by tim » Sat Aug 08, 2026 9:23 pm
https://www.midwesterndoctor.com/p/what ... ne-dioxide
What the War on Chlorine Dioxide Reveals About Medicine
For over a century, remarkable therapies have been suppressed to maintain a medical monopoly at the expense of humanity
Story at a Glance:
Modern medicine is built around costly, narrowly approved drugs that treat (but rarely cure) specific disease franchises, with regulatory approval correlating more strongly with money spent than with real therapeutic value.
To enforce this, for over a century the same institutions, backed by vast fortunes, have repeatedly sidelined broader or cheaper therapies that threatened those franchises.
The same playbook is used again and again—once a therapy threatens a market, claims of “no evidence” or doctored research amplified by the media will allow regulators to clamp down on the “dangerous and unproven” therapy until it becomes forgotten to history.
In this article, I will illustrate how the exact same playbook was used again and again on numerous transformative medical discoveries endorsed by leading physicians of the era, resulting in nearly every one (e.g., UVBI and numerous cancer treatments) becoming largely forgotten despite immense evidence behind them.
This same playbook was used throughout COVID-19 to eliminate the off-patent therapies that threatened the boondoggle. One of these, chlorine dioxide, was not only repeatedly shown to eliminate COVID outbreaks, but also to do the same with malaria, where it likewise was banned.
Pierre Kory and Jenna McCarthy’s recent book The War on Chlorine Dioxide provides a critical body of evidence that chlorine dioxide has treated a myriad of challenging conditions, and that each time it did, a robust censorship apparatus erased those discoveries and retaliated against the discovers—providing a poignant illustration of the medical monopoly in action.
Eustace Mullins wrote about the medical monopoly and the private cartel that is the American Medical Association in his book,
Murder By Injection: The Medical Conspiracy Against America.
His book came out in 1988 and until COVID it would have been easy to dismiss that book as the work of a conspiracy theorist. Much of what he wrote about was seen during and after COVID.
Medical Monopolization
The American Medical Association, founded in 1847 partly to counter the newly established American Institute of Homeopathy, for decades remained relatively weak in membership and finances (as most MDs in the country did not wish to join the AMA and homeopaths were far more prosperous due to them being preferred by the wealthy and most educated). However, two developments changed that trajectory.
First, internal reorganization of the AMA itself. In 1899 George H. Simmons became general manager (and later editor of the AMA’s widely read medical journal JAMA). Under Simmons and his successor Morris Fishbein (editor roughly 1924–1950), the association professionalized its operations, expanded membership dramatically, and created revenue streams tied to pharmaceutical advertising. The AMA Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry (1905) introduced a “Seal of Acceptance” program: companies disclosed ingredients and limited certain claims in exchange for the right to advertise in AMA publications.
Note: a friend knew Morris Fishbein’s secretary and shared with me the secretary witnessed highly unethical behavior from him consistent with his unscrupulous behaviors highlighted throughout this article.
Advertising revenue (according to the most commonly cited source) rose from roughly $34,000 in 1899 to $150,000 by 1909, while membership grew from about 8,000 to over 70,000. Critics at the time called the arrangement commercially self-serving but the AMA nevertheless gained resources and visibility.
Note: in many later accounts of the events, the AMA’s activities were characterized as monopolistic blackmail (with the AMA having a lengthy conflict with the founder of Abbott Laboratories), and while that seems likely given the AMA’s other activities, I have not located any sources from the time that substantiated overt blackmail occurred.
Likewise, the AMA had earlier used a “consultation clause” in its code of ethics that forbade members from associating with homeopaths (or other “irregulars”), with expulsion from local societies sometimes resulting in loss of licensure. Even after the clause was formally removed in 1901, homeopaths could join only by renouncing homeopathy in practice.
Second, there was a concerted push for higher educational and licensing standards. The AMA’s Council on Medical Education (established 1904) began rating schools. In 1910 the Carnegie Foundation published Abraham Flexner’s “Medical Education in the United States and Canada.” Flexner, working with input from AMA reformers (including close consultation with Nathan Colwell of the AMA Council and correspondence that treated the report as “ammunition” for the AMA while publicly distancing the collaboration), harshly criticized proprietary, under-resourced, and most sectarian schools—including the majority of the roughly 20–22 homeopathic colleges then operating—for inadequate laboratories, weak science prerequisites, and commercial incentives. State licensing boards increasingly aligned with these ratings. The result was rapid closure or conversion of many competing schools; by the 1930s the number of U.S. medical schools had fallen sharply (with Women’s and Black medical colleges disproportionately affected), homeopathic schools had dwindled to two by 1923, and the remaining institutions were almost entirely scientific and allopathic in orientation.
