Chlorine Dioxide Study

Discuss autism diets and biomedical treatments of autism.

Moderator: ModeratorBill

dabaxter
Posts: 4052
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 12:50 pm

Chlorine Dioxide Study

Postby dabaxter » Sun May 21, 2017 9:14 am

I saw this scientific study run on Chlorine Dioxide posted on another website. I know this is a very controversial subject. I don't recall seeing an actual scientific study on it before. I though it was interesting enough to pass along to anyone interested. I'm not trying to advocate for or against it.

http://medcraveonline.com/IJVV/IJVV-02-00052.pdf
$5 off iherb.com. Use:REW815/$5 off pureformulas.com Use:RJNXCX

FatherOf2
Posts: 1588
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 1:37 am

Re: Chlorine Dioxide Study

Postby FatherOf2 » Sun May 21, 2017 10:44 am

About the author of the article, from Wikipedia:

Robert Oldham Young (born March 6, 1952) is an American naturopath and author of alternative medicine books promoting an alkaline diet.[1] His most popular works are the "pH Miracle" series of books, which outline his beliefs about holistic healing and an "alkalarian" lifestyle.[2][3][4] Young came to prominence after appearances on The Oprah Winfrey Show featured his treatment of Kim Tinkham for breast cancer. Tinkham and Young both claimed that he had cured her, but she died of her disease shortly afterwards.[5] In general, Young's theories and treatments are considered quackery,[6][5] which has resulted in a history of legal issues for Young.[1] He was arrested in January 2014 and convicted in 2016 on two out of three charges of theft and practising medicine without a license.[7][8] As of January 2017 he is facing a three year jail sentence.

Young's website states he attended the University of Utah on a tennis scholarship and studied biology and business in the early 1970s, after which he did missionary work for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for two years in London. Young received multiple degrees from Clayton College of Natural Health (formerly American College of Holistic Nutrition), which is not accredited by any agency recognized by the U.S. Department of Education.[9][10] Young's degrees include a Master of Science in nutrition (1993), a D.Sc. with emphasis in chemistry and biology (1995), a Ph.D. (1997) and an N.D. (Doctor of Naturopathy, 1999).[1] The prosecution at his 2016 trial said his doctorate was purchased from a "diploma mill",[11] and it was pointed out that he had gone from a bachelor's to a doctor's degree in eight months.[12]

Nikkie111
Posts: 321
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2015 6:26 am

Re: Chlorine Dioxide Study

Postby Nikkie111 » Sun May 21, 2017 12:11 pm

But I don't understand, doesn't this study as well say it's safe ?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1569027/

Am I missing something?
I'm intrigued to find more studies..... In the meantime I ll stop wearing my judgy pants on :wink:

Winnie
Posts: 4227
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2006 2:48 pm

Re: Chlorine Dioxide Study

Postby Winnie » Sun May 21, 2017 2:53 pm

FatherOf2 wrote:About the author of the article, from Wikipedia:

Robert Oldham Young (born March 6, 1952) is an American naturopath and author of alternative medicine books promoting an alkaline diet.[1] His most popular works are the "pH Miracle" series of books, which outline his beliefs about holistic healing and an "alkalarian" lifestyle.[2][3][4] Young came to prominence after appearances on The Oprah Winfrey Show featured his treatment of Kim Tinkham for breast cancer. Tinkham and Young both claimed that he had cured her, but she died of her disease shortly afterwards.[5] In general, Young's theories and treatments are considered quackery,[6][5] which has resulted in a history of legal issues for Young.[1] He was arrested in January 2014 and convicted in 2016 on two out of three charges of theft and practising medicine without a license.[7][8] As of January 2017 he is facing a three year jail sentence.


Yep. Just a self-published article written by a quack -- and in a quack journal too. Not even a "study," and certainly not a "scientific study."
Last edited by Winnie on Sun May 21, 2017 5:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Winnie
"Make it a powerful memory, the happiest you can remember."

Winnie
Posts: 4227
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2006 2:48 pm

Re: Chlorine Dioxide Study

Postby Winnie » Sun May 21, 2017 3:12 pm

Nikkie111 wrote:But I don't understand, doesn't this study as well say it's safe ?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1569027/

Am I missing something?

Yes -- the math, for one thing.

That study has long been (mis)used by the MMS/CD cult nutters to insist their product is safe and claims are true, though it clearly does not support anything about the safety of forcing (orally and rectally) higher concentrations of CD into children with disabilities (or anyone). This study has been discussed long ago on this forum -- here for example (some math):

http://www.autismweb.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=31018&start=20#p209386

Nikkie111 wrote:I'm intrigued to find more studies..... In the meantime I ll stop wearing my judgy pants on :wink:

I don't have any problem being judgy about child abuse and child sexual assault -- which is what forcing this (orally and rectally) into defenseless children, based on nutty internet cult claims, to kill imaginary worms, actually is.
Winnie
"Make it a powerful memory, the happiest you can remember."

