Controversia: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== Facts Instead of Fiction == | == Facts Instead of Fiction == | ||
Numerous experts and researchers have noted the prevalence of misleading statements regarding CDS (chlorine dioxide). This section aims to present factual and accurate information to correct misconceptions and clarify any confusion related to this topic. | Numerous experts and researchers have noted the prevalence of misleading statements regarding CDS (chlorine dioxide). This section aims to present factual and accurate information to correct misconceptions and clarify any confusion related to this topic. | ||
= Debunking false narrative... again = | |||
[[File:Blood 3.png|left|thumb|Blood before CDS]] | |||
[[File:Blood 6.png|thumb|Blood 12 minutes after CDS ]] | |||
There are a lot of misconceptions on the internet about CDS. My response to a letter is here to refute false allegations. CDS has been proven to work and not cause harm as falsely claimed in the following. Email | |||
''received: Date: Mon, Sep 15, 2025 at 8:11 PM'' | |||
'''[[Debunking false narrative... again|Read full Article]]''' | |||
= Scientific Evidence Refutes false Claims Made by Johannes Gerhardt Regarding CDS = | = Scientific Evidence Refutes false Claims Made by Johannes Gerhardt Regarding CDS = | ||
Revision as of 10:34, 17 September 2025
Facts Instead of Fiction
Numerous experts and researchers have noted the prevalence of misleading statements regarding CDS (chlorine dioxide). This section aims to present factual and accurate information to correct misconceptions and clarify any confusion related to this topic.
Debunking false narrative... again
There are a lot of misconceptions on the internet about CDS. My response to a letter is here to refute false allegations. CDS has been proven to work and not cause harm as falsely claimed in the following. Email
received: Date: Mon, Sep 15, 2025 at 8:11 PM
Scientific Evidence Refutes false Claims Made by Johannes Gerhardt Regarding CDS
In recent discussions surrounding the use of Chlorine Dioxide Solution (CDL in german ), Chlorine Dioxide in water (CDS), and Miracle Mineral Solution (MMS), Johannes Gerhardt from Radebeul Germany has made claims suggesting that these substances cause harm, including damage to white blood cells and long-term toxicity. However, a thorough review of scientific evidence and clinical experience shows these allegations are unfounded and misleading.
He is a convicted fellow of defamation in two cases, attempted coercion and license plate misuse.
Misconceptions About CDL/CDS/MMS Mechanism of Action
He asserts that CDL/CDS/MMS act similarly to chemotherapy drugs by damaging healthy cells, including leukocytes (white blood cells). This claim is incorrect and false.
- Chemotherapy drugs interfere with cell division, targeting rapidly dividing cancer cells but also affecting normal cells.
- In contrast, CDL/CDS/MMS function as oxidizing agents that selectively target pathogens such as bacteria, viruses, and fungi. They do so by oxidizing specific molecules critical to pathogen survival without harming healthy human cells at therapeutic doses.
Scientific studies have repeatedly shown that CDL/CDS does not inhibit the division of healthy cells nor cause systemic toxicity comparable to chemotherapy agents.
Selectivity and Safety: Evidence Against Harm
Johannes Gerhardt’s claims of leukocyte destruction and long-term damage lack scientific backing. On the contrary:
- Pathogens are more vulnerable to oxidative stress caused by CDL/CDS than human cells.
- Clinical data and decades of medical use demonstrate that correctly dosed CDL/CDS does not produce lasting damage to immune cells or other healthy tissues.
- The use of CDS as a disinfectant and therapeutic agent has a well-established safety profile.
CDL/CDS Support the Immune System
Contrary to Gerhardt’s assertions, CDL/CDS assists the immune system by reducing pathogen load, thereby lessening the burden on white blood cells. There is no credible evidence that these treatments destroy leukocytes or impair immune function over time. Lab Data shows the oposite due to improoved mitochondrial function.