Note: a case can be made Flexner did this not to monopolize medicine, but simply to address poor standards in medical schools across the country, but many of his “standards” were based upon an allopathic worldview that placed a much greater weight on subjects like anatomy than homeopathic medical schools (where a precise knowledge of anatomy was not necessary to practice the discipline). That said, from having spoken to (now deceased) people directly familiar with the events at the time, they felt Flexner approached the non-allopathic schools with the intent of discrediting them.
Rockefeller philanthropy supplied key capital for the new model. The Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research (organized 1901) and the General Education Board directed tens of millions of dollars (enormous sums at the time) toward laboratory-based research, full-time faculty systems, and university-affiliated schools that met Flexner-style criteria. Frederick T. Gates, Rockefeller’s principal philanthropic adviser, viewed scientific medicine as a strategic social investment: it promised healthier, more productive workers and framed disease as a technical and biological problem rather than a social or environmental one. Rockefeller funding hence favored institutions that aligned with this biomedical approach; support for homeopathic or other sectarian emphases was withdrawn.
Note: E. Richard Brown’s critical Rockefeller Medicine Men (1979), provides the most detailed summary of what occurred here, but argues it was class-aligned philanthropy rather than a simple personal profit scheme and was framed by Gates as long-term institutional shaping, not a direct buyout of the AMA. That book and this article are the primary sources for the above section.
Finally, recently made available primary sources shed further light on exactly what happened. In 1911 Gates prepared five private “Notes on Homeopathy” reports exclusively for John D. Rockefeller Sr. These documents (now available through the Rockefeller Archive Center) harshly criticized homeopathy and its founder Samuel Hahnemann while praising William Osler and laboratory-based scientific medicine. Critics however noted that Gates overstated the reach of germ theory, misrepresented Hahnemann’s views on the body’s self-healing capacities, and asserted that homeopathy had never cured a single patient (despite hospital mortality data at the time indicating otherwise and Osler’s having publicly expressed respect for homeopathy). So, despite Rockefeller’s lifelong personal reliance on homeopathic physicians for decades and his repeated instructions that homeopathic institutions should receive “fair, courteous, and liberal treatment” equal to allopathic ones, the foundations under Gates’s influence (and later under John D. Rockefeller Jr.) provided no grants to any institution bearing the word “homeopathic” in its name. Abraham Flexner himself was later hired by the (Rockefeller) General Education Board to help implement the report’s recommendations, further concentrating societal resources behind the scientific model. Homeopathic schools, starved of capital and forced by licensing exams and equipment requirements to dilute their curricula, either closed or abandoned rigorous homeopathic training and by mid-century none remained.
Note: I believe the reason the medical system (and scientific community) has been so strongly opposed to homeopathy is because it was the initial opponent the AMA had to vanquish to establish their monopoly—illustrating how often large actions create unintended consequences (as Rockefeller explicitly stated he did not want the status quo that followed).
In short, the combined effect of AMA organizational power, state licensing leverage, Flexner’s influence, foundation capital, and the deliberate withholding of support from competing systems monopolized medical education and practice by the science-focused allopathic model as alternative systems lost schools, licenses, and institutional legitimacy. Then, once the monopoly was established, the same institutions that had raised barriers to entry could define what counted as “real medicine,” what research received funding, and which therapies were branded quackery. Later federal drug regulation (e.g., the FDA) operated within this already-consolidated professional and educational framework.
When the above events are recounted, they are typically portrayed as the Rockefellers and the AMA attempting to monopolize medicine, both so that MDs could earn more (shifting them from being some of the lowest to highest paid members of society) and because Rockefeller had recognized that immense amounts of money could be made from the new scientific model of medicine (which is why he sought to enshrine it as the gold standard). I am inclined toward these arguments, both because Rockefeller and Carnegie had a history of brutal and methodical suppression of competitors when they established their respective monopolies in oil and steel (Rockefeller’s largely secret and conspiratorial, Carnegie’s more open) and because after their “philanthropy” medicine rapidly became a far more profitable enterprise. However, strictly on the basis of what the available sources substantiate, the outcome could instead be explained as a combination of unfortunate factors (most notably Rockefeller placing Frederick T. Gates in charge of his philanthropy), the broader institutional momentum that already favored laboratory-based scientific medicine and unscrupulous individuals quickly recognizing the immense profit potential of science-focused medicine.
