Search

MMS Dis-Information Campaign May Mask Greater Harm ‘Hiding in Plain Sight’

The FDA is going to great lengths to dissuade the public on MMS.
The FDA is going to great lengths to dissuade the public on MMS.

 

History is always in the making, and we’re part of it. The initial official response of public health agencies to MMS is hardly the last word, as their advisories run counter to the actual experience of so many who have already used it and speak from experience.

Used in appropriate, scaled down amounts, chlorine dioxide is not the harmful chemical that has been suggested. Indeed, there is great evidence that it can be even more invaluable as a disinfectant than it already has been for over 60 years. The agencies will either align their policies and positions on a truthful foundation, or be clearly seen as organizations that are at odds with their charters, and undeserving of the public’s trust.

The large population of people who have recently been introduced to MMS (Jim Humble’s “Master Miracle Supplement”), by way of alarmist warnings issued by the FDA, FSA (UK) and counterparts around the world, are going to naturally want to know what the hubbub was all about. They will want to know the truth. They will also determine whether they can expect the truth from public agencies, or otherwise.

Trying to ward the public off MMS actually increases interest, and creates a natural desire to understand why. Calling the product “bleach”, and attempting to create an aversion response in the process, is really weak. But then, that is probably the best that the agencies can do, given that their claims of harm are dubious, at best.

Considering the number of widely known toxic therapies that are not only approved by these agencies, but considered “go to” drugs that are administered each day, you have to wonder what caused MMS to gain such urgent treatment.

Could it be because the accounts of beneficial outcomes, which the agencies said were made by the sellers, but were actually made by MMS users, were actually true?

The agencies suggest that claims of recoveries from a wide range of pathologies are untrue, because said pathologies themselves are “unrelated.” But what if they are related?

What if it is, like Louis Pasteur is reported to have said before his death, that it is not “the germ,” but the terrain?

I mean no disrespect to those who feel that Pasteur has been targeted by scientific revisionists who are positing a new interpretation of familiar, and sometimes sacred conceptual cows.

Our escalating dance with disease and unnecessary death, is in part a byproduct of our futile and unquestioned “war” with microbial life, whose only purpose is to protect and perpetuate life. It is a memo we have yet to get. Predominant efforts to find “cures” revolve around the perpetuation of this microbial war. Yet, the weapons themselves are synthetic, un-living, foreign, alien, and disruptive to the human inner ecosphere.

Therefore, a new spate of “MMS naysayers” have risen, resolute in the belief that simply referring to MMS as “bleach” will be enough to stimulate a public aversion to the product. They may even be conceding that those who know the truth about MMS are not going to be persuaded, but will attempt to use fear or the threat of force to keep the uninformed, disinterested, and the more “obedient” sector at bay.

There will be those, however, who really want to know the truth. “Is MMS, the product — that these agencies have joined together in unison to denounce — really dangerous?

Perhaps this series of selected comments, quoted from a document whose source I’ll reveal at the end, will be helpful. It is a comparison of the disinfection properties of chlorine dioxide and chlorine, the result of numerous published scientific research that said naysayers suggest has never been done.

I’ll offer my own comments at the end.

 

Disinfection Efficacy

 

Several investigations have been made to determine the germicidal efficiency of chlorine dioxide since its introduction in 1944, as a drinking water disinfectant. Most of the investigations were carried out as a comparison to chlorine; some studies have compared chlorine dioxide and ozone. Chloride dioxide is a more effective disinfectant than chlorine but is less effective than ozone.

  • poliovirus (Scarpino et al., 1979)
  • Naegleria gruberi cysts (Chen et al., 1984)
  • E. coli (Chen et al., 1984) (Ridenour and Ingols, 1947)
  • Cryptosporidium (Le Chevallier et al., 1997)
  • Giardia (Liyanage et al., 1997)

Bacteria Inactivation

 

Quantitative data were published as early as the 1940s demonstrating the efficacy of chlorine dioxide as a bactericide. In general, chlorine dioxide has been determined to be equal to or superior to chlorine on a mass-dose basis. It was demonstrated that even in the presence of suspended matter, chlorine dioxide was effective against E. coli and Bacillus anthracoides at dosages in the range of 1 to 5 mg/L (Trakhtman, 1949). Ridenour and Armbruster (1949) reported that an orthotolidine arsenite (OTA) chlorine dioxide residual of less than 1 mg/L was effective against Eberthella typhosa, Shigella dysenteriae, and Salmonella paratyphi B. Under similar pH and temperature slightly greater OTA residuals were required for the inactivation of  Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus.

