The methylene blue smear is in full swing. I suspected that there was an agenda. If you’ve seen the latest hit pieces floating online, you might think methylene blue (MB) is the villain in a chemical horror story. But don’t be fooled. This isn’t investigative journalism—it’s scientific gaslighting with a side of pharma-fed propaganda. And I’ve seen this playbook before.
Synthetic ≠ Toxic (Don’t Be Basic)
One of the smear campaign’s laziest claims? Methylene blue is toxic because it’s synthetic and derived from petroleum.
Yawn. Let’s set the record straight.
Petroleum comes from ancient organic matter (aka plants), broken down into carbon building blocks that make up almost every pharmaceutical on the market. If “synthetic” equals “bad,” then toss out your Tylenol, Prozac, and birth control too. This argument is so 2001. And trust me, I am not into Big Pharma. However, methylene blue has a track record going back to 1876—yes, the 19th century. It was the first synthetic drug used in medicine, and it’s still on the World Health Organization’s list of essential medicines. We’ve explained how it helped with malaria.
Use BLUE15 to get 15 percent off, plus free shipping, on our liposomal pharmaceutical-grade Methylene Blue.
What They’re Not Telling You (Because It Works)
Here’s the real reason methylene blue is under attack: it’s cheap, off-patent, and wildly effective. That’s not good for business if your business is selling $300 mitochondrial supplements.
Methylene blue:
- Crosses the blood-brain barrier
- Boosts mitochondrial respiration
- Acts as a selective antioxidant
- Shows promise for Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, long COVID, and depression
- Has antiparasitic and antimicrobial effects
In other words, it helps your body remember how to heal itself. That’s a problem for a system built on chronic disease and lifelong prescriptions.
Cherry-Picked Studies & Clickbait Headlines
Let me walk you through one of the most egregious distortions I’ve seen. A headline shrieked: “BMC study shows methylene blue isn’t effective for malaria!” But what did the actual study say?
“MB, a cheap drug that is registered in most countries, could be effective as a treatment for uncomplicated malaria in Sub-Saharan Africa.”
— BMC, 2006
I mean… how do you twist that into failure? “Carcinogenic” Claims? Classic Bait-and-Switch
Another scare tactic? A rat study using methylene blue trihydrate, not the pharmaceutical-grade chloride or base forms used in humans. That’s like comparing high-fructose corn syrup to fresh-pressed organic juice and calling them “basically the same.”
They’re not.
Dose matters. Form matters. Context matters. And methylene blue has been used safely in humans for over 100 years.
So Why the Methylene Blue Smear Now?
Because it threatens the status quo of sick care. Simple.
- It’s accessible.
- It’s dirt cheap.
- It works without a doctor’s note or $100 co-pay.
- It supports actual mitochondrial function and cellular health.
No recurring prescription. No patented monopoly. Just pure, practical support.
And that, darling, is revolutionary in a world addicted to managed illness.
What You Can Do
- Educate yourself. Read real studies—not regurgitated headlines.
- Question the narrative. If they’re screaming “danger!” with no nuance, look deeper.
- Support independent media. We don’t answer to shareholders—we answer to truth.
And please… don’t let fear-mongering headlines make your decisions for you.
