From Viking with love to save your scroll wheels 🥰
What the War on Chlorine Dioxide Reveals About Medicine
Condensed summary of an article by A Midwestern Doctor (August 2026)
Core Argument
Modern medicine is structured around expensive, narrowly approved drugs that treat specific disease “franchises” but rarely cure them. Regulatory approval correlates more strongly with money spent than with real therapeutic value. For over a century, the same institutions have repeatedly sidelined cheaper or broader therapies that threatened these profitable franchises. The usual method is to claim “no evidence,” amplify doubts through media and regulators, and brand the therapy as dangerous or unproven until it is largely forgotten.
How the Monopoly Formed
In the 19th and early 20th centuries, several medical approaches competed (homeopathy, osteopathy, naturopathy, allopathy). The American Medical Association, aided by Rockefeller philanthropy and the 1910 Flexner Report, professionalized and standardized medical education around laboratory-based, allopathic medicine. Competing schools lost funding, licenses, and legitimacy. Once this model dominated, the same institutions defined what counted as “real medicine,” controlled research funding, and labeled alternatives as quackery. Later FDA regulation operated within this already-consolidated framework.
Repeated Pattern of Suppression
The article argues the same playbook has been used on multiple therapies that showed broad benefits:
- Ultraviolet Blood Irradiation (UVBI) — Developed in the 1920s–30s. Dozens of papers reported strong results against severe infections and other conditions. After the inventor refused to sell rights, an AMA-linked study (with design problems) declared it ineffective. Hospitals abandoned it in favor of antibiotics. It continued to be used successfully in other countries.
- Krebiozen — A mid-20th-century cancer treatment promoted by a prominent physician. Positive results in thousands of patients were dismissed; the FDA later produced disputed data and restricted interstate distribution.
- Koch Catalysts — Oxidative catalysts reported to help cancer and other conditions. The inventor refused to sell rights; the therapy was publicly denounced and faded.
- Ozone therapy — Extensively studied outside the U.S. for infections, wounds, circulatory problems, and more. Official U.S. position remains that ozone has “no known useful medical application.”
Focus on Chlorine Dioxide (CDS)
Chlorine dioxide is a potent disinfectant used safely in water treatment and food processing (EPA-registered). When people began using it medically (often generated from sodium chlorite), regulators and media branded it “toxic bleach,” despite chemical differences from household bleach.
Reported uses and outcomes cited in the article and the book The War on Chlorine Dioxide (by Pierre Kory and Jenna McCarthy) include:
- Rapid clearance of malaria parasites in several African settings (including a filmed Red Cross-linked observation in Uganda that was later denied).
- Use during COVID-19 in parts of Latin America, with observational reports of high recovery rates and prophylactic effects. Official bodies condemned it; researchers and distributors faced professional and legal retaliation.
- Broader anecdotal and observational reports for infections, wounds, and some chronic conditions.
The article notes that a patented intravenous form of a related compound (NP001) has been allowed to advance for ALS, while cheap oral use remains heavily restricted—illustrating, in the author’s view, that the issue is not the molecule itself but whether it threatens existing drug markets.
Broader Critique
The system requires large, expensive randomized trials for approval while observational evidence that clinicians can generate is often dismissed. Once a therapy is approved, off-label use is relatively free; once a competing approach shows broad promise, barriers rise quickly. The result, the author argues, is a medical system that absorbs vast resources while many patients with “incurable” conditions receive only partial relief, and cheaper options that once showed promise are erased from collective memory.
Closing Point
The article presents the chlorine dioxide story as a clear, recent example of a recurring pattern. Documenting these cases, it concludes, is necessary if the priorities of medical research and regulation are ever to shift from protecting disease franchises toward broader solutions.
Click below for the full article
cheers.
I recall the arguement and the pressure to stop chlorination of public water supplies, and then the troubles in Peru, last century.
….. a point that environmental activists ignore.
Chlorination is one of the world’s most important public health tools; it saves thousands of lives every day of the year.
About 98 percent of U.S. water suppliers use some form of chlorination, preventing outbreaks of disease.
When officials [pushed by environmentalists] reduced its use in Peru in 1991, thousands of people died.
Rather than seeking ways to phase chlorine out, the truly humanitarian policy seeks to expand its use.