Chlorine dioxide was shown to be more effective than chlorine at inactivating B. subtilis, B. mesentericus, and B. megatherium spores (Ridenour et al., 1949). Moreover, chlorine dioxide was shown to be just as effective or more effective than chlorine at inactivating Salmonella typhosa and S. paratyphi (Bedulivich et al., 1954).

In the early 1960s several important contributions were made by Bernarde et al. (1967a and 1967b). Chlorine dioxide was found to be more effective than chlorine at disinfecting sewage effluent and the rate of inactivation was found to be rapid.

 

Protozoa Inactivation

 

The disinfection efficiency of chlorine dioxide has been shown to be equal to or greater than chlorine for Giardia inactivation.

Both Chen et al. (1985) and Sproul et al. (1983) have investigated the inactivation of Naegleria gruberi cysts by chlorine dioxide. Both studies concluded that chlorine dioxide is an excellent disinfectant against cysts and that chlorine dioxide is better than or equal to chlorine in terms of inactivation.

 

Virus Inactivation

 

Chlorine dioxide has been shown to be an effective viricide. Laboratory studies have shown that inactivation efficiency improves when viruses are in a single state rather than clumped. It was reported in 1946 that chlorine dioxide inactivated Poliomyelitis (Ridenour and Ingols, 1946). This investigation also showed that chlorine dioxide and free chlorine yielded similar results. Other studies have verified these findings for poliovirus 1 (Cronier et al., 1978) and Coxsackie virus A9 (Scarpino, 1979). At greater than neutral pHs (where hypochlorite ion is the predominant species) chlorine dioxide has been found to be superior to chlorine in the inactivation of numerous viruses such as echovirus 7, coxsackie virus B3, and sendaivirus (Smith and McVey, 1973). Sobsey (1998) determined CT values based on a study of Hepatitis A virus, strain HM 175. The study found 4-log inactivation levels are obtainable at CT values of less than 35 at 5°C and less than 10 at a temperature of 25°C.

 

CT Values

 

Chlorine dioxide is regarded as a strong disinfectant that is effective at inactivating bacterial, viral, and protozoan pathogens. CT values for Giardia and virus inactivation are shown in Figure 4-5 and Figure 4-6, respectively (AWWA, 1991).

CT values shown in Figure 4-5 are based on disinfection studies using in vitro excystation of Giardia muris. Average CT values for 2 log removal were extrapolated using first order kinetics and multiplied by a safety factor of 1.5 to obtain the CT values for other log removal CT values. Due to the limited amount of data available at pH values other than 7, the same CT values are used for all pHs. Because chlorine dioxide is more effective at a pH 9 than at a pH of 7, the CT values shown in Figure 4-5 are more conservative for higher pHs than for lower pHs. A lower safety factor was used to derive the CT values for chlorine dioxide than for ozone due to the fact that the chlorine dioxide values were derived from Giardia muris studies, which are more resistant than Giardia lamblia.

 

Organic DBPs Produced by Chlorine Dioxide

 

Chlorine dioxide generally produces few organic DBPs. However, Singer (1992) noted that the formation of non-halogenated organic byproducts of chlorine dioxide has not been adequately researched, and expected that chlorine dioxide will produce the same types of oxidation byproducts that are produced through ozonation. The application of chlorine dioxide does not produce THMs and produces only a small amount of total organic halide (TOX) (Werdehoff and Singer, 1987).

A study was conducted in 1994 by Richardson et al., to identify semivolatile, organic DBPs produced by chlorine dioxide treatment in drinking water. Samples were taken from a pilot plant in Evansville,
Indiana that included the following treatment variations:

  • Aqueous chlorine dioxide;
  • Aqueous chlorine dioxide, ferrous chloride, (FeCl2), chlorine (Cl2), and dual media filtration (sand and anthracite);
  • Gaseous chlorine dioxide; and
  • Gaseous chlorine dioxide, ferrous chloride (FeCl2), chlorine (Cl2), and dual media filtration (sand and anthracite).

Using multispectral identification techniques, more than 40 different DBPs (many at sub-nanogram/L [ng/L] levels) were identified including carboxylic acids and maleic anhydrides isolated from XAD™ concentrates, some of which may be regulated in the Stage 2 DBPR. THMs were not found after chlorine dioxide was added to the water; however, THMs did show up during subsequent chlorination.

