The term “MMS” has taken on a life of its own, thanks to Jim Humble, a once itinerant contract gold prospector. On an expedition in the middle of nowhere he recognized that he had stumbled upon something of great importance when he helped two men, stricken with malaria, avert possible death after taking a hastily prepared concoction of “stabilized oxygen.”
Now, over 10 years later, after extensive solitary research, grass roots testing that started in Africa, three years after writing and self-publishing his book and countless private trials in the far flung corners of the world, the product that emerged from that fateful day has turned health prospects around for 100’s of thousands of people and animals.
However, instead of celebration or benign investigation, a spate of warnings were issued by the FDA. Public health agencies around the world were now on record that MMS had garnered their attention, and presently, it appears that they don’t want you to know any more about it.
I personally think that’s not going to happen. MMS use will grow, as more people learn how it works.
In the meantime, if you listen to the agencies’ warnings, you’d think that MMS and the chlorine dioxide that is generated from it (with the aid of an activator), was the most dangerous substance imaginable, that would cause your throat to melt as it went down or your hair to fall out. But wait, there is a long list of drugs that already make this happen, and they have earned – or shall I say that their companies have paid for — the FDA Seal of Approval!
The FDA doesn’t differentiate between natural which I refer to as “public domain” chemicals, and synthetic, or patented pharmaceuticals. They get a good penny for granting approvals that allow these companies — the most profitable on the planet — to issue poisons to the public. They hold purveyors of unpatentable products up to the same economic barrier, and standard of proof. But why does “proof” have to be demonstrated for something we can understand in a high school chemistry class?
Perhaps they can’t fathom the idea of the public knowing that the “bugs” we spend billions of dollars for, and lose lives over, each year could be controlled with the help of a few drops of water disinfectant that carries oxygen?
On the other hand, why does paying a fee that can be millions of dollars justify approving drugs that clearly are dangerous, but the agency and the medical industry embrace as staple tools? The anticoagulant Coumadin (also marketed as Warfarin) is one example. According to Wikipedia, the product was originally marketed as a pesticide for rats and mice, and is still popular for that use. I’ve made these observations before, and will likely make them again. How can introducing a chemical designed to kill life help life get healthier?
Now I realize that there is a logic associated with Coumadin use (as well as chemotherapy, etc.) that existed before the product became a popular medicine, but shouldn’t an “efficacy check” be ongoing? If you look at the effects that coumadin has on overall chemical and microbial balance in the body, I’m willing to bet that it is not improved. All that synthetic, unmetabolized stuff has to be stored somewhere, and the body attempts to maintain functionality as long as possible, and then existence as long as possible. That is life’s purpose.
I find it ironic that researchers often test products on mice and rats, determining their safety by how quickly they kill. Here’s a product (Coumadin, etc.) that was designed to kill rats and mice, and yet it is approved for “therapeutic” use in humans! Do they really believe that this is the best our “research” can come up with?
I have speculated, and continue to, that the problem may not be in the microbial population, but in the deluge of inorganic material we expose ourselves to — voluntarily and involuntarily — each day. I believe that microbial forces of certain types (i.e., aerobic and anaerobic) proliferate under certain environmental conditions; conditions that change according to the presence of (1) adequate hydration, (2) a full-spectrum mineral presence, and (3) proper movement and elimination of waste matter. Predominant methods of water and food processing severely compromises the first two factors, which by combined effect, then compromises the third.
The various agencies are too busy protecting and defending the system to actually assess what effects it is having on the public, and more importantly, whether better approaches are available. MMS is showing results that the agencies want their expensive, limited access, approved chemicals to demonstrate, but aren’t. So instead of taking a genuine look at it, they use the last bit of confidence that the public might have had in them, and tell them straight up, “This stuff is bad, don’t go near it!”
