A reader, Theo, just sent the following comments on an earlier post that I published from someone who was skeptical about MMS.
Adam, you’ve never heard of the “placebo effect”? People trying it for themselves and feeling better may indicate there’s something worth investigating, but it is no demonstration of efficacy. Efficacy can only be demonstrated when you have placebo control.
Dear Theo, as you could safely assume, I’ve heard of placebo effects, and even if I hadn’t, you can now be assured that I have. Here’s my problem with your supposition.
Efficacy is demonstrated, not when you have “placebo control,” but when the problem goes away. If your conclusion was true, we would have to outlaw chemotherapy, radiation, and many other accepted forms of treatment for acute diseases, because they kill their patients, sometimes more so than the disease itself.
Chemotherapy cocktails are poisonous. Morphine is poisonous, yet it is administered (and sometimes over administered) daily, without anyone batting an eye. Yet, you sit in intellectual isolation judging what constitutes efficacy of something that is not toxic and non-lethal, dismissing the real effects that people have experienced.
People have called and told me of giving MMS to friends who were skeptical (which itself is not a problem) of its efficacy, but were open minded enough to try it for themselves. While they might have been looking to address one thing, they were surprised to address something else, such as tumors that they had simply lived with for decades, or warts that suddenly shriveled up and dropped off their body. Was that a placebo, or evidence that it works as described?
Then there’s the Zen question… if an individual uses MMS to successfully address a cancer, candida, Lyme, malaria, MRSA, or other condition that goes away, but a researcher who is not funded to do a double-blind randomized trial didn’t care to watch, did it really work?
My answer is, who cares about the researcher?! If it worked for the people who used it, then that’s all that’s important!
MMS is not the end-all in a disease releasing protocol. Gaining proper nutrition is far more important than MMS. However, chlorine dioxide effectively reduces a major contributor to the perpetuation of disease, that is, acidifying elements, such as anaerobic microorganisms, which tend to be in overgrowth for most people, and who produce more acid in through waste products, and deposits of heavy metals, and various other forms of toxicity.
A double blind randomized trial would easily do this and would be extremely easy to set up and run.
It won’t help one person who hasn’t actually tried and used MMS. The only way to know the efficacy of anything, is to use it. You can’t do it in an intellectual vacuum.
I’d love to know the title of a published paper that shows this?
Jim?
I’d love to see some independent verification?
Jim?
With independent verification you’d win the noble prize for medicine…
There is plenty independent verification of MMS’s efficacy. A couple weeks ago I met a man who contracted malaria while on a trip to Africa. And guess what he used to get rid of it? You guessed it, MMS.
Your glib sarcasm may sound informed, but it only identifies you as one who doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
You might find it interesting to read Gregg Braden’s The Spontaneous Healing of Beliefs. He talks about placebos, and nocebos… the effect where nothing works if the individual doesn’t believe that it will.
In the final analysis, each individual decides what works for him or herself. All is placebo, including chemotherapy and radiation in those rare and infrequent cases where a person recovers. Nothing will work unless the individual allows it to. This is part of the real education and understanding that we must now incorporate into our world view.
Real (homeopathic) medicines cures even when Conventional Allopathic Medicine (CAM) fails
What an amazing debate between very articulate individuals! Bravo!
If the individual is all that is required then why do we bother with any of this healthcare nonsense? I personally do not use the services of healthcare professionals unless I need to – i.e. if it’s something I have tried to, but can’t, shift on my own (like a bacterial infection). This is precisely the approach my mother in law took and she is now dead of something that would probably have been preventable if she was more trusting of the medical profession.
People like you sow ideas that discredit the medical profession on the basis of misinformation (usually through misunderstanding, but…). Those people who have no concept of how evidence based medicine works believe the no-harm stories you tell and they buy into the naive concept of side-effect free health intervention. The reason there are no side effects is that there are no effects.
By the way, whilst you are causing harm by denigrating evidence based medicine you do nothing to support your own position. It’s like seeing a fraudster claim that they are innocent because the person next to them is a drug-dealer. It’s perfectly possible for both to be bad. The difference is that although evidence-based medicine can be bad, it is also transparent, regulated and open about its failings – your brand of magic admits no harm and allows no disagreement.
By the way, your dismissal of evidence-based medicine seems to have utterly ignored the vast increase in life expectancy since it appeared on the scene. You seem to have missed the huge successes of germ-theory and epidemiology in treating and reducing communicable diseases to the point of eradicating smallpox. When you can bring some demonstrable results like that to the table you might be taken seriously – for now you are all talk and no trousers. Standards of evidence exist. If you can’t reach the standard you have no evidence. Prove your claims sir.
Paolov,
You may not agree with my point of view, and that’s fine, but I have nothing to prove to you or anyone else. Millions of people are dying each year, thousands in the time it will take for you to read this reply, needlessly, simply because medical science refuses to seriously look at natural dynamics that influence and enhance (and the unnatural ones that disrupt and destroy) human health. It’s not all about chemistry. Today it’s about quantum physics and energy.
You lump me into a group of “people” who you think are putting out misinformation, but the truth is that *people* are learning, on their own, how to get well from diseases that are often exaggerated by the very products, behaviors, and then medical practices that we’ve come to see as “normal.” I have no beef with technology. The issue is that too many are dying at the hands of technologies that have not changed for almost 100 years, while the HOPE of [pharmaceutical] “cures” are dangled before the public like the carrot that is never quite grasped, after hundreds of billions more are spent.
You talk of my ignoring the increased life expectancy, but you have ignored the EARLIER onset of chronic diseases that people, especially children are now experiencing. Do I need to spell out what diseases they are? Medicine is doing fine denigrating its own reputation by practicing business as usual, and trying to figure out how to pay for even higher cost health care (or disease management). Given the total dis-integrity that it has fallen into and become dependent on, it continues to treat disease through poisoning, then ignores the effects and rationalizes the losses after more patients die from treatment, and not the disease. Wayman Tisdale is the most recent high profile individual to check out in this manner.