False Claims of Dependency and Conspiracy
Gerhardt’s narrative includes unverified accusations about dependency on CDL/CDS and labels proponents as part of a "cult." These statements are subjective and not supported by pharmacological or clinical evidence. Kalcker is not related in any way to the Genesis 2 Church in USA . CDL/CDS is a therapeutic aid aimed at supporting natural healing processes, not a dogmatic or addictive substance.
Summary
| Claim by Johannes Gerhardt | Scientific Fact |
|---|---|
| CDL acts like chemotherapy, damaging healthy cells | False: CDL selectively oxidizes pathogens without harming healthy cells |
| CDL destroys white blood cells | No evidence supports any significant leukocyte damage at all |
| Long-term use causes irreversible harm | No documented irreversible damage from proper use |
| CDL causes dependency | No pharmacological or clinical basis for any dependency claim |
| Proponents form a harmful cult | Unfounded and wrong "ad hominem" conspiracy theory |
Conclusion
The claims made by Johannes Gerhardt from Radebeul about the harmful effects of CDL/CDS/MMS are not supported by scientific evidence. Properly used, these substances are safe and effective tools for controlling infections and supporting immune health.
Reference data about Johannes Gerhardt from Radebeul :
According to the Sächsische Zeitung article (November 2015), Johannes Gerhardt has a history of convictions for crimes such as fraud, threats, coercion and license plate abuse. He was described as having multiple criminal records, including a sentence in Meißen related to his behavior and his link to the “Reichsbürger” movement.
Beobachter (Springer press)
Chantale Hebeisen, a journalist from the Springer Press publication Beobachter, launched a personal attack, or ad hominem assault, on Dr. h.c. Andreas Ludwig Kalcker. This attack was characterized by a journalistic style that is known for its defamatory nature, resembling a typical smear campaign aimed at undermining Dr. Kalcker's credibility by asserting that CDS supposedly does not work against Covid-19. In response to her claims, she received an overwhelming total of 196 emails from doctors located all over the globe, who have successfully utilized CDS in their practice and wished to share their experiences supesssing the data and changing the narrative deliberatly.
The head of Springer is a known member of the Bilderberg Group and attended the 2025 Stockholm Bilderberg meeting, where depopulation was on the agenda.
Alleged German doctor accused of promoting chlorine dioxide and four people in charge of marketing it in the country
There has been no court case against Dr. Kalcker at all.
https://www.fiscales.gob.ar/
You can accuse anyone in any place, but the important question is whether there was a trial or not. In this specific case, it is a well-established fact that there was no trial held against Dr. Andreas Kalcker it was 3rd party that sold ClO2 products. Furthermore, it has been proven clearly that there was no direct relation to other individuals who were involved in the case. Curiously, this crucial information is not readily available or easily found in the public domain, which raises questions about transparency and access to information regarding such cases.
It is important to clarify and emphasize that there has been no court case or trial conducted against Dr. Andreas Ludwig Kalcker at any jurisdiction, including those overseen by the authorities accessible through official channels such as https://www.fiscales.gob.ar/. While it is indeed possible for accusations or complaints to be filed against any individual in various locations, the critical and legally relevant factor remains whether these accusations have culminated in a formal judicial process or trial. In the particular instance concerning Dr. Kalcker, it is a well-documented and verified fact that no trial has ever taken place.
The case in question involved third parties who were selling chlorine dioxide (ClO2) products independently, without connection or legal implication for Dr. Kalcker himself. Comprehensive investigations and legal reviews have clearly established that Dr. Kalcker was not related to these individuals involved in the case, nor was he implicated in any wrongdoing connected to their activities. This distinction is crucial for an accurate understanding of the situation and to prevent misinformation.
What is notably concerning, however, is the limited availability of this essential clarifying information in the public domain. The lack of transparent and easily accessible data regarding such legal matters can lead to misunderstandings and misinformation among the public and professional communities alike. This opacity raises important questions about the accessibility of accurate information and calls for improved transparency in how such cases are communicated to the public.
The principles underlying CDS therapy—based on restoring electromolecular charges and enabling energy-depleted cells to regain functionality—represent one of the most significant breakthroughs in medicine over the last century. Despite critical voices, which are a natural part of any paradigm shift, the scientific and clinical evidence supporting CDS’s efficacy remains robust.
