which funded the Wuhan Lab and also funds the WHO, WEF, Gates’s Gavi Alliance, and Soros (injecting a little "Babylon Bee” satire here folks):

 However, I so admire and appreciate the scientists I mentioned above as well as VSRF and the other health freedom organizations across the country who are still trying valiantly to sound the alarm of the mRNA platform’s dangers. And it really looks like they are finally succeeding, as Montana (among others already) recently debated legislation which would rightly outlaw mRNA vaccinations.

 Now, I want to finish on a positive note which is to share the moving, inspiring, and motivating letter of appreciation that I received yesterday from Dr. Hoffe. When I asked him if he was OK with me publishing it, this was his response:
 All who love truth and freedom are rejoicing over this victory that hopefully indicates the turning of the tide.
 I think the publishing the letter will be of great interest to many people. So please go ahead and use it as you wish.
 I plan to frame it given that, to me, it is a historical document of these times and one that I cherish and am proud of (I blacked out his personal info):

 This kind of letter brings fucking tears to my eyes. Still. And it will forever. We should never ever forget what “they” did to us in Covid nor how we fought and are still fighting back. Onwards.

 If you appreciate the effort ant time I spend researching and writing my posts, support in the form of paid subscriptions would be greatly appreciated.
 P.S. Also know that I am currently trying to defend Dr. Matt Shelton pro bono, a general practitioner (GP) in New Zealand who is being punished for his statements made on behalf of New Zealand Doctors Speaking Out With Science .
 Subscribe now

Summary: If I may say so, I was part of the "all-star" crew of Covid experts that submitted scientific defenses of all of Dr. Hoffe's statements and actions in Covid. The "authorities" just dismissed his case.


The "Kory Scale" - A Proposed Metric To Judge The Safety And Efficacy of "Unproven" Therapies Like Chlorine Dioxide

I thought I would have a little fun in todays post. From this paper titled “Medical Eponyms:”
 Eponyms are a long-standing tradition in medicine. Eponyms usually involve honoring a prominent physician scientist who played a major role in the identification of the disease. Under the right circumstances, a disease becomes well known through the name of this individual. There are no rules on eponym development. It may take an extraordinary period of time, be different in different languages and cultures, and evolve as more is known about the physician or the disease.
 Here are some eponym examples (there are thousands):

 As my subscribers know, I have for months now been researching and writing about the science and promise of chlorine dioxide therapy in the treatment of not only infectious diseases but a broad set of others. I am currently juggling about 5 draft posts on the histories of various “pioneers” of not only chlorine dioxide therapy, but earlier, nearly identical orally ingested oxidative therapies from the early 20th century.
 Know this history starts with Nikola Tesla’s work on ozone therapy which led to the later collaboration with and contributions by doctors like Dr. Eugene FM Blass and Dr. William F. Koch , both of whom developed oral and/or injected oxidative therapies whose efficacy and mechanisms seem to match that of chlorine dioxide.
 I have not published those histories yet because critical information (some of which is likely classified) continues to be imparted to me on a daily basis. However, what has already been revealed is a disturbing pattern of attacks and persecutions on the pioneering researchers and practitioners of oral ingested oxidative therapies. To not miss these critical upcoming posts, I suggest you subscribe:
 Subscribe now
 I am also in the midst of writing a book which I will unsurprisingly call, “The War On Chlorine Dioxide” (draft subtitle: “The medicine that would end Medicine”). OK, a bit overstated but whatever, should pique interest in the topic.
 Anyway, the pattern of persecutory behaviors that I am uncovering, based on my research into other erroneously discredited and/or suppressed but highly effective treatments like DMSO, IV Vitamin C, ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, proxalutamide , strongly suggest that oxidative therapy practitioners were identifying an effective, inexpensive, and safe treatment for a broad set of diseases.
 Obviously it goes without saying that the reason I assert this, is that simple, cheap, safe, and broadly applicable treatments for human disease is anathema to the immensely powerful bio-pharmaceutical industrial complex. This is particularly true in the United States (which in the wake of my Covid journey, I now not-so-affectionately call “The United States of Pharma.”)
 “The Kory Scale” Proposal
 The conceptual underpinning of the Kory Scale is that scores should be directly proportional to the degree, breadth, and viciousness of the attacks generated from “the medical establishment” in response to reports of efficacy of the proposed therapy (i.e. attacks from the AMA, FDA, NIH, DOJ, medical journals, pharma-controlled media, and the military).
 History Of Trying To Name Medical Terms After Myself
 First, to not come across as an egomaniac, I want to give some fun background as to why I am narcissistically trying to name this scale after me. First off, I thought of it first (I think?). But more importantly, my former trainees (fellows, residents, and students) will recall that I would entertain them on teaching rounds by humorously trying to coin an eponym named after me, typically based on a “silly” and patently obvious finding that I would teach them.
 One example was when I would teach my trainees something I tried to coin “The Kory Sign,” which was a sign that I claimed would predict the success of a patients ability to be liberated from a mechanical ventilator with 100% specificity.
 Know that taking patients off ventilators is a core skill of an intensivist and one that I taught on a daily basis for almost two decades. Liberating a patient from a mechanical ventilator at the right time is absolutely critical to their recovery and survival because immense amounts of data have shown that for every extra day a patient spends in an ICU or on a ventilator, outcomes and survival rates worsen.
 So, a good intensivist has to be able to take a patient off a vent “not too early” and “not too late.” “Too early” led to emergency re-intubation and its complications, i.e hypoxia, paralysis, sedatives and now an even longer course on a vent because they “tired out.” Taking a patient off “too late” led to higher incidences of sedative induced encephalopathy (ICU delirium), muscle disuse atrophy, infections, stress ulcer bleeds etc..
 So, what was this “Kory Sign” that predicted success of liberation with such incredible accuracy? Basically, it was when I walked into the room of an ICU patient and found a fully awake patient who was able to focus and connect with my own gaze (i.e. their sedatives had completely worn off) and who, despite not being able to talk due to the endotracheal tube still down their windpipe, would be gripping the handrails of the bed and pointing to the tube using facial and finger gestures which tried to communicate something like, “Hey Doc, can you take this fucking tube out?” Know that I have never seen someone need re-intubation after displaying “the Kory sign.” A little ICU humor, sorry.
 I also tried to invent a different, somewhat sillier “Kory sign” which indicated readiness for a patient to be transferred out of the ICU, i.e. meaning the patient no longer met criteria for the intensive monitoring required in critical illness or organ failure. Know that ICU beds suffer from the stresses of short supply and great demand, thus decisions to admit and discharge were critical to both hospital and community functioning.
 This sign, when displayed, meant that the patient was stable enough for the lower monitoring capabilities of a regular hospital ward. So, what was that sign? That was whenever I walked into the ICU room of a patient on morning rounds and they would be lying in bed with their legs crossed at the ankles. When I saw that, I would say - “Kory sign”! “Transfer to regular hospital ward”!
 The reason that sign was so instructive is that truly critically ill patients never have their legs crossed in bed. Only calm, mentally organized, and physiologically stable patients lay back like that. Note that an earlier version of “the Kory sign” was when I walked into the ICU room and found patient holding up and reading a fully opened newspaper (as long as the paper was right side up that is).
 Understand that these self-eponym proposals were not ego exercises but instead were attempts at keeping my trainees engaged and stimulated (and laughing) given that ICU rounds on average took between three and five hours (which is torture to the residents and fellows who had worked through the previous night).
 Now lets further discuss this third, more serious Kory eponym proposal since the last two “never took off,” (at least I don’t think they did but I wouldn’t know because I don’t practice or teach ICU medicine any longer).
 The Kory Scale
 Again, as above, the conceptual underpinning of the Kory Scale is that scores should be directly proportional to the degree, breadth, and viciousness of the attacks generated from “the medical establishment” in response to claims of efficacy of the proposed therapy (i.e. attacks by the AMA, FDA, NIH, DOJ, medical journals, pharma-controlled media, and the military).
 I propose that the higher the score, the more effective, safe, affordable and broadly applicable to the treatment of human diseases an “unproven” therapy will be.
 At the risk of stating the obvious, one reason why I assert that there is a strong relationship between the amount of persecutions by authorities and the degree of efficacy that a treatment holds, is that obviously ineffective or dangerous therapies do not generally need to be persecuted in such a broad and coordinated manner. In such cases, they either “never take off” (i.e become popular with a rapidly broadening wave of physician and patient support), or they “die off on their own” (i..e fall out of use organically because they aren’t clinically impactful), or they can be eliminated by those same authorities with only one or two “restrictive” actions.
 Well, that is, unless the ineffective and/or harmful therapy is popularized and promoted by the pharmaceutical industry (like mRNA vaccines, Paxlovid, Remdesivir, Molnupiravir etc). There, the inverse of the Kory Scale needs to be applied, i.e. you need to assign scores to what befell the “critics” (not the advocates) of those therapie s. This will conversely allow you to estimate the inefficacy or harms that Pharma is trying to suppress.
 Before I go further, I have to admit that this new term is similar to an already existing medical eponym called “The Simmelweiss Reflex.” Per Brave browser AI:

 Fun fact: Semmelweis was Hungarian… and so am I (my father is from Hungary).
 I do think there is a distinction between the “Simmelweiss Reflex” and the proposed “Kory Scale,” in that the former describes a situation where the medical pioneer endures persecution and ridicule before their discoveries later become proven and gain widespread recognition.
 The “Kory Scale” is simply a real-time tool used to judge the “likely” efficacy, safety, and applicability of any as yet “un-proven therapy” (loaded term) in the treatment of human disease. Most therapies that score high on the Kory scale will NEVER get proven or widely adopted due to their common traits of either;
 not having the potential to produce obscene profits (too inexpensive to make or are already widely available)

 having the potential to liberate people from chronic illness thus eliminating decades of pharmaceutical product sales

 The “Kory Scale”
 Here is a first, very rough, draft of the Kory Scale (I invite my subscribers to suggest revisions, edits, additions, especially with the arbitrary and inconsistent points assigned the various persecutory actions).

 Know that in Covid, many (but not all) of the above actions were taken against researchers and advocates for hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, proxalutamide, chlorine dioxide as well as for those against mRNA “vaccines,” Remdesvir, Paxlovid, Molnupiravir etc.
 My thinking right now is that you total up the score for each action to obtain an overall score. The higher the total score, the more likely the therapy is “threateningly effective.” As you can see above, I assigned more points based on the viciousness and/or malevolence of the actions taken. Obviously the scores are completely invented and unvalidated and likely inappropriate (e.g. what score should I assign for a therapy whose leading practitioner and/or advocate was assassinated? A 100? A 1000?)
 Calculating The Kory Scale For Ivermectin And Chlorine Dioxide
 Lets first try to estimate the efficacy of ivermectin in Covid using “the Kory Scale.” Obviously, this is just a thought exercise and not meant to (or could ever be) comprehensive. Recall that after my “ivermectin testimony” in the U.S Senate went viral:
 Within 2 days the Associated Press published a hit piece against me, the FLCCC and ivermectin ( 4 points ),

 Within 6 weeks, my review paper was mysteriously retracted despite having passed three rounds of rigorous peer review ( 6 points )

 Within 3 months, the WHO recommended against using it outside clinical trials (despite finding in their analysis that it reduced mortality by 82% and willfully excluding the wickedly positive prevention trials ( 6 points )

 The FDA posted weird negative “memos” conflating the dangers of animal products with human ivermectin (3 points )

 Large ”rigorous” trials were conducted and manipulated to conclude ivermectin was ineffective in Covid ( 6 points x 7 trials = 42 points)

 Retail pharmacies around the country refuse to fill valid prescriptions of one of the safest medicines in history (6 points )

 A highly positive ivermectin trial was accused of being fraudulent, creating a narrative that “all positive trials of ivermectin were fraudulent” ( 6? points )

 Pressures put on the lead ivermectin researcher for the WHO to self-retract his own highly positive meta-analysis based on 24 RCTs ( 6 points )

 A massive global, highly coordinated PR campaign was deployed to convince all that ivermectin was a “horse dewormer,” triggered by a coordinated series of actions by the FDA (tweet), CDC (memo), and NIH (Fauci on CNN). ( 15 points - 5 each)

 I received 11 complaints to my medical licensing board about being a misinformationist ( 5 points)

 I was fired from my independent ICU contractor job due to outside pressure being placed on my employer (conjecture) 7 points
 Same happened to my FLCC colleagues: Dr. Meduri was forced to retire from the VA ( 7 points ), Dr. Marik was denied privileges based on fabricated accusations (a hospital technique called a “sham peer review” - 7 points ) and Joe Varon had his hospital investigated and shut down (unrelated or not, timing was suspicious - 7 points )

 Intermittent negative hit jobs on me, Paul Marik and the FLCCC were published, timed with the publication of the manipulated trials ( 5 points )

 The American Board of Internal Medicine publicly went after me for violating a brand new “misinformation policy” they invented which ended with their revocations of all three of my specialty Board certifications ( 7 points)

 To be honest, I could go on and on, especially if I include points for what happened to all of my colleagues around the country and world - endless hearings, suspensions, revocations and firings (but no assassinations). Total Kory Scale Score Range for ivermectin is approximately 100 - 150 :).
 The Kory Scale For Chlorine Dioxide
 So, with our validated (yeah right) new metric, and at the risk of foreshadowing (since I have not published the full histories of the chlorine dioxide pioneers yet), let’s calculate the Kory scale score for chlorine dioxide and/or other highly similar oral “oxidative” therapies which preceded chlorine dioxide.
 Again, I will provide the references and sources for all the below claims in upcoming posts.
 William F. Koch - Research shut down ( 7 points) , harassed by the FDA and numerous professional societies ( 5 points ), smear campaigns appeared in the press and medical journals ( 5 points and 5 points) . Ultimately he was assassinated by poisoning the same year as Blass (next). 50 points . His wikipedia page claims he was a charlatan ( 5 points )

 Dr. Eugene FM Blass - murdered by assailants outside his lab (purportedly the KGB), work stolen and handed over to the Russian bioweapons program ( 50 points )

 Anonymous confidential informant scientist - informally deported from three countries (Nigeria and Uganda and the UK), received numerous threats to his life and career, partners were jailed in the UK ( 50+ points ).

 Jim Humble - informally deported from Guyana, ridiculed by the world’s media for years, also received threats ( 25 point s)

 Mark Grenon - survived two assassination attempts, he and his family were extradited and imprisoned in early Covid on false charges by the DOJ on the bidding of the FDA ( 150 points )

 Unnamed missionary colleague of Grenons in Africa who was treating malaria - legs blown off by an incendiary device planted in his hotel ( 25 points )

 Howard Alliger - forced to leave company for unclear reasons, daughter company later moved away from chlorine dioxide research ( 5 points - this score is low because Alliger never studied orally ingested chlorine dioxide, focusing instead on topical and mucosal applications many of which have reached the market).

 Vladimir Pasechnik - bioweapons researcher and chlorine dioxide expert was murdered in 2001 likely by the KGB after becoming an international whistleblower on the Russian Bioweapons program ( 100 points )

 David Kelly - another bioweapons expert who was murdered (“suicided”) months after the start of the US’s invasion of Iraq ( 100 points ).

 In 2019, Amazon.com removes all books on MMS by Jim Humble and Kerri Rivera, Facebook deletes all pages and chat groups focused on chlorine dioxide and Youtube scrubs videos on chlorine dioxide with millions of view s ( 20 points )

 Dr. Patricia Callisperis - a Bolivian surgeon friend and colleague who is a chlorine dioxide expert. She received anonymous phone calls meant to intimidate her to stop researching and talking about chlorine dioxide during Covid ( 5 points )

 Enno Frye - adjunct professor and researcher who conducted and published a highly positive study of 500 malaria patients treated with chlorine dioxide in Cameroon. After he obtained funding from the UN for another trial in Senegal, narcotics were planted on his person and he was falsely imprisoned in Italy for three years. His paper was later retracted and the media and journal and his University claimed the trial never took place ( 30 points )

 Dr. Mitch Liester, Psychiatrist at the University of Colorado and an expert in chlorine dioxide. He knew it would be effective against Covid and so he submitted a study proposal to CU’s Institutional Review Board in 2020, including immense amounts of data regarding the safety of ingestion of chlorine dioxide at the proposed treatment doses. He was quickly rejected based on the FDA’s position that it was toxic.

 Dr. Pierre Kory - happily researching and writing Substack posts for free to his subscribers, letting them know of the potential of chlorine dioxide while trying to promote the conduct of more research into the compound (0 points for this activity so far which is why it is a good time to remind all that I am happy, inspired, and not suicidal).