I don’t have to bring anything to the table other than my opinion since you’re offering nothing more than yours. I’ve stated instance after instance of products, diseases, and even given sources over the course of these dialogues. I respect your right to disagree with my point of view, and respect you even if I don’t share your point of view. If you want to engage in more meaningful discussion, then you’ve got to bring something to the table other than high-handed platitudes, at least acknowledge the travesty that has led so many to turn away from “modern medicine” and strike out on their own personal journey to health.
Regards,
Adam…
“The only way to know the efficacy of anything, is to use it. You can’t do it in an intellectual vacuum.”
Yet you seem to insist on working in an intellectual vacuum. We know that people have spontaneous remission, we know that the placebo is a genuine effect, we know that anecdotal reports are often misleading. The whole point of double-blind placebo controlled studies is to get around the problems we know exist.
If something works then a properly conducted study should identify that. The only people who are afraid of rigorous studies are those who are worried that their treatments don’t work – the charlatans, snake-oil vendors and quacks who profit from people wanting a quick fix, no-strings solution.
I suppose the application of self-critical thought is an anathema to belief based medicine.
Greetings Paolov,
We know that people have spontaneous remissions, but we don’t know why. Furthermore, if the reason is not chemical, pharmaceutical or surgical, the reason is dismissed as unknowable. Not true if you consider the whole of the individual. The point that you make about double-blind placebo controlled studies removes the key component that determines success or failure; i.e., the individual. Science doesn’t want to look at the individual, and in remaining blind to that observation, in spite of Max Planck’s discovery of the role of the observer (not only the observer of the CCT, but the people who are experiencing whatever disease that the CCT observers are studying) in the formation of a reality. Science continues to want to believe that disease happens due to factors outside of the individual’s influence or control. Science assumes that IT has bigger and badder “weapons” to “fight” disease, overcoming the “bad guys” by the “good guys.” This is also naive.
Given the trillions spent on health care in the U.S. each year, and the hundreds of thousands of people who die each year after taking poison and suffering mutilation to rid the body of a toxic overload called cancer, I’d say that the charlatans, snake-oil vendors, and quacks that you point out as profiting from people wanting a quick fix, no-strings solution, oftentimes have a license and an M.D. behind their name. When polled, a large majority of oncologists indicated that they would refuse chemotherapy — their own standard treatment for cancer — if they were in that position. What’s good for the gander isn’t good for their goose.
Your statement about self-critical thought being an anathema to belief based medicine reads just the opposite for me. It is the lack of self-awareness and assessment that modern medicine counts on to shift the power of belief from the individual who thinks he or she can’t heal self, to the beliefs of medical people in white coats who the public (including you) believes knows better.
Regards,
Adam…
Adam,
“I stated that Louis Pasteur denounced his own theory. Before you feign incredulity and tempt insult, you might consider looking up evidence of what I’m saying and see if there’s any corroboration”
Ok. I put “Louis Pasteur deathbed conversion” into google, first two results were denying it. It’s often telling when you come across something’s refutation before you come across the thing itself. But as a wider point, deathbed conversions are usually:
a) Made up. They’re something noone can check, are often totally at odds with the person’s lifetime behaviour, and founded on nothing but hearsay. Darwin’s conversion is a telling example.
b) Irrelevant. Who cares if Pasteur denied his own theory? You’d think noone had done anything into germ theory since! The theory is supported by the evidence, it doesn’t matter whether its founder supported it or not.
Trashing a conventional treatment or its underlying philosophy (with or without basis) also does not provide evidence to support some other philosophy or treatment.
I’ll leave you with another thought which doesn’t seem to have struck you. The plural of anecdote is not data. If you have a theory, test it, control the variables, account for bias. Don’t use anecdotes as evidence, they don’t stand up to much. By anecdotal evidence, homeopathy works, so do healing crystals etc. I think I remember you saying much earlier in the discussion that there is evidence for MMS. Well, provide it!
Greetings Mike,
I don’t know why this is a sacred cow to you, but so be it. You can treat Germ Theory and your CCT concepts with all the sacredness and reverence you want. I still enjoy barbeque (if the cows in question are grass fed).
Pasteur’s deathbed observations, whether made up or not, are meaningful because they resonate with a larger body of opinion with respect to human physiology that has shown itself to be effective in understanding the genesis, and treatment of disease. I refer specifically to protocols that involve rehydrating, de-chemicalizing, and remineralizing the body, which can be accomplished in a number of ways. Other methods have included the use of vibrational frequencies (Raymond Royal Rife successfully cured people of cancer in the early 1930’s before the Morris Fishbein and the AMA hounded him out of business).
You thoroughly dismiss my agreement with your position on CCT’s in principal, and the reality that the funding sources simply aren’t going to allow any studies to be made that reveal their product or method to be ineffective at best, and downright deadly at worst. Coumadin and Warfarin, two FDA APPROVED drugs that are used as blood thinners, come to mind. They began their life as RAT POISON. That was their purpose and mission. The were REBRANDED, for human medical use, the fees were paid, CCT’s run, and “voila!”, they’re now in the medical toolbox. Are they still toxic? Yes indeed. Maybe they do thin the blood, but so does drinking structured water. If capillaries are blocked, DMSO is a safe, non-toxic chemical derived from trees that has had over 40 years of CCT’s with great success, and has only VERY LIMITED AND SPECIFIC approval by the FDA. However, you can buy it over the counter to rub on your horse.
I have sought and experienced conventional treatment. I have also learned and experienced how unconventional works. I’m not trashing the conventional. I simply know that the unconventional works too, is less expensive, doesn’t build dependencies (addictions), and allows people to get on with living. I’m inviting you to know what you’re talking about from your own full experience, from your own open mind, versus someone else’s biased and limited one.
I’m suggesting that conventional methods are not above being questioned and held up to the true standard that patients are seeking… not simply survival, but recovery. You’re denouncing and expressing skepticism about something you know nothing about simply because others who you think should know it all, would have done some form of testing on it. It’s a rational, but naive viewpoint. It’s rational because they should know it all, and they should test just as you say they should. It’s naive because they won’t. If they did, the public would see very clearly just how completely they have been manipulated and robbed… not only of money, but of life itself, for many generations. They’re not going to give that exposure up so easily, especially when they have an FDA, insurance industry, academia, and national media available to rubber stamp anything they do for the right fee. The sad thing is that the public is truly paying for it, not only in dollars, but in health, and life itself.