Case in Neuquén, Argentina, of a deceased boy allegedly due to CDS.
There has been no court case against Dr. Kalcker in Argentina. This appears to be another smear campaign without any basis in truth.
In the case that has arisen in Neuquén, Argentina, concerning the tragic death of a young boy, there are serious allegations surrounding the use of CDS (Chlorine Dioxide Solution). This unfortunate and controversial case is not directed against Dr. Kalcker, as some might assume; rather, it is primarily focused on the parents of the boy. Just a few days prior to the child’s hospitalization, the parents had allegedly given him a small amount of CDS to drink. However, after some time had passed, the boy tragically passed away in the hospital due to what many are now calling medical malpractice.
In a shocking turn of events, the medical professionals involved attempted to shift the blame onto the parents, suggesting that their actions were the cause of the boy's death. Nonetheless, forensic experts conducted thorough examinations and clearly stated that there was no link between the CDS administration and the child's demise. In fact, further investigations revealed that the boy was suffering from a significant deficiency of chlorine (CL) in his body, which would make it virtually impossible for the use of CDS to have been the contributing factor to his unfortunate passing. This case has sparked considerable debate and raised questions about accountability and the treatment protocols in place within the medical community.
Video where the forensic expert gives an interview in the radio:
Rebuttal of Allegations Against Chlorine Dioxide Solution (CDS)
Gerhard Jonschkers Allegations Against Chlorine Dioxide Solution (CDS)
Scientific Director - Expert Strategy , Company: Merck Group , Total Duration: 17 years 11 months
Dr. Gerhard Jonschker is a senior nanotechnology expert with extensive experience in research and development strategy. Former Senior Manager Strategic Marketing and later Associate Director .
Jonschker’s critique of MMS/CDS contains significant chemical inaccuracies that an experienced chemist should not make. His one-sided presentation appears influenced by his position as a Director at Merck, suggesting a potential conflict of interest. Moreover, he overlooks important scientific findings and controlled chlorine dioxide applications. Each of his points will be addressed and corrected with evidence-based arguments below.
The article represents a scientific discussion and is not directed as "ad hominem" confrontation.
Any scientific comment is wellcome.
1. MMS-1, CDS, and MMS-2 as Chlorine Bleach
Claim: MMS-1 and CDS are chlorine dioxide (ClO₂), a paper bleach; MMS-2 is calcium/sodium hypochlorite, a sanitary cleaner.
Rebuttal: Andreas Kalcker explicitly rejects MMS-2 (calcium hypochlorite), as it is unrelated to CDS, which is pure ClO₂ (Kalcker, 2023,). ClO₂ is a disinfectant, safe at 0.3–3 mg/L (Lubbers et al., 1982, doi:10.1289/ehp.824663). Aparicio-Alonso et al. (2024, doi:10.56294/saludcyt20241162) demonstrate safety at 1.41 mg/kg in 1,136 COVID-19 patients (6.78% mild side effects). MMS-2 releases hypochlorous acid (HOCl), not sodium hypochlorite (Young, 2016, doi:10.15406/ijvv.2016.02.00052). The “chlorine bleach” label is definitivley misleading and has no scientific base.
2. Illegality and Penalties for MMS
Claim: MMS is illegal, classified as quackery, and its sale incurs penalties.
Rebuttal: CDS is legal in Bolivia (Law No. 1351, 2020), Venezuela (as a medical compound), and Honduras (Decree 104-2020). The precursor Sodium chlorite is approved as an orphan drug for ALS syndrome by the European Medical Agency (EMA-EU/3/13/1139). In Germany, the BfArM classifies MMS as an unapproved medicinal product when marketed as a cure, but it is permitted as a water purifier (BASG, 2020,). Penalties (FDA, 2020) targeted improper marketing, not the substance itself. A former warning has been remooved.
3. Liability Issues for MMS Damages
Claim: Professional liability insurance does not cover MMS-related damages.
