Hacker News Reader

Comment by aficiomaquinas | Hacker News Reader

> [...] which has no medical basis whatsoever.

I'm not a doctor, but there seems to be some medical basis in some pathologies. If you are a doctor or scientist perhaps your input would be greatly appreciated in the following papers:

In vivo evaluation of the antiviral effect of ClO2 in chicken embryos inoculated with avian infectious bronchitis coronavirus https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.13.336768v1

Subchronic toxicity of chlorine dioxide and related compounds in drinking water in the nonhuman primate https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7151767/

Mechanistic aspects of ingested chlorine dioxide on thyroid function: impact of oxidants on iodide metabolism https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3816729/

Efficacy and Safety Evaluation of a Chlorine Dioxide Solution https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28327506/

Also, CDS is not MMS.

View on HN

The chicken embryo study is interesting but chlorine dioxide is already known to be less toxic to birds. And your other sources clearly state that chlorine dioxide and chlorites suppress thyrioid function and haematopoesis in primates and humans. Is that supposed to be a good thing?

>Also, CDS is not MMS.

Out of curiosity, do you acidify the ClO2 solution before quaffing it? It's a ritual very well associated with MMS proponents but probably does more harm than good if the goal is to deliver chlorine to the body.

The results in monkeys seem to suppress thyroid function, but:

> No evidence of thyroid effects were detected in the serum of human volunteers who ingested approximately 1 mg/l. of ClO2 in drinking water as a result of routine use in the community water treatment process.

I don't acidify the ClO2 solution.

You are conflating very low background exposure to delibrate self-medication with a much larger dose. The latter act has a proven risk for no apparent gain, hence my doubts.

I'm not a doctor but have a background in biomedical research. Just to point out that there are countless fringe medical theories and therapies out there with varying degrees of anecdotal and scientific evidence backing them up. However it's quite telling that many claim the same benefits whilst instructing people to do the exact opposite things. Even the more promising ones (resveratrol and fructose toxicity are the ones I have actually spent time working on) eventually turned out to be nothing but wishful thinking and sometimes just bad science. I wish you the best of health but at the end of the day, what seems to have worked for you does not mean that it will work for everybody else.

Thank you for spending the time to write so far and for wishing me good health. I really appreciate it. I could tell about your background in your writing.

> what seems to have work for you does not mean that it will work for everybody else.

I agree with you on this. I just hope there was more funding or incentives for scientists studying this which, so far, has helped me and many people I know.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com