As for plural anecdotes, that is a great definition of a CCT. The people who put the clinical trials together will ultimately present a bias, a judgment that a protocol or product works a certain way, or does not. You are suggesting that homeopathy is anecdotal as well as crystals, and MMS. All one has to do is talk to people who have healed themselves using any of these methods. There is great science behind them all, and why they can work. However, I did my own research. If you really want to understand whether, or how they work, you’ll have to prove it to yourself. You’ll never learn anything new with a closed mind.
Best wishes,
Adam…
You don’t believe in germ theory?! I’m not trying to be insulting but I’m starting to think you’re an anti-vax parody, Adam. Think about how many people used to die in surgery before they discovered gems.
Your examples of modern health problems are just that, problems whose causes have not been found yet. I’m also not completely convinced that some of those problems are especially modern, some may have just gone undiagnosed. Some may be caused by aspects of our lifestyle, like, I don’t know, microwaves. Some may be due to diet (easy enough to check), but this is not evidence that our collective health is getting worse. Nor is it evidence that addressing a balance would solve the problem, or that all our health problems are caused by our stepping away from nature. There’s an easy way to check if all we need is good water and food to prevent disease. (As an aside, what about malaria, for example?)
Whatever is causing such problems (and I don’t rule out GM foods or some technologies, I’m just not convinced), the way to go about discovering it is through hard, objective evidence. The way to discover a cure is through that same kind of evidence, the kind of evidence provided by a CCT. As I’ve said, the CCT is not based on conventional science, it measures purely effectiveness, so any therapy that works will be able to prove itself through a properly controlled, randomized and blinded CCT. If MMS is shown to be effective in such a test, fine. But I do not see a problem with the CCT itself, maybe funding allocation, the industrialisation of health, but not the CCT.
We can definitely agree on some things, but the basic necessity of hard objective evidence before a treatment is be taken seriously is not something I’m going to budge on. Quite honestly, I think your judgement is clouded by a preoccupation with getting back to nature.
Dear Mike,
I care not whether you try or not try to be insulting. I stated that Louis Pasteur denounced his own theory. Before you feign incredulity and tempt insult, you might consider looking up evidence of what I’m saying and see if there’s any corroboration. I’m not pulling this information out my ass.
Here’s another writer’s account on the same topic:
A few additional links:
Louis Pasteur & The Pasteurian disease theory
What Louis Pasteur Said on his death bed
Louis Pasteur and the Myth of Pasteurization
You don’t have to accept or believe any of these writers (there are thousands more), but for those who read this and who have an open mind, it’s here in easy reach.
When you dismiss my specific examples in broad terms, by claiming they are problems whose causes haven’t been found, you demonstrate modern medicine’s thinking perfectly. By suggesting that the cause hasn’t been found, they can continue to treat in ignorance. Half of my jaw was removed and rebuilt over a 2 1/2 year period of time and seven surgeries due to an ameloblastoma, which doctors said, they did not know what caused it. They called it “benign but aggressive.” This was at a leading medical center in Los Angeles. I say this with no regrets or misgivings about what was done, since they were the counsel that I sought, and I gave my consent to the treatment. However, it was with an implicit belief that my doctors knew all the options. Truth is, they only knew the pharmaceutical/surgical ones. They did not know about balance and natural ways to control and ameliorate toxicity. They are totally blind to the effects of chemicalization, so dependent on them as pieces in their toolbox that they don’t recognize the deleterious effect they have on the body, and they are unaware of nature’s natural de-chemicalizers, some of which are enzymatic while others are microbial.
Microwaves are certainly deleterious to human health, but modern medicine is mute on the topic. I visited a man last week who is an M.D. and Ph.D., and a leading researcher in stem-cell research at Stanford University. My jaw almost dropped when he put his cup of water in the microwave to heat it for tea. I told him about an experiment we did recently growing three samples of plants (tomatoes and basil) using (1) microwaved water, (2) tap water, and (3) structured water. This was several weeks ago. Today, the plants watered with the microwaved water are both dead. The tap water plants did much better, but not as well as those that received structured water, which the living organism uses much more efficiently and effectively.
If you or science hasn’t specifically studied the effects of restoring balance — whether it is chemical or microbial — in an organism, then you’re in no position to dismiss it as unproven. I have come to know several people who have had the most acute forms of cancer, from leukemia, rectal cancer, ovarian, and others. Each one contracted these diseases 30 to 40 YEARS ago. The common response that each one had to the recommendation of standard cancer treatment of chemotherapy and radiation, was NO! Each sought other methods of addressing the problem, from juicing, herbology, to oxygen infusion. All are still healthy today and cancer free. Yet, there are still many people who think as you do that “cures” for these conditions haven’t been found, and yet are willing to dismiss a point of view that doesn’t fit their particular belief-set.
You say that the way to discovering the causes of problems is through hard, objective evidence. You’re right. However, the people doing the research must be willing to go wherever logic and reason takes them, irrespective of whether deep pockets support them. Not only is this not happening, the opposite is. Researchers, even at our “leading universities,” steer clear of the real definitive research because the people who fund endowments and build new wings to their institutions would pull back their research dollars. Furthermore, they will only fund and publish research that fosters a greater trust in, and reliance on, their particular product or method. If you understood what Mother Nature does on our behalf in Her sleep, you’d laugh at our ignorant arrogance. Instead, you’re trying to convince yourself why you shouldn’t be insulting me. Now that’s funny.
You don’t have to budge on the need for hard objective evidence, but don’t hold your breath waiting for white coats to do it. Hard, objective evidence that MMS is an effective pathogen killer is all around. And you’re right, my understanding of the importance of Nature is clear. My judgment is not clouded. It was by nature that we came into this world, and by nature that we have proliferated. And unless you understand what she does for us naturally, you’ll never fathom the enormity of the needless damage that we’re doing to ourselves while patting ourselves on the back.
All the best to you Mike.
