# Spin-off discussion about Chlorine Dioxide/MMS and the eradication of disease



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

I have to go, hence the big parade of posts all at once. But in a thread about eradication of disease, I can't in all good conscience not mention chlorine dioxide (ClO2). When I get back, I will start a thread. It will contain details about the chemistry, some videos (there are thousands more children healed now), people I've personally met who healed from AIDS symptoms with it, and other things. I just didn't want this to go down that path and get the thread shut again. I'll post here when I start the thread.

UPDATE: During this thread's progression, I discovered that chlorine dioxide is being used in some patented drugs under a different name. Dioxyclor and WF10 (under further names as Immunokine and Macrokine). They are used successfully against a wide array of diseases mostly HIV and cancer... although autoimmune diseases, inflammatory conditions and many others. There are past clinical trials and current ones for it.

This is not discovered until about page 12, and until that point, sarcasm and ridicule ruled this thread and getting past the absoluteness of the closed mindedness took many pages, so perhaps save yourself the drama if you are looking up this thread for info about MMS/chlorine dioxide and skip to the posts with the FAQ on this post here, and the WF10 etc starts from this post here.


----------



## WildKingdom (Mar 26, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Calm*
> 
> I have to go, hence the big parade of posts all at once. But in a thread about eradication of disease, I can't in all good conscience not mention chlorine dioxide (ClO2). When I get back, I will start a thread. It will contain details about the chemistry, some videos (there are thousands more children healed now), people I've personally helped heal from AIDS with it, and other things. I just didn't want this to go down that path and get the thread shut again. I'll post here when I start the thread.


I can't wait.


----------



## NannyMcPhee (Nov 24, 2010)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Calm*
> 
> I have to go, hence the big parade of posts all at once. But in a thread about eradication of disease, I can't in all good conscience not mention chlorine dioxide (ClO2). When I get back, I will start a thread. It will contain details about the chemistry, some videos (there are thousands more children healed now), people I've personally helped heal from AIDS with it, and other things. I just didn't want this to go down that path and get the thread shut again. I'll post here when I start the thread.


Please don't.


----------



## stik (Dec 3, 2003)

Calm, ClO2 is bleach. It doesn't "heal" anyone. It causes diarrhea and vomiting.

We would all love to see a cure for AIDS. Bleach isn't it.


----------



## Ldavis24 (Feb 19, 2009)

Calm, I too am waiting on pins and needles for a thread all about the miracle of MMS...because that is what you are promoting isn't it?

The panacea of all panaceas...

Now whether this thread will ever appear...I will just wait patiently because I would love to have a discussion purely on this subject.


----------



## SleeplessMommy (Jul 16, 2005)

CIO2 - I would love to see some peer reviewed studies. Double blind is probably expected along with independant testing of blood samples before and after. (CD4 t-cell count and HIV antibody testing.)

If poosible, get your name on the first peer reviewed studies - cause that Nobel Prize will look great on your wall. I think they even pay your way to Norway, which would be a nice vacation for the familly.


----------



## pers (Jun 29, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Calm*
> 
> http://fiocco59.altervista.org/ALLEGATI/MORGAN.PDF
> 
> ...


Only adult cancers and excludes leukemia, which means that acute lymphocytic leukemia in children, which is perhaps one of the most effective uses of chemo, is doubly out.

But that is exactly the sort of thing I was talking about. It says right at the start of the first section that head and neck cancer are normally treated with surgery and radiation, not chemo. And that studies done to see if adding chemo would improve survival rates showed no real improvement. And that really is useful information for anyone dealing with that sort of cancer. But what in the world is the point of averaging that and a bunch of other cancers where chemo isn't generally used and some cancers for which it has been shown to be quite effective together to find an average that depicts chemo as horribly ineffective? It's lie doing a study of vitamin C and diseases of nutritional deficiency by seeing how scurvy, beriberi, rickets, goiter, and pellagra respond to vitamin C supplements, and saying since average is quite a low number, vitamin C is not a good solution to nutritional deficiencies.

It also has too narrow of a definition of success. Sometimes chemo is used to shrink a tumor to make surgical removal easier and allow them to take less tissue. It may not add much to the five year survival rate, but isn't a less complicated surgery that is a bit easier to recover from a success? Or a woman able to have a lumpectomy insead of losing an entire breast? Or with some types of breast cancer, chemo has been shown to be quite effective in decreasing the number of reoccurances years down the road. This doesn't do much for the five year rate, but does mean that fewer women have to start treatment and undergo surgery all over again, and does have a larger effect on ten and fifteen year survival rate. Is that not a success?



> Do you really think that back in the day they didn't have studies and evidence to show the effectiveness of blood letting? They recorded things back then, they weren't dribbling fools, they were just in a different era. They suffered the same superiority complex we still do, the same medical arrogance.
> 
> I would say it had "actual evidence to show just how *in*effective it is". I think you're in the minority with the idea that we can't quantify and qualify the effectiveness of chemo... it is far from absurd. For how else do we evaluate it? Oh yes, that's right, we don't. It's just what doctors do, so it's what we do. Chlorine dioxide, so quickly ridiculed, has killed not one of the hundreds of thousands who have used it, and the FDA even stresses it is so dangerous because it causes "nausea and dehydration" in some. Yeah. Tummy upset is real scary, better not drink that "bleach" which has a lethal dose less than table salt. Better off mainlining liters of toxic radioactive chemicals that are the same chemicals that are being measured leaking from Japan's recent disaster. THAT makes so much more sense.
> 
> Pot. Meet kettle.


I don't think they were dribbling fools, and I don't doubt that many records were kept of so and so who was pulled back from the brink of death and such. But the power of the anecdote is an amazing thing - still is today, even - and the scientific method is much improved since the days of yours. Unless you can point me to controlled randomized studies of a decent size or the like from back then which showed how effective it was?

If it were shown to be an effective treatment, FDA would have no problem with the side effects. Where are the peer reviewed double blind placebo controlled random trials? It's bleach. Good for killing germs on surfaces and water, but not so good at getting to them in the human body.

Lovely to hear that you are curing AIDS though. Bet the doctors formerly treating your patients were just absolutely shocked when their patients started coming in with proof that they were no longer HIV positive. I'm surprised none of them thought to call a reporter to get it in the news and spread the word!


----------



## Ldavis24 (Feb 19, 2009)

edited as told to.


----------



## stik (Dec 3, 2003)

Sylvia Fink died of drinking MMS in Vanatu in 2009: http://www.dailypost.vu/content/prosecutor-decides-no-charges-can-be-laid-case-death-linked-mms

Canada reports a life-threatening reaction: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/media/advisories-avis/_2010/2010_74-eng.php

IMO, the reason there haven't been more deaths is that, despite a massive PR campaign on the web, most people have either never heard of MMS, or can clearly tell that MMS is a fraud, and Jim Humble is a con man.


----------



## JMJ (Sep 6, 2008)

Okay, we've got a lot of new information since I last had a chance to post, but it has been a fascinating read. I think starting another thread to discuss ClO2 would be a good idea if people would like to discuss that theory. In this thread, I'd like to leave it at including the importance of research into medications/chemicals to prevent and/or treat infections. A lot of the medications used are or contain strong chemicals that can cause serious side effects, and I'm not going to weigh in on one particular treatment or another. I believe that just as people should have a right to use or refuse any particular vaccine, I believe they should have the right to look at the evidence for and againts the treatments they are considering and choose what they believe to be best.

Thank you all for a lively discussion! It is a pleasure to converse with such great minds, each with your own perspective and information to add to the discussion. It is interesting to see ideas from people who politely disagree because it gives me such an amazing chance to see the conflicting arguments from many angles, and I think it brings more clarity if we can see strong arguments by educated people who think differently.


----------



## SleeplessMommy (Jul 16, 2005)

Actually, there are frozen samples of smallpox at one or two very well guarded government labs.

"Three known repositories of the virus were left, one in **********, England which was later destroyed after an accidental escape from containment caused the death of Janet Parker, and two still remaining at the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, Georgia and the State Research Center of Virology and Biotechnology (VECTOR) in Koltsovo, Russia." (wikipedia)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Calm*





> Do you really think that back in the day they didn't have studies and evidence to show the effectiveness of blood letting? They recorded things back then, they weren't dribbling fools, they were just in a different era. They suffered the same superiority complex we still do, the same medical arrogance.


*Evidence based medicine.* I am a big fan  Back in the 18th century, docs were trained to do bloodletting and told that it worked. Maybe patients even asked for it by name! So they did it.

Up until recently, ob/gyns offered episiotomy (or did it without asking) to a majority of patients. Then someone did a controlled study and (surprise!) no benefit was found. So ob/gyns have greatly decreased use of episiotomy in the past 10 years.

Part of the process is a risk/benefit analysis. For example, if we (hypothetically) circumcise 1000000 male infants, can we (hypothetically) prevent 57 hospitallizations due to UTI? Can we magically prevent one or two cases of HIV transmission (as has been claimed). We also need to look at risk What if circumcised males are less likely to wear condoms, or more likely to engage in riskier sex practices (ano-genitial contact) ? How many cases of meatal stenosis caused by the surgery? How many MRSA infections? How many other complications?


----------



## SilverMoon010 (Jul 15, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JMJ*
> 
> *I know that to an extent, that is true, that our immune systems respond better when we are well nourished, that deficiencies in Vitamin C, zinc, vitamin A, etc, can make it more likely to catch a bug and make the illness more serious. *


This country completely slacks on promoting natural health. Of course the vitamins you mention above in addition to Vitamin D. We rarely ever hear about the importance of vitamins and a diet consisting of whole foods being advertised openly in fighting illness. Why? Because no money is to be made from natural sources. We only see ads on TV and in magazines for drugs. People who don't realize the importance of vitamins are certainly going to think vaccines are the only way to keep them "healthy." People should be better informed of the importance of diet and nutrients and the impact it has on health.

Take the flu for example. Rather than spending time working on a flu shot for young children that is an assault to their system, since they can never pinpoint the next strain anyway, and since people usually wind up WITH the flu after the vaccine, they should be concentrating on getting the word out on taking Vitamin D supplements, eating the proper foods, and getting out in the sun in the summer. However, they don't promote that. The idea of the US is that being healthy comes from the flu shot (and all other vaccines). God forbid we try to build our bodies up with natural supplements. Studies have shown those deficient in D are prone to more respiratory illness and colds and flu. I

This is why I give my son a Vitamin D3 supplement in the winter. In the summer, he gets adequate doses from the sun. I would much rather work on taking vitamins and eating a good diet than resort straight away to vaccination, especially for things such as the flu. I believe in having a healthy base, inside out, rather than outside in to fight illness/disease.


----------



## WildKingdom (Mar 26, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SilverMoon010*
> 
> This country completely slacks on promoting natural health. Of course the vitamins you mention above in addition to Vitamin D. We rarely ever hear about the importance of vitamins and a diet consisting of whole foods being advertised openly in fighting illness. Why? *Because no money is to be made from natural sources. We only see ads on TV and in magazines for drugs. * People who don't realize the importance of vitamins are certainly going to think vaccines are the only way to keep them "heathy." People should be better informed of the importance of diet and nutrients and the impact it has on health.
> 
> ...


Bolding mine. No money to be made from natural sources? This is an interesting assertion. Americans spend $33.9 BILLION a year on complementary and alternative therapies, and $14.8 Billion of that is spent on herbs and supplements, not even including vitamins.

Not exactly chump change.


----------



## SilverMoon010 (Jul 15, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WildKingdom*
> 
> Bolding mine. No money to be made from natural sources? This is an interesting assertion. Americans spend $33.9 BILLION a year on complementary and alternative therapies, and $14.8 Billion of that is spent on herbs and supplements, not even including vitamins.
> 
> Not exactly chump change.


To be absolutely clear, I was saying there is no money to be made for the pharmaceutical companies by using natural remedies, since after all, we are on the topic of vaccines/drugs. I thought it was a given I was speaking about the drug companies and didn't realize I would need to reiterate.

Anyway, I'm glad to see people are spending money on alternative therapies. That is a good thing and is certainly nothing to look down upon. There would be a huge blow to the pharmaceutical companies if the word got out about vitamins and fighting illnesses. If ads were continuously ran on TV for natural remedies to prevent illness and/or reduce complications, such as herbs, specific vitamins, etc, as much as they are for vaccines, you better believe the drug companies' stock would certainly drop!


----------



## WildKingdom (Mar 26, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SilverMoon010*
> 
> To be absolutely clear, I was saying there is no money to be made for the pharmaceutical companies by using natural remedies, since after all, we are on the topic of vaccines/drugs. I thought it was a given I was speaking about the drug companies and didn't realize I would need to reiterate.
> 
> Anyway, I'm glad to see people are spending money on alternative therapies. That is a good thing and is certainly nothing to look down upon. There would be a huge blow to the pharmaceutical companies if the word got out about vitamins and fighting illnesses. If ads were continuously ran on TV for natural remedies to prevent illness and/or reduce complications, such as herbs, specific vitamins, etc, as much as they are for vaccines, you better believe the drug companies' stock would certainly drop!


But what you're saying doesn't make any sense. Of course there's money to be made by pharmaceutical companies by manufacturing "natural" remedies- 14.8 billion dollars of it. They can manufacture and market vitamins and supplements just as well as anyone else can. In fact, many of them already do. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,525643,00.html

Even better, thanks to the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994, they can market supplements and vitamins without having to do any of that pesky R&D and FDA approval.


----------



## Jugs (Mar 18, 2009)

So, Big Supp was really Big Pharma all along...


----------



## PlayaMama (Apr 1, 2007)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jugs*
> 
> So, Big Supp was really Big Pharma all along...


oh my gosh!









sorry i don't have much else to add to this thread, but i thought that was funny.


----------



## WildKingdom (Mar 26, 2008)

Exactly! And the conspiracy continues....


----------



## SilverMoon010 (Jul 15, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PlayaMama*
> 
> oh my gosh!
> 
> ...


Yes, it's all so hilarious to have such a closed mind and have no idea what's going on in the country. Not my problem.

Anyhow, I doubt any of you above will read the article, but that's okay...Just keeping getting your vaccines and antibiotics for every ailment (superbugs anyone?) and continue falling trap to every single thing you see on TV and read. What do I care. Oh, if you still haven't gotten my point, my point was they don't push vitamins! They push the vaccines. Do you ever hear them push Vitamin D for the flu??? NO! I still haven't heard (from the last three posts) anyone make a comment regarding vitamins and illnesses versus vaccination. You can contribute any time you like, to the topic at hand, rather than focus on everything I say. If you had anything good to say, you would have said it by now. JMO.

http://www.naturalnews.com/022586.html

On that note, I'm out, so no need to respond. I really need to speak to mature adults and I certainly can't find that here, at least on this thread anyway.


----------



## WildKingdom (Mar 26, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SilverMoon010*
> 
> Yes, it's all so hilarious to have such a closed mind and have no idea what's going on in the country. Not my problem.
> 
> ...


And to continue the hilarity, I think it is ludicrous that to prove your point that people are not pushing vitamins, you link to natural news and Mike Adams- one of the biggest hucksters out there. It's hard to find the article amongst all the ads.

To address your point regarding vitamins versus vaccinations- it's not a case of pick one, and don't do the other. Some good preliminary evidence does exist that Vitamin D has anti-viral action. Human studies have not been completed yet, but there is good in-vitro evidence.

So, this might BLOW YOUR MIND- but as an allopathic doctor I actually check vitamin D levels on my patients. I recommend supplementation to get to a good level, especially in the winter. I also recommend the flu shot. So, where do I fit into your schema? Am I in the thrall of Big Pharma, since I'm an allopathic doctor? Am I a rebel because I prescribe vitamin D supplements? Is the AMA out to get me because of that?

Or maybe, just maybe, the practice and art of medicine is not as black and white as you are making it out to be. Maybe doctors actually do educate themselves on the latest research out there and change their behavior and prescribing practice accordingly. Maybe we don't stop learning in med school- maybe we keep learning- from CME and our patients.

Hope this was mature enough for you to read.


----------



## Jugs (Mar 18, 2009)

Is a little light-hearted humor unwelcome here?

Silvermoon, the point that was being made is that buying supplements is buying pharmaceutical products. They may not be vaccines, but they are produced by the same industry. I feel like you are assuming that all vaxers are getting every vaccine and not using any natural methods, as if the two are mutually exclusive







. The government may not be promoting specific vitamins, but they are promoting eating a well-balanced diet to ensure adequate nutrition and vitamin intake, as a healthy body is more resistant to disease. I'm not sure what you mean by "no one" promoting supplements; I see advertisements for individual vitamins, fish oils, immunity-boosters, etc on TV and in magazines all the time. They have generic statements like "promotes cardiovascular health" or "supports the immune system" because they cannot advertise their products as preventing or alleviating illness without FDA approval to do so; they are regulated as dietary supplements, not drugs. And FWIW, the FDA has extensive information on the benefits of dietary supplements, and NIH has entire CAM division, devoted exclusively to herbal remedies and supplements.


----------



## Ldavis24 (Feb 19, 2009)

hmm am I the only one who doesn't particularly care what the government "promotes" or doesn't "promote"??

I am a grownup, the government tends to be the last place I look for suggestions on how to live my life. I can read, so I do just that...

IMO a lot of "supplements" are BS, I think a lot of vaccines are pointless, I think it is pretty silly if someone really believes that pharmaceutical companies who make vaccines don't have their hands in "supplement" productions, there is so much money there. I find myself inundated with ads etc for this or that vitamin...look how well the fish oil supplement is doing...5 years ago nobody really knew about that and now everyone seems to be taking them...Big pharma is Big supplement... is there really an argument over that or am I being stupid and missing some larger point here?


----------



## Chamomile Girl (Nov 4, 2008)

The main difference here is that most supplements cannot be patented (although attempts have been made with turmeric for example). So they will never be the cash cow that vaccines or medications like viagra are, and are thus of less interest to Big Pharma.

The thing that disturbs me about vitamin supplements is that they are often used by well meaning people as a panacea. Because they are "natural". But they actually are not for the most part. A laboratory manufactured nutrient (say Vit C) made in China with little oversight (as most vitamins are) is no better for you than laboratory manufactured anything else IMO. That is not to say that _nutrition_ does not matter..it is central to health. But it is access to good healthy food that is going to make the biggest difference.

Herbs on the other hand can be very helpful. But the less processed the better...they are basically food. But again, I hate the whole "superfood" label because I would rather not look at my food through the lens of a drug, thank you.

Anyhoo...Hopefully I will have time to come back to comment on some of the other issues here...


----------



## JMJ (Sep 6, 2008)

I think that the issue is the research. If "Big Pharma" does a study that shows that the drug they developed is effective in treating something, because they have a patent on that drug, they are the only ones who can sell that drug for many years. If they do a study on how Vitamin D works just as well as their flu shot, they don't have as much to gain for it because anybody can make a Vitamin D supplement, so the profits for Vitamin D supplements will be shared amongst many companies, not just the company that sponsored the study.

It's not that there is no money in selling Vitamins. It's that there's not as much money going to all one place to pay off the research. For this reason, it's hard to get a lot of good quality, scientific, double-blind, large sample size, peer-reviewed studies published in major journals showing the positive effects of taking xyz supplement. There have been some high-profile studies on Vitamin D recently that have gotten a lot of press and caused changes in major medical associations' recommendations concerning Vitamin D, but this has not been the case with a lot of other nutrients.

I think that it is important to remember, both for vaccines and supplements, that just because the large, controlled scientific studies are not out there to show their benefits/risks does not mean that it is or is not worth it. It's very difficult for us as parents sometimes, to dig through extravagant claims, shoddy research, anecdotal evidence, and naysayers in order to attempt to find truth.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

I've been coming to MDC for many years. I've interacted in intimate ways with a ton of members here (in the past), some I've met and I had to travel 10 thousand miles to do so. I'm not some fly in spammer. I don't sell anything. But I *have* had a life altering experience with MMS. Two of my friends also traveled with Jim to Haiti and Africa because they simply couldn't believe it and wanted to see it with their own eyes. This isn't some distant internet theory to me. I do find it difficult to stay quiet, you would too if all this happened to you.

And no, the doctors didn't give a shizer what their AIDS patients said about MMS. In fact, one of them never went back to their doctor, the other two found the doctors just wanted to give them more drugs "just in case", even though they told them the drugs made them sick to begin with. *The doctors don't care. The media doesn't care. No one cares but the mothers of those children who are being saved, right now, while we sit here and debate if those mothers even exist. *

It would make me laugh if it wasn't so friggin' tragic.

I can't respond on this topic further here, I'll take the issue to the thread but right now I have to get breakky for the kids.


----------



## Ldavis24 (Feb 19, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Calm*
> 
> I've been coming to MDC for many years. I've interacted in intimate ways with a ton of members here (in the past), some I've met and I had to travel 10 thousand miles to do so. I'm not some fly in spammer. I don't sell anything. But I *have* had a life altering experience with MMS. Two of my friends also traveled with Jim to Haiti and Africa because they simply couldn't believe it and wanted to see it with their own eyes. This isn't some distant internet theory to me. I do find it difficult to stay quiet, you would too if all this happened to you.
> 
> ...


oh please...if you ever actually open this thread instead of randomly blurting out how your "cure" has saved thousands and thousands of people, I will happily jump into the discussion but since that thread appears to never actually occur why don't you stop schilling for that product on other people's threads. You have enough time to post the same thing over and over again on other vax threads but never the time to open a thread specifically about MMS so apologies if I take your claims even less seriously than I had before.


----------



## WildKingdom (Mar 26, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Calm*
> 
> I've been coming to MDC for many years. I've interacted in intimate ways with a ton of members here (in the past), some I've met and I had to travel 10 thousand miles to do so. I'm not some fly in spammer. I don't sell anything. But I *have* had a life altering experience with MMS. Two of my friends also traveled with Jim to Haiti and Africa because they simply couldn't believe it and wanted to see it with their own eyes. This isn't some distant internet theory to me. I do find it difficult to stay quiet, you would too if all this happened to you.
> 
> ...


Whatever. WHATEVER. If one of my AIDS patients was cured I'd be crying with joy. I'd be calling the media and writing it up in journals. For you to say that doctors don't care- well you can you know what yourself. How DARE you say that doctors don't care about seeing their patients cured. How DARE you. I just have no words.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WildKingdom*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> ...


What would YOU do if a patient came to you and said they took MMS and it cured them? What would you say? Because no doctor has yet alerted the media or suggested it to their other patients, and there have been many, many doctors presented with the results of MMS. If you are the exception to the rule, I'm glad to know you and would love to work with you on this. There are many HIV positives on my list who are looking for a doctor with a mind open enough to support them with the use of MMS.

Quote:


> oh please...if you ever actually open this thread instead of randomly blurting out how your "cure" has saved thousands and thousands of people, I will happily jump into the discussion but since that thread appears to never actually occur why don't you stop schilling for that product on other people's threads. You have enough time to post the same thing over and over again on other vax threads but never the time to open a thread specifically about MMS so apologies if I take your claims even less seriously than I had before.


It is not my cure. An oxidiser rips electrons from pathogens... *I* don't do a thing, nor did I discover it. A man with HIV contacted me 3 years ago as I had a rep for helping people with herbs and diet. He told me about MMS, said it helped him get off meds. Thought I could use the info. That man is the reason the chain reaction began for me. Several HIV positives decided to give it a go, but it was the three who were highly symptomatic and/or dying that were of most interest to me. They are not claiming anything miraculous. It was fascinating, and then their blood work altered. I wrote some things down. And that was that. Nothing startling, standard chemistry with an oxidiser... I've just never seen it happen so consistently or so fast before. I do not sell it. It can be made for 2 cents in your bathtub with salt. It is sold for 20 bucks online for a year's supply. I assure you, no one is getting rich off this stuff. So, I guess I'm not motivated by greed, I look forward to learning what other motivations I have.

I don't know where your hostility is coming from, I've been fairly respectful in my discussions. I have mentioned it on here on two threads. TWO. I've mentioned it when it was relevant - and eradication of disease to me makes it relevant. A moderator suggested I start a thread as it seemed a topic of interest. Initially, I was concerned due to reactions like yours. I've shied away due to past experience it can get rather nasty, regardless how "calm" I remain. I am not thick skinned, and these discussions are hard on me. I have been answering questions about vax directed at me which add up to all my alloted online time, and really, this thread was a spin off I recognise largely due to me, so I wanted to give it some due consideration. I haven't the time to extend myself too far. I also stated clearly I was going away this weekend. Frankly, wth is your problem? Can you back off and give a gal a chance? There is no conspiracy to not start a thread, whatever that means. I will start one. I needed to know I would have what it will take, and I'm still not sure I do... I know for some reason this topic brings up anger, and people cannot help but direct that anger at me, and not all of us have taken our zen pills yet... perhaps we should share some. Seems like you could use some perspective and compassion yourself.


----------



## WildKingdom (Mar 26, 2008)

What would I do if a patient came to me and told me they'd been cured by mms? I'd check their cd4 and viral load. If their lab work confirmed everything, I'd write it up as a case study and submit it for publication. Then I'd work with some of the research ID specialists I know about getting a grant to start a study. I sure as hell wouldn't write it off.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

JMJ, as you can see, I'm in a quandary now. I want to discuss more here, but I can't do that and an MMS thread, lest it seem I am avoiding making one or something. Perhaps in future I'll come back, as I was interested in some things brought up about vitamins and so on. Thanks for hosting. *tips hat*


----------



## Ldavis24 (Feb 19, 2009)

It is toxic, is not a real cure for AIDS or anything else and the most ridiculous part is that when people get physically ill taking this product they are led to believe per the instructions that it is simply "toxins" leaving the body. Oh and lower the dosage a little and you are all set







.

. Perhaps the discussions are hard on your because you can't provide any real evidence to prove these fabulous claims and it gets frustrating when people won't just believe some kind hearted stranger on the internet telling them "it's true".

I am sorry for getting personally angry. Never fair to someone else and I hate it when it happens to me....There is no such thing as a panacea and that is that. Sorry to ruin your day.

Edited as told to.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WildKingdom*
> 
> What would I do if a patient came to me and told me they'd been cured by mms? I'd check their cd4 and viral load. If their lab work confirmed everything, I'd write it up as a case study and submit it for publication. Then I'd work with some of the research ID specialists I know about getting a grant to start a study. I sure as hell wouldn't write it off.


Could you do anything with the blood work details of patients who are not currently your own? Could the details be faxed to you? There have been some who have blood work that has a significant viral load and CD4, yet they physically so much healthier after treatment. Why doesn't the blood work change for some of them? I couldn't explain that to them, and perhaps these are some of the things you can help me with. I haven't done HIV work in over a year, but I still have contact with them. Shall I PM you?


----------



## WildKingdom (Mar 26, 2008)

If the still have a significant viral load and cd4, then they are not cured. Period. You can't claim otherwise.

And I'm sorry, but I am not comfortable sharing my identifying information with you.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

I didn't claim those ones were cured. I was wondering about some that do not show a change in numbers. I didn't say all don't show a change in numbers. But I assume, as a doctor, you would still find it significant if someone goes from emaciated, weak and given three months to live to being vibrant and healthy with a healthy weight - regardless of blood scores.


----------



## JMJ (Sep 6, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Calm*
> 
> JMJ, as you can see, I'm in a quandary now. I want to discuss more here, but I can't do that and an MMS thread, lest it seem I am avoiding making one or something. Perhaps in future I'll come back, as I was interested in some things brought up about vitamins and so on. Thanks for hosting. *tips hat*


I understand that we all have limited computer time for these intense discussions. It sounds to me like there is an interest in a discussion on MMS, but I think it is a discussion that should happen in its own thread so that you can lay out the evidence that you have in full and let people respond to what you do have rather than what they believe about what you do have. I am still very interested in what evidence you (or anyone else) have about illnesses draining the body of nutrients and people dying of nutrient deficiencies associated with infectious diseases. If you need to suspend this discussion for now and return to it later, that is fine with me. I am interested in what you have to say whenever you get the chance. I can be patient.

If any of the rest of you would like to continue this discussion of how diseases can be effectively prevented, treated, and eradicated, please feel free to join me. Please remember to be respectful of each others beliefs and feelings and avoid labeling other people as unreasonable or uncaring. I know that we look at our computers and see only words, but there are real people writing those words and there are real people reading these words. Part of the beauty of MDC is the fact that it is a place where people with alternative ideas can be given a voice and be taken seriously, even if they are viewed with a healthy amount of skepticism. We are a wonderfully diverse crowd, but we can relate to each other respectfully even as we disagree.


----------



## chaoticzenmom (May 21, 2005)

In an attempt to keep the conversation about Chlorine Dioxide in an appropriate forum, I am moving the conversation here for further responses. Here is a link to the original thread. http://www.mothering.com/community/forum/thread/1308476/vaccine-eradication-of-disease

Thank you


----------



## Panserbjorne (Sep 17, 2003)

I'm interested in hearing more as MMS scares the crapola out of me and there are several people I dearly love that are taking it.

The marketing scares me and I don't feel that there's a lot of clarity or honesty. I hate that it's called multi MINERAL supplement when it is absolutely and without question a chemical. I mean...it's a BLEACH. The way in which it works makes it all the more dangerous. Because of how it works it circumvents the body's natural defenses so you can truly do a LOT of damage very quickly and not really know it-ESPECIALLY when you're told that everything you feel is a "healing reaction" which is one of the things I really detest about natural medicine. A healing reaction is generally a sign that you're body isn't handling something you're doing well, and therefore symptoms are produced. It isn't necessarily "damaging" but it's a stress. AND when do you determine when the line has been crossed and it IS damaging? OR when do you determine that there was never a line and something is straight up toxic?

Due to it's nature as an oxidation agent it is only "safe" (and I use that term loosely) for healthy tissue. Just as it will attack diseased tissue it has the potential to attack tissue that is in the process of repair-so how can it heal if it's knocking you down when you're weakest? I don't know...I'm all for alternative medicine but this just screams dangerous to me. I'd love to hear more information and I'd love to be wrong. I'm generally very open to being wrong. I just don't think in this instance I am. BUT anything you can provide would be helpful I know that modern medicine doesn't have all the answers, and I personally will generally value a person's experience over lab results, but in this case I just need more.


----------



## Ldavis24 (Feb 19, 2009)

Thank you mod for doing this!

As far as I am concerned I will make a point to try and stay respectful without getting personal. That said I think that when someone brings in their personal experiences into an argument then you tend to open yourself up for a more personal discussion.

I am primarily interested in one thing. EVIDENCE. Actual physical scientific (verifiable) evidence that proves MMS's claims.

I do NOT accept as evidence the following (maybe others will agree here)

1. anecdotal stories of thousands of people being saved from the brink of death. This is not provable.

2. Personal accounts of how it worked for you...again not actual evidence of anything (for all you know it could have had a placebo effect)

3. Videos of those claiming to be cured by MMS. I know there are LOTS and lots of these videos floating around the internet, I have watched several myself. If all one had to do to prove something is post a video of it there wouldn't be a discussion as to the reality of a big foot or UFOs whizzing around the skies.

If one argues that this is all there is then I am sorry to say this skeptic won't be very impressed at all.

I am looking for one study, a single study that shows that a person who took MMS (say who has AIDS) had the virus pre MMS and then after MMS the virus was no longer in the body. That is a cure, that is something that is cured. Just feeling better after taking it is NOT a cure. That is a placebo effect if anything.

I appreciate that the common counter argument to the lack of actual scientific data is the FDA doesn't want this info to get out or the FDA is somehow conspiring against MMS, I am not interested in these theories personally, although someone might be. That is like saying the government is keeping it quiet about aliens...I can make an outrageous claim but don't expect anyone to take it seriously.

Finally, I personally think Jim Humble is quite the clever con man. His mantra is this stuff can be made for pennies but he SELLS a product MMS and books about it and I very much doubt that money is going to charity. So my final point is, why if Jim Humble says this stuff can be made for nearly free is he encouraging people to buy his book (to hear fantastical claims of it curing everything?) and buy his product.

MMS is bleach glorified. The claim is that it attacks only the disease, that is strictly impossible. Bleach is an opportunist, it kills everything good and bad there is no magical way it can suddenly only attack diseased cells. That part of the argument has long confused me. Bleach doesn't act differently inside the body than out just based on it suddenly being ingested.

MMS is being touted as a PANACEA, it has been claimed to cure the following (that I have read thus far) AIDS, MALARIA, CHOLERA, HERPES,ANCE, BAD BREATH, FLU and finally CANCER...Maybe more that I haven't read about. Throughout recent history there have been many claims of a panacea being found and they have ALL been untrue. There is literally no such thing as a panacea and there are people all over the internet claiming MMS is that very thing. I have seen zero actual proof to this effect. The only thing I do see is repeated claims that doctors don't care (I find that hard to believe on numerous levels) the FDA is conspiring against MMS because there is no money it or something, and people just are too close minded to BELIEVE...Once again some form of actual scientific proof would be real swell..

edited as told to.


----------



## WildKingdom (Mar 26, 2008)

Thank you, Lauren. I agree 100% with you, and I think you were perfectly respectful- probably more respectful than people who hawk MMS deserve. It's hard to not get emotional when you see people with life-threatening illness being taken advantage of.


----------



## MeepyCat (Oct 11, 2006)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Calm*
> 
> Could you do anything with the blood work details of patients who are not currently your own? Could the details be faxed to you? There have been some who have blood work that has a significant viral load and CD4, yet they physically so much healthier after treatment. Why doesn't the blood work change for some of them? I couldn't explain that to them, and perhaps these are some of the things you can help me with. I haven't done HIV work in over a year, but I still have contact with them. Shall I PM you?


Calm, I am not WildKingdom, but here's one issue: paperwork regarding blood tests can be faked. Faxing is a fantastic way to obscure the indications of forgery. (Seriously. Give me one original lab report, a PC, and a multi-function copier and within 24 hours, I can fax you a lab report that says anything you want it to say about anyone you name.) Furthermore, a single run of bloodwork proves nothing. Sure, a test may genuinely show that Patient A has a good CD4 count and low/no viral loads, but what were those values last week? Did this person ever test HIV+, or exhibit symptoms of AIDS?

Plenty of AIDS patients are asymptomatic, and we have various tactics for attempting to return patients to that state or to keep them there in the first place. What researchers want to do is to cure the disease - to assist the body in mounting a successful immune response against the retrovirus, such that they cease to carry it.

Quote:


> An oxidiser rips electrons from pathogens... Nothing startling, standard chemistry with an oxidiser...


This is decidedly NOT standard chemistry. How can an oxidiser "rip electrons" from a retrovirus encased within lipids and glycoproteins? How can bleach operate to rip electrons from a pathogen already contained within a human host cell without doing catastrophic damage to that cell, and ultimately to the host?

I have seen a lot of scientific hoaxes, and this one has many of the red flags I associate with those: fundamental misunderstanding of the problem, vague and scientifically questionable descriptions of the mechanism of the solution, and "proof" consisting of poorly documented individual cases, resulting in rejection and indifference from the larger scientific community.


----------



## Bokonon (Aug 29, 2009)

I don't really know anything about MMS, but how is this issue different from the dozens of moms on MDC who claim that eating placenta is the best thing ever? Are there independent, double-blind studies to back that up? Because I don't see women getting attacked all over this board for recommending ingesting placenta.


----------



## chaoticzenmom (May 21, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bokonon*
> 
> I don't really know anything about MMS, but how is this issue different from the dozens of moms on MDC who claim that eating placenta is the best thing ever? Are there independent, double-blind studies to back that up? Because I don't see women getting attacked all over this board for recommending ingesting placenta.


I don't know anything about mms either. The difference I see though is that eating placenta is something that animals do, so it is at least a natural thing. Maybe animals eat it to hide evidence of birth, but I know actual people who have eaten it and said that it helped in various ways (I didn't eat it, so I can't say personally). Placebo or not, it's a natural thing.

I've never heard of MMS/chlorine dioxide before the recent discussions here. I'd like to know who's using it, where they're using it, how they're documenting the information, what's the idea behind it?


----------



## MeepyCat (Oct 11, 2006)

Honestly, I roll my eyes at the placenta thing all the time. It's hooey. There is absolutely no evidence to support the idea that placentophagia does anything (besides maybe solve a disposal problem), and it drives me bats that people recommend it. The only difference, as far as I'm concerned, is that there's no one going around selling books on eating your placenta, or encouraging people to forego medical treatment for AIDS, cancer, etc., because all you need is placenta. So even though placenta for hemorrhage and PPD sounds like BS to me, and makes me mad on that level, I'm capable of leaving it alone. For now. Sorta. It really would not take much to push me over that edge.


----------



## Ldavis24 (Feb 19, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bokonon*
> 
> I don't really know anything about MMS, but how is this issue different from the dozens of moms on MDC who claim that eating placenta is the best thing ever? Are there independent, double-blind studies to back that up? Because I don't see women getting attacked all over this board for recommending ingesting placenta.


well just as a starting point for you...the placenta is a product created organically in the body to NUTURE life specifically. It is not toxic or poisonous. Eating it is akin to eating any other organ from any animal.

MMS is a glorified bleach solution...I would strongly urge you to just read through this thread then read some other stuff...it is fascinating, the claims about mms are fantastical, unproven and full of holes, interesting though!


----------



## Ldavis24 (Feb 19, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MeepyCat*
> 
> Calm, I am not WildKingdom, but here's one issue: paperwork regarding blood tests can be faked. Faxing is a fantastic way to obscure the indications of forgery. (Seriously. Give me one original lab report, a PC, and a multi-function copier and within 24 hours, I can fax you a lab report that says anything you want it to say about anyone you name.) Furthermore, a single run of bloodwork proves nothing. Sure, a test may genuinely show that Patient A has a good CD4 count and low/no viral loads, but what were those values last week? Did this person ever test HIV+, or exhibit symptoms of AIDS?
> 
> ...


oh I am no science genius but I agree with all of this, especially the bolded


----------



## stik (Dec 3, 2003)

Ingesting placenta is a choice that an individual makes for herself. That decision involves a woman and her own personal placenta. Virtually all moms will then seek more treatment if bleeding continues, and thus, even if it doesn't work, the choice is harmless.

MMS is a product being hawked around the world with promises of curing a variety of illnesses, that is actually industrial bleach. When it causes diarrhea and vomiting, which are classic reactions to ingesting dangerous chemicals like bleach, customers are told that this is a sign of toxins leaving the body (to be fair, it is - the toxins in the bleach are leaving the body). This does not result in any verifiable cures for any of the conditions it is alleged to cure, and has killed at least one person. If you want to tell people that drinking industrial-grade bleach is a good idea and cures AIDS (or malaria, cholera, or a host of other conditions), then you are encouraging them to poison themselves for no benefit. The choice is harmful, and encouraging other people to try it is perpetuating a con.

A bottle of MMS sells for around $20. It costs about 35 cents to manufacture the quantity of bleach contained in the bottle. The difference is a tidy profit even before you factor in Jim Humble's book sales. MMS is sold as a water purifier, because that is the only legitimate health use for bleach. Customers are told on the internet or through word of mouth (not on the bottle, because that would violate marketing laws in most countries) that they can "activate" the health benefits by mixing it with fruit juice, which makes it more acidic and more dangerous. And then when it makes them sick(er), proponents/sales-people encourage customers to think that every time a sufficiently enlightened person gets diarrhea, an angel gets its wings and that everyone who says MMS is poison is part of a worldwide conspiracy out to suppress a cure for all three of the largest public health threats in the world today.

Calm, if I sound hostile to you here, it's because I am. Your claims are well beyond the realm of reason. I don't believe that you have "healed" anyone of anything.


----------



## Marnica (Oct 4, 2008)

This is all very interesting - (the topic - not the insults hurled by certain members - totally unneccessary IMO). I know zero about MMS. I look forward to looking into the topic. From a logical standpoint - ingesting bleach seems dangerous and counterintuitive but I will research with interest!


----------



## oaktreemama (Oct 12, 2010)

Quote:


> I don't really know anything about MMS, but how is this issue different from the dozens of moms on MDC who claim that eating placenta is the best thing ever


Because it is not going to hurt them either way. Whether it helps or not-meh I don't care because it won't hurt them.

But the most important distinction-it is not being sold as a cure to desperate and very sick people. That is dispicable. It is being peddled as a miracle drug and it isn't-it is simply a way for disreputable people to make money off of very sick people.

Edited to remove my beliefs about intentions...


----------



## SleeplessMommy (Jul 16, 2005)

Calm, a few years ago you and I had a discussion in TAO over "causation" of HIV/AIDs. Can you please clarify your feelings on the point? Do you believe that HIV/AIDS is caused by a virus, or caused by overuse of poppers, or something else? How about malaria? Do you believe in plasmodium causing malaria?

Mods, thank you for separating out this discussion!


----------



## Ldavis24 (Feb 19, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Marnica*
> 
> This is all very interesting - (the topic - not the insults hurled by certain members - totally unneccessary IMO). I know zero about MMS. I look forward to looking into the topic. From a logical standpoint - ingesting bleach seems dangerous and counterintuitive but I will research with interest!


just a caution marnica if you google mms or even mms fraud or something most of the results will be various jim humble websites...you have to dig kinda deep to get past them...


----------



## amnesiac (Dec 28, 2001)

Personally, I am not opposed to supplements - I actually do use supplements for certain things. But just like any other treatment, I look to see what published evidence is available in scientific journals regarding both safety and efficacy. I just don't think you can be too safe & I do think it's important to make informed treatment decisions.

When I look quickly, all I see about chlorine dioxide pertains to antimocrobial uses in things like water treatment, medical waste, surface disinfection of medical & kitchen equipment & topical applications. I also see toxicity studies. I tend to feel that there is a lack of safety data as well as data on ingestion as a treatment - I mean, just because it kills microbes in vitro does not necessarily mean it will act as a systemic antimicrobial on ingestion, KWIM? Or at least not at non-toxic concentrations. It also concerns me that the FDA issued a consumer warning last year:
http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm220747.htm

I'm certainly open to the idea that perhaps it could at some time be used as a treatment in some way. But in order to feel comfortable using it in any way, I would need to see some published data. Maybe it's out there somewhere & I'm just not seeing it.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Quote:


> Calm, if I sound hostile to you here, it's because I am. Your claims are well beyond the realm of reason. I don't believe that you have "healed" anyone of anything. In my most charitable moments, I think you are grandiose and easily misled by people who make you feel important. In other moments, I think you know you're lying.


Feel better now? Cos like, ouch, mate. Do I know you, have we even met? You must be a real party favourite.

Quote:


> I don't believe Calm has good intentions in this.


This is why I didn't want to do this thread, because shots like these are unnecessarily personal and assumptions based on nothing but opinion. I'm obviously not making money on this, no one is, and I don't sell it... so I must just be some whacked out psycho who wants to hurt people, who has bad intentions? Is it that hard to stick to the topic? I'm never in any doubt I'm not on a science forum here, due to the lack of evidence to back opinions and also it is almost guaranteed some won't keep their emotions at the door - then when their emotions get the better of them, they need a place to direct it. Must people make it about me? It only weakens your position. People aren't idiots, and unless you're a celeb, your opinion alone won't stand for much, regardless how much venom and sarcasm you try to arm it with. People want to know *why* you feel that way. So produce evidence for them or a personal anecdote. You all seem to be making all the claims. So... back yer sh!t up, yo. Toxic, is it? Show people why you say that. Where are your clinical trials? Where is your evidence? Is it the big scary FDA warning against nausea and dehydration? Then say so, then LINK it... blow me away with your science.

Shall I list the side effects of tylenol, something most mothers give their *babies*? More on comparisons later...

I happen to believe that the reason it becomes personal is because you have absolutely nothing to base your claims on. All the chemistry supports the fact that chlorine dioxide is safe, and in my next post, I will be linking them but in the mean time, I wanted to point that out. People keep using the word "bleach" as though that explains everything. It's such a great visual, someone sucking down a bottle of chlorox... so instead of using science, hey, use fear... it works for the FDA.

Things like the bleach mantra scream, "knows nothing about chemistry... alert alert... this person is subject to media propaganda..." Chlorine dioxide is as much chlorine as table salt is (sodium chloride)... both contain chlorine, both are completely different... and both are completely different to sodium hypoclorite (bleach, clorox). That an oxidiser "bleaches" is not new science, only to the easily led layperson does that even mean anything. The body produces stronger bleaches in the form of oxides ... such as peroxide and the much stronger ones, superoxides. Your own immune system makes stronger "bleaches", you could turn your hair Nordic with one application. So what? Unless you know the chemistry of oxidation, calling something "bleach" is inconsequential and is regurgitating someone else's critic work because you have nothing to create your own with.

Show me evidence of harm and I'll show you inhalation or mega dose. To save you further trouble, no one recommends inhalation or mega dose. As vaccinators love to remind us, the dose makes the poison. Suck down formaldehyde and mercury as long as it is in small enough quantities to do no harm, even jab it straight into a muscle if you must. Everything has an LD50, even lettuce, ie, everything has a lethal dose. To ignore the thousands of testimonies and hundreds of thousands of international success stories or put them down as some mass delusion or mass intention to deceive to make... uh, 20 bucks a bottle for a year's supply... is irrational. I'm too busy to be a crack pot, though it does look like fun. My plans for world domination will just have to wait. In the meantime, I have some information to share, and as odd as it may sound to the average jaded American, I am gaining nothing from this except the messages I get when someone has a health success. And yeah, that's pretty addictive... I enjoy it. Selfish reason perhaps.

If you look through other forums, you'll see I go on rants about gentle parenting, saving penises, saving Iraqis... things I'm passionate about... I guess all those rants are also because I "don't have good intentions".

FTR, I have not healed anyone of anything and do not claim to. Three clients I had took MMS and they reported back to me their results. I have a list of testimonies from friend's travels and my own, but I make no claims, if for no other reason than it is illegal. The FDA has effectively made free speech a memory, if it even really ever existed in our culture. I simply state what has been told to me, what I have experienced, the science and research papers. Make of that what you will. I also do not recommend taking MMS. I would not, and I cannot. This is educational purposes only, and remember, always seek your doctor's opinion before doing anything at all. Heck knows we can't be trusted to think for ourselves.


----------



## Ldavis24 (Feb 19, 2009)

...


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

I thought an FAQ would be a good way to approach this massive subject. It is made easier since the same questions and assumptions are brought up over and over.

*FAQ*

*1) Didn't someone die from taking MMS?*

No deaths have been proven caused by MMS. There was one death where a woman was very ill and her husband gave her mms but she died anyway. As much as they tried to find a link, they could not. There was a death in decades past where a man fell into a vat of chlorine dioxide. He died from a massive inhalation. No one has died from oral use of MMS, not at any dose let alone the tiny recommended dose.