 Kory Scale Score For Ivermectin - 100-150 points
 Kory Scale Score for Chlorine Dioxide - over 500 points

 If you appreciate the time and effort (and the personal and professional risks I am taking) in researching and writing on chlorine dioxide, support in the form of paid subscriptions is appreciated.
 Subscribe now
 P.S I want to again emphasize that I am not recommending treatment with chlorine dioxide via oral ingestion to anyone as these posts are simply intended to help open and guide research into the treatment of human diseases with this promising compound.
 P.P.S As a last exercise, if you are still engaged on this topic, I propose you watch this documentary of Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski and his anti-neoplaston therapy for cancer. Let me know what score you would assign the efficacy of his therapy according to the “Kory Scale”

Summary: On teaching rounds in my ICU career, I humorously tried to name obvious medical insights after myself in an attempt to create an eponym that would endure beyond my career. Here is my latest attempt.


Scaring The Public Using Unfamiliar Chemical Names Is Surprisingly Easy To Do

After writing my recent post on the safety of chlorine dioxide doses used in treatment of human disease, I discovered how easy it is to instill “chemophobia” amongst the public when I was sent this Wikipedia post from a colleague which described an April Fools Prank perpetrated on the public by a Michigan newspaper called the Durand Express in 1983.
 In 1983 on April Fools' Day, an edition of the Durand Express, a weekly newspaper in Durand, Michigan, reported that"dihydrogen monoxide" ( Ed: water! ) had been found in the city's water pipes.
 Although I could not find the original copy of the newspaper, apparently in the article the paper wrote that “inhalation of this chemical nearly always results in death, " and that "vapors from it cause severe blistering of the skin which can be fatal if extensive." At the end of the article the paper revealed that the chemical formula of this substance was H20 (water ).
 Know that under the IUPAC nomenclature of inorganic chemistry , water is one acceptable name for this compound, even though it is neither a systematic nor an international name and is specific to just one phase of the compound (its liquid form). The other IUPAC recommendation is oxidane. Who knew that I have been drinking oxidane my entire life?
 Other names for water include: hydrogen oxide ; hydrogen hydroxide , which characterizes it as a base ; and several designating it as an acid , such as hydric acid or hydroxyl acid . The term used in the original text, hydroxyl acid , is a non- standard name.
 Later, when the internet was invented, the “dihydrogen monoxide” prank was perpetrated several more times, the first by housemates at the University of California, Santa Cruz in 1990 with their parody organization called the "Coalition to Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide," via on-campus postings and news group discussions.
 This was the chart created by the UC Davis group to show how dangerous this mysterious chemical was:

 Again, in my last post detailing the numerous studies finding safety of orally ingested chlorine dioxide at the standard doses used in the treatment of human diseases, I included the below “propaganda playlist” compiled from mass media TV news reports, all of which tried to use the FDA’s description of chlorine dioxide as “bleach” or “bleach like” to scare the public away from a “dangerous, quack cure.”
 With the above campaign against water in mind, I ask you to watch it, it is 5 minutes long and is a masterpiece of propaganda (from The Universal Antidote documentary here ):

 Back to the dangers of “dihydrogen monoxide.” Its toxicity received even more widespread public attention in 1997 when Nathan Zohner, a 14-year-old student at Eagle Rock Junior High School in Idaho Falls, Idaho , gathered petitions to ban "DHMO" as the basis of his science project, titled "How Gullible Are We?" He was able to get 43 out of the 50 ninth-graders surveyed to vote in favor of banning its use . Zohner actually received the first prize for his analysis of the results of his survey!
 In recognition of Nathan’s experiment, journalist James K. Glassman coined the term " Zohnerism " to refer to "the use of a true fact to lead a scientifically and mathematically ignorant public to a false conclusion." From this post by Karl S. Kruszelnicki:
 But, here's the point about misinformation, or disinformation. You can give people this totally accurate (but emotionally laden, and sensationalist) information about water. When you then survey these people, about three-quarters of them will willingly sign a petition to ban it. And it doesn't matter where in the world you do the survey.
 So, “Zohnerism” perfectly describes the FDA when they describe chlorine dioxide as “bleach, ” trying to hide from the public the fact that they regularly ingest chlorine dioxide given that it is widely used in water purification (and that therapeutic dose levels of oral ingestion are far below any level established as toxic).
 This wikipedia entry details all the times the “dihydrogen monoxide” prank has been repeated successfully on gullible politicians like in 2001, when a staffer in New Zealand Green Party MP Sue Kedgley 's office responded to a request for support for a campaign to ban dihydrogen monoxide by saying she was " absolutely supportive of the campaign to ban this toxic substance ". This was criticized in a press release by the National Party, one of whose MPs fell for the very same joke six years later .
 I found this archived Washington Post article which detailed the history and impact of the prank, and even delved into the use of Zohnerisms by the EPA:
 “Finding Zohnerisms in the press, Congressional Record and speeches of administration officials makes a great parlor game. One place to start is the collected speeches of EPA chief Carol Browner, who has used Zohnerisms masterfully to promote expensive, disruptive new standards for particulate matter and global warming -- despite evidence from scientists that is, at best, inconclusive.
 That's a shame. In a land where technical ignorance reigns and susceptibility to Zohnerisms is high, it's the duty of politicians, journalists and scientists to present facts responsibly and in context
 I like this one though - in 2006, in Louisville, Kentucky , David Karem, executive director of the Waterfront Development Corporation, a public body that operates Waterfront Park , wished to deter bathers from using a large public fountain. "Counting on a lack of understanding about water's chemical makeup", he arranged for signs reading: "DANGER! – WATER CONTAINS HIGH LEVELS OF HYDROGEN – KEEP OUT" to be posted on the fountain at public expense:

 Again in New Zealand:
 In 2007, Jacqui Dean , New Zealand National Party MP, fell for the joke, writing a letter to Associate Minister of Health Jim Anderton asking "Does the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs have a view on the banning of this drug?
 Although Zohner’s prank led to 86% of the 9th graders voting to ban the substance, the wider public is no more immune from manipulations and presentations of data to induce “chemophobia”:
 In February 2011, during the campaign of the Finnish parliamentary election , a voting advice application asked the candidates whether the availability of "hydric acid, also known as dihydrogen monoxide" should be restricted. 49% of the candidates answered in favor of the restriction.
 These pranks and campaigns actually led to this posting which tried to correctly inform the public of the safety of.. water:

 One of the points I take away from all of this is that accurate, objective, and clear scientific information is the lifeblood of democracy. I want the general public to be aware of how authorities and their legacy media partners can scare and manipulate scientific information to lead the public to rapidly adopt insane policy decisions, a situation that was rife throughout Covid, like;
 the insanity of extended pervasive lockdowns and keeping kids out of school

 widespread shuttering of small businesses, parks, gyms, churches, and beaches while leaving box stores and liquor stores open

 ubiquitous mask wearing (even on windy beaches)

 the sudden ignoring of the long-accepted concept of natural immunity in favor of vaccinating people who just recovered from the latest variant with an older, extinct viral antigen

 the suppression of effective repurposed anti-viral medicines like HCQ, IVM and others

 the widespread belief by the public that novel, barely tested, DNA contaminated genetic therapy products directed at a rapidly mutating coronavirus were “safe and effective” despite rapidly mounting evidence of widespread toxicity and lethality.

 Keep all of this in mind folks as I continue to write about the purported benefits of chlorine dioxide, a therapy that has been targeted with disinformation and propaganda for decades (and which will likely increase in response).

 If you appreciate the time and effort (and the personal and professional risks I am taking) in researching and writing on chlorine dioxide, support in the form of paid subscriptions is appreciated.
 Subscribe now
 P.S I want to again emphasize that I am not recommending treatment with chlorine dioxide via oral ingestion to anyone as these posts are simply intended to help open and guide research into the treatment of human diseases with this promising compound.

Summary: After my recent post on the safety of orally ingested chlorine dioxide and the FDA's propaganda campaign against this fact, a colleague alerted me to the danger of dihydrogen monoxide (water).


The Safety Of Orally Ingested Chlorine Dioxide At Commonly Used Treatment Doses

Disclaimer:
 Due to the history of persecutions and attacks on researchers and practitioners of chlorine dioxide as a therapy, I have to emphasize that in these posts, my intent is not to recommend treatment via oral ingestion of chlorine dioxide because;
 It is not FDA approved for oral ingestion to treat any disease

 It is not approved as an orally ingested therapy by any other regulatory agency in the world.