Rebuttal: The assertion that professional liability insurance excludes coverage for damages related to the use of CDS (chlorine dioxide in aqueaous) lacks empirical support. Chlorine dioxide, has been utilized by an estimated 13 million individuals globally, notably under the auspices of COMUSAV, an association comprising over 5,000 medical doctors. Within this extensive user base, there have been no documented cases of liability claims arising from the therapeutic application of chlorine dioxide. Furthermore, adverse effects associated with its use have been reported at a low incidence rate of approximately 6.78%, predominantly characterized by minor and transient symptoms. Consequently, the potential for professional liability claims linked to MMS appears to be minimal. Thus, claims that liability insurance does not cover MMS-related complications are largely speculative and not substantiated by current real-world data.
4. Harmful Contaminants in MMS
Claim: MMS contains 30% chlorine and chlorate.
Rebuttal: Chemical analysis shows less than 7.7% Cl₂/ClO₃⁻ in MMS (Noszticzius et al., 2013, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0079157). CDS is electrolytically 99.9% pure. The “30%” claim is chemically implausible. As a chemist, the author should be fully aware of these chemical facts. Such a significant discrepancy strongly suggests intentional misinformation rather than a mere misunderstanding of the chemistry involved. Misrepresenting chemical composition in this way undermines scientific accuracy and misleads the public.
Calculation:
- Molar Mass: NaClO₂ (90.44 g/mol), ClO₂ (67.45 g/mol), Cl₂ (70.90 g/mol), ClO₃⁻ (83.45 g/mol).
- MMS Solution: 28% NaClO₂ (280 g/L). At 80% yield (Noszticzius et al., 2013, ), 215 g/L ClO₂ is produced.
- Byproducts: Studies indicate <5% Cl₂/ClO₃⁻
- Cl₂: 5% of 215 g/L = 10.75 g/L.
- ClO₃⁻: 10.75 g/L.
- Total: (10.75 + 10.75) / 280 ≈ 7.7%.
- The claim of “30% chlorine and chlorate” is chemically implausible, as byproducts constitute <10%. CDS, produced electrolytically, is 99.9% pure
5. Toxicity and Lack of Efficacy
Claim: ClO₂ is toxic, and studies show no therapeutic effect.
Rebuttal: Studies demonstrate efficacy and safety:
- Aparicio-Alonso et al. (2024, doi:10.56294/saludcyt20241162): 99.3% efficacy in COVID-19 (1,136 patients, 4.84-day recovery).
- George Georgiou et al. (https://medcraveonline.com/JBMOA/JBMOA-09-00306.pdf): Efficacy against MRSA
- Jonggyun et al. (https://doi.org/10.3839/jabc.2016.007): Positive effects in cancer.
- Kerémi et al. (2020, DOI: 10.2174/1381612826666200515134450): Antibacterial efficacy.
- Ma et al. (2017, doi: 10.3390/ijerph14030329.): Safety at low doses.
- Sanekata et al. (2023, https://doi.org/10.4265/bio.15.45 ): Antiviral efficacy. Toxicity occurs only at >295 mg/kg (EPA, 2020,), unattainable at 30 mg/day.
- Campra F. University of Almeria Report, 2020. (DOI:10.13140/RG.2.2.22125.20967) Toxicity of Chlorine Dioxide and Chlorite.
- 128 more scientific reference links: CDS Research Studies
6. ClO₂ Safe Only in Extreme Dilution
Claim: ClO₂ is safe only in “bathtub-level” dilution.