*2) Isn't chlorine dioxide bleach?*

This is addressed in the above post, repeated here:

This word is used by critics as a scary visual... before this word was used, "chlorine dioxide" was not known as anything, so the people had to discover how it worked and research themselves. The word "bleach" was tagged to it, and that has allowed people to think they know what it is, and they equate it to household chlorox... which makes drinking it seem ridiculous. And that is the entire point of calling it bleach.

Chlorine dioxide is as much chlorine as table salt is (sodium chloride)... both contain chlorine, both are completely different... and both are completely different to sodium hypoclorite (bleach, clorox). That an oxidiser "bleaches" is not new science, only to the easily led layperson does that even mean anything. The body produces stronger bleaches in the form of oxides ... such as peroxide and the much stronger ones, superoxides. Your own immune system makes stronger "bleaches", you could turn your hair Nordic with one application. Sulfur dioxide is a well known preservative, but it also bleaches. Lemons bleach. So does turmeric.

Unless you know the chemistry of oxidation, calling something "bleach" is inconsequential.

MMS does not work by chlorination, it is an *oxidiser*.

Chlorine dioxide reaction chemistry.

The chlorine has been shown in studies to not have any part to play whatsoever in the anti-pathogenic effect. (Source) Only the oxygen (the O2 part of the molecule ClO2) works on them, the Cl part binds to sodium and is excreted as salt in the urine. Bleach works as chlorination, combining with molecules creating new ones that are largely toxic. Drinking sodium hypochlorite is dangerous, and one would not use it on one's person at all. Personally, I warn against having it in one's home as it pollutes our waterways and general environment, not just our immediate environment. Oxidisers can "bleach", and this is simply a redox reaction.

*3) Isn't it that we can't find anyone who can be proven as harmed by MMS simply because so few people have used MMS?*

I cringe at answering this particular notion as it is so obviously flawed, but I have heard it more than once so I'll address it, under protest.

Millions of bottles have been sold online. Hundreds of thousands have been treated in other countries such as those in Africa. Thousands of testimonies can be found online. Those facts alone debunk that as the reason no one has been harmed. Even if only 100 people had ever used it, ever, surely statistically there would have been something to chew on since it is touted as being so dangerous and ridiculous to contemplate using? But thousands passed, then millions... and still nothing. I don't know what to tell someone who discounts that as incredible evidence of safety. Most clinical trials have tens or hundreds of participants before a substance is ruled as safe. In fact, much more than "one death" is required before the FDA removes a product from the shelf. Hundreds of thousands of people die every year in the US alone from pharmaceuticals but they remain "safe".

You can scurry around googling like a mad person looking for something, anything, but in the end, really, look at yourself... it is a sad state we are in when we don't fear the actual products causing great harm, we accept them as "collateral damage" because others are helped by those products... but a substance with barely a stomach ache as a side effect is considered ridiculous, dangerous; and those spreading education on it are crazy, dangerous, quacks.... and no one sees the glaring irony in that.

It isn't fulfilling the fearful prophecies. It just isn't.

*4) Hasn't it been proven to be toxic?*

Actually, all the research proves it is safe. There is absolutely no data to support the argument it is toxic. The history was that for many years, the critics insisted it couldn't work, but that wasn't scaring people from trying it and it totally backfired. The "toxic" debate only started when the word "bleach" started being connected with it. Some clever little bunny had an aha moment about that word knowing how gullible the ignorant can be.

It has little evidence for oral toxicity at large doses, and no evidence for oral toxicity at the recommended dose. This is usually the most surprising fact to people, demonstrating the power of the media to persuade.

Sodium chlorite is technically MMS. That has some toxicity proven connected to it. Minimal (compared to tylenol, for instance), but it does exist. However, when mixed with citric acid, sodium chlorite becomes chlorine dioxide, the active substance. Chlorine dioxide is not sodium chlorite, and it is sodium chlorite that has been dragged through the mud because that is what MMS technically is. A man in China tried to suicide with sodium chlorite and failed. (source)

The LD50 (lethal dose) is greater than 10000mg/kg of body weight. (source)

For perspective, table salt has an LD50 of 3000 mg/kg, aspirin 200mg/kg LD, acetaminophen 1944mg/kg. (source)

In the following study, not only did ClO2 show no harm, it protected the mice from the flu. 70% of the mice on placebo died, *100% of the mice survived with ClO2 treatment.*

Protective Effect of Low-Concentration Chlorine dioxide Gas against influenza A virus Infection

Safety of ingested ClO2 demonstrated

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6961033

Chronic Administration to healthy adult males

UPDATE: WF10, Immunokine, Macrokine and Dioxychlor are all chlorine dioxide under another name, patented drugs. They are used for the same diseases the testimonies have all claimed crude chlorine dioxide use at home has worked against. This thread starts to look into these products from this post onwards.

*5) What is the evidence it works on pathogens, inside or out of the body, especially against viruses?*

UPDATE: see FAQ number 4 re WF10

Oxidation is a very effective method for pathogen eradication because pathogens cannot build resistance to oxidation like they can toxins produced by other organisms (which we harness in antibiotics such as the toxin produced by a fungus to produce penicillin).

There is plenty of evidence it works against all tested pathogens including viruses, aside from that link in number 4:

Antiviral Effect of Chlorine Dioxide against Influenza Virus and Its

Application for Infection Control

Effect of Chlorine Dioxide Gas at Extremely low concentration on absenteeism of school children

How it works

How it works against malaria specifically, via oral administration - very interesting and important work, with extensive references.

Gloves designed for hospitals using embedded ClO2

There is extensive research on use as a mouth rinse.  This is just one of them. Would you rinse your mouth with "bleach"?

Inactivation of Hepatitis A 

poliovirus

No need to evacuate

There are more. But you get the gist.

*6) We know of evidence it works against pathogens, but what about the claims it pulls out heavy metals and toxic substances from the body?*

Chlorine Dioxide Reaction Chemistry

Hair analysis has shown before and after treatment that metals are removed. Chemistry shown it oxidises heavy metals, which is different to chelation. It does not bind to toxic substances. More can be found here on my friend Adam's blog: Chicken Little Revisited, "MMS is Falling!" Adam traveled with Jim to Haiti and the DR. He is a film maker and made some films about it. He has seen it work up close and personal with desperate people. I don't know Jim, but I trust Adam, he isn't lying. Jim is apparently very stubborn and has some flighty ideas but he did stumble on something massive.

*7) Any evidence all this African travel even happened... is it still happening?*

This is a child being treated by Jim working with a doctor.  (they were called mercy drops back then)

Jim did 6 months last year in Malawi, as the gov't allowed him to conduct clinical trials. Jim oversaw hundreds of malaria cases previous to that, very unofficially. Then the 2010 trials, in which files were confiscated in customs. I'm still learning more about that data.

There are several missionary organisations using it currently. This is the Malaria Initiative. They use MMS, and the site has some data on it. Here is a video from their site (the first half are the people re mms, the second half is the religious stuff).

Perhaps a few of you would like to call those missionaries and insult them and all they do? It might go down really nicely if you tell them they just are a pack of Jesus lovin' liars.

*8) Videos?*

Interview with a doctor (by Adam







)

Andreas Kalcker

Adam addresses the FDA "warning"

*9) Why are there no trials being done to show conclusively what all these things total?*

UPDATE: Trials have been done since the 1980's and continue to be done on the various chlorine dioxide and chlorite containing IV drugs.

Trials cost millions of dollars. The "backyard genius" has no hope in today's red tape ruled science world. No one connected to MMS has any money. They've contacted Bill Gates, Oprah, many people. No one wants to invest in it, as there is no profit. Investors are exactly that: investors. There must be a return because it is not charity. For further info and frustration as to why it is so difficult to get a clinical trial, watch the movie Extraordinary Measures.

*10) Why isn't this all over the news? *

Good question. Why don't you contact the NY Times and find out.

*11) Why aren't doctors clamouring to deal with this?*

Ask Wildkingdom, a poster on this thread and apparently a doctor. Whatever answer she gives you, that is the answer to this question.

I've no doubt some of my links are messed up or I've made errors of some sort, it is late and I'm tired. Just let me know and I'll tidy it up. I have other links but I had to draw the line, my husband is tapping his foot here.

*I request that a serious effort is made to understand all that chemistry and information before rubbishing something that is currently in operation for needy families in Africa and Asia, right now, while you sit there and say it isn't happening*.

Think. Before you step into territory you know little about... every substance in history went through this phase. The phase of disbelief and ridicule.

It's not a nice feeling when instead of thanks when those field workers in Africa get home, they get the kind of hate I see on here. Baseless, unwarranted, hate and anger. Just stop it! Grow up. Look at this rationally, look at the science. There's little money in it. They aren't crazy. They aren't lying. Sooo, what is it? Could it be perhaps that it WORKS?


----------



## Ldavis24 (Feb 19, 2009)

none of what you posted is evidence of a cure of anything.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Ah, LDavis, ya just couldn't wait. I did say my next post was addressing it, and now they aren't in order. lol

There are those of you I know will not change their positions, so it is esp funny when posts keep saying "well now I'm REALLY sure it's all a scam" when face it... you thought that all along, and nothing and no one except the president will change your mind. At least now you have some actual science to ridicule it with, instead of whatever the hell you first ridiculed it for.


----------



## Ldavis24 (Feb 19, 2009)

...


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

I'm glad you posted so fast. You've made discrediting you so much easier. You did not read more than one link on there. That's rather deceitful. You didn't see the video of the missionaries actually using it. You didn't check the chemistry, and certainly not the malaria chem because that is a long one. I only just pressed the post button ten minutes ago. You should have waited longer before posting, because you've just outed yourself as a naysayer who has no reason.

As I said, go and call those missionaries. Call them, and tell them what you're telling me. Do you seriously think they packed up and moved to africa to use MMS cos they had nothing better to do?

I'm glad you're sick of this argument, because you've got no science, nothing but sarcasm. Come back when you have something.


----------



## Ldavis24 (Feb 19, 2009)

...


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Having fun?


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Quote:


> none of what you posted is evidence of a cure of anything


Yet you hadn't read it. I point that out, then you post:

Quote:


> as far as your other links I am wading through them now ...


So excuse me if I think you're just messing with me. You went straight in to discredit the science and *you hadn't even read it*.

You wrote this, without having read it:

Quote:


> your definition of "actual" science is very unique
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What you say is worth absolutely nothing to this. You blatantly misled, how can we trust an opinion based on that? You show no genuine inquiry, not even interest in learning.

Quote:


> in fact most of them are just as stupid as this whole argument.


Most of them are peer reviewed studies or research done in respectable institutes - but of course, you'd know that if you'd *read* them. "Just as stupid"?

Incredible. You want science, I give you science, you don't read the science before ridiculing the science, me, and insulting the scientists themselves.

I really really hope that everyone's critique isn't going to be this asinine. I don't see the point in enduring post after post of mudslinging and character assassination.


----------



## oaktreemama (Oct 12, 2010)

Quote:


> How it works against malaria specifically, via oral administration - very interesting and important work, with extensive references.


If by extensive you mean he simply rehashes Jim Humble's work- well ok I agree with that. Many of the other references included are things no one disagrees with-that bleach disinfects. The doctor who wrote this is a big fan of Humble (and is running the Malaria Initiative), that much is clear. So much of his proof is simply what Jim Humble tells him. This kind of circle jerk is NOT scientific evidence of anything.

Quote:


> Effect of Chlorine Dioxide Gas at Extremely low concentration on absenteeism of school children


You read the findings at the end right? They found it was very effective at disinfecting surfaces. Even the pumping of trace amounts worked because the solution was covering the known vectors of flu transmission. At the very end the authors recommend three ways of combating the flu-

1. Disinfection of surfaces, wearing masks, washing hands

2. The use of HEPA filters, and small amounts of the gas as a virucide (which again no one is disputing that bleach kills things)

3. And to protect humans-routine vaccination against influenza, use of anti-influenza medications, and high doses of Vitamin D

From the No Need to Evacuate Link:

Quote:


> Taiko's chlorine dioxide product has three forms, one is a precisely controlled chlorine dioxide gas generating machine. The machine is installed adjacent to an air-conditioner of a building and the gas generated is introduced in the duct of the air-conditioner to disinfect air of a large room. Another form is a desktop-type small gas generating gel. The "gel" is used on top of a desk or table or stuck to a wall of a room to disinfect air in a relatively small room. The third is chlorine dioxide solution used as a spray to disinfect an object's surface.


Again and again and again the links you have posted (besides the ridiculous stuff from Humble and his cronies) simply states that it is an effective SURFACE

disinfectant.

I'll be back after I've read some more-so far though it is the same old same old-a bunch of bogus claims and links to studies that agree bleach disinfects stuff.


----------



## Panserbjorne (Sep 17, 2003)

Calm,

Thank you for taking the time to post the links. I haven't gone through them yet, but am looking forward to doing so. I'm quite clear that there are plenty of things out there that work brilliantly where the FDA either stands in direct opposition or (even better) arbitrarily decides they are harmful with no actual evidence supporting those claims.

I don't yet know where this falls, and I'm still concerned, but I'm eager to become more informed.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

As this was brought up... Jim is not selling MMS. He shows how to make it yourself out of salt and electric current. He sells his books, yes. Rich? If you'd traveled with him, you'd rethink the use of the word "rich". He is a bishop of a church where they give free healing with it. If people feel the treatment was worth it, they donate. No healing, no pay. Makes sense to me.


----------



## Ldavis24 (Feb 19, 2009)

...


----------



## Ldavis24 (Feb 19, 2009)

....


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Oaktree, I said in the FAQ that it was external and internal... they are mixed in that list. Many people don't even know it works at all against pathogens. When speaking about this at a basic level, and there is much evidence here that I am, I must first show that it actually works against pathogens. The question is, does it also do that inside the body? If yes, then: is it safe?

There is evidence it enters body organs intact. I closed my links page but if someone wants that study let me know.

In another note, thank you for showing something more.. well, you know... *more*. I appreciate the intelligent discourse.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

I'm sorry Lauren, but you crossed the line long ago. I'm done with you. Good luck.


----------



## Ldavis24 (Feb 19, 2009)

...


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

I'm surprised your posts haven't been removed, honestly. They're pretty defamatory, you did cross the line. Unnecessary.


----------



## oaktreemama (Oct 12, 2010)

Quote:


> There is extensive research on use as a mouth rinse.  This is just one of them.


Again you are not ingesting it. You are using it like Listerine which also cautions you against swallowing it. Same with gargling salt water. If you swallow it chances are very good you will vomit. Does this mean a salt water gargle is cleansing my body of toxins and pathogens? Because that is what the makers of MMS claim when you vomit.

Quote:


> Chronic Administration to healthy adult males


This study I am not sure about at all-it appears that they were attempting to study the effects of drinking water treated with CIO2 vs either untreated water or water treated with another derivative. I cannot gain access to the whole study though.


----------



## mbravebird (May 9, 2005)

I am having a really hard time seeing the information past all the insults. Could you all carry the insults to PM, and keep it strictly information-based here? I really want to understand more about this, as my father was recently diagnosed with stage 4 cancer, has started MMS, and is having side effects. I lean toward suspicion of the substance, especially given the awful side effects, but I am still open to learning more about it. I will be looking at the links provided as I have time.

For me, it is emotionally difficult to read people's insults to each other, and it makes me suspicious of information that comes from anyone who speaks/writes like that. Think of it as good discipline for your point of view, to present your argument clearly, cogently, and without insults. I could really use a facts-based discussion of the issue, so that I could pass it along to my father as he makes a decision about whether or not to continue on.

I continue to be grateful for the exchange of information I can find on MDC.


----------



## Marnica (Oct 4, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mbravebird*
> 
> I am having a really hard time seeing the information past all the insults. Could you all carry the insults to PM, and keep it strictly information-based here? I really want to understand more about this, as my father was recently diagnosed with stage 4 cancer, has started MMS, and is having side effects. I lean toward suspicion of the substance, especially given the awful side effects, but I am still open to learning more about it. I will be looking at the links provided as I have time.
> 
> ...


I have to agree with you here. The mudslinging is unbearable. To Calm for what it's worth, I appreciate your taking the time to speak about your experiences with MMS and what you know. I am interested in learning more and open to your point of view and looking into opposing points of view as well. I also do not believe that you have bad intentions or are hawking anything. I believe you have knowledge and experience with MMS that most people don't have and this makes you passionate about it. Personally I don't think there is anything wrong with that. As for "snake oils" and scams. Yes there are many things out there that are, but our history is littered with examples of people who have brought forth information about certain things that seemed ludicris or crazy. The ideas were met with scorn and the messanger labeled a quack or worse. Many times history has vindicated this person. I'm reminded of this quote " Truth will only make you unpopular.- WOLFGANG BORCHERT, _The Outsider._

I personally have healed ailments for myself and my family using certain "snake oils". That is not to say that I believe everything I am told. I generally try to approach new things with an open mind and learn as much as I can before taking action with something. It's hard talking about something you believe in when your getting crapped on for it - particularly in a public forum. I know I've been there.

With all that being said. I am not taking sides here. I just want to learn more. People who think MMS is a scam are free to think so - they can post their opinion that they disagree with you and call it a day.

You know it gets ugly in the vax forum quite alot too. I suppose when you have a group of people who have opposite points of view and you throw passion and emotions into the mix, things are bound to get ugly from time to time. Frankly it's sad. I believe wholeheartedly in the law of attraction. What you are put out into the universe is what you get back. So if one is spewing negativity and venom, that person will somehow, someway get that back in their life. Who knows, maybe that belief makes me a kooky hippie


----------



## Panserbjorne (Sep 17, 2003)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Marnica*
> 
> I have to agree with you here. The mudslinging is unbearable. To Calm for what it's worth, I appreciate your taking the time to speak about your experiences with MMS and what you know. I am interested in learning more and open to your point of view and looking into opposing points of view as well. I also do not believe that you have bad intentions or are hawking anything. I believe you have knowledge and experience with MMS that most people don't have and this makes you passionate about it. Personally I don't think there is anything wrong with that. As for "snake oils" and scams. Yes there are many things out there that are, but our history is littered with examples of people who have brought forth information about certain things that seemed ludicris or crazy. The ideas were met with scorn and the messanger labeled a quack or worse. Many times history has vindicated this person. I'm reminded of this quote " Truth will only make you unpopular.- WOLFGANG BORCHERT, _The Outsider._
> 
> ...


I agree.


----------



## Ldavis24 (Feb 19, 2009)

I can only say that I get heated at times and I can't be the only person who does...Different issues bring out the ire in different people.

Anyway sorry for making it hard for people to find the information they are looking for.

I am sorry for MY part in the mudslinging...That won't change my views on MMS but I said my piece and as PP said, I'll call it a day with this conversation.


----------



## chaoticzenmom (May 21, 2005)

I started this thread in the hopes that the everything that needed to be said about the topic would get to be said. I know that it's a passionate topic, but the namecalling and insults are not in line with the intent of the thread and threaten the thread itself. Please refrain from insulting each other.


----------



## oaktreemama (Oct 12, 2010)

Quote:


> So if one is spewing negativity and venom, that person will somehow, someway get that back in their life. Who knows, maybe that belief makes me a kooky hippie


How about people who market a fake cure to desperately ill and dying people? What do they get back I wonder?

I looked at every link Calm has posted and none of it proves anything other than bleach can disinfect hard surfaces-see my posts above. It is not groundbreaking, it is not a cure for AIDS, it is not a cure for cancer, it is not a cure for malaria. Frankly the easiest fix for malaria is providing people with mosquito nets.

Go figure-talk about a natural method for stopping the spread of a disease!!


----------



## Marnica (Oct 4, 2008)

I think they would get back what they put out. So if they were intentionally trying to decieve and harm people, than they would be victims of decit and harm themselves at some point. As I stated in my previous post, Im not declaring I believe MMS to be a cure for anything. Im not agreeing with Calm or disagreeing. I simply don't have enough information and look forward to doing my own research and coming to my own conclusion. You have obviously done yours and come to your conclusion which is fine. What I objected to is the level of nastiness that seemed to permeate this thread.

Lauren - sorry if you feel what I posted was personal - it wasn't. That is just the way I try to "be" yk? It helps keep me grounded. Believe me I can get heated and passionate about things I feel strongly about, I just try and express things in a way that might be perceived as positive because I want positive things in my life. I understand the belief in the law of attraction won't appeal to some but it's just what I believe! You know I respect your opinions as we have communicated privately. I suppose I just want us all to get along as childish a sentiment as that may be







Again sorry if my statements offended you.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *oaktreemama*
> 
> *How about people who market a fake cure to desperately ill and dying people? What do they get back I wonder?*
> 
> ...


----------



## Ldavis24 (Feb 19, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Marnica*
> Lauren - sorry if you feel what I posted was personal - it wasn't. That is just the way I try to "be" yk? It helps keep me grounded. Believe me I can get heated and passionate about things I feel strongly about, I just try and express things in a way that might be perceived as positive because I want positive things in my life. I understand the belief in the law of attraction won't appeal to some but it's just what I believe! You know I respect your opinions as we have communicated privately. I suppose I just want us all to get along as childish a sentiment as that may be
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## stik (Dec 3, 2003)

mbravebird, I'm sorry to hear about your father's illness. Does his doctor know he is taking MMS? Bleach really is toxic, but the effects of the toxicity are presented as "evidence" that MMS is working, so people who are desperate for hope can cling to the idea that they are being cured. Do you feel comfortable bringing this up with your father's MD?

I would caution you that most of the information on MMS on the internet is posted by salespeople. I don't know who's coordinating the effort if not Jim Humble, but there is certainly a coordinated massive effort to make sure that any criticism of MMS online is responded to with a positive rebuttal. Most of the rebuttals look pretty similar - I am confident that somewhere there is a form that the MMS marketing people are using. I would urge you to stick to known sources (like government and consumer agencies that you trust for information on other matters) when looking for info on MMS. Look out for message boards.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mbravebird*
> 
> I am having a really hard time seeing the information past all the insults. Could you all carry the insults to PM, and keep it strictly information-based here? I really want to understand more about this, as my father was recently diagnosed with stage 4 cancer, has started MMS, and is having side effects. I lean toward suspicion of the substance, especially given the awful side effects, but I am still open to learning more about it. I will be looking at the links provided as I have time.
> 
> ...


----------



## stik (Dec 3, 2003)

I'm going to be disagreeable here - I don't believe that it's peachy keen for people to promote something that causes harm just because they passionately believe it does good. Further, there is no rational reason to believe that MMS does good.

There is plenty of evidence that it is not safe to ingest bleach. MMS is (one of many forms of) bleach. You wouldn't reach under your sink, pour a splash of clorox into some OJ and offer it to your child. You know that drinking cleaning products is harmful to your internal organs. If your child drank bleach, you would call poison control. You would not mistake their vomiting and diarrhea for signs that they were being cured of an illness.

That is what supporters of MMS are asking you to believe.

The FDA has no problem with medications that cause vomiting and diarrhea as side effects. Most of the available treatments for AIDS, malaria, and cancer cause those problems. The difference between those treatments and MMS is that those treatments have been shown to help people. The "side effect" of MMS is the ONLY effect. The FDA and other health agencies have warned against MMS.


----------



## cynthia mosher (Aug 20, 1999)

Thread temporaily closed pending review.


----------



## cynthia mosher (Aug 20, 1999)

There are several posts to this discussion that contain personal attacks. While strong disagreement and criticism of ideas and information are fine, words against a person's character or intentions are not. These posts must be edited to remove such remarks. I am reopening this thread so that everyone who posted in this way can edit their posts and the discussion can continue. If you're not sure if things you said were attacking and think perhaps they are borderline please edit them to remove the borderline remarks.


----------



## Ldavis24 (Feb 19, 2009)

edited out my inappropriate comments!

I hope someone else will do the same.

I have nothing more to add to this thread, enjoy! I will follow along with interest.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Quote:


> There is plenty of evidence that it is not safe to ingest bleach. MMS is (one of many forms of) bleach. You wouldn't reach under your sink, pour a splash of clorox into some OJ and offer it to your child. You know that drinking cleaning products is harmful to your internal organs. If your child drank bleach, you would call poison control. You would not mistake their vomiting and diarrhea for signs that they were being cured of an illness.


 You didn't read my post. The visual of someone gulping down chlorox is invaluable to your argument, in fact, it is the only thing critics have - hence it is what you will see repeated over and over and over and over and over.... but nothing substantial other than that. Chlorox is sodium hypochlorite, so you do need to distinguish between the chemistry, you cannot just say something to the effect, "all bleach is the same" because that is untrue. If you are going to state these things, you need to back them up, because there are things being stated on here that are false, and that is not helpful to people dealing with MMS in their lives, or if they know someone who is. They need the information to back up why it isn't safe, because if their relative has been sent home from hospital to die... Have you thought this through?

In an effort to kill off cancerous cells people are being pumped with all sorts of rubbish, stuff that has been proven to kill in small doses, to harm in small doses. They do this because it is life or death. Not all our decisions are made holding the hand of someone in a lab coat. Not all medicines we take have the approval of some agency with more power and money than God.

Not one person can furnish evidence it is harmful. I ask... is there any? Can anyone help us see what damage this does to the body? I can quickly find evidence chlorox is harmful if ingested. A quick google and I can find tons of it, and people who have died from drinking it and the thousands of hospital visits due to household bleach. If it is so toxic, surely there would be a ton of evidence to support that belief.

In one of the links I provided, there is extensive references to decades worth of research on chlorine dioxide... perhaps reading what I have will give you better science than "it is bleach", which, as I said, *so is lemon juice.* Do you know how lemon juice bleaches? It is an antioxidant, so it certainly doesn't work like an oxidiser. It doesn't chlorinate either. You do need to give more chem than "hey, it's bleach". "Bleach", without understanding the chemistry of how an oxidiser works, is not a helpful argument. It isn't chlorox, just as it also isn't table salt - both of which are sodiums with chlorine in them. Chlorox chlorinates... do you know the difference between that and an oxidiser? Do you know at what point, and how, an oxidiser becomes harmful to body tissue? Do you know why chlorination is a harmful chemical reaction, and why oxidation is a natural process used by the immune system? If you don't know this difference, that is a good place to begin.

I have given evidence it is not harmful in settings where people ingested it, and in comparative mice studies - 70% of those who didn't have it died and 100% of those who did, survived. That is significant. The option is always there to ignore clinical studies, I'm the first one to suggest they are highly flawed at best.

Quote:


> Again you are not ingesting it. You are using it like Listerine which also cautions you against swallowing it. Same with gargling salt water. If you swallow it chances are very good you will vomit. Does this mean a salt water gargle is cleansing my body of toxins and pathogens? Because that is what the makers of MMS claim when you vomit.


 Yes, but you wouldn't gargle with chlorox, right? Not every link was to prove efficacy or to prove safety. Each one served it's own purpose.

Herxheimer reactions aren't mysterious. I personally do not know if MMS is a herx or if it is a side effect. I do know that the new protocol, which is only 3 drops per hour for 8 to 10 hours a day, does not cause it for most people and if a worsening occurs to drop the dose. The workers in Malawi discovered this method for chronic issues like AIDS and cancer. When it was malaria, a 15 drop dose was used due to the dangerous and acute nature of malaria. 15 drops (I've been told, not making claims) took the malaria away. The doctors have written about it as they had blood labs done and even in the most profuse case of malaria not one parasite could be found in the blood work after three doses of 15 drops. However, 15 drops, the first ever protocol born of the malaria discovery, could not be maintained by chronic cases where they might have to stay on MMS for four weeks. So they found 3 drops, but more often, kept the dioxide in the system, but not enough to create symptoms. As I am told by two people I trust, in 3 weeks most of the AIDS and cancer patients were free of symptoms with this method. A small number of people took longer. If you think I don't know how ridiculous that sounds, well, we're on different planets. I *know* it sound ridiculous. If it weren't for the people I actually know personally who had similar results, I would not have researched to the extent I did.

It was when I saw what the missionaries were doing, plus the chemistry, plus the total absence of evidence of harm that led me to look deeper. What those missionaries are achieving should be on 60 minutes or something. It's absolutely crucial to the progress of medicine for people to at least look at this with scientific eyes, with logical eyes, not clouded by a determination not to be "wrong". I first wanted to know if and how it works in the body... no point finding out it is safe if it doesn't even work. I found studies that the gas does permeate, throughout the whole body very effectively. So then I wanted to know what byproducts it created (chlorox, for example kills via byproducts) and learned it creates benign substances, such as table salt. In the doses taken (three drops) you can imagine the tiny amount of table salt that is.

I had endometriosis, fibroids, and huge cysts on both ovaries and cysts all throughout my uterus and cervix. After I heard from my HIV+ friends, I became my own guinea pig. Indeed, my first period after taking it was pain-free, no clots, nice bright red blood... just a totally healthy period that I hadn't had in a very long time. So I went and got an ultra sound. All clear. No cysts, no free fluid, nothing. Perhaps it was a coincidence. I'm not giving my opinion on it. Just stating the correlation.

From that point on, well, things spiralled into where I am today with it. I do a lot of research. For instance, this is an old experiment I did on myself (not with MMS): http://sagaciousmama.synthasite.com/moles.php

This is a thread here at MDC I did that took much more concentration than this one, and again, I didn't do it cos I'm nuts or making money because I'm neither (well, nuts is debatable)... I love what I do. I LOVE it. I spend most of my free time learning about health and healing, I do it because it is my thing, my joy. Not all of us have ulterior motives. I don't need money, I don't want money, and I believe all people should have access to healing, just like they do in tribal cultures. I acknowledge I am a radical, I am usually the most radical in a group of extreme radicals. I know that. I just don't see the significance. All my research errs on the side of "that is crazy", and again, I don't care. Crazy thinking is what gets us out of a rut.

The missionaries are not lying to suggest they are is... well, I can't even validate the scope of such an accusation and they certainly are not faking African video footage... so that only leaves room for one thing. It still doesn't tell us if it is safe, ultimately. So you either trust the fact that people get better, not worse from it...or you don't. But if you discredit something, opinion isn't strong enough, not when it opposes all those Jesus lovin' liars in Africa. When it comes to unconscionable, ignoring the success of the work in Africa has got to take the cake. Millions of people die from malaria every year, mosquito nets are not helping the sick. If you don't believe it is working, is it that you don't trust missionaries, are you suggesting they're lying? Do you think it is a coincidence? What is it that makes anyone say "it doesn't work" with absolutely no personal experience, science, or data to suggest such a thing when all the data says it does kill malaria, in water and in the body.

*That is precisely why it is used to treat water in the first place. *

Perhaps the disbelief rests on the idea that it works externally, but not in the body. Is that the problem? Why can't people be clearer about the concerns? I fail to understand the vagueness about this.

I recognise this new and unbelievable, I realise people jump to the idea that those spreading it must be either motivated by greed or something else less altruistic. I can't prove I'm not, but I can give you the history that at least shows that I have a history of helping for nothing, that I do not get anything in return for the information I give, and that is, again, all this is.


----------



## oaktreemama (Oct 12, 2010)

I am not trying to convince you of anything Calm. I am trying to ensure that no one else believes this hoax, wastes their money, and more importantly is given false hope by charlatans and snake oil salesmen.

You seem genuine enough-but it can't and won't change the fact that I believe what you are defending so vigorously (and with so many links that have absolutely nothing to do with MMS and it's safety) is a huge fraud perpetuated on the most vulnerable amongst us.

I won't be back to this thread because your links are useless, your science isn't science at all, and your desire to help people is not served by continuing to pretend this product does anything besides make people vomit.


----------



## philomom (Sep 12, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *stik*
> 
> I'm going to be disagreeable here - I don't believe that it's peachy keen for people to promote something that causes harm just because they passionately believe it does good. Further, there is no rational reason to believe that MMS does good.
> 
> ...


Just to reiterate what's being said here... my mom sat me on the washer while she did the clothes one day. I was a toddler.. I grabbed the cup of bleach and drank it. I nearly died. I was in the hospital for days. Ingesting bleach is not a cure for anything.

If I suspected you gave your child bleach on purpose, I might call CPS to protect your child.


----------



## Bokonon (Aug 29, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *stik*
> 
> I'm going to be disagreeable here - I don't believe that it's peachy keen for people to promote something that causes harm just because they passionately believe it does good.


Couldn't the same be said for vaccines?


----------



## mbravebird (May 9, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *stik*
> 
> mbravebird, I'm sorry to hear about your father's illness. Does his doctor know he is taking MMS? Bleach really is toxic, but the effects of the toxicity are presented as "evidence" that MMS is working, so people who are desperate for hope can cling to the idea that they are being cured. Do you feel comfortable bringing this up with your father's MD?


I don't. I am in another state, and have never met his doctor, and his doctor does not seem all that competent from the few actions I've seen. He also is at a stage where the traditional doctor does not have much to offer in terms of survival rate with chemo -- the stats just don't support much benefit, and many people choose not to do chemo with stats like that, even those who aren't into alternative approaches. He just got the diagnosis last week, so it's all new. My father is applying to work with a very well-respected physician who also does nutritional cancer treatment, and plans to tell him about the MMS.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ldavis24*
> 
> edited out my inappropriate comments!
> 
> ...


Lauren, I appreciate your perspective, and am interested in what you have to say.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Calm*
> 
> Perhaps the disbelief rests on the idea that it works externally, but not in the body. Is that the problem? Why can't people be clearer about the concerns? I fail to understand the vagueness about this.


Yes, that is one of the reasons for disbelief that is rattling around in my head. I think the "different chemical processes" argument that you present is an interesting one, although I don't fully understand it yet, so can't judge if it's accurate.

My main concern and suspicion is based on the symptoms my father is having, which to me seem very similar to poison reactions. Detox or herx reactions that I've seen and worked with have never been this intense. This seems very consistent with poisoning symptoms. My father is having trouble getting the calories he needs because of these reactions, and we all know that starving won't help him. He is not even actively vomiting; he reduced his dose when that happened. But even at a low dose, his stomach almost completely shuts down, and he can't abide even small bites of food. He can only eat in the morning, after he's had a break from the MMS all night.

This study: http://www.alternative-cancer-care.com/MMS_Cancer_Study.html

is an informal study on MMS and cancer patients, and I'm not sure it has very convincing things to say, honestly. The thing that stands out the most to me is the fact that most people in the study discontinued the MMS because of the side effects. Seeing what my father is facing, I can understand that. It really does not seems like something to dismiss, and it seems a rather widespread experience, so I'd like to see some further investigating of that. I understand you are saying that no one can prove it is "safe", and that you are simply arguing that it is, rather, "not life-threatening" -- is that right? But that doesn't seem like a curious enough reaction, honestly, given the feedback that people taking MMS are giving -- which is that the "side effects" are so bad that they just can't continue taking it. Side effects of chemo are bad, too, but everyone freely admits that that's because it's a process of poisoning. If that's what's happening with MMS, I'd like it to be discussed just as openly, instead of dismissed.


----------



## stik (Dec 3, 2003)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Calm*





> You didn't read my post. The visual of someone gulping down chlorox is invaluable to your argument, in fact, it is the only thing critics have - hence it is what you will see repeated over and over and over and over and over.... but nothing substantial other than that. Chlorox is sodium hypochlorite, so you do need to distinguish between the chemistry, you cannot just say something to the effect, "all bleach is the same" because that is untrue. If you are going to state these things, you need to back them up, because there are things being stated on here that are false, and that is not helpful to people dealing with MMS in their lives, or if they know someone who is. They need the information to back up why it isn't safe, because if their relative has been sent home from hospital to die... Have you thought this through?
> 
> In an effort to kill off cancerous cells people are being pumped with all sorts of rubbish, stuff that has been proven to kill in small doses, to harm in small doses. They do this because it is life or death. Not all our decisions are made holding the hand of someone in a lab coat. Not all medicines we take have the approval of some agency with more power and money than God.
> 
> ...





> Yes, but you wouldn't gargle with chlorox, right? Not every link was to prove efficacy or to prove safety. Each one served it's own purpose.
> 
> Herxheimer reactions aren't mysterious. I personally do not know if MMS is a herx or if it is a side effect. I do know that the new protocol, which is only 3 drops per hour for 8 to 10 hours a day, does not cause it for most people and if a worsening occurs to drop the dose. The workers in Malawi discovered this method for chronic issues like AIDS and cancer. When it was malaria, a 15 drop dose was used due to the dangerous and acute nature of malaria. 15 drops (I've been told, not making claims) took the malaria away. The doctors have written about it as they had blood labs done and even in the most profuse case of malaria not one parasite could be found in the blood work after three doses of 15 drops. However, 15 drops, the first ever protocol born of the malaria discovery, could not be maintained by chronic cases where they might have to stay on MMS for four weeks. So they found 3 drops, but more often, kept the dioxide in the system, but not enough to create symptoms. As I am told by two people I trust, in 3 weeks most of the AIDS and cancer patients were free of symptoms with this method. A small number of people took longer. If you think I don't know how ridiculous that sounds, well, we're on different planets. I *know* it sound ridiculous. If it weren't for the people I actually know personally who had similar results, I would not have researched to the extent I did.
> 
> ...


 Calm, no one has done human studies on the impacts of drinking industrial solvents lately - I can't imagine they would get permission from their institutional review boards. But we don't need to study it, honestly. There are enough accounts of exposure to make the case for concerns about safety. According to the msds on ClO2 and on Sodium hypochloride (clorox), ClO2 has an LD 50 of about 292 mg/kg, and bleach has an LD50 of around 90 mL/kg (both measured through oral exposure in rats). Both substances are respiratory irritants. Both substances are surface disinfectants, as another poster has already pointed out in her extensive response to your citations. Both substances are described as hazardous if ingested. (ClO2: http://www.haloxtech.com/pdf/MSDS-Chlorinedioxide(ClO2)-540ppm.pdf, http://www.puremash.com/pdfs/MaterialDataSheetCIO2.pdf Sodium Hypochloride: http://avogadro.chem.iastate.edu/MSDS/NaOCl-6pct.htm) I'm going to continue to call both of them bleach.

I have no idea what is going on in the mouse studies you refer to. Perhaps you could provide a link?

I would have no problem pumping people full of a substance that had unfortunate side effects if that substance had been shown to offer realistic hope of improving their condition. This is why, while I understand that chemotherapy makes people feel terrible, I think it's still a sensible option for many cancer patients. My problem with MMS is that no data suggests that it cures any medical condition. The FDA consumer warning on MMS expressly addresses this. You've said that it prevents infection, and then provided links to examples of MMS preventing infection when used as a water purifier or a surface disinfectant. The data you have presented do not support ingestion as a means of curing disease.

You don't get real Herxheimer reactions unless you are recovering from a disease that produces spirochetes, like Lyme disease or syphilis. HIV does not produce spirochetes. Neither do malaria or cancers. You can get diarrhea or vomiting that people call Herxheimer reactions because they want to feel good about the alarming symptoms they are seeing. But really, that's a side effect of either treatment or disease. Again, I have no problem with a treatment for a deadly disease that causes short term diarrhea and vomiting. My issue with MMS is that this is the ONLY effect. There is no proof of MMS being an effective treatment for any disease. Neither you, Calm, nor anyone in any of your links has proposed a mechanism by which MMS would travel from the digestive system to the blood, organs, or bone marrow to act on the many conditions MMS is alleged to treat.

Video footage is not medical evidence. You can produce hours of footage of doctors treating people, and all it proves is that some people were in front of a camera. You keep mentioning that these people are missionaries. I don't care. Calling yourself a missionary does not make you a medical expert. History has plenty of examples of people calling themselves missionaries and actually being criminals and con men - two groups of people who like to call themselves missionaries because it makes people trust them.

I have no doubt of your history of wanting to help people and loving what you do. You also have a history of making bizarre claims on MDC. A couple years back, you claimed that HIV didn't cause AIDS and those symptoms in gay men were actually a result of using poppers. A few weeks ago, you claimed to have met many people over the age of 130 in your world travels (the world record for longest recorded life is 114 years). I think it's possible that you genuinely believe these things. If your belief is genuine, it doesn't make these things true.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Quote:


> but the effects of the toxicity are presented as "evidence" that MMS is working


There are many people out there with things to say on MMS and I've seen some of them present that as evidence it is working. But Jim and those who have actually worked extensively with this do not say that. The only evidence it is working is if your disease is getting better, obviously. They say that if you feel unwell, decrease the dose. If you still feel unwell, then it probably isn't something MMS can fix, such as poisoning from paint fumes and other non-pathogenic problems.

You don't know anyone who has been helped... so that means it doesn't work? I don't understand that synapse. I'm still interested in learning why you say it can't work. I understand the "is it safe?" question, but if it didn't work, the missionaries would have given up and gone home years ago. If it didn't work, everyone I know, the thousands who have written testimonies and the many not online must be delusional. That just doesn't make any sense. Mass delusion is not a solid argument. It's one thing to point to me and say that, but there are many sites out there, including the one bravebird just linked which I had not seen before, that are highly unlikely to be a bunch of fakes. There is nothing to gain from carrying this as a fake. Nothing. The whole thing can't be a massive fake or fraud, that is just invalidating so many people. Have you even met anyone who has used it, let alone successfully?

I know testimonials mean nothing to some of you. But many of them are contactable, so you can verify their testimony. And if nothing else, just reading these stories has got to soften anyone... so many people are being helped, this substance needs further studies ASAP.

Testimonials

Arrowind's list

And there is Jim's massive list, tons of other sites, my friend's personal lists and of course the people on the videos. Another friend of mine was in Haiti doing work with MMS and were held up at gunpoint and the computer stolen. They no longer go there, it is too dangerous and politically a nightmare the media avoids reporting the full extent of... but she lost a ton of data there. However, she still has testimonials.

Leo Koehof was in Africa treating with it, and wrote a book about his experience.

Many have been helped. I know that seems inconvenient to some, so much so they have to block that out as a lie, or a delusion. But it is true. I know from personal experience.

No one has been harmed. Does that stand for nothing? There have been no decent clinical trials in the west. We only have the studies showing no harm, and they are limited. We have the studies on rats, and those doing their own studies (which, if double blinds don't satisfy some, the backyard genius surely won't inspire them any). Chlorine dioxide was deemed safe to use on human food and in our water. So some studies had to be done to prove safety and limits and some of them I linked in my FAQ post.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Quote:


> Yes, that is one of the reasons for disbelief that is rattling around in my head. I think the "different chemical processes" argument that you present is an interesting one, although I don't fully understand it yet, so can't judge if it's accurate.
> 
> My main concern and suspicion is based on the symptoms my father is having, which to me seem very similar to poison reactions. Detox or herx reactions that I've seen and worked with have never been this intense. This seems very consistent with poisoning symptoms. My father is having trouble getting the calories he needs because of these reactions, and we all know that starving won't help him. He is not even actively vomiting; he reduced his dose when that happened. But even at a low dose, his stomach almost completely shuts down, and he can't abide even small bites of food. He can only eat in the morning, after he's had a break from the MMS all night.
> 
> ...


Interesting link. Worth reading.

What drop dose is he on, exactly? If he is on the old protocol, he will be on a high dose, so even if he drops it, it could be higher than the current recommended amount. My SIL was on it for a particular autoimmune disease and she climbed slowly to 3 drops over three days and felt sick after day 5 and stopped the MMS. All her symptoms came back 2 days later, which she felt were worse than the sickness so she restarted. By day three she was sick again so dropped her dose from 3 drops an hour to 1 drop an hour, was better but still had the runs so dropped it to 1 drop every two hours... that was where she felt comfortable. She was able to raise the dose after a couple of weeks and in total was off the MMS in under a month. Symptom free.

Plus, does he drink coffee, or eat much meat?


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *stik*





> Calm, no one has done human studies on the impacts of drinking industrial solvents lately


 Define lately. Because such studies have been done on chlorine dioxide. Since you asked for the rat study link, and I had already linked it in my FAQ post, I assume you missed a ton of other links also. That obviously includes the safety studies done on ClO2. They were done so it could be approved for use in human food and drinking water. They had to show limits and safety. No one approved chlorox for such use because they are different substances. Do you call lemons bleach? Or turmeric? I would think doing so would be very confusing, as calling them by their name defines what it is you are talking about, regardless of the fact that they fade things (bleach). The only reason to do so is for impact, because it confuses people unnecessarily. Which is the point, I assume.

I shall link one of them again:

Clinical tests in man

However, by the absence of detrimental physiological responses within the limits of the study, the relative safety of oral ingestion of chlorine dioxide and its metabolites, chlorite and chlorate, was demonstrated.

Quote:


> Both substances are respiratory irritants.


 So is salt. So is dust. So is ibuprofen. In fact, have you seen the side effects of ibuprofen? Here. Here is the hazardous information on citric acid (used in much cooking and found in citrus fruits). But we aren't going to snort any of those things either.

Quote:


> Both substances are surface disinfectants,


 So is orange juice. So is lavender. So is vodka. So is vinegar. Vinegar will actually strip paint. If you need to clean stains from your toilet bowl, nothing works better than vinegar. When my son's potty has sat too long with pee in it, we stick some vinegar in it... it dissolves everything in it in an hour.

Quote:


> Both substances are described as hazardous if ingested.


 They do not give the amounts, and the dose makes the poison.

Quote:


> (ClO2: http://www.haloxtech.com/pdf/MSDS-Chlorinedioxide(ClO2)-540ppm.pdf, http://www.puremash.com/pdfs/MaterialDataSheetCIO2.pdf Sodium Hypochloride: http://avogadro.chem.iastate.edu/MSDS/NaOCl-6pct.htm) I'm going to continue to call both of them bleach.


 Most substances have an industrial hazard sheet. From the links:

Quote:


> *ACUTE HEALTH EFFECTS*
> 
> *INGESTION: Not a normal route of exposure. Harmful if swallowed. Can cause irritation to mouth, *
> 
> ...


 Do you mean the part I bolded? The irritation I have personally experienced. As I cannot stand the taste, I took it in capsules, which means that the dilution recommended was not there. The capsule burst in my throat. It hurt, because pure chlorine dioxide does burn, a bit like a hot chili. Again, other ordinary substances have this effect, stuff we use in cooking... even foods. But we dilute them, or we mix them with other foods. Chlorine dioxide is now being used in mouth rinses which would not happen if everyone was getting oral and membrane burns.

Quote:


> *TOXICOLOGY INFORMATION*
> 
> ACUTE ORAL TOXICITY: No information.
> 
> ...


 ******************

Quote:


> I have no idea what is going on in the mouse studies you refer to. Perhaps you could provide a link?


