Beyond Bleach: Ending the One-Sided Attacks on Chlorine Dioxide
For years, chlorine dioxide has been mocked as “bleach” and dismissed by the media and medical authorities. But as the FDA quietly steps back and clinical data accumulates, it’s time for a more honest
For more than a decade, critics of chlorine dioxide have portrayed it as nothing more than “industrial bleach.” They mock its use, cite safety concerns, and insist it holds no therapeutic value. Backed by three strong FDA safety warnings over the years, the mainstream medical and media establishments have solidified a universal stance: chlorine dioxide is not a medicine, and those who believe in it are dangerous, deluded, or both.
But this sweeping condemnation has ignored a set of realities that cannot be dismissed—not by evidence-based reasoning, not by clinical logic, and not by any fair scientific standard.
Four Inconvenient Realities Critics Cannot Explain
1. Millions of people worldwide have used chlorine dioxide, especially orally.
Despite years of warnings and ridicule, chlorine dioxide has quietly spread around the world. The simplicity, low cost, and grassroots testimonials have drawn millions—far more than any fringe therapy typically reaches. This cannot be dismissed as mass delusion alone.
2. Terminal cancer patients continue to seek it out.
When conventional therapies fail, people seek hope. It is in this desperate space that many discover chlorine dioxide. Whether recommended by friends, found online, or through word of mouth, it continues to be used by advanced-stage cancer patients around the world. And yes, anecdotal recoveries continue to circulate.
3. I am not part of the so-called “bleach cult.” I am a researcher from China.
Over the past decade, I’ve conducted independent investigations, including self-experimentation, therapeutic trials, and outcome tracking across 13 difficult diseases. Among these efforts, I’ve developed and refined Intra-Tumoral Chlorine Dioxide Injection Therapy, which has shown consistent effects in solid tumors. My book describes this work in detail.
4. Early clinical results already exist—and some patients are in full remission.
We now have close to 20 documented treatment cases of intra-tumoral chlorine dioxide injections. A few have achieved full remission. These are real-world patients with real tumors, not theory. Even WIRED Magazine has acknowledged my work in its coverage: WIRED article.
The FDA Has Quietly Stepped Back. Critics Must Now Rethink.
Until recently, all criticism relied heavily on FDA statements. The agency’s repeated public warnings were wielded as if they were final scientific verdicts. But in June 2025, I became the first to report that the FDA quietly deleted all of its chlorine dioxide safety warnings—without notice, explanation, or replacement.
Read: The FDA Quietly Removed Its Warnings
With that quiet deletion, the FDA removed the primary support structure for chlorine dioxide’s total dismissal. Today’s critics now face an awkward dilemma: the authority they once leaned on is no longer supporting them. If chlorine dioxide is still inherently dangerous, why has the FDA removed all references to that claim?
Of course, they won’t admit fault. But silence from regulators is not neutrality—it’s retreat. And that retreat demands a new approach to chlorine dioxide discourse.
The Burden Now Shifts: From Mockery to Evidence
Let’s be clear: chlorine dioxide therapies—especially oral forms—still lack large-scale clinical trials. That remains a valid criticism.
But what is no longer valid is the blanket dismissal of all chlorine dioxide–based medical applications. Especially when one formulation, administered intratumorally, is already demonstrating meaningful, measurable clinical responses.
To deny everything—to continue calling it all “bleach”—is no longer a scientific position. It is ideological. And ironically, it’s the same uncritical, dogmatic mindset that critics often accuse others of.
Let’s add another uncomfortable fact: a U.S. company has already advanced sodium chlorite (a ClO₂ precursor) as a candidate drug for ALS, and FDA trials are underway. If sodium chlorite can be repurposed as a drug, why is it so outrageous to investigate chlorine dioxide in a medical context?
I explained the full context of this case—and what it reveals about double standards in modern drug development—in this essay:
👉 The Sodium Chlorite Case: Why Lack of Profit Incentive Blocks Drug Approval
Chlorine Dioxide Is Not Just a Meme or a Mouthwash
ClO₂ is a molecule. A potent oxidant. A known disinfectant. A chemical agent with predictable and testable effects on microbes, viruses, and—potentially—tumor tissue. It deserves the same level of scrutiny and investigation that we apply to any other candidate drug.
My work in tumor treatment is not based on belief, but on real data, and the results thus far speak for themselves. If critics want to debate mechanisms, I welcome it. If they want to mock, the science will continue without them.
My Call: Let Evidence Decide
I do not believe chlorine dioxide cures all diseases. That would be superstition.
But I also do not believe chlorine dioxide is worthless. That would be prejudice.
Let us agree on this: what matters is not who believes what, but whether the therapy works.
To critics, supporters, and all honest observers:
Support science. Support evidence. Support the courage to investigate.
Subscribing to my Substack is not just following a newsletter — it is an act of support for research that challenges the status quo.
Your attention, your sharing, your curiosity — they all help move the conversation from taboo to trial.
If we are right, patients deserve access.
If we are wrong, the evidence will reveal it.
But to refuse to look — that is the only unacceptable outcome.
My distrust for the FDA is so deep i'm still waiting on the next shoe to drop.
A very good Article , we have to stick to science at all time.