Adam…
Adam,
“If there are drug which are synthesized versions of natural ones, we must wonder why the natural ones aren’t being favored. The process of synthesizing drugs ends up with a product that is not as effective as natural ones.”
That’s not at all true. First of all the reason for synthesis is simple, we don’t have the natural resources to keep it sustainable. If we find that toad mucus is a cure for cancer, it’s better to synthesise the substance than to kill off all the toads to get at it. Secondly, they will often find an active ingredient within a substance which may have some curative properties, but when it’s separated from the rest of the substance and synthesised in higher concentrations, it’s much more effective. Just because it’s less natural, doesn’t mean it’s less effective.
“In the United States we’ve bought in to the the idea of genetically modifying foods (GMO), possibly through the result of CCT’s, when in fact, the practice is banned in every other major country in the world, and the United States has the highest incidents of deaths associated with GMO food intake.”
CCT’s are for medicine. GM food could potentially end world hunger, if used properly. Unfortunately it is currently peddled by companies only interested in profit, turning off genes for reproduction, for example. That’s a problem with capitalism, not the CCT.
“Your reliance on, and importance given to CCT’s falsely diminishes the importance of the individual, the actual people who are creating not only the CCT, but those who make decisions based on the results, oftentimes shutting down their own intelligence in favor of a dissociated collective groupthink.”
You’re correct if you mean that the CCT assumes that people generally respond the same way to medical treatments. Aside from allergies etc though, that’s generally true, human beings are physiologically more alike than they’re different.
However, if you see reducing the effect of people on the result as a bad thing, I’m afraid I can’t agree. The whole point of the CCT is that it gets rid of personal bias, it’s specifically designed so that the makers of the CCT have no effect on the result. If you want the evidence, get the evidence! Not your own personal spin on it. Look at where we would be without it, we’d still be bloodletting if Louis hadn’t tested it, we’d still have scurvy if it wasn’t for Lind. People’s vague intuition and biased recollection of what works and what doesn’t is evidently not good enough.
“Yet, people are NOT getting WELL from their practices. They are getting sicker, younger, living longer, and as long as the insurance is in effect, they remain food for the industry that feeds off them”
You keep implying this. Do you have any evidence for it? Or any evidence that restoring some vague sense of balance would be better? I think quality of life is considerably better than it was before the dawn of evidence-based medicine.
“When the public is still looking (and spending billions annually) for “cures” for major diseases such as cancer, and it is not only evident, but documented to be true that such cures have been known for years,”
Again, please provide some evidence, I’m sure the rest of the scientific world is eager to hear it.
Dear Mike,
The first reason for synthesis SEEMS simple, simply because we’ve bought the idea of scarcity. We’ve stopped questioning and observing how Mother Nature produces the resources that sustain us, all while we destroy the systems that are needed even to make the (more expensive and patentable) synthetics. Guess what: if we find that restoring a homeostatic state within the human body, or increasing the chemical pH within diseased areas, or neutralizing mycotoxins will reduce cancer rates, or cure it, that’s better than killing toads. All of these steps can be done, and have been done by various researchers, but medical science continues to act deaf, blind, and dumb. Why? Because they’re making a great living just the way they’re doing things now.
Nature is a whole system, not a discrete set of unrelated parts. Look at how many decades tonsils and appendices were blithely removed. The appendix was only recently officially acknowledged to be a repository of aerobic (“good”) bacteria. Look at how antibiotics are routinely given for virtually any kind of ailment that comes along, which definitely kills off the aerobic population and only occasionally the anaerobic that tend to be the main object of infections. Look at how modern medical practice doesn’t take steps to restore that vital natural population, but continues to rely on killing, and further destabilizing the body chemistry, as a way to “regulate” health. Health cannot be regulated, nor maintained if a state of imbalance is maintained.
The term “divide and conquer” comes to mind here. It’s easy to dismiss CCT’s and GM as being non-factors to a single problem if we think they’re unrelated. They are products of the same thinking, and work symbiotically to humankind’s disservice. IF CCT’s truly conducted research that gave meaningful results, that would be something different, but they do not. Genetically modified foods is simply one other way that “technology rules” thinking is undermining human health while being looked upon as its savior. Another is compact fluorescent lightbulbs (CFL’s), which contain mercury, that are being thrust upon the population. Our insensitivity to the chemical and energetic consequences of these practices will show up… ARE showing up in our collective state of health. It also shows up in our climate and weather patterns. We’ve gotten so enamored with technology that we’ve stopped looking and TEACHING how nature actually works. And in our ignorance, we’re destroying nature, and taking humanity to the precipice along with it. Our greatest problem is continuing to seek technological solutions that maintain our disconnect with nature. I’m not against technology. It’s simply not a solution IF it doesn’t take Nature’s Balance and its restoration into consideration. The CCT practices that are currently conducted plays an incestuous game with itself, not even daring to simply see what can be done naturally. To add injury to insult, science believes and suggests, that its findings represent all there is to know about the subjects in question, which is the height of delusion.
On Louis Pasteur’s death bed he admitted that his germ theory was wrong, that it’s not the germ, but the terrain that is everything. Having microorganisms, aerobic and anaerobic, is necessary to have a physical form. The key is balance. We divided the concept into “good” and “bad” components and have had a field day trying to control the body from outside, when cells have always operated with an “instant messaging” system that far predates our concept or use of the term.
Science paid no attention to Pasteur, and show little evidence of getting it now, since the bulk of funded research still appears to be based on the notion of killing or somehow controlling the proliferation of “bad guys” through synthetic (i.e., unnatural) methods.
Since you took the time to ask the question, I assume you mean it. There’s plenty evidence of what I’m saying if you care to look with an open mind. Autism, for example, was unheard of a generation ago. Now, one in 150 children have it. Lyme and Morgellons are conditions that modern medicine sought first to ignore, then to treat with psychiatric medications. Children are getting diabetes earlier, the hormonal imbalance caused by synthetic foods is making young men more effeminate and they’re growing breasts. Chronically constipated young women are getting cervical cancer at an alarming pace. Medicine wants to vaccinate, when all they need is good water and foods with minerals, enzymes and amino acids to help digestion.
