Unpacking a Media Hit Job: TrialSiteNews, Chlorine Dioxide, and Journalistic Integrity

The CEO of TrialSite became a friend and colleague after I cited and complimented his media site for their early pandemic reporting on ivermectin. Last week, he published a hit job on me. Why?

I have long become immune to media hit jobs, now rarely bothering to even read them, given they all follow the same predictable template. However, about a week ago, on May 5 (the eve of a long-overdue vacation), a colleague sent me this article (discussed below). I was surprised to learn that it was a completely unfounded attack on my research, expertise, and opinions on chlorine dioxide. I am responding to this one because it was published by TrialSiteNews, a media outlet that had previously been supportive of me and whose CEO I know personally.

I used to cite and compliment TrialSiteNews based on their early Covid reporting on ivermectin. I have since published articles for them and sat for podcast interviews with them. Heck, the CEO, Daniel O’Connor, even asked me a few years ago to join his scientific advisory board. I was also a co-speaker with him at a CHD protest in Washington, D.C, in support of the Biden-Missouri Supreme Court case. You know, the one that accused the Biden administration of aggressively and systematically censoring those with dissenting opinions of their failed Covid policies (dissidents like me knew from the start that their policies were illegitimate and unscientific).

Anyway, this is how he describes TrialSiteNews’s journalistic mission:

In that mission statement, you will find the first of several contradictions contained in their hit job on me. Be aware that one of the most devastating and subtle forms of censorship is attacking the credibility of a researcher, physician, or public figure. Such “media hit jobs” are intended to deter people from listening to the targeted person by highlighting their supposed lack of credibility and/or labeling their opinions as “fringe” or “unserious” because they are not supported by “scientific consensus.”

Ask RFK Jr, whose deeply researched scientific opinions have been the most viciously attacked in the world for almost 20 years now, leading many to dismiss his, in my opinion, deeply studied and insightful recommendations regarding health policy. I will demonstrate below that this article represents a clear example of a similar “censoring action” against me, which contradicts their stated mission above of producing “censorship-free media.”

BACKGROUND

In January, I texted Daniel O’Connor after he published an erroneous article that reported I was “re-joining” the “IMA.” What? Let’s be clear, I love that the organization I helped found, the FLCCC, is now called the “IMA,” because the original ‘FLCCC” was my and Paul’s baby, and we will never forget what we accomplished together. It ain’t the FLCCC anymore that is for sure.

I thus berated him for not calling me or texting me to verify its accuracy before publishing such a blatantly obvious untruth. That text forced him to publish a correction, in which he described my informing him of his error as “angry and frankly inappropriate.” I am sure that text got me kicked off his “scientific advisory board.” If that hasn’t happened yet, wait til he reads this post.

As an aside - I saw a comment under their correction article which made me beam:

Before I delve into my response to TrialSite’s unfounded critiques of my work on chlorine dioxide, let me first address the main argument of their “opinion” article, which masquerades as journalism.

In short, the article argues that my last post on chlorine dioxide suggests I am an uncritical (and thus potentially dangerous) fan of a documentary about a medicine that lacks scientific, clinical, and safety data to support it. What is interesting about their take is that, when I first heard about chlorine dioxide, I shared the same opinion!

Problem: That was three years ago.

At that time, I was searching for therapies that might prove effective at mitigating the myriad and complex symptom burdens of my post-COVID-19 vaccine injury syndrome and long-COVID patients. I soon began hearing astonishing claims that chlorine dioxide could cure nearly everything. Like TrialSite, I was highly skeptical. Also, the word “chlorine dioxide” was not reassuring. How come I had never heard about it before? Was this some folklore? I was told that it was primarily used in South America and Africa, and, intrigued, I wanted to learn more.

So I tried to do some research into it. I put in a medium-level effort, and the only reason I didn't delve deeper is that I (perhaps too rapidly) concluded that there was little to no evidence of its clinical efficacy in the published medical literature. I could not easily find any trials, case series, or even a case report (as I recall). Just books by people who seemed to lack scientific rigor, with claims so broad that the discord between the claims and the published science supporting those claims turned me away from exploring further.