Nikkie111
Posts: 321
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2015 6:26 am

Re: Chlorine Dioxide Study

Postby Nikkie111 » Sun May 21, 2017 6:21 pm

Winnie wrote:
Nikkie111 wrote:But I don't understand, doesn't this study as well say it's safe ?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1569027/

Am I missing something?

Yes -- the math, for one thing.

That study has long been (mis)used by the MMS/CD cult nutters to insist their product is safe and claims are true, though it clearly does not support anything about the safety of forcing (orally and rectally) higher concentrations of CD into children with disabilities (or anyone). This study has been discussed long ago on this forum -- here for example (some math):

http://www.autismweb.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=31018&start=20#p209386

Nikkie111 wrote:I'm intrigued to find more studies..... In the meantime I ll stop wearing my judgy pants on :wink:

I don't have any problem being judgy about child abuse and child sexual assault -- which is what forcing this (orally and rectally) into defenseless children, based on nutty internet cult claims, to kill imaginary worms, actually is.


Good link about the study Winnie thank you.... Still though not judging my dear, didn't do it when I first heard of it not doing it now.... parents who resolve to this need help not shouting/judgment ....

raun cesar
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 5:17 am

Re: Chlorine Dioxide Study

Postby raun cesar » Tue May 23, 2017 3:36 am

Nikkie111 wrote:But I don't understand, doesn't this study as well say it's safe ?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1569027/

Am I missing something?


Some studies are published just to spark controversy with the aim of supporting products behind and nothing conclusive for people.

jaumeb
Posts: 167
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2016 10:48 am

Re: Chlorine Dioxide Study

Postby jaumeb » Tue May 23, 2017 8:31 am

Afaik ClO2 is toxic.

Winnie
Posts: 4227
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2006 2:48 pm

Re: Chlorine Dioxide Study

Postby Winnie » Tue May 23, 2017 10:57 pm

raun cesar wrote:
Nikkie111 wrote:But I don't understand, doesn't this study as well say it's safe ?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1569027/

Am I missing something?


Some studies are published just to spark controversy with the aim of supporting products behind and nothing conclusive for people.

There is nothing inherently wrong with the study in the link quoted by Nikkie -- it's just an old study (published 35 years ago) evaluating the effect of chlorine dioxide for potential use in water purification (full text: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1569027/pdf/envhper00463-0059.pdf ). However, contrary to the claims of the MMS/CD cult, it doesn't do anything to suggest safety of the forced ingestion of bleach (and yes, it is an industrial bleach) upon children. The healthy adult males in this study ingested 5ppm (5 mg/L), while what Kerri Rivera and the MMS/CD cult is cooking up to poison and erode the guts of children is at least 3000 ppm, administered often, orally AND rectally.

The "study" that isn't a study quoted by dabaxter in the OP is exactly as you depicted -- an article spun to promote the product.

A good article explaining the chemistry, concentrations, and other details about this chlorine dioxide "protocol:"
https://chronicleflask.com/2016/08/27/mms-and-cd-chemistry-the-facts/
Winnie
"Make it a powerful memory, the happiest you can remember."

Winnie
Posts: 4227
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2006 2:48 pm

Re: Chlorine Dioxide Study

Postby Winnie » Wed May 24, 2017 12:00 am

Nikkie111 wrote:Good link about the study Winnie thank you.... Still though not judging my dear, didn't do it when I first heard of it not doing it now.... parents who resolve to this need help not shouting/judgment ....

The same could be said of any child-abuser (that they need help) – but the victims of child abuse are the children, not the people perpetuating the abuse.

I fall down squarely on the side of protecting defenseless children with disabilities, not coddling parents willing to abuse their disabled children on the advice of a cult leader who claims to be a billion-year-old space traveler and his “bishops” like Kerri Rivera.