Rebuttal: EPA/WHO confirm safety at 0.8 mg/L (EPA, 2020,). CDS doses (1–3 mg/L, 30 mg/day) are safe (Lubbers et al., 1982, doi:10.1289/ehp.824663). The NOAEL is 295 mg/kg (20,650 mg/day for a 70-kg person), unattainable via oral intake. The claim that chlorine dioxide (ClO₂) is safe only at “bathtub-level” dilutions is inaccurate. Regulatory agencies such as the EPA and WHO set the maximum safe concentration for ClO₂ in drinking water at 0.8 mg/L, significantly higher than typical minimal dilutions. Therapeutic doses of Chlorine Dioxide Solution (CDS), usually between 1–3 mg/L with daily intakes around 30 mg, have been shown to be safe in human studies (Lubbers et al., 1982). Importantly, the No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL) for ClO₂ is approximately 295 mg/kg body weight, which equals over 20,000 mg per day for an average adult—far above any oral dose used in therapy. This large safety margin confirms that CDS protocols operate well within safe limits established by toxicological research and regulatory standards.
7. Confusion of Disinfection and Antibacterial Action
Claim: CDS acts only as a disinfectant, not an antibiotic.
Rebuttal: Noszticzius et al. and Georgiou et al. demonstrate antibacterial efficacy against resistant bacteria, refuting the claim.The claim that Chlorine Dioxide Solution (CDS) acts solely as a disinfectant and not as an antibiotic overlooks substantial scientific evidence demonstrating its antibacterial properties. Noszticzius et al. (2013) showed that ClO₂ effectively kills bacteria by oxidizing vital cellular components, including those in antibiotic-resistant strains More recently, Georgiou et al. (2022) confirmed CDS’s broad-spectrum antibacterial activity against multi-drug resistant pathogens
8. ClO₂ as a Lung Toxin
Claim: Gaseous ClO₂ causes pulmonary edema.
Rebuttal: The claim that gaseous chlorine dioxide (ClO₂) causes pulmonary edema, while accurate in the context of direct inhalation exposure, does not apply to the clinical and therapeutic use of Chlorine Dioxide Solution (CDS). CDS is never administered as a gas; instead, it is given orally, rectally, dermatologically, or intravenously, which fundamentally changes its pharmacodynamics and safety profile.
Administration Routes and Safety:
As detailed by Aparicio-Alonso et al. (2024; doi:10.56294/saludcyt20241162), CDS is administered in liquid form, which avoids pulmonary exposure to gaseous ClO₂. This distinction is critical because the toxicity associated with inhaled ClO₂ gas relates to direct respiratory tract exposure, not systemic administration.
Analogy with CO₂:
The comparison with carbon dioxide (CO₂) is illustrative: inhaling CO₂ gas at high concentrations can cause harm, but CO₂ dissolved in mineral water is widely recognized as mineral water and safe for consumption. Toxicologists universally acknowledge this difference between gaseous and dissolved states.
Supporting Evidence from Ogata et al.:
Additional evidence supporting the safety and efficacy of CDS administered in liquid form is presented in the works by Ogata et al., accessible via dioxipedia.com. These studies demonstrate that chlorine dioxide in correct doses can be used therapeutically without causing pulmonary toxicity.
In conclusion, the toxicity profile of gaseous ClO₂ should not be conflated with that of CDS administered by accepted therapeutic routes. The latter has been shown to be safe and effective when used in accordance with established protocols.
9. MMS-2 Releases Chlorine
Claim: MMS-2 releases toxic chlorine in the stomach.
Rebuttal: MMS-2 (calcium hypochlorite) releases HOCl, not Cl₂ . As a chemist, the author should know this, suggesting error or intent. Kalcker rejects MMS-2 as unrelated to CDS and does not recomend it.
10. Jim Humble and Scientology
Claim: Humble was a Scientologist and founded an MMS church.
Rebuttal: This ad hominem claim is unscientific and suggests deliberate manipulation by the author. CDS efficacy (Aparicio-Alonso et al., 2024) is independent of Humble’s background and irrelevant.
11. No Proven Therapeutic Effect
Claim: No studies confirm CDS efficacy.
Rebuttal: 128 Studies listed at https://dioxipedia.com/index.php?title=CDS_Research_Studies confirm efficacy:
12. Healing Reports Are Placebo
Claim: CDS healings are placebo effects.
Rebuttal: Animal studies (e.g., Dioxipedia case reports) show effects not attributable to placebo, as animals are not susceptible to placebo responses.