Yet environmental activists are supporting legislation—introduced by Sen. Jon Corzine, New Jersey Democrat, that seeks to mandate what environmentalists call “inherently safer technology,” which the bill defines as phasing out or drastically reducing the use of chemicals. …..
https://cei.org/opeds_articles/supporting-a-risky-water-policy/
It is sort of funny now that AI in particular, which ever has contaminated which ever, mixes things up with or restrict one or the other with their algorithums, so that it seems to take a lot more searching & things are blurred, or ommitted to make it seem there was not a problem.
The people who pushed that agenda have been chlorinated, white washed away.
As in the following quote, of the twisted guile
In 1991, a misinterpretation of US law resulted in a voluntary suspension by Peru’s government of chlorination of water supplies.
The resulting cholera epidemic spread to neighbouring countries causing 1,000,000 cases of cholera and more than 10,000 deaths;
In 1986, 4,000 people in Tenerife were hospitalised due to water contamination which followed the temporary withdrawal of chlorine for disinfection.
https://eurochlor.org/news/chlorines-role-in-water-purity/
So the original trouble makers do not smell like chlorine but now come up smelling like roses.
-Munitions companies go broke if there are no wars.
-Carbon credit traders go broke if there is no climate change.
-Climate change zealots will also go broke if funding dries up.
-Big Pharma goes broke if people are well.
-Covid19 theatre would have been over if the actual scientists had been allowed to speak.
-Covid 19 Vaccination rates would have tanked if neighbours had actually talked to one another.
…….
Ban the alternatives, and stoke up fear.
Another day, another scam…,
On August 12, 2016, thousands of Havelock North residents started to feel what they thought was a bad tummy bug.
The symptoms were all there – diarrhoea, nausea, vomiting, and painful stomach cramps.
Many of them did what you’re told to do as a young child when you’re sick – stay as hydrated as possible.
But in turning to their taps, the victims were unknowingly making themselves sicker with every sip.
Havelock North’s water supply had been contaminated with campylobacter after sheep faeces entered it through a bore on Brookvale Road following heavy rain.
By the time the crisis and Government inquiry was over, more than 5500 people had fallen ill, 45 people were hospitalised and four people had died of causes related to the outbreak.
An unknown number continue to suffer ongoing health complications to this day.
The event changed New Zealand’s view of the safety of aquifer-fed supplies and how water from them should be treated.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/ten-years-on-the-havelock-north-water-crisis-that-changed-nzs-complacency-about-its-drinking-water-safety/OEEMBF2HNBF2XGBWME3AI5VS6I/
Ok not chlorine but this nitrate debate is important in NZ.
The Nitrate Debate: Here’s What People Got Wrong
https://youtu.be/5n2z76ylgjg
35 minutes : Aug 6, 2026 : Ecofarm Aotearoa
A short clip from a previous episode sparked plenty of debate online, so Ewan Campbell is taking the opportunity to dive deeper into one of agriculture’s most misunderstood topics: nitrates.
In this episode:
In this episode of EcoFarm Aotearoa, Ewan unpacks the science behind the nitrogen cycle, explains the difference between nitrate and ammonium, and explores why so much confusion exists around nitrates in farming. Rather than focusing on symptoms, he looks at the biological processes that naturally convert nitrogen into plant-available proteins and why healthy soil biology is key to productive farms, cleaner waterways and healthier livestock.
The conversation also examines how excess nitrate can impact pasture quality, milk production, animal health and water quality, while challenging some of the assumptions that have become accepted as “normal” within modern agriculture. Whether you agreed or disagreed with the original clip, this episode provides the full context behind the discussion and explains the reasoning in much greater detail.
We Discuss:
The difference between nitrate and ammoniumUnderstanding the natural nitrogen cycleHow healthy soil biology converts nitrogenWhy excess nitrate can affect livestock healthThe connection between nitrogen, waterways and food qualityWhy current testing standards may be misleadingPractical ways to improve nitrogen efficiency on farmIf you’re interested in regenerative agriculture, soil biology, livestock nutrition and practical farming solutions backed by observation and testing, this episode offers a fresh perspective on one of farming’s biggest conversations.
Not yet had time to see it all, but picking up they may be challenging the usual expert science like current testing standards may be misleading