Now one thing is clear by the terminology, this was not a consumer report. The document is the EPA Guidance Manual, and these excerpts were from Chapter 4, “Alternative Disinfectants and Oxidants,” which is 41 pages in length. Published in 1999, this document publishes official guidelines for water treatment.

What the EPA document says about chlorine dioxide compared to chlorine is enough to raise even larger questions, and come to some conclusions on one’s own.

Now what did it say?

It didn’t call chlorine dioxide a “bleach”. Of course, if they did, they would have had to acknowledge that chlorine is one too.

But then, they weren’t trying to dissuade. This was an actual objective, unbiased guideline.

As an aside, given how many hundreds of millions of people are exposed to chlorine, day in and day out, you wonder how they decided to base their MMS alert on the idea that a bleach was being used?

Being a “bleach” is not the issue in this document.

The excerpts indicate several important points:

  • Chlorine dioxide is effective at “inactivating” the following:
    • Poliomyelitis
    • Naegleria gruberi cysts
    • E. coli
    • Cryptosporidium
    • Giardia muris
    • Bacillus anthracoides
    • Eberthella typhosa,
    • Shigella dysenteriae,
    • Salmonella paratyphi B.
    • Pseudomonas aeruginosa
    • Staphylococcus aureus
    • B. subtilis, B. mesentericus, and B. megatherium spores
    • Salmonella typhosa
    • Coxsackie virus A9
    • Echovirus 7
    • Coxsackie virus B3
    • Sendaivirus
    • Hepatitis A virus, strain HM 175
    • Protozoan pathogens
  • Chlorine dioxide is a superior disinfectant to chlorine.
  • Unlike chlorine, chlorine dioxide, produces NO THM’s.

The EPA appears to be confirming what Jim Humble and the tens of thousands of people have reported about chlorine dioxide. It is a pathogen inactivator extraordinaire. MMS, on the other hand, has been demeaned by the FDA, et al, and other detractors, as an industrial strength, bleach. Yet, MMS is not chlorine dioxide, but simply a means of generating it in significantly reduced quantities.

The EPA’s manual is clearly not about the personal application of chlorine dioxide. However, it is about the internal application of chlorine dioxide, just as chlorine is taken internally as the predominant disinfectant now. Since the products are used for water treatment — which would be “consumed” by the public — a comparison was natural. The results clearly show that chlorine dioxide is superior to chlorine as a disinfectant. The reality today shows that the best option healthwise, isn’t necessarily what the public is going to get.

The EPA document also confirms that chlorine dioxide is effective at inactivating a long list of bacteria and viruses (and more). These microorganisms and many more, figure prominently in the onset and treatment of disease. In addition a long list of expensive, discrete pharmaceutical drugs are presently being administered for various infections, vaccinations, and chronic conditions. This lends credibility to the “anecdotal” claims from a wide range of people about amazing health improvements after using MMS. In this era where success in health care reform is defined by the ability to pay the increase in costs, and not in the ability to help people heal, how many of these drugs might be shown to be expendable by MMS? Not to mention the expense, what about the lives that would be saved?

Perhaps the FDA’s real issue is with people choosing their own methods of disinfection. Perhaps if the agency had chosen the disinfectant, it would be okay. But then, the government has given agencies the opportunity to allow a predominant disinfectant to emerge, and it wasn’t chlorine dioxide. Maybe it is because the chlorine dioxide would inactivate the fluoride that they are also so fond of, whereas chlorine combines and forms new toxic chemistry.

While we might imagine that the agencies would see this problem and fix it on their own, it is more apparent that the agency is unlikely to change what it thinks “ain’t broken.”

It is apparent that we can’t trust authorities to choose the best approach over the least costly. Yet, when we do our own research and demonstrate the benefits to ourselves, we can trust them to take an adversarial, alarmist stand.

But while the inactivation of viruses and bacteria appear to be the primary litmus test of both products’ efficacy, something else is being overlooked. I believe that it is chlorine dioxide’s effect on low energy, inorganic, synthetic, non-living stuff that can’t be metabolized by the body, and is subsequently stored.

As I mentioned in an earlier article1, trihalomethanes, or THM’s are known carcinogens. Last time I checked, a “cure” for cancer was still believed to be sufficiently not yet achieved, that the fund raising effort continues at full, if not accelerated pace. Yet, have any studies been published with outcomes measured to see what would happen if we stopped exposing people to THMs daily, for years and decades at a time?

In spite of the clear superiority of chlorine dioxide, and the fact that, according to the EPA, between 700 and 900 cities currently use it as their disinfectant of choice, the human health continues to take a back seat to costs.

I’m not pointing the finger at chlorine either, as it is part of nature. We can’t have salt without chlorine binding with sodium. We can’t live without salt (full spectrum, that is), in proper measure.

My point in bringing this up is to show what the EPA has reported, which indicates that an extensive amount of research has gone into the nature of chlorine dioxide dating back several decades. The research confirms what Jim Humble has said about this naturally occurring (which we could call “public domain”) chemical. It is not a drug. It is a chlorine ion, an essential element, bound to with two atoms of oxygen, which is also an essential element.

It is amazing to see the new wave of indignant “scientists” and “professionals” who have attempted to add the weight of the initials, either in front of, or beyond their names, to give greater credibility to the FDA’s and company’s warnings about chlorine dioxide. None of them have done their homework. Or if they did, then they are clearly trying to keep the public from seeing a far greater harm that could be hiding in plain sight.

1 Wolf to Henhouse: “Just Say ‘No’ to MMS!”

Written by 

Related posts

41 Thoughts to “MMS Dis-Information Campaign May Mask Greater Harm ‘Hiding in Plain Sight’”

  1. I like to share now some experience with you that is more recently
    Last week our hotel closed down for the winter. The last 2 days was a bit busy, but the night-porter could not work. His brother died. So I did night-porter for those 2 nights.
    The rooms were heated, but the reception had only a fireplace going till about midnight. So I was in the cold most of the night. I realized a cold coming about 2 am, but my MMS, which had prevented me from getting a full-blown cold during the year, was @ home. By the morning I had a full-blown cold, sinuses and all.
    I went to see the doctor. Oh yes, did I mention that I’m NOT ANTI doctors, even if I’m pro MMS! 😉
    She gave me some antibiotics ect. But one week down the road and my antibiotics finished, I feel better, but my asthma, which gave me no problems over the last year, is back!
    Now don’t get me wrong, but I don’t blame the doctor. She can impossibly know what is all in each medication she hands out to her patients, let alone all the side-effect. I had a low sugar attack 3 days ago. The leaflet of the antibiotics says, it is a side-effect, together with at least 30 other side-effects, including headaces, inflamatory of the mouth, tongue, pancreass, bowelkidneys, including kidney failure, low blood-pressure, nightmares, delusions, confusion, hallucination, anxiety, deafness (reversable-thanks God for that), severe liver failure ect, to name but a few. Plus irregulae of rapid heartbeat (including lifetretening)…need I say more?
    So guess who is back on MMS now?
    🙂

    1. I finally got an answer to my repeated question here and on other web-sides if it OK and ethical to prescribe drugs with as many or even more including lethal side-effects:
      Copy from facebook:

      Perfectly ethical to prescribe medications which have undergone proper testing through a process of clinical trials. All medicines have adverse effect profiles and that is …why patient information leaflets have to be provided. As I have explained before, the question of safety and efficacy for a medication has to balance the risks against the benefits. Some drugs have proved too toxic for use and never get licensed or get withdrawn as a result of post-marketing surveillance. As part of the clinical trials procedure, data is gathered about all possible adverse effects which might be related to the medication in question. Many reported adverse effects are no more than coincidence and many are no more than an irritation. Some are more common than others. Some can be pretty serious and nasty. What you won’t gather from patient information leaflets are the frequency of the adverse effects, particularly when that adverse effect is rare and idiosyncratic.
      It’s all about the balance of risks – if an antibiotic has an 80% chance of curing an infection compared to a 1 in a million chance of a serious adverse effect, my money is on the antibiotic.
      As for MMS, I think ingestion of a bleach that results in nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, thyroid disorders, methaemoglobinaemia and neurotoxic effects with no evidence of efficacy, I’ll pass on the MMS and advise others to do likewise. See More
      Friday at 12:39am · LikeUnlike ·

      Guss WHO?

      I rest my case…. 🙂

  2. Gilgamesh

    This is a great article Phaelosopher.
    This should be good reading for all medical professionals, doctors, students, chiropractors, naturopaths, and holistic practitioners.

  3. You know, gamma rays are very effective for killing bacteria.

    If we follow your logic, then gamma ray irradiation should be used on those poor haitians suffering from cholera.

    Not to mention that cancer, diabetes, MS and many other diseases that Jim Humble claims can be cured with MMS have little or nothing to do with viruses, bacteria, parasites and fungi, thus making its disinfectant qualities completely irrelevant.

    1. Unless you’ve figured out how to “cure” cancer, then you don’t know what is irrelevant or not. Jim Humble says that he seen people get rid of cancer after taking MMS. He has seen cancer tumors on his own body go away after MMS. I have met people who got rid of cancer, along with Malaria, staph infections, Hepatitis, herpes, and many other conditions, after taking MMS. If gamma rays could do it safely, then I’d say bring it on too. This is not about MMS; it’s about what works effectively. If you had experienced, or witnessed such improvements using anything else, I wouldn’t be dismissing you or denouncing your ideas; I’d be listening and learning.

      1. And if you published any of the data you claim to have that shows MMS can cure cancer, then a great many people, myself included, would be listening and learning.

        Until then, I cheerfully dismiss and denounce your ideas.

        Anyone can claim to have a miracle cure for cancer. Providing evidence of it is another matter altogether.

      2. If you truly “dismissed” my ideas, you wouldn’t even bother to write yours in my space. You have to live with the fact that you KNOW there’s something to this, that you, or those who pay you are trying to defame. How can you care about expanding knowledge and then limit what you are open to to a narrow source?

        No one has claimed a miracle cure for cancer. There’s no miracle about it. The body will cure itself under the right conditions. Our task is learning what those conditions are, and re-establishing them. The miracle, these days, is NOT getting cancer under the current toxic circumstances that have become the rule, rather than the exception. We’ve convinced ourselves that the amounts are tolerable. The TRUTH is that if you remove the toxicity and restore balance, cancer will go away. Most medical treatments these days, all peer reviewed and approved, take the patient further out of balance. We’ve got the death certificates to prove it. MMS is not the only way to restore balance, but it’s a very good tool, and is worth considering.

      3. Funny thing: neither you or bishop Jim Humble have figured out how to cure cancer. And since I seem to have a better grasp of the biological mechanism behind cancer (hint: cancer is not an infectious disease), I believe I have a better idea on what’s relevant and what’s not.

        By the way, the bit about gamma rays? I mentioned it because they are good at killing germs -and it’s a well known fact they’re also good at killing humans. It was an extreme example of your flawed logic, and the fact that you completely missed the point is very revealing.

      4. All you have is an opinion, because if you had a better grip on what CURES cancer, then you would have published it, and we wouldn’t be still running and raising funds to find “the cure.” You’re free to do that. Regardless of what you believe cancer is, or is not — and I didn’t say it was an infectious disease either — let us agree that we both want to see it end. Current methods are not producing acceptable results.

        And if you didn’t get it, I understood your attempted sarcasm about gamma rays. The point was to be open to what works, and what does not. You say you’ve got a better handle on the biological mechanism behind cancer, but I’m not hearing you say anything about what you’ve presented that has demonstrated itself to WORK for people. If you have it, I’m all ears. It wouldn’t invalidate MMS; it would simply be one more way humanity can break this cycle of re-chemicalization.

      5. “All you have is an opinion, because if you had a better grip on what CURES cancer, then you would have published it”

        Couldn’t have put it better myself.

      6. h.deux.flo

        Great philosophy. Great Articles overall. Yes, nature has it all to help us bring our body into balance, therefore into curing itself. Another great way to do so is to drink alkaline, ionized water. I have also seen people being free of cancer, cholesterol, diabetes, high blood pressure after I have given them my water. I personally have seen many changes such as better eye sight, no more back and knee pain, no more severe depression. Yes, all alternative methods are worth a try, especially, when we give up on medication and conventional medicine. There are other ways, but we have to dig out for them….

  4. Oh dear, oh dear. Do you really not appreciate the difference between something that is an effective disinfectant when used outside the body and something that is effective in combating disease when taken internally?

    You have presented convincing evidence that MMS can kill various nasty germs. Household bleach can do that too. In fact come to think of it, incineration is also a pretty good method of killing germs outside the body, but not really recommended as a method of dealing with infections inside human beings.

    There remains absolutely no reliable, published evidence that MMS, when taken internally, have any health benefits whatsoever. That’s the reason why the FDA are warning against it. Nothing to do with your conspiracy theories.

