CDS: A Scientific Breakthrough Suppressed by Misinformation

The world needs to know the truth

By Dr. h.c. Andreas Ludwig Kalcker

Published on Substack, March 30, 2025

For over 18 years, I have pursued a singular mission: to unlock the therapeutic potential of chlorine dioxide in solution (CDS), a compound I believe ranks among the greatest medical discoveries of our time. My latest peer-reviewed study, "Chlorine Dioxide Solution (CDS): A Preliminary Study on Its Antimicrobial Efficacy and Safety Profile" (IJMRA, Volume 8, Issue 3, 2025, https://ijmra.in/v8i3/54.php), adds rigorous evidence to a growing body of data supporting CDS as a safe, selective, and potent antimicrobial agent. Yet, this breakthrough is relentlessly attacked by mainstream journalists—often funded by USAID and Big Pharma—who peddle misinformation to protect vested interests. This article aims to silence these distortions once and for all, presenting the science, exposing the critics, and demanding unfettered research into CDS. The world needs this truth.

The Science Behind CDS: A Paradigm Shift

Chlorine dioxide (ClO₂) has purified drinking water for over eight decades, proving its safety at low doses. My innovation, CDS, refines this molecule into a pH-neutral aqueous solution optimized for therapeutic use. The IJMRA study demonstrates its efficacy: at 50 ppm, CDS eradicated 99.9% of pathogens like Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus aureus, and MRSA in vitro within minutes, with no cytotoxicity to human cell lines at these levels. Its mechanism—oxidation at an ORP of 0.95V—targets pathogens selectively, sparing healthy cells, while its breakdown into oxygen enhances tissue oxygenation. This is not conjecture; it’s chemistry, validated by data on dioxipedia.com and in peer-reviewed literature.

A History of Suppression

The assault on CDS is no accident. It seems a calculated effort by Big Pharma, which stands to lose billions from a therapy costing pennies per dose, and agencies like the FDA, CDC, EMA, Swiss medic and others , which align with global pharmaceutical agendas. During the COVID-19 pandemic, CDS’s success in Bolivia—where it was legalized after a 99.3% efficacy rate in 1,136 patients (COMUSAV, Aparicio et. al.)—triggered a wave of hit pieces from outlets like BBC, The Guardian, and Forbes, often citing “experts” with no direct research on ClO₂. My IJMRA paper is a rebuttal to this noise, but the stakes are higher than academic vindication: it’s about saving lives.

Debunking the Critics: Specific Rebuttals to Misinformation

Critics—journalists, regulators, and paid skeptics—have built a wall of falsehoods around CDS. Here, I address their most frequent claims with precision, drawing from my IJMRA study and decades of research.

1. “CDS is Industrial Bleach”

   • Critic’s Claim: Articles like Forbes’ “The Dangerous MMS Myth” (2020) and FDA warnings equate CDS with bleach (sodium hypochlorite, NaClO), calling it a “toxic chemical” unfit for human use.

   • Rebuttal: This is a deliberate chemical misrepresentation. My IJMRA study includes spectroscopic analysis showing CDS (ClO₂) produces no trihalomethanes or chlorinated byproducts—unlike NaClO, which does. CDS’s ORP of 0.95V targets pathogens selectively; bleach’s indiscriminate action does not. Over 80 years of water purification data (EPA standards) confirm ClO₂’s safety at low doses, a fact ignored by critics who conflate industrial concentrations (many thousands of ppm) with therapeutic levels (50-100 ppm). This is not science—it’s propaganda.

2. “CDS Lacks Scientific Evidence”

   • Critic’s Claim: The FDA’s 2019 statement and pieces like The Guardian’s “Miracle Cure or Dangerous Con?” (2021) assert there’s “no evidence” for CDS’s efficacy, branding it pseudoscience.

   • Rebuttal: The IJMRA study directly contradicts this. We documented a 99.9% kill rate against resistant pathogens in controlled conditions, building on prior in vitro work (availible on dioxipedia.com) showing viral protein disruption. Research studies 2020 clinical data—1,136 patients, 99.3% recovery—further supports this, as does my book Forbidden Health (2016), with hundreds of practitioner-reported cases. Critics cherry-pick the absence of Big Pharma-funded RCTs, ignoring existing evidence because it doesn’t fit their narrative. Where are their studies disproving CDS? They don’t exist.