 It is not classified as a food supplement.

 Further, no chlorine dioxide formulation product on the market either meets or has been evaluated in terms of quality and safety for oral ingestion and thus do not meet Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP standards. Also, even if the over the counter products are relatively safe, it is doubtful that people know how to correctly make or store the resulting solution. For instance, it must be mixed with distilled water and be kept out of sunlight in amber glass or plastic bottles (never metal!). Further,(when exposed to sunlight there is a chance that chlorine can be produced, something that can introduce the potential for harm).
 Thus, it would be illegal and irresponsible for me to recommend treatment via oral ingestion with it, despite the fact that numerous over-the-counter products for mucosal or skin applications have been allowed on the market (oral, nasal, sinus, and skin).
 What is weird it that although it would be illegal for me or anyone to treat Covid with it, a law was passed in Bolivia in early Covid (over the strenuous objections of the regulatory health agencies) which allowed for the widespread manufacture and distribution of chlorine dioxide to be taken by oral ingestion by the military and universities there (albeit under controlled and standardized processes). Millions of Bolivians thus were treated with oral ingested chlorine dioxide for Covid. This effort, I believe, is the reason Bolivia’s outcomes in Covid were the best in South America, something I covered in a prior post on chlorine dioxide here .
 I thus view my work here as more in the vein of an amateur investigative science journalist who is exploring and exposing numerous troubling anomalies and contradictions in the behaviors and recommendations of regulatory agencies in regards to chlorine dioxide. It is my hope that this work helps provide the data in order to lift current FDA restrictions of research into oral ingestion of this promising compound. Todays post deeply illuminates only one such contradiction but there are more to follow. Subscribe now so as not to miss upcoming and critically important posts on this topic.
 Subscribe now

 SAFETY OF ORALLY INGESTED CHLORINE DIOXIDE
 From ChemicalSafetyFacts.org : Nearly 500 years ago, Swiss physician and chemist Paracelsus expressed the basic principle of toxicology: “All things are poison and nothing is without poison; only the dose makes a thing not a poison.” This is often condensed to: “The dose makes the poison.” It means that a substance that contains toxic properties can cause harm only if it occurs in a high enough concentration.
 In other words, any chemical—even water and oxygen—can be toxic if too much is ingested or absorbed into the body. The toxicity of a specific substance depends on a variety of factors, including how much of the substance a person is exposed to, how they are exposed, and for how long.

 When the topic of oral ingestion of chlorine dioxide is discussed, “authorities” such as the FDA, EMA, TGA, PAHO/WHO and many (if not all) others around the world do not recommend the use of chlorine dioxide via oral ingestion at all, instead they call attention to the toxicity and danger of chlorine dioxide , but they never clearly indicate either the dose or administration route when chlorine dioxide is toxic . This is shocking because humans across the world regularly ingest chlorine dioxide due to the fact it is widely used in water purification.
 Further, they often refer to the pure and concentrated form of this gas and not to aqueous chlorine dioxide solution used in treatment protocols for various illnesses.
 They also often refer to it as a “bleach-like” substance even though it is chemically very different from bleach (bleach is sodium hypochlorite). Sodium chlorite ( which makes chlorine dioxide ) is widely used for water purification; in higher concentrations, it is used in textile mills to bleach fabrics. Unlike sodium hypochlorite or Clorox (bleach), chlorine dioxide does not harm fabric.
 Please read this concise comparison of the two compounds from Scotmas.com :

 I want to further distinguish between the properties of chlorine , chloride , chlorate and chlorite as they are related but very distinct forms of the same element. Chlorine (the active ingredient in bleach) is a neutral atom with 17 protons and electrons, existing naturally as a diatomic molecule (Cl₂). Chloride, on the other hand, is the anion form of chlorine, which has gained an extra electron, giving it a negative charge (Cl⁻). This difference in charge is the key distinction between the two. Chlorine is a strong oxidizing agent used in various industrial applications, while chloride ions are essential for many biological processes and are found in compounds like table salt (sodium chloride). The most important fact you need to know about the chemical differences is that chlorine dioxide breaks down into the ubiqutious, essential, and safe compound of chloride , it does not produce chlorine!
 What about chlorite? Well, chlorite ( ClO₂⁻) , like chloride, is also a negatively charged anion formed by the combination of 1 chlorine atom (Cl) and 2 oxygen atoms (O₂) and is used as the precursor to make chlorine dioxide . Chlorine dioxide, once formed, will also break back down back into chlorite and then further break down into chloride (no chlorine is produced at anytime, unless exposed to full sunlight). See table from Chat Gpt:

 For those who are concerned about the potential for the breakdown product called “chlorate” to be toxic, know that chlorate does not break down into chlorine, instead, depending on methods or conditions, it quickly breaks down into the safe byproducts above of either 1) chloride and oxygen, 2) chlorite or chloride, and 3) chlorine dioxide (in acidic conditions).
 I think it is really important to understand that when we are discussing the safety or efficacy of chlorine dioxide, it must be understood that chlorite (the precursor of chlorine dioxide) has also been shown to be a complex immunomodulator, capable both of enhancing the immune response through phagocytosis or cellular defense mechanisms, and of mitigating the effects of the inflammatory response, inhibiting certain cytotoxic effects, as well as the hemolytic effects caused by free hemoglobin and the heme group. Recall from my last post on the therapeutic mechanisms of these compounds that when chlorite is ingested, it can convert into an intracellular form of taurine chloramine (TauCl). TauCl is a long-lived effector molecule within macrophages that down-regulates NF-kB expression and inhibits production of pro-inflammatory cytokines in part through activation of heme oxygenase-1 (HO-1).
 So, I am going to suggest that when we assess over-the-counter formulations of chlorine dioxide like MMS, know that they contain sodium chlorite, and that the chlorite itself has therapeutic mechanisms along with chlorine dioxide.,
 We good with the chemistry class today? And more importantly, are we good with recognizing that the FDA (and their mass media partners) willfully and repeatedly misrepresent both the chemical nature and toxicity of this compound? If you aren’t convinced yet, you will be by the end of this post, so hang in and hold on.
 We should also tell the FDA that the CDC says that gaseous chlorine dioxide is not carcinogenic or mutagenic (unlike the breakdown products formed when chlorine (which is in bleach) reacts with organic matter, two of which are both mutagenic and carcinogenic):

 Now, in order to assess the safety of orally ingested chlorite or chlorine dioxide solution, one must first understand how to measure doses which are sometimes expressed in weight (mg) or in concentration in solution (ppm). For chlorine dioxide, 1mg dissolved in a liter = 1ppm. In this review I will detail doses both in weight and concentration (the latter is determined by the volume the dose is dissolved in), however know that toxicity levels calculated by regulatory agencies are based on daily ingestion via weight, not concentration.
 Some general statements before we go forward:
 Chlorine dioxide is used in many industries such as municipal water purification, decontamination of food and beverages, pharmaceuticals, agriculture and as a disinfectant of both surfaces and of medical devices. Chlorine dioxide tablets are sold in camping stores for outdoor enthusiasts to purify groundwater in the wilderness.

 The EPA has registered ClO2 as a “pesticide” [ i.e. antimicrobial ] due to its ability to eliminate microorganisms such as bacteria, viruses, and parasites from surface water, thereby rendering it safe to drink (EPA, 2006)

 As a result, it is an inarguable fact that many Americans routinely ingest safe doses of chorine dioxide in their normal daily activities.
 Now, before we explore the studies examining the safe dosing levels of chlorite or chlorine dioxide that can be ingested each day, I want to point out that the dreaded chlorine (as above and which is the main component of bleach) is also used in water purification. Wait, what? We are allowed to drink bleach? In a sense, yes.
 What is the difference between chlorine and bleach? Easy - chlorine is a gas, and bleach is formed when chlorine gas is dissolved in solution, thus “bleach” is a liquid form of chlorine (technically the chlorine is in the form of sodium hypo chlorite, not sodium chlorite as that turns into chlorine dioxide which sodium hypochlorite does not).
 From Chat GPT:

 The EPA has set the maximum allowable level of chlorine in drinking water at 4 milligrams per liter (mg/L) , or 4 parts per million (ppm) . For a human drinking 2.5 L. a day, this would mean that 10mg doses of chlorine are safe for daily human consumption.