*
*

*
Protective effect of low-concentration chlorine dioxide gas against influenza A virus infection.*

Quote:


> I would have no problem pumping people full of a substance that had unfortunate side effects if that substance had been shown to offer realistic hope of improving their condition.


 By "had been shown to offer realistic hope" you mean in a clinical, expensive, laboratory double blind trial. Because you do not accept the many testimonies, when doctors are even trained not to ignore testimony. It is a valid piece of evidence. Plus the videos... did you watch them? What do you say of these people, are they lying? (that is a link, btw) Is that really irrelevant? Because I strongly disagree if you think it is.

Quote:


> My problem with MMS is that no data suggests that it cures any medical condition.


 *Absence of data is not absence of cure. *

To those who aren't solely intent on discrediting MMS regardless of anything and at any cost, the absence of data is just one obstacle to the truth. It isn't the be all and end all of the whole shebang. Every medicine starts with no data.

Quote:


> The data you have presented do not support ingestion as a means of curing disease.


 I am different to you... I accept a video as evidence. So does a court of law. It helps that I know people who were actually there, I have an advantage in that regard. I don't have to choose to believe or not. It would be like your friend telling you about her trip to Africa where she helped missionaries and doctors treat malaria... you wouldn't say "oh BULLSHIT Maria! That can't be done.".

Quote:


> You don't get real Herxheimer reactions unless you are recovering from a disease that produces spirochetes, like Lyme disease or syphilis. HIV does not produce spirochetes. Neither do malaria or cancers.


 Wiki can only give you limited info, and you misread it. I'll quote it for you:

Quote:


> The Herxheimer reaction occurs when large quantities of toxins are released into the body as bacteria (*typically* spirochetes) die during antibiotic treatment.
> 
> Typically the death of these bacteria and the associated release of endotoxins occurs faster than the body can remove the toxins. It is manifested by fever, chills, headache, myalgia(muscle pain), and exacerbation of skin lesions. The intensity of the reaction reflects the intensity of inflammation present.
> 
> It is *classically* associated with syphilis. Duration in syphilis is normally only a few hours. The reaction is also seen in other diseases caused by spirochetes, such as borreliosis (Lyme disease and tick-borne relapsing fever) and leptospirosis, and in Q fever.[1] Similar reactions have also been reported to occur in bartonellosis (including cat scratch disease),[2][3] brucellosis,[4] typhoid fever,[5] and trichinosis.[6]


 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herxheimer_reaction

Note the bolded words. They are not committing to "only happens when". Trichinosis is a parasite, for instance, not a bacterium. And parasites contain viruses and bacteria of their own, it's just how life goes. When a worm dies inside you, where do you think its contents go? Exactly. Inside you.

Herx is a term used in naturopathy. It is as old as the hills. If you aren't into natural healing, you won't believe in it but then, you probably don't believe in herbs to heal either in that case. So we'll have to agree to disagree on that. At college we studied herx for weeks. You can bring it on with a fast, you can bring it on with many things actually, because as the body comes back into alignment, it will kill off pathogens on its own. And this will cause a herx. This is the natural hygienists approach to health via food, btw, to get the body to heal itself.

Quote:


> There is no proof of MMS being an effective treatment for any disease.


 testimony is proof. And like a clinical trial we are all free to reject such proof. Doesn't make it true, doesn't make it false.

Quote:


> Neither you, Calm, nor anyone in any of your links has proposed a mechanism by which MMS would travel from the digestive system to the blood, organs, or bone marrow to act on the many conditions MMS is alleged to treat.


 Yes there is, I already said there was.

There is the malaria data. Same data, but with chemistry pics.

There is Chlorine Dioxide Metabolism in Rats

In rats and chickens

rapidly absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract following the administration of (0.07 microCi) 36ClO2 orally...

After 72 hr radioactivity was highest in plasma, followed by kidney, lung, stomach, duodenum, ileum, liver, spleen, thymus, and bone marrow.

Quote:



> Video footage is not medical evidence. You can produce hours of footage of doctors treating people, and all it proves is that some people were in front of a camera. You keep mentioning that these people are missionaries. I don't care.


 At least you've admitted it. I do care about what they're doing, and the need there is for them to be doing it. While you sit there judging them, they sit holding a baby in desperate need... what would you do? Put a mosquito net over them? It's too late. They're already sick. You don't believe videos, you don't believe testimonies and we have no clinical trials yet to show it works on any disease other than flu in mice and the data some radicals are collating such as the cancer link a pp posted. Not much. I understand skepticism, I applaud it. What I do not condone, for anything, ever, not just for this, is to outright condemn it when there is even the slightest chance it is doing what it claims to.

Because look at it:

It has not done any harm when taken orally, esp at small levels.

It has been proven to be absorbed systemically and quickly.

It has proven safety at small levels orally.

It has proven efficacy against all pathogens.

It isn't some massive leap to the next step which is that it works against pathogens internally. Then the rat study show us that hey, it actually DOES work internally. You want a clinical trial to show it heals disease in humans, well, so do I. But we have what we have, and to discount it outright with those stats is premature and potentially tragic for many people it could help.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Quote:


> A few weeks ago, you claimed to have met many people over the age of 130 in your world travels (the world record for longest recorded life is 114 years).


Oldest Woman in the World about to turn 130

Now, what if I couldn't produce that evidence? That's worth thinking about. You have your data now... suddenly for you, people who are 130 exist in the world, where before you didn't see the possibility, and I was a just making wild claims. See how easy it is to be misled? How easy it is for our world view to be limited, and therefore our potential?

Do you think that all you hear in the media is all there is in the world?

Do you think that unless someone with authority tells you something, it is false?

Do you think that if someone with authority tells you something, it is true?

There are many people around the world without birth records. Esp the oldest people, because they weren't as meticulous about it in the 1800's. Esp those in remote places because they often didn't record anything at all. There are uncontacted tribes all over the world. There are millions of indigenous still living tribally. There is so much going on, that the media cannot even begin to claim to know it all. I happened to live in Japan for seven months. I met people from Okinawa who I was told were in their mid to late 120's. If I make wild claims it's probably because I've lived a wild life. I've stretched my perceptions.

As I said, I don't run with the sheep. If you find that evidence against my credibility, get in line. That ain't new thinking. The majority throwing stones at the non conformist is as old as Earth itself.


----------



## Ldavis24 (Feb 19, 2009)

mbravebird,

I appreciate your interest in my comments. Hehe as annoyed as they may get.

I'm afraid I can't continue in the discussion because at this point I have nothing more to add outside of what I have said and others have echoed.

Calm hasn't produced anything that is "evidence" of MMS curing anything.

My biggest concern is that people take it, get very ill from it poisoning them and then when they stop taking it they feel better so they must have been cured. That Calm has such a vested interest in duking it out with strangers online is suspect to me. She will explain it away but that doesn't make a difference. I think Jim Humble is nothing more than a con man and as a PP pointed out "missionary" can be a veiled cover for anything ranging from trying to convert the natives to someone "curing" people of their ailments.

Finally, I just don't see the point of arguing with someone whose claims are so all over the place, the links don't have much relevance to the claims she makes and then she just repeats that she is a good person who just wants to help people so take her at her word...How can I argue with that? This is a stranger on the internet, for every comment I or anyone else has made Calm has come up with an explanation for everything, even if it makes no sense. I'm not changing her mind anytime soon because she has a vested interest in her points. I myself won't ever be taking MMS so what do I care personally if other people what to poison themselves, which is what I think they are doing...


----------



## oaktreemama (Oct 12, 2010)

Had to come back to point out how convenient it is that all this supposed data on MMS cures is confiscated by customs and stolen at gun point.


----------



## BabySmurf (Apr 27, 2011)

This post caught my attention, so I had to give my input 

Calm this is NOT an attack against you, but I do need to point out the errors in your argument. The links you have provided in NO WAY give support the SPECIFIC claims that you have made in favor of this treatment. Yes, you have provided links that show that ClO2 can kill pathogens, and no one is arguing that. Yes, you provided a link that appears to say that treated tap water is safe to ingest...but unless you are indicating that MMS is nothing more than treated tap water, this article does not indicate in any way that this particular treatment is safe.

Personal claims and testimony in NO WAY equate to scientific evidence, and there is good reason for this. To say - no, brag - that this treatment was discovered by someone with no medical training, where the only evidence that he has to start off with is his word that it works. To use this as the basis to sell it to, as you have said millions(?) of people is dangerous and predatory. In order to get a clinical trial there needs to be evidence of how this treatment works, why this treatment works, the limits of the treatment, the dangers of the treatment, and it needs to be done in a controlled environment FOR THE SPECIFIC treatment. Finding articles that support one aspect or another DOES NOT equate to the rigorous studies that would need to be done in order to support the fact that this treatment was safe and effective. This type of procedure is set up to protect people, to ensure that the treatment does in fact work (is not a placebo effect), and to understand the toxicity and limitations. One cannot just get a grant to try a largely untested treatment in PEOPLE before proving that it is safe and effective in it's intended arena - and as I said, an uncontrolled study in personal testimony just doesn't swing it.

Just to put my two cents in, if I had to think about how this would work on a common sense level, ClO2 would appear to act kind of like chemotherapy, where you assault the body with substances that are going to work to kill cells. ClO2 attacks proteins that are also present in healthy cells, so the hope would be that since there are less "bad" cells, they would be knocked out before there was too much damage to our own bodies. Is this a fair assessment?

Just remember that science is SUPPOSED to be questioned; it has and always will, and that is why we are able to progress. It truly does throw up red flags when people rely on sensationalism to try to negate rational questions, which is what I see here. If you truly believe that this treatment is effective, then you need to welcome the questions and critique, and take them seriously. Because if the treatment is really this good, then it should stand up to all of it. I suggest trying to start from the beginning, as does anyone else with a theory on treatment, and try not to use irrelevant information because is "sounds" good. It weakens the argument.

Also, just food for thought, I can make tons of cleaning solutions and personal hygiene products for next to nothing from ingredients in my kitchen cabinet, and yet these are each multi billion dollar industries, are they not?

Calm, I really have enjoyed hearing your POV on issues here since I stumbled across this site. I hope that you can wade through the mudslinging and sensationalism and be able to focus on the facts


----------



## Panserbjorne (Sep 17, 2003)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BabySmurf*
> 
> *Just to put my two cents in, if I had to think about how this would work on a common sense level, ClO2 would appear to act kind of like chemotherapy, where you assault the body with substances that are going to work to kill cells. ClO2 attacks proteins that are also present in healthy cells, so the hope would be that since there are less "bad" cells, they would be knocked out before there was too much damage to our own bodies. Is this a fair assessment?*
> 
> ...


that's what I think too re: the bolded. And I appreciate this post-welcome to MDC!


----------



## beckybird (Mar 29, 2009)

I appreciate your work here, Calm. I have not read all of the links yet, but I will try to get to all of them throughout the next few days. This discussion is interesting, and I don't have an opinion on MMS yet since I have not read much about it. So, thanks for starting this discussion, so I can learn and decide for myself.

A few points of interest......

*Last winter, I [stupidly] took too much Sodium Ascorbate. You know, how everybody here on MDC recommends to take it to bowel tolerance, then scale back a little? Well, I took it way beyond bowel tolerance, to the point where it made me violently ill for the entire day. I threw up 3 times that day, and I hadn't felt so sick since my early 20's (when I learned that I do Not like to drink beer lol!)

So, my bad experience with SA sounds similar to a bad experience with CIO2 (although I'm sure ClO2 in a high dose would kill.) But still, I took anecdotal advice--not FDA scientific advice, much like other people here on MDC. How many of you have taken "non-scientific" natural remedy advice?

*I choose not to vaccinate my children, largely based on the thousands of stories of people who have been injured by vaccines. These reactions are not always recognized by the government, so I have to choose which side to believe. Do I believe the mom who swears her son changed after the MMR, or do I believe the gov't that says there is no proven scientific connection?

It is my choice to believe the people, the thousands of reports.

Sooooooo, this leads me to MMS. If there happens to be much more anecdotal evidence, rather than lab tested scientific proven evidence, I might take that into consideration.

But, that's just me. If there are missionaries using the stuff, videos of people healed, testimonials, etc. then I tend to believe it might actually work. Just because the FDA has not tested it as a malaria cure does not mean that it doesn't work.

To say that something cannot be a cure because it is not recognized by the mainstream medicine machine, well, that is not a valid argument in my opinion.

*Annnnnnnnd another thing. Those of you who oppose MMS, who say it is a harmful chemical, I understand completely. I just hope you realize that Sodium Fluoride is a poison as well, and has no business in our bodies, period. You know, the stuff added to our water supply, to nursery water, and toothpaste? I'm not talking about Calcium Fluoride, no. If you hate MMS so much, please add Sodium Fluoride to your list. Go on, Research it!! Help get it out of the water supply. And while you're at it, take a look at how our loving government (the one who cares so much for its citizens) recommended it to be added in the first place. That's right, industrial waste is good to drink, so your teeth will be cavity-free!


Ok, so I'll take the next few days to read the MMS links. Thank you for posting them!


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BabySmurf*
> 
> This post caught my attention, so I had to give my input
> 
> Calm this is NOT an attack against you, but I do need to point out the errors in your argument.


 I can tell a personal attack, and your post was not one of them. At this stage, absence of sarcasm or making it about me personally or assuming my "vested interests" and that kind of rudeness is most welcome.

Quote:


> The links you have provided in NO WAY give support the SPECIFIC claims that you have made in favor of this treatment.


 Which links... the science? The videos? That's subjective. Some do find it in favour of this treatment. They recognise the limitations, esp regarding clinical trials, and deal with what we do have regarding MMS. I know some suspend belief (at best) that it is even possible MMS could do that much, but for one moment, suppose it could. What drug company is going to fund a trial that has the potential to eliminate need for most of the drugs they make? This isn't some big conspiracy thing about the FDA and big pharma, its fiscal logic. What company or investor is going to invest to learn that MMS does all that and make no return on their investment? It is like finding out salt does the same thing, in fact, it is made out of salt so it is basically learning salt does all that... which means that anyone will be able to make it. It can't be patented.

I mentioned earlier about the nobel prize winners who discovered ulcers were caused by bacteria and had nothing to do with "stomach acid". I bet you can guess who put up most resistance to their discovery for 25 years... the ant-acid companies. Ant-acids were the biggest selling prescription meds in the world. They made it decidedly difficult for those two guys, they were met with derision and it wasn't all that hard to discredit because all they had to chant was "ulcers as infectious disease? That's *ridiculous*!" Which meant that for almost 30 years, people suffered, and died, unnecessarily. No one at the ant-acid company seemed to care about that of course. One of the scientists ended up infecting himself with the disease to make a point, and they were finally heard. But it would be a decade further before people were given this information, as the ant-acid companies tried to find a way to add antibiotics to their products and biotech tried to fashion a childhood vaccine for it.

That stuff happens. Lobbiests exist and are often having lunch with the agencies. My husband had dinner with a lobbiest a couple of years ago, who actually helped bring down the economy of the United States, the man admitted. The prize winners work was instrumental in stimulating research that linked many other inflammatory diseases to infection, such as Crohn's and artherosclerosis. It seems the more we look for pathogens as the cause of something, we more we find it.

Quote:


> Yes, you provided a link that appears to say that treated tap water is safe to ingest...but unless you are indicating that MMS is nothing more than treated tap water, this article does not indicate in any way that this particular treatment is safe.


 What else is it, if it isn't simply treated tap water? It was actually discovered because Jim took the sodium chlorite to the jungle with him on a trip. He got malaria, as did everyone around him. The treated bottle of stuff he realised had healed him, so he gave it to his traveling friends. They all got well. He took it to a nearby jungle community where malaria existed. They also got well. All from nothing but a bottle of treated water. All Jim did was up the dose, to make it faster. The dose isn't all that much higher than those who travel to infection places carry with them. It has been used for as long as i can personally remember to treat foreign water. Anyone who has left their own country has stuffed a sachet of sodium chlorite into their suitcase otherwise you'll get sick as a dog from any number of parasites, bacteria and fungi. It isn't rocket science, and it isn't such a big deal as this is being made out to be.

The shock isn't that he discovered it. The shock is that it took so damned long to make the synapse.

Quote:


> Personal claims and testimony in NO WAY equate to scientific evidence, and there is good reason for this


 I didn't say scientific evidence. It is, however, evidence of efficacy.

Quote:


> To say - no, brag - that this treatment was discovered by someone with no medical training, where the only evidence that he has to start off with is his word that it works. To use this as the basis to sell it to, as you have said millions(?) of people is dangerous and predatory.


 That is not what motivates me. My own success, plus my research, plus the word of two friends who have been to Haiti and Africa and the DR is what motivates me. And as i said, if your friend came to you with the same thing, you'd do the same thing. It is that simple. Just because it is potentially massive and world changing doesn't make it any less simple or true. My brothers and myself and others I know have used it for many things. You can choose not to believe our testimony, but I know what I know, and that motivates me. It makes most sense to me that a traveller discovered this, not a doctor.

Quote:


> Just to put my two cents in, if I had to think about how this would work on a common sense level, ClO2 would appear to act kind of like chemotherapy, where you assault the body with substances that are going to work to kill cells. ClO2 attacks proteins that are also present in healthy cells, so the hope would be that since there are less "bad" cells, they would be knocked out before there was too much damage to our own bodies. Is this a fair assessment?


 If you don't understand chemistry, that would make sense, yes. I wondered the same thing. But if you care to look at the chemstry, perhaps the one of how it works against malaria. Healthy cells have a different pH, and the electrons are not attracted to the oxidation. Following? In fact, one way I can tell a genuine chemist is speaking with me about this is that they ask if it will affect acid bacteria in the gut. That is a sure sign the person knows chemistry, because they've figured out that it is acid-philic, therefore, what about the acid loving beneficial bacteria in the gut, won't they be killed off with the pathogenic ones? I am, to be honest, still unsure if it can kill beneficial acidic bacteria yet, although Adam has been very good at explaining why it doesn't, on his post here. And how it cannot hurt healthy cells. I think that's the post anyway, if not, let me know. He has addressed it somewhere. But I am not totally convinced yet. There are a few things I want to know for sure as I have seen the thyroid was affected at high doses in rats... and although the dose was high, those kinds of things are important to me. I agree more testing has to be done.

Quote:


> Just remember that science is SUPPOSED to be questioned; it has and always will, and that is why we are able to progress. It truly does throw up red flags when people rely on sensationalism to try to negate rational questions, which is what I see here. If you truly believe that this treatment is effective, then you need to welcome the questions and critique, and take them seriously.


 I thought I was. I have devoted a lot of effort to give the information out here. Yet in exchange I am told that I am dedicating too much to this so therefore I must have some sick motive. I can't win.

Quote:


> Also, just food for thought, I can make tons of cleaning solutions and personal hygiene products for next to nothing from ingredients in my kitchen cabinet, and yet these are each multi billion dollar industries, are they not?


 Nothing, absolutely nothing, compares to the money being made by pharma. It is the biggest industry on earth. Each drug is worth billions, and there are... many... drugs on the market. And it isn't about making money from MMS, it is about who will lose from it. All the big companies which control most of the drugs, and are in bed with the FDA, will not get together and say, let's ditch all our drugs and just share the profits from a stabilised MMS solution. To think there isn't vested interests in shutting MMS down is naive.

Quote:


> Calm, I really have enjoyed hearing your POV on issues here since I stumbled across this site. I hope that you can wade through the mudslinging and sensationalism and be able to focus on the facts


 Thank you. And thanks for being respectful. I assume you joined due to this thread. That often happens, although usually they are debunkers from pharma companies. There are a couple of them on Adam's comments threads who admitted to working with drug companies. You do not seem to be that. To answer what you said, I am limited with my info. most of it I can only now repeat. But there is that new cancer study that another poster linked. To many, that is significant. But you can't keep harping on the clinical trial thing when there isn't one. If that is what you are looking for, then what is the point in being here? They haven't done one. So this thread is to collate what we do have. I can't give you the clinical trial you want, I didn't say there was one showing a disease being cured in humans by chlorine dioxide.

*I said I had science showing safety*. I said I had science showing efficacy against the flu and malaria internally, and other pathogens inside the body and out. I said I had evidence others are using it effectively. I said I wanted science showing harm. None is forthcoming except for hazard sheets which, as you can see yourself, actually show safety!

People keep saying the same thing when I said they haven't done clinical trials and why they haven't done them even though petitions are given regularly for them. If I had a clinical trial, wouldn't that be a done deal? Wouldn't it be all over the news? Well, actually, maybe not, because you rarely see discoveries on the news, such as the ulcer cure. But surely this would be an easier thread and its efficacy and safety would not be so easily debatable. Right? But I don't have that. But many of us don't need that... following? We'd like it, but we're suffering and therefore don't have time to wait in case they decide to do such trial. Many of us have been disappointed by the mainstream scientific method, the doctors who can't solve the simplest problems and many other reasons. we don't care about those things now, although they do help us make decisions. 2 million bottles of MMS were sold by 2007. Considering it is all word of mouth or online, there seems to be quite a few people who do not need all the details you do before making a decision to try it. There are people who have been sent home from hospital to die... do you think they care about waiting for a clinical trial?


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

I edited some things in...


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Quote:


> It is my choice to believe the people, the thousands of reports.


This is much more common than recognised. People are still, after all is said and done, empathic of other people, resonating with other people. Most people don't care a hoot about clinical trials. In these discussions those that bring up the need for trials are the majority, but in reality, they are a small minority. In fact, it wasn't until the internet made all that even known that it became fashionable to demand someone's "studies", effectively reducing the many, the majority, of science that is done without FDA approval. Shooting themselves in the foot, really.

On A Current Affair (Australia's large current affairs TV show) they had a report some years back of a man that was treating cancer with some radical device he'd made. There were absolutely no clinical trials to back it up, just some guy with his machine and *ARMY OF PEOPLE* willing to testify for him. The story created a huge interest, not just interest, but people booking in, without any need for trials or hand holding of their doctor, nada. That's how people are. They look at the evidence, whatever it may be, and they come to their own conclusions. And usually that includes "what is there to lose?" We can debate how ridiculous a treatment is is all day, and how it is "drinking bleach" but in the end, there is no one being harmed, no evidence of harm.. nothing. I just don't see all this harm that is being touted connected to it. It doesn't seem to exist. Surely if it did, the debunkers would be rolling that data out first thing. I ask for evidence of harm.... everything goes QUIET.


----------



## BabySmurf (Apr 27, 2011)

At the beginning of the thread people were asking Calm for evidence to back up the claims about MMS, and it was my perception that people were looking for scientific evidence, and Calm posted her links as such...that is my interpretation of things anyway, and why I posted what I did. Part of the reason people are looking for scientific evidence is that Calm was lamenting that there weren't any doctors taking these claims seriously. If a doctor were to treat someone based solely on these claims, and the links posted here, their license to practice would be revoked in a heartbeat! And you are right, there is a difference between saying something DOESN'T work and that there is no clinical data to SUPPORT it working. (sorry about the caps, it's just easier for me to use rather than the bold and italics  )

Here is my story about why people need to be careful of ancedotal advice:

A friend of mine desperately wanted to breastfeed her baby. When her baby was born, he reacted badly to her milk. The pediatrician told her that she could not breastfeed because the baby was allergic to it. She stopped breastfeeding that baby, and did not try to breastfeed her subsequent children because her milk was "bad". When my son was born, he reacted badly to my milk. By looking at research I was able to determine that DS was sensitive to something IN my milk, and by changing my diet I was able to continue breastfeeding without issue. Because of the research done around breastfeeding and dietary sensitivities we now know that babies aren't allergic to their mother's milk, even though they reacted to something in it.

Correlation does not mean causation.

I am absolutely supportive of and use alternative therapies, but I do my research and I make sure that research is reputable. When we choose whether or not to vaccinate our children we know the approximate frequency of problems from the CDC, that there is a population of people who perceive that they (or loved ones) have been harmed, AND how likely (or unlikely) it is to contract each particular disease. This is INFORMED consent, meaning that there is information available about the costs and benefits, and we are able to make an educated decision on what we think is best. In the case of MMS there is no information, there is only theory.

That being said, I have no reason to believe that missionaries are being malicious in working with MMS. I would think that they wholeheartedly believe that what they are doing is helping people - and they may be quite right. But we have no way to know if it's a placebo effect, if it's actually damaging internal processes, because studies have not been done. The cancer paper referred to here asks a small subset of people how they felt...they were not monitored in terms of if they followed the dosage, whether or not they were taking other treatments, and no blood work was submitted, so far as I read.

Anyway, I gotta run.....


----------



## BabySmurf (Apr 27, 2011)

i just saw your reply, but i haven't had time to read it...


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

That's very polite of you to write that. I don't see that often.









Same goes for me. Although I read yours, I haven't had time to respond. I feel I've overlooked some earlier posts also. I don't mean to, I just get swamped at home and then online... the usual stuff.


----------



## SilverMoon010 (Jul 15, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *stik*
> 
> I'm going to be disagreeable here - I don't believe that it's peachy keen for people to promote something that causes harm just because they passionately believe it does good.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bokonon*
> 
> Couldn't the same be said for vaccines?


I don't know anything about MMS and I have never heard of Jim Humble for that matter,but since this thread, I am more interested about it. I notice a lot of people are getting extremely upset with this topic and are very passionate about it, whether they believe it works or not. I am completely neutral as of right now because I know nothing about it. The sound of ingesting "bleach" is certainly not appealing to me, and even if there were studies showing how great it was, I still would certainly think twice about it and would have to research it to death. I just haven't researched it to this point, so I can't speak on it.

I apologize ahead of time as I know this thread is not about vaccines and I probably belong over there than over here, but with that said, I am having a hard time not comparing this to vaccinations. The reason being is that people die from vaccinations all of the time, or are permanently injured from them every day, but yet, how come the majority consensus is not in as much as an uproar about that? Still, we continue on our merry way vaccinating and vaccinating with no question because they are "protecting" us. They most certainly did not protect those infants/children/teens who have died from them or who are now permanently injured.

Surely you can argue the fact that you would never put any of the controversial ingredients in vaccines on a sandwhich for your child to eat, would you? Monkey kidney cells, aluminum, formaldehyde. Doesn't sound much tastier, does it? It may not be the same as ingesting but it's still floating around in the body in a toxic matter, and in fact, some vaccines are taken by mouth and nose anyway.

I do want to clarify that I do see a reason people would get upset when they hear about people ingesting "bleach" because it sounds so much more severe than vaccination, so I understand the terror in that, but vaccines have toxins too. We tend to forget that.

If there are studies showing MMS is not safe and people are dying from MMS or becoming permanently injured, then something is certainly wrong and it should be pulled immediately. I certainly agree with that. But.... why aren't we applying the same logic to vaccines?


----------



## stik (Dec 3, 2003)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SilverMoon010*
> 
> If there are studies showing MMS is not safe and people are dying from MMS or becoming permanently injured, then something is certainly wrong and it should be pulled immediately. I certainly agree with that. But.... why aren't we applying the same logic to vaccines?


Well, for one, because this isn't in the "I'm not vaccinating" forum, where I personally avoid posting because I do, in fact, vaccinate. This conversation started in the vaccination forum (rather than the INV sub-forum), and has since been moved to health and healing.

Personally, I am completely happy to inject myself and my children with some tiny quantities of things that would be dangerous in larger doses if, in doing so, I reduce the chance of my youngest child getting a VPD. She's generally healthy, but her asthma can make a plain old ear infection turn into an exciting case of pneumonia. I have no family history of reactions or allergies, and in my judgment the risks of VPDs for my family is much greater than the risk of vaccine reactions. Further, vaccine reactions are rare in the general population. Vomiting and diarrhea are common among people who drink bleach.

Likewise, as I have said several times in this thread, I have no objections to medications with unpleasant side effects IF they actually make people better. Chemotherapy and ART also cause vomiting and diarrhea. I'm OK with that, because clinical trials show that they make patients better anyway. My problem with MMS is that there is no evidence that it does all the things proponents claim it does. If you put a small quantity in contaminated water, it will prevent water-borne disease like any other disinfectant. You can also use it to disinfect hard surfaces. It won't prevent diseases that are transmitted by other vectors. It doesn't cure anything.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Quote:


> If there are studies showing MMS is not safe and people are dying from MMS or becoming permanently injured, then something is certainly wrong and it should be pulled immediately. I certainly agree with that. But.... why aren't we applying the same logic to vaccines?


I apply the same logic to vaccines. It isn't limited to vaccines though. The whole "collateral damage" thing in the drug industry is disturbing. The way we have been taught to accept that collateral damage is even more disturbing. *Medicine should not harm one in an effort to help another.* If MMS harmed people, I would seriously step back and rethink the use of it in cases other than life and death like malaria and cancer. I think in potentially fatal disease, all bets are off all radical options come into play. But people are being harmed with prescribed use of medicines. Side effects are not always acceptable, things like migraines, blood clots, death... that kind of thing cannot be accepted as simply "side effects". Those are EFFECTS, and are unacceptable.

Would you accept the brutal torture and death of one innocent child if the result was paradise on earth for everyone else? Some people would say yes, that is a totally acceptable cost and exchange. I say no. NO no NO! When you line the pockets of big pharma for their drugs, you are basically saying "I accept those terms." Only paradise on earth is not the result, and much more than one innocent is harmed.

This is how comparison with vax goes for me:

*Ability to harm*:

*Vax*: Proof of harm, masses of it. So much proof of harm, it is calculated as a percentage.

*MMS*: No proof of harm whatsoever.

*Vax*: According to science, there is little theoretical ability to harm, yet the evidence contradicts that.

*MMS*: According to science, there is little theoretical ability to harm and the evidence matches that.

*Vax*: Most children get mild sickness at the very least, with fever and other signs of body struggle and infection. We do this to newborn babies. Some children get quite sick. 
*MMS*: At the right dose, no symptoms are felt at all.

*Vax*: A very small amount die, even though supported by highly trained medical personnel throughout treatment.
*MMS*: No one dies, even though rarely supported by any medical personnel throughout treatment.

*Vax*: Chemistry has allergenic material, plus other material with questionable or proven inability to break down.

*MMS*: Non allergenic, proven to down to non-harmful products like sodium chloride. The chemistry is such that there is an inability to harm healthy cells (negatively charged).

*Ability to work*:

*Vax*: Personal experience - none.

*MMS*: Personal experience - 100% efficacy.

*Vax*: Experience with friends and family - VPD seen in a couple of fully vaccinated people, one hospitalised for VPD.

*MMS*: Experience with friends and family - 100% efficacy if treatment is completed.

*Vax*: Statistics show correlation with decrease in cases of certain VPD. 
*MMS*: There are no official statistics.

*Vax*: When an outbreak does occur, an alarming percentage of people still get the disease.

Research shows changeable data of efficacy.

*MMS*: Research is based on one rat study that concluded a 100% protection rate against influenza. Studies show exceptional ability to destroy pathogenic cells and pathogenic microorganisms (positively charged).

*Usefulness*:

*Vax*: (for me) I am not afraid of VPD as the percentage of harm and death is very low.

*MMS*: (for me) I was afraid of particular possible diseases in my family. Potential of being harmed and dying from a disease is over 90% (people rarely die peacefully in their sleep anymore). Cancer death rates are extremely high.

*Vax*: I do not find the information supporting use compelling. I find it disturbing.

*MMS*: I find the information supporting use compelling.

*Vax*: I feel confident in my ability to treat VPD without vaccines.

*MMS:* I do not feel confident in my ability to treat some diseases without MMS.

*Vax*: (for me) I have natural immunity according to blood tests yet did not get sick from any VPD as a child - usefulness for me personally is zero.
*MMS*: (for me) Several friends and family members, including myself, see correlation with MMS use and eradication of apparently "untreatable" disease. Direct and fast correlation with symptom relief. Fear of debility has been eradicated from our lives, esp as even cancer is a positively charged disease. Usefulness for me personally has been immeasurable, it has changed my life.

*Vax*: (for society) The option for natural immunity I enjoy (I did not get the sicknesses, just the immunity) is all but eradicated from my children's lives and this may be directly due to vaccination programs.

Children have less acute VPD illnesses in our culture.

Less deaths attributed to VPD due to less cases.

*MMS*: (for society) too wide a potential to describe here.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Quote:


> It doesn't cure anything.


Stik, *prove it*. If you are going to make blanket statements like this, back them up. I'll accept an anecdote, unlike yourself. Just give me one reason why you keep saying that. One. Anything.

I suggest, if you want to play on scientific ground, you use appropriate terminology so you don't end up looking rather silly, esp to those who already believe it works from personal experience (on this message board, there happens to be quite a few).

How about "I do not believe it cures anything"

Or

"There are no clinical trials showing it cures anything in humans."

Your claims are wilder than mine because at least I give evidence it doesn't hurt - you say it does but don't give evidence. I give videos, testimony and clinical trials with animals - you say it doesn't work and give no evidence for that. Face it, you have a personal gripe with this and cannot even define why you do.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

I received this email yesterday. I thought those who are interested in what is being done with MMS around the world might like to read it.

Disclaimer: I did not write this and do not claim MMS cures autism or anything else. Correlation is not evidence of cause (I've written that so many times in the past three months it seems), I just report correlation and information.

************************

*We have some more wonderful news about MMS & Autism!*

Here is a letter I received from Kerri working with children with autism. I thought you'd like to read it.

Well, the past 3 months I have been a busy girl. We visited my good friend Jim Humble the middle of February which was a dream come true. At that time I had about 130+ kids on MMS. Afterwards, we had a conference in Puerto Rico on the biomedical approaches used in recovering children from autism. Directly from Puerto Rico I went to Venezuela where everybody was very excited about MMS and the possibilities of recovering from autism with only pennies a day. While in Venezuela I was able to teach 4 doctors the protocols that I use in my clinic, and share my presentation on the use of MMS for Autism Spectrum Disorders at a conference which *750* people attended. It was a very exciting time to say the least! In the days after the conference I was able to consult *176*families on individual biomedical protocols for their children, including MMS.

Since the conference, there has been much more interest in MMS in Latin America. In particular, I have many families who I help in Spain. I guess word got out, and one of the 2 doctors treating autism in Spain contacted me and asked me to share my protocol with her. The good news is that she is going to use it. Her idea is to apply it as an antifungal for Candida. However, MMS knows no boundaries and will kill all other pathogens at the same time. So, quite frankly, it is of little consequence what she believes she is doing with it, she will be doing far more than she even knows. Combining MMS with diet and hopefully only a few supplements, this doctor should be able to recover some of her kids. Financially speaking, when doctors like her start seeing results they will in turn get more patients and more patients mean more money. So, results coupled with money are a win win situation, and in turn humanity wins as we all grow healthier.

I hope to do a free conference in Spain before year's end about the biomedical approach to recovering children with autism and autism spectrum disorders. I know that another doctor is using MMS in Italy. Maybe Europe will lead the way to getting MMS into the mainstream biomedical treatments and then the USA will follow. The doctors treating children in the USA with autism are under close watch by the FDA. Anything too "alternative" could cost someone their license. And these people have their own families to feed. So, they have to walk a very fine line. It is sad to see. Because what these special doctors want for their patients with autism whom they are trying to heal is the fastest recovery possible. And if it could be fast and inexpensive these doctors would be happy as well. Unfortunately they have such strict guidelines that it makes doing what they do difficult. Hopefully we could do a double blind study using MMS and autism. I think it would be easy to measure the difference.

On a practical note, many of the parents who have their children on MMS take MMS themselves, frequently out of a necessity to heal some immune issues. They will ask me "Can I take MMS too? I have X". I always refer to a protocol from Jim's course, and without fail within the first week I receive an email with some kind of miraculous story as to how "my fibromyalgia went away" "my husband's sense of smell came back" "my shingles went away" "my Mother's diabetes is under control". These and more stories have come from the families of a child with autism. It goes without saying that the affected child is doing much better and having all sorts of firsts of his/her own.

*At minimum there are 400+ children on the Autism Spectrum improving steadily, thanks to the help of MMS.* These are in addition to all of the other children that these doctors are seeing and treating with MMS. The total including family members could be easily above 1000. The future is bright now that many more healers/doctors have the information on MMS and the knowledge of how to use it. I believe that people like these who see many, many children are an important link that will bridge the gap between "alternative" medicine and "allopathic" medicine, finally bringing MMS to the mainstream. I hope that we have in our hands the missing piece of the autism puzzle, because it sure seems to look that way. Two more children in March lost their diagnosis from autism, which makes *a total of 5 children to lose their diagnosis since I began recommending MMS in August of 2010.* Not all have recovered. But all are better than they were, and that is a great place to start.

As for now, I receive over 100 emails a day from people using my protocol for MMS. Sometimes we increase the dose, decrease or stay the same. We do protocols that other families and I have developed that add enemas and other elements of timing for the oral administration. The newest protocol that is getting lots of attention is the 72/2. It is a dose of MMS every 2 hours for 72 hours without resting in the night time. So, one parent wakes up every two hours and administers a dose of MMS. We have seen remarkable improvements with the 72/2. Another new protocol is the 12/2. It is taking MMS for 12 days straight then resting 2 days. This way the pathogens living in the gut will expose themselves during the two day rest, and then we hit them with another 12 days of MMS. Using this method we gradually extinguish all pathogens until none remain. When we heal the gut we cure the autism. The MMS enemas have also led to marked improvements for children on the spectrum. The families doing enemas are seeing more language and in general having less conduct issues and a lessening of stereotypical behaviors. When trying these new protocols or any MMS protocols it is a good thing to work in a team situation. Someone like myself, for example or another person who has used MMS knows when and how to avoid Herxheimer's (die-off) reactions and what they look like. Many times the road to recovery is paved with discomfort, but in the end, it will have all been worth it. Autism means that your child has virus, bacteria, Candida, inflammation, heavy metals and food allergies. Allopathically speaking, you would have to take a drug store to kill all these pathogens, but will MMS, all you need is a little drop of what my husband calls "holy water" and recovery is on its way.

I think to myself that MMS and autism recovery are in their infancy together and wonder where we will be in 25 years. Will we finally, openly acknowledge what is causing the autism epidemic and stop it? Will we all use MMS to cure it? Will we all be hiding our rations of MMS from the authorities who say that we cannot use MMS? The last thought gives me the chills, *a harmless oxidizer, yet at the same time potent enough to cure autism?* It's possible to think that it might be held out of a mother's reach when she needs to heal her child from this devastation. Let's try not to let this happen, and get everyone we know on MMS. Healing humanity begins with me and begins with you. We can do it. But we need to do it together".

*Best wishes,*

*Kerri Rivera*

My website is in Spanish.
www.autismo2.com


----------



## stik (Dec 3, 2003)

Thanks for posting the latest sales email from MMS. I have seen a quite similar pitch used to sell chelation therapy. And vitamins - my MIL got sucked into MLM for vitamins and her sales emails looked like that too. Different list of conditions, but the same basic structure.

Calm, you have provided a veritable legion of links about MMS. None of them provide scientific evidence that MMS cures anything. There is no mechanism through which a single substance could treat the incredibly wide variety of ailments that you and other proponents are claiming it does. I don't need to prove that MMS doesn't work - there is no verifiable evidence suggesting that it does work.

I find the structures and patterns of scams really fascinating. I can see that you are also fascinated by evidence and detail. You might find examination of some of the more common medical scams really interesting.


----------



## oaktreemama (Oct 12, 2010)

Wow it cures autism? Along with cancer and AIDS and malaria and fibro and shingles? My God-can it raise Jesus from the dead? Has anyone told the missionaries??


----------



## Ldavis24 (Feb 19, 2009)

I can't help myself...

It was quite the stab at a convincing sales letter, I'll give it that much.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Quote:


> I don't need to prove that MMS doesn't work


If you claim it doesn't, then you do need to prove that. Of course you do. If you choose not to, then you've just given your opinion... which is fine but I did need to point that out. You seem to be claiming a scientific fact:"it can't work", when that is not scientific fact, just your opinion.

Just because no clinical trial on humans has been done yet, doesn't mean it doesn't work. It is not even suggestive that it doesn't work. Do you follow that? Is that clear, or do you need it explained another way? Not all of us understand scientific logic the first time.

I'll try it a different way... If you could find a way to prove that oxidation does not destroy pathogens... you'd have compelling evidence MMS doesn't work. If you could show science or prove in some way that oxidation or chlorine dioxide specifically does not penetrate bodily organs... again, you'd have a compelling argument. That kind of thing would be suggestive that it doesn't work, that it "can't work".

Following?

Aside from that, all you have is a substance, and it could be dog poop or cyanide it really doesn't matter what it is - the fact is, if you cannot prove it doesn't work, you cannot say it doesn't work. Not as a scientific claim, anyway. If you took a spoonful of cyanide and lived to tell the tale and found it didn't cure your disease, again, you'd have cause to say "*in my experience*, it doesn't work, and only causes harm". But you have none of that. Following how that works? Or does it still escape you?

If you want evidence based claims, why don't you start following your own requirements? Make claims you can prove. It isn't that difficult, you've made a claim it cannot work, I'd like to know how you know that. Show me how, explain to me how it cannot work.

The first person to suggest swallowing mold to kill infection was labelled nuts, too. Logic isn't reliable. What seems crazy isn't always so, and I can't go around claiming something doesn't work *when I do not know for sure*.

Quote:


> - there is no verifiable evidence suggesting that it does work.


It prevented flu deaths in 100% of mice treated, and of those on placebo 70% died. That is verifiable evidence suggesting it works. You cannot pretend that doesn't exist just because it weakens the argument that it doesn't work. Obviously, it does work... to what extent might be a clever question. Indeed.

As for all the things it has worked against, they are pathogenic. It isn't that complicated. The one thing medical science would seriously kill for is a substance that kills fungi, parasites, viruses and bacteria, all in one. Currently, they have effective treatments for most bacteria, and many fungi and some parasites. Each substance against those things kills indiscriminately (meaning good bacteria dies as well as bad) and is specific to the species and subject to the pathogen building resistance to the substance. Another limitation is how far a substance can penetrate. Antifungals are pretty weak in that area, for instance. I know when doctors treat autism as a gut fungal issue, they get no success with fluconazole but some success with nystatin. The reason is, fluconazole is readily absorbed in the upper gut, nystatin goes right through intact, killing fungus through the whole colon as it goes. These things have limitations, but they work on the same principle: they kill pathogens.


----------



## stik (Dec 3, 2003)

Thank you for explaining how you think science works. Your essay offers some interesting insight into errors in logic and how they lead to counter-factual conclusions.

I see no reason to adjust my assertion that MMS doesn't work.


----------



## oaktreemama (Oct 12, 2010)

Quote:


> It prevented flu deaths in 100% of mice treated, and of those on placebo 70% died.


MMS DID NOT DO ANY OF WHAT YOU CLAIM. Please show me where the mice drank bleach? They were exposed to a CIO2 GAS.

Quote:


> Protective effect of *low-concentration chlorine dioxide gas against influenza A virus infection*


But I like the autism email you included-way to sink to a new low in honing on desperate people.

Quote:


> This way the pathogens living in the gut will expose themselves during the two day rest, and then we hit them with another 12 days of MMS. Using this method we gradually extinguish all pathogens until none remain. ...


Quote:


> Many times the road to recovery is paved with discomfort, but in the end, it will have all been worth it.


I am really curious about this. Am I supposed to be bowled over by someone who made kids vomit and have diarrhea for days on end? Because that is how you know it is working right-that is how pathogens "expose themselves?" Paved with discomfort huh? MY GOD.

Whose agenda you are really pushing? Because it isn't an agenda that merits respect.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Quote:


> MMS DID NOT DO ANY OF WHAT YOU CLAIM. Please show me where the mice drank bleach? They were exposed to a CIO2 GAS.


Chlorine dioxide IS a gas.

Good grief.







Little of what I wrote or linked has been read or understood. The barest of basics isn't even known, and people don't even know what they're talking about. If you could get past the bleach obsession, you might be able to learn something, and help some people. You'd rather they stay suffering... now that's worth a MY GOD!

Quote:


> You mean you and your cronies made kids vomit and have diarrhea for days on end?


I have nothing to do with Kerri's work. She works with autistic kids. MMS also does not make people sick if on the right dose, but I don't know how she uses it.

You just assume people - thousands of parents and doctors and others - are lying ... because you can't believe people are getting well? Because it threatens your current comfortable world view? And that works for you, does it? Good luck with that.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Quote:


> I see no reason to adjust my assertion that MMS doesn't work.


By adding "my assertion" you DID just adjust what you had been saying. Slightly.

(although, you probably have no idea what I was even talking about, or what the difference is. Right?)


----------



## stik (Dec 3, 2003)

Calm, please don't think that I have modified my statement or beliefs in any way, or that I am now deserving of your approval or gratitude because I used the word "assert." I don't think it means what you think it means. MMS doesn't work. When I said I would not be modifying my assertion, I meant that I would not be changing my statement in any way that would imply that your assertions about MMS are correct. Because they're baloney.

Like many other substances, ClO2 can be a gas or a liquid depending on temperature. I can't recall seeing any data on freezing points, but it probably has one that can be achieved somewhere in the universe, which means it's likely a solid as well. Somewhere. The ClO2 you have been talking about is sold as a liquid. In a couple of your posts, you have acknowledged that inhalation can be very dangerous. The MSDS I linked described inhalation of high concentrations as potentially leading to pulmonary edema. I'm not interested in watching your videos - do they show ClO2 being administered via inhalation? That sounds even more dangerous than mixing high concentrations in fruit juice, so I sincerely hope not.

But let's talk more about what you said about dog poop. Because I was intrigued.

Quote:


> Aside from that, all you have is a substance, and it could be dog poop or cyanide it really doesn't matter what it is - the fact is, if you cannot prove it doesn't work, you cannot say it doesn't work. Not as a scientific claim, anyway.


In your view, what process would doctors and scientists need to carry out in order to show that dog feces are, or are not, an effective cure for cancer? In your view, what does the scientific method look like?


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *stik*
> 
> Calm, please don't think that I have modified my statement or beliefs in any way, or that I am now deserving of your approval or gratitude because I used the word "assert." I don't think it means what you think it means. MMS doesn't work. When I said I would not be modifying my assertion, I meant that I would not be changing my statement in any way that would imply that your assertions about MMS are correct. Because they're baloney.
> 
> Like many other substances, ClO2 can be a gas or a liquid depending on temperature. I can't recall seeing any data on freezing points, but it probably has one that can be achieved somewhere in the universe, which means it's likely a solid as well. Somewhere. The ClO2 you have been talking about is sold as a liquid. In a couple of your posts, you have acknowledged that inhalation can be very dangerous. The MSDS I linked described inhalation of high concentrations as potentially leading to pulmonary edema. I'm not interested in watching your videos - do they show ClO2 being administered via inhalation? That sounds even more dangerous than mixing high concentrations in fruit juice, so I sincerely hope not.