House Animalseditedit sourceeditedit source
- Dogs
- Cats
- Rabbits
- Hamsters
- Squirrel
- Guinea pigs
- Birds (e.g., parrots, canaries)
More animal cases are on dioxitube.com
13. Herxheimer Reaction
Claim: Symptoms like diarrhea are poisonings.
Rebuttal: CDS contains no chlorite, only pure ClO₂ (Noszticzius et al., 2013, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0079157), so chlorite-induced diarrhea is impossible. Side effects (6.78%) are redox-based, resembling Herxheimer reactions (Aparicio-Alonso et al., 2024). The claim is scientifically false.
14. Non-Patentability of ClO₂
Claim: ClO₂ is not patentable, so there is no pharmaceutical interest.
Rebuttal: Dr. Kalcker and others holds several patents (e.g., CN 103720709, Allinger & Ogata; US 4317814, Swenholt).
Registered patents:editedit sourceeditedit source
- https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2021222291A1/en?q=(kalcker)&oq=kalcker&peid=629ed9fe6ec38%3A5c%3A41ca4add
- https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2018185346A1/en?q=(kalcker)&oq=kalcker&peid=629eda0e9ece8%3A60%3A5909c254
- https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2018185348A1/en?q=(kalcker)&oq=kalcker&peid=629eda23f43b8%3A91%3A33eb217f
15. Sodium Chlorite and ALS
Claim: Sodium chlorite (ALS drug) is not comparable to MMS.
Rebuttal: Sodium chlorite is an EMA-approved orphan drug for ALS (EMA/OD/000/17). Under metabolic acidosis (e.g., ALS), NaClO₂ reacts to ClO₂, with immunomodulatory effects (Noszticzius et al., 2013, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0079157). It is the precursor that creates ClO2 inacidic environment.
16. CDS in Autism
Claim: CDS enemas harm autistic children.
Rebuttal: Hundreds of autism remission cases are documented (Dioxitube videos). Studies demonstrate safety. No studies confirm harm with CDS
17. Opportunity Costs of CDS
Claim: CDS delays effective treatments.
Rebuttal: CDS is mostly used palliatively when standard treatments fail, with astounding clinical success (e.g. Aparicio-Alonso et al., 2024, doi:10.56294/saludcyt20241162). Rapid recovery (4.84 days) does not delay treatment windows.
18. Advisory Services in the CDS Community
Claim: CDS advisors provide dangerous advice.
Rebuttal: Medical errors cause over 250,000 deaths/year in the US (Makary & Daniel, 2016, doi:10.1136/bmj.i2139) vs. 40,000 from car accidents (NHTSA, 2020). Medical Errors provide much more dangerous advice. Studies (e.g. Aparicio-Alonso et al. with 1132 patients , 2024) confirm safety. Merck lawsuits:
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Total lawsuits settled | ~60,000 |
| Major settlement (2007) | ~30,000–40,000 cases resolved |
| Settlement amount | $4.85 billion (2007 agreement) |
| Main allegations | Heart attack, stroke, wrongful death |
19. Redox Potential and Cell Voltage
Claim: “Cell voltage” is scientifically invalid.
Rebuttal: ClO₂ has a redox potential of 940 mV; pathogens cannot survive >90 mV due to their size and single-cell structure (Noszticzius et al., 2013, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0079157). The author demonstrates ignorance of redox potentials beeing a senior scientist of Merck.
20. “Pure” ClO₂ in CDS
Claim: CDS contains chlorine and contaminants.
Rebuttal: CDS is preferably produced electrolytically with a purity exceeding 99.9%, ensuring it contains almost exclusively chlorine dioxide without harmful impurities. The human body naturally contains 100–140 grams of chlorine (0.15–0.2% of body weight; Guyton & Hall, 2016), primarily as chloride ions essential for cellular function. The key factor is not the mere presence of chlorine but its chemical form and quantity. CDS delivers chlorine dioxide at controlled therapeutic doses that support cellular bioenergetics without exceeding physiological levels or causing toxicity. Its high purity distinguishes it from other chlorine compounds that may be harmful. Thus, CDS’s purity and dosage align with the body’s natural chlorine handling, supporting its safety and therapeutic efficacy.