I was recently given a DVD titled, “Practical Pearls for Pediatric Chiropractors”. It was a presentation given by Doris Rapp, M.D., that, in 99 minutes, outlines these incidences and many more. The evidence is EVERYWHERE, for those willing to see what’s in front of their faces.
You seem to equate the existence of “modern conveniences” of life, whether they be medical or not, as evidence of improved quality of life. Millions of people — men and women alike — wake up each day in pain, and go to bed in pain. They cope with the pain in part by taking pills of various kinds, not knowing that the pills only mask their discomfort temporarily, so ignorant they have become to the true factors that contribute to health and disease, the MOST IMPORTANT one being the individual him or herself. When we put our total trust in medical science without questioning, measuring, and JUDGING the results that their practices yield, then change has no place to enter the scene, except when the system implodes on the weight of its immense dis-integrity.
The scientific world is too busy being scientific to see what is right before its eyes. Now more than ever, people who are faced with acute or chronic diseases must decide for themselves the approaches they will, or will not take. When 75% of oncologists tell you that, if faced with cancer, they WOULDN’T take chemotherapy, it should be a wake-up call for anyone faced with that decision. Yet, like lemmings, tens of thousands continue to go over the precipice each year.
Please know that I appreciate and respect the sincerity of your convictions. We can only form opinions based on the information we’ve been open to. I believe we might agree that some form of change is called for, even with regard to how CCT’s are run. If we can agree on that point alone, that would be reason for greater openness to “the unknown” even if it is untried. There needs to be some sense to new approaches and methods, but the lack of formal acceptance procedures should not, unto itself, be reasons for dismissal. Fortunately, many doctors who truly care about the restoration of health, are now embracing MMS, and forming their own opinions, just like the courageous patients who relied on common sense and regained their life.
Best wishes,
Adam…
Interesting exchange, gentlemen…Bravo, Adam!
You don’t tend to see trials of a drug vs a ‘natural’ (whatever you mean by that) treatment because then you’re testing two treatments, adding an extra variable. CCT’s test a new treatment against a control or sometimes in addition a current treatment. So you would see a CCT of a drug, a different CCT of a natural treatment, etc. And there are plenty of trials involving natural treatments, the majority of drugs are synthesised versions of things found in nature.
Your ability to take in information and make the decision, just like everyone else’s, isn’t good enough because it’s subject to all kinds of bias. That’s why the CCT is the best way to determine how to keep well and maintain your health. There are problems with the way the pharmaceutical industry works, such as funding, but the CCT isn’t one of them. The way to solve such problems is hardly to stay stubbornly and cynically suspicious of everything they do, ignoring all the good things evidence-based medicine has done.
As for balance, if someone has a deficiency in something they should address it, doctors regularly advise free things like exercise, a change in diet, bedrest. To say evidence-based medicine is only about making money is to ignore the obvious. Remember that the altmed industry is worth several billion a year.
By “natural” (who doesn’t know what natural means?), I mean comparing a drug against the use of non-synthetic elements that the body is known to need, and since its presence or absence is measurable, would likely be applicable. Water is “natural” to the body. Magnesium, as in the example I gave earlier, is natural. Doing a clinical trial where for migraine remedy that involved adding water versus “Tylenol Migraine” (or something like that), would be FAR more illuminating than one that compares Tylenol “A” vs. Tylenol “Z”.
If there are drug which are synthesized versions of natural ones, we must wonder why the natural ones aren’t being favored. The process of synthesizing drugs ends up with a product that is not as effective as natural ones. In the United States we’ve bought in to the the idea of genetically modifying foods (GMO), possibly through the result of CCT’s, when in fact, the practice is banned in every other major country in the world, and the United States has the highest incidents of deaths associated with GMO food intake.
You say that my ability to take in information and make a decision isn’t good enough because it’s subject to all kinds of biases. You’re hitting a fundamental point about how experience unfolds, and how the same approach may have many different outcomes from one person to the next. My choices affect MY life, as do my biases. As do your choices and biases affect YOUR life. CCT’s have nothing to do with whether an approach will work on you or me. Your acceptance and belief, along with your will to live and intent to be well have everything to do with how you (or I) respond to a treatment. It was quantum mechanics that revealed the role of the observer in the formation of reality. They are inextricable. Your reliance on, and importance given to CCT’s falsely diminishes the importance of the individual, the actual people who are creating not only the CCT, but those who make decisions based on the results, oftentimes shutting down their own intelligence in favor of a dissociated collective groupthink.
Doctors are, by intent, designated to do what they can to help people stay well, or if they’re not well, to heal. Yet, their tool box is limited to methods and products that traumatize and further disrupt natural physiological function. You’re saying that the altmed industry is worth several billion dollars, when the predominant medical industry is worth several trillion. Yet, people are NOT getting WELL from their practices. They are getting sicker, younger, living longer, and as long as the insurance is in effect, they remain food for the industry that feeds off them.
When the public is still looking (and spending billions annually) for “cures” for major diseases such as cancer, and it is not only evident, but documented to be true that such cures have been known for years, but suppressed or obliterated by factions that have protected the status quo, then it’s time to admit that they’ve been looking in all the wrong places. To not question the process, is to invite a continuation (and escalation) of what we’ve already got.
A~
Hello again Adam,
It’s hardly faith, but that’s a whole other discussion, I think.
The problem I have with what you’ve just said is that I’ve never seen it substantiated. This stuff about balance, what does it even mean? Balance of what? It seems to me to be a leftover from the days of medicine based on humours. It may well be true that too much or too little of certain substances may cause some conditions, but there are plenty of other things that cause illness, not just imbalances, especially not imbalances you can’t even measure.
You said earlier in the thread: “A randomized, controlled trial is in fact, a waste of time and energy, since there’s no objectivity to them. This is not true science. The researchers are (1) unwilling to analyze the chemistry that is being articulated by the confirmed behavior of chlorine dioxide, and (2) unwilling to acknowledge the preponderance of beneficial results from people who have reported them. They use the “uncontrolled” nature of the reported results as the reason to ignore them, remaining ignorant the facts that sit before them, waiting for someone to tell them it’s okay to be enthusiastic about this protocol.”
