The Existing Evidence Base for Chlorine Dioxide in Treating Human Diseases

TABLE OF CONTENTS Barriers To Doing Clinical Research Trials With Chlorine Dioxide What Is The Difference Between Chlorite And Chlorine Dioxide? Evidence For The Efficacy Of Intravenous Chlorite Solutions Evidence For Chlorine Dioxide As A Broad Anti-Microbial Evidence For Chlorine Dioxide Against Viral Infections:In-Vivo Studies Evidence For Topical Chlorine Dioxide In Skin, Wound, And Mucosal Infections Evidence For Orally Ingested Chlorine Dioxide In Human Illnesses Malaria Viral Respiratory Infections In Children Covid-19 Tuberculosis Cancer Testimonial Evidence For Orally Ingested Chlorine Dioxide BARRIERS TO RESEARCH

I am again pointing out that my intent with these posts is to open up research into chlorine dioxide rather than recommend or promote its use at this time. To the best of my knowledge of the existing literature, this is the first review that compiled all of the peer-reviewed and published trials and studies which used chlorine dioxide in treatment, and at the end, I also review the retracted and/or censored studies that have been done to date.

Currently, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to rigorously assess the efficacy of widely available, orally ingestable forms of chlorine dioxide in our modern scientific climate. However, no restrictions have been placed on doing studies of its equivalent, chlorite, which has patented formulations which have been studied within numerous double-blind RCT’s as you will see below).

This uncomfortable fact is due to the globally coordinated barriers to both performing and publishing research of its efficacy in treating human diseases. I believe that in my last two posts of a historical account by a retired translational scientist that had high level security clearances in the latter half of the 20th century (here and here), the reasons for that should now be obvious.

If you didn’t read those posts, I will spell it out for you, again. The barriers are due to chlorine dioxide’s threat to the massive markets of modern pharmaceutical products.

To wit, when the topic of oral ingestion of chlorine dioxide is addressed, numerous copycat bulletins are posted by regulatory agencies such as the FDA, TGA, , PAHO/WHO, SWISSMEDIC and other health authorities that advise against its use by falsely alleging that it is toxic and/or dangerous to ingest, describing it as “bleach,” “bleach-like,” or a “poison.” See examples of the coordinated fear-mongering:

I won’t deny the fact that it can be used as a bleaching agent in industrial applications at 5000 mg/L, however the oral doses used therapeutically (160mg/L) fall far lower than the minimal level (210mg/L) that has been determined by the EPA to cause an adverse effect (I extensively detailed its safety in this prior post). As a result, for decades, millions around the world have used it safely (and discreetly) to treat illnesses via topical, oral, and even intravenous administration. Regulatory agencies around the world all willfully deny this reality.

That is, until the revolutionary passing of a law in Bolivia in 2020, allowing for the widespread manufacture and distribution of oral chlorine dioxide solution to treat Covid. In my first post on chlorine dioxide, I provided an enormous amount of documentation that Bolivian military forces and universities, right after the law was passed, began manufacturing and distributing it to Bolivians. This program led to Bolivia having the best outcomes in all of South America despite the strenuous objections in media interviews and press releases by their health ministry). Power to the people.

Further, for those who have read my previous posts on chlorine dioxide, you should now be aware of the history of those who tried to promote, research, or treat patients with orally ingested oxidative therapies like chlorine dioxide or Homozon. Their efforts led to repeated deportations, imprisonments, and assassinations (some of which you have yet to learn about as they will be detailed in upcoming posts on the plight of more modern practitioners). If you are interested to learn about them as well, please subscribe.

[…]WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CHLORITE AND CHLORINE DIOXIDE?

In the below, I will argue that clinically and physiologically, there is no difference at all.

In my research group on chlorine dioxide, the one advanced applied chemist, Tom Henshaw, maintains that, chemically, most ingested chlorine dioxide is rapidly converted into chlorite (a weaker and slower oxidizing agent) and it is largely chlorite that gets absorbed into the human body and subsequently excreted.

[…]

It should come as no surprise that I believe the reason why there is robust evidence for chlorite is that pharmaceutical companies have patented two intravenous formulations of it and have named the compounds WF10 and NPOO1. By doing this, it allowed them to sail through research ethics committees (IRB), regulatory agencies, and “Editorial Mafia” barriers. Nice trick. But we busted you. What a world.

[…]

I will cover the trials in ALS below, but, spoiler alert, the company that owns the patented chlorite formulation NPOO1 (Neuvivo) just applied for FDA approval for its use in ALS. Check out this article summarizing the findings from the trials published in the best selling newsletter called “ALS News Today” just 6 weeks ago:

[…]

Further, in this transcript of an interview with NPR, the interviewer and the investigator share that the company is ready to initiate Phase II studies of chlorite in Huntington’s, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinsons, muscular dystrophy, frontotemporal dementia, and vascular dementia.

Whoa. Chlorine dioxide (err, I mean chlorite) is entering our therapeutic armentarium! Albeit and unsurprisingly, likely at great cost and complexity (i.e requiring IV administration, physician prescription, and administration). Still, cool stuff.

AMYOTROPHIC LATERAL SCLEROSIS

Know that one of the main reasons they studied chlorite in ALS is because ALS disease progression is associated with activation of two different subtypes of monocyte/macrophages (immune cells which cause inflammation) and which chlorite/chlorine dioxide strongly inhibits.

