Reply To: What i'm doing to cure candida, and why I'm doing it with ClO2 enema's

Home The Candida Forum Candida Questions What i'm doing to cure candida, and why I'm doing it with ClO2 enema's Reply To: What i'm doing to cure candida, and why I'm doing it with ClO2 enema's


Topics: 20
Replies: 945

Chris24 wrote: There is a difference between good bacteria and pathogens, and one of those differences is their electrical charge. Chlorine dioxide as a free radical by definition is positively charged, and takes an elektron from the negatively charged pathogens; the latter donates it and oxidizes. Good bacteria, with their positive charge, have nothing to donate, and chlorine dioxide should therefore leave them alone. Some free radicals arise normally during metabolism. Sometimes the body’s immune system’s cells purposefully create them to neutralize viruses and bacteria.

There is this: Scientists have already observed that the cell membranes of many disease-causing bacteria develop resistance by changing their electrical charge from negative to positive. Many antibiotics work because they carry a positive charge that attracts them to negatively charged bacteria cells. The opposite charges allow antibiotics to penetrate and kill bacteria. But by changing their naturally occurring negative charge to positive, some bacteria cells establish a protective “coat” that repels the antibiotic.

Unlike antibiotics, pathogens can not create a resistence to chlorine dioxide, because the oxidizing mechanism is always the same.

About that PH range: The great thing about chlorine dioxide is that it is effective in a wide range, the efficacy doesnt seem to be effected by PH as you can read here:
One of the most important properties of ClO2 that sets it apart from chlorine is its behavior when placed in water. Not only is ClO2 10 times more soluble in water than chlorine (3.01 grams/Liter at 25 degrees C), it doesn’t hydrolyze when placed in solution. It remains as a “true” dissolved gas that retains its useful oxidative and biocidal properties throughout the entire 2 to 10 pH range. By way of contrast, chlorine dissociates when placed in water to form hypochlorous and hydrochloric acids. Hypochlorous acid is the primary biocide in solution, which dissociates to form hypochlorite ion with increasing pH. Hypochlorite ion is only from 1/20 to 1/300 as effective in controlling microbes as hypochlorous acid. Thus, chlorine can only be an effective biocide in systems with low pH. The high degree of solubility exhibited by ClO2 in water has also been observed in a variety of organic materials, such as oils and solvents, thereby allowing for utilization of its unique oxidative and biocidal properties in a wide range of potential applications.

And here: Chlorine dioxide is an extremely powerful oxidizing agent, microbiocide, viricide, bactericide, protocide and algicide. Unlike chlorine, chlorine dioxide is not a chlorinating agent and pure chlorine dioxide does not form THMs, it doesn’t chlorinate organics, and it doesn’t react with water to form free chlorine. Additionally, Chlorine dioxide is soluble in water, is less corrosive than chlorine and has efficacy across a broad pH range.

And: Because Chlorine dioxide is a dissolved gas, it does not ionise to form weak acids (as chlorine and bromine do) in aqueous solutions. This allows chlorine dioxide to be effective over a wide pH range.

hope this helps?

Beneficial bacteria are made up of both gram positive (~90%) and gram negative bacteria. According to Wiki, both kinds have a negative charge. This is what seems to contradict the explanation. If it is an everythingacide, then it’s hard to imagine that it can discriminate relatively similar bacterial strains. Like I said, I don’t know any chemistry, so I doubt this discussion will get very far either way. Maybe I’ll take a look at the links. It’s probably worth mentioning that a lot of the antimicrobial herbs aren’t particularly discriminatory either, and “good” bacteria aren’t as awesome as they seem in large numbers.

flailingWcandi wrote:

That’s pretty interesting. They didn’t have a comment from the company though. I guess they wouldn’t discuss their ingredients either way. It does make you wonder what kind of treatments would be available if we didn’t have to depend on whatever compounds happen to have synthetic, patentable equivalents.

It’s not clear from reading the article if it’s actually effective or not. One other thing to point out is that when it comes to conditions like ALS, the typical limits on the severity of side-effects goes out of the window. These sort of drugs are designed to keep people alive at all costs, not make them healthy. You should see what some cancer drugs do. I’m not saying ClO2 is that toxic, just that it doesn’t show us that the opposite is true either.