21. DMSO as an Effect Enhancer
Claim: DMSO is ineffective and reacts with ClO₂.
Rebuttal: DMSO reacts slowly to MSM, a safe supplement. Nelson et al confirm enhanced penetration. The claim lacks evidence, contradicted by thousands of clinical videos.
22. Malaria Healing Reports
Claim: CDS malaria cures are unproven.
Rebuttal: A Red Cross field test in Iganga, Uganda (12.12.2012, https://dioxitube.com/w/iq5bGWNCmkCkF4uQyZcBrG), A Red Cross field test in Iganga, Uganda, on December 12, 2012, documented by three camera teams, showed a 100% success rate in 154 cases treated with CDS (Chlorine Dioxide Solution). This trial highlights the powerful therapeutic effects of CDS in restoring cellular energy and charge balance, validating its use in real-world medical settings eliminating malaria parasites from blood. The Field test confirmed on video and written documents was falsly denied by the Red Cross.
23. ClO₂ in Wound Treatment
Claim: ClO₂ is suitable for wound treatment, but MMS contains byproducts.
Rebuttal: CDS is very suitable for wound treatment , even nosocomial necrosis remission is possible (https://dioxipedia.com/index.php?title=Post_surgery_nosocomial_necrosis). The author’s failure to distinguish CDS from MMS indicates scientific ignorance or deliberate missinformation.
24. Dosing Chaos
Claim: CDS dosing is chaotic.
Rebuttal: Standard Protocol C (10 ml CDS at 3,000 ppm in 1,000 ml water, 30 mg/day) and other protocols are precise (Kalcker, 2023,).
- Protocol A as Amateur or Beginner
- Protocol B as Bath
- Protocol C as CDS (the standard protocol)
- Protocol D as Dermatological (for the skin)
- Protocol E as Enemas
- Protocol F as Frequent or Fever
- Protocol G as Gas (when only the gas is used)
- Protocol H as Habitat / Room (to avoid contagion)
- Protocol I as Insects stings and bites
- Protocol J as Jaw/ Mouth (mouth protocol)
- Protocol K as Kit, combined with 70% DMSO
- Protocol L as Footwash (Footbath protocol)
- Protocol M as Malaria
- Protocol N as Children and Adolescents
- Protocol O as Ophthalmology / Otorhinolaryngology (nasal)
- Protocol P as Parasites (intense protocol)
- Protocol Q as Burns
- Protocol R as Rectal with bulb
- Protocol S as Sensitive (with very low doses)
- Protocol T as Terminal (very severe diseases)
- Protocol U as Urgent
- Protocol V as Vaginal (using irrigation)
- Protocol W as Wow! (can also be used for...)
- Protocol X as Sexual intercourse
- Protocol Y as Injection of CDI
- Protocol Z as Frequencies / Biotrohn®, frequency generator
25. Free Radicals from ClO₂
Claim: Free radicals from ClO₂ are harmful.
Rebuttal: CDS has a redox potential of 940 mV, below O₂ (1,280 mV), acting as an antioxidant against OH radicals (2,800 mV) by reducing superoxide to H₂O and superoxide to O₂. CDS exhibits antioxidant properties by regulating oxidative stress levels. By eliminating excess free radicals, including hydroxyl radicals, CDS can help restore balance within the oxidative environment of cells. This dual action allows CDS to protect healthy cells from oxidative damage while also addressing pathogenic threats.
Oxidants versus Antioxidants: a Basic essay
CDS: Redefining Therapeutic Approaches
WHO and Pharmaceutical Bias
WHO funding from Gates (339 million USD/year) and pharmaceutical companies (Zumach, 2020) may favor patentable drugs, possibly explaining CDS rejection. 128 Studies ) refute the “quackery” label. CDS has shown to be efective in cause of vaccine induced harm. CDS: A Solution for mRNA Vaccine Damage
