A new “anti-MMS” article was brought to my attention this week. This one, written by Sara Vaughter, a nutritionist, has her conclusion in the title, “No Miracle, No Mineral, No Solution.”
She and I agree that MMS is no miracle, but that’s where the agreement ends.
Vaughter’s commentary on the chlorine dioxide disinfection (CDD) method introduced by Jim Humble that we’ve come to know as “MMS” reads as an “authoritative” analysis that is based on faulty, or misinterpreted, information. As such, she supports her assessments with negative personal characterizations of Humble himself.
Vaughter came across MMS because her customers have often asked whether it works with a product that she sells; a product known as Lufenuron, a Liver-safe candida killer that is between natural and chemical.
We discovered a prescription-free, over-the-counter, totally harmless veterinarian remedy that kills Candida as effectively – but differently – than Diflucan (oral “azole” antifungal medicines), while putting no burden on liver and kidneys! It makes holes in Candida’s cell wall. It can cure vaginal yeast, oral Candida, Candida rashes and intestinal Candidiasis. More serious semi-systemic Candidiases such as IBS may need multiple treatments and are at least greatly improved. The Lufenuron is “loaded” into the fatty tissues over a period of five days, and then slowly releases, maintains tissue concentrations high enough to kill the Candida for three weeks. We sell a 2-month course. Antifungals such as Diflucan are harmful to the liver and kidneys. Lufenuron is not metabolized or eliminated by the liver or kidneys, but excreted through the feces. Lufenuron is about as toxic as orange juice. It has no side effects but indirectly, it can make you feel bad as reported below – but stay the course – it’s an immune response against dead Candida fragments and suddenly released Candida toxins (“die-off”, or “detox” reaction). Before you decide, it is important to read the details of Lufenuron as a Candida treatment.
Change a few words and her description of Lufenuron sounds very much like how chlorine dioxide works.
She starts out with a disclaimer saying that she never knew what it really was. Yet, her conclusions indicate that she still doesn’t.
”It turns out that MMS, instead of curing cancer, causes cancer!”—Sarah Vaughter
Being a nutritionist and having a chemist as a husband doesn’t appear to be enough for Vaughter to get her very bold and false statements in order.
She says that sodium chlorite is a common form of household bleach, a toxic industrial disinfectant, and powerful oxidant that caused cancer when ingested in small quantities and massive organ damage when taken in significant quantities.
Neither of these factors apply to MMS. The ingestion amounts are miniscule, highly diluted, using no more than a few drops at a time; scaled down to levels that allows the oxidation/disinfection to be done safely and effectively. This is very different from what is inferred in Vaughter’s article.
Acknowledging that there have been precious few reports of harm caused by MMS use, she moves to Humble himself, and does her best to turn the man into a cartoon character.
As though the word “bleach” were the secret word that, by hypnotic suggestion, produces a psychological gag reflex, she applies it liberally, as have so many others who find the ideas associated with chlorine dioxide disinfection, i.e., dramatic improvements in health, so hard to swallow.
Vaughter attributes the now massive body of positive results from chlorine dioxide disinfection use to the sellers, motivated by the 10,000% profit that they must be making on each $20 bottle. At least, that’s what Vaughter figured Jim Humble was making, even though in actuality, he doesn’t make money on MMS sales.
Apparently, truth isn’t important if the story can be made to sound sordid enough.
This is not to say that Jim hasn’t given his discovery’s critics fodder to work with. The church thing is one. Having the audacity to claim that the very tiny doses of chlorine dioxide, produced from an inexpensive, abundantly available, unprocessed salt product, could resolve an entire laundry list of conditions that hundreds of millions spent each year haven’t resolved, is quite another.
Most critics appear so intent on discrediting the man that they’ve not stopped to even consider if what he has said, may be true. And if not totally true, all-the-time, what about some of the time? The people who are using MMS aren’t making their claims up simply to have a good story.
On the other hand, most critics haven’t taken the time to rationally consider what effect the intake of substantially reduced amounts of chlorine dioxide—a proven pathogen inactivator for everything from anthrax to E. coli, plus MRSA, Staph, fungus, mold, and yeast (including Candida)—might have on a chronically compromised human body.
Said critics also fail to discern the behavioral differences between chlorine (also an active agent of bleach), and chlorine dioxide. While they would have you gag at the mere thought of taking in “bleach”, as though that was what you were doing with chlorine dioxide intake, they are mum at the daily intake of elemental chlorine that water management agencies across America have done for years, without raising an eyebrow.
If they don’t know the difference between chlorine and chlorine dioxide, then why aren’t they appalled at the involuntary exposure to chlorine that the public is being subjected to?