It is a gas. As I said before, it would serve you well to stop stating things as facts when you aren't sure of what you are talking about. Feeling sure about something is not the same as knowing it. Like when you said, "ClO2 is sold as a liquid". No it isn't. It is not sold at all. You make it. You buy sodium chlorite, which is a salt. Water is added. You add an acid (usually citric acid). This creates a gas: chlorine dioxide. You put it into a glass of water. You drink the gas, which is captured in the water. I guess you could compare it to drinking carbonated water... the carbon dioxide is a gas, but you drink it. This place has a mediocre description of the process:

"To make active chlorine dioxide, an acid is mixed with chlorite, which slowly releases the gas. The gas is then captured in a solution or gel. This reaction normally requires high acidity (low pH). Frontier, however, has patented a method of speeding the release of chlorine dioxide at mild acidity (closer to neutral pH). The resulting product is then optimized for use on the body." http://www.frontierpharm.com/dioxicare-system.php

You do not inhale chlorine dioxide.

For me, when my sinuses acted up while staying in a moldy caravan one time, I took a capsule of ClO2 and burped out of my nose (if you know what I mean, kind of pushed the burp out of the nose instead of mouth) and this pushed enough of the gas into my sinuses. Immediately my nose started running all the goop out and then suddenly my sinuses were totally clear. I then left a bowl of ClO2 on the floor to kill the mold in the room, and left it shut up for an hour. I don't see the difference between what it did in my nose and what it did in the caravan. They're both just space that contained mold and ClO2 killed it. Pity the caravan couldn't make mucus like my body did and just push the rubbish out.









I figured you did not watch the videos. In fact, I am all but completely sure those three or four of you here staunchly against it have not watched the videos or opened many links. It makes sense, because if you looked at the videos, you risk emotionally connecting to the reality of this. For you, this is just a debate, and these people are hypothetical or liars. But they are real. Real people, who had malaria, and now don't have malaria. They are alive, when they were dying. You risk seeing that if you watch those videos.

I specifically requested that all the information be read, watched and understood before commenting, due to knowing if it wasn't, this kind of dragging on and misinformation would just go on and on. Here it is again, please learn about chlorine dioxide how it works inside and out of the body before commenting. You're digging the hole ever deeper for yourself unnecessarily. Coming in and just saying "don't swallow bleach" shows you do not know enough about this to advise a person one way or another.

You can't just make stuff up! You can't make assumptions and lay claims based on a hunch... that is not credible.

I have given information as I know it to be, from my experiences, and with links. If something is my opinion, I stated that. If something was a claim made by another, or a testimony, or whatever it was, I stated it.

You have given nothing but misleading hyperbole, fearful propaganda and incorrect statements. Either you want to learn about this, or you just want to throw mud on it. If you want to learn about it, I am happy to help you, I will answer any questions to the best of my ability. But you are not demonstrating a desire to learn. You refuse to even engage in a meaningful way.

I am curious though... how did you dismiss this as not working without even looking at the videos? Like, WOW. That's intense. Would you find it hard to look at their faces and then tell me they're lying? Look at this little girl... goddammit, look at her... they are not lying. It's so hurtful to me when you say they are. I can't see the point. I know I have to accept this closed stubborn refusal to believe me or open to the obvious potential but I won't pretend I understand it. Isn't there a better angle than "oh they're all just lying"? I suppose that little girl's mother sells MMS. Yes, that's it, she's trying to scam you.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Quote:


> When I said I would not be modifying my assertion, I meant that I would not be changing my statement *in any way that would imply that your assertions about MMS are correct*. Because they're baloney.


Something just dawned on me. Are you afraid of saying "I believe it doesn't work" because that sounds less powerful than "it doesn't work"? What I bolded in the quote above seems like you are afraid that if you admit that there is no proof it doesn't work, that means you're saying it does work? Allow me to relieve your mind: it doesn't mean you're saying it works. It's just being brave enough to acknowledge you have no proof for your belief.

Lack of evidence it works doesn't mean it doesn't work, but likewise, lack of evidence it doesn't work doesn't mean it does.

We both lack the evidence we need to show what we want to show.

Quote:


> In your view, what process would doctors and scientists need to carry out in order to show that dog feces are, or are not, an effective cure for cancer? In your view, what does the scientific method look like?


Considering some of the things you've said in this thread, I think the question is: what does the scientific method look like in your view? I'm sure it would be very interesting.

Unfortunately, it isn't subjective, our views of it are irrelevant.

Steps of the Scientific Method

The steps of the scientific method are to:




*Ask a Question*



*Do Background Research*



*Construct a Hypothesis*



*Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment*



*Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion*



*Communicate Your Results*


That's a crude definition, but workable for a basic understanding. Figure out for yourself how you'd prove dog poop cures cancer or doesn't. Formulate your hypothesis, and go from there. For poop curing cancer, I put my money on the hypothesis remaining unproved... but maybe poop contains some enzyme or bacteria that does all kinds of wonderful things... you'll never know unless you have the guts to move past the first step. I guess that's one of the differences b/w you and I... I see possibilities and you, well, you just see poop.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)




----------



## cynthia mosher (Aug 20, 1999)

This thread is once again seeing inappropriate posting. If you cannot post in discussion of the topic without making sarcastically insulting remarks, your access to this forum will be removed.

oaktreemama and stik - this applies particularly to you both. Please edit your posts to remove the rude sarcasm and accusations of scam. You may then continue this discussion respectfully or you will lose your posting privileges.


----------



## BabySmurf (Apr 27, 2011)

Calm, I truly appreciate that you have responded to each of my points, but regrettably I just don't have the time to reply to everything. I'll try to keep the rest of my posts short enough 

Quote:



> I didn't say scientific evidence. It is, however, evidence of efficacy.
> 
> Basically, this was all I was trying to establish, in a more organized way without a personal attack on you
> 
> ...


----------



## mamakay (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Calm*





> It prevented flu deaths in 100% of mice treated, and of those on placebo 70% died. That is verifiable evidence suggesting it works. You cannot pretend that doesn't exist just because it weakens the argument that it doesn't work. Obviously, it does work... to what extent might be a clever question. Indeed.


The mice weren't treated; the air they were breathing was, and the gas apparently inactivated the virus and prevented infection. So that's pretty good evidence that it might/probably works as an air disinfectant. This is a completely different thing from curing an already established infectious disease.

What do you consider to be the highest-quality evidence demonstrating that it is effective in curing an already-established disease?


----------



## WildKingdom (Mar 26, 2008)

Calm, I would like you to present one, just one feasible way that MMS can cure conditions as disparate as cancer, AIDS, malaria, fibroids and ovarian cysts, and autism.

And I would beg all those reading this to remember- when something appears to be too good to be true, it usually is.

Also, the onus is not on "skeptics" to prove that MMS is ineffective and unsafe. You are the one making wildly improbably claims about it. The onus is on you to prove that it is safe and effective.


----------



## SleeplessMommy (Jul 16, 2005)

Calm, if you are going to claim "cure" of HIV/AIDS, cancer and autism, you need to provide peer reviewed studies. The ball is in your court to PROVE the treatment cures the disease (or alters the brain in the cause of autism). Even some links to PLOS will help to make your case.

There is significant potential for harm in the use of alternative treatments ONLY when effective conventional treatments exist. Christine Maggiore's daughter was HIV infected at birth, for example, when Maggiore refused AZT. Her daughter would likely be alive and HIV-negative today had it not been for Maggiore's choice to avoid conventional medicine.

Additionally, it would be helpful for you to provide a proposed mechanism of action. We all understand how bleach (airborne) kills the flu virus on surfaces in the right concentration. But how does it kill HIV-infected cells without killing non-infected cells? How does it "cure cancer"? How does it also re-wire a child's brain so that child becomes neurotypical?


----------



## Ldavis24 (Feb 19, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SleeplessMommy*
> 
> Calm, if you are going to claim "cure" of HIV/AIDS, cancer and autism, you need to provide peer reviewed studies. The ball is in your court to PROVE the treatment cures the disease (or alters the brain in the cause of autism). Even some links to PLOS will help to make your case.
> 
> ...


I think the short answer to the bolded is that it doesn't. Period. Someone saying it does means little considering anyone can say, well anything. An email from "someone" singing the praises of it is about as trustworthy as the emails I get claiming bracelets will make me live 20 years longer.

To the larger question of evidence... Well I think that question has already been answered by the lack of actual evidence provided (yes I looked at all the links) and the links that are provided rarely have anything to do with the idea of "curing" anything.


----------



## Marnica (Oct 4, 2008)

I again reserve judgement pertaining specifically to MMS because I dont know enough about it to make one.

I did want to say however that this demand for PROOF that MMS does what it is claims to do and is safe to ingest (while I understand the need and desire for proof) is something to think about. The FDA approves drugs all the time on an "accelerated basis" based on preliminary indications that a drug MAY help an illness. In fact, there have been dozens of cases where that actually hasn't been the case at all and the FDA allows the drug to remain on the market even though it DOESN"T HELP or in some cases have never done the follow up studies they promised to do. So there are drugs on the market whose clinical benefit has never actually been established or worse yet remain on the market despite evidence that it is not effective.

I do appreciate that these drugs have had preliminary trials that suggest safety and efficay (ie there has been SOME study even if minimal) - but that is not the kind of proof that seems to be being demanded here.


----------



## Ldavis24 (Feb 19, 2009)

I guess my issue is that if you are going to claim you have something that cures AIDS, Cancer, Autism, Malaria and a host of other ailments you better have some damn good evidence of it. Which there isn't so it is more than a little frustrating.


----------



## WildKingdom (Mar 26, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Marnica*
> 
> I again reserve judgement pertaining specifically to MMS because I dont know enough about it to make one.
> 
> ...


 I wouldn't say the FDA does this "all the time." It's actually a pretty rare situation for that to happen. At the very least, the drugs will have had successful Phase I and Phase II trials, and usually have at least some Phase III trials where there is some efficacy shown in humans. There's nothing "preliminary" about that. What the FDA will not do is approve something based on internet testimonials.

Calm has not produced any data supporting safety and efficacy. She wants us to prove to it is unsafe. Sorry, that's not how it works.

I think the double standard is quite amazing. I see people in the vax forum all the time demanding MORE SAFETY STUDIES. More studies of vaxed versus unvaxed. There are thousands of studies done already, but people want more, more, more. Yet, Calm wants us to accept that a known irritant is safe for ingestion, just on her say-so and that of some random people on youtube.

OK. Ummmmm...no.


----------



## Marnica (Oct 4, 2008)

Lauren I hear you and to a certain extent I totally agree. However I guess my point is that everything we put in our bodies has the potential to help, harm or do nothing or a combination of those. All any 1 person can do is learn all they can about certain things and then make their own calculated decision.

When there is a lack of evidence either way, that makes that choice all the more risky. I guess my beef is is that the FDA - the very agency that is supposed to gather evidence of efficacy and/or safety/harm fails miserably at doing so. - but thats a whole other thread!

All I know is that clinical experience should count for something (not saying that is something calm has). I have used natural and alternative "snakeoils" to cure various ailments in myself and my family over the years. Some of these things have been around for hundreds of years and natural practioners have been using them forever - there may not be any acceptable clinical trials demonstrating efficacy and safety - but the fact that a substance has been around for hundreds of years means something to me. I guess it would mean enough that I would risk trying it. I do however appreciate that MMS has probably not been being rountinely ingested for hundreds of years


----------



## Marnica (Oct 4, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WildKingdom*
> 
> I wouldn't say the FDA does this "all the time." It's actually a pretty rare situation for that to happen. At the very least, the drugs will have had successful Phase I and Phase II trials, and usually have at least some Phase III trials where there is some efficacy shown in humans. There's nothing "preliminary" about that. What the FDA will not do is approve something based on internet testimonials.
> 
> ...


Well I guess what you feel is rare - is not so rare to me. Perhaps "'all the time" suggests a daily occurrence and I shouldn't have used the term so loosely. I guess I should say it is done far more routinely than I am comfortable with.


----------



## Ldavis24 (Feb 19, 2009)

I hear ya Marnica.. I am nothing if not skeptical by nature..


----------



## mamakay (Apr 8, 2005)

I honestly can't think of a single drug the FDA's approved in recent years that was approved based on the sort of anecdotal non-evidence that's used to promote MMS.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BabySmurf*
> 
> I am curious about the selectivity of ClO2, and I hope to read more on that. In the article you posted above there was mention of how this treatment helped put back into balance oxygen levels...how do you feel about the current antioxidant craze then? I have been sort of weirded out by all of the "antioxidant rich" stuff on the market lately. And quite frankly all of the fish oil and multivitamin stuff in general. I just bought a book by Nick Lane called Oxygen, and it goes into the delicate balance of O2 in the atmosphere and our bodies. I haven't read it yet, but I know from reviews that he goes into how all of the antioxidant stuff can actually disrupt our systems.
> 
> I'm also curious about how ClO2 behaves with heavy metals. I believe you posted something about it, but I haven't had a chance to look much into it yet.


Hi BabySmurf... you're one of my favourite posters.

Again, I can't produce a clinical trial proving it pulls out heavy metals (and certain toxic substances) from the human body. What I can do is much the same as I have been doing here, which is giving information so those with their thinking caps on can figure it out for themselves, contact and verify and basically further their own learning and research. I can show MMS does oxidise heavy metals scientifically, in water, and in the various other ways oxidation works against heavy metals. It does not chelate, oxidation is a different process. Much like its disinfection ability, it is easy to show this particular effect in use in various ways, but just not inside the body.

The other piece of information I have is the before and after hair analysis. Before MMS, hair analysis shows heavy metal levels and after MMS the metals are decreased or gone. There have been urine tests done for this also, but I have no links for that myself and would have to do a search. I'm not sure who would put their urine tests on the internet but at curezone and other sites some do things like that as it is helpful when particular alternative treatments have no formal studies and people rely on each other's reporting and results.

I'm not on my own computer at the moment, and have no links.

Regarding antioxidants, it always felt wrong to me to wage such war against such an important element of our health - oxygen. Most people think oxygen's effects are limited to breathing, but that is so far from the truth. There are many uses of oxygen in the body such as oxidation against pathogens. I understand the chemistry of free radicals. But what seems to have happened is we've found a bunch of really effective vitamins and herbs and put their actions down as simply antioxidant. They do serve this function (hence why vitamin C for instance must be avoided while on oxidant therapy) but it is far from the only function they serve.

The best argument I've seen against the antioxidant craze was in the book Cancer: Cause, Cure and Coverup by Ron Gdanski.

I'm not against antioxidant therapy. But I am concerned that people think oxidation is an unnatural process in the body, when in fact it is used constantly... so if your body needs help with the byproducts of oxidation, the problem probably should be addressed from the angle of: why is my body oxidising so damned much? What is it trying to fight or remove? There are tests to see how much oxidation is going on in your body, often measuring elevated lipid peroxides in the urine... and this is supposed to tell us if you need more antioxidants or not. That's a pretty limited way of viewing increased oxidation activity. And by limiting treatment of increased oxidation to simply supporting the antioxidant effect is overlooking the cause of the oxidation to begin with. Ignoring cause is a hallmark of modern medicine and most at MDC recognise that anyway.

I don't know if antioxidants can disrupt our systems, but I haven't read that book so I'm open to learning what angle he plays on it. Because most antioxidants are regular foods, herbs and vitamins... is he suggesting we can have too much of those, based on their antioxidant effects? Oxygen therapies are old as the hills. Peroxide used to be used internally until everyone got flibberty about it and it is relegated to the "disinfectant" realm, holding its many other purposes secret. Again, you don't go and swallow a bottle of peroxide, but in drop amounts, people have had amazing success. Personally, I use it as a mouth rinse and also found it removes moles topically but I haven't done that particular oxygen/oxidation therapy internally. I do love my DMSO! (dimethylsulph*oxide*) I take that internally, and it leaves me smelling of oysters. That has scientific studies to back it, too - for use in strokes, arthritis, cancer and many other things. Yet, it is an industrial solvent... silly doctors probably haven't been told you can't use an industrial substance internally.









At least the antioxidant craze has served to get people taking certain vitamins and herbs they ordinarily wouldn't take, based on thinking antioxidation is what they need above all else... the substances don't care what you take them for, they'll do their work regardless.


----------



## WildKingdom (Mar 26, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Marnica*
> 
> Well I guess what you feel is rare - is not so rare to me. Perhaps "'all the time" suggests a daily occurrence and I shouldn't have used the term so loosely. I guess I should say it is done far more routinely than I am comfortable with.


Here's a link to the FDA fast track info: http://www.fda.gov/forconsumers/byaudience/forpatientadvocates/speedingaccesstoimportantnewtherapies/ucm128291.htm

Drugs get fast-tracked about 9 times a year. They go through the same approval process and trials as everything else- the FDA review period is just accelerated.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WildKingdom*
> 
> Calm, I would like you to present one, just one feasible way that MMS can cure conditions as disparate as cancer, AIDS, malaria, fibroids and ovarian cysts, and autism.
> 
> ...


I recognise the onus is on anyone who makes a statement to back that statement up however they can. Hence, when Stik made her statement, I asked her why it couldn't work. I think anyone who reads that would also think, well, why can't it work, what chemistry suggests it can't work? That's a totally different statement to "I don't believe it can work", because if she doesn't know for sure, how can she say it doesn't work? I would have thought you'd follow what I'm saying there. I'm not exchanging my need to prove for hers, I'm asking for hers also, following? Why all the problem with showing me evidence it cannot work in the body. I can show evidence for why dog poop (to go with this lovely theme) does not work... it is digested and is not assimilated in the form of dog poop... if you were to eat it (gak... I'm no longer enjoying this analogy







). Ok, chlorox, since it's such a favourite here. You say "chlorox cures stubborn closed mindedness"

and I say, "hey, I wish, buuuut, that can't work, that sounds too far fetched you're going to have to give me some evidence to back that up. If the risk didn't outweigh the benefit, I'd just try it, but that sounds dangerous."

You say, "you say it can't work, that's making a claim of fact, can you back that up, and I'll go and get my studies to show it can work."

I say, "Here is my evidence it cannot work... see here where it shows you that sodium hypochlorite is actually altered during digestion and metabolised into ABC and XYZ and these are not absorbed so they not only have no efficacy on the stubborn closed mindedness organ, but they can also cause liver failure."

You say, "well, all I have is anecdotal evidence and studies showing its affect against pathogens... but you have just proven that it cannot actually work internally, so I will go and do further research to figure out why people are getting positive effect, or if it is placebo, or if the whole thing is actually a scam."

That's how ideally I would like to see a mature evaluation and critique. I'm not asking for people to automatically agree and say "great", but if you make a claim that something cannot work, then I'd like to know why... that is significant claim and should be provable. if it isn't, it would be rejected from a reasonable debate as conjecture. In a friendly (ideally







) discussion on a non-science forum, then opinion doesn't really need to be backed up or anything... but I did want to point out that it was opinion, conjecture, NOT FACT.

I have to go, but I'll address the rest when I can.


----------



## Bokonon (Aug 29, 2009)

Is this the same stuff we're talking about? Because it came highly recommended in Backpacker Magazine.

http://www.rei.com/product/736897/potable-aqua-chlorine-dioxide-tablets-package-of-20


----------



## pers (Jun 29, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bokonon*
> 
> Is this the same stuff we're talking about? Because it came highly recommended in Backpacker Magazine.
> 
> http://www.rei.com/product/736897/potable-aqua-chlorine-dioxide-tablets-package-of-20


Yes. But it is being recommended to kill pathogens in water from streams and such, which is an appropriate use for it. As discussed previously in this thread, it is an effective disinfectant for water, surfaces, and even air. It is used in some places to treat municipal water. This is considered safe because of how diluted it is, MMS is a much higher concentration. It does kill bacteria and viruses, but that is no reason to think it can do so inside the human body without harming healthy cells any more than drinking Lysol or any other disinfectant would. Nor is it any better a cure than lysol for AIDS, malaria, cancer, autism, basically every malady every suffered by man or woman, etc.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bokonon*
> 
> Is this the same stuff we're talking about? Because it came highly recommended in Backpacker Magazine.
> 
> http://www.rei.com/product/736897/potable-aqua-chlorine-dioxide-tablets-package-of-20


Yes. I mentioned travelers use it. They've been using it for a very long time. That is why Jim Humble had some, as he was in the jungle. Some people make it too strong, so it has been drunk by travellers for years.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pers*
> 
> Yes. But it is being recommended to kill pathogens in water from streams and such, which is an appropriate use for it. As discussed previously in this thread, it is an effective disinfectant for water, surfaces, and even air. It is used in some places to treat municipal water. This is considered safe because of how diluted it is, MMS is a much higher concentration. It does kill bacteria and viruses, but that is no reason to think it can do so inside the human body without harming healthy cells any more than drinking Lysol or any other disinfectant would. Nor is it any better a cure than lysol for AIDS, malaria, cancer, autism, basically every malady every suffered by man or woman, etc.


I linked the chemistry showing the levels of *tested* safety for ingesting chlorine dioxide. I also linked the lethal dose level, which seems to vary from 300 to greater than 10000mg/kg. That is substantially higher than caffeine and aspirin. Do you know how much chlorine dioxide is recommended in one quart of water to kill all the pathogens? Did you know vinegar is a disinfectant? What amount of vinegar can you drink before you "harm healthy cells".

Are you aware that not all chemicals are the same, even if they all share a similar action, eg, "disinfectant"?


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Quote:

Calm, I would like you to present one, just one feasible way that MMS can cure conditions as disparate as cancer, AIDS, malaria, fibroids and ovarian cysts, and autism.

In a word: microbes. It oxidises microbes internally, just as it does externally. It isn't that wild a claim. Proof it enters all body tissues has been established so we can't say it is a huge leap to the conclusion that it also kills microbes in those areas of the body that it reaches. That matches the overwhelming anecdotal evidence.

But because that needs more than that, I'll give some background, although I don't hold any hope in altering your thinking which is possibly based in years/decades of a particular approach. I will assume the first thing that came to your mind is that not all those things listed are microbial. Koch's postulates are responsible for why you think that, but more on that later...

Research DMSO. That will help open the door to a whole new world of viewing disease. DMSO helps so many things, and is proven to do so... yet they are all so different.

Another thing to think about is... what if it was 1995, and I told you an antibiotic/oxidiser/any other anti-bug could cure a stomach ulcer. You'd reasonably ask how on earth is that possible... but only because in 1995 _you didn't have all the information necessary_ to understand why it is possible. That information is: _*bacteria*_ causes stomach ulcers. What seemed a ridiculous link becomes common sense now.

Those who use anti-microbial treatments have found their atherosclerosis and Crohn's disease was going away. How on EARTH could that be possible, the doctors all demanded to know, then promptly rejected the anecdotal evidence in puffed up disgust. Only to learn years later that research has discovered both those things are caused by microorganisms. Oops, that was a bit of a silly knee jerk reaction to dismiss anecdotal evidence of such an extensive nature simply because they didn't know what caused those diseases. I would think that not knowing what causes them was a prerequisite for being ready and open to the possibilities of what MIGHT cause them. Yet, oddly, this is so often not the case. It's so doggedly like, "We don't know what causes ABC but it isn't THAT."

Further reading:

Crohn's disease research: http://www.crohns.org/research/index.htm

Nobel Prize dot org Press Release 2005: http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2005/press.html

"Many diseases in humans such as Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, rheumatoid arthritis and atherosclerosis are due to chronic inflammation. The discovery that one of the most common diseases of mankind, peptic ulcer disease, has a microbial cause, has stimulated the search for microbes as possible causes of other chronic inflammatory conditions....The discovery of Helicobacter pylori has led to an increased understanding of the connection between chronic infection, inflammation and cancer."

One of the fundamental differences between orthodox medicine and naturopathy is orthodox medicine follows Koch's postulate.

*Koch's postulates are:*




The microorganism must be found in abundance in all organisms suffering from the disease, but should not be found in healthy organisms.



The microorganism must be isolated from a diseased organism and grown in pure culture.



The cultured microorganism should cause disease when introduced into a healthy organism.



The microorganism must be reisolated from the inoculated, diseased experimental host and identified as being identical to the original specific causative agent.


Note point 3. _The cultured microorganism should cause disease when introduced into a healthy organism_. All experiments done in the early 1900's to prove microbes cause particular diseases could not make that postulate stick. Koch's postulates have caused untold damage to humanity and held back medical progress in massive ways. There are so many diseases that could be easily treated if medicine would just recognise they are microbial, but this postulate is a necessary test to pass, so how on earth are those diseases ever to be recognised as microbial? And then there is point 1, _not found in healthy organisms_... again, this renders things like candida as a cause impossible, because candida is found in healthy subjects.

One stumbling block is that some of the microbes responsible for these diseases are present in most or all human systems... such as candida and H. pylori and mycobacterium. You cannot test for candida for instance, because it is present in all human beings. A test can only show there is _perhaps_ an overgrowth. If you have vaginal thrush and get a blood or stool test for candida, it will show negative... but the woman sure as hell knows she has candida, and an antifungal or douche of yoghurt cures the infection. So "tests" for microbes are all but useless if those microbes are naturally part of our flora. If that woman has thrush, she almost certainly has it in her gut also but she gets no treatment for that because the doctor will find no evidence of overgrowth. Antibiotics cause thrush so often that a vaginal cream is often given at the same time these days "for the vaginal thrush". What about the colon thrush?

From the Crohn's link above:

In the early 1900's, the disease we call today "Crohn's disease" was characterized as an infectious disease, specifically intestinal tuberculosis. However, by the early 1930's, definitive classification (proof) that this disease was infectious was not forthcoming. More specifically, when Dr. Burrill B. Crohn failed to prove an infectious cause in 1932, the disease became formally known as "Crohn's disease" (named after Dr. Crohn) and the search for an infectious cause was largely discontinued.

H. Pylori, the bacterium responsible for the stomach ulcers, is considered normal stomach flora because up to 80% of people have it, and only 20% of people actually get disease from it. The question researchers are _finally_ asking is why do some people get attacked by these microbes? Previously, they didn't even acknowledge they existed, and naturopaths world over were "quacks" for treating them as microbial... regardless of the anecdotal evidence people were getting cured.

Things are moving back to where we were before Koch's postulates halted medical progress. Back then, we discovered a bunch of diseases were caused by infection that passed the postulates and so much medical progress was made. Infection was the biggest scourge of mankind 100 years ago and lo and behold, it turns out they are STILL the biggest scourge of mankind, we just couldn't prove it due to postulates. You cannot prove stomach ulcers with Koch's postulates very easily, because the stomach acid will kill of most via the oral route, and the immune system of a healthy subject will fight off an injected route. Koch's is great for things like measles and influenza, but *not all microbes behave that way.*

Koch split all disease into two groups: *infectious microbial* or *non-microbial*. Naturopaths simply acknowledge a third type: non-infectious microbial, or put another way: non-contagious microbial.

The whole concept that the "body just turns on itself" is guess work by ortho med, and is as ridiculous as it sounds. They don't know what causes so many issues because of the limiting tests they've put to researchers to pass like Koch's, so they just put it all down to genetics or "well, it just happens sometimes". "oh, you have inflammation? You need an anti-inflammatory". That is just unacceptable in naturopathy. Naming the symptoms, ie, you have _inflammation_ (flame/heat), you have _diabetes_ (sweet urine) is stating the obvious and tells us nothing of the cause. We go to a doctor and tell them what we have and in exchange they... tell us what we have only using different language. This is called a "diagnosis". I find the whole thing strange. Naming and treating the symptoms is not good enough.

Somehow, the font just changed.

I love that so many diseases are coming out as microbial, because that lends weight to the way those diseases have been treated alternatively for millennia. Considering Europe is just about to pass a law that makes it illegal to buy supplements or herbs unless prescribed by a doctor and the supp has passed rigorous and prohibitively expensive testing... that kind of validation is needed ASAP before our health freedoms are stomped further.

I know, you don't believe those diseases are microbial, and all I can say is... watch it unfold. Stomach ulcers, Crohn's, inflammatory conditions... so many have already proven microbial or so close to proven it can't be dismissed any longer. It really is a matter of time before all the dots are joined on so many other conditions and in the meantime, alternative practitioners are having what is considered "miraculous" success with things when it really is very simple: kill the bugs! The biggest single contribution to medicine we could possibly find right now is a substance that safely and effectively kills pathogens on all spectrums, be it viral, bacterial, parasitic... whatever. Esp the mycobacteria because they are seriously ugly guys and at the root of so much. Is MMS that substance? I don't know. The evidence as I see it seems to suggest it has the best potential. But if it isn't, something with that kind of broad spectrum power has got to come out soon.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Remember:

*There is no evidence of harm - even after millions of uses.*

*There is evidence of safety taken orally - more specific data is required.*

*There is anecdotal evidence it works.*

*There is scientific evidence it permeates the entire system even to the bone marrow.*

I don't know how anyone can look at the bare facts of that and not see what I see.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Quote:

What do you consider to be the highest-quality evidence demonstrating that it is effective in curing an already-established disease?

For me personally, it would be my personal successes, and those of clients/friends. After that it would be friend's reports from Africa... they blew my mind, I wanted to run out on the street shouting at everyone. I was warned I'd be considered crazy and a liar and that things have to go at a certain pace through certain hoops but I didn't care. Those little babies, I couldn't get them out of my mind... I couldn't believe people wouldn't at least imagine the potential, and support furthering the research. To battle the army of greed this faces, we will need the majority of people basically picketing the streets, demanding the lid be lifted and studies be done. Yet... I've been disillusioned, people won't budge. It is so depressing, so disheartening, I wish I could afford to send everyone to see it work in person... we need to move this so those poor sick children can have that parasite oxidised out of them. Or at least get some wormwood to them, but NO ONE is telling the public these things. People still think malaria is incurable. It's sick. *Wormwood has a proven 100% success rate against malaria*.

Wormwood against malaria, wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemisia_annua#Malaria_treatment

More info on wormwood against malaria in Africa: http://african-restoration.info/Proof.html

Drug companies know they can't make it worth their while to bottle an herb, not when any ol' hippy herbal company could become serious competition, so they isolate the parts of the herb that work and bottle that. They've always done this. For instance, aspirin was synthesised from the herb meadowsweet. The problem with this method is, herbs contain complex buffers... nature knows best. Man just screws things up. Meadowsweet will work in the same ways as aspirin but won't give you the same side effects. Drug companies have extensive wormwood plantations in Africa and Vietnam but they don't sell wormwood... which has worked for millennia against parasites (hence it's name). They isolate the assumed effective chemicals and sell that. And in some of them, they even add other chemicals to make it patentable. I assume at some point they will synthesise the chemicals responsible in wormwood and it will become unrecongisable as an herb, and its humble herbal origins with be forgotten and disrespected, like aspirin.

I know that isn't MMS, but it is necessary to know what is going on out there. It ain't roses and sunshine. Millions die unnecessarily from malaria every year, most of them kids. Now you know just how unnecessary those deaths are. It's shameful.


----------



## Ldavis24 (Feb 19, 2009)

It has been proven that a mosquito net is one of the most effective ways of preventing Malaria. 10 bucks for the net and a whole family is protected. I personally would suggest that before encouraging people to poison themselves.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ldavis24*
> 
> It has been proven that a mosquito net is one of the most effective ways of preventing Malaria. 10 bucks for the net and a whole family is protected. I personally would suggest that before encouraging people to poison themselves.


Mosquito nets would not have helped this girl. They would not have helped these people.

They were already sick.

MMS did help them, according to their own testimonies. You can only call them liars or assume it is placebo.

Vaccination is encouraged around here yet that has killed people! MMS hasn't even one death attributed to it.

I am not encouraging anyone to do anything.

I happen to believe the missionaries. I happen to believe my clients and friends who work with MMS. I'm sharing their stories and sharing info. What is done with it is up to the reader.


----------



## Ldavis24 (Feb 19, 2009)

yes a woman did die and i don't call extreme vomiting and diarrhea "no harm" especially when afterward they still have the disease they were trying to cure, but hey thats just me... your stance on "harm" has been made abundantly clear.

nak


----------



## treeoflife3 (Nov 14, 2008)

yeah, a simple google search shows that MMS has killed. Whether or not your belief that it'll work at curing all this stuff is true, you won't get far if you state false information that is very easily looked up.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Quote:


> you won't get far if you state false information that is very easily looked up.


Right back atcha.

The woman you are referring to did not die from MMS. It was dismissed from court. It could not be linked to MMS. Read the reports a little closer.

There has not been any death attributable to MMS. Sorry if that inconveniences the "poison" argument.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

And yanno, even if there was a death, really, or ten deaths, or a hundred... that is but a drop in the ocean compared to things sitting in your medicine chest right now. Things you've probably given your children. Did those deaths influence your decision to buy those products?


----------



## Bokonon (Aug 29, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ldavis24*
> 
> yes a woman did die and i don't call extreme vomiting and diarrhea "no harm" especially when afterward they still have the disease they were trying to cure


Sounds like chemo.


----------



## treeoflife3 (Nov 14, 2008)

you mean my lavender EO and netti pot?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Calm*
> 
> And yanno, even if there was a death, really, or ten deaths, or a hundred... that is but a drop in the ocean compared to things sitting in your medicine chest right now. Things you've probably given your children. Did those deaths influence your decision to buy those products?


----------



## Ldavis24 (Feb 19, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *treeoflife3*
> 
> you mean my lavender EO and netti pot?


eucalyptus oil, garlic and ginger in my house...

there is a massive difference between herbs roots used in small quantities to alleviate symptoms and telling people to drink a poison when it doesn't cure them...and yes it sounds "like" chemo except that it doesn't cure anything, it just makes people ill.


----------



## WildKingdom (Mar 26, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bokonon*
> 
> Sounds like chemo.


You mean chemo can't cure cancer? Shit, don't tell that to my mom, now 10 years post-chemo for breast cancer with no sign of recurrence. Don't tell it to my 3 patients who survived childhood ALL more than 15 years ago thanks to chemo. Don't tell that to my 2 patients who had their stage IV testicular cancer CURED by chemo. Don't tell my patient who had her Wilm's tumor cured at age 4, who just went on to deliver a healthy baby girl at age 28.

Your comparison stinks.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *treeoflife3*
> 
> you mean my lavender EO and netti pot?


You don't have any tylenol in your house? No drugs at all? Me either, but we're pretty rare. What I was referring to, as you know, is that drugs do kill people, a lot of people, but that doesn't seem to bother anyone. But if MMS is shown to kill someone it would be a big "SEE! It's lethal!" It doesn't kill anyone, yet apparently it is poisonous (even though people show absolutely no understanding of the chemistry) and all those drugs are just fine.

And that I have to explain all of the things I mean is incredible.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WildKingdom*
> 
> You mean chemo can't cure cancer? Shit, don't tell that to my mom, now 10 years post-chemo for breast cancer with no sign of recurrence. Don't tell it to my 3 patients who survived childhood ALL more than 15 years ago thanks to chemo. Don't tell that to my 2 patients who had their stage IV testicular cancer CURED by chemo. Don't tell my patient who had her Wilm's tumor cured at age 4, who just went on to deliver a healthy baby girl at age 28.
> 
> Your comparison stinks.


That's great you know people who have survived chemo. But 7 cures as a testimony from a doctor is about right. 3% is the statistics for chemo success. The rest of them who use chemo and die a painfully horrible death from it,... well, for them, Bokonon's comparison is absolutely spot on to what the PP described.


----------



## WildKingdom (Mar 26, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Calm*
> 
> That's great you know people who have survived chemo. But 7 cures as a testimony from a doctor is about right. 3% is the statistics for chemo success. The rest of them who use chemo and die a painfully horrible death from it,... well, for them, Bokonon's comparison is absolutely spot on to what the PP described.


Last time you said 5%. Now you say 3%. And I ask, where are you finding these statistics? The cure rate for testicular cancer is 90%. That includes cancer with mets. The cure rate for ALL is 80%. Cure rate for stage 2 breast cancer is 74%. Cure rate for stage 3 is 67%. The rates for colon cancer are similar to breast cancer.

Yes, for some cancers the cure rate is pretty dismal. Pancreatic, ovarian, glioblastoma, for example.

However, your claim of a 3% success rate is flat out wrong.


----------



## Bokonon (Aug 29, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WildKingdom*
> 
> You mean chemo can't cure cancer? Shit, don't tell that to my mom, now 10 years post-chemo for breast cancer with no sign of recurrence. Don't tell it to my 3 patients who survived childhood ALL more than 15 years ago thanks to chemo. Don't tell that to my 2 patients who had their stage IV testicular cancer CURED by chemo. Don't tell my patient who had her Wilm's tumor cured at age 4, who just went on to deliver a healthy baby girl at age 28.
> 
> Your comparison stinks.


Well, you can't tell it to my dad, maternal grandfather, or paternal grandmother, because they all died of cancer despite extensive chemo and radiation. Seriously, you don't know ANY cancer patients who weren't "cured" by chemo?

And if chemo cures, then isn't the vomiting and diarrhea worth it? If MMS works, wouldn't vomiting and diarrhea be a small price to pay?


----------



## treeoflife3 (Nov 14, 2008)

People aren't concerned that it might hurt people... people are concerned that people will get hurt and/or die from something that DOESN'T WORK. There is a difference. A couple anecdotal stories about MMS working doesn't mean it actually works... correlation does not equal causation, but a bunch of people getting extremely sick from it in hopes that it works but ends up not doing anything other than making them extremely sick is quite a big problem. I'm willing to suffer if in the long run it will make me better... I'm not willing to suffer just because something might have worked for a couple people or might have been taken at just the right time to make it seem like it worked.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Calm*
> 
> You don't have any tylenol in your house? No drugs at all? Me either, but we're pretty rare. What I was referring to, as you know, is that drugs do kill people, a lot of people, but that doesn't seem to bother anyone. But if MMS is shown to kill someone it would be a big "SEE! It's lethal!" It doesn't kill anyone, yet apparently it is poisonous (even though people show absolutely no understanding of the chemistry) and all those drugs are just fine.
> 
> And that I have to explain all of the things I mean is incredible.


----------



## Bokonon (Aug 29, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *treeoflife3*
> 
> People aren't concerned that it might hurt people... people are concerned that people will get hurt and/or die from something that DOESN'T WORK. There is a difference. A couple anecdotal stories about MMS working doesn't mean it actually works... correlation does not equal causation, but a bunch of people getting extremely sick from it in hopes that it works but ends up not doing anything other than making them extremely sick is quite a big problem. I'm willing to suffer if in the long run it will make me better... I'm not willing to suffer just because something might have worked for a couple people or might have been taken at just the right time to make it seem like it worked.


When my father was dying from cancer over a couple of years, very painfully I might add, if someone had told him that there was a small chance that drinking Clorox would make him feel better, he would have done it, and I would have supported him. If it killed him, then that probably would have just sped up the inevitable, which was him losing his dignity, his mental capacity, and any comfort he had once remembered. Instead, he died alone, after his first night in hospice care after he got so weak that my mother couldn't care for him at home anymore. Dying from drinking bleach would have been an improvement over the hell he went through for those two years, and especially the last few months.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WildKingdom*
> 
> Last time you said 5%. Now you say 3%. And I ask, where are you finding these statistics? The cure rate for testicular cancer is 90%. That includes cancer with mets. The cure rate for ALL is 80%. Cure rate for stage 2 breast cancer is 74%. Cure rate for stage 3 is 67%. The rates for colon cancer are similar to breast cancer.
> 
> ...


I already posted the link. The overall rate of chemo success is actually less than 3%, if you want to get particular.

http://fiocco59.altervista.org/ALLEGATI/MORGAN.PDF

excerpt: http://healyourselfathomefl.health.officelive.com/HEALTHPROBLEM_CANCER_ChemotherapySuccessRates.aspx


----------



## mamakay (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:


> "What do you consider to be the highest-quality evidence demonstrating that it is effective in curing an already-established disease?"
> 
> For me personally, it would be my personal successes, and those of clients/friends. After that it would be friend's reports from Africa... they blew my mind


Do you understand why case reports are near the bottom of the evidence based medicine pyramid?

There are testimonials saying that all kinds of stuff works:

http://www.realvoodoos.com/voodoo-testimonials.html

Quote:


> *Wormwood has a proven 100% success rate against malaria*.


No, it doesn't.

http://www.tropicalmedandhygienejrnl.net/article/S0035-9203%2804%2900011-2/abstract

_____________________

I see you didn't comment on the animal study where CIO2 cleared the air of flu before it was transmitted. Now, I'm sure you're not intentionally misrepresenting the content of these studies you're posting, so you must have just made a mistake or two.

Are you now aware of the fact that there aren't even any animal studies showing that CIO2 has any curative effect on any disease whatsoever?


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

double


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Look, the safety of MMS is established for the dose level. It is less than 10% of a 0.001% concentration.

I know you won't read these links, but, sigh, tperhaps you'd like to read through some patents that have been applied for on uses against AIDS and various other pathogens IN THE BLOOD and the papers establish safety to such body tissue.

Patent # 4944920 Novel Method to Treat Blood: http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/4944920/fulltext.html

Patent # 4971760 Novel Method for *Disinfecting Red Blood Cells*, blood platelets, blood plasma, optical corneas and sclera: http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/4971760/fulltext.html

Patent # 5211912 Method for disinfecting red blood cells blood products and corneas: http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5211912/fulltext.html

Patent # *5,185,371 methods for disinfecting red blood cells *http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5185371.PN.&OS=PN/5185371&RS=PN/5185371

At least open ONE of them, and learn the amounts used and WHY it is considered safe to body tissue. Pretty please.


----------



## mamakay (Apr 8, 2005)

I could patent a special preparation of cat pee as a cure for diabetes, and that wouldn't mean it works.

Regardless, in vitro results rarely translate into therapies useful in vivo.


----------



## treeoflife3 (Nov 14, 2008)

and if he was okay with the risk of dying after being told the effectiveness of MMS was only anecdotal and possibly only a correlation rather than a true cure, then I'd fully support him doing it. He made a choice with the truth.

I have a problem with people getting sick due to lies about there being so many studies and proof that it totally works, that it actually caused the cure and not understanding that there is a real risk with potentially no positive results (unless, like your father, they considered death a positive result to how they were currently living.) I don't want to suffer based off lies and I don't think anyone else should have to either.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bokonon*
> 
> When my father was dying from cancer over a couple of years, very painfully I might add, if someone had told him that there was a small chance that drinking Clorox would make him feel better, he would have done it, and I would have supported him. If it killed him, then that probably would have just sped up the inevitable, which was him losing his dignity, his mental capacity, and any comfort he had once remembered. Instead, he died alone, after his first night in hospice care after he got so weak that my mother couldn't care for him at home anymore. Dying from drinking bleach would have been an improvement over the hell he went through for those two years, and especially the last few months.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mamakay*
> 
> No, it doesn't.
> 
> ...


Yes it does. I can go and cherry pick a study that doesn't show 100% success rate, too. But some do show 100% and close to 100%.

Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemisia_annua#Malaria_treatment

Three days after treatment, 133 (100%) of the evaluable patients in the CGP56697 group and 128 (93%) of the evaluable children in the P/S group were free of parasites.

http://www.drugs.com/npp/sweet-wormwood.html

The isolated chemical from wormwood with another chemical is used 100% successfully in Ethiopia currently: http://www.ocha-eth.org/Reports/downloadable/FocusonEthiopiaApril2005.pdf

Quote:


> In 1972, scientists in the West called this crystalline compound "qinghaosu" or "artemisinin". Since then, studies in China and Vietnam have confirmed that artemisinin is a highly effective compound with close to 100 percent response rate for treating malaria. It has the ability to destroy the malaria parasite by releasing high doses of free radicals that attack the cell membrane of the parasite in the presence of high iron concentration. In fact, over one million malaria patients have been cured via this method. Their symptoms also subsided in a matter of days.


 http://www.drlam.com/articles/Artemisinin.asp

Most cite a "close to" 100% success rate, such as this, which is substantially higher than the study you linked:

http://knol.google.com/k/anonymous/artemisinin-and-malaria/2f2g2eph3nt7q/1#

This paper has all kinds of interesting things about wormwood. Such as its use with DMSO, where skin cancers fell off in 5 days with the use of DMSO and wormwood topically.

How strange, since cancer and malaria are apparently so *unrelated*.

I can't find my links to the vietnam trials, which showed 100% cure rate. When I do, I'll post them.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mamakay*
> 
> I could patent a special preparation of cat pee as a cure for diabetes, and that wouldn't mean it works.
> 
> Regardless, in vitro results rarely translate into therapies useful in vivo.


Hence why I trusted your brain to read the literature which is rather extensive adn explains WHY it is safe... which is why I linked it. For evidence of SAFETY, not efficacy. Don't confuse them. They need to be dealt with as separate issues, because they are separate issues. Does it work? Is it safe? Two different issues, following? And I clearly stated I was showing evidence of SAFETY, as everyone keeps calling it poison, which is fine if that turns them on... but they should at least educate themselves on what exactly it is they are calling poison.

It can be used on body cells, SAFELY.

Does it work when they do that? Well, many patent applications seem to think so, and something tells me they would know better than you.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

MMS, even in much stronger dilutions, will not harm bugs in your garden or the plants themselves if you spray it on them. Clorox will kill bugs on your plants, and the plants themselves. That is because there is chlorine in clorox.

I assume that confuses people unfamiliar with chemistry. But it is a significant thing to grasp if you want to get deep into this.


----------



## mamakay (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:


> Wiki:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemisia_annua#Malaria_treatment
> 
> ...


This is getting off topic, but both of your legit links talk about PHARMACEUTICALS that use wormwood as a COMPONENT. That said, against milder cases of malaria, "pure" wormwood is really effective, and against complicated cases, it's still fairly effective.

ETA:

And actually, I was even wrong about the effectiveness of pure wormwood, because Artemether is also a pharmaceutical derived from something that's derived from something in wormwood. It's very, very un-natchurul and processed.


----------



## mamakay (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Calm*
> 
> Look, the safety of MMS is established for the dose level. It is less than 10% of a 0.001% concentration.
> 
> ...


