Pre-Written Narratives and Premature Outrage: ProPublica's Plan to Review Our Upcoming Book, “The War on Chlorine Dioxide"

When journalists pretend to chase a story they wrote before doing any reporting, all that’s left is to correct the record—publicly.

Well, friends, we’re still more than a month out from The War on Chlorine Dioxide’s official debut, and already the media sharks are circling. Dr. Kory and I have reporters emailing, texting, calling our cells, reaching out to colleagues, tracking down my husband’s mobile number (?!), leaving voicemails, and generally behaving like they heard we’re going to drop photographic proof that Elvis is alive in Chapter Seven. I’ve actually started checking my bushes for journalists when I leave the house. (That was a joke. This is Texas. Don’t even think about it.)

Media [salivating]: “Stalked Author Threatens Second Amendment Retaliation!”

Since one particularly persistent reporter (Megan O’Matz of ProPublica) has now contacted us sixteen times—about a book she hasn’t read for a story she’s essentially confessed she’s already written—I figured I’d just respond here so there’s zero chance she can spin my words to suit her purposes.

Below, you’ll find excerpts from some of the increasingly aggressive emails Ms. O’Matz has sent to Pierre and me—each followed by my response. If she wants to badger us privately, fine. We are choosing to respond openly, where context can’t be edited out.

Dear Megan,

Thank you for your eighth email—plus the texts, the voicemails to both my phone and my husband’s, and the outreach to my co-author—offering us the opportunity to “clarify anything” in the article you’ve already written. At this point you’ve been more persistent than my dentist, the neighborhood solar-panel salesman, and my distant Cuban cousin who sells Bibles for a living. (True story.) For a book you haven’t even read and clearly know very little about, your enthusiasm is… impressive.

We have no interest in being willing participants in your hit job, but since you’re moving forward with your preordained story either way, here are a few things you might at least pretend to consider before hitting ‘publish.’

I swear I am not making that up. That is a direct quote from her email.

Wow. Kudos to you for picking up on the similarities between my name and one of the other 8 billion people on the planet. Obviously nothing slips past you (well, except the parts where I haven’t lived in California for over seven years and the fact that your “discredited assertion” is anything but). I’m not sure what you’re implying by even mentioning the likeness, but I sure hope you include it in your story. “Her name sounds like someone else I don’t like” could be a Pulitzer-winning angle these days. And since you went there, I’ll point out that your name is oddly similar to the actress Megan Mullally, who played a delightfully unhinged lushbag for 11 seasons on Will & Grace. Would you care to comment?

You open your diatribe by asking how Dr. Kory came to know Senator Johnson, and then proceed to cite several interactions that literally are how they know each other.

You reference two Senate hearings, a Fox News op-ed they co-authored, and a conference they both attended. These are the interactions. This is the answer. Demanding a complete relationship history after outlining the exact timeline is like asking, “But how do you know your hairdresser?” while she’s cutting your hair.

Regarding ivermectin, you claim clinical trials found “no benefit” for Covid, which would be surprising to the dozens of positive randomized trials, preprints, epidemiological analyses, and real-world datasets—including the 2021 Bryant et al. meta-analysis which identified significant reductions in hospitalization and mortality.

You might also want to mention that the 2022 TOGETHER trial—one of the headline studies used to claim ivermectin “doesn’t work”—was later re-analyzed and found to be riddled with major methodological failures (mid-trial rule changes, missing data, dosing errors, and a non-inert placebo, to name a few). Also worth including would be a review of the regions where ivermectin distribution campaigns corresponded with dramatic reductions in severe illness and deaths in 2020 and 2021, and the FDA’s infamous “You are not a horse” messaging being quietly walked back in federal court when government lawyers admitted, under oath, that the FDA had no authority to police off-label prescribing and that its viral warnings were merely “recommendations.” Those are some solid, interesting facts I bet your readers would enjoy!

You cite the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM)’s sanctions as though they represent a neutral and deeply respected Council of Elders and not a private board that has functioned for years as a medical protection racket—one that bullies physicians, enforces ideological conformity, and financially gorges itself under the guise of “patient safety.”

And here’s the part you definitely won’t mention: despite its long, embarrassing track record of scandalous behavior and conflicts of interest, ABIM keeps its power because hospitals and insurers require their certification for admitting privileges and reimbursement. Not because ABIM is uniquely brilliant or ethical—but because the system is built so that doctors can’t work without them. It’s structural coercion dressed up as standards, a monopoly that forces even the doctors who despise the certifying board to keep paying them just to stay employed.

You also highlighted the fact that Dr. Kory no longer holds licenses in Wisconsin and California. Correct—he elected not to renew them after relocating his practice. That’s standard procedure, not a disciplinary event. A critical detail, unless one prefers innuendo over accuracy.