If you are interested in a demo of just how phony the parent claims are that Kerri Rivera uses market this abuse, there are clear past examples on this forum, by members of this forum. One high-profile TMR mom on this forum, whose child was most certainly not “recovered,” claimed, along with Kerri Rivera, that her child was Kerri Rivera’s 91st recovered child on the chlorine dioxide protocol (!). To get some idea of just how kooky and fraudulent their claims were, just search the forum for Kerri 91st. Here are some threads to get you started:
http://www.autismweb.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=31018&start=60#p209558
http://www.autismweb.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=31018#p209221
http://www.autismweb.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=31018&start=80#p209620

Nikkie111 wrote:I'm intrigued to find more studies..... In the meantime I ll stop wearing my judgy pants on :wink:

Then here’s another old study – hope you find it intriguing. :)

Toxicological Effects of Chlorine Dioxide, Chlorite and Chlorate
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1569035/pdf/envhper00463-0021.pdf

Three major areas of concern over the use of CO02 as a disinfectant have been identified by research performed to date. First, there is a need to study human populations which display higher levels of sensitivity to oxidant chemicals. Second, efforts must be made to determine the significance of increased turnover of the epithelium of the gastrointestinal tracts at low doses of C102 and C102 . This tissue normally turns over quite rapidly. On the other hand, cellular damage followed by regeneration has been associated with increased susceptibility to chemical carcinogens in other organs such as the liver (25). Third, and perhaps most important, is the question of potential reproductive effects of C102 and its by-products implied, but not established, by the reduced incorporation of 3H-thymidine into testicular DNA. The fact that this effect occurred at quite low doses of C102, C102- and C103-raises the level of concern considerably. It should be noted that similar effects were not observed with HOCI (11).
Winnie
"Make it a powerful memory, the happiest you can remember."

Nikkie111
Posts: 321
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2015 6:26 am

Re: Chlorine Dioxide Study

Postby Nikkie111 » Wed May 24, 2017 4:08 pm

Winnie wrote:
Nikkie111 wrote:Good link about the study Winnie thank you.... Still though not judging my dear, didn't do it when I first heard of it not doing it now.... parents who resolve to this need help not shouting/judgment ....

The same could be said of any child-abuser (that they need help) – but the victims of child abuse are the children, not the people perpetuating the abuse.

I fall down squarely on the side of protecting defenseless children with disabilities, not coddling parents willing to abuse their disabled children on the advice of a cult leader who claims to be a billion-year-old space traveler and his “bishops” like Kerri Rivera.

If you are interested in a demo of just how phony the parent claims are that Kerri Rivera uses market this abuse, there are clear past examples on this forum, by members of this forum. One high-profile TMR mom on this forum, whose child was most certainly not “recovered,” claimed, along with Kerri Rivera, that her child was Kerri Rivera’s 91st recovered child on the chlorine dioxide protocol (!). To get some idea of just how kooky and fraudulent their claims were, just search the forum for Kerri 91st. Here are some threads to get you started:
http://www.autismweb.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=31018&start=60#p209558
http://www.autismweb.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=31018#p209221
http://www.autismweb.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=31018&start=80#p209620

Nikkie111 wrote:I'm intrigued to find more studies..... In the meantime I ll stop wearing my judgy pants on :wink:

Then here’s another old study – hope you find it intriguing. :)

Toxicological Effects of Chlorine Dioxide, Chlorite and Chlorate
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1569035/pdf/envhper00463-0021.pdf

Three major areas of concern over the use of CO02 as a disinfectant have been identified by research performed to date. First, there is a need to study human populations which display higher levels of sensitivity to oxidant chemicals. Second, efforts must be made to determine the significance of increased turnover of the epithelium of the gastrointestinal tracts at low doses of C102 and C102 . This tissue normally turns over quite rapidly. On the other hand, cellular damage followed by regeneration has been associated with increased susceptibility to chemical carcinogens in other organs such as the liver (25). Third, and perhaps most important, is the question of potential reproductive effects of C102 and its by-products implied, but not established, by the reduced incorporation of 3H-thymidine into testicular DNA. The fact that this effect occurred at quite low doses of C102, C102- and C103-raises the level of concern considerably. It should be noted that similar effects were not observed with HOCI (11).


Winnie really thank you for the links - I know all about CD but didn't know about the testimonials on this forum
With regards to abuse etc I don't want to offend anyone here but IMO this is nowhere near same level as other types of parental or similar abuse. It's certainly not emotional or psychological. Bear in mind Kerri and Andreas are 'endorsed' in a way when they are allowed to present to autismone etc so for really desperate parents in need they'd follow them as I follow a doctor (which I bloody regretted at times). Hence my strong view is that they need hand holding and support rather than anything else. Us shouting at them through the web won't shake them up.. Us giving them proof of how the child's stomach PH might alter forever might do something... Anyone in this world no matter how educated he is, no matter how amazing his analytical thinking might be, can fall in this trap if they are really really desperate to recover their kid. I could certainly see myself two years ago doing this. Anyway for me it's a special case certainly not abuse and I do wish every parent finds something safe that recovers their kid!


Return to “Diet and Biomedical Treatments for Autism”