Note: in the 1970s police raided and arrested Chinese immigrants practicing acupuncture (which was in high demand from the community).1,2,3,4 I vividly remember despondently asking someone who witnessed a raid “why are they doing this?” to which he said “the Rockefellers…control everything,” illustrating that this viewpoint has existed for a long time.
The War on Chlorine Dioxide
One of the more recent additions to the oxidative therapy family is chlorine dioxide (ClO₂), a highly potent disinfectant routinely used as a non-toxic alternative to chlorine across water treatment, food and beverage processing, and hospital sterilization across the world. The EPA registered it for food and water use in 1967 and by the 1980s was recommending it over chlorine, largely because as unlike chlorine, it doesn’t generate carcinogenic trihalomethane byproducts when it reacts with organic matter.
Since ClO₂ is typically generated from sodium chlorite NaClO₂, once it started being successfully used as a medical therapy, the FDA (along with the media and virtually every other health agency) adopted the it was “toxic bleach,” likely owing to the fact bleach (sodium hypochlorite) had a similar name and formula (NaClO)—despite the two acting completely differently. So, much in the same way DMSO research was globally halted because it would “make people blind” (despite improvements in vision consistently being observed after DMSO use), the fact people were being “poisoned with bleach” (despite no evidence demonstrating this) was used to do the same to CDS—creating the curious situation where oral CDS is branded toxic when taken medically but not when used to purify what you then eat and drink.
Note: I have encountered numerous people who had temporary issues from excessive CDS doses. For this reason, I advise individuals to drop or lower their dose when reactions occur (whereas others view this as a sign “beneficial detoxification” is occurring and advocate for continuing).
Positive experienced with CDS and Pierre Kory learning CDS had faced a similar pattern of suppression to ivermectin inspired him to write a book on the topic, which in addition to documenting many of the proven uses for CDS, provides one of the most well documented example of how the medical system colluded to suppress a therapy that threatened multiple franchises.
The Medical Monopoly is powerful:
https://abc7news.com/post/florida-broth ... /13871933/
[url]https://www.midwesterndoctor.com/p/what-the-war-on-chlorine-dioxide[/url]
[quote]What the War on Chlorine Dioxide Reveals About Medicine
For over a century, remarkable therapies have been suppressed to maintain a medical monopoly at the expense of humanity[/quote]
[quote]Story at a Glance:
Modern medicine is built around costly, narrowly approved drugs that treat (but rarely cure) specific disease franchises, with regulatory approval correlating more strongly with money spent than with real therapeutic value.
To enforce this, for over a century the same institutions, backed by vast fortunes, have repeatedly sidelined broader or cheaper therapies that threatened those franchises.
The same playbook is used again and again—once a therapy threatens a market, claims of “no evidence” or doctored research amplified by the media will allow regulators to clamp down on the “dangerous and unproven” therapy until it becomes forgotten to history.
In this article, I will illustrate how the exact same playbook was used again and again on numerous transformative medical discoveries endorsed by leading physicians of the era, resulting in nearly every one (e.g., UVBI and numerous cancer treatments) becoming largely forgotten despite immense evidence behind them.
This same playbook was used throughout COVID-19 to eliminate the off-patent therapies that threatened the boondoggle. One of these, chlorine dioxide, was not only repeatedly shown to eliminate COVID outbreaks, but also to do the same with malaria, where it likewise was banned.
Pierre Kory and Jenna McCarthy’s recent book The War on Chlorine Dioxide provides a critical body of evidence that chlorine dioxide has treated a myriad of challenging conditions, and that each time it did, a robust censorship apparatus erased those discoveries and retaliated against the discovers—providing a poignant illustration of the medical monopoly in action.[/quote]
Eustace Mullins wrote about the medical monopoly and the private cartel that is the American Medical Association in his book, [u]Murder By Injection: The Medical Conspiracy Against America[/u].
His book came out in 1988 and until COVID it would have been easy to dismiss that book as the work of a conspiracy theorist. Much of what he wrote about was seen during and after COVID.
[quote]Medical Monopolization
The American Medical Association, founded in 1847 partly to counter the newly established American Institute of Homeopathy, for decades remained relatively weak in membership and finances (as most MDs in the country did not wish to join the AMA and homeopaths were far more prosperous due to them being preferred by the wealthy and most educated). However, two developments changed that trajectory.