A couple of them say:

Quote:


> A sterilizing solution is prepared from, e.g., a commercially available disinfectant (such as LD.RTM. of Alcide Corporation) *containing primarily lactic acid and sodium chlorite.* Normal saline solution is used as diluent instead of distilled water. The blood constituent or cornea or sclera is exposed to the disinfectant for a time sufficient to inactivate or reduce the infectivity of disease agents. The normal-saline environment prevents or deters hemolysis of the red blood cells or damage to the corneal or scleral epithelium or endothelium, disruption of the platelets, or denaturation of the proteins. The *blood cells or platelets (or both), or the cornea or sclera (or both) are then washed with normal saline solution until the disinfectant concentration is insignificant.*


1) that's not even CIO2

2) even if it were, they *wash the disinfectant out* with saline before the virus-free blood is considered safe for humans.


----------



## Annie Mac (Dec 30, 2009)

OK, coming out of lurkdom. I'd like to address the chemo success rates. This is a fantastic example of making the numbers dance to the tune you want them to. I found this page & chart:

http://cancerfighter.wordpress.com/2008/10/01/chemotherapy-statistics/

This page is claiming "that chemotherapy has an average 5-year survival success rate of just over 2 percent for ALL cancers!" But then they give you the handy dandy chart so you can see for yourself. If you look at the breakdowns, on some cancers it performs WAY better. Hodgkins is just over 40%, which is pretty damn good. Testis is close behind at 37%. But when you take all the cancers, and all the percentages and average them all out, it comes out to just over 2%. The numbers do not in any way accurately represent the page author's claim of "2% for ALL cancers!" For whatever reason, this author would like you to believe that if you have cancer, any cancer, all cancer, chemo will give you a 2% chance of survival. Period. If you had, say, stomach cancer, and your doctor wanted to do chemo right off the bat, you'd be right to question that course of treatment. But if you had stomach cancer, and had tried everything and nothing was working, may as well give it a go. Maybe you'll be in that 1.7%.

I know that's not about MMS, but it bugs me when numbers are manipulated in a misleading manner.

As for the MMS, I guess it comes down to whether you put your faith in the scientific method or whether you are fine accepting anecdotal evidence. For me, I go for the former. It may be flawed, but to my thinking it's the most objective method we've got going. But each to their own.


----------



## WildKingdom (Mar 26, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Calm*
> 
> I already posted the link. The overall rate of chemo success is actually less than 3%, if you want to get particular.





> http://fiocco59.altervista.org/ALLEGATI/MORGAN.PDF
> 
> excerpt: http://healyourselfathomefl.health.officelive.com/HEALTHPROBLEM_CANCER_ChemotherapySuccessRates.aspx


I highly suggest you read the complete text of the paper. I don't think it says what you think it's saying. Make sure you read the part about how they exclude hematologic malignancies from their data set.


----------



## mamakay (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Calm*
> 
> Look, the safety of MMS is established for the dose level. It is less than 10% of a 0.001% concentration.


Are you saying the concentration of CIO2 in MMS is similar to the (safe) level of CIO2 sometimes used in disinfected drinking water?


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

AnnieMac and WK, even if you add in rare cancer, the success rate would have to be quite high for it to push up the overall rate of 2.1%. Most people, including doctors I've spoken to about this, quote a 5% success rate, and I feel that is being generous as you can see.

Clinical Oncology published those numbers, so they feel it is relevant to know overall chemo success rates. For many of the cancers, the overall rate is higher than the specific rate (such as stomach cancer, which has a 0.7%, btw).

In Hodgkin's and testicular cancer, the rates are 38 and 42% respectively. It is those two cancers alone that bring the statistics up to 2.1%. If it weren't for those two, can you imagine what the total stats would be? More like 1%! So although I know what you're saying, that those two cancers respond more favourably to chemo... however you are missing the point. The fact is, chemo, as a treatment for cancer, fails for 97% of people with cancer.

Chemo has a sad, pitiful, awful, miserable, low low low rate of "success" and that is statistically verifiable. It also has a high rate of harm and death. But doctors recommend chemo to patients, regardless of those two facts. It's disturbing, but I do understand it because what else are they supposed to say? "You have cancer and treatment for it will make you so sick you will wish you were dead and it will probably fail anyway so just go home and die." I don't think so. But they are offering chemo because _it is the best they have_. It is better than nothing, esp for inoperable or systemic cancer. It may be the best American med has to offer with gov't approval in many cases, but that doesn't mean it is the best there IS to offer.

Do most doctors know of wormwood as an option? Probably not. Or if they did, are they even allowed to apply it? Probably not. Yet it showed 100% success rate against breast cancer and close to 100% on many other cancers. (google Lai and Singh on scholar) Tumor specific (didn't harm healthy cells) and minimal side effects. Again... why these things aren't used is beyond me, why they aren't on the news... I don't understand. I mean, they can make patentable products with these things, they either isolate the chemical from the plant (in this case, artemisinin) or make a synthetic one (I'm not a fan of that in any way).

If not wormwood, what about cesium... with studies like these:

Quote:



> Tests have been carried out on over 30 humans. In each case the tumor masses disappeared.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6522424?dopt=Abstract

Or raising the pH in general, which destroys a tumour. A tumour is a microenvironment, it alters the pH (they are acidic), they are hypoxic (low oxygen), even the way it metabolises alters... it goes from respiration to *fermentation* (yes, just like a FUNGUS), they accumulate iron at a high rate (yes, just like a PARASITE).

All of those things can be used against a tumour cell if you've got any kind of creativity or inspiration. Which many researchers do have. They oxygenate the cells, the hypoxic cells die and it also switches it back to respiration.

The way malaria is destroyed by wormwood is the same way a cancer cell is - via the way both accumulate excessive iron.

Quote:


> Malaria is a parasite (Plasmodium) that infects the iron-rich red blood cell and accumulates iron. While the body avidly shields iron in a bound-up state (hemoglobin, enzymes, etc.), excess iron accumulates in the parasite, and the accumulation allows some iron to spill out of the bound state and become free. When the artemisinin products contact the iron - boom! A huge burst of free radicals is unleashed, virtually blowing up the cell harboring the free iron and destroying the parasite


http://www.springboard4health.com/store/artemisinin.html

To save me time, if you need further evidence of the iron connection go to google scholar.

If you've been paying attention, you've probably guessed that wormwood has uses beyond these two diseases also, all the proven microbial diseases and those that have yet to be proven as microbial. There is that link again, of a substance that works against disparate diseases. It is originally a Chinese herbal remedy with use over thousands of years against all kinds of things.

So these things aren't all that "off topic" really. To fully appreciate why oxidation could work against many things, it is helpful to study other treatments that also do that.

ETA - arteminisin is the active chemical in wormwood against parasites.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mamakay*
> 
> Are you saying the concentration of CIO2 in MMS is similar to the (safe) level of CIO2 sometimes used in disinfected drinking water?


I'm not sure what levels are recommended in drinking water. I know that 1 drop (15mg chlorine dioxide) treats 1 liter of water when you travel. That is about 4 drops per gallon. 3 drops is an MMS dose, which is apparently in the system an hour or so as the gas is used up fast. So I would assume from that it is higher than the dose used to treat water.

The patents relied on the fact that at concentrations below 0.001%, ClO2 is isotonic - cannot harm red blood cells. All uses of MMS are concentrations *below 10%* of 0.001% concentration.


----------



## Ldavis24 (Feb 19, 2009)

hmm still reading this thread with interest.

I had no idea that Wikipedia was now a respected source for information about medical topics...Who knew..

I also love how anyone who disagrees with MMS as the panacea of all panaceas just "doesn't understand the chemistry"...I had no idea that not agreeing with a certain poster made you completely ignorant of science in general. Finally Calm, why do you continuously cherry pick which questions you want to answer while ignoring some big ones that apparently aren't jiving with the claims you are making. The questions you ignore are the ones that are hard for you to answe because MMS doesn't really do what you want us to believe it does. I don't understand why you keep posting link after link that has little to do with MMS itself...studies about water disinfection, a gas killing pathogens in the air and suddenly that means MMS cures CANCER, AIDS, MALARIA, AUTISM and a host of other ailments...The Autism claim being the most insulting to me having worked with kiddos with Autism and nannied for a very sweet boy who was borderline but was diagnosed as an Aspie.

To those of you continually pointing out the flaws in Calm's arguments I would simply say, don't waste your time as upsetting and frustrating as it might be...


----------



## Annie Mac (Dec 30, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Calm*





> AnnieMac and WK, even if you add in rare cancer, the success rate would have to be quite high for it to push up the overall rate of 2.1%. Most people, including doctors I've spoken to about this, quote a 5% success rate, and I feel that is being generous as you can see.
> 
> Clinical Oncology published those numbers, so they feel it is relevant to know overall chemo success rates. For many of the cancers, the overall rate is higher than the specific rate (such as stomach cancer, which has a 0.7%, btw).
> 
> ...


No. That's not true. That's taking the numbers and making them say something that's not representative of the situation. Your statement leads people to believe that of all people, with all kinds of cancer, who undergo chemo, only 3 percent have any success with it. And that's just not true. You can't just lump all the cancers together like that and make a blanket statement. Different cancers, different ballgame. It's this very type of math that will lead me to doubt everything else you're saying. You can keep standing behind the math, but it's just number manipulation. It doesn't mean anything to average all the different kinds of cancers together. It's like, OK, I live in a very rainy climate where it is often necessary to lime the soil to bring it back into a desirable pH level. So if I went all over the world, all different types of soils, and limed them all, I'd kill a lot of soil and create some serious growing problems. This is because not everywhere has the same conditions and same soil to begin with. If I then averaged out all the success vs failure rates of all these different soils/grasses, I'd come up with a very low number. But that doesn't change the fact that where I live, the soil here benefits at a very high rate from being limed. And there's very little point in averaging out all the lime failure rates and holding it up as the gold standard of lime efficiency.


----------



## mamakay (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:


> Do most doctors know of wormwood as an option? Probably not. Or if they did, are they even allowed to apply it? Probably not. Yet it showed 100% success rate against breast cancer and close to 100% on many other cancers. (google Lai and Singh on scholar)


Woah, woah...

Wormwood is 100% effective against breast cancer? Can I get a link to the original research?

That is a really extraordinary claim.

Also, do you now acknowledge that your claim about wormwood being 100% effective against malaria is false? (we might need to start a wormwood spinoff thread.)


----------



## mamakay (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Calm*
> 
> I'm not sure what levels are recommended in drinking water. I know that 1 drop (15mg chlorine dioxide) treats 1 liter of water when you travel. That is about 4 drops per gallon. 3 drops is an MMS dose, which is apparently in the system an hour or so as the gas is used up fast. So I would assume from that it is higher than the dose used to treat water.
> 
> The patents relied on the fact that at concentrations below 0.001%, ClO2 is isotonic - cannot harm red blood cells. All uses of MMS are concentrations *below 10%* of 0.001% concentration.


Why are you saying "patents" (plural)? You linked to 4 patents, and only one of them mentioned CIO2. Perhaps you're just trying to keep us on our toes?


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Annie Mac*
> 
> No. That's not true. That's taking the numbers and making them say something that's not representative of the situation. Your statement leads people to believe that of all people, with all kinds of cancer, who undergo chemo, only 3 percent have any success with it. And that's just not true. You can't just lump all the cancers together like that and make a blanket statement. Different cancers, different ballgame. It's this very type of math that will lead me to doubt everything else you're saying. You can keep standing behind the math, but it's just number manipulation. It doesn't mean anything to average all the different kinds of cancers together. It's like, OK, I live in a very rainy climate where it is often necessary to lime the soil to bring it back into a desirable pH level. So if I went all over the world, all different types of soils, and limed them all, I'd kill a lot of soil and create some serious growing problems. This is because not everywhere has the same conditions and same soil to begin with. If I then averaged out all the success vs failure rates of all these different soils/grasses, I'd come up with a very low number. But that doesn't change the fact that where I live, the soil here benefits at a very high rate from being limed. And there's very little point in averaging out all the lime failure rates and holding it up as the gold standard of lime efficiency.


When people keep saying mms just makes you sick and you don't even get a benefit from it, it was compared to chemo and that is a fair comparison based on the MMS beliefs here of sickness vs efficacy. I brought out the numbers to prove that chemo has a proven low rate of success because a doctor suggested it is a decent method of treatment and didn't believe me when I quoted the actual percentage. The rest is for you to sort out, because oncology shares my belief that knowing an overall rate of success is worth knowing.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ldavis24*
> 
> hmm still reading this thread with interest.
> 
> ...


I say they don't understand the chemistry because they don't understand the chemistry. There are many who have disagreed with it in the past who have demonstrated an understanding of chemistry. They ask different questions, usually based on chemistry. People trained in science tend to ask questions, not make statements... it's a basic fundamental of learning but esp in science. I've four subjects left to complete my health science degree, I'm currently preparing for an exam, actually. I get into many online and offline science debates, esp regarding health. They are nothing like this one, and that's the kindest way I can put it.

And let me tell you something about frustrating... frustrating is discussing a scientific topic with people who know little to nothing about science, who have one word as their argument point (bleach) and don't seem to read or understand the information.

ETA - if I have overlooked a question or answered it ineffectively, just let me know. There is really no need to make it out as though I'm being intentionally difficult. I'm doing my best here. I also know that for those in this discussion, there is no opening your eyes to what this is doing unless CNN, the AMA or the FDA tells you so.... so sometimes finding the motivation to bother isn't forthcoming.


----------



## oaktreemama (Oct 12, 2010)

Quote:


> I also know that for those in this discussion, there is no opening your eyes to what this is doing unless CNN, the AMA or the FDA tells you so


Oh goodness-you have finally broken out the tired "it's because we are part of the establishment that we don't understand" card. I am surprised you didn't accuse us of being part of big pHARMa.

It isn't that I blindly believe CNN or the FDA-it is that I DON'T believe anything you say and the more you post the less I believe and the less impressed I am.

And that autism email actually made me feel ill. You backpeddled pretty quickly I noticed-claiming you have no connection to that group-so I simply can't understand why you would have posted it at all. It is the equivalent of forwarding a snopes.com known scam.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mamakay*
> 
> A couple of them say:
> 
> ...


There are many posts, it is difficult to keep on top of them.

Sodium chlorite is MMS. When you buy it you buy sodium chlorite. When you make it with salt, you turn sodium chloride into sodium chlorite. If you continue to read past the abstact, you will see they say it is what they prepare the disinfectant with. Further in the patent disclosure, you would have found:

Quote:


> 8. A method for disinfecting red blood cells from HIV-1 virus, without harming said red blood cells, which comprises:
> 
> a. contacting said red blood cells with a disinfectant, said disinfectant consisting essentially of an isotonic solution of chlorine dioxide in normal saline in an amount sufficient to inactivate HIV-1 virus present;
> 
> ...


If my posts were read, even the boring long ones, in fact especially the boring long ones, you will have already known that. I explained in detail how you make chlorine dioxide from sodium chlorite. Specifically, this post.

Chlorine dioxide comes in direct contact with the very cells people are suggesting they cannot do without harming them. The chemistry is such that it cannot harm healthy human cells and it has been difficult for me to find a way to demonstrate that in a way that people might understand and since the actual chemistry pages didn't do it I thought the explanations in the patents would.

In 12 years of use in the way MMS is used, there has been no evidence of damage to the body.

The doctors who are working with chlorine dioxide (often outside the States) had to first go through the chemistry themselves. It isn't something even all scientists know. Each substance is different and is a whole process of learning on its own. But when they learn the chemistry, they see it doesn't harm, that it can't harm, it doesn't have the strength. Put it against a tissue cell, such as a blood cell, and it cannot harm it (such as described in the patents). But a malaria parasite for instance, it has a different charge on the cell, and straight away the dioxides rip the parasite open... it cannot do that to healthy cells. Healthy cells carry a different charge.

Ack. This has become too difficult for me to explain because it shouldn't be up to me to teach science here. I've given the links. Do a google. Make an effort. If this really inspires you, and if for even a moment you'd hate to imagine the idea that this works and could perhaps deny many people relief from their suffering... then this shouldn't be all that difficult to research. Many doctors and scientists have come before you and accepted it could work after extensive research (not just looking for the easy way out of someone handing them a ready-made clinical trial, MUCH comes before a clinical trial even starts), and learned it was safe so they tentatively tried it with patients. One doctor even went to Africa and did extensive testing and wrote a book on it. (ask if you'd like the link to the book) Another woman has a book full of testimonials and other info.

You can say any of us could write a bunch of bollocks and sell it as a book, but that first requires that you call them liars. Which is a big step to take, because that is implying fraud. The doctors have photos and data to support the work they did. Really, to say this doesn't work is not just implying Jim is lying... it is implying all those who have written testimonials are lying (my sister in law is one of them), Kerri is lying (she is a respected worker with autistic kids), the missionaries are lying, the doctors are lying, Adam is lying, I am lying and anyone you know who has had success is lying. That is a whackin' great load of liars! Many of them are professionals with nothing to gain from lying... they don't sell it and their books don't sell enough to make them quit medicine.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mamakay*
> 
> Why are you saying "patents" (plural)? You linked to 4 patents, and only one of them mentioned CIO2. Perhaps you're just trying to keep us on our toes?


Um, I don't even know what you're talking about. Perhaps you opened different links?


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *oaktreemama*
> 
> the more you post the less I believe and the less impressed I am.


Really? So you thought this was just a great idea to begin with did you? Because from the get go all you've done is be completely closed and antagonistic so I do not believe you are less impressed... i gave a TON of data, data that has impressed scientists and doctors. This kind of comment reminds me of the ones that came just after I did the FAQ one... just saying negative things without even looking into it.

Quote:


> And that autism email actually made me feel ill. You backpeddled pretty quickly I noticed-claiming you have no connection to that group-so I simply can't understand why you would have posted it at all. It is the equivalent of forwarding a snopes.com known scam.


It makes me ill you would deny those kids relief. Kerri is a real person, and a really nice one, too actually. She is actually DOING what she wrote about. Many people are. Why don't you research the work being done on this, it is all over the world. Are you seriously calling these professionals liars? Is that the best you have? Why would they lie?

They give the stuff out for free!

What you are saying makes no sense.


----------



## Ldavis24 (Feb 19, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Calm*
> 
> I say they don't understand the chemistry because they don't understand the chemistry. There are many who have disagreed with it in the past who have demonstrated an understanding of chemistry. They ask different questions, usually based on chemistry. People trained in science tend to ask questions, not make statements... it's a basic fundamental of learning but esp in science. I've four subjects left to complete my health science degree, I'm currently preparing for an exam, actually. I get into many online and offline science debates, esp regarding health. They are nothing like this one, and that's the kindest way I can put it.
> 
> ...


passive aggressively insulting people's intelligence and claiming we are all surely just sheep who believe whatever news organizations and government agencies tell us is highly amusing, especially on boards such as MDC...

Perhaps your issue calm is that you can't believe that intelligent women look at the "information" and links you have provided and see nothing but wild claims with no proof and an online character who dogmatically insists she is right without anything to back it up...I would be frustrated too if I were you, trying to convince people that such ridiculous claims are true must be utterly exhausting...not joking about that. Read through other people's posts there are plenty of questions you ignored...start with the most recent with wormwood curing breast cancer with 100% success and you also claiming it cures malaria...Go backwards after that and you will find many more questions you just ignored in favor of those you could attempt to provide links to, although we've seen most of yours links (because yes people are looking at them no matter how often you insist no one is) have little do with the actual claims you make about MMS.


----------



## Ldavis24 (Feb 19, 2009)

Oh as far as people calling the MMS stuff a "fraud" and how that is a "big leap"...Well unfortunately we aren't allowed to use that word here for UAV reasons.....


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

BTW, I did not backpeddle, I wrote at the top of that email that I did not write it and make no claims. Someone suggested it was mine, so I reiterated.

And I posted it because it is worth knowing! Do you want us all to keep this information from you so the lies and slanging can go unchallenged?

Stop being so rude. It is bloody unnecessary and stressing me out. Does that make you happy to know? Do you think I'm some maker of MMS or seller of it, or that I have some ulterior motive or am some kind of whacked out bitch? I have five years of history on MDC, and perhaps a few threads have some claims considered wild, but other than that I'm just a regular mum with regular challenges... my 3 yo is weaning and I'm emotional and no one is responding to my posts here about it... my daughter might be dyspraxic like me and I'm not sure what to do... I'm just ME! And i'm considered a really nice person, if a little standoffish (when I was young, it was called "shy"). I'm not suggesting you like me or even to be nice to me but I am suggesting I am a real live person who is feeling a lot of ergh-ness and veiled insult here. I thought people might want to learn what else is out there. I'm not an MMS expert, although it wouldn't be hard to be one because the science is all out there.

Finding fault in me or my presentation of this is not the same as finding fault in MMS. If I've messed this up in some way, then ok. My apologies. But why it seems to be so gleeful to treat someone the way I've been treated just makes me so disheartened about humanity. To see such a streak of that and knowing that if your posts wouldn't be removed, what i'd actually have to read... and we all KNOW what would be directed right at me about this if some of you could... so for anyone to even DARE suggest passive aggression from me oughta just take a step back and learn some empathy... what would you do in this situation? It isn't easy, and I'm only human. Cut a girl some slack and just TALK to me.

Lauren, I am not intentionally overlooking anything. You are assuming the worst again, and I am not an asshole so stop suggesting I am.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Quote:


> Oh as far as people calling the MMS stuff a "fraud" and how that is a "big leap"...Well unfortunately we aren't allowed to use that word here for UAV reasons.....UNFORTUNATELY.


Cross posts.

I rest my case.


----------



## Ldavis24 (Feb 19, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Calm*
> 
> Cross posts.
> 
> I rest my case.


Being smug won't back your claims up either...

Once again I will take a short break from this thread but follow along with interest, lest I say I what I really think of what you and all your friends are doing.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

We already know what you think, Lauren. Believe me, you have not been subtle. Repeating it or making it with more vitriol doesn't make it true, it still only makes it your opinion. The world needs more love and understanding... it starts when we are the most challenged at delivering it. You see me as a non person, as a bunch of words, but if we met, I know you would not be like this with me. We'd probably laugh and say how weird it is socially online, and these differences would be no big deal. But you've made them say something about me, that you know me in some way, and that I'm somehow deserving of insult, hurt, and goodness knows what else.

If Ms ABC came on here and said, "feed your children arsenic, it will help their intelligence" i would not believe them. But I also would not hate on them. Hate does not cure anything, verbal violence (including the desire to engage in it) doesn't help anything. It only hurts. If i feel I could educate Ms ABC on the error of her ways, then i would attempt to... but i would not try to diminish her as a person because that would not help my argument, she would start to tune me out. I certainly would not get any joy in hurting her in some way, or labeling her. I'd put her in a position to defend herself and I have been there myself since I was a kid. Being laughed at and ridiculed is difficult for some of us because we didn't have the ideal childhood where what we said always made sense, and where we fit in. I try to be sensitive to these things in others.

It helps to separate the subject from the person.


----------



## mamakay (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Calm*
> 
> Um, I don't even know what you're talking about. Perhaps you opened different links?


You're right that link #1 does make a very short, vague passing reference to CIO2 later in the text.

All 4 patents are actually more or less the same thing and are owned by the same guy, aren't they?


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mamakay*
> 
> You're right that link #1 does make a very short, vague passing reference to CIO2 later in the text.
> 
> All 4 patents are actually more or less the same thing and are owned by the same guy, aren't they?


It isn't a vague reference, it is what the whole paper is about. The "disinfectant" used IS chlorine dioxide.

Yes, the same guy did them. Does that somehow negate the science? Did you check the science he references?


----------



## colobus237 (Feb 2, 2004)

I definitely have some questions.

How has the hypothesis that this agent, taken orally, selectively destroys human cancer cells or virally infected human cells been tested?

What is the proposed mechanism of the selectivity of this agent for pathogens or infected or transformed cells?

I It's fine if you can't scan in the chemistry pages or whatever the problem was before; your own description of your understanding of the answers to these questions would be just fine. I also have a pretty good background in biochemistry so you don't need to worry about being too technical. Thank you!


----------



## colobus237 (Feb 2, 2004)

Also, how would disinfecting some red blood cells in vitro help with AIDS? What you need to do there is disinfect white blood cells in vivo, and given that HIV is integrated into the genome of the infected cells, they're not at all similar jobs.


----------



## mamakay (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:


> You can say any of us could write a bunch of bollocks and sell it as a book, but that first requires that you call them liars. Which is a big step to take, because that is implying fraud. The doctors have photos and data to support the work they did. Really, to say this doesn't work is not just implying Jim is lying... it is implying all those who have written testimonials are lying (my sister in law is one of them), Kerri is lying (she is a respected worker with autistic kids), the missionaries are lying, the doctors are lying, Adam is lying, I am lying and anyone you know who has had success is lying. That is a whackin' great load of liars! Many of them are professionals with nothing to gain from lying... they don't sell it and their books don't sell enough to make them quit medicine.


Fraud happens, but I don't think it's as common as people just being wrong for more innocent reasons (including grandiosity).

There were hundreds of thousands of anecdotes/case reports/etc for almost a century supporting bloodletting, mercury as a cure-all, and other treatments that more sophisticated science has since been able to evaluate and find ineffective. The way people's expectations color their perceptions and memories, confirmation bias, and other perceptual tricks of the mind are the whole reason why good science is necessary.

In the absence of good science, skepticism is warranted. When people make really outrageous claims about stuff definitely having these outlandish effects, and they seem to be completely unaware of the cognitive glitches that everyone is affected by, they seem like a fanatic at best. Intellectually lazy appeals to conspiracy theories don't help, either. And people who understand why case reports are near the bottom of the evidence based medicine pyramid force themselves to be cautious with what they believe seems to be true, regardless of personal anecdotes and stories they read, when good science supporting the claim doesn't exist.

Do you think all the voodoo testimonials are the result of fraud? Do you think all the doctors who used to practice medicine based on the theory of humors were just fibbing to perpetuate fraud? Of course not. Hopefully people older than 15 understand that life is more complicated than "Either it's totally true, or the teller of the story is intentionally being a LIAR!" I mean, really, now.


----------



## Ldavis24 (Feb 19, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Calm*
> 
> *We already know what you think, Lauren. Believe me, you have not been subtle. Repeating it or making it with more vitriol doesn't make it true, it still only makes it your opinion. The world needs more love and understanding... it starts when we are the most challenged at delivering it. You see me as a non person, as a bunch of words, but if we met, I know you would not be like this with me. We'd probably laugh and say how weird it is socially online, and these differences would be no big deal. But you've made them say something about me, that you know me in some way, and that I'm somehow deserving of insult, hurt, and possibly even physical harm. *
> 
> ...


I find it incredibly insulting that because if I met you in person I would say exactly what I have said here to your face ( I don't think I'd be joking with you about anything) I have somehow threatened you with physical harm...I'd appreciate an edit to that statement. Thanks.

As far as insulting...well perhaps I just don't go the passive aggressive route which you have taken with your various shots at my intelligence etc. I have edited my posts as asked once before and if you have problems with whatever I say please feel free to discuss it with moderators who are obviously closely watching this thread.

Please consider that you are accusing me of actually threatening you physically and that is really really inappropriate considering it is not true.

And to be blunt, yes I do think you have an ulterior motive in your pushing MMS like it is going out of style. If that is mean all I can say is that it is my opinion. Sorry if you don't like it or I should just believe you because you say don't.


----------



## mamakay (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Calm*
> 
> It isn't a vague reference, it is what the whole paper is about. The "disinfectant" used IS chlorine dioxide.
> 
> Yes, the same guy did them. Does that somehow negate the science? Did you check the science he references?


The disinfectant is described as:

Quote:


> A sterilizing solution is prepared from, e.g., a commercially available disinfectant (LD.TM. Alcide Corporation) containing primarily lactic acid and sodium chlorite.


...but it does later make reference to CIO2. I don't doubt that CIO2 in sufficiently diluted doses doesn't destroy blood cells. The disinfectant is pretty much *completely removed* before the blood is *safe* to put into humans, tho. So I'm not really seeing the relevance.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Lauren, I didn't say you threatened me with physical harm. I said I feel you think I'm deserving of hurt, possibly even physical hurt. I altered the post. But you know you've been harsh, and you also know that no matter how much you tell yourself there is some virtuous reason for it, there isn't one. You've just done it, because that's what you chose to do. You've lashed out at someone you know nothing about, based on some knee jerk reaction in you that you have justified is deserving in your mind. Does my photo trigger you in some way? My profile info? Anything? Or are you just slamming your anger at MMS at me?


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

ccohenou, I will answer when I can, your question will take more time.


----------



## Ldavis24 (Feb 19, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Calm*
> 
> Lauren, I didn't say you threatened me with physical harm. I said I feel you think I'm deserving of hurt, possibly even physical hurt. I altered the post. But you know you've been harsh, and you also know that no matter how much you tell yourself there is some virtuous reason for it, there isn't one. You've just done it, because that's what you chose to do. You've lashed out at someone you know nothing about, based on some knee jerk reaction in you that you have justified is deserving in your mind. Does my photo trigger you in some way? My profile info? Anything? Or are you just slamming your anger at MMS at me?


Your opinion is you think I want you hurt or physically hurt. I don't. I have been harsh, I'm actually not apologetic for it at all. I don't want to totally derail this again but yeah it pisses me off when someone comes here claiming that there is a cure for (once again) AIDS, cancer, malaria, autism and a host of other ailments...My anger is not at MMS, it is at you, do you even realize that the most desperate of people will read this and poison themselves with this stuff. If you can say it cures everything known to man I can say it is poison....It is so sad that there are mothers who could possibly make their children take this stuff in a misguided attempt to "cure" their autism...Don't you find that sad at all? If you care so much about people why aren't you upset by that?!

It isn't a knee jerk reaction, it is a mounting disgust at claims that are wild and fantastic with no actual proof of anything other than it being a water disinfectant. I feel very bad for the people who will take this stuff and make themselves very ill thinking that somehow it will help them. It is worthy of anger.

Once again, I invite you to show some scrap of ACTUAL evidence that MMS is a panacea...Answer that question, there is no such thing as a panacea yet you claim there is, how can you make that claim without proof? I have looked at your links, others have looked at your links. Real proof would be just super awesome at this point.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Mamakay, the relevance is, you can now say this:

Quote:


> I don't doubt that CIO2 in sufficiently diluted doses doesn't destroy blood cells.


Whereas before, you wouldn't have. I have shown evidence that chlorine dioxide does not harm body cells when used in low enough doses.

The problem with testimony is, the grey area you describe in between "it is true" and "it is all lies" leaves room for placebo, pretty much. If all those doctors aren't lying, then what they have witnessed can only be true, or placebo. Which is one of the most valid arguments I've seen here yet. Double blind trials with placebo are warranted. No doubt.

I believe the testimonies because I have personal experience with it. Nothing trumps personal experience, no clinical trial, nothing. It can only bring up the question "how?". Answering that is the next step. Placebo? Coincidence? That's what the next step would find out.

When a man with AIDS talked to me about MMS, I didn't say to him, "you're lying" I asked myself "how is that possible?" Two other AIDS sufferers I knew tried it, and reported back to me. They had no reason at all to lie, I knew their history and it wasn't some conspiracy to make some busy mum helping people with their health on the side to believe in MMS. I didn't believe it right away, but I did believe it was possible, and that was what I needed to take me further on this journey, the mind set of possibility. Three out of three to me dismissed placebo, and that didn't include all those and their partners who I didn't know personally but had also used it. I believed them, because that's what you do when it isn't an online forum.

I have an HIV+ friend, T, who had had troubles with a fungus for years. Nothing had worked against it. He hated it so desperately because he saw it as the "beginning of the end". He lives in constant fear he will one day start dying. He tried MMS, and his fungus went away. His CD4 didn't change much, nor did his viral load, but he doesn't live with as much fear. These people are not some testimonies online for me. T is someone who's brother I know and his friends. Can I prove what they say? Well, if I get them to write a testimony and then I publish it here. The problem is, you still will dismiss that as either lying or placebo. I could just as easily write the testimony and just put it on this thread.. so HOW can I prove it? I can't. I did think the videos would not be so readily dismissed... but I can't do much about the fact that they are. There's nothing I can do to increase the value of testimony.

Re breast cancer and wormwood, I'll have to come back.

BTW, Lauren, I am not "pushing MMS". When I don't answer all the questions, you take issue. When I do, you say I'm pushing it. What do you want from me? I mentioned it on a thread (and I can see why people stay quiet about this!) and people had conniptions and demanded more info so I am giving it. That's all this is. I don't mention MMS on my blog, my FB, or any of my health pages. If I was pushing this, don't you think you'd find it in those places? I happen to like a lot of things, it's just this one creates the most controversy.


----------



## mamakay (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ldavis24*
> 
> I have looked at your links, others have looked at your links. Real proof would be just super awesome at this point.


I don't need anywhere close to "proof", personally. Just at least moderately high-quality evidence. Or even medium-quality evidence. Something better than anecdotes and the stuff that convinces many that aliens visiting earth, voodoo, and bigfoot are real.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Quote:


> Don't you find that sad at all? If you care so much about people why aren't you upset by that?!


Why would I find that sad? No one has ever been harmed. Why do you find it sad? Because you don't believe it? What if you're wrong? Have you even entertained the idea? Lemme guess... uuuhhh, no.

I have already told you *THERE IS NO PROOF IT WORKS AGAINST PATHOGENS INSIDE HUMANS*. So why are you still here, waiting for it? What we are doing here, if you care to join in, is discussing how it is helping those who claim it is helping. Are they lying, is it placebo, is it coincidence? These are valid discussions. The reason you can't fit into that discussion so far is you don't believe the testimonies. Fine, then there is nothing here for you.

If the testimonies inspire something in you, a "what if" or a "please explain" then formulate a *question*. A prerequisite to discussing this is first the ability to accept the possibility all those people are not lying. If you cannot do that, then you see it all as some big joke, a big hoax, a scam. And that's fine, but I can't see what value repeating that here is to the discussion. And that particular viewpoint is too many years old now to be of much use. 12 years on, and we're all waiting for a clinical trial, ALL of us. You go ahead and ignore all those testimonies and wait for the clinical trial. Meanwhile, others might not be so dismissing of the testimonies.

But take your anger at me and deal with it yourself.


----------



## mamakay (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:


> Whereas before, you wouldn't have. I have shown evidence that chlorine dioxide does not harm body cells when used in low enough doses.


Everyone here knows that it's used as a water purifier, so no one has doubted that if it's sufficiently diluted, it's not really harmful. I'm not really sure what to make of the fact that MMS is one tenth of what's needed to inactivate viruses in vitro in blood, but then it needs to be almost COMPLETELY REMOVED before that blood is safe to put in humans. Can you break that down a little more clearly?

Quote:


> I believe the testimonies because I have personal experience with it. Nothing trumps personal experience, no clinical trial, nothing.


That's what a lot of (most?) MD's said when the randomized control trials started becoming popular. Do you know how fast medical science has advanced since RCT's became standard? Doctors used to give people all kinds of crazy, ineffective stuff back in the day, and those "doctor anecdotes" (aka, case reports) made it "fact" at the time. Patients were convinced it all worked, too.

Quote:


> The problem is, you still will dismiss that as either lying or placebo. I could just as easily write the testimony and just put it on this thread.. so HOW can I prove it? I can't.


There's coincidence paired with confirmation bias, too. You need to acknowledge that this is a real possibility instead of insisting that it's definitely not anything but "real".

Quote:


> Re breast cancer and wormwood, I'll have to come back.


Thanks. I bet good evidence doesn't exist, tho. I know there's a certain amount of publication bias favoring expensive pharmaceuticals, but there's really not any sort of grand conspiracy keeping evidence about cheap and effective stuff out of the scientific literature.


----------



## colobus237 (Feb 2, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Calm*





> ccohenou, I will answer when I can, your question will take more time.


I hope you will make time, since I see you have had time to make some other posts on the topic. I think these questions are really fundamental.


----------



## mamakay (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Calm*
> I have already told you *THERE IS NO PROOF IT WORKS AGAINST PATHOGENS INSIDE HUMANS*. So why are you still here, waiting for it?


I'm guessing it's because you've said things like:

Quote:


> ...people I've personally helped heal from AIDS with it...


That sounds pretty factual. Like you know for a fact that this has happened. No room for "maybe it wasn't exactly that." Rather, (paraphrased) "I'm positive I've cured people of AIDS!"

If you don't see how that's on par with claiming something along the lines of "I sparked the Egyptian Revolution with my psychic powers", then I'm sorry. But that's how it comes across.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ccohenou*
> 
> I definitely have some questions.
> 
> ...


The majority of pathogens in the human body are destroyed by oxidation. That is what is naturally used by your immune system to kill pathogens. The mechanism by which oxidation does this, you would already know as you have a good background in biochemistry. You would also be aware of how it does this selectively, ie, leaving healthy cells and beneficial bacteria unharmed. The body does this rather effectively, and it a mechanism to which pathogens cannot acquire resistance, meaning it will work indefinitely for us.

In fact, ClO2 may be one of the agents used by the body. The WHO has data in their files indicating that ClO2 is found in all body organs. The only way it can get there is if the body makes it.

The oxidation power of an oxidizer is measured in electrical potential, usually in millivolts. Of the oxidizers that have been used in the human body:

• Ozone is the strongest known oxidizer used in the body with an oxidation potential of 2070 millivolts;

• Hydrogen peroxide is the second strongest oxidizer used in the body and it has an oxidation potential of 1800 millivolts;

• Oxygen itself has an oxidation potential of about 1300 millivolts;

• Chlorine dioxide has an oxidation potential of 950 millivolts.

Note that chlorine dioxide has the lowest oxidation potential.

Oxidation potential also determines what an oxidiser cannot oxidise. It cannot oxidise the blood, tissues or cells. High enough doses of anything will cause damage, including ClO2, but doses used according to the protocols are 100 times less than required to do such damage.

Another reason for selectivityis because it is isotonic, ie, does not exert enough pressure. Tests done in the 1980's showed that at concentrations of less than 0.001% it is isotonic. The patents I linked depend on that fact. MMS is used at less than 10% of 0.001%. The FDA claimed it destroys red blood cells... that fact shows that this claim is not possible.

The ClO2 molecule has voltage that will draw 5 electrons from certain other molecules. When the electrons are drawn away, these molecules fly apart. They neutralize the ClO2 outer shell and that molecule also flies apart. The chlorine atom becomes a chloride (table salt) atom and the two oxygen atoms are discharged before they leave the shell so they just collect a molecule of carbon and become carbon dioxide. They can no longer do anything in the body and thus are breathed out.

Its special construction gives it an unusually high oxidation capacity. The oxidation potential is weak, but the capacity is that it can draw away 5 electrons.

The chlorine dioxide oxidation is:

• The ClO2 ion first draws off a single electron from the pathogen;

• That electron then comes over to the chlorine dioxide and instantly changes it to a sodium chlorite ion; and it begins to make a hole in the pathogen.

• The ClO2 ion then draws 4 more electrons from the pathogen or the nearest other pathogen.

• This completely destroys the sodium chlorite, leaving only sodium chloride (table salt), and two neutralized oxygen atoms that just become a part of the body's water or part of ClO2 to be breathed out of the body. This one chlorine dioxide molecule is responsible for destroying 5 molecules in the side

of the pathogen.

It may take a few more molecules of chlorine dioxide to make the hole in the pathogen but that is what happens to destroy a pathogen. In my FAQ post you'll see references to viruses killed - whether they are in the air or water or any kind of fluid, the mechanism is the same.

Studies show ClO2 penetrates the entire body intact. Whether it be plasma or water in a bucket, the mechanism against pathogens is the same.

With something like cancer, if you aren't in the small minority that believes it is microbial, then it is still simply due to the fact that tumour cells behave like pathogenic microbes and exhibits the same things ClO2 targets. Esp the hypoxic conditions... tumours cannot stand oxygenation.

So although we have no evidence to show efficacy in humans against pathogens when ingested, we do have evidence it penetrates to the marrow. We have evidence it works against everything including viruses and that it does all this in fluids... which the body mostly is.

Regarding safety, we have limited evidence, but there is still such evidence of ingested ClO2 in the tests done in healthy subjects with 24mg. I think most people are now pretty aware it is safe in small enough doses. We have evidence via the science of ClO2 it does no damage to body tissues, it simply hasn't got the potential, charge or pressure. It can be used safely on body tissues to destroy pathogens, leaving the cells unharmed.

Long term tests need to be done, and tests with higher doses. Efficacy obviously needs to be proven also. I'm not suggesting we have all the data. We don't have anywhere need the needed amount of data. I'm not claiming it can cure anything, just to reiterate. I'm just sharing the information that suggests it could work inside the body in such a way, and perhaps safely, and sharing the stories of those who believe it has worked for them.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

MamaKay, you say you don't need proof, just mediocre evidence. I hope you read the last post and see that put together, the whole thing is wildly suggestive, if not blatantly obvious, that it has potential for use inside the body.




Various pieces of evidence describe why it is safe on human tissue, including the one linked at the end of this post.



The clinical trial proved it reaches all body tissues.



It works against pathogens in water outside the body including viruses.



There is no scientific reason for harm or evidence it ever has harmed.



Oxidation is used by the human immune system to kill pathogens already.


There are many dioxides. Like sulphur dioxide, used as a preservative on things like fruit and most wines but it is also used as a solvent and a *bleach*.

This study is one I linked the abstract to earlier. It is an extensive study, went for 12 weeks, and they tested more body physiology than I usually see in these studies. They were on 24mg doses of chlorine dioxide. A dose of MMS is 15 mg (3 drops).


----------



## Ldavis24 (Feb 19, 2009)

sigh, you said you have a friend or talked to some HIV + guy who doesn't have trouble with fungus anymore but his viral load is the same after taking MMS...So in fact it DID NOT cure his HIV...that is the problem with your argument right there...

And I have every right to repeat my point as much as I please thanks, just you have every right to insist you have found a panacea just as you please...

BTW, do you agree that what you are claiming MMS to be is in fact a PANACEA? Because by definition that is what you are claiming MMS is and history has proven again and again that there is no such thing as a panacea..

Finally, I don't believe people are lying when they say they THINK MMS cured them (never mind that they might still have cancer or whatever) as has been pointed out there is always the placebo effect. Once again though not a cure.

The word CURE is a very strong word to use in a place where there is no evidence at all to suggest it is that.


----------



## colobus237 (Feb 2, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Calm*
> 
> The majority of pathogens in the human body are destroyed by oxidation. That is what is naturally used by your immune system to kill pathogens. The mechanism by which oxidation does this, you would already know as you have a good background in biochemistry. You would also be aware of how it does this selectively, ie, leaving healthy cells and beneficial bacteria unharmed. The body does this rather effectively, and it a mechanism to which pathogens cannot acquire resistance, meaning it will work indefinitely for us.


Sure, I'm aware of several ways that leukocytes can deploy oxidants selectively against pathogens and virally infected cells. Like for one example: Neutrophils will phagocytose pathogenic bacteria, phagosome fuses with lysosome, respiratory burst produces reactive oxygen species and the pathogen is killed. But neutrophils have to recognize a good target, and they do this through lots of complex pathways that depend on host cells having receptors that are specific for molecular structures that are unique to pathogens and not expressed by normal host cells. They don't just spray reactive oxygen species indiscriminately around the body - or if they do, you have problems with oxidative damage.

So yes, I do know something of how the immune system uses oxidizing agents to kill pathogens - and I know that it is massively complex and depends on the interaction of multiple cell types and receptor proteins and signaling molecules. Not nearly so simple as dumping disinfectant in a bucket. The immune system does not depend on reactive oxygen species figuring out where to go on their own, because they can't do that. And, they absolutely do cause significant collateral damage.

So, what I'm asking is, by what mechanism or mechanisms does ClO2, taken orally, recognize a good target?

Quote:


> It may take a few more molecules of chlorine dioxide to make the hole in the pathogen but that is what happens to destroy a pathogen. In my FAQ post you'll see references to viruses killed - whether they are in the air or water or any kind of fluid, the mechanism is the same.


It's really trivial to kill or inactivate most pathogens and cancer cells in a petri dish. You can do it in a hundred ways, because the disinfectant does not need to be specific - it just needs to lyse or denature everything in its path. When the viruses are among and inside your cells, though, just killing everything in the bucket will not work. So the same mechanisms that work to disinfect water and air are not applicable in the body. You need activity that is specific to the pathogen or infected cell.

It makes no sense to say that ClO2 "is isotonic." This term refers to the concentration of a solution, not to the identity of the solute. And it doesn't say anything about the specific biological activity of a solute. Sodium chloride and sodium cyanide could both be in an isotonic solution, but the effects on your body will be radically different. If you're saying the concentration is so low that there is basically no activity in vivo (a good thing for a water disinfectant and a bad thing for a drug), how does it do anything at all?

It makes no sense to say that ClO2 doesn't have the redox potential to oxidize cellular targets. "The body" does not have one single redox potential. Some critical enzymes require metals to be held in reduced form, like hemoglobin. I can believe that in low concentration, ClO2 doesn't reach Hgb because it doesn't breach the cell membrane - but if it's not breaching cell membranes, how is it killing pathogens or infected or transformed cells?


----------



## Marnica (Oct 4, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WildKingdom*
> 
> Here's a link to the FDA fast track info: http://www.fda.gov/forconsumers/byaudience/forpatientadvocates/speedingaccesstoimportantnewtherapies/ucm128291.htm
> 
> Drugs get fast-tracked about 9 times a year. *They go through the same approval process and trials as everything else*- the FDA review period is just accelerated.


No I don't think so. I appreciate how long it can take for a new drug to be approved. But drugs that are not being accelerated for approval are not using surrogate endpoints as markers of efficacy, but rather actual clinical outcomes.

I found this article a very interesting approach to thinking about the potential problems of using surrogate endpoints

http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/24/1/67.full

Quote:


> Approval of a drug based on such endpoints is given on the condition that post marketing clinical trials verify the anticipated clinical benefit.


see that's where I have an issue, because this is not being done as it should be - this is a controversial issue as most things are....

http://www.fdalawblog.net/fda_law_blog_hyman_phelps/2009/11/gao-issues-report-on-surrogate-endpoint-accelerated-approvals-calls-for-enhanced-oversight.html

http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/304/16/1773.extract

http://www.pharmalot.com/2011/02/should-fda-hit-the-brakes-on-accelerated-approval/

http://www.pharmalot.com/2011/03/fda-officials-talk-tough-about-accelerated-approval/

Anyway this is getting off topic - back our regularly scheduled program @ MMS


----------



## WildKingdom (Mar 26, 2008)

Quote:


> The chlorine dioxide oxidation is:
> 
> • The ClO2 ion first draws off a single electron from the pathogen;
> 
> ...