So the public grapples with conflicting information. Who are they to believe? Since this is easily verifiable science, don’t you think the FDA would have checked their data before making their claims? I would certainly think so, at least, that is what I would expect of any science-based organization. But science is only as effective as the scope of its study and inquiry, and its commitment to truth. Schooled at the University of Pharmacology (with campuses all over the world), FDA scientists and other researchers see nature as an alien landscape with which they are unfamiliar and have little interest, except if they can patent a trait that they have observed, thereby limiting benefits that were intended for all to an elite few. Unable to do that with MMS, their information is therefore misleading; a blend of truth, half-truth, and outright falsehood.
Who, on the other hand, would listen to a geezer named Humble? Detractors criticize his writing style, others criticize his grasp of chemistry. They call him a charlatan and ridicule his efforts to build an aura of protection around himself through a church.
Yet, his information about chlorine dioxide has been confirmed time and time again by the effects. Even if clinical trials have not been done in a manner that would satisfy “critics”… (a “satisfied critic” is an oxymoron if I ever heard one), there is enough information available on the nature of the chlorine dioxide molecule to postulate its potential as a superior substitute for a myriad of currently used pharmaceuticals.
In spite of the much higher price that could have been charged for a product that actually works and reduces one’s toxic, fungal, and microbial load, as a condition of sharing his information with sellers, Humble made them promise to keep the retail price low, so as to make it available to anyone who needed it. He even gave instructions on how to make it on one’s own.
An evolution ensued, and new people are now questioning and denouncing the use of this “industrial bleach” only to eventually see it for what it is, and can become.
More Scientific Support For Chlorine Dioxide Use
Today someone sent me yet another piece of scientific evidence of the efficacy of chlorine dioxide. This one, created in 2001 is titled, “Sodium Chlorate, A Potential Treatment of Salmonella in Pigs,” was produced by the Canadian Ministry of Agriculture Food & Rural Affairs.
It points out that there are 1.4 million cases of human Salmonellosis and 600 deaths annually in the United States. Bacteria can be passed during meat processing due to fecal spillage from evisceration. Therefore, reducing the amount of Salmonella in the gut and feces is considered a good thing.
They elected to follow a strategy set forth in a laboratory study conducted by USDA scientists in 2001 and outlined, according to the abstract, in the Journal of Food Protection.
It turns out that E. coli and Salmonella contain an enzyme, known as respiratory nitrate reductase, which converts the chlorate into chlorite (ClO2), which, in turn, kills both pathogens. In other words, the pathogens have enzymes within them that, upon contact with the chlorine dioxide molecule, initiates the oxidative event that eliminates the pathogen.
Aerobic bacteria, on the other hand, do not have the respiratory nitrate reductase enzyme, and are not affected by chlorine dioxide. (Sounds pretty much like what Jim Humble has said all along.)
The researchers observed a 150-fold reduction in intestinal Salmonella after administering the chlorate tablets.
The research is still in the early stage and this new approach needs to be approved by the FDA before it can be widely used by the U.S. livestock industry. Possible applications include feeding chlorate to animals before they are transported to slaughter or adding it to drinking water before loading or at lairage.
It’s likely that said approval has not been granted, even though it is for pigs. I’m happy to be wrong, and issue an apology. But if these scientists observed such profoundly beneficial changes, and pig physiology works very much like humans, then this is more third-party evidence that the FDA, all its cronies, and the new-found legion of critics, are wrong about chlorine dioxide.
It’s now almost 10 years since this research was done, before Jim Humble was a gleam in the FDA’s eye, or committed the “sin” of informing the public that chlorine dioxide might be helpful. Once we hit a critical mass of irrefutable evidence, they’ll act as though they knew it was a good thing all along.
MMS Workshop Video Update
After a first production run that produced more errors than base hits (a little World Series humor), Jim Humble’s 5-day MMS Workshop presentation re-emerges as an 8-disc set.
New shipments will start the week of November 8. Orders are being accepted.
You can listen to Jim Humble explaining the two fundamental Protocol strategies by following the link below: