Trump's "Bleach" Conference Alluded To The Antidote For Future Pandemics

Globally ridiculed for his comments, Trump was erroneously thought to be referring to chlorine dioxide, a treatment nationally deployed by Bolivia which led to the best outcomes in South America.

This is the first post in a series I plan on doing on chlorine dioxide, a broad and powerful anti-microbial and disinfectant that is, contrary to the propaganda surrounding it, safe for human ingestion at therapeutic doses. I promise that what you will come to learn (especially in later posts) will massively impact your ability to protect your health, especially in regards to any future pandemics that may arise from bioweapons research (I suggest subscribing now so you don’t miss out on the rest of this series).

Let’s start by recapping what one news site called “Trump’s Craziest and Most Surreal’ Press conference. You know, the one where literally everyone across the world thought Trump was either out of his mind or a complete imbecile for thinking that “bleach” could be injected as a treatment for Covid.

Fun foreshadowing fact: By the end of this post, I hope to convince you that the treatment many thought that Trump was referring to (e.g. chlorine dioxide which is NOT bleach (bleach is sodium hypochlorite) is not only an extremely safe and highly effective treatment for Covid, but it also works against a diverse and likely complete array of pathogenic organisms.

You also won’t be surprised to learn that nearly every single health or regulatory agency in the world refers to chlorine dioxide as “bleach” or “bleach-like” and they maintain that there is “insufficient evidence” to recommend it as a treatment (and also that it is “very dangerous and should never be ingested.” Sound familiar?

By now, most of my readers can already call bullshit. Statements from authorities like the ones above are indefensible given the fact that over 500 U.S public water treatment plants add chlorine dioxide to the water full time and as many as 900 use it either part time or seasonally (Leister 2021). Safety levels of orally ingested doses have been well established and are far above therapeutic dosing ranges, period.

Further, numerous oral care and dental products on the market contain chlorine dioxide and a number of trials using intravenous chlorine dioxide have been done safely.

It would appear, once again, that like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, chlorine dioxide is the target of a Disinformation campaign given how broadly effective, inexpensive, and widely available it is as a therapeutic. To demonstrate how “dangerous” chlorine dioxide is to the powers that be, know that chlorine dioxide was attacked as a proposed treatment for Covid -19 even before HCQ and ivermectin. It literally was one of the first therapeutics “they” tried to discredit as physicians across the world were searching for effective therapeutics for our patients We were simply told to stay away from “bleach” (which seemed reasonable to me at the time).

To wit, know that Jim Humble and Mark Grenon, two of the most well known “pioneers” of using chlorine dioxide either as chlorine dioxide (CDS) or it’s alternative formulation called Miracle Mineral Solution (MMS) had been treating many tens of thousands of patients in Africa and South and Central America since 1996. In 2010, they formed an entity called the Genesis Church For Health And Healing, thinking that as a church, they would be immune from regulatory attack. In a way, they were, that is, until April 8, 2020, when suddenly the FDA went after them with a “warning letter”:

Please answer me why they were openly treating patients for over a decade but it was only when Covid broke out that the feds went after them, and hard too. The Feds tracked their clinic location in Colombia and then raided, arrested, and extradited them.

Grenon and his sons were all convicted and sent to jail, largely because they were making and selling (and marketing) such a “dangerous,” “unapproved” product:

First line of the article:

Three months after a Florida man and his three sons were convicted of selling toxic industrial bleach as a fake COVID-19 cure through their online church, a federal judge in Miami sentenced them to serve prison time.

Two of the sons got 151 month sentences, while Mark and his other son got 60 months in prison. Not sure how much wisdom I am displaying here in writing about the topic of chlorine dioxide, but one thing I do know is that it would be hard to run a practice selling “toxic industrial bleach” to people for them to ingest. If it truly were “toxic bleach,” the practice would die after the first patient did.

Let’s get back to President Trump and what he actually said. For this, I will use an article from the “fact-checking” site called Snopes, where they wrote:

What's True

During an April 2020 media briefing, Trump did ask members of the government's coronavirus task force to look into whether "disinfectants could be injected inside people to treat COVID-19. But when a reporter asked in a follow-up question whether cleaning products like bleach and isopropyl alcohol would be injected into a person, the then-president said those products would be used for sterilizing an area, not for injections.