That chemistry is...interesting. So, how, exactly, does a negatively charged ClO2 ion attract a negatively charged electron (and where did it get the electron from? They're not exactly free-ranging around the body.)? How does obtaining that electron change it to sodium chlorite? Where did the sodium come from in the first place? How does...I can't even formulate any more questions. This is not a form of chemistry that I've ever seen before. I would venture to say that no one has.


----------



## ElizabethE (Jan 15, 2011)




----------



## WildKingdom (Mar 26, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ElizabethE*


???? What is that supposed to mean?


----------



## mamakay (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:


> The body does this rather effectively, and it a mechanism to which pathogens cannot acquire resistance, meaning it will work indefinitely for us.


This is absolutely false.

See:

(an overview)

http://science.jrank.org/pages/48544/Microbial-Countermeasures-Evade-Immune-System.html

One interesting and specific example: (group A strep)

http://iai.asm.org/cgi/reprint/75/9/4541.pdf

Quote:


> In recent years, S. pyogenes, a prototypical extracellular
> pathogen, has demonstrated the ability to survive in the intracellular
> environment (23, 24, 27-29, 36, 41, 51, 53). This ability
> would offer several advantages, such as escaping many of the
> ...


Staph:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18607538

Quote:


> *CONCLUSIONS:*
> 
> *Bacterial catalase and SOD combat reactive oxygen species enabling S. aureus to persist within macrophages,* inducing local inflammation, causing greater induction of serum TNF-alpha and IL-6.


----------



## JMJ (Sep 6, 2008)

My disclaimer: I haven't watched any of the videos because I don't have and won't get FLASH. I have opened and at least looked at most of the links, but there is a whole lot I do not understand/don't have the time and energy to learn enough to make sense of it. I do not know enough to argue about whether or not the methods of action would work. I can see that there are many people who are claiming to have experienced benefits from MMS, but I don't know enough to know what else was going on. What would help me (and I believe many other people here) would be to hold some sort of experiment to test the hypothesis.

I'm wondering how hard it would be to run some preliminary experiments. Actually, one of the experiments I was brainstorming about was to see if it could disinfect human blood without damaging it, so the links about using a solution including ClO2 to disinfect blood was encouraging to me, but I'd like to see it with the solution sold as MMS. What about infecting mice or rats with any of these diseases and treating them with MMS. Test them for the disease before and after treatment. It's commonly known that rats tend to get tumors. How about somebody treat some rats with MMS and report back on tumor size? What about running some objective diagnostic tests on a sample of these people who come for treatment with MMS before and after they are treated? If the people treating all these people in Africa have the resources to get there and treat people, I would think they could come up with the resources to put something of a trial together. I know the research would still be suspect since it is people involved with MMS already who would be running the trials, but it holds more weight than anecdote.

Calm, I am convinced that there is minimal risk of death from MMS, but I am not buying your claim that it causes no harm. There is ample evidence that people have used and are using this product. People are mixing the solution on their own in their homes, and there is no way that every person is mixing it correctly to get the intended concentration. There also seems to be much confusion out there about how many drops to use for this or that, and people are using all sorts of concentrations of this stuff, and the fact that there is only one person whose death has been blamed on the product is encouraging. It does seem like there is a theoretical risk of death, though, since severe vomiting and diarrhea could potentially lead to death from dehydration, especially in areas that do not have good medical care. These deaths are also less likely to be reported, and it is also exactly where MMS is being used. I do hope that the people distributing MMS are also giving their patients access to IV fluids to prevent dehydration in case of a poor reaction. I consider vomiting and diarrhea to be harm. I consider the body having to detox chemicals that were not intended to be there to be likely harmful. It may be an acceptable risk, but it is not "no harm."

I am open to the idea of something that is broad-spectrum in its use. We have antibiotics that treat ear infections, strep throat, mastitis, and many other seemingly unrelated diseases in the body. We have various foods such as garlic, thyme, blueberries, etc, that are known to boost the immune system to give it what it needs to fight off a great number of unrelated diseases, but the difference is that these are supplying what the body needs to use its own natural processes to eradicate disease. I don't see ClO2 supplying nutrients that the body requires to perform its natural processes. For this reason, I dislike the product being called "Miracle Mineral Supplement," because it seems to imply that this is what it is doing while Calm, you are describing an entirely different method of action. I think it is possible that MMS may have some benefit in treating at least some of the diseases claimed. There seems to be the most information on its use against malaria, though I confess I do not understand much of your link by the physician who was trying to explain how it is supposed to work against malaria. However, I think it is unlikely that it has 100% efficacy against all the diseases it is being claimed to work against. Calm, your patient who is still HIV+ despite having used it against his fungus is evidence of this. Even if MMS did have a positive effect on his life, it did not cure his AIDS.

I think that for all our sakes, it is important to speak critically about what MMS is and is not doing when it comes to both safety and efficacy. Chemotherapy is not effective against Cancer in general, but it is reasonably effective against some cancers and may be useful in helping other patients reach their treatment goals. My grandfather was diagnosed with lung cancer in the summer time. The entire family made plans to come for Christmas, and then he learned that he had an estimated 8 weeks to live without chemo. He went through one round (maybe 2 rounds, I don't remember exactly) of chemo and lived for about a year afterward. He did not live 5 years. The chemo did not cure him. It would not be considered to be a success by your standards, Calm. It did delay the inevitable long enough for both him and the family to come to terms with his death and to celebrate his life before he died. Vaccines are reasonably effective against the diseases they are intended to prevent, but we criticize the vaccine manufacturers and the government for not giving us better information on their safety and efficacy. People act as if there is practically no risk to injecting yourself with foreign chemicals and viral parts and act as if they are "safe" from those diseases, but some people die after vaccines, and some people still get the diseases. I'm also concerned about the quieter effects of injecting a healthy person with foreign substances, what it does to bypass some of the protective measures of the immune system, how it changes from how the way the immune system was designed to work, and what chemicals it forces the body to detox.

These are similar to my concerns about ClO2. Calm, you mentioned some concern about attacking the natural flora of the stomach because you believe that ClO2 attacks acid-loving bacteria. What effects does it have that we don't understand? It is an unnatural, foreign substance being introduced into the body. Even if the body does make and use ClO2, it does not do so in the same way as what is being administered. If it did, all that would need to be done is to assist the body in making its own to enhance the immune system, which is how I believe the body should be treated whenever possible.

Claiming that anything has 100% efficacy is a very dangerous claim. All it takes is one study showing one case that it doesn't work, and your claim is blown, and people do not believe you at all. Speaking in more objective statistics helps people accept that a few cases that it doesn't work is expected but does not mean that it is not an effective treatment in other cases. Also, speaking objectively about to what extent it is working is also helpful. Calm, you have mentioned seeing improvements in HIV+ individuals, but that is a very subjective claim. You credit MMS with curing a fungus off of an HIV+ patient but that he is still HIV+. Relieving symptoms or extending life in people who are HIV+ is a great thing, and if MMS can do this, it would be important to speak of it as such rather than calling it a "cure" for AIDS, which would imply that the patient is no longer HIV+. The extravagant claims about MMS that it can heal so many seemingly unrelated and varied diseases without admitting what it cannot or does not always do destroys people's trust in the treatment. Using the vaccine example, when we see with our own eyes that vaccines are not preventing the VPD's as often as the CDC says they do, we lose trust in the vaccines and the CDC.

Calm, I know you are excited about what you have seen that you attribute to MMS, and it is difficult to be so objective when you are sure something is true, but you do not have absolute proof, but the more objectively and critically you can explain these things, the easier it is to trust you as a source. I know that just because a source seems biased, and Calm, you are coming across as quite biased in my opinion whether you intend to or not, does not make the claims true or false. It is just easier to trust a source that more willingly acknowledges the limitations with one's theories. I do give you credit for acknowledging several limitations, but I have had to read through 11 pages of posts to get that, while claims of 100% efficacy and no harm are present throughout.


----------



## Ldavis24 (Feb 19, 2009)

JMJ, that is the most reasoned and well thought out post of this entire thread.

Thank you for that.


----------



## Panserbjorne (Sep 17, 2003)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JMJ*
> 
> Calm, I am convinced that there is minimal risk of death from MMS, but I am not buying your claim that it causes no harm. There is ample evidence that people have used and are using this product. People are mixing the solution on their own in their homes, and there is no way that every person is mixing it correctly to get the intended concentration. There also seems to be much confusion out there about how many drops to use for this or that, and people are using all sorts of concentrations of this stuff, and the fact that there is only one person whose death has been blamed on the product is encouraging. It does seem like there is a theoretical risk of death, though, since severe vomiting and diarrhea could potentially lead to death from dehydration, especially in areas that do not have good medical care. These deaths are also less likely to be reported, and it is also exactly where MMS is being used. I do hope that the people distributing MMS are also giving their patients access to IV fluids to prevent dehydration in case of a poor reaction. *I consider vomiting and diarrhea to be harm. I consider the body having to detox chemicals that were not intended to be there to be likely harmful. It may be an acceptable risk, but it is not "no harm."*
> 
> ...


great post, the bolded are parts I agree with empathically.


----------



## mamakay (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Marnica*
> 
> No I don't think so. I appreciate how long it can take for a new drug to be approved. But drugs that are not being accelerated for approval are not using surrogate endpoints as markers of efficacy, but rather actual clinical outcomes.
> 
> ...


I'm pretty sure you're wrong about that.

PCV13 (aka, Prevnar 13, aka, pneumococcal conjugate vaccine 13-valent) was approved with only lab-endpoints in mind, and if ever there was a pharmaceutical product that needed CLINICAL endpoints (like ear infections from all species and invasive bacterial disease from all species) evaluated, it's that product (because of all the replacement issues between s pneumo vs s pneumo, staph vs s pneumo, etc.)

I found this about PCV13:

http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/BloodVaccinesandOtherBiologics/VaccinesandRelatedBiologicalProductsAdvisoryCommittee/UCM239495.pdf

Quote:


> To further clarify this point, the proposed studies to evaluate post-licensure vaccine effectiveness of 13vPnC vaccine are not considered "confirmatory studies," in a strict regulatory sense; *such studies would be a condition of accelerated approval, which is not the situation for the 13vPnC* infant development program.


I know for a fact that only "immunogenicity" (lab effectiveness) was evaluated on the effectiveness side for PCV13.

Nobody even looked to see if it was effective against vaccine serotypes in vivo (which I'm sure it is; that's not the interesting question, tho. What the scientific community needs to know is what happens after replacement disease is accounted for.)


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Thanks JMJ. I appreciate all you've said. I can't do the chem right now but I can address some of the things you mentioned that stood out right away for me.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JMJ*
> 
> What would help me (and I believe many other people here) would be to hold some sort of experiment to test the hypothesis.
> 
> I'm wondering how hard it would be to run some preliminary experiments. Actually, one of the experiments I was brainstorming about was to see if it could disinfect human blood without damaging it, so the links about using a solution including ClO2 to disinfect blood was encouraging to me, but I'd like to see it with the solution sold as MMS. What about infecting mice or rats with any of these diseases and treating them with MMS. Test them for the disease before and after treatment. It's commonly known that rats tend to get tumors. How about somebody treat some rats with MMS and report back on tumor size? What about running some objective diagnostic tests on a sample of these people who come for treatment with MMS before and after they are treated?


I really never understood what they expected me to produce. They knew the clinical trial showing evidence it worked on pathogens in the body did not exist yet it seemed that's what was being pushed for....I thought a discussion on what we do have would make more sense.

Really, the question most I've discussed this with had (in the past) was if it could reach all areas of the body intact, and when they see the study that shows it does, they are nodding quietly at that point. If something that can kill parasites can reach the bone marrow intact, that's exciting on its own... safe or not (chemo anyone?). But to learn that it is safe at all levels tested so far, that's even more compelling. There isn't much left to do at this point but an experiment to verify the potential all these things seem to suggest. Just like you say. However...

Whatever I posted here would be trashed and that is exactly what happened and all testimonies are considered either lying, implausible or some gimmick (eg, the autism work of Kerri's). If I talked about Jim, it would just be "oh get real, he's a scammer"... so the man doing the most with this can't even be brought into it! So I didn't, you'll notice. I tried to avoid more controversy than this already has.

If I did an experiment, it would be rejected like everything else has been because of the same factor - there is no authentication. There is no way to authenticate the experiment, testimonial, person, results of MMS use, none of it. For example, I have posted experiments before on different things and they are not only dismissed, they are dismissed with disgust.

One was a mother who just said f*** it one day and started her own experiment. She fed mice aspartame and had mice she didn't feed aspartame to and the results are compelling. Of course, when I posted that it was rejected and I really don't see why some make it so difficult to talk about possibilities around here. I do know that apparently people only support you in pm around here because they're gun shy. GREAT. Great system there is going here when an alternative site has members who are too "over it" to speak about alternatives lest it be implied they are "irresponsible parents" or something.

So if I do a test with mice and I take videos and photos and do my best to make it as authentic as I can, it will never get the authentication of the gov't and that is what people want. They strongly reject anything else. For interests sake, here is the aspartame experiment:

http://www.mpwhi.com/aspartame_study_female_rats_developed_visible_tumors.pdf

as a word doc: http://www.mpwhi.com/aspartame_study_female_rats_developed_visible_tumors.doc

I would like to do experiments, but I don't know how to cause cancer in mice and I have a moral issue with it that I'd have to overcome first.

Quote:


> Calm, I am convinced that there is minimal risk of death from MMS, but I am not buying your claim that it causes no harm.


It is not my claim. The only claim I've made is that I have treated myself with it and that I know people who have who claim it worked for them. The rest I have gotten from the data myself, and from my friends who went to Africa - again, not my claims. The fact that it causes no harm is verifiable in the human studies up to 24mg, and in the chemistry - both of how oxidation with low potential works, and in the patent info with blood cells - and also the fact that after millions of doses, no one HAS been harmed. That says more to me than any study. For example, studies show vaccines are safe. Yet people die from vaccination. That is not the definition of safe to me. So if a study comes out and says MMS is safe, do we trust that? I don't trust that as much as I trust hospital data and death records. THAT is the data I trust. Regarding the subjective nature of the word "harm" I understand your point. You see nausea and diarrhea as harm. That is anecdotal evidence though. You don't believe the people when they say they are getting well but you do believe them when they say they got ill. That is a flaming double standard if ever I heard one. But since it is a common one on this thread, to cherry pick when they believe data, I'll indulge it a moment. If you see that as harm, and believe the anecdotal evidence they are experiencing that effect, then ok... shall I say "it causes no harm except nausea and diarrhea if your dose is too high"? Because that is the truth as I know it to be.

Quote:


> There is ample evidence that people have used and are using this product.


What evidence are you referring to?

Quote:


> I don't see ClO2 supplying nutrients that the body requires to perform its natural processes.


It doesn't supply nutrients. It supplies oxygen. The body uses oxygen in this oxidative way. The oxidative potential is why it cannot harm body cells, and why the evidence supports that, and why it is considered for use on body tissue in the antibacterial rinses.

Quote:


> For this reason, I dislike the product being called "Miracle Mineral Supplement," because it seems to imply that this is what it is doing while Calm, you are describing an entirely different method of action.


Jim Humble is a frustrating old man, I'm led to believe by friends who have worked with him. One of them can no longer work with him because of his dismissal of the proper scientific method and general anger at FDA. He came up with that name, and it has been a bone of contention ever since. He has changed it since to Master Mineral Solution to rectify both the miracle and supplement issues. Sodium chlorite

Quote:


> I think it is possible that MMS may have some benefit in treating at least some of the diseases claimed.


Why do you think this?

Quote:


> However, I think it is unlikely that it has 100% efficacy against all the diseases it is being claimed to work against.


I saw the misunderstanding in the recent posts. Just because something shows 100% efficacy in one test, does not mean it always will. Likewise, just because a study shows poor efficacy, doesn't make it so. There are different, almost endless, variables in experiments. For instance, when Jim started with MMS against malaria, he had a 100% success rate. His second group did not, and he learned from that. He learned that 15 drops followed by 15 drops one hour later removed all the malaria from the blood of 98% of people. That 2% who were still sick, or who still showed malaria in the blood symptomatic or not, seemed to need significantly more doses. He found in 2010 that it was 98% effective against cancer, and he had some explanation for the 2% but I don't remember it. HIV is a complex one... in only some do they sero-convert to HIV negative. Considering the tests in Africa are for antibodies, that is almost impossible. For instance, I do not have chicken pox, but I will always be chickenpox positive in a test... because it tests for antibodies. So he didn't say it cured HIV, unless it did. He simply said it took away the symptoms of AIDS. What that means is, when someone was sick and dying, or suffering some AIDS affliction, after MMS, they were well. Some became very healthy actually. But he stopped testing for HIV status when he realised that was futile... the antibodies are mostly always going to be there. What mattered to the people was how they felt.

HIV and AIDS are not the same thing. HIV is a virus. AIDS is a collection of diseases the person suffers because their immune system is infected with HIV. Eg, TB, PCP, Karposi's sarcoma, candidiasis, etc. If someone with HIV gets candidiasis, it can kill them... but they don't die of "AIDS" and they don't die of "HIV", they die of candidiasis. It is the disease that MMS is purported to treat, as for the virus... I don't know enough about those results to comment.

Quote:


> Calm, your patient who is still HIV+ despite having used it against his fungus is evidence of this. Even if MMS did have a positive effect on his life, it did not cure his AIDS.


It takes 2 to 3 months of treatment to do that apparently. My friend used it for several days. I was not using his experience as a testimony for HIV.

Quote:


> Chemotherapy is not effective against Cancer in general, but it is reasonably effective against some cancers and may be useful in helping other patients reach their treatment goals. My grandfather was diagnosed with lung cancer in the summer time. The entire family made plans to come for Christmas, and then he learned that he had an estimated 8 weeks to live without chemo. He went through one round (maybe 2 rounds, I don't remember exactly) of chemo and lived for about a year afterward. He did not live 5 years. The chemo did not cure him. It would not be considered to be a success by your standards, Calm. It did delay the inevitable long enough for both him and the family to come to terms with his death and to celebrate his life before he died.


I'm sorry to hear about your grandfather. I do understand what you are saying. I do not make the "standards" though. Cancer survival is measured in terms of five years. I didn't come up with that, it is the industry standard. My father died of cancer, and my FIL is currently fighting it with radiation therapy. Chemo made my father very sick very quickly and the worst part was the inflammation of the brain which meant that my father didn't recognise me. They stopped the chemo and gave him some drugs for the inflammation and at least he wasn't talking mumbo jumbo anymore, and he started to eat again, and laugh again. But he was too sick and thin from the chemo and the hospital told us then that it was a risk with him because he was not equipped for the onslaught. So in our case, chemo took time from us. I don't hold it against chemo though. We do the best with what we have, where we are.

Quote:


> Vaccines are reasonably effective against the diseases they are intended to prevent, but we criticize the vaccine manufacturers and the government for not giving us better information on their safety and efficacy. People act as if there is practically no risk to injecting yourself with foreign chemicals and viral parts and act as if they are "safe" from those diseases, but some people die after vaccines, and some people still get the diseases. I'm also concerned about the quieter effects of injecting a healthy person with foreign substances, what it does to bypass some of the protective measures of the immune system, how it changes from how the way the immune system was designed to work, and what chemicals it forces the body to detox.


Yes.

Quote:


> These are similar to my concerns about ClO2.


And fair enough. They should be. Wholesale acceptance without knowing for sure is just as blind as wholesale rejection without knowing for sure.

Quote:


> Calm, you mentioned some concern about attacking the natural flora of the stomach because you believe that ClO2 attacks acid-loving bacteria. What effects does it have that we don't understand?


This is a particular risk that each person has to come to terms with on their own. As we only have the limited data, usually it is word of mouth that has moved this from person to person. A person tells another they used "this stuff called MMS" and it "was great" and they have a small discussion and the person tries it. That's all the safety and efficacy evidence they need. The finer point are things I am interested in, and things I will continue to research and learn.

Quote:


> It is an unnatural, foreign substance being introduced into the body. Even if the body does make and use ClO2, it does not do so in the same way as what is being administered. If it did, all that would need to be done is to assist the body in making its own to enhance the immune system, which is how I believe the body should be treated whenever possible.


I agree. But my husband smokes, and does a few things that result in him at risk of bugs. So when he comes down with something, he takes MMS. In fact, he is some kind of horse because he has chugged down 30 drops of the stuff. I fluff around him with my herbs and with fruit and whatnot, but the fact is, with some people, nature has an uphill battle so when he augments his body's oxidation, it works for him, and makes sense for him. I augment my immune system in a less crisis kind of way... raw food, herbs, water, sunshine, yoga, etc. I have not had any use for MMS since my girly bits got well. I have a cyst in my spleen and I have an ultrasound scheduled. I intend on getting a good "before" shot of it, dated as closely to my "after" shot as I can get it. It is a tapeworm (it is a hydatid cyst, ie, full of tapeworm lavae, YUK!), so it will take me up to a month of treatment. The doctor gave me the all-clear to try MMS, because he cannot offer any alternative for me aside from surgery which risks me losing my whole spleen. I asked him about a particular parasite drug I had researched and discovered it had worked against splenic cysts but he said it put more strain on the liver than it was worth.

Quote:


> Claiming that anything has 100% efficacy is a very dangerous claim. All it takes is one study showing one case that it doesn't work, and your claim is blown, and people do not believe you at all.


I hope my previous note explains this. If one person tries something and it works, that is 100% efficacy. The whole thing depends on the individual study or experience. In several articles they refer to the vietnam study of arteminisin where 100% efficacy was demonstrated compellingly (large study group). I can't find the stupid thing, even though I had it myself in my links. That doesn't mean it will always work. It simply means in that study, it did. Same with the breast cancer one I mentioned. These are not my claims, I link those who made the claims, and their references can be checked.

Quote:


> Speaking in more objective statistics helps people accept that a few cases that it doesn't work is expected but does not mean that it is not an effective treatment in other cases. Also, speaking objectively about to what extent it is working is also helpful.  Calm, you have mentioned seeing improvements in HIV+ individuals, but that is a very subjective claim. You credit MMS with curing a fungus off of an HIV+ patient but that he is still HIV+. Relieving symptoms or extending life in people who are HIV+ is a great thing, and if MMS can do this, it would be important to speak of it as such rather than calling it a "cure" for AIDS, which would imply that the patient is no longer HIV+.


I have not said it cures anything. Everyone else started saying I said that, but I didn't. Where ever I used the word "cure" it was in reference to something someone else had said, or in reference to a study (eg, I said wormwood showed a 100% cure against malaria). I even just did a search of my posts on this thread with the word "cure". It is used extensively in other people's posts, but I did not claim "cure". The thing you are overlooking is the same as others, because yes, it is subjective and it not at all verifiable (testimony, that is). But, what if your grandfather used MMS and got well? There is only so much you can put down to "well, they probably think they got well, but the mind is a powerful thing" I mean seriously?

We should all stop underestimating our own power, and our own knowledge about our bodies. Modern medicine amongst other things has been chipping away at our belief in our bodies for a very long time, esp women. We are told we are "hysterical", and that we can't birth without machines, and we can't work out something as simple as knowing what the hell has made us well! I don't buy for a second that mental deficit is all that prevalent. In some poor sods, perhaps, but it would be rare. For most of us, we know what we're doing... and even with taking MMS, people have been managing. With no assistance, they manage to not kill themselves with "bleach". Amazing! Really, we should all wear helmets just to get out of bed according to how some view our collective selves.

*A few reports of stupidity on TV does not a nation of idiots make. *

Quote:


> The extravagant claims about MMS that it can heal so many seemingly unrelated and varied diseases without admitting what it cannot or does not always do destroys people's trust in the treatment. Using the vaccine example, when we see with our own eyes that vaccines are not preventing the VPD's as often as the CDC says they do, we lose trust in the vaccines and the CDC.


Yes. And the claim I am making is that it has not killed anyone... I make that claim because it is verifiable. If it had, you can bet it would be plastered everywhere including the wiki page and the FDA warning page. They'd LOVE that. They know people will not think, "well, one death after all those uses, that's pretty damned good, esp compared to the millions of deaths from drugs." No. People would say, "someone DIED!!!??? GASP SHOCK HORROR... poison poison!! Alert alert! AUGGHHHHH!" If only people reacted like that to *Every. Single. Death* from a drug, hey? They might have to become much more careful what they call "safe". But alas, I can claim no one has been killed, because no one has been killed. I can claim there is no evidence of harm, because there is no evidence of harm. We can speculate, but the fact is, many uses, no harm, no deaths. That stands alone as solid safety data for me and many others. Why wouldn't it?

Quote:


> Calm, I know you are excited about what you have seen that you attribute to MMS, and it is difficult to be so objective when you are sure something is true, but you do not have absolute proof, but the more objectively and critically you can explain these things, the easier it is to trust you as a source. I know that just because a source seems biased, and Calm, you are coming across as quite biased in my opinion whether you intend to or not, does not make the claims true or false. It is just easier to trust a source that more willingly acknowledges the limitations with one's theories. I do give you credit for acknowledging several limitations, but I have had to read through 11 pages of posts to get that, while claims of 100% efficacy and no harm are present throughout.


Since the media used the word "bleach", MMS has had a horrendous fight on its hands. That turned it from an unknown chemical to something people thought they recognised, or thought they knew something about. Before, it was like saying "fluorine dioxide has been working for people who ingest it against their symptoms, regardless of the label given those symptoms." And people wouldn't have any reference point for it, no idea where to attack it from, so they had no choice but to learn about it, starting from the testimonials and working back to chemistry. Now, people still don't know the chemical ClO2, but they have this word, "bleach", and it gives them a scary picture in their head, and a point of reference and attack. Yet, they don't realise it is a pointless reference, it means nothing. Sulphur dioxide is also a bleach. Lemons are. And this point is just not getting through. If they had no point of reference, no way to say "industrial bleach", how could they attack it? If I said manganese dioxide does the same thing, would that make people feel better? It would just be a molecule of manganese instead of chlorine. But it isn't a bleach... so what would people say then? See what I'm saying... getting caught up in the word "bleach" has brought anger and misunderstanding to this and it is unwarranted if they just understood the chemistry. Only now, after pages of explanation, can some even bring themselves to imagine it as a possibility, or not as wildly unsafe as chlorox, as originally assumed.

I still don't claim cure. I don't claim 100% is what to expect, but rather, what has occurred in some situations according to a trusted source.

I just want people to know it is there. I trust they'll figure out if it is for them or not. If it is too freaky weird then that's ok! no big deal. But what I object to is the carry on that this is insulting or something. NO ONE IS BEING HARMED so it's kind of ... strange, to react in such a fashion.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

I gotta go, I'm sorry, not ignoring other posts. Nice people get in first







.









I just quickly wanted to mention that if this has off topic stuff in it I DON'T CARE!! I hate it when people get all fussy about their threads. If you want to compare nail polish colours, go right ahead. As I see it, organic discussions don't stay rigidly on a topic, they ebb and flow and move about and that's the best way for them to be. If the FDA and studies have come up then obviously that is topical or it wouldn't have come up. Please don't apologise for such things or try to keep away from a topic. Whatever is here is meant to be here.


----------



## Marnica (Oct 4, 2008)

Im not sure what you are saying Im wrong about? Perhaps that only drugs/products that are approved during an accelerated process use surrogate endpoints? That's what I have gathered but you are pointing to a vaccine that was NOT an accelerated approval and clinical endpoints were still not used. That is even worse!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mamakay*
> 
> I'm pretty sure you're wrong about that.
> 
> ...


----------



## WildKingdom (Mar 26, 2008)

You've got time to write that huge screed, but can't balance a chem equation for me?

Your claim is that ClO2--->NaClO2---->NaCl +O2

Can you please balance this for me?


----------



## beckybird (Mar 29, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Calm*
> 
> I just quickly wanted to mention that if this has off topic stuff in it I DON'T CARE!! I hate it when people get all fussy about their threads. If you want to compare nail polish colours, go right ahead. As I see it, organic discussions don't stay rigidly on a topic, they ebb and flow and move about and that's the best way for them to be. If the FDA and studies have come up then obviously that is topical or it wouldn't have come up. Please don't apologise for such things or try to keep away from a topic. Whatever is here is meant to be here.


Haha, I LOVE this! So funny, and so true!

I just wanted to chime in again with words of encouragement. I am glad you brought up the topic of MMS, and I'm not afraid to say it here on this supposedly alternative forum.

Thanks!


----------



## mamakay (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Marnica*
> 
> Im not sure what you are saying Im wrong about? Perhaps that only drugs/products that are approved during an accelerated process use surrogate endpoints? That's what I have gathered but you are pointing to a vaccine that was NOT an accelerated approval and clinical endpoints were still not used. That is even worse!


Well, yeah, that is even worse. I was just saying that WK is right about the accelerated approval process not being "fundamentally" different from the regular approval process. Surrogate endpoints are used for approvals that aren't accelerated, too.


----------



## JMJ (Sep 6, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Calm*
> 
> I really never understood what they expected me to produce. They knew the clinical trial showing evidence it worked on pathogens in the body did not exist yet it seemed that's what was being pushed for....I thought a discussion on what we do have would make more sense.
> 
> Really, the question most I've discussed this with had (in the past) was if it could reach all areas of the body intact, and when they see the study that shows it does, they are nodding quietly at that point. If something that can kill parasites can reach the bone marrow intact, that's exciting on its own... safe or not (chemo anyone?). But to learn that it is safe at all levels tested so far, that's even more compelling. There isn't much left to do at this point but an experiment to verify the potential all these things seem to suggest.


I am interested in seeing what evidence you have on this. Any time we can talk about what methods were used in a particular experiment, it is helpful for giving credibility to your results. How did whoever did this study come to this conclusion? I assume they took bone marrow samples from people who took MMS. How many people? How many tested positive? How was the test performed and evaluated? What dose was used? How long after administration of the dose was it detected in the bone marrow? If it managed to reach the bone marrow in one out of 1000 people or 999 out of 1000 people in a study, that makes a difference in how we would recommend it to people with diseases that have reached their bone marrow. Both qualify under your statement that it "can reach the bone marrow intact." If you do a study on 10 people or a study on 10,000 people, that makes a difference in the relavence of the study. Both mean something, even one case study means something, but we get a much better picture of the statistics in a larger study. Can a dose that is safe to consume make it to the entire body in concentrations that are effective?

Quote:


> Whatever I posted here would be trashed and that is exactly what happened and all testimonies are considered either lying, implausible or some gimmick (eg, the autism work of Kerri's). If I talked about Jim, it would just be "oh get real, he's a scammer"... so the man doing the most with this can't even be brought into it! So I didn't, you'll notice. I tried to avoid more controversy than this already has.
> 
> If I did an experiment, it would be rejected like everything else has been because of the same factor - there is no authentication. There is no way to authenticate the experiment, testimonial, person, results of MMS use, none of it. For example, I have posted experiments before on different things and they are not only dismissed, they are dismissed with disgust.


Whatever study you posted here, I (and I'm sure other posters) would likely point out some of the limitations in your study, just as they are pointing out the limitations in many of the links you are posting. It's hard for a study to prove anything (proof is a very difficult thing to get in science), but a study can support or refute a hypothesis. If you are careful about how you describe it and honest about the limitations before others point them out, it is easier to trust the source. When you make claims that it may be an effective treatment when taken internally as the MMS solution in treating a wide variety of things, we want to see studies that show this. In my opinion, you have presented information that has supported parts of this idea, but we're not quite there yet. You have given us evidence that ClO2 can be used to reliably disinfect surfaces, air, and water, and that the air and water can be safely breathed and drunk after treatment with ClO2. You say that there are studies that show that it can get to the bone marrow intact, so that is another piece of the puzzle. It would also be nice to see some chemical equations of how you believe the chemical reactions take place and what byproducts are made. You have made some allusions to them, but it would be helpful to have it drawn out for us.

I think you have about enough information here that we could formulate a hypothesis to be tested. I have some concerns about using human test subjects at this point, though I wouldn't try to keep informed people from making their own decisions on being test subjects, and if I had been sent home to die, I might volunteer. I'm just still concerned that some other testing is not happening first before all these human experiments are being carried out in third world countries and on children. I know, sometimes it is worse to withhold a treatment that might work even if it hasn't undergone enough testing yet. That is why some drugs are rushed through by the FDA, but sometimes the results are disastrous.

Certainly, any experiment done would have some limitations, but that is science. You run some tests, report back, recognize your limitations, and run a better experiment next time. Criticism of your experiment and results is not a reflection of your worth. It can be a valuable jumping off point to put together a better experiment. I would personally be more in favor of running these experiments on animals first since it's easier to get a more controlled experiement, and there are fewer ethical problems. If you are randomly assigning rats treatments, that's one thing. It's completely another to randomly assign humans to treatments that may or may not work and have not had reliable animal experiments, which it sounds as if MMS has not.

Quote:


> One was a mother who just said f*** it one day and started her own experiment. She fed mice aspartame and had mice she didn't feed aspartame to and the results are compelling. Of course, when I posted that it was rejected and I really don't see why some make it so difficult to talk about possibilities around here. I do know that apparently people only support you in pm around here because they're gun shy. GREAT. Great system there is going here when an alternative site has members who are too "over it" to speak about alternatives lest it be implied they are "irresponsible parents" or something.
> 
> So if I do a test with mice and I take videos and photos and do my best to make it as authentic as I can, it will never get the authentication of the gov't and that is what people want. They strongly reject anything else. For interests sake, here is the aspartame experiment:
> 
> ...


That is quite an interesting study, exactly the sort of thing I am talking about. I appreciate how that woman was quite honest about her methods and humble about her findings. I think that her results are compelling, and I would love to see another experiment done with a larger sample size and smaller amounts, closer to the amount that might be consumed by a regular diet soda drinker. 13-14 cans/day is possible, but consuming that much daily for a matter of years seems pretty excessive. I bet she could get significant results even with an amount closer to what most diet soda drinkers are consuming. It also helps me that I have seen references to other experiments that have shown problems with aspartame.

I find it funny that you say you don't know how to cause cancer in rats in your next sentence after you link to a study that showed an effective method of causing cancer in rats. If you have ethical concerns about causing cancer in rats, I think you could still run an experiment that involved waiting for the rats to get cancer on their own. It may not be as efficient, but rats get cancer a lot. You could theoretically just get a bunch of rats and wait until a lot of them develop tumors before you start your experiment.

Quote:


> Regarding the subjective nature of the word "harm" I understand your point. You see nausea and diarrhea as harm. That is anecdotal evidence though. You don't believe the people when they say they are getting well but you do believe them when they say they got ill. That is a flaming double standard if ever I heard one. But since it is a common one on this thread, to cherry pick when they believe data, I'll indulge it a moment. If you see that as harm, and believe the anecdotal evidence they are experiencing that effect, then ok... shall I say "it causes no harm except nausea and diarrhea if your dose is too high"? Because that is the truth as I know it to be.


You make a fair point about anecdotal evidence of harm. It's just that vomiting and diarrhea are more objective standards than "feeling better." I'm not discounting the anecdotal evidence whatsoever. I'm sure that the people who experience a decrease in symptoms of disease are experiencing just that. I'm asking for more objective evidence than a subjective feeling. What symptoms are being decreased in what diseases? What percentage of cases experience improvements? I'll ask those same questions about vomiting and diarrhea. What percentage of cases experience vomiting and/or diarrhea? Maybe it's just that I haven't watched the videos you posted, but I have seen very little explanation of before and after symptoms except with vomiting and diarrhea, which there seems to be consensus on both sides that it is the experience of many (though you seem to be saying only with too high of a dose) that before they take it, they are not vomiting and do not have diarrhea, and after they take it, they are vomiting and/or have diarrhea.

Besides vomiting and diarrhea, I am still concerned about the fact that it is something being put into the body in places that it would not naturally be, and I am concerned about the collateral damage to tissues, and I am concerned that it may leave the body with byproducts of either the products of reaction or the pathogens that are being killed. Another analogy: we think of nystatin as a rather safe drug, but it often makes candida symptoms worse before they get better. The yeasts release their mercury, leaving free mercury in the body, and the body reacts poorly to it as well as other toxins that the yeasts give off as they die. The mercury released then needs to be detoxed by the body. Worth it? In many cases. Harmful? Yes, especially if the patient is a woman who is pregnant or breastfeeding and detoxes the mercury into her baby. I have very little evidence of harm from MMS, but it is what I don't know that scares me. More research would help us all to form a better understanding of both the benefits and the risks.

Quote:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> > There is ample evidence that people have used and are using this product.
> ...


Granted, it is mostly internet sources, but the fact that there are several vendors selling this and other similar products implies that there is a market for it. Then, there are numerous sites out there where people who appear to be distinct individuals are writing comments and testimonials about this product. I suppose it could be the same few people making Many of them seem to be confused as to how they are supposed to use it, in what concentration, etc, and people seem to be doing all sorts of things with it that are not what is recommended by Jim Humble or anyone else. This seems quite dangerous and unwise to me, so the fact that it has had so much uncontrolled use in humans, and there has been only one claim of death that was thrown out by a court, is really encouraging to me. You would think that if it is as dangerous as the FDA thinks that there would be at least a handful of deaths. It does sound like there have been some hospitalizations because of dehydration, which isn't terribly dangerous in a country with easy access to medical care, but I have some conerns about using it without easy access to IV fluids. If we had more research on doses and safety, it sounds promising that doses to minimize side effects could be established. The question is, is ClO2 effective at that dose?

Quote:


> Jim Humble is a frustrating old man, I'm led to believe by friends who have worked with him. One of them can no longer work with him because of his dismissal of the proper scientific method and general anger at FDA. He came up with that name, and it has been a bone of contention ever since. He has changed it since to Master Mineral Solution to rectify both the miracle and supplement issues. Sodium chlorite


Well, it sounds to be mutual. The FDA does not think to highly of the FDA, either. It is hard for the FDA and many of us to take him seriously if he is not willing to go through the proper scientific method to give us more information. Without scientific experimentation or traditional use throughout thousands of years of history, it's really hard to convince those who are scientifically minded that something is going to work.

Quote:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> > I think it is possible that MMS may have some benefit in treating at least some of the diseases claimed.
> ...


For the same reasons you do, though with less personal experience. When thousands of people believe that they have been helped by a particular product, it's unlikely that all of them are wrong. I know that there it could be a placebo effect. This is more likely when we are talking about how people feel rather than more objective standards such as test results, size or tumor, etc. The fact that most of the testimonials that I have read talk about people feeling better or make claims that they are "better" or "cured" without much explanation about what they mean by that does give me reason to doubt. There are also numerous other theoretical explanations, but when a whole lot of people claim that they believe they benefited from a certain treatment, it is doubtful that all of them are wrong.

But I'm just another one of those crazy women who encapsulated her placenta. I did go through the reasoning process that has been discussed here. I had suffered from depression in the past. My mother suffered from depression as well as postpartum depression. I was concerned about handling the transition to motherhood, quitting my job, being responsible for this new life. I read anecdotes. I acknowledged the lack of scientific evidence but the fact that there is perhaps the potential to help. I figured that the only risks were food poisoning and financial. I followed proper food handling techniques. I paid less than $5 for the whole thing (plus my time encapsulating by hand). I feel like it helped. I cannot say for sure that taking my placenta helped, but I believe it did. I made it through the early weeks postpartum with a peace that I have experienced few times in my life. My stress level rose when my inlaws came for a visit, and I increased my dose, and then the rest of their visit was easier for me. My stress level rose slightly as I decreased my dose and finished the capsules, but it was managable. I never had postpartum depression. Coincidence? Maybe.

Same with MMS. I just think that more details about the situations would be helpful rather than judgements on the situations. Just as you can look at my situation and make your own judgement about how credible of a case study it is, it would be nice to look at the MMS cases with more detail than we're getting on the internet to decide for ourselves if they are credible. If I just said "eating my placenta prevented and cured postpartum depression," I set myself up for a lot of criticism by people who say, "well, how do you know that?" If I give the detailed facts instead of the judgement, I become a small piece of the puzzle. Calm, even if you are not making these claims, other people are. They leave comments on internet sites with judgements instead of facts. People trying to make a decision on treatments want facts, not someone else's spin on the facts.

Quote:


> I saw the misunderstanding in the recent posts. Just because something shows 100% efficacy in one test, does not mean it always will. Likewise, just because a study shows poor efficacy, doesn't make it so. There are different, almost endless, variables in experiments. For instance, when Jim started with MMS against malaria, he had a 100% success rate. His second group did not, and he learned from that. He learned that 15 drops followed by 15 drops one hour later removed all the malaria from the blood of 98% of people. That 2% who were still sick, or who still showed malaria in the blood symptomatic or not, seemed to need significantly more doses. He found in 2010 that it was 98% effective against cancer, and he had some explanation for the 2% but I don't remember it. HIV is a complex one... in only some do they sero-convert to HIV negative. Considering the tests in Africa are for antibodies, that is almost impossible. For instance, I do not have chicken pox, but I will always be chickenpox positive in a test... because it tests for antibodies. So he didn't say it cured HIV, unless it did. He simply said it took away the symptoms of AIDS. What that means is, when someone was sick and dying, or suffering some AIDS affliction, after MMS, they were well. Some became very healthy actually. But he stopped testing for HIV status when he realised that was futile... the antibodies are mostly always going to be there. What mattered to the people was how they felt.
> 
> HIV and AIDS are not the same thing. HIV is a virus. AIDS is a collection of diseases the person suffers because their immune system is infected with HIV. Eg, TB, PCP, Karposi's sarcoma, candidiasis, etc. If someone with HIV gets candidiasis, it can kill them... but they don't die of "AIDS" and they don't die of "HIV", they die of candidiasis. It is the disease that MMS is purported to treat, as for the virus... I don't know enough about those results to comment.


Most of us take 100% success rate to mean that there has never been a study showing any cases that are not a success. I have seen reputable sources cite a study (on natural family planning) with a method failure of 0%. However, they noted that due to the fact that other studies showed similarly high success rates but were not 100%, the authors very carefully followed up their comments about this study by citing other studies and concluded that the method was over 99% effective When you say that something has been shown to have 100% efficacy, that seems to imply that it is so in every study ever conducted, (taking an example from the original thread, like sufficient vitamin C has been shown to have 100% efficacy in preventing scurvy) not that one study has presented those results. If it is one study saying that, say so, and preferrably link to the study so that we can examine it critically. If a study with 10 people in it shows 100% efficacy, it's nothing to scoff at, but it's not enough to tell the world that 100% of people will be cured by it either.

I would love to see some write-up of the Jim Humble studies that you are citing. I have my concerns if you say that he is not big into the scientific method, but I think a lot of us would love to see them for what they are. I acknowledge freely that just because a study has severe limitations does not make its conclusions false. That is a logic fallacy, but it is the difference between having evidence and not having evidence. If you want people to listen to you, the higher quality evidence that you can obtain, the easier it is for us to take you and the product seriously.

I understand the difficulties with diagnosing a cure to HIV when you are only testing for antibodies, but we have better ways of testing in this country. It sounds like there are people in this country who are HIV+ and want to take MMS to treat it. Why not get some lab work done on them before and after they take MMS? Yes, taking away symptoms or curing the secondary diseases caused by AIDS would be huge, wonderful, but I think it is important to make that distinction, especially when talking about AIDS. If a person is still HIV+ but is experiencing no symptoms, they can still pass the disease on to others. It could be dangerous to make somebody believe that they are "cured" if they are still able to pass on the disease. Until they have more evidence, they need to be informed that they need to be careful about their bodily fluids.

Quote:


> And the claim I am making is that it has not killed anyone... I make that claim because it is verifiable.


See, I like this claim much better than the next one:

Quote:


> I can claim there is no evidence of harm, because there is no evidence of harm.


because your definition of "harm" is different than mine, and by my definition of "harm," there is evidence of harm.



> I just want people to know it is there. I trust they'll figure out if it is for them or not.


.
I have no problem with this. I just want people to get better data. When we have one person telling us one thing and another person telling us another, we need evidence. This is why the scientific method was developed, to test a hypothesis. I would just like to see more of the gaps filled in.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

http://bioredox.mysite.com/CLOXhtml/CLOXilus.htm

That has chemistry diagrams. It might help.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Cross post, that was for WK, for the chemistry.

btw if it doesn't help, let me know. I'm in a rush today...


----------



## ElizabethE (Jan 15, 2011)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WildKingdom*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> ...


Alarm! Alarm! Alarm!
















Oh, wait. What now?


----------



## D_McG (Jun 12, 2006)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ElizabethE*
> 
> Alarm! Alarm! Alarm!
> 
> ...


I still don't get it.


----------



## WildKingdom (Mar 26, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *D_McG*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> ...


Me neither. I have no idea what she's talking about. I guess I'm not fluent in smiley.


----------



## mamakay (Apr 8, 2005)

Will you please respond to this, Calm?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ccohenou*
> 
> Sure, I'm aware of several ways that leukocytes can deploy oxidants selectively against pathogens and virally infected cells. Like for one example: Neutrophils will phagocytose pathogenic bacteria, phagosome fuses with lysosome, respiratory burst produces reactive oxygen species and the pathogen is killed. But neutrophils have to recognize a good target, and they do this through lots of complex pathways that depend on host cells having receptors that are specific for molecular structures that are unique to pathogens and not expressed by normal host cells. They don't just spray reactive oxygen species indiscriminately around the body - or if they do, you have problems with oxidative damage.
> 
> ...


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

I will.







I'm just taking a bit of a break. Some of these posts have taken literally hours to write, as you can imagine. DH is a bit shirty and fair enough so I'll be back into the fray when I can. Some of the answers can be found in the link I posted above: http://bioredox.mysite.com/CLOXhtml/CLOXilus.htm

The doctor who wrote it has worked with oxidative therapies for a long time and his biography can be read here. People on MDC will especially appreciate what he has been doing, and how he has been influenced.

Any answers not found on the malaria specific page might be found in looking through his other work on redox and oxidation, here.

Chlorine oxides specifically, here.

WF10 (Tetrachlorodecaoxide) is an active oxygen in a chlorite matrix with chlorine dioxide... an oxidiser used for a huge array of diseases - yes, disparate diseases, like a "panacea" you could say... primarily HIV, however cancer, autoimmune, hepatitis and many others are responding to it. It is being ingested, and many studies can be found on it. I found some on the same site, here, but also many studies.

Perhaps all that could be gone through thoroughly and any questions remaining from that, ask them again. I think that will save us all time, as others before me have done a much better job of explaining all this. Thanks.


----------



## mamakay (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:


> Any answers not found on the malaria specific page might be found in looking through his other work on redox and oxidation, here.