Then, about six months ago, I was invited to attend a Zoom meeting, which turned out to be a clinical and research discussion with several experts who have used chlorine dioxide to treat various illnesses. I was pleasantly surprised to find a doctor on the call whom I had previously collaborated with, Dr. Jose Nasser, MD, PhD, from Brazil, an expert in treating COVID (and a highly talented and sophisticated clinician/researcher). I also instantly connected with Dr. Mitchell Leister, who I would quickly learn wrote one of the best papers on chlorine dioxide in Covid.

Based on their research and clinical experiences, I quickly came to the conclusion that research on chlorine dioxide was being actively suppressed (actually - overtly restricted). I also discovered that mass media propaganda campaigns were being directed against it. This discovery led me to write a very popular post of mine called “The Kory Scale” where I posited that the true efficacy of a therapy that threatens the economic model of the medical system is directly proportional to the amount of persecution it’s researchers and practitioners are made to endure.

I used ivermectin as the primary example of this concept and calculated a score for it. In relation to chlorine dioxide, I maintain this TrialSite article is an example of a persecutory action by “the system” to retaliate for my bringing so much attention to this “highly economically threatening” therapy. However, I would not give the article many points because it was so ineffectively executed in its attempt to achieve its goals.

Anyway, I quickly noticed that chlorine dioxide was being targeted in a pattern identical to ivermectin in the context of Covid. With one notable exception: I learned from American, Spanish, and South American researchers that ethics committee (IRB) approvals for trials studying chlorine dioxide were being denied in a coordinated, global manner. What? They are now inventing new Disinformation Playbook tactics beyond the traditional ones of publishing manipulated trials and retracting or rejecting positive papers? They are going beyond those by outright preventing research into the compound? I had never heard of that one before.

Lo and behold, this launched me into what is now a six-month research project into the science behind and evidence for the immense safety and efficacy of chlorine dioxide. I am nearing the completion of a book entitled “The War on Chlorine Dioxide,” the second in my series, which started with “The War on Ivermectin.” Who knows, but I think the third might be “The War on IV Vitamin C.” To put it simply, my opinion on chlorine dioxide has changed based on months of research. Imagine that TrialSite!

So with that intro, let’s do a deep dive into this travesty shall we?

---

If you appreciate the time and effort I put into researching and writing my posts, please consider a paid subscription.

THE HEADLINE

First, to set the stage for the level of stupidity exhibited in this article, let’s start with the headline below:

Do they even know how to write a headline at TrialSite? For fun, I asked AI to assess it for grammatical correctness:

1. Use of Double Punctuation

· The double hyphen (--) is often used informally to indicate a break or pause, but in formal writing, an em dash (-) or a colon (:) is preferred.

2. Ampersand Usage

· The ampersand (&) is generally reserved for company names or very informal writing. In headlines, it’s better to use "and" unless space is extremely limited.

3. Parallel Structure

· The list "Hope, Hype, and What’s Still Missing & Caveat Emptor" is not parallel. "Hope" and "Hype" are nouns, "What’s Still Missing" is a noun phrase, and "Caveat Emptor" (Latin for "buyer beware") is a phrase that feels tacked on and not clearly connected to the previous items.

4. Clarity and Flow

· The headline tries to cover too many concepts at once, making it a bit confusing. It would be clearer if "Caveat Emptor" were set apart or integrated more smoothly.

So, a demonstrably illiterate headline. Not a good start. Now let’s look at the writer’s bio:

“Deepika has been working for nearly a decade in pharmaceutical competitive intelligence field, with (a?) focus area on (in?) oncology and several other therapeutic areas. Deepika is working with TrialSite on offering (to provide?) investor updates for biotech and research-focused organizations. She completed a Master of Science in Bioinformatics and (a?) BS in Biotechnology in India.

Again, illiterate as you can see by my suggested insertions above, but most importantly, “Pharmaceutical competitive intelligence field?” Uh oh. I don’t really know what that means or that it even existed. Still, it strikes me as the perfect background of someone who is trying to achieve what this article attempts to do: undermine the scientific credibility of chlorine dioxide, a major competitor to Big Pharma, and in particular, the field of oncology. Cancer is a very big bear economically. This is not beginning well.

