MMS Case: The 'Inconvenient' Factor of Truth

Truthfulness is the cornerstone of any and every relationship worth having, or otherwise preserving. It is fundamental to its health. And while it is easy to go unnoticed, truth is also fundamental to our own health. When we are not truthful, cellular stress is the result. The body produces cortisol, which is also known as “the death hormone.”

We can produce cortisol in the body with no inputs from any outside source. All we need to do, or be, is in inner conflict with what we know (or think) is true.

No truth?

Beyond the physiological price that we play when truth is set aside, an even more fundamental element of human power, a psychological one, is affected. That fundamental element is trust.

Trust is one of those immeasurable factors; you can’t see, touch, hear, smell or taste it, but like self-esteem, when it’s not there, you know it. This is because trust is responsive to, and affected by truth. When truth is present, trust is deepened. When truth is absent, trust weakens, and even switches polarity to become distrust.

As trust deepens, questions become few. As distrust deepens, questions become many. Inconsistencies between the truth that the heart tells you is “right,” and what is actually happening in the moment, often tend to be deflected by such words as “impossible,” “luck,” “placebo,” or by “rules,” “statutes” and “mandates” that serve special interests, at great expense to the general population.

As such, when truth is presumed, but not present in actuality, then continued trust without question is misguided and unwise.

Far more than the Grammy’s, or the Academy Awards, the upcoming trial of LOUIS DANIEL SMITH vs. the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, now set for May 18, 2015, is significant and worth your attention, because the truth, or lack thereof, will be on display. The question is, will you care? Indeed, will you care enough to demand the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth from all parties?

Daniel Smith and anyone who takes a “witness” stand in this case, whether for the plaintiff or the defense, will be required to put their hand on a bible and swear an Oath of Truth.

Does doing this get “the whole truth/”

For all the appearances of conscientiousness that the jurisprudence system places on ensuring the rights of the defendant, one must question whether the requirement of truth also extend to the plaintiff?

I’m sorry to even present this as a question, because the answer is, or should be obvious. All parties should be held to the same standard of truth. For that matter, all parties may be assumed to be operating on the same standard, but what if that standard were challenged? Would it hold up?

Can every claim made by the FDA, who is behind the DoJ action against Daniel Smith, as to the “danger” of the product known as “MMS” (Miracle (Master) Mineral Supplement (Solution) that he sold through his company, Project Green Life, actually be confirmed conclusively, beyond a shadow of doubt? FDA “experts” claim that the product, when used as indicated, becomes a powerful, industrial bleach.

Is that true for reasons beyond the FDA’s experts saying so? Are there other ways to explain and scientifically confirm another opinion? In other words, can actual benefit be shown by what happens when MMS is taken that mitigates the allegation of harm?

The inference is that harm was done and is done when MMS is taken. However, what evidence did they have that this was so?

On the other hand, what benefits, if any, have MMS users experienced? From what I recall, the FDA never once expressed any interest in such information, even though it might have an influence on the inference that harm had been done.

The suit claims that the defendant intended to defraud the FDA.


Shall we go over case after case of FDA approved drugs that people are dying from every day, through standard and “proper” medical treatment, where harm is truly being done when alternative treatment methods might have saved a life?

Would evidence of intent to defraud the public on the FDA’s part be relevant to you?

Daniel Smith is representing himself. This is referred to as pro se. While it is done occasionally, it is rare because the jurisprudence system wants it that way. But did you know that when you get an attorney, you and your rights are not the attorney’s primary responsibility? A member of the BAR (British Accreditation Regency), each is considered an “Officer of the Court.” But what court?

Why is the accreditation regency for attorneys British?

LOUIS DANIEL SMITH is a corporate entity created when Daniel Smith was born. This is the entity that “charges” are being made against. Most people think of themselves as the individual symbolized by the capitalized name that is printed on their traveling documents. Many unsubstantiated allegations are being made against that entity, yet “conviction” would mean putting Daniel, the living man, in prison for as much as 37 years.

Personally, I don’t believe that this is the FDA’s goal. I believe they simply don’t want people using products that may help reverse the effects of the “approved” poisons, medications, and synthetic products that they’ve given the green light to. Furthermore, I believe they don’t want doctors and other health care practitioners, getting the notion that MMS has any merits. Although when they have doctors administering “blood thinners” that started their commercial lives as rat poisons, you have to question what they think are “merits” versus what you and I see as having value.

That is where “trust” and truth come in.

If the Department of Justice relied on FDA information, and either is found to be untrue, they are just as culpable in harm causing as anything Daniel Smith might have done. Fortunately for him, he will break convention and represent himself. As such, there is a greater chance that truth will be told.

The question is, who is the DoJ and FDA actually representing?


Please visit Daniel’s site and read some of the particulars of this case. Please sign the petition if you want to register your support for this idea.

Please follow and like us:

Written by 

Related posts

One Thought to “MMS Case: The 'Inconvenient' Factor of Truth”

  1. Ellie

    How foolish the FDA officers are ! … They obviously don’t know much about what sodium chlorite is … That is evident from their calling it BLEACH !

    Bleach is a string oxidiser and like oxygen and hydrogen peroxide, kills good AND bad cells and organisms…

    Sodium chlorite doesn’t hurt anything good, which is soooo COOL ! And its SO CHEAP … 5 cents a dose is all !!!

    I and many friends have used it here in Australia, and REALLY SEEN THE BENEFITS!!

    Its not a nutrient … Its a disease killer … So u don’t have to take it all day every day, but if u have it in the cupboard for when a crisis happens, its great HEALTH INSURANCE !!

    Wasting public money AGAIN !!

    The writing is on the wall, as they say !!

    Keep on moving against GOOD PEOPLE selling GOOD, SAFE products, and u will bring the negative vibes on yourself !

    The universe cannot bless your efforts when they are trying to harm righteous, good people !

    You guys need to change …

    DO THAT !!

    Your own health and the health of people u care about may need MMS sometime soon !!

    THINK !! … cheers, Ellie

Leave a Comment