Might be found? You want us to go dig around through a giant website looking for answers that might or might not be found in there?


----------



## lisalou (May 20, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mamakay*
> 
> Might be found? You want us to go dig around through a giant website looking for answers that might or might not be found in there?


Calm, I have to admit I'm beginning to think you don't really understand what you're talking or the links you're throwing up.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mamakay*
> 
> Might be found? You want us to go dig around through a giant website looking for answers that might or might not be found in there?


I want you to dig around a large website because you're interested in learning how it works. Because this thread has shown me that if I answer one question, another one is brought up. Plus, so many didn't even read my links before dismissing this wholesale... which, considering the venom with which I had to receive that dismissal is pretty friggin' disgusting. So I am trying to save myself and yourself some time and confusion. He has written about the chemistry, much of it can be found on that malaria link. IF someone still has questions after that, then yes, whatever question it is might be answered in the other links. Depending on the bloody question, mate. Following? If I were to suggest one link, it would be the first one as it is specific to that oxidiser against a pathogen. WF10 is a fascinating product, using oxidation, chlorine dioxide specifically.

Some very specific chem questions were asked, and keep being asked regardless how I answer so perhaps someone else, with years of experience with oxidation, might do a better job of answering... if not, I'll give it another shot. If I have a regret for this thread, it is not starting with his links. The more I go through his stuff, the more I realise he has sufficiently answered all the questions that have been raised here. Now I know, I'll use his stuff up front in future.


----------



## mamakay (Apr 8, 2005)

If you actually knew where the answer exists within those links, you'd be able to quote that part. That's pretty much the standard way back and forth exchanges of information work all over the internet. Not "Here's metric craptons of info for you to sort though. You go spend 12 hours to maybe (or maybe not) find something to support my point! HTH!"

Can you answer this question?

Quote:


> So, what I'm asking is, by what mechanism or mechanisms does ClO2, taken orally, recognize a good target?


If the answer is "no", just say so.


----------



## ElizabethE (Jan 15, 2011)

Oh yeah, we are all fluent in smiley. I've got some choice ones to add. Let me just find them.

This conversation is absurd because it seems that no one is actually willing to listen to and consider the possibility of what the OP is saying. It is full of nothing other than most of the people trying to vehemently knock her down with little to no actual thought towards her ideas and the guise of respect and civility. I see a million demands for proof and not one ounce of satisfaction at her tries to point you in the right direction. It's a lost cause. Nothing she'll say will ever be good enough for you, unless it were already totally mainstream knowledge. Why does it continue? For fun, I suppose. Carry on.


----------



## moaningminny (Dec 31, 2007)

I didn't realize that basic chemistry was considered subjective and mainstream.


----------



## Annie Mac (Dec 30, 2009)

I think this is why this thread has struck a chord with a few of us on here. If you, god forbid, demonstrate any critical thinking skills, you are accused of being closed-minded, "mainstream" (the ultimate of insults here on MDC) and a mindless automaton who just gobbles up (literally and figuratively) anything the FDA and Big Pharma dish out. There is a middle ground between unthinking consumer of any therapy labelled alternative, *because* it's alternative and therefore somehow virtuous, and the unthinking consumer of lipitor, etc, just so long as the doctor prescribes it, and you're seeing that middle ground in process here: people who ask questions, do research, compare the answers to the paradigms they have learned (ie the scientific method), consider the sources and question motives.

That usually isn't a problem, but the information on MMS is being presented in a dogmatic, "I"m 100% right" manner that understandably raises a few hackles. But as I said previously, whether or not you take MMS is going to come down to whether or not you're OK with basically a faith approach or whether you want something a little colder and harder than that.

ETA: I do have to thank Calm for introducing me to something I'd never heard of before. Before this thread, MMS was wholly unknown to me and now I've done a few hours reading about it, in addition to this thread. I've made up my own mind about it and learned something new. That is always welcome


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Look, I presented what I know about it, and did not lie. I'm sure many have had no success with MMS. But I am not them, I was talking about ME. Three men with AIDS got healthy using it. That's HUGE. And because it is so huge, I've been ridiculed for mentioning it. Don't you see how that is absurd??

So to claim the ridiculous notion that people have been innocently just asking me logical questions is either having poor memory, or selective memory. Because that is not how it went, and three times a moderator had to come on here and basically tell people to stop making it so personal for God's sake.

Take a look at the thread from page one. Just click on page one and open it in a new tab, and read what this so called "oh don't be silly we were just asking for chemistry" actually looks like. No one asked for any chemistry for a very long time, but they sure had a truck load of sarcasm and veiled insult and were quick to tell me that it can't work - that it simply CANNOT work and is HIGHLY dangerous and to even think of ingesting it you must be out of your mind. Go and recheck it. Imean, one poster even said "oh that's not chemistry, how could an oxidiser rip electrons" when that is exactly how an oxidiser works! People were quick to make claims, slow to ask questions, quick to point out error and slow to point out when they'd learned something... actually, no one ever did point out that. Yet the discussion did change from outright "that's impossible" to the finer points of the chemistry. So what was insulting and impossible became possible and the insults diminished and THEN the finer points of chemistry were brought into it.

We've come a long way. And it is pointed out how I've been hopeless at explaining it, no doubt... but although I can't show you a clinical trial that has never been done, I did show how ClO2 could work, and gave the explanations a doctor has given as to how it works. Instead of carrying on in the manner some did after seeing Kerri's post, I don't think it is a big deal to make sure it can't work, if you are so damned sure of it. A lot of lives are relying on it, so if you're going to ridicule it, then don't you want to make sure you're right first? Don't you want to look at the links and read from doctors who are actually using it... don't they trump little ol' me as far as credibility goes? The question should have been "what if this works, do I really want to be a party to squashing this, if people are getting relief with it?" But no. That wasn't important to people at all.

What's wrong with checking the chemistry themselves? As you can see in the more recent links, it all checks out. Oxidation is not mysterious science and certainly isn't new science.

Mamakay asked the same question I've answered multiple times on this thread. How does it recognise the target? That is the same question as how does it selectively destroy pathogens. It is the same question as if it does penetrate the whole body, how does it do this without harming healthy cells? They're all the same question and I've answered them several times now. Here was my post that I spent hours on, in an attempt to explain it, and it still wasn't good enough so that is when I gave the links.

The answer put simply is: oxidation potential. But read this link if you haven't yet. I'll leave it at one link so as not to overwhelm. Please look at it, and if you have any residual questions, ask them again.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

I just found out two days ago that chlorine dioxide is ingested, in the mainstream! Imagine if I'd had that info earlier in the thread. But I didn't, and we can't go back now.

WF10 is ingested chlorine dioxide (I think it may even be injected, but I'm still learning about it), with hydrogen peroxide and chlorite (chlorite is what ClO2 is made out of). It is used for HIV, cancer, autoimmune and basically all the things I suggested it CAN treat, they are using it for. And it has clinical trials showing efficacy and safety. I didn't have that information before. Why is no one saying anything about that? I linked it a page ago.

By the looks of this mixed agent WF10, much of this thread is rendered obsolete.


----------



## ElizabethE (Jan 15, 2011)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Annie Mac*
> 
> I think this is why this thread has struck a chord with a few of us on here. If you, god forbid, demonstrate any critical thinking skills, you are accused of being closed-minded, "mainstream" (the ultimate of insults here on MDC) and a mindless automaton who just gobbles up (literally and figuratively) anything the FDA and Big Pharma dish out. There is a middle ground between unthinking consumer of any therapy labelled alternative, *because* it's alternative and therefore somehow virtuous, and the unthinking consumer of lipitor, etc, just so long as the doctor prescribes it, and you're seeing that middle ground in process here: people who ask questions, do research, compare the answers to the paradigms they have learned (ie the scientific method), consider the sources and question motives.
> 
> ...


You're right, there IS a middle ground, but that involves asking "what if?" and hearing the other person out rather than just repeatedly disregarding them and carrying on claiming "no evidence".

This is totally dismissive, and you're leaning on the "I'm so not-mainstream at not-mainstream MDC, ever the victim" crutch. It's similar to cries of reverse racism. If you feel the climate here is so quick to dodge fact in favor of just being quirky, hippie, "crunchy", etc., why even partake? If this environment is not for you, what's in it for you to hang around and poke at people?

I'm sure you've convinced yourself it's to save people from such "dangerous" thinking such as this. Unfortunately, Calm cannot help if someone misuses or misunderstands anything she's presented, just as you cannot be helped for whatever conclusions others may come to on your informational tidbits (if you ever provide them). I say there are better ways to save the world, and coming here and arguing chemistry with a clearly intelligent poster seems... well, absurd.

The reason it's dismissive, btw, is because people to continue to ignore her logical reasons for things and her in-depth explanations as well as personal experience. The only reason I can even see for that is because it's not mainstream. Obviously if her ideas were already common knowledge, you would all be leaving her alone. Simply put.


----------



## rhiandmoi (Apr 28, 2006)

Sodium Chlorite is manufactured by DuPont as a stable Chloride Dioxide precursor. They already make big bucks off Chloride Dioxide precursors. And if they could make more by rebranding it as an AIDs cure they would.


----------



## oaktreemama (Oct 12, 2010)

Quote:


> coming here and arguing chemistry with a clearly intelligent poster seems... well, absurd.


People who sell snake oil are intelligent-or at least good writers. That's why they are able sell snake oil. ElizabethE-please come back when you have something to actually add to the conversation. Other than that you should probably stick to the UC forum where facts aren't necessary or encouraged.


----------



## Ldavis24 (Feb 19, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ElizabethE*
> 
> You're right, there IS a middle ground, but that involves asking "what if?" and hearing the other person out rather than just repeatedly disregarding them and carrying on claiming "no evidence".
> 
> ...


I'm confused are you saying that people are primarily dismissing Calm's claims because those claims aren't "mainstream" enough? Common knowledge? Just because something IS common knowledge certainly doesn't make it correct. Coming to MDC and claiming people are disagreeing because it is mainstream is silly considering that most mamas here are far from "mainstream" themselves.

It's funny that ANYONE who disagrees with Calm is just close minded, ignorant, doesn't understand chemistry or now apparently mainstream. It is clearly impossible to conceive that a lot of people had pointed out the many flaws in the claims Calm makes and have come to the conclusion that MMS is not at all what she claims it to be, which once again is a cure for AIDS, malaria, cancer, autism, acne, bad breath and numerous other ailments. That is the claim, not that it makes people "feel better or be healthier"....The actual claims are that it is a CURE...That is the problem. There is no evidence it cures anything at all. Just feeling better is NOT being cured no matter how much people supporting MMS want it to be.


----------



## mamakay (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:


> Mamakay asked the same question I've answered multiple times on this thread. How does it recognise the target? That is the same question as how does it selectively destroy pathogens. It is the same question as if it does penetrate the whole body, how does it do this without harming healthy cells? They're all the same question and I've answered them several times now. Here was my post that I spent hours on, in an attempt to explain it, and it still wasn't good enough so that is when I gave the links.


Do you realize that the question "I" asked was a question posed to you (by someone else) in response to the post you just linked to?

Of course that post you wrote wasn't good enough. The basic fact of the matter is that we would all quickly die if our phagocytes went around destroying everything in sight with reactive oxygen species. Our immune systems are incredibly sophisticated at only very selectively deploying those tools.

Quote:


> The answer put simply is: oxidation potential. But read this link if you haven't yet. I'll leave it at one link so as not to overwhelm. Please look at it, and if you have any residual questions, ask them again.


Which part of that link explains how CIO2 recognizes a good target? Quote it if *you* know the answer.


----------



## mamakay (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ElizabethE*
> Nothing she'll say will ever be good enough for you, unless it were already totally mainstream knowledge. Why does it continue? For fun, I suppose. Carry on.


Hello, Elizabeth.

What's the difference between "mainstream knowledge" and "not mainstream knowledge" to you?

Is it a matter of "ideas with good evidence to back them up are mainstream?"

Or, "Good science that goes ignored is not mainstream knowledge?"

Or, "Stories I read on the internet with no good science to back them up" are "not mainstream knowledge?"

Or what?

Just wondering what your own point of reference is.


----------



## mamakay (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ElizabethE*
> 
> The reason it's dismissive, btw, is because people to continue to ignore her logical reasons for things and her in-depth explanations as well as personal experience. The only reason I can even see for that is because it's not mainstream. Obviously if her ideas were already common knowledge, you would all be leaving her alone. Simply put.


I don't doubt that it seems that way to you. I'm not sure you know enough to even be aware of what you don't know, though.

I happen to have a long and verifiable history of "taking issue" with things that are/were considered "common knowledge" in medical science, and speaking up for ideas that were/are extremely obscure and contrary to the current scientific consensus.

I seriously doubt that people who go around thinking any old feel-good hypothesis that sounds outrageous and alternative must be/probably is true, can even tell a logical reason from an illogical one. If they even really care to make the distinction beyond just try to give the appearance of caring about facts and logic.


----------



## Annie Mac (Dec 30, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ElizabethE*
> 
> You're right, there IS a middle ground, but that involves asking "what if?" and hearing the other person out rather than just repeatedly disregarding them and carrying on claiming "no evidence".
> 
> ...


I don't really understand your accusation of my being a victim, but I assure you being a victim is not part of my mentality. I also really don't think I hang around poking people either. In fact, I have said very little in this discussion, except to point out that the compilation of chemo stats in a particular fashion is rather misleading. I have, however, read with interest the comments of others, especially those who clearly have chemical knowledge (which I don't, although I wish I did).

Here's the thing: there's a particular circumstance here that does and should raise flags for people, and that is rather large unsubstantiated claims coupled with the exchange of money. I am not saying that Calm is receiving money for MMS, but people are. People are saying" here's this thing, it cures cancer, aids, lyme disease, malaria, blackheads, heartbreak and psoriasis. I know it works because people told me it does, and now I'm telling you it does, so send me your money." It has nothing to do with mainstream or not mainstream. It doesn't even have anything to do, specifically, with MMS. It is simply unsubstantiated claims + money = skepticism. When that skepticism is greeted not with the results of scientifically grounded experimentation, but with ad hominem attacks (you don't know your chemistry, you shouldn't be on MDC, you're just too mainstream, etc) and/or conspiracy theories, the skepticism level soars. When there is the possibility of real harm being done, either by not treating the underlying disease or actually being harmed by the cure, emotions can run very high. I will admit that this has been a heated discussion, and people (on both sides of the debate) have not always remembered their manners. That should (and was) checked. Civility is important.

Maybe, maybe MMS really does work. Who knows? No one has really checked it out. But they're selling it as if they know for sure, and that is wrong, and I will absolutely defend those who question and think critically about things.


----------



## JMJ (Sep 6, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Calm*
> 
> I just found out two days ago that chlorine dioxide is ingested, in the mainstream! Imagine if I'd had that info earlier in the thread. But I didn't, and we can't go back now.
> 
> ...


Oh, but the obsolete thread continues. Hmm..... from what I'm seeing, it's just injected, not ingested. OK, so I'm using Wikipedia for my source, but it's easier for me to understand. WF10 is (charges in parentheses) H2Cl4O11(-4) grouped into O2 4 ClO2(-) H2O in a 10% solution (also used topically in a 1:55 ratio). Calm, if I'm understanding this correctly, MMS works out to be Na(+)ClO2(-), but it we can show that it is the ClO2(-) that is what has the active role, that is the main component of both. I'm sure you put it in here someplace, but I don't have time to go digging. What is the %solution in MMS? It is interesting to see that it is being researched as a treatment for late stage AIDS and some cancer. I wonder what the side effects are for the injected drug, and I'd be interested in seeing how successful it is showing itself to be. Quite interesting, though I don't trust Big Pharma any more than I trust you, Calm. As you figure stuff out, Calm, I would be interested in learning about what they say this drug can do and how MMS compares. If you can gather good support that MMS is pretty much the same treatment, it'll be interesting to see the fall-out as WF10 gets approved for use in the US. Will MMS get more respect, or will it get covered over in favor of the patented drug?

That's quite interesting information, Calm. My viewpoint is evolving, but this just lends more support to my thought that it may have some success in treating some things. I'd be interested in learning more about exactly how much success. I noticed that it is being used to treat these diseases, but I'm not seeing any claims of curing them. I'm still skeptical about some of the claims that some people are making about some of the things that they are trying to treat with it. I'm doubtful that it is the panacea that some believe it to be, but that's interesting stuff.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *oaktreemama*
> 
> People who sell snake oil are intelligent-or at least good writers. That's why they are able sell snake oil. ElizabethE-please come back when you have something to actually add to the conversation. Other than that you should probably stick to the UC forum where facts aren't necessary or encouraged.


Oh my God. Not nice. Unnecessary.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

I don't think what happened to me in this thread is because it is mainstream or not. This therapy is neither mainstream nor alternative. It is a chemical, so it is not going to appeal to the alternative-ists. It is used in a similar fashion with similar claims as alternative stuff (treats disparate diseases, has few/no evidence etc) so it is not going to appeal to mainstream-ists. It is a bit of a black sheep of treatments really.

The use of such a denigrating term to alternatives as "snake oil" in this apparent safe haven for radicals is a bit off putting. (now that I've said that I trust I'll hear it more often, much like the bleach thing) Things like oil pulling (speaking of snake "oil") has some great testimonies and whatnot but it has no evidence to support it. I still mention it if it comes to mind, because that's what I do. That's how we learn what is out there. I've got plenty where that came from. Wild. Wacky. Crazy stuff. I don't give a rat's. I simply believe in moving information around. It's others that think we should all be mushrooms because we can't be trusted to figure things out on our own. What a load of bollocks.

There are many things we do not know the cause of. If those things are responding to oxidation, or anything really that is anti-microbial, that should sound alarm bells... perhaps it is a microbial cause. To not at least wonder that seems... well, kinda blind to me. The cervical cancer vaccine is against a virus. The treatment for stomach ulcers is against bacteria. These things go against previous awareness of disease, and certainly open our eyes to the idea that pathogens are playing a role here. So when I first heard of a colleague having success against autism using an antifungal treatment in the gut, that made sense to me. Then to find out MMS was being used for it, also made sense to me. I don't understand rejection of it just because we don't currently know the cause... in fact, BECAUSE we don't know the cause should make us prick our ears at these things we hear. But when there are many getting relief, no one getting maimed, and potentially kids getting their suffering alleviated? Well, I'll NEVER pretend to understand why people can turn and spit on that.

I'll be interested to learn if WF10 is used for autism. And again I won't be surprised if it is.

ETA - I'm not sure where people got the idea I said MMS cures everything. Have you any idea how many diseases are out there? Diet is a huge contributer to many diseases and I've never been shy about saying that at MDC. But there are some seemingly different diseases that share a common thread - successfully treated with oxidation or anti-microbial herbs.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Quote:

Do you realize that the question "I" asked was a question posed to you (by someone else) _in response_ to the post you just linked to?

My post? Ok. Did you open the link to the mechanisms page at all?

This is from my post:

Quote:


> The oxidation power of an oxidizer is measured in electrical potential, usually in millivolts. Of the oxidizers that have been used in the human body:


• Ozone is the strongest known oxidizer used in the body with an oxidation potential of 2070 millivolts;

• Hydrogen peroxide is the second strongest oxidizer used in the body and it has an oxidation potential of 1800 millivolts;

• Oxygen itself has an oxidation potential of about 1300 millivolts;

• Chlorine dioxide has an oxidation potential of 950 millivolts.

Note that chlorine dioxide has the lowest oxidation potential.

*Oxidation potential also determines what an oxidiser cannot oxidise*. It cannot oxidise the blood, tissues or cells. High enough doses of anything will cause damage, including ClO2, but doses used according to the protocols are 100 times less than required to do such damage.

That it destroys pathogens seems to be understood, so the question is, why doesn't it also destroy healthy human cells, and how does it recognise pathogens amongst all that other stuff in the human body? Is that right? Well, that post explained it, that you didn't understand how it explains it is a separate issue.

Perhaps Adam can explain it better:

Quote:


> Oxidation potential (also referred to as redox potential) of a given element is expressed in volts. For chlorine dioxide, that value is .95 volts. Anything that has a lower voltage than .95 will give up to 5 electrons to the chlorine dioxide molecule on contact.
> 
> By way of comparison, chlorine dioxide has a milder oxidation effect than hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), which has an oxidation potential of 1.78 and collects 2 electrons, or Ozone (O3) whose oxidation potential is 2.07, and only collects 2 electrons. [Source: Lenntech Water Treatment Systems] A healthy human cell has a natural electrical of just over 1 volt, which means that it would be unaffected by chlorine dioxide, yet, it has been long known that extended use of hydrogen peroxide or ozone is damaging to healthy cells and tissue. Yet, they are used widely today.


 ClO2 is deficient in four electrons, which gives it a positive charge. This makes it seek and be attracted to the negatively charged, from which it takes electrons (oxidation/reduction reaction) destroying both itself and the donor in the reaction. The surfaces of pathogenic microbes are negatively charged.

The oxidation potential is why it only does that to pathogens. It isn't that the molecules have consciousness and go seeking microbes, heavy metals or toxic substances specifically.

But it can *only* oxidise those things due to the limits of its potential.

Pathogens are in its range - human tissue is not within that range, it cannot oxidise anything except that which is below its range of .95V. It will bolt around the body desperate to be "quenched" and actively seek out negatively charged items that are acidic as it is a very active, unstable molecule - but it has a low potential. So this makes it wickedly fast and active at ripping apart a microbe, but it goes right past a healthy human cell.

If ClO2 does not get quenched on its ripping journey, it will make it all the way to the bone marrow and into every little corner of the body. As it moves along, it will destroy everything in its potential range... this is how it does it to malaria in the blood stream.

If ClO2 had a higher potential, it could *also* destroy human tissue along with all those beneath that potential. Inside the body, whether ingested, injected or via enema, ClO2 molecules bolt around until they make contact with something that "quenches" them. It is a proven selectivity factor of oxidation. Molecules can attract or repel, depending on charge and acidity etc. That is how it "targets", yet leaves healthy tissue alone.

Quote:


> Which part of that link explains how CIO2 recognizes a good target? Quote it if *you* know the answer.


All of it explains that. With headings like "Targeting Thiols" and Targeting Polyamines:

Quote:


> Other metabolites necessary for survival and growth in tumors, bacteria and parasites are the polyamines.[68a-68d] Plasmodia quit growing and die, when polyamines are lacking [69a-69k] , or when their functions are blocked [70a-70L] . Polyamines are also sensitive to oxidation and can be eliminated by strong oxidants . When oxidized, polyamines are converted to aldehydes , which are deadly to parasites and to tumors. [71a-71e] Chlorine dioxide (ClO2) is known to be especially reactive against secondary amines. [72a]This includes spermine and spermidine the two main biologically important polyamines. Thus any procedure which is successful to oxidize both thiols (RSH) and polyamines does quadruple damage to the pathogen:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There are things in microbes, heavy metals and pathogens that are unlike human tissue. They behave differently, and these things attract oxidation, chlorine dioxide included. The difference is, chlorine dioxide's potential is low enough that it only targets those things.

Is it clear yet how chlorine dioxide targets pathogens?


----------



## SleeplessMommy (Jul 16, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Calm*
> 
> Look, I presented what I know about it, and did not lie. I'm sure many have had no success with MMS. But I am not them, I was talking about ME. Three men with AIDS got healthy using it. That's HUGE. And because it is so huge, I've been ridiculed for mentioning it. Don't you see how that is absurd??


It would be very helpful if you had before/after CD4 counts.

Calm, previously you have stated that you believe HIV/AIDS is caused by overuse of "poppers". Have you changed your mind? Do you believe that MMS is treating damage caused by "poppers" or treating virus-infected cells?


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SleeplessMommy*
> 
> It would be very helpful if you had before/after CD4 counts.
> 
> Calm, previously you have stated that you believe HIV/AIDS is caused by overuse of "poppers". Have you changed your mind? Do you believe that MMS is treating damage caused by "poppers" or treating virus-infected cells?


As I said, MMS is used by people to try to treat the diseases of AIDS which are almost all fungal in nature (candidiasis, PCP, etc). One of the men I knew was extremely sick, calculating how long he had to live in months, emaciated... very sick with AIDS; what they call the "end stages", ie, that should have been the curtain call for him. He did MMS and within 6 months was healthy. He contacted me from Machu Picchu and he couldn't have cared less what his CD4 was, he'd totally changed his mind about the whole thing due to his and his friend's personal experiences of that disease.

I am certainly not getting into an HIV discussion but I do not believe poppers have anything to do with modern AIDS. If you'd paid attention at all to what I'd said back then, you'd already know that. This kind of blinkered picking out of words reminds me of the way people keep calling this "bleach" and starting so-called unbiased threads with titles like, "do you think industrial bleach can cure anything." I mean seriously? Can't we move past this yet? Because...

WF10 is chlorine dioxide. It is used for AIDS, primarily. It is also used for seemingly unrelated diseases.

Studies on WF10

Clinical trial: Treatment of HIV-infected patients with advanced symptomatic disease with WF10 solution (TCDO).

There are many others like that. And others on cancer and so forth.

Dioxychlor is also chlorine dioxide.

It seems we need to look for chlorine dioxide under pseudo names when it comes to medical science, who seem to be trying to hide it under these other names. I've researched both of those things and they are definitely chlorine dioxide. Goodness knows how else medical science is researching or using chlorine dioxide without using that word making searches impossible unless you know the words they're using.

Why is no one addressing the fact that we have just discovered chlorine dioxide IS being used by medical science? Inside the body. And we now have a veritable legion of studies to draw from on efficacy and safety... so much so, I don't even know where to begin. Anyone have the guts to address that?


----------



## colobus237 (Feb 2, 2004)

Calm, what is the resting membrane potential of a normal human cell? How about an intestinal epithelial cell?


----------



## WildKingdom (Mar 26, 2008)

Quote:


> WF10 is chlorine dioxide. It is used for AIDS, primarily. It is also used for seemingly unrelated diseases.
> 
> Studies on WF10
> 
> ...


I'll have the guts to address it. The articles you link are from 1994 and 1999. I can't find anything recent. So, these small trials are from 12 and 17 years ago, respectively. Nothing new available. My sense- later trials did not amount to anything. If chlorine dioxide was going to amount to anything, Pharma would have jumped on this long ago.


----------



## mamakay (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WildKingdom*
> 
> I'll have the guts to address it. The articles you link are from 1994 and 1999. I can't find anything recent. So, these small trials are from 12 and 17 years ago, respectively. Nothing new available. My sense- later trials did not amount to anything. If chlorine dioxide was going to amount to anything, Pharma would have jumped on this long ago.


Is WF10 the same thing as CIO2, anyway?


----------



## WildKingdom (Mar 26, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mamakay*
> 
> Is WF10 the same thing as CIO2, anyway?


Not to my knowledge.


----------



## JMJ (Sep 6, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mamakay*
> 
> Is WF10 the same thing as CIO2, anyway?


It has 4 ClO2(-) ions.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mamakay*
> 
> Is WF10 the same thing as CIO2, anyway?


Yes. It is chlorine dioxide. It also has sodium chlorite in it (which is what chlorine dioxide is acidified from) and peroxide... that is the total matrix of it. It is generally injected. Dioxyclor from my previous post is also chlorine dioxide.

I suspect there are other names and ways companies are trying to patent and/or sell chlorine dioxide and chlorite without actually giving the patient the option to do so at home for a few cents with their own chlorite.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WildKingdom*
> 
> I'll have the guts to address it. The articles you link are from 1994 and 1999. I can't find anything recent. So, these small trials are from 12 and 17 years ago, respectively. Nothing new available. My sense- later trials did not amount to anything. If chlorine dioxide was going to amount to anything, Pharma would have jumped on this long ago.


Actually, that isn't the case at all. WF10 is not only still being used and sold, it is being clinically trialled for a wide variety of diseases - and it is also under other names such as Immunokine and Macrokine - sold to Thailand and another country under those names.

So Immunokine is really WF10, which is really chlorine dioxide.

This has been a very interesting research project and I have this thread to thank for it. I may not have discovered this otherwise and with it, it is enough credibility to get my FIL to consider asking his doctor about MMS or one of these chlorine dioxide based therapies for his cancer. Everything happens for a reason, and I knew I was to make it through this thread for a reason. So I thank you all for pushing me so hard... I mean that sincerely.

Here is Immunokine's site: http://immunokine.info/

Here are clinical trials, and I'll start with one published only this year, feb 2011:

WF10 Stimulates NK Cell Cytotoxicity by Increasing LFA-1-Mediated Adhesion to Tumor Cells

Quote:


> The redox-active chlorite-based drug WF10 (Immunokine) was shown to have modulatory effects on both the innate and adaptive immune system _in vitro_ and _in vivo_. Animal studies suggest that WF10 enhances immunity against tumors. One possible explanation for such an effect is that WF10 stimulates natural killer cell cytotoxicity against malignant cells.


This is macrokine, which is the other name WF10 is sold under, 2004 study:

WF 10: Macrokine, TCDO, tetrachlorodecaoxide.

Quote:


> Oxo completed a trial in 72 cervical cancer patients undergoing radiation therapy in 1989. Results from this trial demonstrated *complete remission in 75% of patients* receiving WF 10. A follow-up placebo controlled trial in 1996 produced similar results....
> WF 10 is approved for use in Thailand under the name IMMUNOKINE in patients with postradiation chronic inflammatory disease including cystitis, proctitis and mucositis. In July 2003, the European examiners informed Oxo Chemie that they intend to grant the company additional patents to the technology platform that supports WF 10, extending the European protection granted in 1992 to cover a much broader range of diseases. The patents will be granted in Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK. *Patent claims cover potential treatment for autoimmune disease, organ transplant or graft rejection, lymphoma and inflammation manifested as hepatitis or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.*


That's huge. Note the huge array of different diseases this is purported to treat. And those are just the ones the patent covers.

Phase two clinical trials, Hepatitis C and others:

Cancer trials, 2007


----------



## MusicianDad (Jun 24, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Calm*
> 
> Yes. It is chlorine dioxide. It also has sodium chlorite in it (which is what chlorine dioxide is acidified from) and peroxide... that is the total matrix of it. It is generally injected. Dioxyclor from my previous post is also chlorine dioxide.


Um, it has neither Na nor H2O2 in it. You could make hydrogen peroxide from it, given the right chemical reaction, but the last I checked you can't get sodium from 2 hydrogen atoms, 4 chlorine atoms, and 11 oxygen atoms. Unless you can change the proton and neutron counts of atoms along with curing HIV and cancer.

ETA: Minor change in lingo, you don't "turn x into y" you "make x with y and z".


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MusicianDad*
> 
> Um, it has neither Na nor H2O2 in it. You could make hydrogen peroxide from it, given the right chemical reaction, but the last I checked you can't get sodium from 2 hydrogen atoms, 4 chlorine atoms, and 11 oxygen atoms. Unless you can change the proton and neutron counts of atoms along with curing HIV and cancer.
> 
> ETA: Minor change in lingo, you don't "turn x into y" you "make x with y and z".


I'll assume that was genuine humour, since taking shots at me has diminished since discovering I'm not such a crack pot after all, and the testimonies could possibly be true. They're using this stuff in phase 3 trials (complete in 2013) for an array of diseases, including AIDS, so if my friends have claimed a cure of their AIDS symptoms - perhaps they're not delusional after all?

I must have misread what else is in it, while I was reading through this thread on another site. Chlorite is mostly mentioned but then sodium chlorite was mentioned as the type of chlorite used in one of the patents. Peroxide is part of the chemical process, it seems, just as you suggested.

Chlorite is also injected as part of the matrix, which has known toxicity. I would think they would reduce that out of the chemical before use, but they attribute it with part of the affect. I find that a bit... immature oxide science. There used to be this "healing water" sold in health food stores. It was basically traveller's water - sodium chlorite in water. Because some had had some success with this stuff, it began being sold as a healing drink... but it is chlorite, which is toxic. When used as a water treatment, you sit the chlorite in the water for four hours and chlorine dioxide is eventually released. Although chlorite has its own use as a bacteriocidal, it is quite weak. Adding an acid causes this reaction to ClO2 to happen in a couple of minutes. Initially, Jim Humble thought it was the chlorite that helped his people with malaria but after experimentation, it turned out to be the chlorine dioxide. I would suspect most of its action in bodies or in water has always been attributable to the ClO2, not the chlorite.

So I wonder why they've left the chlorite in Immunokine and other chlorine dioxide/WF10 based drugs.


----------



## MusicianDad (Jun 24, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Calm*
> 
> I'll assume that was genuine humour, since taking shots at me has diminished since discovering I'm not such a crack pot after all, and the testimonies could possibly be true. They're using this stuff in phase 3 trials (complete in 2013) for an array of diseases, including AIDS, so if my friends have claimed a cure of their AIDS symptoms - perhaps they're not delusional after all?


No, taking shots at you have diminished because it's just too easy. I know I still think you are at the very lease, confused about what your saying.

WF10 is being looked at in treating HIV, but it is not the same thing as Chlorine Dioxide. Having Oxygen and Chlorine atoms does not a Chlorine Dioxide make.


----------



## mamakay (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MusicianDad*
> 
> No, taking shots at you have diminished because it's just too easy. I know I still think you are at the very lease, confused about what your saying.
> 
> WF10 is being looked at in treating HIV, but it is not the same thing as Chlorine Dioxide. Having Oxygen and Chlorine atoms does not a Chlorine Dioxide make.


Well, if your bloodstream is roughly as chlorinated as a swimming pool, you'll get CIO2 out of tetrachlorodecaoxide:

http://wwwroot.swimpool.ca/index.php/hydroxan-the-clean-oxidizer

Quote:


> *Process Converting Cl4O102 Discovered*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## MusicianDad (Jun 24, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mamakay*
> 
> Well, if your bloodstream is roughly as chlorinated as a swimming pool, you'll get CIO2 out of tetrachlorodecaoxide:
> 
> http://wwwroot.swimpool.ca/index.php/hydroxan-the-clean-oxidizer


I'm not sure I want to chlorinate my blood stream, considering Chlorine is a gas so deadly that if you breath it you will die.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MusicianDad*
> 
> I'm not sure I want to chlorinate my blood stream, considering Chlorine is a gas so deadly that if you breath it you will die.


Yes. And just to make sure... you do know that chlorine and chlorine dioxide are two very different things, right?


----------



## lisalou (May 20, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Calm*
> 
> Yes. And just to make sure... you do know that chlorine and chlorine dioxide are two very different things, right?


Yes just like WF10 and chlorine dioxide are two very different things.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Quote:


> WF10 is being looked at in treating HIV, but it is not the same thing as Chlorine Dioxide. Having Oxygen and Chlorine atoms does not a Chlorine Dioxide make.


It is chlorite based:

Quote:


> The redox-active chlorite-based drug WF10 (Immunokine) was shown to have modulatory effects on both the innate and adaptive immune system _in vitro_ and _in vivo_. http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jbb/2011/436587/


The wording might be all fantastical, but it still boils down to chlorine dioxide. Sometimes the wording is straight up comical. For instance, Dioxychlor is chlorine dioxide. This is an article by Consumer Health of Canada about it. It is chlorine dioxide, but no one wants to say that outright.

*"Dioxychlor is an inorganic compound composed of chlorine* *and two atoms of nascent oxygen covalently bonded. It is the chemical property of Dioxychlor which makes possible the release of* *nascent oxygen upon decomposition during its action as an oxidizing agent,* *leaving a non-toxic chloride residue." *

I mean, for Lerd's sake. "an inorganic compound composed of chlorine and two atoms of nascent oxygen covalently bonded"?? What's wrong with saying "this is chlorine dioxide"? Perhaps because of the stigma it has... they're using it in several medicines but hiding what it really is... that is what this seems to be to me.

Do you think they made a medicine with free molecules of chlorine in it and some oxygen particles and they just float around and don't bond at all and on their own are having amazing effects on many diseases? Is that what you are suggesting?

Quote:


> Such known anion complex is the "tetrachlorodecaoxide", which contains stabilized active oxygen in a chlorite matrix together with chlorine dioxide.


http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7252772.html


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lisalou*
> 
> Yes just like WF10 and chlorine dioxide are two very different things.


Evidence?


----------



## MusicianDad (Jun 24, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Calm*
> 
> It is chlorite based:


Ah, WF10 has Chlorite in it, Chlorine Dioxide, the active ingredient in MMS, doesn't. It has a neutral Chlorine atom, not a negatively charged Chlorine ion. I know it may not seem like it to you, but that difference is rather large in terms of chemistry. Add the O2 molecules and the H2O molecules that WF10 has and you get a completely different product. The other atoms aren't there just to look pretty, they have an actual purpose.


----------



## lisalou (May 20, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Calm*
> 
> Evidence?


To say they are the same thing is like saying H2O and H2O2 are the same thing.

WF10 -


 H2Cl4O11-4

http://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/summary/summary.cgi?cid=3000391&loc=ec_rcs

Chorine Dioxide -

ClO2

http://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/summary/summary.cgi?cid=24870&loc=ec_rcs

One is industrial bleach the other isn't and is in clinical trials.


----------



## mamakay (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:


> This is an article by Consumer Health of Canada about it.


That's a quack link about a quack product.

Quote:


> ... take away the water,


...and it's not tetrachlorodecaoxide (Cl4H2O11-4 ) any more. Sort of like if you take the two hydrogen atoms out of H2O, what's left isn't still water.

Quote:


> So when you say it is 4 chlorine and 10 oxygen


Who said that?


----------



## mamakay (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lisalou*
> 
> To say they are the same thing is like saying H2O and H2O2 are the same thing.
> 
> ...


Exactly.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Some of the drugs that are being patented and used in studies are often just stabilized sodium chlorite. When they did an analysis of what this created in the body when use introvenously it was shown to release chlorine dioxide in the blood stream.

In fact, chlorite is considered "stabilized chlorine dioxide" because it is in a pH range that will not release chlorine dioxide. Once acidified, ClO2 is released. It also degrades back to chlorite, according to some chemistry I've read... chloride and chlorite.

MusoDad, I'm not sure why I seem to be so pitiful to you that people aren't ridiculing me now simply because it's "too easy". It is actually harder now, with clinical trials and studies showing efficacy with activated MMS (chlorine dioxide or ClO2) and inactivated MMS (chlorite or ClO2-) in more dilute forms such as WF10. What are they going to do other than try to say WF10 is not chlorine dioxide... I expected that, hence I made sure. I'm guessing most of those who were quick with the put downs don't really know yet what angle to hit me on this one and are waiting for someone else to find the holes so they can just come in an "yeah! What she said!" as per usual. An original thought is certainly not a dime a dozen 'round 'ere, govna.

I don't know why this had to get ugly. So jaded are Americans it seems that the idea someone, a many years member of their group no less, is just trying to help doesn't seem possible. I didn't do ANYTHING to deserve it, and even if I eventually got a sarcastic lilt to my words occasionally, initially that was not the case - yet straight from the get go people got nasty and "angry" with me.

Why?


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Cross posts


----------



## mamakay (Apr 8, 2005)

Why did you edit your post, Calm? The one I quoted, where you talked about just taking all the hydrogen and some of the oxygen out of tetrachlorodecaoxide?


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mamakay*
> 
> That's a quack link about a quack product.
> 
> ...


You used the word "quack"? Unbelievable. Why are you even in the health area of MDC when you so obviously share disdain with many other posters on this thread for things that people on this board would not consider "quackery".

It is chlorite, and as you saw, contains chlorine dioxide. The debate here was whether you can ingest chlorine dioxide, and apparently not only can you ingest it, you can inject it. Not only that, but chlorite becomes chlorine dioxide in the bloodstream and when acidified (MMS is chlorite, technically).


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mamakay*
> 
> Why did you edit your post, Calm? The one I quoted, where you talked about just taking all the hydrogen and some of the oxygen out of tetrachlorodecaoxide?


Because chlorite and chlorine dioxide are the same molecule (ClO2) only chlorite is ClO2- and I didn't want it to get confusing. MusicianDad said there was no chlorite in WF10, and there is. Chlorite is considered the active constituent, actually. MMS is chlorite. Both are acidified to chlorine dioxide.

Even so, tetrachlorodecaoxide has chlorine dioxide in it, as I said, in a chlorite matrix. Either that or several patent claims are wrong and a couple of studies are, too.


----------



## mamakay (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:


> It is actually harder now, with clinical trials and studies showing efficacy with activated MMS (chlorine dioxide or ClO2) and inactivated MMS (chlorite or ClO2-) in more dilute forms such as WF10.


Now, Calm. Does CIO2 have any hydrogen in it? You know Cl4H2O11-4 does, right?


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Quote:


> Who said that?


MusicianDad:

Quote:


> Um, it has neither Na nor H2O2 in it. You could make hydrogen peroxide from it, given the right chemical reaction, but the last I checked you can't get sodium from 2 hydrogen atoms, 4 chlorine atoms, and 11 oxygen atoms. Unless you can change the proton and neutron counts of atoms along with curing HIV and cancer


.He did say 11 oxygen atoms, however. I double checked and apparently it is 10. That isn't the point he was making though. He was pointing out there is no sodium in it. And that is true. I am so used to calling chlorite "sodium chlorite" that I was calling it that. I should have said simply "chlorite", as that is what it is.


----------



## mamakay (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:


> Even so, tetrachlorodecaoxide has chlorine dioxide in it, as I said, in a chlorite matrix. Either that or several patent claims are wrong and a couple of studies are, too.


You'll be a little hard pressed to find any studies saying Cl4H2O11-4 "has chlorine dioxide in it."


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mamakay*
> 
> Now, Calm. Does CIO2 have any hydrogen in it? You know Cl4H2O11-4 does, right?


WF10 has chlorite. MMS is chlorite. WF10 has chlorine dioxide. MMS is chlorine dioxide when activated.

I undsertand you are saying chlorine dioxide is not tetrachlorodecaoxide... are you understanding that I am saying tetrachlorodecaoxide contains chlorine dioxide and also releases chlorine dioxide?


----------



## mamakay (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:


> MusicianDad:
> 
> .He did say 11 oxygen atoms, however. I double checked and apparently it is 10.


Where are you getting 10 from? The molecular formula is Cl4H2O11-4 .


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Quote:


> You'll be a little hard pressed to find any studies saying Cl4H2O11-4 "has chlorine dioxide in it."


"Such known anion complex is the "tetrachlorodecaoxide", which contains stabilized active oxygen in a chlorite matrix *together with chlorine dioxide."*

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7252772.html


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Must run... I'll come back tomorrow or perhaps later today. Thanks for the discussion, it has a much more neutral tone and I am very grateful.


----------



## mamakay (Apr 8, 2005)

> "Such known anion complex is the "tetrachlorodecaoxide", which contains stabilized active oxygen in a chlorite matrix *together with chlorine dioxide."*


Quote:


> http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7252772.html


I said STUDIES. Stop trying to learn about science from patents.


----------



## MusicianDad (Jun 24, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Calm*
> 
> *MusoDad, I'm not sure why I seem to be so pitiful to you that people aren't ridiculing me now simply because it's "too easy".* It is actually harder now, with clinical trials and studies showing efficacy with activated MMS (chlorine dioxide or ClO2) and inactivated MMS (chlorite or ClO2-) in more dilute forms such as WF10. What are they going to do other than try to say WF10 is not chlorine dioxide... I expected that, hence I made sure. I'm guessing most of those who were quick with the put downs don't really know yet what angle to hit me on this one and are waiting for someone else to find the holes so they can just come in an "yeah! What she said!" as per usual. An original thought is certainly not a dime a dozen 'round 'ere, govna.


First, MusicianDad. Second, it is easy because the more you post the clearer it becomes that you have no clue what you're talking about.

WF10 is not, I repeat, *is not* the same thing as ClO2. The most basic knowledge of chemistry should tell you that. I'm not sure how you are reaching the conclusion that H2Cl4O11-4 = ClO2.


----------



## MusicianDad (Jun 24, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mamakay*
> 
> Where are you getting 10 from? The molecular formula is Cl4H2O11-4 .


I think I see where she's getting confused with the numbers. The tetrachloro*deca*oxide is take from the O2, 4ClO2- molecules, but doesn't include the H2O molecule so the oxygen in the H2O isn't being included in the name.

And just because I feel like saying it for the record... ClO2 and ClO2- are not the same. They have the same elements, but not the same number of electrons so they react to other atoms/ions and molecules differently.


----------



## MusicianDad (Jun 24, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mamakay*
> 
> I said STUDIES. Stop trying to learn about science from patents.


That, anybody who can put words on paper can get a patent. That doesn't mean they know what they are talking about.


----------



## mamakay (Apr 8, 2005)

First order of business for you when you come back, Calm, if you don't mind, should be answering this:

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ccohenou*
> 
> Calm, what is the resting membrane potential of a normal human cell? How about an intestinal epithelial cell?


----------



## mamakay (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MusicianDad*
> 
> That, anybody who can put words on paper can get a patent. That doesn't mean they know what they are talking about.


...And pretty much every old fruitcake who becomes convinced that they're figured out the "Miracle Solution" for anything, goes out and gets a patent on it.


----------



## MusicianDad (Jun 24, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mamakay*
> 
> ...And pretty much every old fruitcake who becomes convinced that they're figured out the "Miracle Solution" for anything, goes out and gets a patent on it.


Hey, since "mainstream science" doesn't like MMS, maybe we should submit it to mythbusters? I mean they did that whole thing on pyramid power, and then there was the mind control... I'm sure they'd love to test MMS so we don't have to. (Which would be great since I really don't feel like drinking industrial bleach).


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MusicianDad*


Quote:


> WF10 is not, I repeat,* is not* the same thing as ClO2. The most basic knowledge of chemistry should tell you that. I'm not sure how you are reaching the conclusion that H2Cl4O11-4 = ClO2.


You have missed posts of mine. #s 287 and 283. I didn't mean "same".

TCDO, at the very least, has chlorite in it. MMS is chlorite. It's effectiveness in the body is because the chemical reaction it undergoes with acid means it becomes chlorine dioxide.

My chlorite stands on the bench and turns to chorine dioxide, without me doing anything to it. It turns to chlorine dioxide in a bottle of water, too (that's how traveller's use it to disinfect water). Even if TCDO had no chlorine dioxide in it, and the jury is still out on that, it does contain chlorite... and chlorite is what MMS is. Sodium chlorite.

Dr Hesselink who wrote about the chemistry against malaria, lists WF10 as an oxide of chlorine used in medical treatment: http://bioredox.mysite.com/CLOXhtml/CLOXlnks.htm#c

Quote:


> Calm, what is the resting membrane potential of a normal human cell? How about an intestinal epithelial cell?