Okay, so the headline was written by a drunk 12-year-old, and the journalist is described as a Deep State Pharma asset. It gets even worse. She writes an article attacking my position on chlorine dioxide, yet she never contacted me for an interview. Heck, even mainstream media does that - the Washington Post, New York Times, and USA Today - when they want to attack my credibility with a hit piece, they at least have the professionalism of allowing me to respond to their questions before ignoring my responses and subsequently publishing distortions. But that process is literally standard practice, i.e., “Journalism 101.”

If TrialSite had reached out, I would have gladly participated in an interview, as I believed they would approach the topic fairly, given their tagline of “unbiased journalism.”

Opening Paragraph Of the TrialSite Article:

Amid the never-ending series involving chlorine dioxide, Dr. Pierre Kory, a former contributor to TrialSite, has turned his attention toward a 2016 documentary called Quantum Leap. Rather than providing a critical medical examination, Kory's summary of the film and its protagonists reads more like an uncritical tribute to a movement subjected to severe scientific and legal scrutiny.

My “never-ending series on chlorine dioxide?” Seems an unnecessary descriptor unless Deepika got bored with my posts and wanted to share her opinion of them. That’s weird, because my readers appear to have greatly appreciated that body of work. To each their own, I suppose.

Next, she describes my post on the Quantum Leap Documentary as an “uncritical tribute?” How can you say 'uncritical' when, as you are aware from your opening comment above, I have been researching and writing on numerous aspects of the science in support of chlorine dioxide - e.g., safety, efficacy, widespread use, mechanisms, political context, as well as the history of similar oxidative therapies.

I have also written posts of interviews with practitioners with decades of experience treating people, the discoverer of the MMS formulation, and also one about how I treated myself when I was severely ill with remarkable success. In total, my research into chlorine dioxide encompasses over 310 pages with over 80,000 words. How is that uncritical? Notice how the two descriptors that Deepika uses in the first paragraph literally contradict each other. How can my stance be “uncritical” when I have written a deeply researched “never-ending series” on the topic?

TrialSite’s 2nd paragraph

For those unfamiliar with the medicinal narrative behind chlorine dioxide, this chemical has long been pitched as a miracle cure for decades now by the likes of Jim Humble and Mark Grenon, despite consistent warnings from regulatory agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and international health authorities cautioning against specific claims. In fact, the FDA has gone as far as issuing consumer warnings and filing criminal charges against those who have engaged in its illegal distribution, including Grenon and his sons, who were convicted of marketing it as a cure for COVID-19 and other illnesses.

TrialSite’s stated claim of producing “unbiased journalism” falls flat here (understatement). The “tell” is that Deepika immediately parrots the most tired Big Pharma propaganda tropes on chlorine dioxide. First, she takes shots at Grenon and Humble for claiming it is a miracle cure (something I have not done). Then she paints it in a more negative light by mentioning that Grenon got arrested for making “false claims” (something that is irrelevant to my position). Finally, she does the most predictable attack of them all, reminding the reader that the FDA and other agencies have not “approved it.” Of course they haven’t! They are instead much more focused on blocking research into chlorine dioxide!

She also fails to consider the fact that the FDA has issued openly and easily refutable claims by comparing it to bleach or labeling it as “bleach-like,” and characterizing it as a dangerous poison. They and the AMA have been doing this kind of thing to all cheap, safe, and effective therapies that threaten the economic model for over 100 years, repeatedly, and unaccountably.

Next, she distorts and misrepresents my post on the history of the oxidative therapy Homozon and its inventor, Dr. Eugene F. M. Blass:

Although routinely grouped under the same oxidative medicine narrative, Homozon is not chemically similar to chlorine dioxide, and its inclusion appears to be a symbolic gesture rather than a scientific one - as part of a larger effort to cast chlorine dioxide as the modern translation of some ancient healing technique long suppressed.

False. I never claimed it was chemically similar. I likened it to chlorine dioxide based on the fact that it is an oxidative therapy with broad clinical applications that can also be administered orally and is relatively inexpensive. Thus, not a “symbolic inclusion.” It was a clinical, mechanistic, and therapeutic comparison. So why do you mischaracterize it as “symbolic?”