 The World Health Organization (WHO) has established a health-based guideline maximum value of 5 mg/L for chlorine as a residual disinfectant in drinking water. However, most water companies aim to keep the level below 1 mg/L . Either way, the WHO is saying that for 2.5L of water intake a day, 12.5mg of chlorine can be safely ingested on a daily basis.

 OK, so the EPA and WHO are saying that there are safe amounts of bleach that we can ingest daily and the doses range between 10mg and 15mg daily. Remember those doses. Now I have to ask the question as to why the FDA and other regulatory agencies across the world are always “screaming” to chlorine dioxide practitioners that they are ingesting bleach, while ignoring the fact that bleach is apparently safe to drink chronically. Weird no?
 Lets start looking at safe doses of chlorite and chlorine dioxide (recall that chlorite is the precursor to chlorine dioxide (as well as a breakdown product of chlorine dioxide).
 IS 2MG PER DAY OF CHLORINE DIOXIDE SAFE TO DRINK?
 In this terrific review paper by Dr. Michell Brent Liester, a chlorine dioxide expert at the University of Colorado, he reported that the EPA has established a maximum limit for chlorine dioxide of 0.8 ppm ( 0.8mg/L) when used as a water purifying agent in municipal water treatment plants. Know that the USDA recommends that men, on average, should drink 2.7L a day and women 2.2L a day. Thus, drinking 2.5L of water a day, that would mean that 2.0 mg is a safe dose to ingest on a daily basis ( know that under certain conditions like heat and exercise, water intake is much higher thus the safe dose is likely over 3mg daily.) Isn’t this weird, that the EPA says we can drink chlorine at doses up to 10mg a day, but the much much safer chlorine dioxide should be under 2mg a day on average. Hmm.

 IS 5MG OF CHLORINE DIOXIDE SAFE TO INGEST DAILY?
 In this WHO safety review , they write “The International Program on Chemical Safety (IPCS), based on data on chlorite, proposed an oral tolerable daily equivalent to 2mg/L ( 2ppm ) a day for a 70 kg male taken chronically over time, further supporting the fact that chronic exposure is well tolerated.” This indicates that, contrary to the EPA, the WHO has found that (again, assuming a daily intake of water at 2.5L a day) a total daily dose of 5mg of chlorine dioxide is safe to drink chronically. Caveat - here they are establishing the safe level of chlorine dioxide based on the dose of chlorite which is what turns into chlorine dioxide.

 So, ingesting up to 5mg a day of chlorite is considered a safe dose by regulatory agencies for “chronic ingestion,” agreed?
 IS 6.5MG OF CHLORINE DIOXIDE SAFE TO INGEST DAILY?
 In this study , they gave a half liter of water with 5ppm ( 5mg/L) to healthy volunteers who drank it for a 12 week period, which “was accompanied by no clinically important physiological effects.” In their conclusion, they establish that this level is safe for “chlorine dioxide and its byproducts.” Thus, this study found that a daily dose of approximately 2.5 mg a day a day for 3 months is safe ( if someone drinks 2.5L a day, that would mean a daily dose of 6.25 mg .

 IS 10MG OF CHLORINE DIOXIDE SAFE TO INGEST DAILY?
 The EPA also approved a limit of 4 ppm (4mg/L) of chlorite for emergency drinking water, which involves disinfecting surface water in emergency situations like while backpacking or camping or by emergency personnel. Again, assuming 2.5L of water intake a day, this would mean that for short periods, one could ingest 10mg a day safely (so, now we are at the same safe level that the WHO has established for chlorine in solution (i.e. bleach).

 OK, so now we are up to 12.5mg daily doses of chlorite likely being safe for up to 12 weeks. Should we keep going higher?
 IS 24MG OF CHLORINE DIOXIDE SAFE TO INGEST DAILY?
 In this study by Lubbers et al from 1982 , they had volunteers drink a liter of water a day of chlorine dioxide with increasing concentrations over time. They allowed two days for observation before increasing the next daily dose. They increased up to a dose of 24 ppm (24mg/L) in one day and observed no ill effects. Thus 24mg doses are safe to drink in one day.

 Know that in this study, they actually put a number of disinfectants in the water at the same time. For instance, if you look at the Day 16 doses on the far right of the table, you see that not only 24mg of chlorine dioxide was safe, you could do that along with 24 mg of chlorine, 2.4 mg of chlorite, and 2.4 mg of chlorate. Wow!
 From the paper:

 IS 224 MG OF CHLORITE SAFE TO INFUSE INTRAVENOUSLY?
 In this ALS study, they treated patients with chlorite intravenously (recall that chlorite is the active ingredient in the popular over the counter formulation called MMS and that chlorite turns into chlorine dioxide when exposed to something acidic). In that study they reported that 2mg/kg/day doses of chlorite for 5 days in a row (then 3 days in a row on a monthly basis) was well tolerated. Thus, for a70kg male, you could take IV chlorite at doses of 140mg a day.

 In another ALS study , they gave chlorite intravenously at doses up to 3.2 mg/kg/day (i.e. 224 mg per day for a 70kg man) and that such doses were “generally safe and well-tolerated, with no serious adverse events observed.” So, 224mg a day of intravenous chlorite was well tolerated .

 I think it goes without saying that Iv administration will produce far great absorption than oral administration, so the dose limits of IV administration suggest that far higher doses can be tolerated orally. At the risk of foreshadowing, know that 30mg in a liter of chlorine dioxide solution (CDS) daily is the dose targeted in the most popular, initial treatment protocol using CDS. In the above study in ALS, they gave patients many times that dose, but in the form of chlorite.
 Anyway, let’s keep going with trying to understand the safety of treatment doses of chlorite and chlorine dioxide. In the below, we will explore the dose levels established by regulatory agencies that cause toxicity or lethality. Are treatment doses of the oral ingestion treatment protocols below that level?

 While you’re here, don’t forget to subscribe for more posts like this one.
 Subscribe now
 THE ESTIMATED LETHAL DOSE OF INGESTED CHLORINE DIOXIDE
 One method for determining toxicity is to assess a product’s “LD50” which is the dose required to kill half the test population . Obviously, we don’t do such tests in humans so the most commonly used test population is rats. **Note that in the below toxicity studies, the amounts of chlorite and chlorine dioxide that is tolerable via oral ingestion is measured in milligrams per kilogram, either per single dose or per day.
 The WHO reported the LD50 for oral chlorine dioxide in rats to be 94mg/kg , which falls between the LD50 of 50 mg/kg for nicotine (Mayer, 2014) and 97 mg/kg for dextroamphetamine ( FDA, 2007 ). If you had 70kg rats :), that means you would need the rats to take a dose of 6,580 mg in order to kill 50% of them.

 The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) reported the LD50 to be 292mg/kg. I won’t even bother calculating that dose for a 70kg rat. This level places it between the lethal level of aspirin and ibuprofen, two of the most commonly used medications in the world.

 The US EPA (2008) lists the LD50 as >5,000 mg/kg!

 Let’s compare the LD50 of oral chlorine dioxide in rats to that of caffeine, where the acute oral LD50 is reported to be approximately 192 mg/kg, which suggests that caffeine is more toxic than chlorine dioxide . Other compounds far more lethal than chlorine dioxide in rats are nicotine and Vitamin D3. Interesting no?

 SO, IF ITS LESS LETHAL THAN CAFFEINE, WHAT DOSE OF CHLORINE DIOXIDE IS TOXIC TO INGEST ORALLY?
 Given the above data, it is nearly impossible to kill someone with chlorine dioxide (outside a massive intentional overdose) so what are the sub-lethal toxicity levels?
 In a toxicological review issued by the US-EPA in 2000 , experimental data, primarily from animal studies, were reviewed. Successive reviews, ultimately based on a long-term toxicity study commissioned by the EPA, including several generations of mice (which are particularly sensitive animals during estrus, lactation, and childbirth) led the EPA and later the U.S. Department of Health to determine the experimental toxicological levels for chronic oral exposure (>90 days) of humans to chlorine dioxide and chlorite. These levels are:
 NOAEL : This EPA report identified a NOAEL of 3 mg/kg per day of chlorite based on observed nasal lesions at higher doses. For a 70kg human, that would be 210mg/day of chlorite, but remember, that would not be just one day, but taken chronically over time). I must recognize that in these rat studies, they evaluated the toxicity of chlorite, not chlorine dioxide, but, as per the report:

 “The available data suggest that chlorine dioxide and chlorite have similar targets of toxicity and potencies. Therefore, the toxicity information for chlorite is relevant to deriving an RfD for chlorine dioxide .
 LOAEL : 5.7 mg/kg/day (Lowest Observed Adverse Effects Level—the minimum dose at which some toxicity was observed). For a 70kg male, that would be 399mg a day chronically.