    1. I didn’t suggest anything was a conspiracy. I simply pointed out the existence of what you and others who perhaps don’t really care about whether MMS is actually effective, say doesn’t exist. If you say that I don’t appreciate the difference between something that is a disinfectant when used outside the body versus something that is effective in combating disease when taken internally… and you say that you have a PhD??? Do you not understand that the carcinogenic chemistry of chlorine, which includes THMs and other derivatives, are absorbed into the body each time we ingest chlorinated water? Do you not grasp the concept that they know these chemicals are carcinogenic because they’ve done the research? You also continue to harp on the term, “household bleach” as though that is going to be the end all point of the conversation, yet don’t acknowledge that “bleach” is a general term, and one bleaching agent can behave quite differently from another. In order to determine what will do harm or not, one must be specific, which you’ve had plenty of opportunities to do, but have not. I suspect that your purpose here is dissuasion only, not helping people to learn what will help them. But by your being here, you are helping people figure that out.

      So I thank you too.

      1. “If you say that I don’t appreciate the difference between something that is a disinfectant when used outside the body versus something that is effective in combating disease when taken internally… and you say that you have a PhD??? ”

        Sorry, what’s your point there? Are you saying that something that’s an effective disinfectant outside the body is automatically a useful medicine when taken internally?

      2. No… not “automatically”. I’m also not talking about “something”. I’m saying that the current, predominant disinfectant — chlorine — which by the way applies to the UK too, is contributing to the increase in chronic diseases that people in your country and ours are experiencing, a point that you are probably inclined to disbelieve. Chlorine, which produces residual, carcinogenic chemicals, is also an active agent in the production of 93% of all pharmaceuticals. You are being affected by this daily, whether you are presently “sick” or not. Others, including the young “whistleblower”, are experiencing an earlier onset of chronic diseases, only to then be given more chemicals to “combat” them. The medical establishment doesn’t even claim to know the cause of Crohn’s, and also has declared it incurable. Easy way out than to acknowledge the cumulative, residual health time bomb that continues to tick with each refusal to look at alternatives.

        When taken in very small amounts, chlorine dioxide does something that changes the chemistry inside the body, that results in health improvements. Putting chlorine, or household bleach inside the body would produce chemical changes that adversely effect health.

      3. So what was the point of giving us all that data about how chlorine dioxide is an effective disinfectant? No-one doubts that it is. But that has no relevance whatsoever to what happens if you’re daft enough to actually drink the stuff.

      4. Given that you haven’t drank it yourself, then you’re not among the “daft,” and therefore don’t know what you’re talking about. Your admonitions of “no relevance” are not relevant. A person with a staph infection, or other pathology that normal medication has been ineffective on, will see and know the relevance.

      5. Phaelosopher, you insist on saying that one needs to drink MMS in order to be able to talk about it.

        Just imagine if crack cocaine dealers used the same logic to convince their potential customers to try their products.

      6. No one is claiming that crack cocaine is beneficial. And the people who are claiming that MMS is harmful are misrepresenting the chemistry, the process, and the results. They haven’t done an unbiased evaluation. When unbiased tests were done, the confirmed that chlorine dioxide is an effective bactericide, antiviral, fungicide that leaves no residual toxicity. I am insisting that one need to be open to knowing about what they’re defaming. If you don’t know, ask intelligent questions. The learned experts in chemistry that have shown up lately have no direct experience with chlorine dioxide in THIS application. You don’t have to drink it to learn, or to even figure out that there may be something to it. But you DO have to have an open mind, and be willing to look at the whole of how it works, including the resulting EFFECTS, which can confirm or not.

        I wouldn’t walk into a forum with an acknowledged problem for which I’m seeking help, then tell those who offer suggestions that their methods are bogus. If they have been helped, why wouldn’t I respect that it works for them, learn what I can, and take what I can use from that information? No one is forcing anyone to take MMS. If the currently favored methods hadn’t been so INEFFECTIVE where it counts — meaning helping people restore their HEALTH — there’d be no need to look for, or consider an MMS.

      7. Well, either you’re claiming that being an ex-vivo disinfectant makes something a worthwhile medicine or you’re not.

        If you’re not, then there is no relevance to telling us about MMS’s powers to kill bacteria in test tubes.

        If you are, then you seriously need to read an introductory pharmacology textbook.

      8. Until you have an answer to the problem in question, you can’t say what is, or is not relevant. Of course, if you did, then YOU would be ridiculed, and you wouldn’t want to do that.

        Your position thus far has been to deny possibility of improvements from the chemical actions that chlorine dioxide bring simply because your book on pharmacology says it’s not related. When people have presented contrary views, you prefer to rationalize that they didn’t really have them, than to consider what might their improvement actually mean. On the other hand, you are silent on the potential cumulative effects of toxins on cellular physiology and function represented by daily exposure through water. You’ve been trained to think it is not relevant, and so for you, it is not.