These questions are rhetorical. The reasons may vary, simply depending on who the critic is.
I’m sure Sarah Vaughter’s product is what she says it is, and does what she says it does. It’s not that I don’t see why she can’t accord the courtesy of an unbiased look at something that isn’t Lufenuron, and withhold her suppositions about Jim Humble to what she knows to be true, which is very little. It was, for me, difficult to read a mean-spirited article dressed in “concerted expert” clothing.
Personally, I don’t care for the church thing. I’ve told Jim that, and he respects my position. However, the efficacy of chlorine dioxide disinfection doesn’t depend on whether the original discoverer started a church or not.
Given that MMS sellers have been harassed and threatened, in the United States, UK, and Japan, and the protocol has been maligned by the FDA, FSA, and the BBC (in the UK), it isn’t hard to see why anyone who fears for their safety and freedom might not take desperate measures to protect them.
Jim Humble doesn’t have a financial stake in MMS product sales. From what I’ve seen, he struggles with life issues just like you and me. But his insight to use small amounts of chlorine dioxide internally—which has been known for over 200 years, and used as a water purifier for almost 100—was a stroke of genius that no attempt at character attack can take away.
All this is happening while news stories report of a new strain of E. coli infecting over 1,500 and killing 17 people in Germany. (Click here to read the story.)
We’re being advised to be on the watch for E. Coli that might be “lurking in our salads,” when a little chlorine dioxide, applied with a sprayer, would stop it immediately. Even if we ingested it, a tiny bit of chlorine dioxide would put it down. This has been tested by many agencies over the years, including a 1982 study commissioned by the National Institutes of Health, the EPA (in a product marketed under the Selectrocide brand) and the FDA.
Chlorine dioxide is not new to the FDA. Jim Humble’s proposed application is the cause of the most controversy.
To get an “inside view” of how the FDA works, below is a response letter from Laura Tarantino, Director of the Office of Food Additive Safety, to a proposal by Engelhard Corporation for approval to market a misting system that, using one of two methods, would generate and spray chlorine dioxide on produce on your grocery store shelves. (Click here to read the entire letter.)
At issue was the GRAS (“generally recognized as safe”) status of this “additive”. With it, Engelhard would be able to market the system; without it, they would not.
Since an extension of shelf-life would result from the process, the FDA interpreted the proposed application of chlorine dioxide by the Engelhard system in the context of a preservative—a stretch, in my opinion. Nonetheless, they concluded thusly:
Based on the information provided by Engelhard, as well as other information available to FDA, the agency has no questions at this time regarding Engelhard’s conclusion that chlorine dioxide generated by either of their two CSR systems is GRAS under the intended conditions of use.—Laura Tarantino, Ph.D. (FDA)
This exchange happened in April, 2005, well before Jim Humble emerged on the scene to suggest that we look at the potential of chlorine dioxide in a different context.
Instead of acknowledging the known merits of chlorine dioxide after the good news continued to pile up, the agency went the other way, issuing their warning against MMS use in August, 2010.
Nowhere was the term “industrial bleach” used in the FDA’s correspondences with Engelhard’s representatives, or any concerns over the potential dangers, even though the amounts of chlorine dioxide that would be generated were likely higher than those that were eventually developed and proposed by Jim Humble.
I am as eager as the next person for the FDA, EPA, Sloan Kettering, or the Mayo Clinic, or any other agency to study the potential benefits of the therapeutic use of chlorine dioxide. But so far, they have been not just unwilling, but hostile toward the idea.
They are like the Roman Catholic church that tried Galileo in 1633 for declaring that the earth was not the center of the universe. Their rationale was not the evidence—they refused to look themselves—but that his conclusions went against doctrine. He spent the rest of his days under house arrest.
When will we have the humility to acknowledge that we not only don’t have all the answers, but that the way that we’re currently doing things—with respect to health care—is not working very well?
Instead of flaunting its authority by intimidation and squashing, obstructing, or delaying the emergence of new ideas, the FDA could play a valuable role in helping the public prosper in a rapidly changing world by welcoming new ideas and methods, and confirming their efficacy.
But it won’t happen with dis-information.
And while Sarah Vaughter doesn’t know Jim Humble, the Jim Humble that I know would never publicly make such personal characterizations about a stranger simply because they had another product that could help people. He’d be more inclined to support them if he saw that the product worked. He certainly did that with the probiotic product that used to be called Paradophilus, and Indian Herb. The probiotic was so popular, due in part to Jim’s bravado (and ultimately the success of its use with MMS), the developers changed the name.