 From the Liester review (see pdf), the chart compares concentrations in ppm, i.e. mg/L):
 Liester Review Cl02 In Covid
 144KB ∙ PDF file

 Download
 Download

 In “The Universal Antidote” (TUA) documentary, they provide a powerful illustration of the absurdity of the FDA and other regulatory agency claims by comparing the concentrations with which it is used as a “bleaching agent” in the paper industry and the concentrations with which it is used therapeutically in humans:

 So, when chlorine dioxide is used as a bleaching agent (5% concentration), the amount would equal 50,000 mg per liter which is over 300X the maximum amounts (160mg/L daily) used in treatment via popular oral ingestion treatment protocols.
 From this chart compiled by Dr. Pablo Campra (the bottom row shows the total daily dose in mg):

 DOSES USED IN POPULAR TREATMENT PROTOCOLS ARE FAR LESS THAN TOXIC LEVELS
 Thus, as per the previous section, the doses used in treatment protocols are far less than what has been established to produce adverse effects in chronic ingestion and nowhere near the levels used in industrial applications.
 Now, I think it is important to understand the difference between Miracle Mineral Solution (MMS) and Chlorine Dioxide Solution (CDS) given they are the two main formulations of chlorine dioxide used to treat human diseases. These formulations differ by their method of production and the precision of estimated dosing levels:
 Miracle Mineral Solution (MMS)
 The original method pioneered by Jim Humble results in a compound he called “Miracle Mineral Solution” or MMS (his explicit rationale for calling it this will be covered in a later post). This original formulation involved simply ingesting sodium chlorite (NaCL02) water purification tablets or liquid, and then allowing our stomach acid to “activate” it into chlorine dioxide. (which dissolves in water and blood).
 Since then, the method of preparation has changed, with the new formulation called “MMS1” where the chlorine dioxide is formed before ingestion instead of after ingestion. Making MMS1 involves combining equal drops of liquid sodium chlorite (NaCLO2) and a liquid acid activator (HCL) for 30 seconds prior then icing the drops with distilled water at 40z. . Since most protocols recommend hourly dosing up to 8 times a day, the MMS1 either needs to be mixed each hour (although it only takes seconds to prepare) or can be made in a larger volume for the day and ingested in hourly doses from a single container. The issue with MMS1 dosing is that only about 10% of the sodium chlorite is activated before ingestion, so some of the unactivated chlorite will then be activated by our stomach acid, thus increasing further the amount of chlorine dioxide available.
 An anonymous scientist who goes by the name Charlotte (anonymity is prevalent by researchers in this field) and whose website on chlorine dioxide is terrific , employed spectral photometry (the only technique that can measure doses accurately). They found that 3 drops of MMS1 activated for 30 seconds produced a dose of 2.2 mg which when diluted in 1/2 cup of water (120ml/4oz) led to a concentration of approximately 20 ppm (20mg/L) (note that in the below, the amount produced after 30 or 60 seconds is not much different):

 The above brings up an extremely important point about chlorine dioxide research. Given it is so heavily restricted, there are many questions that chlorine dioxide practitioners and researchers have not been able to answer reliably, mainly in terms of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics.
 From this paper :

 Know that I am a newly inducted member of a group of expert chlorine dioxide researchers and practitioners which was named the “Bio-oxidative Research Task Force” where we meet weekly. Triggered by the groups review of a draft of this post, a fascinating discussion ensued which highlighted the knowledge deficits that still exist about the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of chlorite and chlorine dioxide.
 Anyway, the discussion highlighted the fact that, since we do not have access to sophisticated measuring devices nor an affiliation with a research lab willing to undertake such research (career suicide), the exact dose of chlorine dioxide and its metabolites that are produced by current “over the counter” methods (MMS and CDS) are not precisely known and instead are roughly estimated.
 We identified critical knowledge gaps that need to be filled for the field to proceed (wish us luck). Some of the first knowledge gaps are knowing the exact doses produced externally using the two most popular methods and then the doses generated and or absorbed internally by the body. This knowledge gap applies to both MMS1 and CDS formulations, but is probably more important to know for MMS1 given that this method involves ingesting a significant amount of unactivated sodium chlorite.
 For instance, what happens after ingestion of MMS1? If only 10% is activated in the preparation glass by this method, how much will then be activated by stomach acid after ingestion (increasing the amount of chlorine dioxide absorbed) while at the same time the chlorine dioxide already produced will be reduced by interaction with tissues and/or pathogens into its metabolites like chlorite and chloride. What are their concentrations and how long are they active in the body?
 Thus, you should know that with MMS1, it is impossible to know the exact amount of chlorine dioxide or its metabolites that are formed and/or absorbed with each dose. The main reason is that, as opposed to the decades of research into the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of topical applications of chlorine dioxide performed by the chlorine dioxide pioneer Howard Alliger and Frontier Pharma (more on him later), there is a paucity (but not absence) of similar research in regards to oral ingestion.
 To do this research it would require complex studies using sophisticated methods of measurement due to the numerous variables which contribute to the amount of chlorine dioxide produced (and the amount of chlorite that remains or is metabolized into), e.g. the time allowed for activation before swallowing, type of acid activator (HCL most effective), the amount of stomach acid present, the temperature and pH of the components, and the amounts being mixed (not all droppers produce a standard “drop” - some droppers produce larger and some smaller).
 So, although the actual amount of chlorine dioxide and chlorite that is produced by the MMS and CDS methods are not precisely known, in order to establish the safety of the MMS method for instance, one could simply calculate the maximum amount of chlorine dioxide that can be produced from 28% sodium chlorite. Those calculations can be found here and are briefly summarized by me below:
 Assuming a maximal activation rate of 75% (i.e. the maximal amount sodium chlorite that can be activated) , the maximal amount of chlorine dioxide that can be generated from 1ml (20 drops) of sodium chlorite and HCL is 125mg. Thus one drop produces a maximum of 6.2 mg . Humbles main protocol (“Protocol 1000”) calls for a maximum of 3 drops, 8 times per day which would equal a total of 24 drops. 24 drops times a maximum of 6.2 mg/drop= 148 mg a day. Now, recall that the No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL) for chlorite (equivalent to chlorine dioxide in terms of toxicity and potency) is 3 mg/kg/day, which for a 70kg person would = 210 mg a day . Thus, the maximum dose in Humble’s main protocol is far less than the NOAEL for a 70 kg person .
 As a clinician however, I want to emphasize the unimportance of knowing the exact dose absorbed given that, as above, the dose ranges produced are far below levels producing adverse effects and, as long as a patient follows the “3 Golden Rules” of titrating MMS doses, the dose they arrive at will be safely tolerated and effective (as long as they prepare their MMS the same way with the same dropper each time).