It is in fact your approach which is unobjective. A clinically controlled trial is the only practical way to get rid of subjectivities such as recall bias, confirmation bias, the placebo effect, and to minimize the distortion of small sample sizes and dissimilar conditions. A CCT does not work according to conventional science, it measures only effectiveness. So any treatment that works, regardless of how it works, should be able to prove its effectiveness through a CCT. That’s evidence-based medicine. If you don’t have hard objective evidence for a treatment’s effectiveness, how can you advocate its use?
Mike
Greetings Mike,
Seeing balance as a concept from a bygone (and by inference, outdated) era is part of the reason that medical science continues to get away with a myriad of treatments that further destabilize an already compromised physical system. Until science understands and respects the primacy of balance, enough to take steps to restore it, they will not be able to learn what causes illness, or take steps to cure it. There are cures for cancer, heart disease, and many of the conditions that billions of dollars are being spent each year on research while millions continue to die after being fleeced financially. I am not touting MMS as a cure here either. However, it has a beneficial effect on balance. The massive infusion of negative ions that it delivers helps reduce an over abundance of a certain microbial type (positively charged anaerobes), that proliferated due to a lack of sufficient oxygen in the area of overgrowth.
When medical science limits their research to drug therapies that exacerbate the imbalance — for example, by relying on toxins and not simply reoxygenating — it suggests to me that they are not truly seeking cures, but seeking pharmaceutical remedies that appear to reduce acknowledged symptomologies. There is a huge difference. Actual cures would reduce the use of their product, whereas pharmaceutical remedies offer hope that a positive reaction may occur. Whether it does or does not, the patient will be separated from a large chunk of their money, and more important, taken further away from health, if not out of the physical world altogether.
You say my approach is unobjective. I don’t see how you mean that. You’re saying that a CCT doesn’t work according to conventional science, but only measures effectiveness. It only measures the effectiveness of what the researchers are willing to see. For example, they will not conduct a clinical trial of one drug modality versus a non-dug one. For example, you will not see a clinical trial done between a drug for migraines — just as an example — and increased water intake. Dr. F. Batmanghelidj treated hundreds, if not thousands of people with water, some of whom had a wide range of pathologies, including migraines, high blood pressure, arthritis, and many other ailments that we’ve grown accustomed to treating with drugs.
People who have heart attacks, that make it to the emergency room, are given a shot of magnesium right to the heart. IF there was a drug that would have APPEARED to be helpful, you can bet it would have been the first course of action. However, those persons had a magnesium deficiency in the first place… a long-standing one. In other words, their magnesium / calcium content was out of balance. Yet, modern medicine does not help educate people about these nuances, nor does it put people on a regimen to restore these critical balance factors. It sends them home (if they survive) and waits for the next time so they can be socked with another invasion into their body and wallet.
You will not see CCT’s that compare drug modalities with natural ones, EXCEPT if they can be presented in such a way as to discredit the natural one.
You are right that any treatment that works SHOULD be able to prove its effectiveness through a CCT, but the reality is that what the people who fund such trials want to do is perpetuate their product use, not help people be well again.
I have plenty of hard, objective evidence of a treatment’s effectiveness. First is my own intelligence… my God-given ability to take in information, and weigh the related factors, and make a decision, based on my intent to be WELL or maintain my health. As medical research is currently practiced, its attention, resources, and allegiance is goes to those who fund, which is geared toward developing products that can be patented. Nature is left out in the cold as far as that is concerned, along with human health.
Regards as always,
Adam…
Like I say, I have no idea if MMS works or not, I have a pretty poor idea of what it even is.
However, clearly the best mechanism by which to determine the efficacy of any given treatment is a properly blinded clinical controlled trial. If MMS doesn’t pass that, I’m afraid I couldn’t say it works.
Dear Mike,
I appreciate your faith in “double-blind” trials, but “two blinds” don’t make any meaningful insights. Many of the drugs that you would trust your life to gained their acceptance after so-called “double-blind” studies were run. If they don’t bring the body into balance, they will not help restore health. And if they do not provide what the body needs, they will not restore health. Yet, we’ve grown so trusting of “double-blind” studies as a way of evaluating health-related products that we’ve stopped asking ourselves whether they bring health. We now willingly take poisons on the rationale that they will kill microbial “bad guys” that have “attacked” us. We even think that said poisons are our only hope, such as in the H1N1 scam, when in fact, Nature provides us everything we need to keep our body in balance, except that we’ve grown too blind to see, and fearful to believe it.
Best wishes,
Adam…
I thank you both Adam and Mike for this intelligent and positive public discusion.
I’d just like to add that, to me at least, it looks obvious that MMS doesn’t just have placebo effect, but real healing effect, if people’s real life stories mentioned are true.
It was mentioed that many people who consciously took MMS for certain illness they had, that they unknowningly also cured other health problems.
Isn’t this a clear indication that MMS works for real and not just as a placebo effect, since if people werent even aware of specific health problem then they couldn’t willingly and mentally have any affect over it…
Your thoughts Adam and Mike?
Best regards from Slovenia,
Boyan
Boyan,
Thank YOU for your contribution as well. The body is a WHOLE SYSTEM. That is, while we focus on one thing that may be bothering us, when we take something that actually helps restore balance, the body will address EVERYTHING that is out of kilter. MMS assists in restoring balance by introducing an abundance of negatively charged ions into the bloodstream which then oxidize positively charged pathogens, chemicals, and anaerobic microorganisms.
Best wishes,
Adam…
Adam, I merely mean confuse in the Latin sense, as in putting them together to mean the same thing. I’m not saying you are confused. Similarly I mean argue as in making arguments against what I’m saying. There’s no aggression here.
We can agree on something: the way medical research is funded is disgraceful. I was recently involved in a campaign at the University of Edinburgh to change the way drugs researched here are funded, copyrighted and bought. There’s a long way to go but hopefully we can make a difference.
But criticising conventional medicine is not a point in favour of alternative medicine. Everything about the funding of conventional medicine is irrelevant to the discussion, because I’m talking specifically about bias in the research itself, not just bias in what gets researched. This is more dangerous because with bias in the research you can get false results, whereas with bias in what gets researched, you just miss a result which may be true.
