CDS (Chlorine dioxide) on Trial
Rebuttal of Severe Allegations Against Chlorine Dioxide Solution (CDS). The unfiltered truth about CDS
Dr. Gerhard Jonschker, Scientific Director and Expert in Strategy at Merck Group, has published a severe accusation regarding chlorine dioxide treatments. This article aims to set the record straight once and for all.
Dr. Gerhard 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 17 years 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, so everyone can make his own conclusion.
The article represents a scientific discussion and is not directed as "ad hominem" confrontation.
Any scientific comment is wellcome.
Contents
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 and it is unrelated to CDS and does not recomend it at all.
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 Animals
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:
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. only 40,000 from car accidents (NHTSA, 2020) meaning that you are 6 times more likely to die from a doctor. Medical Errors provide much more dangerous advice. Studies (e.g. Aparicio-Alonso et al. with 1132 patients , 2024) confirm safety.
Merck`s lawsuits:
Aspect Details Total lawsuits settled ~60,000 Major settlement (2007)~30,000–40,000 cases .
ResolvedSettlement amount$4.85 billion (2007 agreement) .
Main allegationsHeart 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 seems to demonstrate 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, another safe supplement. Nelson et al confirm enhanced penetration. The claim lacks evidence, contradicted by thousands of testimonial 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 have shown over many years to be precise (Kalcker, 2025,).
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 and Vaccines, possibly explaining CDS rejection. Even with over 128 Studiesthey try to put the “quackery” label. CDS has shown to be efective in cause of vaccine induced harm and is the base of electromelecular medicine based on biophysical
CDS: A Solution for mRNA Vaccine Damage
I hope to have helped to disove doubts about the truthfullness and if you like to learn more about CDS you might check out http://kalckerinstitue.com