        Man was healing himself from disease before there were pharmacology books.

      9. I have plenty of answers. I didn’t realise you’d asked me a question. Would you care to repeat it?

        I don’t deny the possibility of improvements from chlorine dioxide, I just point out that there is no evidence that they exist, and plenty of evidence that chlorine dioxide is harmful.

        As for these “potential cumulative effects of toxins on cellular physiology and function represented by daily exposure through water”, which toxins are you talking about, and what is your evidence that they have cumulative effects?

        Yes, it’s true that man was healing himself before there were pharmacology textbooks. But not very successfully. Average life expectancy in mediaeval Britain, for example, was about 30 years.

      10. The “problem in question” that I referred to was cancer and a cure. And until you have an answer that is borne out by results, then you cannot say what is, or what is not relevant in its remediation. I haven’t had cancer, but I have met and spoken to people who have. I haven’t had malaria, or staph infections, etc., but have spoken to people who have, and got over it using methods that included MMS. Some of them used conventional methods first.

        I don’t deny the possibility of improvements from chlorine dioxide, I just point out that there is no evidence that they exist, and plenty of evidence that chlorine dioxide is harmful.

        You can’t offer any evidence of your claim any more than the FDA and FSA can. We can all agree that drinking a bottle of MMS would be unpleasant, but so would taking even an ounce of salt. You appear to be disinterested in knowing what intake levels would yield a therapeutic benefit, and instead want to repeat your programmed mantra.

      11. Well, yes, I admit it, I haven’t found a cure for cancer. But if that makes me unqualified to comment, then I guess most discussions are going to have very few participants.

        There’s plenty of evidence that chlorine dioxide is harmful. Here is just one paper, if you search the literature I’m sure you’ll find many more.

        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1569048/

        I would love to know what levels of MMS provide a therapeutic benefit. Why don’t you publish your data? Then we can all know.

      12. You’re not unqualified to comment… you’ve done plenty of that. You’re unqualified to say that something is unequivocally not related, or harmful, while ignoring the evidence given by people who have a different experience. Look at how many millions of people take medicinal treatments that eventually kill them simply because their doctors, who followed their pharmacological “books” and won’t look outside the book, said it *might* work. A survey done by the McGill Cancer Center asked oncologists whether they would take standard cancer treatments found that the vast majority said they would not. You probably already know that though.

        I found the following here>> http://www.mnwelldir.org/docs/fraud/chemo.htm

        History Repeats Itself

        Here is an excerpt from an article at this site called The History of Medicine (1800 – 1850):

        In France, a study on cancer, begun in 1843, had just been published. A physician of the French Academy of Science, Dr Leroy d’Etoilles, gathered together as many statistics as possible at that time from some 170 practitioners who had treated cancer. The reason for the study was to compare survival rates of those who elected to undergo the standard treatments for cancer against those who refused these treatments. According to Dr Naiman in her book Cancer Salves, the standard treatments consisted of surgery, caustics “such as nitric acid; sulfuric acid mixed with saffron; poisonous minerals such as lead, mercury, or arsenic nitrate; or alkaline caustics such as sulfate of zinc. Copper sulfate [mixed with borax], quicklime, or potassium permanganate were also used, evidently with mixed success.”

        The conclusion of the study showed that those who avoided traditional cancer therapies outlived those who underwent them. Did this stop anyone from practicing these therapies? Perhaps, but for the most part, these treatment protocols continued on till the advent of Radium therapy that proved to be even more deadly than any previous protocol, but was highly recommended because it was a great money maker.

        History, we are told, often repeats itself. A study presented to the American Cancer Society in the nineteen-eighties, concluded much the same as that study in France over a century earlier. Ellen Brown’s book, Forbidden Medicine gives us the following:

        One of the few studies … was conducted by Dr. Hardin Jones, professor of medical physics and physiology at the University of California, Berkeley. He told an ACS panel, “My studies have proven conclusively that untreated cancer victims actually live up to four times longer than treated individuals. For a typical type of cancer, people who refused treatment lived for an average of 12-1/2 years. Those who accepted surgery or other kinds of treatment [chemotherapy, radiation, cobalt] lived an average of only three years. . . . I attribute this to the traumatic effect of surgery on the body’s natural defense mechanism. The body has a natural defense against every type of cancer.

      13. You’re citing evidence from a conspiracy-theory website. If we are going to accept that as a reasonable standard of evidence, then I could also prove to you that the Holocaust never happened, that Elvis is still alive, that NASA faked the moon landings, and that Prince Phillip was responsible for having Princess Diana killed.

        I prefer to take my evidence from reliable sources, such as peer reviewed journals. Here is an example of such a source, showing pretty clearly that conventional drugs mean people with cancer can live longer.

        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11279694

        There are many more like that if you care to look.

        Now I disagree with most of what you say, Phaelosopher, but you don’t strike me as being stupid. I am sure you understand the difference in levels of evidence between a conspiracy-theory website and a peer-reviewed scientific publication. You do, don’t you? I am puzzled as to why you post such evidence and expect to be taken seriously.

        There is no reliable evidence for MMS. I am not ignoring any evidence, I just haven’t been shown any evidence. Sorry, but I don’t believe that a few people posting some unverifiable stories on a website, when we have no idea whether those stories are true or whether they have been paid to make them up, counts as evidence in any meaningful sense.

        Publish some verifiable evidence on the benefits of MMS, and I will read it with great interest. I’m sure the entire scientific community would do likewise.

        BTW, do you have a link to the McGill survey? It sounds interesting, although I seriously doubt that the results really show what you claim them to show.

      14. So, no link to the McGill survey, then? I assume you’re simply using that favourite trick of con-men the world over, which is just to make shit up.

      15. I would have to be a con-man to do that. Which I am not. At this point, you’ve shown that, even with your PhD, you haven’t learned how to figure things out without being told what to think about it, as if agreement alone determined what is true, and nothing else exists beyond what someone else has told you.

        That’s “shit” I am not making up. It’s evident to anyone reading your posts who cares to see.

      16. So, no link to the McGill survey then?

      17. You need someone to tell you what you have already seen for yourself AGAIN?

      18. I would also like to see that McGill link, please.

      19. It was referenced in this book, Reclaiming Our Health, by John Robbins:
        http://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-Our-Health-Exploding-Embracing/dp/0915811804

        According to the author, the McGill survey, taken in 1986, was just one example. He cited quite a few others.
        You can read his words here, at the end of page 240, under the heading of “Hypocrisy”.

        http://books.google.com/books?id=4NftA-D9xr8C&pg=PA240&lpg=PA240&dq=Reclaiming+Our+Health+McGill&source=bl&ots=vKrmbunQCo&sig=PcsQKOKiANuCraOE1K5XZAOfvHI&hl=en&ei=AIXJTP7rBIn4swOt-_CYDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

      20. I’ve looked at the link, but sadly that doesn’t reference the survey, only a description of it in a book. As I’m sure you know, one should always go to the primary sources. What is written about them in books can be unreliable.

        I do note, however, that the book gives a citation number, although sadly the references section is not available in Google books. Do you have a copy of the book? Perhaps you could let us know what the citation for the actual survey is?

      21. So, no link to the *actual* McGill survey, then?

  5. Wow, the poster they produced is a doozy. It is published by the FDA as “Consumer Health Information”.

    I really wonder if this would fall under the F.T.C. laws about false and misleading advertising??? What laws are broken when anyone, let alone a government agency, falsely misleads the public and damages businesses? That is a case we would get involved with gladly!! There is so much SCIENCE why the information in that FDA document is false.

    To see the full FDA pdf: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/UCM228057.pdf

    Thanks again, Adam.

    1. Gilgamesh

      Cyndi
      The FDA did not give the correct instructions to mix the MMS. They forgot the MMS drops, and citric acid have to be diluted with a glass of water.

    2. Gilgamesh

      I think the FDA should give the correct, and exact instructions on how to mix MMS.

  6. Lori

    Great stuff, Phaelosopher Adam!

    Jon Barron has an interesting article on his Baseline of Health website, titled “Sympathy for the FDA –If You Will.” He claims the FDA has way more than it can do, that it’s understaffed and underbudgeted and that the natural health industry, being so small (compared to the pharmaceuticals, that is) is way down on the priority list. But they’re supposed to do something about it all the same, so they use terrorist tactics — a periodic spate of raids, threats and fear-mongering is the best they can do, and hope that everyone gets too scared to do anything for awhile. So all this fuss may really be a sign of their inherent powerlessness. Just throw around the “bleach” word and hope for the best.

    1. Gilgamesh

      If the FDA using terrorist tactics, that will just backfire, as more people will know, and will use MMS.

      1. Bad publicity is better then none.
        Those who are familiar with their scare tactics will only wonder why they want to ban it and try to find out more about it.
        🙂

Leave a Comment