 Chlorine Dioxide Solution (CDS)
 CDS was created by a group of scientists around 2007 who were trying to make “pure” chlorine dioxide solution by fully (100%) activating the sodium chlorite and HCL into a gaseous form. Similar to MMS, they combined sodium chlorite and HCL, but they did so in a closed container . Chlorine dioxide gas was created and then dissolved in distilled water , producing a solution which is now called CDS. The method is illustrated in Lesson 2 on the TUA website here .
 Contrary to the claims by advocates of the CDS method, precise knowledge of the amount of chlorine dioxide in solution generated by this method cannot be attained without spectrophotometry. Using color coded “chlorine dioxide test strips” only allows for a rough estimate given that the color differences on the strips are not discrete - this method thus “estimates” the exact concentration but can be 2-3 fold off (however, again, to a clinician, this is not terribly important given the three golden rules of clinical dosing and the fact that any amounts generated will be far below toxic levels based on the amounts of sodium chlorite and HCL used).
 Another variable which introduces imprecision is the fact that the geometry of the closed container used to generate the gas will affect the dose produced and those employing this method at home will not be using the same containers.
 One purported strength of the CDS method is that a larger volume of solution can be easily created such that it can be dosed numerous times a day from the same container without having to mix each time like some do with MMS1. However, those who become familiar with making MMS1 can also easily make an “all day” volume of solution without having to mix each time.
 Another supposed strength is that when taking CDS, there is no secondary activation in the stomach because there are no remnants of sodium chlorite and acid as occurs with MMS1, thus the ingested (not absorbed) dose is precisely known. However, this also introduces a “weakness” of CDS as a therapeutic - there is no additional sodium chlorite ingested, and, as above, chlorite itself has numerous therapeutic mechanisms.
 Another difference is that CDS is said to have less of the chlorine smell and taste (which sometimes needs to be masked with something sweet or flavorful for patients with a strong dislike for the taste of MMS1). CDS is also considered to reduce the diarrhea reaction, in particular when used in higher doses, however, making CDS takes significantly more time and complexity than making MMS1.
 Basically, both are considered highly effective, however, the chlorine dioxide pioneers, including Jim Humble, Mark Grenon, CM etc all prefer MMS1 both therapeutically and practically in most conditions for oral administration (for IV, IM, or enema administration, most would use CDS). For another comparison of the two formulations, I refer you to t his post by Dr. Robert Yoho where he provides his reasoning for the preference of the MMS1 formulation.
 DOSES USED IN POPULAR TREATMENT PROTOCOLS OF MMS AND CDS
 So, if no toxicity of chlorine dioxide has been observed chronically for doses less than 210mg per day for a 70kg human, are the doses used in popular treatment protocols less than that level?
 Again, Jim Humble’s main MMS1 protocol recommends increasing to a maximum of three drops of sodium chlorite with 3 drops of an acid activator per hour (referred to as a “3 drop” dose not “6 drop”). Per Charlotte’s measurements above, a 3 drop dose activated for 30 seconds = 2.25 mg. If one were to perfectly adhere to the main MMS protocol (Protocol 1000) and take this dose 8 times a day, this would approximate a total ingested dose of 18mg daily ( note the “absorbed” dose of chlorine dioxide is likely higher than this due to secondary activation of chlorite by stomach acid and also know that the excess sodium chlorite ingested is therapeutically active by itself) .

 The main protocol for CDS relies on a making a solution of 3000 ppm (3000mg in 1L of water). But again, if measured using test strips, this amount is approximate and not precise. With this highly concentrated solution, they then take10ml out and dilute it in separate 1L of distilled water, thus making a solution of approximately 30ppm (30mg/L) which is then ingested over 10 single doses (i.e. a total of 30mg per day). It is advised to increase dose as tolerated by adding up to 30ml (of the 3000ppm solution) to 1L of water, making this approximately 90mg in a liter a day. It is advised against adding more than 60 ml (approximately 180mg in a liter per day).

 From this report by the COMUSAV organization in October of 2020 (slightly paraphrased);
 “The clinical experience of Latin American doctors over the past six months suggests that the intake of 30 mg per day of chlorine dioxide dissolved in one litre of water (e.g. 30ppm or 30mg/L), and drunk during ten events distributed over the day, is a successful treatment for COVID-19, which is 7 times below the dose considered as a NOAEL for a 70kg patient (i.e. 30mg daily vs. the limit of 210mg daily to avoid adverse events.
 Further, from the Curious Outlier:
 “I have done quite a bit of self experimentation with MMS1 and CDS and I have far exceeded NOAEL doses desiring to make sure I know that the things I am instructing on are well below any tolerable range. The worst symptom that I have ever experienced is mild nausea and diarrhea. When experimenting with MMS doses that were more concentrated above 50 ppm (50mg/L) it did occasionally give me a scratchy throat feeling. Very infrequently do I ever experience those symptoms with use now.”
 Thus, the doses used in popular protocols are far lower than what has been established to produce adverse effects.
 This is again where the whole “chlorine dioxide is bleach” propaganda argument falls apart. No-one anywhere in the world is using anything close to toxic or “bleaching” concentrations for anything to do with the treatment of human diseases. Plus, chlorine, the active ingredient in bleach, is often used for water purification and safe doses have been established for oral ingestion! Maybe tell that to all the TV News producers?
 See this 5 minute “propaganda playlist” put together by The Curious Outlier in his The Universal Antidote Documentary (reproduced with permission).

 Interestingly, from this post ,
 In 2021, noted Mexican entrepreneur Pedro Luis Martin Bringas, associated with the Soriana Group, publicly pledged $2 million to anyone who could provide evidence supporting the claims of CDS toxicity at the commonly utilized dosages. He has also contacted the FDA but has not yet received any feedback.
 REPORTS OF TOXIC INGESTIONS OF MMS
 Now, despite the above, there have been 5 reports to the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System [FAERS] of adverse effects associated with the use of chlorine dioxide, and all 5 of these involved MMS.

 It is clear to me and many of my network of chlorine dioxide experts that these cases are used by the FDA to warn against using MMS and similar products, stating “ingesting these products is the same as drinking bleach.”
 Which brings up the question, “How many reports of bleach ingestion have been reported to FAERS compared to the number related to chlorine dioxide ingestion?
 This gets interesting, from Chat GPT:

 So, the FDA collects and publicly reports data on adverse MMS ingestions but not bleach ingestions? Weird. It also gets a bit weirder, because Chat GPT then suggested I go to the below for data on bleach ingestion incidents:

 Problem: I could not find these data on that website. Oh well, lets go back to the FDA’s FAERS system to review the reports on MMS ingestion:
 From Liester’s review (edited for brevity):
 The FDA has continued to warn against using MMS and similar products, stating “ingesting these products is the same as drinking bleach.” The FDA reports MMS “has caused serious and potentially life-threatening side effects” and describes reports of “severe vomiting, severe diarrhea, life-threatening low blood pressure caused by dehydration and acute liver failure after drinking these products” ( FDA August 12, 2019 ).
 Reports of adverse effects come from sources other than the FDA also. The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (2019) reported receiving 6 calls in 5 years related to MMS. The callers ranged in age from 3 to 48 years. One child experienced nausea and weakness following oral ingestion and the second experienced intestinal burns after being administered an enema that contained MMS.
 The bias of health authorities can be seen in the purposely misleading headline of this report:

 Adverse effects were also described in a case report of a 41-year-old woman who developed Kikuchi-Fujimoto disease [histiocytic necrotizing lymphadenitis] after ingesting an unknown quantity of MMS in a glass of water that was given to her by a relative. She was admitted to a hospital 11 days after the onset of symptoms which included fever, left-sided lymphadenopathy, chills, rigors, and a dry cough. An excisional lymph node biopsy was performed, and histological findings were consistent with Kikuchi-Fujimoto disease. She was treated symptomatically with paracetamol 1 g every 6 h for 72 h and she defervesced 16 days after the initial onset of fever. Outpatient follow-up at 2 weeks found no recurrence of fever (Loh and Shafi, 2014). ( Ed: how is this in any way related to MMS? )
 Stories in the media have also described adverse effects and death in people who ingested MMS. Several news stories reported the case of a woman who was sailing with her husband in the south Pacific in August 2010 when she suddenly became ill after drinking MMS. This woman developed nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, and felt faint, then lapsed into a coma and died (Galli et al., 2016; New Zealand Herald, 2016; Ono and Bartley, 2016). Autopsy results were inconclusive (Gibson, 2010). ( Ed: This case is clearly inconclusive as to the toxicity of MMS given lack of knowledge as to the illness she was treating and/or the dose she ingested).
 A story in The New York Times reported the FDA had “received reports of at least 20 people affected by exposure to MMS, with at least seven deaths of people who had ingested Miracle Mineral Solution - two in 2018 and one each in 2017, 2014, 2013, 2011 and 2009” (Hauser, 2019).
 However, a review of the FDA’s Adverse Events Reporting System [FAERS] Public Dashboard indicates as of March 31, 2020, only 5 reports of adverse effects were received, one each in 2011, 2014, 2017, and two in 2018 . Furthermore, no deaths were listed (FDA March 31, 2020). ( Ed: More disinformation from the New York Times) .
 High doses of ClO2 can cause methemoglobinemia. When ClO2 is added to water, chlorites are formed. High concentrations of chlorite ions oxidize hemoglobin to methemoglobin (Moore et al., 1978), and the ingestion of a high dose of ClO2 can result in methemoglobinemia. One example comes from the report of a 25-year-old male who ingested 10 g ( ED: 10,000 mg or 10,000 ppm ) of sodium chlorite dissolved in 100 mL of water during a suicide attempt.
 He subsequently developed generalized cyanosis and respiratory distress and was found to be suffering from methemoglobinemia which also led to kidney failure. After receiving dialysis for 24 h, his methemoglobin decreased from 43.1 to 16.9%. Hemodialysis was continued for 4 weeks and after 3 months, renal function normalized (Lin and Lim, 1993).
 Now, although someone like the man above who took 10,000 ppm (10,000mg/L) of chlorine dioxide has no relevance to the safety of short term use for acute illness at doses that are way less than established toxicity levels, the issue of G6PD deficiency should be examined. If patients with that disorder are particularly susceptible to methemoglobinemia, then maybe the established “safe” levels do not apply to such patients. Lo and behold, the answer is that safe doses have been established for such patients as well. To wit:
 This study found that drinking water purified with chlorine dioxide did not affect patients with G6PD deficiency.