In your many emails, you repeatedly describe chlorine dioxide in fear-based terms (“bleach,” “toxic,” “warnings, injury, death,” etc.) at the same time admitting that it is frequently used safely in a variety of applications. You mention water purification and mouthwash, but you left out food sanitation, medical contexts, and the fact that it has been widely studied in peer-reviewed journals for its antimicrobial and antiviral properties.

If you’re going to quote safety thresholds, you might also want to include the context: everything has a toxic dose—including nutmeg, spinach, and tap water.

The autism question is framed like a courtroom trick—“There is no cure,” “it’s nothing but snake oil”—as if simply invoking an unnamed EXPERT™ ends the discussion. Oh! Well if an expert told you, then by all means, shut down every research program on Earth. Pack it up, scientists. Kimberly From The Panel has spoken.

The reality is, chlorine dioxide is being used to treat (nobody said “cure”) autism with life-changing results. Snake oil, by definition, wouldn’t do that. Funny how the lazy pejorative is only slapped on substances that can’t be patented or turned into a $38 billion market. SSRIs? Statins? GLP-1s? Mixed evidence, huge side-effect profiles, kids growing breasts on antidepressants, patients losing muscle mass (and teeth!) after taking weight-loss injections—yet not even a suspicious side-eye. Apparently “snake oil” is just industry-speak for “we don’t own the rights.”

Meanwhile, back in the real world, chlorine dioxide compounds are being studied in controlled settings by researchers in the U.S. and Latin America. The molecule’s biological activity is not in dispute (NASA actually dubbed it the “universal antidote”); the real debate is how it should be used, at what dose, and in which clinical contexts. The War on Chlorine Dioxide is a comprehensive examination of the existing evidence and a plea for open-minded inquiry and rigorous research.

You point to various online guides that offer what could be considered dangerous dosing instructions. We agree, the internet is a terrifying wasteland of misinformation and disinformation. We’ve both spent the last several years writing about exactly that, in fact.

Suppose you grow apples. No, you don’t even grow apples, you wrote a book about the history of the popular fruit. And then some guy goes on Reddit and starts telling people that the secret to robust health and spiritual enlightenment is to stick Honeycrisps up their noses. Kindly explain to me what this has to do with your archival deep-dive.

Your email mentions FDA warnings about chlorine dioxide and trips over itself to point out that chlorine dioxide is not FDA approved. It’s sweet—wholesome, even—to know how concerned the FDA is about our health and well-being! I mean, sure, they don’t care if we chain smoke or guzzle tequila when we’re pregnant or exist on a diet of Krispy Kremes and McDonald’s fries. That’s between us and DoorDash. But swallow the same molecule used to purify municipal drinking water and suddenly they’re our overprotective nana. No red flags there whatsoever. Really.

From a paper by Dr. Mitchell Liester (and so much for FDA approval!)

Chlorine dioxide isn’t an FDA-approved drug because FDA approval requires a sponsor willing to spend tens—sometimes hundreds—of millions of dollars on clinical trials, patents, and regulatory filings. No company is going to bankroll that process for a simple, unpatentable molecule that anyone can make for pennies. FDA approval is not a measure of scientific potential; it’s a measure of who can afford the regulatory toll booth.

But while we’re on the subject, do you know what was FDA approved? Vioxx. Fen-Phen. Thalidomide. Some COVID-19 vaccines (and have you seen the VAERS numbers lately?). To be clear, “FDA approved” has never, ever meant “safe.” It only means “profitable.”

A full half of the book we’ve written (and I realize you haven’t read it yet) is about the pioneers and proponents of chlorine dioxide who have been discredited, destroyed, or flat-out murdered. Would we care to elaborate? We already did—over about 150 pages. Pierre has also covered many of the persecutions extensively on his Substack, along with the rather impressive evidence base for chlorine dioxide as a therapeutic.

If you’re going to write about a book, the baseline professional standard is to actually read it. We understand you’ve asked for an advance copy several times; we’ve ignored these requests because your questions made it clear you were committed to framing the story before engaging with the material. That’s your choice—as was ours to decline.

Some experts say we’re lunatics, you say? I bet if you polled some other experts, like a few of the ones publishing research on chlorine dioxide’s mechanisms, redox activity, and therapeutic potential, you’d get a very different answer. If I told you that some journalists say your email logic is embarrassing, would that meet your editorial standards too? If so, you’re welcome to quote me.

Also, we don’t have a lot of faith in your employer, TBH.

When the book is publicly available in January, we genuinely look forward to seeing your review—ideally written in the traditional order of operations: read first, analyze second, publish third. Now you even have some added context. It’ll be interesting to see what you do with it.

Best,
Jenna (& Pierre)

As always, kindly drop your thoughts in the comments—and please like and share!

You can pre-order the book they definitely don’t want you to read right here.