What's False

However, at no point did Trump explicitly tell people they could or should inject bleach into their bodies.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. So I asked Bill a question that probably some of you are thinking of, if you're totally into that world, which I find to be very interesting. So, supposing we hit the body with a tremendous — whether it's ultraviolet or just very powerful light — and I think you said that that hasn't been checked, but you're going to test it. And then I said, supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way, and I think you said you're going to test that too. It sounds interesting.

ACTING UNDER SECRETARY BRYAN: We'll get to the right folks who could.

THE PRESIDENT: Right. And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning. Because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. So it would be interesting to check that. So, that, you're going to have to use medical doctors with. But it sounds — it sounds interesting to me.

Trump then clarified his opening (and admittedly bizarre) remark above:

"It wouldn't be through injection. We're talking about through almost a cleaning, sterilization of an area. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn't work. But it certainly has a big effect if it's on a stationary object."

The global media then went to town on Trump, immediately collecting quotes from highly pedigreed doctors ridiculing both of Trump’s notions, none more viciously than this article from the BBC which used quotes from three different doctors to “hit” at Trump:

Pulmonologist Dr Vin Gupta told NBC News: "This notion of injecting or ingesting any type of cleansing product into the body is irresponsible and it's dangerous.

"It's a common method that people utilise when they want to kill themselves."

Kashif Mahmood, a doctor in Charleston, West Virginia, tweeted: "As a physician, I can't recommend injecting disinfectant into the lungs or using UV radiation inside the body to treat Covid-19.

"Don't take medical advice from Trump."

John Balmes, a pulmonologist at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital, warned that even breathing fumes from bleach could cause severe health problems.

He told Bloomberg News: "Inhaling chlorine bleach would be absolutely the worst thing for the lungs. The airway and lungs are not made to be exposed to even an aerosol of disinfectant.

"Not even a low dilution of bleach or isopropyl alcohol is safe. It's a totally ridiculous concept.”

I agree with the “esteemed” doctors above that injecting bleach is an insanely dangerous suggestion but remember, chlorine dioxide is NOT bleach, explained clearly and succinctly by this physician below (1:44 duration):

So, Trump was NOT referring to bleach at all. In fact, Trump was probably not even referring to chlorine dioxide. My close colleagues (AMD) was in communication with an expert group that had advised the White House at the time on a promising new COVID treatment (pioneered by Cedars Sinai) where harmless UV light was directly applied into the lungs to eliminate COVID-19 and in contact with clinicians around the country using ultraviolet blood irradiation to treat COVID-19:

“So, supposing we hit the body with a tremendous - whether it's ultraviolet or just very powerful light,"

"And then I said, supposing you brought the light inside of the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way. And I think you said you're going to test that too. Sounds interesting."

AMD argues correctly that when Trump talked about “injecting disinfectant” this could equally apply to UVBI given that ultraviolet light is also a powerful disinfectant that was used to decontaminate public spaces from SARS-CoV2.

Know that ultraviolet blood irradiation (UVBI) is a highly effective anti-microbial therapy that first came into use almost 100 years ago for severe and fatal infections. In the 1940’s, prominent media outlets like The New York Times, Time Magazine, and The American Weekly featured articles on its success.

“I think personally that [Knott’s discovery] is one of the greatest contributions to medicine ever made by a citizen of the United States.” — George Miley MD (1940)

Up until the 1950’s, it was used in hospitals across the country with truly remarkable efficacy. That is, until the AMA “killed” it with a negative study, forcing the entire medical system to switch to using antibiotics instead. There is no better expert on UVBI and its history in American medicine than A Midwestern Doctor who detailed the long and ultimately sad history of UVBI in this masterful review. My professional lack of enthusiasm for UVBI is that, although safe, it is expensive, invasive, and difficult to access. Thus it is not scalable to the masses in early treatment of a pandemic (although admittedly, with the resources and ingenuity available in the U.S that could change overnight).

Despite the above, I and many others initially thought that Trump was referring to chlorine dioxide, similar to the doctors quoted in the BBC article that thought he was referring to bleach. The NY Times even suggested he was referring to chlorine dioxide by making fun of him for thinking “bleach” might be a valid therapy. In the article, they, like the FDA and other regulatory authorities, again describe chlorine dioxide as similar to bleach:.

To wit, they write:

The F.D.A. has moved to tamp down on merchants online that have encouraged the ingestion of products made with disinfectants and cleaning agents, including chlorine dioxide, a compound commonly used as a bleach. The products have found favor with conspiracy theorists and fringe activists online who peddle chlorine dioxide as “Magical Mineral Solution,” or M.M.S.

“Conspiracy theorists and fringe activists who “peddle.” Where have I heard that before? Oh yeah:

The reality is that when Covid broke out, many clinicians from Central and South America were pleading for permission and strongly advocating for the use of chlorine dioxide in regional and national protocols. Why?

That is because many clinicians knew chlorine dioxide to be a safe, widely effective anti-microbial that can be used against a broad (if not total) range of viruses, bacteria, fungi, and parasites. One tragedy about chlorine dioxide’s suppression is that it has even been shown to be effective against multi-drug resistant bacteria, an issue that is becoming an ever larger problem across the world. Back in 2019, the WHO estimated that antibiotic resistance directly led to 1.2 million deaths and “contributed” to a further 5 million deaths. Imagine if we could solve that overnight?

So then, it should come as no surprise, especially to my readers, that I will again tell a story of a simple, safe, highly effective, inexpensive, and widely available therapy that could have stopped Covid in its tracks across the world. Just add chlorine dioxide to the list of treatments that were similarly blocked like ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, and many other therapies effective against Covid.

Lets never forget how many treatments you have never heard about (or been told of by authorities) that have been shown effective against Covid in clinical trials and observational studies. Just look at the below comprehensive “Forest Plot” compiled by the masterful and anonymous c19early.com group. To interpret the chart, know that any medicine with a diamond to the left of the grey center line means it is effective and the farther to the left the diamond is, the more potent the therapy (conversely, any diamond to the right was shown to be ineffective or harmful). The treatments are also rank ordered from top to bottom in terms of potency. I circled ivermectin for you :). Also note the grey diamonds next to the first 5 treatments above ivermectin indicate that there were only 4 trials or less completed, indicating uncertainty:

So, why isn’t chlorine dioxide on the chart above?

The reason why is that chlorine dioxide is under a seemingly impenetrable global research blockade by the FDA and other regulatory authorities that follow FDA’s lead. They consistently reject investigator applications to do human trials on it, instead repeatedly mischaracterizing it as “bleach” or “bleach-like” despite hundreds of studies showing safety for use in foods, water, ingestion, oral care, and wound healing.

To wit, I recently met Dr. Mitchell Brent Leister from the University of Colorado who, early on in Covid, submitted an IRB application to do a trial of chlorine dioxide. Despite submitting an immense amount of research proving the safety for human use/ingestion, he was denied. He instead went on to author this masterful review paper below:

A shocking aspect about the topic of chlorine dioxide is that hundreds of in-vitro, animal, human toxicologic, and human efficacy studies have been done of food, water, sanitation, industrial, pharmaceutical and disinfecting applications, along with many dozens of oral and dental conditions like halitosis and atrophic candidiasis (tongue fungus). Further, studies of topical administration find that it eradicates wound infections and promotes robust wound healing (of really nasty wounds too - see later post).

However, very few studies have been published using oral ingestion for internal treatment of infectious diseases (or any other medical disorder for which it is claimed to be effective). However, although few, the studies that have been done with oral ingestion of chlorine dioxide are beyond compelling, like this one done in Cameroon where they treated 500 people with malaria and all became asymptomatic in two days while the blood became completely free of parasites by Day 6. Whoa.

But why is there a paucity of published studies? I maintain that this is the result of a global regulatory blockade of performing research using orally ingested chlorine dioxide. As a result, despite its known and well established scientific safety for oral ingestion, chlorine dioxide is not FDA approved for any condition nor has it been approved for any condition by any regulatory agency in the world.

I can give you one hint of evidence supporting my assertion above by asking a question: Why did the International Red Cross “bury” (i.e. erase from history) a highly successful trial of chlorine dioxide in malaria?

Learning of that event really grabbed my attention. It is a documented fact that in 2012, the local Red Cross in Uganda did a highly successful study of orally administered chlorine dioxide to treat malaria. Like in the later Cameroon study of 500 patients, the Ugandan Red Cross treated 154 malaria patients with chlorine dioxide and reported that all became asymptomatic within 2 days (which, if you know anything about malaria, is a shockingly positive result).

However, this highly positive study was never published (or publicized). And that is because the leaders of the International Organization Of The Red Cross. (i.e. those “at the top”) pressured the local Ugandan Red Cross Officials to deny the study ever took place. This scandal is briefly described in this article which also includes this link to the Ugandan videographers documentary of the trial on Youtube. Unsurprisingly, when you click on the video link for YouTube, you get this:

They also put it on Brighteon, and you get this:

One place you can still view this short documentary (17 minutes) is on Odysee here (thank god for no-censorship platforms).

I suggest you watch it, however, for me, the most compelling and concise description of what happened in Uganda comes from this interview excerpt from the documentary called “Quantum Leap” in 2016 (3 minutes):

I maintain that the seemingly coordinated global regulatory barrier to doing research on the oral ingestion of chlorine dioxide ensures it remains both a controversial and feared treatment. It also suggests that, like Vitamin D and ivermectin, it is a treatment which threatens the profitable markets of numerous existing therapeutics and diseases. It also leads to the present (and unique) reality which is that chlorine dioxide is a therapy which, instead of being supported by numerous clinical trials in humans via oral ingestion, instead uniquely sits on an evidence base of thousands and thousands of anecdotes of oral ingestion, many of them beyond compelling.

The anecdotes of success in an unbelievably wide range of diseases is truly astonishing. If interested in reviewing this “evidence base” I suggest the following sources:

1. The Universal Antidote.com - compiled by a veteran critical care nurse of 25 years, this site contains references to many safety and efficacy studies as well as video and written testimonials. The most comprehensive source of data available.

2. mmstestimonials.co - catalogued by disease and condition, you can click and either read or watch a video testimonial of a patient reporting how their suffering was relieved from a myriad of conditions

3. Telegram group called “The Universal Antidote Videos” with over 85,000 members. Here you can search for a disease and read testimonials of people’s experience using chlorine dioxide as treatment

4. Robert Yoho’s Substack called “Surviving Healthcare” - he is a retired physician who has deeply studied chlorine dioxide and written about it extensively

Now, although experts in the study of chlorine dioxide have dubbed it “The Universal Antidote,” due to the wide variety of diseases and conditions it purportedly treats, for me, where I am at this point in my study of chlorine dioxide, is that I am more comfortable calling it “The Universal Anti-Microbial.”

As in, based on the current available in-vitro, in-vivo and clinical evidence against a diverse array of microbes, I believe it is likely that it can treat the majority if not all infectious diseases (even Avian Flu, Disease X, TB etc). Just as with ivermectin, I now believe it should be in the cupboard of every household. Bold statement I know, however, I have already successfully treated a nasty viral illness that I had contracted with chlorine dioxide alone (I recovered quickly). One anecdote from me!

Although my colleagues have differing opinions on whether a Disease X or Avian Flu pandemic will follow the “highly successful” Covid pandemic, I was recently shocked by the statements of Jenner Furst, the director of the documentary “Thank You Dr. Fauci.” He was recently interviewed by Tucker Carlson, and below I include a snippet that is more than worth a listen (sorry if it is upsetting to contemplate):

Ultimately, at this point, although I am moved by the diverse number of positive testimonials of chlorine dioxide treating non-infectious conditions, it is difficult to find peer-reviewed and published evidence for those.

Until last week that is! I was invited to a Zoom meeting of chlorine dioxide practitioners and researchers from all over the world. A group of Spanish biostatisticians presented a recently completed a literature review of clinical studies of chlorine dioxide.

Interestingly, they found published trials of “patented” versions of chlorine dioxide (i.e. different scientific name and slightly different formulations but same active ingredient). WF10 and NP001 (compounds where chlorine dioxide is the active ingredient) were shown, in randomized controlled studies, to be effective in ailments as diverse as radiation mucosisits in head and neck cancer, diabetic foot ulcers, advanced AIDS, hemorrhagic cystitis and neuroinflammation associated with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS). In all of these trials, the formulation was administered intravenously with no toxicity found.

One sentence from their paper jumped out:

Finally, regarding CDS (chlorine dioxide solution), beyond clinical trials in which ClO2 has been used as a mouthwash on oral mucosa [67,68], we do not yet have a published peer-reviewed controlled study with CDS being used orally or parenterally, we have only heard of preprints and personal communications.

Not so fun fact: the study authors have not been able to publish (yet) as the journals they have tried have all rejected the paper from consideration. I have vowed to help them find a receptive journal.

---

**This post gave a brief overview and context to the topic of chlorine dioxide. I invite you to subscribe to ensure you read the rest of the series on this topic, with the next one being a description of how Bolivia adopted chlorine dioxide in their Covid response to great success. Later, I will go into the scientific mechanisms, disease applications, published studies, and treatment protocols.

P.S. Merry Christmas To All!