However, I did like the last part of the paragraph where she describes my efforts as “casting chlorine dioxide as the modern translation of some ancient healing technique being suppressed.” Well-done Deepika! That literally describes one of the central themes of my series, albeit you did it in a sarcastic and denigrating manner. You have been reading my series! Nikola Tesla would be proud. Next:

Kory's account of Postawski echoes this resounding wonder. He praises the filmmaker's attempt to "share breakthroughs with the world" and presents Quantum Leap as a grassroots phenomenon that changed lives worldwide, particularly in developing nations where conventional medicine may be unavailable.

I also agree with the above. On a roll here Deepika. Although “glowing” may be a bit of an exaggeration, my respect for the documentary lies in what it accomplished - alerting millions worldwide to the therapeutic potential of chlorine dioxide.

Along the way, he cites anecdotal accounts of malaria cures and viral clearances as evidence for chlorine dioxide's untapped possibilities, glossing over any possible established risks of taking it.

The report of malaria disappearing in a Nigerian village in 1982 after the installation of a chlorine dioxide water purification system is classified, however it was communicated to me by an applied scientist with high-level security clearance and intelligence connections. The malaria trial conducted by the Ugandan Red Cross was later denied by the International Red Cross, pressuring one of the main Ugandan participants in the trial to claim it had never occurred. I cited the documentary made about this scandal, which contains numerous video recordings of the trial’s conduct, as well as interviews with witnesses who attest to the trial and its results. The third report of evidence for its efficacy in curing malaria is the study by Prof. Enno Frye in Cameroon, who provided me with all the study documents and protocol. Like with the Uganda trial, his study was later retracted based on the same accusation that it had not occurred. Strange pattern, no?

The above ended with the accusation that I:

“glossed over any possible established risks with taking it.”

Here she blatantly contradicts herself again. Based on her numerous assertions about the content of my posts, she clearly has read my series, likely in its entirety. Then why does she ignore the fact that I wrote a 32-page, 8,000-word review of the entire evidence base supporting the safety of orally ingested chlorine dioxide? How does that “gloss over the safety,” Deepika?

“Thousands of people are alive, and not dead, because of that movie,” Postawski claims—an assertion that, while emotionally powerful, remains unsupported by any controlled clinical data.

Yet compelling as these stories may be, they do not constitute scientific proof.

This distinction is not just academic. Relying on anecdote alone opens the door to misinterpretation, placebo effects, or harm. Chlorine dioxide is not an inert or benign substance; it is a powerful oxidizing agent used industrially for bleaching and disinfection. Sure, it’s the stuff the smarties will tell you they use in their pool anyway. Its ingestion has been linked to nausea, vomiting, dehydration, and in some cases, severe injury. Health agencies around the world—including the FDA, Health Canada, and the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO)—have issued repeated warnings against its internal use, citing the lack of credible evidence for therapeutic benefit and the potential for toxicity.

Here she does it again, willfully ignoring my 49-page, 9,000-word review of the entire published evidence base for chlorine dioxide. In that post, I presented numerous published trials and studies that demonstrate the efficacy of chlorine dioxide and its equivalent, chlorite, in a broad range of conditions.

Given that “evidence-based maniacs” define scientific rigor based solely on results from prospective, double blind, RCTs, then why did she describe the evidence for chlorine dioxide as not rigorous?

Why is TrialSiteNews ignoring the fact that I wrote about Neuvivo, a pharmaceutical company, that has done several double blind RCTs using IV chlorite (which, per the CDC and the field of chemistry, is considered equivalent to chlorine dioxide).

Numerous positive, double-blind RCTs of patented IV chlorite formulations have been done in advanced AIDs, ALS, radiation mucositis, and hemorrhagic cystitis. Furthermore, according to this article, Neuvivo is currently seeking FDA approval of its IV chlorite formulation to treat ALS based on an almost 2-year survival benefit. No scientific rigor eh?

Isn’t that hilarious? It gets worse. TrialSite literally reports on pharmaceutical trials, the pharmaceutical industry, and therapeutic developments. Yet, they willfully ignore and exclude from their article (despite my writing about it) that, as per this article I cited, Neuvivo is also beginning Phase II trials of the same therapy in Huntington's, Alzheimer's, and vascular dementia. Hey TrialSite, way to stay on top of pharma trial news and emerging therapies in the pharmaceutical industry. The humorous phrase, “You have one job,” comes to mind. LOL.

Further, in addition to ignoring the body of evidence for chlorite, TrialSite deliberately excludes and ignores all the published evidence I cited for other chlorine dioxide formulations:

In my post on just the the chlorine dioxide evidence base, I reviewed studies finding in-vivo eradication of viral illness, human resolution of non-healing ulcers and avoidance of amputation, treatment of skin and mucosal infections, reductions in viral respiratory illness in children, efficacy in treating Covid-19, and then case series describing success in treating cancer (you can see why Deepika would ignore the cancer studies being a “pharmaceutical competitive intelligence expert with a focus on oncology”).

To wit, she also previously published a “hit job” on my friend and colleague John Campbell from the UK when he did a podcast exploring the potential for fenbendazole to treat cancer. It seems she and TrialSite are decidedly against enthusiasm for discussing promising alternative cancer therapies.

Her “hit job” on Campbell basically says: do not discuss the potential for a therapy until the evidence meets regulatory standards (even with the disclaimers that John provided). Otherwise, Deepika argues that you should keep your mouth shut about it lest you lead people into thinking it might work for cancer. First Amendment, anyone? Smells like censorship to me, despite TrialSite’s proclamation of “uncensored journalism.”

Back to her hit job on me. Here is another egregious violation of journalistic integrity. She included the same blatantly misleading FDA propaganda on chlorine dioxide when she described it as being “used industrially for bleaching and disinfection.” Although technically true, her “FDA-borrowed statement” willfully ignores the fact that the doses used for such industrial applications are 300 times the doses used therapeutically. 300 times.

Then she comes up with a new denigrating and highly opinionated comparison to message its supposed harms:

“It’s the stuff the smarties will tell you they use in their pool anyway.”

She should look up Paracelsus and learn how “the dose makes the poison.” I strongly suspect that borrowing FDA propaganda is the “tell” that this comes from Pharma and that Pharma is either indirectly or directly controlling TrialSite content. Let’s keep going:

In this light, the central issue with Quantum Leap isn’t that it gives voice to unconventional ideas—it’s that it presents them as settled truth. We have no problem with the former, and a lot of issue with the latter. Scientific breakthroughs don’t begin and end with a documentary or a blog post; they are forged through systematic inquiry, independent replication, and regulatory oversight. No doubt there are vested interests, as we reported on firsthand during the pandemic, so we do not here claim commercial monetization forces are not at play in the field of medicine.

Oh boy. She wants to argue that “scientific breakthroughs begin through systematic inquiry, independent replication, and regulatory oversight.” Let’s first eliminate “regulatory oversight” because it has nothing to do with how scientific breakthroughs originate (it's more about how they conclude).

Despite the fact she read my reviews of numerous aspects of chlorine dioxide science, she again denigrates and discounts them as meaningless “blog posts” despite the fact the series represents an unfiltered and non-medical journal censored “systematic inquiry” of mechanisms, safety, and efficacy where I found published studies showing benefits in numerous conditions, i.e. “independently replicated” over and over.

In-vivo studies, large scale double blind RCTs, small RCTs, observational studies, case series, and thousands of testimonials by patients and practitioners with decades of experience from all over the world (I even listed testimonial databases in numerous languages like Japanese, Spanish, French, English, etc. It is an open secret among certain sectors of society around the world of how effective chlorine dioxide is. Yet, TrialSite wants to ridicule a documentary that attempted to convey this message to the public.

Furthermore, despite the above, chlorine dioxide will never become a scientific breakthrough if research is restricted and suppressed by regulatory overseers like the FDA, which denies all ethics approvals for further studies and/or persecutes researchers and practitioners. I don’t know what world you live in Deepika and Danial, but you certainly don’t live in mine. The world of science is cutthroat and merciless, yet you want to pretend everything is,and should be, “upright and above board.” Keep dreaming.