First, internal reorganization of the AMA itself. In 1899 George H. Simmons became general manager (and later editor of the AMA’s widely read medical journal JAMA). Under Simmons and his successor Morris Fishbein (editor roughly 1924–1950), the association professionalized its operations, expanded membership dramatically, and created revenue streams tied to pharmaceutical advertising. The AMA Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry (1905) introduced a “Seal of Acceptance” program: companies disclosed ingredients and limited certain claims in exchange for the right to advertise in AMA publications.
Note: a friend knew Morris Fishbein’s secretary and shared with me the secretary witnessed highly unethical behavior from him consistent with his unscrupulous behaviors highlighted throughout this article.
Advertising revenue (according to the most commonly cited source) rose from roughly $34,000 in 1899 to $150,000 by 1909, while membership grew from about 8,000 to over 70,000. Critics at the time called the arrangement commercially self-serving but the AMA nevertheless gained resources and visibility.
Note: in many later accounts of the events, the AMA’s activities were characterized as monopolistic blackmail (with the AMA having a lengthy conflict with the founder of Abbott Laboratories), and while that seems likely given the AMA’s other activities, I have not located any sources from the time that substantiated overt blackmail occurred.
Likewise, the AMA had earlier used a “consultation clause” in its code of ethics that forbade members from associating with homeopaths (or other “irregulars”), with expulsion from local societies sometimes resulting in loss of licensure. Even after the clause was formally removed in 1901, homeopaths could join only by renouncing homeopathy in practice.
Second, there was a concerted push for higher educational and licensing standards. The AMA’s Council on Medical Education (established 1904) began rating schools. In 1910 the Carnegie Foundation published Abraham Flexner’s “Medical Education in the United States and Canada.” Flexner, working with input from AMA reformers (including close consultation with Nathan Colwell of the AMA Council and correspondence that treated the report as “ammunition” for the AMA while publicly distancing the collaboration), harshly criticized proprietary, under-resourced, and most sectarian schools—including the majority of the roughly 20–22 homeopathic colleges then operating—for inadequate laboratories, weak science prerequisites, and commercial incentives. State licensing boards increasingly aligned with these ratings. The result was rapid closure or conversion of many competing schools; by the 1930s the number of U.S. medical schools had fallen sharply (with Women’s and Black medical colleges disproportionately affected), homeopathic schools had dwindled to two by 1923, and the remaining institutions were almost entirely scientific and allopathic in orientation.
Note: a case can be made Flexner did this not to monopolize medicine, but simply to address poor standards in medical schools across the country, but many of his “standards” were based upon an allopathic worldview that placed a much greater weight on subjects like anatomy than homeopathic medical schools (where a precise knowledge of anatomy was not necessary to practice the discipline). That said, from having spoken to (now deceased) people directly familiar with the events at the time, they felt Flexner approached the non-allopathic schools with the intent of discrediting them.
Rockefeller philanthropy supplied key capital for the new model. The Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research (organized 1901) and the General Education Board directed tens of millions of dollars (enormous sums at the time) toward laboratory-based research, full-time faculty systems, and university-affiliated schools that met Flexner-style criteria. Frederick T. Gates, Rockefeller’s principal philanthropic adviser, viewed scientific medicine as a strategic social investment: it promised healthier, more productive workers and framed disease as a technical and biological problem rather than a social or environmental one. Rockefeller funding hence favored institutions that aligned with this biomedical approach; support for homeopathic or other sectarian emphases was withdrawn.
Note: E. Richard Brown’s critical Rockefeller Medicine Men (1979), provides the most detailed summary of what occurred here, but argues it was class-aligned philanthropy rather than a simple personal profit scheme and was framed by Gates as long-term institutional shaping, not a direct buyout of the AMA. That book and this article are the primary sources for the above section.
Finally, recently made available primary sources shed further light on exactly what happened. In 1911 Gates prepared five private “Notes on Homeopathy” reports exclusively for John D. Rockefeller Sr. These documents (now available through the Rockefeller Archive Center) harshly criticized homeopathy and its founder Samuel Hahnemann while praising William Osler and laboratory-based scientific medicine. Critics however noted that Gates overstated the reach of germ theory, misrepresented Hahnemann’s views on the body’s self-healing capacities, and asserted that homeopathy had never cured a single patient (despite hospital mortality data at the time indicating otherwise and Osler’s having publicly expressed respect for homeopathy). So, despite Rockefeller’s lifelong personal reliance on homeopathic physicians for decades and his repeated instructions that homeopathic institutions should receive “fair, courteous, and liberal treatment” equal to allopathic ones, the foundations under Gates’s influence (and later under John D. Rockefeller Jr.) provided no grants to any institution bearing the word “homeopathic” in its name. Abraham Flexner himself was later hired by the (Rockefeller) General Education Board to help implement the report’s recommendations, further concentrating societal resources behind the scientific model. Homeopathic schools, starved of capital and forced by licensing exams and equipment requirements to dilute their curricula, either closed or abandoned rigorous homeopathic training and by mid-century none remained.