There are also plenty of proponents of alternative medicines like homeopathy with the resources and capability of researching them with properly constructed trials. The trials which come back positive tend to be the ones which are poorly constructed with small sample sizes, poor placebo control, no double blind, and when they’re repeated they tend not to have similar results, whereas the better constructed trials repeatedly show it to be no more effective than placebo.
“I’m not suggesting that anything should be believed on face value. I’m suggesting that the individual do suitable research before making a decision.”
Surely suitable research should involve data from clinical trials, not just anecdotal evidence from people who want it to work? How can you make an informed decision otherwise? If what you say about Coumadin and DMSO is true (presuming the papers and trials showing DMSO to work are properly constructed – I’m afraid I’m unfamiliar with these drugs), then clearly the approval process needs some work, it should be based only on the evidence. Again though, I don’t think this is relevant. You can make a choice on unapproved medicines based on the trial data, but alternative medicines with no data, or with dodgy misleading data, do not fall under this category. Approval is not the be all and end all, the evidence is.
Cheers,
Mike
Again, Adam, you appear to be confused between belief and possibility. Yes, in order to test a scientific theory, a scientist does have to entertain the possibility that it (let’s use the example of a medicinal drug) might work. Nothing I have said so far suggests otherwise. They do not have to believe it will work, in fact believing that opens the possibility of bias in your research.
Scientists do not go using or marketing a drug before it is proven to work or without good evidence that it does (some also go the extra step of insisting on knowing how it works, I’m not so fussed on that for the moment). Whereas someone who doesn’t need evidence to believe that it works might well use it (and no doubt they’ll benefit from placebo and use that as retrospective evidence – this is the importance of placebo control, otherwise you could prove anything to ‘work’).
If Qi energy is well documented then it should be testable beyond placebo. If it’s not testable, or if it fails the test, then how do you know it works?
The number of people who believe in it, as well as the length of time people have believed in it, don’t make a difference to it’s truth. If you can’t prove it exists (and I’m afraid ‘experiencing’ it doesn’t quite cut it, people are open to suggestion. You need more objective results), then obviously I’m going to take the simpler explanation. This level of skepticism is what helps us distinguish between real medicine and fake medicine.
I’m surprised you’re arguing with me on this. According to you, MMS and chlorine dioxide (whatever they’re supposed to do) have documented, scientifically confirmed properties.
Cheers,
Mike
Hey Mike,
When I was married and my ex-wife and I saw something differently, she would suggest that I “didn’t understand,” which is a benign put-down (not suggesting that you’re doing this). I’m not confused about belief and possibility. We simply see these concepts differently. I’m not claiming that you’re confused, or that either of us are “wrong” or “right”. Our interpretations are different, no more, no less.
Scientists don’t market drugs unless someone who does have a bias has paid them to do research and follow protocols that indicate a modicum of effort has been given in validating the claims of the marketer. University research is biased because study is concentrated in those areas, and from those perspectives that get funding. Natural, unpatentable, non-toxic solutions don’t get studied or reported on. Drugs that don’t have significant backing don’t get marketed (since we’re talking pharmaceutical companies being the chief instigators and funding sources of such research), nor do they get sanctioned by the FDA. Bias is definitely involved in a significant proportion of medical research because the products submitted for approval generally do very little to actually help allay the conditions they are being marketed to solve.
We differ in our opinion about what is not marketed before proven, or showing evidence of efficacy. There are literally thousands of drugs being administered to patients every day that are literally poison, which have received FDA approval after a submission, qualification, and peer review process. Yet, they are ineffective where it counts, i.e., helping the patient get well again. Coumadin, as an example, will never help a person get well. DMSO will, but it is not approved, even though thousands of papers have been published, and clinical trials run. A bias is clearly at work here.
If that weren’t enough… if the profits that pharmaceutical companies make weren’t enough, the public is routinely asked to donate to further research, but said research steers clear of methods and modalities that have been shown to work.
This is not belief talking. There’s plenty of history to back it up. So whether the scientist is biased or not, bias is present, and a factor in what gets researched, what gets approved, and sanctioned. I’ve talked to doctors who’ve described how colleagues would rather amputate patients’ limbs than send them to an unapproved and unconventional energy treatment method.
I agree about believers and disbelievers being irrelevant to whether something’s true. However, it goes both ways. The fact that no clinical trials or FDA approval has been granted to a substance or modality doesn’t invalidate it either. I’m not suggesting that anything should be believed on face value. I’m suggesting that the individual do suitable research before making a decision. One must be vigilant with all approaches, irrespective of who is presenting it. Being suggested by a doctor is fast becoming not good enough of a reason to simply accept that an approach may, or may not work.
I didn’t know we were arguing. There is plenty of information about chlorine dioxide and what it does. There are plenty people using it and confirming for themselves that it works by results gained. Perhaps this dialogue began because you weren’t familiar with it, and preferred to withhold judgment until some “official” acknowledgment surfaced, and my take is don’t hold your breath. It’s not that the official acknowledgment or use won’t come, but people are dying every day from a long list of sanctioned toxic choices. This may not be a concern for you right now, but to one who is not ready to die from approved medicinal poisoning, this is great information to know.
Best wishes,
Adam…
I’m not saying at all that this kind of energy is not possible. All I’m saying is that until evidence of it is given, I’m not going to believe it exists, or do anything on the assumption that it does. IN science, you do have to be open minded in terms of what is possible, you do not have to suspend your belief of what is true. Your reply appears to confuse the two.
If it is possible to ‘take conscious advantage of’ this energy, in a way which is best explained by the existence of it, that would constitute evidence. Until then, Occam’s Razor means I’ll take the solution with the least assumptions, which is naturalism, at least at the moment.
Mike
Mike, what’s the point in “not believing” something exists until “evidence of it is given?” Whose evidence? If someone else experiences this energy, even if they are a scientist, it won’t be evidentiary to you. Yet, if you are willing to accept that it may be true, and are open to gaining more information, you may learn not only that it is, but how to use it for your own benefit.
All scientific discoveries start with a theory that something is possible. There may be very little evidence, but there is sufficient reason to explore the idea. Any scientist that took your position would find nothing.
