
<script type="text/javascript">
<!--
document.write('<div id="oa_widget"></div>');
document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="https://www.openaire.eu/index.php?option=com_openaire&view=widget&format=raw&projectId=undefined&type=result"></script>');
-->
</script>Chlorine Dioxide Solution (CDS), an aqueous preparation of chlorine dioxide (ClO₂) gas, is promoted as a treatment for conditions including COVID-19, cancer, Lyme disease, and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), yet lacks robust clinical validation. This review assesses ClO₂’s chemical properties, distinguishing gaseous ClO₂ (hazardous when inhaled at >0.1 ppm) from CDS (safe and effective at < 1 mg/L for disinfection and potential therapy). As a selective oxidant, CDS exhibits biocidal efficacy without forming trihalomethanes, unlike sodium chlorite (NaClO₂)-based products like Miracle Mineral Solution (MMS). Claims of severe toxicity (e.g., organ failure) for CDS are unsupported at therapeutic doses; the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) LD50 of 292 mg/kg implies an impractical 20 L ingestion for a 70-kg person. Peer-reviewed studies confirm CDS’s efficacy against MRSA and suggest potential in cancer, Lyme disease, and viral infections, meriting further research. Observational testimonies, though non-peer-reviewed, offer historically significant insights, paralleling early medical discoveries. Misinformation, amplified by social media and exemplified by the 2020 Neuquén, Argentina, misuse case, conflates CDS with toxic variants, driving harm. We advocate evidence-based education, regulatory specificity, and controlled trials to clarify CDS’s safety and potential, aiming to dispel myths, reduce confusion, and responsibly evaluate its medical role while safeguarding public health.
| citations This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 0 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
