Andreas Kalcker's promotion of chlorine dioxide solution (CDS) relies heavily on a selection of scientific publications, including his own 2025 review in the International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Analysis (IJMRA). This article, along with other cited studies, forms the backbone of his claims regarding CDS's efficacy and safety. However, a closer examination reveals significant methodological limitations and contextual gaps that undermine their validity as evidence for human therapeutic use .

Kalcker's IJMRA review emphasizes CDS's in vitro antimicrobial properties, citing studies where chlorine dioxide demonstrated effectiveness against pathogens like MRSA, E. coli, and SARS-CoV-2 at concentrations of 0.3–100 ppm. For instance, he references a 2023 study by Georgiou and Kotzé showing 99.9% eradication of antibiotic-resistant bacteria within 5 minutes of exposure to 50 ppm CDS. Similarly, he cites Ogata (2008) and Chen (1990) to support viral inactivation claims .

The review also challenges toxicity concerns, citing the U.S. EPA's LD50 value of 292 mg/kg to argue that lethal doses are impractical for humans. Kalcker further points to Ma et al. (2017), which reported no significant cytotoxicity in human fibroblasts at concentrations below 100 ppm, and Lubbers et al. (1984), which found no adverse effects in volunteers exposed to low-dose chlorite .

However, these studies are misrepresented or lack clinical relevance:

1. In Vitro Limitations: Most cited experiments used controlled lab environments, not human physiological conditions. Pathogen eradication in petri dishes does not translate to efficacy in complex biological systems .

2. Dose-Response Issues: The EPA's LD50 refers to acute toxicity in rodents, not chronic exposure risks in humans. Kalcker ignores reports of organ damage from repeated ingestion, such as esophageal lesions and liver failure documented in Bolivia .

3. Conflict with Broader Science: Regulatory agencies like the FDA and WHO cite extensive evidence of CDS's dangers, including oxidative hemolysis and electrolyte imbalances, which Kalcker's review overlooks .

Kalcker also relies on non-peer-reviewed sources, such as testimonials from the organization COMUSAV, which claimed a 99.3% COVID-19 recovery rate in Bolivia. These anecdotes lack control groups, blinding, or independent verification .

Ultimately, while Kalcker's referenced studies highlight potential avenues for research—such as surface disinfection or topical applications—they fail to substantiate claims for oral or intravenous use. Robust clinical trials remain absent, and the preponderance of evidence indicates that CDS ingestion poses significant risks without proven benefits . The scientific community continues to urge caution, emphasizing that in vitro findings must not override patient safety and regulatory standards.

Andreas Kalcker's promotion of chlorine dioxide solution (CDS) relies heavily on a selection of scientific publications, including his own 2025 review in the International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Analysis (IJMRA). This article, along with other cited studies, forms the backbone of his claims regarding CDS's efficacy and safety. However, a closer examination reveals significant methodological limitations and contextual gaps that undermine their validity as evidence for human therapeutic use .

Kalcker's IJMRA review emphasizes CDS's in vitro antimicrobial properties, citing studies where chlorine dioxide demonstrated effectiveness against pathogens like MRSA, E. coli, and SARS-CoV-2 at concentrations of 0.3–100 ppm. For instance, he references a 2023 study by Georgiou and Kotzé showing 99.9% eradication of antibiotic-resistant bacteria within 5 minutes of exposure to 50 ppm CDS. Similarly, he cites Ogata (2008) and Chen (1990) to support viral inactivation claims .

The review also challenges toxicity concerns, citing the U.S. EPA's LD50 value of 292 mg/kg to argue that lethal doses are impractical for humans. Kalcker further points to Ma et al. (2017), which reported no significant cytotoxicity in human fibroblasts at concentrations below 100 ppm, and Lubbers et al. (1984), which found no adverse effects in volunteers exposed to low-dose chlorite .

However, these studies are misrepresented or lack clinical relevance:

1. In Vitro Limitations: Most cited experiments used controlled lab environments, not human physiological conditions. Pathogen eradication in petri dishes does not translate to efficacy in complex biological systems .

2. Dose-Response Issues: The EPA's LD50 refers to acute toxicity in rodents, not chronic exposure risks in humans. Kalcker ignores reports of organ damage from repeated ingestion, such as esophageal lesions and liver failure documented in Bolivia .

3. Conflict with Broader Science: Regulatory agencies like the FDA and WHO cite extensive evidence of CDS's dangers, including oxidative hemolysis and electrolyte imbalances, which Kalcker's review overlooks .

Kalcker also relies on non-peer-reviewed sources, such as testimonials from the organization COMUSAV, which claimed a 99.3% COVID-19 recovery rate in Bolivia. These anecdotes lack control groups, blinding, or independent verification .

Ultimately, while Kalcker's referenced studies highlight potential avenues for research—such as surface disinfection or topical applications—they fail to substantiate claims for oral or intravenous use. Robust clinical trials remain absent, and the preponderance of evidence indicates that CDS ingestion poses significant risks without proven benefits . The scientific community continues to urge caution, emphasizing that in vitro findings must not override patient safety and regulatory standards.