Hacker News Reader

Comment by harrisreynolds | Hacker News Reader

Typical FUD. Where is the research? Start with animals like you do with everything, and RESEARCH it. Don't just dismiss it with labels like bleach when you have no idea what kind of action it has. The action of ClO2 is different than that of Chlorine bleach; it oxidizes instead of chlorinates!!

People need to understand some basic chemistry instead of regurgitating buzz words (like bleach); and we need real research, not just empty words.

View on HN

Are you seriously advocating INTERNAL use of ClO2 in living human patients who have been infected by the malaria parasites, which is the topic of the submitted article that opened this thread? Remember that for in-vivo experimentation, even for in-vivo experimentation on animals before experimenting on human patients, it is only ethical to perform the experiment if there is prior probability of therapeutic effect without undue harm to the patient. Where is there any evidence whatsoever that ClO2 is effective without undue harm when used as an internal medicine?

And as for understanding basic chemistry, my late father the chemistry major (who performed experiments at home with me as a child, and who was my mentor in the philosophy of science) would be APPALLED at not noticing the distinction between using chemicals outside the human body as disinfectants and using them as internal medicines in living human beings.

Are you seriously advocating INTERNAL use of ClO2 in living human patients

No. Did you even read the GP? He said (even in caps) he's looking for "RESEARCH". Also, you don't need a whole animal to do the first tests, you just need a tissue or blood sample from an infected animal to test effectiveness vs. toxicity, and go from there.

What he is really looking for is a conspiracy. These alternative medicine quacks all claim they just want their product (and it always is already a product...) researched. When asked why they don't have it researched, like any other prospective treatment is, they drop hints at "big pharmacy" silencing them (as you can see he has done in his original post).

The entire point is to turn the lack of evidence into evidence of its effectiveness.

I clearly stated beginning research in animals. Your metric for determining if in-vivo experiments should be done on animals is interesting. Based on your notion, you should only perform these experiments if you think they will actually work. The problem here is that the metabolic processes of mammals for instance is so complex that we often times have no idea what will be effective and what will not. Oxidizers is a classic case. It is commonly understood that anti-oxidants are good for the body. But you can find research that states that too many anti-oxidants can be bad b/c it inhibits some amount of oxidation which can be good (b/c it kills pathogens).

I am simply advocating investigation based on research, realizing that we actually know very little about oxidation vs anti-oxidation within complex organisms. If we only ever think "inside the box" with what we "think is probable" we will almost certainly never discover many of the mysteries in our biological world.

I really can't tell if you are serious, because you are displaying most of the usual tells for sarcasm.

In case you are serious though, NaClO (aka Chlorox) is an oxidant too. Anyone who forgot to dilute it or wear gloves while cleaning their kitchen or bathroom should be familiar with exactly why "oxidize" does not convey, in any sense, "safe".

Shouldn't the people advocating its use be the ones researching it? Why is the onus on critics to prove it?

Surprisingly enough that's mostly true. http://www.lenntech.com/library/clo2/chlorine-dioxide.htm ClO2 is a bleach, but it's not what most people think of when they say "bleach". It's effective as a disinfectant even against spore-forming bacteria like anthrax. http://www.lenntech.com/library/clo2/chlorine-dioxide.htm I appreciate that you're not advocating high doses, or cures for random things like autism.

Thanks for the links. It is interesting to read about the chemistry behind the various oxidizing agents and the selectivity of each.

The links you kindly shared are commercial links posted by a water treatment chemical company that has a commercial interest in promoting using ClO2 rather than other chemicals for water treatment. It may be that everything they say about ClO2 as a water treatment chemical checks out with what independent researchers say, but there is no support here for the idea that ClO2 is an effective internal medicine for malaria infection.

AFTER EDIT: To reply to your kind reply below, I am aware of what reply layer we are in here. But the submitted article, after all, was about treatment of human patients who have already been infected by the malaria parasite. For a top-level comment then to come in under that article that has nothing to do with internal medicine use of the advocated chemical is, at least, a sign of careless reading, and possibly a sign of greater tendentiousness. (Other participants here have pointed out the several words and phrases in several of the comments to which I am replying that suggest that that subthread is not based on familiarity with medical research and the methods of medical research.)

This is the comment I was replying to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4454819 It makes no claims that ClO2 is an effective in vivo treatment for malaria.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com