The Chlorine Dioxide Debate

‍Challenging the Medical System

Dr. Kory opened by reflecting on his journey during COVID-19, a time that reshaped his understanding of mainstream medicine. His advocacy for ivermectin came with personal and professional costs: the end of his academic career and significant backlash from medical authorities. This experience, he explained, prepared him for a deeper look into alternative therapies, including chlorine dioxide.

Kory highlighted that while innovations in other industries (like the rise of the iPhone over BlackBerry) are driven by clear technological superiority, medicine works differently. When disruptive medical therapies emerge—especially low-cost, effective ones—they face intense suppression rather than healthy competition. He emphasized that historical examples show how inventors of such therapies often face professional ruin or worse.

The Case for Oxidative Therapies

Chlorine dioxide falls under a broader category of oxidative therapies, which also includes ozone, hydrogen peroxide, and high-dose intravenous vitamin C. These treatments work by oxidizing pathogens, destroying bacteria, fungi, and viruses. What sets chlorine dioxide apart, Kory explained, is its balance of power and gentleness: strong enough to kill pathogens, yet mild enough to leave the body’s natural microbiome intact.

Unlike other oxidative therapies, which require specialized equipment and settings, chlorine dioxide can be taken orally, making it more accessible—and, in Kory’s view, more threatening to the medical establishment.

Why the Pushback?

The controversy around chlorine dioxide isn’t just medical—it’s deeply political. Kory detailed how regulatory bodies and media outlets have consistently labeled it as dangerous, toxic, or even likened it to bleach. However, he argued that these claims are misleading. Chlorine dioxide has been widely used to purify drinking water around the world, including in municipal water systems.

Kory pointed out that safety studies (some of which he personally reviewed in-depth) show chlorine dioxide to be well tolerated in controlled doses, with minimal adverse effects. He emphasized the difference between the scientific data and the narrative presented by authorities.

A Suppressed Evidence Base

While the scientific literature on chlorine dioxide is limited—largely due to suppression—Kory shared that evidence does exist. He described clinical trials involving its precursor, chlorite, which showed promising results for various conditions, including ALS and diabetic wounds. Bolivia’s use of chlorine dioxide during the COVID-19 pandemic was another striking example, where ICU cases reportedly dropped dramatically after its widespread adoption.

Practical Use and Protocols

For those interested in its therapeutic use, Kory explained two primary formulations: MMS (Miracle Mineral Solution) and CDS (Chlorine Dioxide Solution). Both involve mixing drops from two bottles to generate chlorine dioxide, which is then diluted in water. He shared that while both are effective, MMS tends to be simpler to prepare.

Kory also outlined dosing protocols, which emphasize starting low and gradually increasing to find each person’s tolerance level. He stressed the importance of avoiding antioxidants while dosing and provided practical tips, such as using baths for those who find drinking chlorine dioxide challenging.

For detailed instructions, Kory recommended visiting MMSGuidance.com, a resource he helped develop to ensure safe and clear education for patients.

A Call for Open Research

In closing, Dr. Kory expressed his hope for a future where chlorine dioxide can be properly studied and utilized without political interference. He underscored the need for open-minded research, especially as infectious diseases rise globally. While he acknowledged the obstacles, Kory remains committed to pushing for greater awareness and access to therapies he believes hold transformative potential.

‍