 This study purposefully tested chlorite at a concentration of 5 mg/l (5ppm) daily for twelve consecutive weeks to a small group of potentially at-risk glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase-deficient subjects. No toxicity was observed.

 Thus, G6PD patients should not be concerned at concentrations of 5ppm (5mg/L) for 12 weeks, and, outside of the intentional overdose case above and another case of a 1 year old boy who drank a chlorine dioxide household product, no other methemoglobinemia cases have been reported.
 SAFETY OF TOPICAL APPLICATIONS OF CHLORINE DIOXIDE
 There are dozens of research papers that extol the benefits and safety of topically applied chlorine dioxide for human wound management and microbial control. In 2014, the Journal of Advances in Skin and Wound Care published an article that stated," Chlorine dioxide appears to be a safe, biologically acceptable, antiseptic wound irrigate that does not appear to interfere with cosmetic outcomes ."
 From TUA reference guidebook:
 The international dentistry journal published in 2004 states, "the effectiveness of topical chlorine dioxide (they used Frontier Pharma’s DioxiRinse Mouthwash ) in the management of chronic atrophic candidiasis was demonstrated. ClO2 provided a safe and clinically effective option."
 Know that the published paper contains a dosing error (personal communication with Frontier Pharma). Instead of 0.8% (8000ppm) as stated, Frontier Pharma informed me that their product’s concentration range is between 40 - 200 ppm, (far less than the 8000ppm in the paper which would not be tolerable as a rinse). The paper is still a testament of the safety and efficacy of chlorine dioxide, and in particular Frontier’s formulation (which is not just straight chlorine dioxide).
 To show just how safe topical and mucosal chlorine dioxide is, know that Frontier Pharmaceuticals , the daughter company of Howard Alliger, the pioneering researcher of chlorine dioxide, sells an approved suite of oral, dental, nasal, and wound care products to treat bad breath, biofilms, acne, toenail fungus, canker sores, oral infections, and chronic sinus infections. One of the most popular products, the Snoot nasal/sinus spray , has about 20ppm when initially mixed which can then increase to about 80ppm before dissipating over a week (again, personal communication with Frontier Pharma).
 At the risk of turning this into a commercial for their products (I have absolutely no financial relationship or incentives with the company), know that, per Frontier Pharma:
 The Snoot formula provides the benefits of glycerin to moisturize and prevent irritation and mild wetting agents to help break up mucous. DioxiRinse contains calcium and phosphate to protect the teeth from etching, as well as menthol and glycerin for soothing and hydrating. It has a fresh, invigorating mint flavor. The products are “ready to use” and shelf stable for 2 years. These features separate our products from using straight chlorine dioxide alone. We are able to control the rate of reaction and generate known concentrations of chlorine dioxide with each use.
 EFFECTS OF CHLORINE DIOXIDE ON THE HUMAN MICROBIOME
 Now, many question whether, due to its broad anti-microbial properties, chlorine dioxide has negative effects on our own native microbiome. The chlorine dioxide experts I have talked to argue that this does not happen largely because the organisms that make up our microbiome, unlike pathogens, generate significant amounts of reactive oxygen species (ROS) which protect them from the oxidizing effects of chlorine dioxide. Further, one of the most important properties of chlorine dioxide is that it is known as a relatively “weak” oxidizer and that this property is what makes it so safe - it is too weak to kill our native microbiome but strong enough to kill pathogens. Wow.
 In essence, the ROS generated by the gut bacteria (in particular lactobacillus) are protected due to the fact that 1) the ROS protects them by neutralizing the chlorine dioxide. It is felt that unless the chlorine dioxide doses are massive, the microbiome is not affected, although the exact dose which the microbiome is susceptible to is not known. It should also be noted that many people with chronic intestinal inflammatory or infectious disorders have reported significant improvements after oral ingestion of chlorine dioxide without side effects in the gut.
 From the mouth of Jim Humble in this famous interview :
 “Chlorine dioxide is a less powerful oxidizer than hydrogen peroxide. Hydrogen peroxide will oxidize many things that chlorine dioxide will not oxidize, and which makes chlorine dioxide an ideal oxidizer for the body. It doesn't have the power to oxidize the healthy cells of the body or the beneficial bacteria in the body or a lot of the tissues of the body. While hydrogen peroxide can oxidize a lot of things, chlorine dioxide oxidizes a very limited number of things. It will only oxidize pathogens. That's the things that cause disease in your body. It only oxidizes the pathogens. It won't oxidize any of the beneficial things in the body, so you don't really have to worry about it. “
 Finally, although it is clear that doses used in oral ingestion treatment protocols are below the levels where adverse effects are observed when taken chronically, this does not mean that chlorine dioxide treatment is without some side effects. When using the MMS1 formulation, if patients use doses they have not yet developed tolerance to (i.e. increasing their dose too quickly), watery stools are common, nausea and vomiting may occur and fatigue is sometimes reported, particularly in older patients.
 Mild “Jarisch–Herxheimer” reactions can occur ( sudden and typically transient reactions from “die-off” of infectious pathogens after being administered anti-microbials). Symptoms include fever, chills, shivers, feeling sick, headache, etc. Humble feels such reactions are simply evidence that the “MMS is working.”
 Either way, from my previous post where I detailed a recent illness that I suffered and that I self-treated with chlorine dioxide, I had decided to dose a bit more aggressively than most due to the severity of the illness. I myself found the side effects tolerable and were greatly eclipsed by the fact I recovered quickly.

 If you appreciate the time and effort (and the personal and professional risks I am taking) in researching and writing on chlorine dioxide, support in the form of paid subscriptions is appreciated - Pierre
 Subscribe now
 P.S I am again emphasizing that I am not recommending treatment with chlorine dioxide via oral ingestion to anyone as these posts are simply intended to help open and guide research into treatment of human diseases with this promising compound.

Summary: Contrary to the edicts of regulatory agencies worldwide that chlorine dioxide is "bleach," "bleach-like," or a "poison," numerous studies show the safety of oral ingestion at treatment doses.


We Published An Op-Ed In Support Of RFK Jr's Confirmation Today

In today’s hyper-polarized political environment polluted by massively funded “dark PR” campaigns targeting RFK Jr, we tried to highlight what we felt was most important, namely that the state of health and health care in the U.S is in dire straits and that RFK Jr is a deeply studied and admirable health expert, just the man this country need to lead the HHS out of the hellhole that Pharma has led it down.
 My favorite quotes in our Op-Ed:
 Few public figures have been subjected to the ferocious media attacks on RFK Jr. over the last year. Half the world believes that he is “anti-vax,” an all-inclusive label nurtured by well-funded public relations agencies. Their clients like the current system as it is, which is what this struggle is about.

 Know that on that issue, my colleague AMD did a deep dive today on the industry funded groups which conducted aggressive and coordinated campaigns to neutralize people like RFK Jr.
 Pharmaceutical television advertising, meanwhile, is measured in the billions , dominating cable and network news programs that rarely expose the fraud and dangers of industry practices.

 Our conclusion:
 “In its wake, the lock-step, overheated media should examine its conscience. The pandemic censorship that got Kennedy banned from Instagram and Facebook, along with millions of other countervailing views, should forever be ended.

 The real work should begin.
 The full Op-Ed can be read here , enjoy and wish Bobby luck today (he needs it).

 If you appreciate the time and effort I put in researching and writing my posts, Op-Ed’s and doctor defenses, support in the form of paid subscriptions is appreciated, thanks
 Subscribe now

Summary: Mary Beth Pfeiffer, an investigative journalist and my Op-Ed writing partner, was central in crafting our disturbing analysis of the state of U.S health and an argument for supporting RFK Jr.