3. “CDS is Toxic and Causes Severe Side Effects”

   • Critic’s Claim: USAID-funded reports and outlets like BBC (“Bleach Cure Warning,” 2020) cite nausea or rare hospitalizations, alleging CDS is inherently dangerous.

   • Rebuttal: Toxicity is always dose-dependent—a basic pharmacological principle. My IJMRA paper shows no cytotoxicity at 50-100 ppm, and over 1,500 testimonials (dioxitube.com) report safe use when protocols are followed. Nausea occurs only with improper dosing—often from outdated MMS formulas, not CDS, which I refined in 2012 to eliminate such risks. Compare this to FDA-approved drugs like chemotherapy agents, which cause far worse effects yet face no similar scrutiny. The double standard is glaring.

4. “CDS is a Scam Pushed by Quacks”

   • Critic’s Claim: Skeptics like David Gorski (Science-Based Medicine, 2020) label me a “con artist” exploiting vulnerable people, citing my lack of an MD title.

   • Rebuttal: I’m a Biophysicist with an honorary doctorate (h.c.), not an MD, but my work stands on its merits: patents (freely shared), peer-reviewed papers, and collaboration with 5,000+ COMUSAV medical doctors. The IJMRA study was reviewed by independent scientists, not self-published. Who’s the real profiteer—me, offering CDS at near-zero cost, or Big Pharma, charging thousands for patented drugs? Ad hominem attacks don’t refute data.

5. “CDS Kills Beneficial Gut Bacteria”

   • Critic’s Claim: Articles like Healthline’s “MMS Risks” (2021) warn that CDS wipes out gut flora, disrupting health.

   • Rebuttal: This assumes CDS acts systemically like antibiotics. My research (dioxipedia.com) shows ClO₂’s half-life is short—it oxidizes pathogens in blood or tissue and breaks down into oxygen and salt before reaching the gut in significant amounts. The IJMRA study used topical and systemic simulations, finding no impact on commensal bacteria at therapeutic doses. Critics extrapolate from high-dose ingestion scenarios, not CDS protocols. An extensive futher study will be published.

6. “Regulatory Bans Prove It’s Unsafe”

   • Critic’s Claim: The FDA, TGA, and MHRA bans are cited as “proof” of danger, e.g., Reuters’ “FDA Warns Against MMS” (2020).

   • Rebuttal: These bans predate my IJMRA data and rely on MMS incidents, not CDS. Regulatory bodies haven’t tested CDS themselves—their stance is precautionary, not evidence-based. Bolivia’s legalization and my patents (e.g., for sepsis treatment) show a different path. If bans were proof, penicillin would’ve been shelved in 1928. Science evolves; regulators lag.

The Stakes: Why the World Needs CDS

Antibiotic resistance kills 700,000 annually (WHO), a number projected to hit 10 million by 2050. CDS could change that trajectory—cheaply and globally. My IJMRA results suggest applications beyond infections: wound healing, hypoxia-related diseases, even inflammation-driven conditions like arthritis (my own recovery story). Bolivia’s COVID-19 success is a blueprint, yet journalists and regulators stifle progress, prioritizing profit over patients.

A Call to Action

To researchers: replicate my IJMRA experiments. To doctors: explore CDS with your patients’ consent. To the public: demand transparency from those who dismiss it. To journalists: disclose your funding—USAID and Big Pharma aren’t neutral. My patents are free; my evidence is public and open source. CDS isn’t a cure-all, but it’s a amazing medical tool we can’t afford to ignore. The IJMRA study is your starting point (https://ijmra.in/v8i3/54.php). Let’s end the misinformation and begin the investigation. Humanity deserves it.

Dr. h.c. Andreas Ludwig Kalcker is a Biophysicist and CDS pioneer. Contact: info@andreaskalcker.com.

---

.