I quoted from my friend Adam's blog many pages ago:

Quote:


> By way of comparison, chlorine dioxide has a milder oxidation effect than hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), which has an oxidation potential of 1.78 and collects 2 electrons, or Ozone (O3) whose oxidation potential is 2.07, and only collects 2 electrons. [Source: Lenntech Water Treatment Systems] A healthy human cell has a natural electrical of just over 1 volt, which means that it would be unaffected by chlorine dioxide


http://phaelosopher.wordpress.com/2007/09/09/no-miracle-just-wonderful-chemistry/

This blog post might be useful of his, addressing a critic with the usual issues about MMS: Chicken Little Revisited: MMS is Falling

This is Adam's visual response (video), skip to 9 minutes to save time. or to 18 mins for further info.

I realise there are several links there, so I risk none being opened at all. However, Adam is much more knowledgeable about this than me and has had extensive experience travelling with Jim Humble and with the thousands of people who contact him also. He has answered all these questions many many times before... he is really the one to go to on this. I've only botched it up. I wanted to let people know it was an option, and how I've experienced it in my life. Does it work? Is it safe? By this stage, if you've made your mind up on either of those questions, then you have and that's that. If you are trying to convince me my experiences are not real, or all those who have had success are lying or delusional... I'm not sure what to tell you. But that does seem to be the approach when I draw people back to the overwhelming number of testimonies... that those people are not real or are mistaken in some way. That just seems to be to be a little deficient as a reason.


----------



## ElizabethE (Jan 15, 2011)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *oaktreemama*
> 
> People who sell snake oil are intelligent-or at least good writers. That's why they are able sell snake oil. ElizabethE-please come back when you have something to actually add to the conversation. Other than that you should probably stick to the UC forum where facts aren't necessary or encouraged.


Yeah, that's about what I expected. /\

Not too long ago I insinuated over at those forums you just mentioned (irrelevance, anyone?) that people who just came to argue with our beliefs had questionable reasons for being there and I was branded as trying to control who comes and goes. Now you are suggesting I don't belong here. Funny how that works.

Oh and LDavis and Annie need a little reading comprehension help, because they very obviously misunderstood me something serious. One of them thought I was referring to her, and one of them got me all mixed up as soon as the word "mainstream" entered the picture. But attack away!


----------



## Ldavis24 (Feb 19, 2009)

Elizabeth...I don't know what I did or didn't do or misunderstood or whatever. I'd actually lost interest in this thread once the actual formulas came out. I got good grades in Chemistry in high school but it certainly wasn't "my" subject...Now ironically enough reading comprehension is something I excelled in from a young age and I think that is the first time in my life someone suggested I need to work on it...Thanks for the chuckle...back to the exciting randomness of other more lively threads.


----------



## Annie Mac (Dec 30, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ElizabethE*
> 
> Yeah, that's about what I expected. /\
> 
> ...


Elizabeth, I do hope whatever's upsetting you IRL settles down soon & you find some joy in your life. Totally serious about that. I found your posts to be disproportionately hostile, and I wonder what's going on with you that you feel it's normal and OK to say things like this. It's one thing to disagree with someone's viewpoints; it is quite another to make the attacks personal. I assumed you were referring to me because you quoted me directly. And then you proceeded to make mean, personal and, given the context, puzzling accusations. Now you're saying I "need a little reading comprehension help." Maybe you don't realize, but these statements come across quite personally, baffling so, in fact. I have to wonder just WHO is hanging around poking WHO? I also never attacked you, or anyone else for that matter. Go re-read my post to you. I defended myself against what I (apparently) mistakenly thought were comments directed at me, and then I went back to the subject of the thread: MMS.

I won't engage with you again if you continue with your insults, but I do feel the need to point out how hostile and personal your posts come across. If this wasn't your intent, you might want to rethink the wording (that's not a personal insult, but honest constructive criticism). However, if it IS your intent, you're doing a bang-up job! If it IS your intent, I'm sorry that you're in that mindspace. And just one more observation: when you're selling a product on the internet (ie, your book), YOU are your advertisement. Just something to think about.


----------



## ElizabethE (Jan 15, 2011)

Thanks for the advice.

You're playing a game in which you draw first blood and then cry foul when someone stands up to you. The continuous turning of the tables is not lost on everyone. I hope you're aware of that.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Quick to attack yet quick to cry foul. Can dish it but can't take it. That's a theme in this thread. Elizabeth is the only one to (publicly) point out how I've been treated in this thread and oh how quickly she was told to basically go away.

Just incredible. I've not experienced anything like what happened in this thread as an adult, yet everyone seems to be in freakin' denial about it. Whatever.


----------



## saoirsehann (May 11, 2011)

I have used MMS quite often over the past few years travelling to other countries and will say that the side effects have alot to do with the persons belief system, as I have shared it with many people.

When I take 15 drops for something like the flu...I will say it is a horrible drink, but, boy the following day I am healed of the flu. Every time.

I use it for all sorts of things and no, I do not believe it to be toxic...I have only had healing results, not more sickness.

Margarine is one molecule off plastic...does that make margarine plastic and if so why is it sold in food stores? This product is akin to a prescription drug, in the sense that if you take too much, too fast, you will have negative symptoms.

If you are really sick, like with cancer...it is probable that you will have some detoxification after taking...but, if you have decided to live, I believe it will take you towards health.

People who listen to their doctors (or the FDA) exclusively, will always have problems with alternative therapies...in my experience, anyway. Health is a personal choice...if you want to put your health in someone elses hands, go for it...I choose to learn about and treat my own health, and by the way, I live in a country that allows that.

Here's to your health.


----------



## Rhonwyn (Apr 16, 2002)

Sorry to come late to this discussion. Calm, is this something one can buy in the US?

I am really surpised at the amount of acrimony this alternative healing has caused here at Mothering. I had always thought that the parents of Mothering were more open to non-Western medicine.


----------



## rhiandmoi (Apr 28, 2006)

If people could get better by drinking chlorinated water and believing they would get better, no one would ever be sick in the US as the vast majority of our drinking water is chlorinated. Probably a good amount of it with ClO2 as a top commercial purpose for ClO2 is to sanitize drinking water.

It is available pretty much everywhere. It is not a secret product that is being hidden away from the world. You can purchase ClO2 precursors at any camping store, online, and in huge commercial quantities directly from huge mainstream manufacturers such as DuPont.

If I told you that you could be cured of the flu by drinking a dilute solution of Sodium Hypochlorite (another molecule that contains chlorite) I could probably sell a good number of people on that just because of the scientificish sound of it. And then if I said, this is a remedy that FDA doesn't want you to know about even though there are tons of studies showing how it is a highly effective water sanitizer, it kills pathogens on contact, etc. etc. etc. I could sell a few more.

The plain truth is that Sodium Hypochlorite is bleach. Like buy it in the laundry aisle at Target bleach. It is used daily to purify water, sanitize surfaces, and is safe to ingest in extremely low concentrations. But it can and will make you very ill if you consume high concentrations of it.

I think people who don't get nausea from drinking MMS solutions are diluting it below toxic thresholds. As per the directions for use.


----------



## Ldavis24 (Feb 19, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rhonwyn*
> 
> Sorry to come late to this discussion. Calm, is this something one can buy in the US?
> 
> I am really surpised at the amount of acrimony this alternative healing has caused here at Mothering. I had always thought that the parents of Mothering were more open to non-Western medicine.


I don't consider MMS non-western or medicine and I bet I am not the only one....So I think you can rest easy knowing that a lot of mamas here ARE open to

non western-medicine but maybe aren't so open to drinking industrial water sanitizer that has been diluted.


----------



## Rhonwyn (Apr 16, 2002)

Well, I have worked with Calm as a healer and I have known her for over 10 years. I trust her and her knowledge.


----------



## oaktreemama (Oct 12, 2010)

Quote:


> Well, I have worked with Calm as a healer and I have known her for over 10 years. I trust her and her knowledge


Cool. How many people has she cured of AIDS, malaria, autism, shingles, fibro, and cancer with MMS? Seeing as she clearly doesn't even understand the basic chemistry of how MMS supposedly works (or even how the body actually works) I must admit I remain unconvinced.

And I see we have a first time poster chiming in with how MMS cures the flu. Wow-even more miraculous healings attributed to MMS. Where will it stop? I am still wondering if it will raise the dead. Because that seems to be the ONLY claim Calm and her buds have yet to promise.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *oaktreemama*
> 
> Cool. How many people has she cured of AIDS, malaria, autism, shingles, fibro, and cancer with MMS? Seeing as she clearly doesn't even understand the basic chemistry of how MMS supposedly works (or even how the body actually works) I must admit I remain unconvinced.
> 
> And I see we have a first time poster chiming in with how MMS cures the flu. Wow-even more miraculous healings attributed to MMS. Where will it stop? I am still wondering if it will raise the dead. Because that seems to be the ONLY claim Calm and her buds have yet to promise.


Yes. She must be lying too, because you can't believe it. FWIW, I have never interacted with saoirsehann before.

And since you seem to have a memory deficit, I'll repeat it for the forth or fifth time... I have not cured anyone of anything. I reported the three men who took MMS and reported to ME what happened. I have no reason to distrust them, as I had known them long enough before they used MMS. I personally have used it for endometriosis, fibroids, ovarian cysts and migraines. Two friends have traveled with Jim and worked with it since that time and have a ton of testimonials of some incredible healings (yes, AIDS and cancer included) but again, I am not curing them, I am just reporting it.

As for chemistry... ask your doctor how some of his drugs work. He wouldn't have a bloody clue. Do you hold that against him? Do you expect him to explain the chemistry to you of any drugs you take? I guarantee that if you push him to do so, he'll pull a book off the shelf and look it up. Do you know how tylenol works, or how any of the herbals or whatever you take work? Did you need to understand how they worked before you used them? If so, you are definitely in the minority.

Chemistry is a massive subject, I did it 15 years ago myself and I don't remember all of it. Ordinarily, a healer (doctor or alternative) doesn't need to remember such things, because it is easy enough to look up should someone be that concerned about the chemistry. Go to a chemist for the nitty gritty on chemistry... and I never said I was a chemist. I said I had friends who had success, as did I, and that I believe all the testimonials and my friends who traveled with Jim to Africa and Haiti and Europe.

*Why is that so hard to deal with?*

You always had the option to simply not believe my word or the words of others who have used it successfully. You don't have to keep trying to belittle and invalidate me. What do you get out of doing that?? It just seems silly to keep telling people they are claiming miracles just because it cured their flu. It ain't that miraculous... the flu is a virus, and chlorine dioxide kills viruses. With all the testimonies - at some point, the person who looks ridiculous is the one who won't believe.

ETA - although being offended on here is nothing new, I do think it is rather offensive to say I don't know how the body works simply because I couldn't explain the chemistry of this to your liking. Many others grasped it long before you, so I'm not sure I'm the one completely at fault here.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

I believe it is available in the USA, Rhonwyn. I just don't know where. A google would pull up sources.


----------



## Marnica (Oct 4, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *oaktreemama*
> 
> Cool. How many people has she cured of AIDS, malaria, autism, shingles, fibro, and cancer with MMS? Seeing as she clearly doesn't even understand the basic chemistry of how MMS supposedly works (or even how the body actually works) I must admit I remain unconvinced.
> 
> *And I see we have a first time poster chiming in with how MMS cures the flu. Wow-even more miraculous healings attributed to MMS*. Where will it stop? I am still wondering if it will raise the dead. Because that seems to be the ONLY claim Calm and her buds have yet to promise.


No actually this poster shared that she has cured HER flu with MMS. She is not making any *universal* claim, nor has Calm who has merely spoken about the success her friendds have had with it. Both are personal anecdotal stories - not claims of cures. I could sit here and write about several things - "snakeoils" that I have taken that have cured me of various ailments. I wouldn't assume that everyone would have the same success with it nor would I say it was a universal cure for something. I would say I took this - it worked for me. I don't see that the poster you are referring to has said anything different. I have followed this thread from the beginning and am disgusted by the way certain people have been traeted here. Name calling, accusations - seriously High School wasn't even this bad. The bottom line is this - MMS is controversial. There are those that believe it to be nothing more than industrial bleach - dangerous to ingest and those that do so are foolish. There are those that have had positive experiences with it and feel it may be helpful. Some have no experience with it and are interested in learning more (like me) which is why the last few pages (before it turned ugly again) when it was a more cordial discussion of chemistry was interesting. I hope we can get back there.

Calm you wonder why folks are not more public in their displays of support. (whether it be support of MMS or support of you persoanlly) The way you have been treated here should be an obvious answer for you. As someone who has been publically and privately eviscerated in the distant past by certain posters at MDC - I am no longer willing to engage in debate with people who have the capacity to be so vile to others. I applaud you for having thicker skin than I do. I think what people tend to forget since this is a message board and we don't actually know each other IRL - there are no faces to our names - is that we are all people, we all have feelings and we all deserve respect from one another - even if the things we say are not popular. I notice that there are several people on this thread who clearly think you are wrong about MMS and it's chemistry but they have managed to keep the personal insults out of their posts. I wonder why all posters cannot do the same?? I guess some people just don't know how to play nice. I've also seen that some posters are almost incredulous about the fact that some MDC members do not seem more open to alternative ideas. MDC is a microcosm of the real world. Just like out there there are all kinds of folks here.

Anyway It would be great if the actual discussion about MMS and the chemistry involved could resume.


----------



## rhiandmoi (Apr 28, 2006)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rhonwyn*
> 
> Sorry to come late to this discussion. Calm, is this something one can buy in the US?
> 
> I am really surpised at the amount of acrimony this alternative healing has caused here at Mothering. I had always thought that the parents of Mothering were more open to non-Western medicine.


As I have already said, ClO2 is WIDELY available. Go to any camping store. Go to Walmart, or Kmart or anywhere that has a camping department.

It is also available as a sanitizer and disinfectant for water and surfaces in about 15 different formulations. It has been in commercial production for nearly 100 years. It is not a secret compound. It is millions of dollars in annual sales for this compound.

I would be interested to know how the product marketed as MMS originates. My best guess is that it is a commercial biocide that is being repackaged. I doubt that Jim Humble has the equipment available to him to produce it himself. And as the MMS lore indicates that the curative properties were discovered by poorly diluting a commercially available water sanitizer, that seems likely.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rhiandmoi*
> 
> As I have already said, ClO2 is WIDELY available. Go to any camping store. Go to Walmart, or Kmart or anywhere that has a camping department.
> 
> ...


MMS is not ClO2. It is a specific strength of sodium chlorite. You can't just buy it at any store, plus there is the risk something like that would be contaminated. Perhaps another look at Adam's pages and his video would help you understand those parts. It is a 28% strength, however Adam explains how it is actually a 22% strength. Sold with it is citric acid... but I only bought that with my first bottle. I now just buy my citric acid from the supermarket. Those two things are mixed as drops together, and those drops are calculated so people don't take too little or too much. Since millions have taken it and there are no deaths or reports of harm it seems people have been smart enough to do it right.

I suggest that if you, or anyone, were to keep assuming this was just commercial bleach and went out and used it as such, then perhaps we would have our first cases of stupidity regarding this. I caution against that.

It can be made out of simple salt, sodium chloride. It has an electric current put through it and this turns it to sodium chlorite. Jim can make it himself and has done... but he does not sell it, he gives the instructions for how to do that out for free. It is also part of the tuition at his minister's course in the Dominican Republic. Sodium chlorite is what those drugs are made of that were spoken of earlier, and is actually a little toxic. There is hardly any toxicity attributable to chlorine dioxide from any tests and strengths so far yet the same cannot be said for sodium chlorite. In fact, the reason America's public water supply is not treated with chlorine dioxide has nothing to do with chlorine dioxide - as that always tests clean, simple and safe, in fact much safer than your current chlorination methods which leave toxic residues. The reason it isn't used is because of the sodium chlorite.... there was concern too much would remain in the water.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

To add... chlorine dioxide is used as public water treatment in other countries, however, such as Germany. So somehow they've managed to overcome the chlorite factor.


----------



## rhiandmoi (Apr 28, 2006)

Quote:


> It can be made out of simple salt, sodium chloride. It has an electric current put through it and this turns it to sodium chlorite.


What happens when you run a current through a solution of sodium chloride using inert electrodes?






It produces Hydrogen gas, Chlorine gas, and Lye. What type of electrodes are used to produce the Sodium Chlorite?


----------



## rhiandmoi (Apr 28, 2006)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Calm*
> 
> To add... chlorine dioxide is used as public water treatment in other countries, however, such as Germany. So somehow they've managed to overcome the chlorite factor.


There is no chlorite factor. Chlorine dioxide is 100% a valid biocide for use in disinfection of water, and for the disinfection of surfaces. Sodium Chlorite is a very common Chlorine Dioxide precursor for this very use. It is commercially available in several concentrations.

I would say that almost without a doubt the MMS being sold is repackage commercially acquired products. The solids are possibly Saf-T-Chlor http://www.cdgtechnology.com/sites/default/files/MSDS_SAF-T-CHLOR_Sodium_Chlorite_CDG_Environmental.pdf

The liquids maybe a diluted form of any one of a number of commercial sanitizers.

I guess it is possible that people are making their own Sodium Chlorite solutions by pouring hydrogen peroxide over sodium chlorate (which used to be a commercially available weed killer, although that is become less so). But I really hope not.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Um, I'm not sure I'm following much of what you just said, it all sounds a bit thrown together.

Out of all you said, I'll make some assumptions of what you are asking.

Here is how to make sodium chlorite.

From the How To site.

Regarding the chlorite factor:

Quote:


> Chlorine dioxide is a faster-acting disinfectant than elemental chlorine, however it is relatively rarely used, because in some circumstances it may create excessive amounts of chlorite, which is a by-product regulated to low allowable levels in the United States.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_purification#Chlorine_dioxide_disinfection

Which is exactly what I said the issue was:

Quote:


> The reason it isn't used is because of the sodium chlorite.... there was concern too much would remain in the water.


So what did you mean?


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Concerns of where they source the sodium chlorite would have to be addressed through each vendor. I also like MSM, which is how sulfur is naturally found and there were once concerns about its purity. I have found a great supplier of it, so I've overcome this problem, but I would think buying anything that isn't regulated means one takes such responsibility one's self.

We can't have our hand held for everything, and personally, I don't want my hand held for anything. I'm capable of figuring everything out myself, and sourcing good supplies. I would not trade my health freedoms for so called "security" - which is basically the gov't telling me what I can and can't have based on what they deem to be safe or healthy. Esp not from gov'ts that sanitise the life out of everything, irradiate foods, and think all microorganisms should be killed off our foods - that is the definition of "healthy and safe" to those that regulate, so I have less than NO respect for such "health security". But almost everyone else relies on it to a sick degree... they suck from the teat of gov't and trust the agencies know what they're doing. Bollocks to that. Due your own due diligence... you can do it, I have faith in you, in all of us! Hail personal responsibility. And blah blah blah *waves little flag*.

I even visit local fruit and vegetable growers, because I want to see the farms I'm purchasing from. If there is animal cruelty or some practice I don't agree with, I don't care how organic it claims to be, I won't buy there. I recommend this to everyone... most people just buy whatever they buy, including foods, without ever knowing the source. I find that to be lunacy. But each to their own.

With MMS all you need is a pure source of sodium chlorite. It is up to you to find such a source. If you find that source in a bottle marked "industrial use only" then bully for you. Use your own head... things turn out much better when we think for ourselves.

ETA - MMS is DILUTED sodium chlorite. If I found a pure source of it, I'd then have to research how to make MMS out of it... Hence why most people just buy from an MMS vendor... all that has been done for them.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Many people are waking up to private memberships to retain (or regain, in some circumstances) their health freedoms. For those not yet in the know, if you want to purchase things that are a bit "iffy" FDA or gov't wise, join one. I personally think Project Green Life is good, and most people I know are in there which opens up the flow of information and products much wider. When things like vitamin C and certain amino acids or herbs are taken from our choices in some countries, it seems private memberships are becoming one of our only avenues to freedom.

_Quote:_


> _Alas, we've found a solution to an otherwise insurmountable problem. Government agencies have a mandate to protect "the public" but have very limited jurisdiction over 1st and 14th Amendment private membership associations. By being a private healthcare membership association we are free to share products and information with one another - our fellow members - providing solutions and remedies many so desperately need. _


The agreement:

http://projectgreenlife.com/docs/Project_GreenLife_Membership_Association_Contract.pdf


----------



## rhiandmoi (Apr 28, 2006)

I honestly can barely parse together what you are saying. But here is a recap of what I am saying:

1. When salt water has an electrical current run through it (electrolysis) it produces Chlorine gas, Hydrogen Gas, and Sodium Hydroxide - NaOH which is caustic lye.

1a. As the above process continues, the pH of the solution increases as a the concentration of NaOH increases. An alkalai NaCl electrolysis reaction will produce Sodium Chlorate. Which explodes when mixed with sugar. Also is a highly effective weed killer. This combination is a very popular pipe bomb mixture, btw.

1b.Sodium Chlorite can be formed by reducing Sodium Chlorate with hydrogen peroxide. I hope people are not doing that.

2. Sodium Chlorite is commercially available in various forms and concentrations. Such as a stablized form like Saf-T-Chlor. As the various websites I have perused detailing how MMS is made from "flake" Sodium Chlorite using a sodium stabilized solid, I have deduced that they are using such a commercially available compound and repackaging it. Not mentioned before, but I watched a video of a man making a sodium chlorite solution from "flake" stabalized sodium chlorite using a coffee maker. This is not a good idea. Like at all. Sodium Chlorite is highly caustic. Please do not do this.

3. Sodium Chlorite is also available in several liquid solutions. Such as ADOX brand sanitizers commercially sold in the US through DuPont. These sanitizers are approved for a number of uses including water sanitation and surface sanitation. As you can go into several restaurant supply stores and purchase these sanitizers, why would you fill your house with chlorine gas making Sodium Chlorite at home? Again, I have deduced that those selling MMS solutions are repackaging commercially available compounds. Although, I guess since I saw that one of the people selling it is making it by dissolving the 'flake' who really knows.

4. Chlorine Dioxide is toxic. Can cause anemia, nervous system problems in infants and young children and similar effects on fetuses during pregnancy.

5. When it causes stomach upset and nausea - that is because it is poison.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Whatever works for you. I support your choice and your view of this. Hundreds of thousands disagree with the idea that it is unsafe and that it doesn't work, and have had success; apparently the kind of success that some here call "miraculous" and find it "unbelievable".

I know that if you stood in front of even one of the people who have gotten rid of diseases that were burdening their lives, you'd be forced to think again. Preferably a small child who now isn't sweating all night and screaming in malaria ridden pain. Yes... please do regale me with how toxic this stuff is and how it doesn't work... oh wait, that's right, those kids aren't *real*, the testimonials are all some *hoax*, the videos of the men and women and children are all *fake* so I can snake twenty bucks from you and finally buy that penthouse in New York. Mmyes. That's a sane explanation.

17 pages I have posted and reposted the studies showing chlorine dioxide cannot do harm, and more tellingly has not done harm, at a particular dosage. Saying chlorine dioxide can harm is like telling me salt can. I could tell you salt will shut your kidneys down... but that makes absolutely no sense unless we are going to take a dose that can do that.

If you can bring me damaged people, some of this carry on might hold water. But you're screaming down an empty hall, love. There ain't no damaged people. Yet thousands of testimonies of cure. Hmmmm. Methinks ye give up something real, or just give up. I'm sick of chatting chemistry... the stuff speaks for itself. Speak to someone who has used it and stop bringing me speculation of what you think should happen when you take MMS... I work with reality, not speculation. And the reality is...

1) no one is harmed

2) many helped

You cannot compete with that with all this speculation, regardless how much fear mongering you enjoy. If this was theory, and I came onto this thread saying "hey, I have an idea, chlorine dioxide works to kill pathogens, perhaps it will do it inside animals also!" and then we had this discussion... it might be congruent. But this thread completely ignores the fact that MMS has been used for 12 years now, without *one* person being killed.

The best people have been able to do in the face of those two inconvenient truths is to deny they exist at all - by simply calling a lot of people either liars or charlatans. That's the best response to the testimonies and people working in Africa and the massive work being done globally with MMS. So we pretend that doesn't exist and fart around with the nitty gritty of chemistry??

You can (and no doubt have) google your widdle heart out and not find any evidence of anyone using MMS being "damaged" or killed. Although I did enjoy the early attempts on this thread to do so with the dramatic "Oh YEAH? Well, how about THIS person who DIED while using MMS?" and shows me the (same old worn out) law suit that was thrown out of court due to lack of ability to link chlorine dioxide to her death - or ANY death.

Regarding the nausea etc... when injected, that does not happen. People inject it quite often, and do not get nausea. IV avoids the side effects... so does an enema of it, actually, which is how one of my "fake" HIV positives took MMS because he didn't like the nausea from the oral route. Most of the nausea orally was also overcome by taking the dose down to three drops.

People have tested how much needs to be injected before symptoms appear and although I don't recall exact figures, I remember being shocked that someone would IV that much into themselves. This, as far as I'm concerned, does not uphold the idea "nausea is a symptom of poisoning"... however it also blows the idea that the nausea is a herx/detox reaction. Hence why I've said several times that the nausea is probably not a detox symptom. I think the nausea from oral dosage is much more mundane and boring - it's just harsh on the stomach. But so are herbals, some of which leave me with the same feeling in my stomach - and again, I don't find that compelling evidence of "poisoning", nor do I find such an immediate sensation of nausea compelling evidence of a detox reaction, for any substance.

So by all means, carry on, it's very entertaining although as you can probably tell, I'm kind of tiring of it ... do roll out the info on how poisonous this stuff is... without a shred of evidence it has harmed anyone ... ever. Kewl.


----------



## ElizabethE (Jan 15, 2011)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rhiandmoi*
> 
> I honestly can barely parse together what you are saying. But here is a recap of what I am saying:


Sounds like a personal problem.


----------



## TCMoulton (Oct 30, 2003)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ElizabethE*
> 
> Sounds like a personal problem.


Honestly, this sounds like something that belongs in a note passed in junior high and not on a message board of intelligent adults. I have found that when you stoop to petty, snarky replies people rarely take anything you have to say seriously.


----------



## ElizabethE (Jan 15, 2011)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TCMoulton*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> ...


If that's true, than I suppose Calm and I needn't defend ourselves against the likes of you! Thanks.


----------



## TCMoulton (Oct 30, 2003)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ElizabethE*
> 
> If that's true, than I suppose Calm and I needn't defend ourselves against the likes of you! Thanks.


If you can point out just one place where i have been either petty or snarky towards you then I will personally show you how to put me on ignore.

Listen, you have been here a very short time in comparison to many members yet you have personally attacked more people than most ever will here. Not sure why you are so hostile all the time, your anger seems to be a bit misplaced.


----------



## WildKingdom (Mar 26, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ElizabethE*
> 
> Sounds like a personal problem.


Do you have anything of value to add to this discussion? Anything at all?


----------



## Rhonwyn (Apr 16, 2002)

I love it when the, I've been here longer than you knives come out.

Calm, thanks for all the info!


----------



## rhiandmoi (Apr 28, 2006)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ElizabethE*
> 
> Sounds like a personal problem.


It probably is. But it also makes it difficult for me to follow the course of the discussion and identify the salient arguments being presented. As best as I can identify, Calm's points are:

1. MMS (Sodium Chlorite) is created by Jim Humble by running electricity through water.

I would be very interested in how he does this, if there is any literature on this that I can read without purchasing his book. This is not what happens when thousands and thousands of science students do this activity as part of a general electrolysis lab, and is not what happens when hundreds of home pyromaniacs do this activity as part of a home fireworks project in their garage.

2. Chlorite is a targeted oxidizer.

Again, I would be very interested in any literature that I can read on this that is available from sources other than the book. This is not how it works when used as a water or surface sanitizer. In fact it works great because it is not specific in what it kills.

3. MMS Solutions are safe to take intravenously.

Possible. The only research I was able to find results for was a WF10 small scale safety test done in 1993 with 10 test subjects. It appeared safe in that study. Only one test subject died, but (s)he was already HIV positive, so it could be unrelated to the WF10. There are other trials listed on clinicaltrials.gov but the results are not available.

4. Chlorite IV solutions are an effective treatment for Malaria and HIV.

The trials did not provide their results, so it is very hard to say one way or another. Anectodotally, trials that are successful find a way to get published, or at least get their results listed.

5. MMS solutions are safe to drink because they are below the toxic threshold.

Probably true in most cases. From what I can tell of the directions for using MMS, "proper" mixture would be safe to drink and below the toxic threshold. Proper mixture being very important. I don't think I would trust people making it out of fire retardant in a coffee pot. But other people might review the same materials and decide differently.


----------



## MsFortune (Dec 5, 2010)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rhonwyn*
> I had always thought that the parents of Mothering were more open to non-Western medicine.


Being open does not mean blindly believing things that are posted that make claims that defy science and logic. Being open means sure, I'll consider it, give me some evidence. Blindly believing things makes you a sucker.

Here is a good post about MMS

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?s=mms


----------



## beckybird (Mar 29, 2009)

Ms.Fortune, I didn't like that link. I did not like the way they talked about us "antivaccinationists". Yep, I guess I am "anti-science"!

You know, just because researchers have not yet produced a study showing the link between vaccines and autism, does not mean there is no link to be found. (Researchers funded by.....?) Can we get off the whole mercury bandwagon for a minute, and take a look into aluminum? Aluminum and fluoride reactions, maybe? Can we do study after study? Can we never take the possibility of vaccine damage off the table? I mean, really, why are they so quick to slam the book shut on vaccines? Case closed, move along, nothing more to see on the vaccine issue.

So, the MMS link on your Science Based Medicine website was not very convincing. More FDA mumbo jumbo lol.


----------



## Rhonwyn (Apr 16, 2002)

So for the record, I am an engineer and a scientist, hence I always ask where the money is coming from. Follow the money. Facts are relative when not all sides are presented. Many pharm companies are master manipulators of their data.


----------



## rhiandmoi (Apr 28, 2006)

I don't understand what big Pharma companies possibly have to hide over this. Stable chlorite precursors are sold EVERY SINGLE DAY in huge huge quantities by chemical companies around the world. This is not a secret product. This is product that produces millions and millions in sales already. If it cured malaria they could sell billions of dollars worth of it. If you're following the MMS money, you would see that it doesn't go anywhere except to Jim Humble.


----------



## mamacolleen (Dec 16, 2009)

Given the countries that MMS is being used in as a treatment for malaria, HIV, etc, I am highly suspicious of any claim that states unequivocally no one has been harmed by taking MMS. Countries like Haiti and those in sub-Saharan Africa have little to no capability for anything but the most rudimentary of epidemological data collection. If mortality data (not even counting adverse treatment reactions which I'm sure are not monitored at all) are collected it is extremely basic and would likely be attributed to the underlying cause (i.e. malaria) than to the outcomes of whatever treatment (MMS) might have been in use.

Just because there has only been one case report of a death, which I guess was found un-related in a Western court of law, does not convince me in the slightest that other serious adverse events/deaths have not also occured in such countries where things are not monitored.

I actually think it's highly unethical to go into countries with such rudimentary health systems and even more rudimentary health data systems and offer this treatment. Vomitting might not kill here in the Western world but you can be sure it does in sub-Saharan Africa.


----------



## Annie Mac (Dec 30, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mamacolleen*
> 
> Given the countries that MMS is being used in as a treatment for malaria, HIV, etc, I am highly suspicious of any claim that states unequivocally no one has been harmed by taking MMS. Countries like Haiti and those in sub-Saharan Africa have little to no capability for anything but the most rudimentary of epidemological data collection. If mortality data (not even counting adverse treatment reactions which I'm sure are not monitored at all) are collected it is extremely basic and *would likely be attributed to the underlying cause (i.e. malaria) than to the outcomes of whatever treatment (MMS) might have been in use.*
> 
> ...


I think the bolded is an extremely valid point. Those who died, died of malaria. Those who got better, got better because of MMS. Even outside of the the developing world, people with serious illnesses (HIV, cancer, e.g.) who died while taking MMS, their deaths would very likely be attributed to their conditions, not their treatments. I guess you could say the same thing about almost any treatment though.


----------



## SilverFox (May 30, 2011)

This is a most interesting discussion.

I work around and with these chemicals, so I may be able to answer some of the questions that have been raised. I am not a medical professional, so any comments on its ability to disinfect the body should be taken with the understanding that I have no medical training.

I am going to bounce around a little, but let's start with WF-10.

WF-10 is not sodium chlorite. WF-10 showed some wonderful results in Phase I and Phase II trials, but the rumor from those in the sodium chlorite and chlorine dioxide industry is that the Phase III trials did not go well. I have yet to find confirmation of this, but it has been a few years since the Phase III trials were announced and one can speculate that no news about the results is not encouraging.

Here is a comparison of WF-10 and sodium chlorite.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8131712

Of particular interest is this comment...

"In contrast, NaClO2 solution suppressed bone marrow function, exhibiting a toxic effect when given on a long-term basis."

The question keeps coming up asking why if MMS is so toxic are there no observable adverse effects. The answer is simple. Jim Humble, and all of the clinics he works with, don't bother to check for signs of oxidative stress.

With oxidative stress, the damage occurs over a long time period. If you have suppressed bone marrow function, you don't immediately drop dead after drinking a dose of MMS. But, eventually it catches up with you.

Do any of you remember smoking? The first few experiences resulted in a rather severe "Herxheimer" effect, didn't it. After a while, that effect subsided and there was no apparent signs of damage. Doctors even went on record promoting smoking.

Fast forward a few years and now people are concerned not only with smoking, but also the effects of second hand smoke. What happened? Someone finally connected the dots.

This example is not intended to compare MMS with smoking, but simply to point out that a lack of visual evidence may not tell the whole story. It may take time before the real damage manifests itself.

There is a theory on aging that suggests that free radical damage is the root cause of aging. Since free radicals cause oxidative stress on the body, we may be able to see if MMS causes oxidative stress.

Jim Humble has been taking MMS for many years. Look up a video of him from 5 years ago, and compare it to a more recent one.

When I did this, I noticed that his skin is much more wrinkled, and his metal cognitive ability seems to be a little lower now. Oxidation stress on the skin causes wrinkles, and oxidation stress to the brain causes all sorts of problems.

Does this prove anything? No. Keep in mind that Jim Humble is 79 years old, and this may simply be the results of his normal aging. Still, I know several people of advanced years that are much sharper in appearance and cognitive ability than Jim Humble. It is an interesting comparison never the less.

Keeping in mind my lack of medical qualifications, I also find it very interesting that Jim Humble recently sent out a newsletter stating that he had evidence that he was on a FBI kill list. He has even gone to not wearing his "signature" hat because he feels that it will help "them" target him. I can say that my friends of advanced years are in now way concerned about the FBI and some of them are very radical in their thinking.

The disinfection by product of chlorine dioxide of concern is chlorite. In water disinfection and food processing rinsing the chlorine dioxide goes through a degradation process. Chlorine dioxide quickly gives up 1 electron and forms chlorite. The ORP of this reaction in water is 0.95 volts. However, that is only 1 electron loss, and there are 4 more to go. Over time the chlorite is reduced to chlorate and then ultimately to chloride.

In animals it was discovered that this process is a little different. About 70% of chlorine dioxide forms chlorite. Chlorite concentrates in all of the major organs of the body, including the brain, and is believed to cross through the placenta. The half life of chlorite is around 40 hours.

Jim Humble is correct in that chlorine dioxide does eventually break down to chloride, but he left out the part about the free radical chlorite floating around in the organs of the body with a half life of 40 hours.

Keep in mind that the chlorite testing was done on rats, so there is probably some adjustment necessary when looking at humans. Unfortunately, there are no studies done looking at chlorite half life in humans.

This is probably enough on these questions. This is turning into a book, so I will continue the discussion about the other questions in another post.

Tom


----------



## SilverFox (May 30, 2011)

OK, let's talk about oxidizers.

Oxidizers work by having a concentration of them in contact with what you are trying to kill for a period of time long enough for a kill.

Chlorine dioxide, chlorite, chlorate, and chlorous acid are all oxidizers.

Let's back up a moment and understand that sodium chlorite does not occur naturally. It is a man made chemical. Chlorine dioxide, chlorite, chlorate, and chlorous acid are all foreign to the body. These are man made chemicals.

The idea of using the electrolysis of salt to produce sodium chlorite probably won't work, but I have not tried that. Sodium chlorite is made from chlorine dioxide.

Here is the process...

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_gx5205/is_1998/ai_n19125001/

The dry salt ends up being 80% pure. Various concentrations of sodium chlorite solutions are made by dissolving the powder in water.

MMS is 28%, by weight, but since it is only 80% pure you end up with 22.4% sodium chlorite.

The idea behind sodium chlorite is that it is a stable form of chlorine dioxide. Chlorine dioxide is extremely unstable, and explosive at higher concentrations (above 10% in air), so sodium chlorite is used to transport the chemical to where it is used.

When dealing with sodium chlorite and chlorine dioxide we are using small amounts and often refer to concentrations in parts per million.

28% MMS has 22.4% sodium chlorite, and that works out to 224000 PPM. This is an industrial strength chemical. It is supposed to be shipped with hazardous labels indicating that it is an oxidizer, and should also be shipped with a Material Safety Data Sheet to notify the recipient of how to safely handle this industrial strength chemical.

Jim Humble doesn't agree with the national and international shipping regulations and prefers to simply ship MMS in the mail.

You can run down to a feed store and pick up a gallon of Oxine and ship it without problems. The difference is that Oxine is a 2% sodium chlorite solution. For those keeping track, that's 20000 PPM. There are other formulations that have 5% sodium chlorite and that is the limit for not needing hazard labeling. 5% gives you 50000 PPM.

One way to think about this is to look at hydrogen peroxide. You can't run to the store and pick up a bottle of 35% hydrogen peroxide. The reason is that it is not safe to handle. However, you can pick up bottles of 3% hydrogen peroxide. You still have to take care when handling the 3% concentration, but it is much safer to handle.

Let's look at concentrations used.

Water disinfectant typically uses 1 - 2 PPM. Waste water treatment uses up to 5 PPM. Wilderness water treatment and emergency water treatment uses 4 PPM. Legionnaires disease is controlled using a 0.5 PPM concentration. Anthrax was removed from the senate office buildings and the effected post office using a concentration of 750 PPM. This same concentration was used to kill off mold in buildings after water damage during hurricane Katrina.

The list goes on and on, but as you can see different situations call for different concentrations.

These concentrations are derived from testing. Extensive testing is done to determine the concentration and contact time needed to kill off pathogens.

Jim Humble is quick to point out that human studies were done using chlorine dioxide and they found that there were no adverse effects.

This is the Lubbers study. In that study people consumed 1 liter of water a day for 12 weeks with chlorine dioxide in it at a concentration of 5 PPM. There was another part of the study were people took a single dose that increased each day. The highest dose was 24 PPM.

In contrast, a 3 drop dose of MMS has a concentration of about 330 PPM.

The original MMS protocol had people trying to work up to 15 drops. There was a lot more nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea then. A 15 drop dose of MMS has a concentration of close to 1650 PPM.

The argument seems to be that since 5 PPM over 12 weeks is safe, and since a one time dose fo 24 PPM is also safe, then weeks of 330 PPM must also be safe... And in the case of malaria, 1650 PPM must also be safe.

As you can see, there are big holes in the safety argument. Yes, a study was done looking at the effects of chlorine dioxide in humans, but the levels used were much lower than what is called for in the MMS protocols.

Tom


----------



## SilverFox (May 30, 2011)

Now let's take a closer look at MMS.

Sodium chlorite is a stable form of chlorine dioxide. In order to release the chlorine dioxide you need to lower the PH of sodium chlorite. Sodium chlorite has a PH that is alkaline, and it varies with concentration.

This is where things get very interesting...

In order to get to the chlorine dioxide, you add an acid to sodium chlorite. This forms chlorous acid (HClO2) and some free chlorine dioxide. You then bubble air through the chlorous acid to collect the chlorine dioxide, and then deposit it into another container of distilled water. You end up with chlorine dioxide in water.

Chlorine dioxide is a gas, and remains a gas in water. Since it is a gas, it does not alter the PH of the water.

Chlorous acid is an acid that is extremely PH sensitive.

When you mix up a dose of MMS according to the MMS protocol, you end up drinking chlorous acid that has a PH of about 3.

There are no studies looking at the safety of drinking chlorous acid. All of Jim Humbles claims of how safe it is to consume chlorine dioxide have little to do with chlorous acid.

Chlorous acid is used in food processing. The chlorine dioxide produced is considered a waste product and efforts are made to eliminate it from the chlorous acid. The wonderful antimicrobial properties of chlorous acid are due to its high ORP. It has an ORP that is much higher than that of chlorine dioxide in water, and just a little higher than the ORP of chlorine dioxide in air. The ORP of chlorous acid is 1.58 volts. In comparison, chlorine bleach is 1.36 volts and ozone is 2.07 volts. As mentioned earlier, chlorine dioxide in water has an ORP of 0.95 volts.

The argument that chlorine dioxide won't harm body cells because of its low ORP may be valid for the Lubbers study where they used chlorine dioxide in water, but it does not hold true for MMS because MMS involves chlorous acid. Remember that oxidizers work by having a concentration high enough and a contact time long enough to kill.

Now when we look at the Lubbers study we find that a much lower concentration was used, and chlorine dioxide in water has a much lower ORP than the chlorous acid involved with in the MMS protocol.

By now you should be asking how anyone lives after ingesting MMS.

That brings us back to the wonders of chemistry. Chlorous acid is PH sensitive. When it hits the stomach, it wipes out the flora in the stomach, and it appears to also dig into some of the stomach lining. However, as it passes further down the GI tract, its PH is neutralized and the chlorous acid goes back to sodium chlorite. Diarrhea occurs when the dose has increased to a point where the colon can't neutralize the PH of it, and it spasms to eliminate it from the body.

Throughout all of this, chlorite is absorbed into the blood stream and it flows to all the organs in the body.

While reading this, keep in mind my medical qualifications... I have none. This speculation is complied from discussions I have had with medical professionals as I have tried to figure out what is going on with these chemicals.

MMS is actually about chlorous acid and chlorite, but there is a component of chlorine dioxide that is also involved. There are conditions where chlorite can pick up an electron and transform back to chlorine dioxide. It is possible that this can happen inside the body, if I am to believe what I have been told, so MMS may also involve chlorine dioxide.

This is where things get complex. At least for me. The body has different PH values for different areas of the body. Since chlorous acid is PH sensitive, it is possible that if it encounters an acid PH, it could release a small amount of chlorine dioxide.

Looking at malaria, the best that I have been able to come up with is that the chlorous acid or chlorite kills off the infected red blood cells. This gives the person a sense of relief, and Jim Humble calls them cured. To me this sounds a lot like dilute chemotherapy. It is possible that someone with simple malaria could recover, but if the malaria is complex things are much different.

As far as chlorous acid curing other ailments, the first question that needs to be ask is what is being oxidized. If the ailment cause is not sensitive to oxidation, MMS will not work. If it does work, it is the placebo effect.

Just for a moment, let's speculate that Jim Humble in spite of his lack of knowledge of chemistry and the human body, actually does see some improvement in people he gives MMS to. Let's put the safety aspects of these chemicals on the back burner for just a moment.

When I tried MMS, I didn't follow the MMS protocol, but I did try it for a short period of time. I found that I seemed to have an increase of energy a few days into trying it. Then things deteriorated and I eventually came down with the flu. I couldn't understand how it was possible to catch the flu when I was "full" of chlorine dioxide. I don't catch the flu, so this was a warning to me that my immune system was being weakened.

I did some research and found that a lot of others had similar experiences. I decided that it was time to rebuild my body and I stopped taking MMS and switched to balancing my body with antioxidants and a balanced diet.

In light of this, it is possible that Jim Humble actually sees some improvement in the people he gives MMS to. He calls that a cure, but in spite of that there may be a place for dilute chemo on the road to health.

Don't get me wrong. The MMS protocol is flawed, and MMS is an industrial strength chemical that is dangerous to handle. Sodium chlorite is not a cure all for everything, but there are some times when it works very well.

OK, back to reality. Safety is a concern and we can't ignore that.

I use a 5% sodium chlorite solution, and have had the opportunity to explore the topical use of chlorous acid and chlorine dioxide with a number of people and animals.

Sometimes the results are spectacular, other times the efforts don't help at all.

For example, when encountered with an infected wound on the toe of a person with diabetes, chlorine dioxide can eliminate the infection and chlorous acid can keep further infection at bay, but these chemicals can't do anything to restore circulation that is needed to heal the wound.

This brings us to the point of realizing that MMS is all about killing. The body needs to kill off infection and pathogens, but there has to be a balance and after the killing you need to rebuild the body. It is frustrating that Jim Humble only focuses on killing, and ignores the rebuilding of the body.

Tom


----------



## SilverFox (May 30, 2011)

A question came up about the selective properties of chlorine dioxide.

First of all keep in mind that at the correct concentration chlorine dioxide is a bleaching agent. Below that concentration it is not bleach.

In the 1940's it was observed that chlorine dioxide attacks lignin in pulp while leaving the cellulose untouched. In addition, when comparing this to chlorine, it was observed that chlorine dioxide did not attach chlorine to the lignin particles in the process. This made chlorine dioxide "selective."

In water treatment chlorine dioxide doesn't attach chlorine to all the organic material in the water, so it is also "selective" in this application.

Chlorine dioxide targets thiols, phenols, sulfur bonds, secondary amines, magnesium, iron, and a whole lot of other things. The difficulty in thinking about using chlorine dioxide is that the body needs these items in order to live. Since it targets specific things, that makes it selective.

Chlorine dioxide is a biocide. Biocide means that it kills living things. It doesn't know good flora from bad flora, it just oxidizes everything it can when it comes into contact with it.

If it doesn't kill something, it simply means that the concentration wasn't high enough, or the contact time wasn't long enough.

The advantage of chlorine dioxide is that since it doesn't chlorinate, lower concentrations can be used. This minimizes the disinfection by products. The selective properties of chlorine dioxide have nothing to do with indentifying good bacteria from bad bacteria, or aerobic bacteria from anerobic bacteria.

Chlorine dioxide is effective over a wide range of PH and temperature and it is effective in killing a wide range of pathogens. I don't know if it works inside the body, but there is a lot that it can do outside the body to promote health.

If you want to try this internally, be sure to have a medical professional monitor you for signs of oxidative stress.

That's about it. I hope this helps you understand these chemicals and if you decide to use them to find a way to use them safely.

Tom


----------