Note: I believe the reason the medical system (and scientific community) has been so strongly opposed to homeopathy is because it was the initial opponent the AMA had to vanquish to establish their monopoly—illustrating how often large actions create unintended consequences (as Rockefeller explicitly stated he did not want the status quo that followed).
In short, the combined effect of AMA organizational power, state licensing leverage, Flexner’s influence, foundation capital, and the deliberate withholding of support from competing systems monopolized medical education and practice by the science-focused allopathic model as alternative systems lost schools, licenses, and institutional legitimacy. Then, once the monopoly was established, the same institutions that had raised barriers to entry could define what counted as “real medicine,” what research received funding, and which therapies were branded quackery. Later federal drug regulation (e.g., the FDA) operated within this already-consolidated professional and educational framework.
When the above events are recounted, they are typically portrayed as the Rockefellers and the AMA attempting to monopolize medicine, both so that MDs could earn more (shifting them from being some of the lowest to highest paid members of society) and because Rockefeller had recognized that immense amounts of money could be made from the new scientific model of medicine (which is why he sought to enshrine it as the gold standard). I am inclined toward these arguments, both because Rockefeller and Carnegie had a history of brutal and methodical suppression of competitors when they established their respective monopolies in oil and steel (Rockefeller’s largely secret and conspiratorial, Carnegie’s more open) and because after their “philanthropy” medicine rapidly became a far more profitable enterprise. However, strictly on the basis of what the available sources substantiate, the outcome could instead be explained as a combination of unfortunate factors (most notably Rockefeller placing Frederick T. Gates in charge of his philanthropy), the broader institutional momentum that already favored laboratory-based scientific medicine and unscrupulous individuals quickly recognizing the immense profit potential of science-focused medicine.
Note: in the 1970s police raided and arrested Chinese immigrants practicing acupuncture (which was in high demand from the community).1,2,3,4 I vividly remember despondently asking someone who witnessed a raid “why are they doing this?” to which he said “the Rockefellers…control everything,” illustrating that this viewpoint has existed for a long time.[/quote]
[quote]The War on Chlorine Dioxide
One of the more recent additions to the oxidative therapy family is chlorine dioxide (ClO₂), a highly potent disinfectant routinely used as a non-toxic alternative to chlorine across water treatment, food and beverage processing, and hospital sterilization across the world. The EPA registered it for food and water use in 1967 and by the 1980s was recommending it over chlorine, largely because as unlike chlorine, it doesn’t generate carcinogenic trihalomethane byproducts when it reacts with organic matter.
Since ClO₂ is typically generated from sodium chlorite NaClO₂, once it started being successfully used as a medical therapy, the FDA (along with the media and virtually every other health agency) adopted the it was “toxic bleach,” likely owing to the fact bleach (sodium hypochlorite) had a similar name and formula (NaClO)—despite the two acting completely differently. So, much in the same way DMSO research was globally halted because it would “make people blind” (despite improvements in vision consistently being observed after DMSO use), the fact people were being “poisoned with bleach” (despite no evidence demonstrating this) was used to do the same to CDS—creating the curious situation where oral CDS is branded toxic when taken medically but not when used to purify what you then eat and drink.
Note: I have encountered numerous people who had temporary issues from excessive CDS doses. For this reason, I advise individuals to drop or lower their dose when reactions occur (whereas others view this as a sign “beneficial detoxification” is occurring and advocate for continuing).
Positive experienced with CDS and Pierre Kory learning CDS had faced a similar pattern of suppression to ivermectin inspired him to write a book on the topic, which in addition to documenting many of the proven uses for CDS, provides one of the most well documented example of how the medical system colluded to suppress a therapy that threatened multiple franchises.[/quote]
The Medical Monopoly is powerful:
[url]https://abc7news.com/post/florida-brothers-miracle-cure-covid-19-sentenced/13871933/[/url]