Scaring The Public Using Unfamiliar Chemical Names Is Surprisingly Easy To Do

After my recent post on the safety of orally ingested chlorine dioxide and the FDA's propaganda campaign against this fact, a colleague alerted me to the danger of dihydrogen monoxide (water).

After writing my recent post on the safety of chlorine dioxide doses used in treatment of human disease, I discovered how easy it is to instill “chemophobia” amongst the public when I was sent this Wikipedia post from a colleague which described an April Fools Prank perpetrated on the public by a Michigan newspaper called the Durand Express in 1983.

In 1983 on April Fools' Day, an edition of the Durand Express, a weekly newspaper in Durand, Michigan, reported that"dihydrogen monoxide" (Ed: water!) had been found in the city's water pipes.

Although I could not find the original copy of the newspaper, apparently in the article the paper wrote that “inhalation of this chemical nearly always results in death," and that "vapors from it cause severe blistering of the skin which can be fatal if extensive." At the end of the article the paper revealed that the chemical formula of this substance was H20 (water).

Know that under the IUPAC nomenclature of inorganic chemistry, water is one acceptable name for this compound, even though it is neither a systematic nor an international name and is specific to just one phase of the compound (its liquid form). The other IUPAC recommendation is oxidane. Who knew that I have been drinking oxidane my entire life?

Other names for water include: hydrogen oxide; hydrogen hydroxide, which characterizes it as a base; and several designating it as an acid, such as hydric acid or hydroxyl acid. The term used in the original text, hydroxyl acid, is a non-standard name.

Later, when the internet was invented, the “dihydrogen monoxide” prank was perpetrated several more times, the first by housemates at the University of California, Santa Cruz in 1990 with their parody organization called the "Coalition to Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide," via on-campus postings and news group discussions.

This was the chart created by the UC Davis group to show how dangerous this mysterious chemical was:

Again, in my last post detailing the numerous studies finding safety of orally ingested chlorine dioxide at the standard doses used in the treatment of human diseases, I included the below “propaganda playlist” compiled from mass media TV news reports, all of which tried to use the FDA’s description of chlorine dioxide as “bleach” or “bleach like” to scare the public away from a “dangerous, quack cure.”

With the above campaign against water in mind, I ask you to watch it, it is 5 minutes long and is a masterpiece of propaganda (from The Universal Antidote documentary here):

Back to the dangers of “dihydrogen monoxide.” Its toxicity received even more widespread public attention in 1997 when Nathan Zohner, a 14-year-old student at Eagle Rock Junior High School in Idaho Falls, Idaho, gathered petitions to ban "DHMO" as the basis of his science project, titled "How Gullible Are We?" He was able to get 43 out of the 50 ninth-graders surveyed to vote in favor of banning its use. Zohner actually received the first prize for his analysis of the results of his survey!

In recognition of Nathan’s experiment, journalist James K. Glassman coined the term "Zohnerism" to refer to "the use of a true fact to lead a scientifically and mathematically ignorant public to a false conclusion." From this post by Karl S. Kruszelnicki:

But, here's the point about misinformation, or disinformation. You can give people this totally accurate (but emotionally laden, and sensationalist) information about water. When you then survey these people, about three-quarters of them will willingly sign a petition to ban it. And it doesn't matter where in the world you do the survey.

So, “Zohnerism” perfectly describes the FDA when they describe chlorine dioxide as “bleach,” trying to hide from the public the fact that they regularly ingest chlorine dioxide given that it is widely used in water purification (and that therapeutic dose levels of oral ingestion are far below any level established as toxic).

This wikipedia entry details all the times the “dihydrogen monoxide” prank has been repeated successfully on gullible politicians like in 2001, when a staffer in New Zealand Green Party MP Sue Kedgley's office responded to a request for support for a campaign to ban dihydrogen monoxide by saying she was "absolutely supportive of the campaign to ban this toxic substance". This was criticized in a press release by the National Party, one of whose MPs fell for the very same joke six years later.

I found this archived Washington Post article which detailed the history and impact of the prank, and even delved into the use of Zohnerisms by the EPA:

“Finding Zohnerisms in the press, Congressional Record and speeches of administration officials makes a great parlor game. One place to start is the collected speeches of EPA chief Carol Browner, who has used Zohnerisms masterfully to promote expensive, disruptive new standards for particulate matter and global warming -- despite evidence from scientists that is, at best, inconclusive.

That's a shame. In a land where technical ignorance reigns and susceptibility to Zohnerisms is high, it's the duty of politicians, journalists and scientists to present facts responsibly and in context

I like this one though - in 2006, in Louisville, Kentucky, David Karem, executive director of the Waterfront Development Corporation, a public body that operates Waterfront Park, wished to deter bathers from using a large public fountain. "Counting on a lack of understanding about water's chemical makeup", he arranged for signs reading: "DANGER! – WATER CONTAINS HIGH LEVELS OF HYDROGEN – KEEP OUT" to be posted on the fountain at public expense:

Again in New Zealand:

In 2007, Jacqui Dean, New Zealand National Party MP, fell for the joke, writing a letter to Associate Minister of Health Jim Anderton asking "Does the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs have a view on the banning of this drug?

Although Zohner’s prank led to 86% of the 9th graders voting to ban the substance, the wider public is no more immune from manipulations and presentations of data to induce “chemophobia”:

In February 2011, during the campaign of the Finnish parliamentary election, a voting advice application asked the candidates whether the availability of "hydric acid, also known as dihydrogen monoxide" should be restricted. 49% of the candidates answered in favor of the restriction.

These pranks and campaigns actually led to this posting which tried to correctly inform the public of the safety of.. water:

One of the points I take away from all of this is that accurate, objective, and clear scientific information is the lifeblood of democracy. I want the general public to be aware of how authorities and their legacy media partners can scare and manipulate scientific information to lead the public to rapidly adopt insane policy decisions, a situation that was rife throughout Covid, like;

• the insanity of extended pervasive lockdowns and keeping kids out of school

• widespread shuttering of small businesses, parks, gyms, churches, and beaches while leaving box stores and liquor stores open

• ubiquitous mask wearing (even on windy beaches)

• the sudden ignoring of the long-accepted concept of natural immunity in favor of vaccinating people who just recovered from the latest variant with an older, extinct viral antigen

• the suppression of effective repurposed anti-viral medicines like HCQ, IVM and others

• the widespread belief by the public that novel, barely tested, DNA contaminated genetic therapy products directed at a rapidly mutating coronavirus were “safe and effective” despite rapidly mounting evidence of widespread toxicity and lethality.

Keep all of this in mind folks as I continue to write about the purported benefits of chlorine dioxide, a therapy that has been targeted with disinformation and propaganda for decades (and which will likely increase in response).

---

If you appreciate the time and effort (and the personal and professional risks I am taking) in researching and writing on chlorine dioxide, support in the form of paid subscriptions is appreciated.

P.S I want to again emphasize that I am not recommending treatment with chlorine dioxide via oral ingestion to anyone as these posts are simply intended to help open and guide research into the treatment of human diseases with this promising compound.