In the next paragraph below, they repeat the same as above - I only include again to argue that doing this repeatedly is “propaganda” - they keep hammering messages to get people to not believe in or use chlorine dioxide (i.e. recall the definition of propaganda: “a story or a message to get you to think or act in a desired way):

When individual faith overtakes scientific inquiry, and when criticism is read as suppression, it becomes impossible to separate possible innovation from pseudoscience. That's not to say all alternative treatments are unmeritorious—but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. To date, evidence of chlorine dioxide is lacking (Ed: another blatant lie).

This next one was shocking to me:

But the research and verification remain essential. Remember, in all actuality, the evidence for ivermectin in the context of COVID-19 was conflicted, with a large branch of mostly smaller studies in low- and middle-income countries pointing to benefit and a smaller group of larger, better-funded studies suggesting no benefit but no real health red flags either.

They are literally using the ivermectin saga as a “cautionary tale” to warn people off any interest in chlorine dioxide. I instead generate enthusiasm by presenting a large amount of evidence for the safety and efficacy of chlorine dioxide. Even if they admit there were (awkwardly) “no real health red flags” with ivermectin?

How absolutely bizarre - this from an outlet whose reporting was integral to convincing me and many others of the efficacy of ivermectin prior to immediately knowing it worked when I started treating patients with it. Yet, they now describe the therapy as “conflicted” when “comparing smaller studies to better-funded studies.” Ignoring the fact that those “better-funded studies” were brazenly manipulated to hide the benefits of ivermectin, as I and many others have detailed in numerous letters to the editors of those journals, \TrialSite continues to take the position that “the evidence for ivermectin is conflicting.” I get that they want to appear unbiased, but I believe it is more important to report on an issue both accurately and comprehensively.

One more:

Again, we believe that if a doctor and consenting patent want to try a product—with consent, well, that’s between the two of them. But once you promote and publish online, you are mass communicating across state lines. That’s where trouble will eventually find the target.

So, TrialSite has determined that my work represents a public health threat because I am carelessly “promoting” a therapy with little evidence? Is that why this hit job was written? To protect you, the reader? Who has a financial interest in their position on chlorine dioxide, them or me? Seriously, if they were to publish anything in support of chlorine dioxide, all hell would break loose for them. I derive no benefit from my support on the efficacy and safety of chlorine dioxide. TrialSite clearly has obvious conflicts with a cheap, unapproved therapy and thus exhibits bias in its reporting, given they write for a pharmaceutical and governmental readership.

Now, the last paragraph, ouch:

Our mission has always been to trailblaze in advancing treatments, advocate for underreported research, and rock the boat when called for - but never at the expense of safety, evidence, or critical thinking

“Advocate for under-reported research?” TrialSite, having revealed that they read my “never-ending series” knew full well that the central theme to my series was to advocate for further research in the naive hope that the research could ever rise to the level of regulatory approval (never would the FDA allow that to happen) but TrialSite can pretend all they want that the game is fairly rigged for such therapies.

TrialSite is doing the opposite by deliberately ignoring all of my published evidence on the safety, efficacy, and restrictions on chlorine dioxide research, including denying IRB permission for trials and retracting and/or scrubbing studies that have been conducted. My series highlighted and championed “under-reported research” while TrialSite ignored and attacked it. Another violation of their journalistic motto. I think this means, by definition, that TrialSite is full of shit. Perhaps they should write a genuine article where they spend time objectively investigating a topic before writing about it.

In conclusion, I find TrialSiteNews to be a milquetoast, conflicted, tightrope-walking news organization that presents itself as uncensored and non-biased for their Pharma masters and broader readership. After reading their article about me, if you want to continue believing their “branding,” I've got a bridge to sell you. Caveat Emptor indeed.

---

If this post whet your appetite for more on chlorine dioxide (or other upcoming therapeutic topics like low-dose, daily ketamine, trace mineralization therapy, or IV Vitamin C), and if you appreciate the time and effort I put into researching and writing my posts, please consider a paid subscription.

P.S. For anyone in need of treatment for cancer (note we one of the treatment sites for the repurposed drug trial in cancer described here) or for Long Covid, Long Vax, Hormone Rebalancing, Weight Loss or General Medical Care, feel free to visit the Leading Edge Tele-Health Clinic (we see patients in all 50 states). Looking at the photo below, I just realized our staff is a lot bigger now - we just added our 25th employee!