[…]

EVIDENCE FOR CHLORITE IN NON-HEALING DIABETIC WOUND HEALING

[…]

EVIDENCE FOR CHLORINE DIOXIDE AS A BROAD ANTI-MICROBIAL[…]

OK, now, lets switch to studies of chlorine dioxide. The list of organisms susceptible to killing by chlorine dioxide outside the body include the near entirety of pathogenic (i.e. “disease causing”) viruses, bacteria, fungi and parasites.

In-Vitro Studies

Below is a lengthy albeit incomplete list of the many studies demonstrating in vitro (in a test-tube) and/or in-vivo (in animals) efficacy against a wide variety of viruses and bacteria and fungi. For those of you in the vaccine industry, note the studies of its efficacy against polio, HPV, flu, measles, Herpes, and HepB (Yes, I went there folks:).

This article from a military journal describes how chlorine dioxide even kills Ebola.

[…]

EVIDENCE FOR TOPICAL CHLORINE DIOXIDE AGAINST SKIN, WOUND, AND MUCOSAL APPLICATIONS

The most robust published evidence base for chlorine dioxide is for mucosal, skin, and wound applications. The evidence for the efficacy of oral ingestion on other diseases will follow this section.

[…]

MALARIANIGERIA: In a previous post, I detailed a report from an anonymous scientist with high-level security clearances during the latter part of last century where, in 1985, he helped design a Nigerian water treatment plant that initially and mistakenly uses a higher, but still non-toxic level (6ppm) than is typically used (0.5ppm). He reported that it led not only to the eradication of a cholera outbreak, but also that suddenly, no new malaria cases occurred in the town downstream from the plant. Obviously this is not data from a peer reviewed and published study but, knowing the source and his background, I find it highly credible and in-line with the following studies.UGANDA: A documentary called “Malaria Red Cross Study” provides videotaped evidence that a study in malaria was done using chlorine dioxide in the form of MMS in Uganda in 2012. The International Red Cross, Uganda Red Cross, and a group called the Water Reference Center had members present that conducted the study and documented the results. In the study, 154 people tested positive for malaria and 154 were cured of malaria within 48 hours. After the study was conducted by the Ugandan Red Cross, the International Red Cross authorities denied that the entire study took place and refused to verify the results. The study was documented on video by several people, and these videos made their way online. Unfortunately, the malaria study documentary has been banned multiple times from YouTube but can be found on alternative video platforms like Brighteon and BitChute as well as on this page here.CAMEROON: This published study (in an admittedly obscure journal) reported on 500 patients treated for malaria with a specially formulated sublingual tablet of chlorite that resolved all symptoms within two days. Further, their blood samples were free of any parasites by Day 6. This paper was quickly and unsurprisingly retracted and the principal investigator, Professor Enno Frye was then accused by his affiliated University of not having actually performed the study. Based on direct personal communication with Dr. Frye and my personal review of the study documents and protocol that he submitted to me, I believe there is sufficient evidence to believe the study (and its results) actually occurred. I will detail all in an upcoming post.VIRAL RESPIRATORY INFECTIONS

In Japan, they did a study where they released chlorine dioxide gas in the classroom of Japanese schoolchildren over a 38 day period, and they found it lowered absentee rates – i.e. there was significantly less illness in the classrooms exposed as can be seen in the table below:

EVIDENCE BASE FOR EFFICACY IN COVID-19

1. Bolivia – In a previous post, I compiled copious evidence of its use in Bolivia during Covid-19, taken from legislative documents and TV and newspaper reports which documented that, in early Covid-19, the passing of a national law allowed for the manufacture and distribution of orally ingested chlorine dioxide. Numerous media reports provided evidence of its being distributed by both the military and many universities.

The number of cases of COVID-19 subsequently dropped 93% from August 20, 2020 to October 21, 2020 and daily deaths decreased 82% from a peak on September 3, 2020 to October 21, 2020. Although other factors may have played a role in the decline in cases and mortality during this time, the fact that cases and deaths dropped in Bolivia but not surrounding countries suggests ClO2 likely played a large role in the progress seen in Bolivia (Insignares-Carrione et al., 2021)

THE BOLIVIAN RCT THAT WAS BLOCKED AFTER APPROVAL

A year later, in 2021, Dr. Patricia Callisperis and her team (she was one of the main physicians involved with the military program) made an attempt to conduct a randomized, double-blind study. The trial was developed by a branch of Bolivia’s army, Clínica del Sur and the Spanish scientific society SCIB. The chlorine dioxide solution was developed by the Escuela Militar de Ingeniería (EMI).

Three Bolivian Army hospitals, were selected to enroll participants because in Bolivia, there are regions at different elevations above sea level, from valleys at 2,800 meters to high-altitude areas at 3,800 meters. This is important because the response to chlorine dioxide apparently varies depending on the altitude.

[…]

The many mechanisms of action of chlorine dioxide makes it broadly antimicrobial against nearly all infectious pathogens, reduces inflammation, prevents scarring. aids in wound healing, is non-toxic when orally ingested (in appropriate concentrations), reduces oral plaque, treats oral atrophic candidiasis, is a potent deodorizer. In cancer, it has in-vitro anti-cancer cell effects, stimulates an in-vivo anti-cancer cell immune response and is also effective when injected intra-tumorally or via a combination of oral, enema, and IV administration.

[…]

Via https://pierrekorymedicalmusings.com/p/the-existing-evidence-base-for-chlorine-009