Chi energy has been a well documented part of Chinese medicine for over 5,000 years. It acknowledges that the human being is also an energy-based lifeform, and the flow (or blockage) of energy has a direct impact on health. Because you can’t “see” the energy doesn’t mean it’s not there. Look at all the things we can’t see that we acknowledge are present?
We can’t take “conscious or beneficial advantage” of something we refuse to believe is possible. Although we can unknowingly use it to destructive effect. Look at how we cut down rain forests and pollute our oceans (and the water inside our body), not knowing how important they are as oxygen producers on the planet. The gradual decrease in oxygen content in the atmosphere over the past 100 years and the gradual rise in cancer (which thrives in an oxygen depleted environment), doesn’t appear to have been noticed yet by science or industry… yet there is very real evidence if you know how to look at it.
If you enjoy discovery, then you’ll be open to new concepts, even if orthodox opinion shapers haven’t given their endorsement. If not, that’s okay too.
Best wishes,
Adam…
‘Energy’, ‘Qi’, c’mon, you don’t seriously believe in all that do you? The kind of energy you speak of is nothing to do with energy in Physics which we all know exists. There is plenty of evidence for ultraviolet light and other things that you can’t see, otherwise we wouldn’t know they exist. That is totally different to what you’re talking about.
As Christopher Hitchens quite aptly said “anything which is claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence”. In a similar vein, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Sure, have an open mind, but not so open your brain falls out.
Mike
Mike,
Until you know it all, you can’t say with certitude that something isn’t possible. At best, you can say it’s not fully understood. I don’t profess to know or understand it all. But I have seen evidence that confirms, for me, what you and Christopher Hitchens have such trouble believing. There is much around us hiding in plain site for our simple lack of interest or need to have confirmation from some other authority outside of our own intelligence. Your or my belief is not necessary for such energy to exist. However, it is necessary if we are to take conscious advantage of it, which can only happen if we’re willing to be open, and then learn.
My mind is open and my brain still hasn’t fallen out. If you’re willing to learn, you’ll be amazed at what you’ll see. In fact, nothing can be learned until we suspend or set aside our beliefs on what is possible. This is the only way to allow new possibilities in.
Best wishes,
Adam…
Hi Adam,
Like I say I have no idea what MMS is, I presume it’s something to do with chlorine dioxide. If it has demonstrable effects over and above placebo, I have no problem.
I do, however, find your antipenultimate paragraph (“anyone who has…”) a little alarming. Talk of an ecological balance within reeks to me of spiritualism, as if illness and injury occur on some kind of spiritual plane. Until evidence of such a plane’s existence can be given, I object to it’s use in medical discourse.
Cheers,
Mike
Greetings Mike,
Until we as human beings, understand that the terms energy and spirit are in fact, synonymous, and the state of our energy influences the physical apparatus that we call the human body, “medicine” will never be as effective as it purports to want to be. Indeed, as it is currently practiced, “medical discourse” is primarily about managing disease, and not about healing. Traditional medical research draws a wide and restrictive circle around methods and modalities that actually work. They are marked verboten, and spoken of in hushed tones, if at all. In fact, various factions that represent the interests of “modern medicine” have taken active steps to suppress, denounce, or otherwise inhibit public discourse in areas that would yield meaningful advances.
Your being alarmed by the mere thought of ecological balance within the human body is a case-in-point. While medicine feverishly looks for pharmaceutical “cures” to human disease, and Nobel Prizes have been awarded for research that confirms the importance of pH and homeostasis in defining human health, the products of medical research curiously continue to take the body further out of balance. Since “cures” are apparently still being sought for a myriad of chronic conditions, it’s pretty arrogant to think that there’s any area that should not be considered, even if it smacks of spiritualism.
Your choosing to see evidence of a plane’s existence before suspending your objection only ensures that you, and those who think like you will remain in the dark with respect to its reality. Not being able see or recognize evidence of ultraviolet light doesn’t affect its existence. A healthy approach would be to have an open mind even without “evidence” or judgment, and see where it takes you.
Best wishes,
Adam…
This post was linked automatically to mine by wordpress so I read some of it. I’d never heard of a nocebo before so I looked it up and it seems you’ve defined it a little misleadingly.
It’s not that nothing works if you don’t believe it will, it’s that if you take a placebo and believe it will have negative effects, it will.
Genuine medicines have to be tested to be effective beyond placebo. I have no idea what MMS is but if it doesn’t work over and above the placebo effect, then I object to it being peddled as effective. You may as well give them water and tell them it’s medicine. I deal with a similar situation (homeopathy) in this post: http://notsofriendlyhumanist.wordpress.com/2008/11/03/homeopathy-3/
Greetings Mike and thanks for dropping by.
If I inferred that a nocebo effect means that nothing will work, thank you for the clarification. Chlorine dioxide has some very well documented, scientifically confirmed properties. It addresses biological conditions in a very specific way. There is no question of how effective it is in the applications that it has been already in use for, in the past 80 years or so. It is a water disinfectant, par excellance, that produces no carcinogenic byproducts.
The issue here for people who are new to it, is that the application has been scaled down and applied to a body of water that is most often overlooked… out of sight, out of mind. That’s the ecological terrain inside the human body. We are very conscious of the need for ecological balance of the earth, and don’t seem to realize that the need is equally important to the ecology within.
Anyone who has a chronic or degenerative disease has an inner ecology that is out of balance. The more acute the condition, the more out of balance the patient is. And yet, as a function of Standard Medical Practice, doctors routinely exacerbate the imbalance instead of introducing protocols that re-establish homeostasis. The abysmal “success” record in cancer treatment is a testament to the fundamental flaw in their treatment modalities… except that since they’re making gobs of money off the way things are, there’s not much motivation to do anything but continue to search for “the cure.”
I read your article, and submit to you that the only thing that distinguishes what we call a “placebo” from a medicine, is that definite, predictable, physiological responses are virtually assured. MMS is not tap water, dextrose, or saline. It has something in it that do very specific things. Why else would the EPA approve chlorine dioxide as the only disinfectant that meat and poultry producers can spray on and not have to rinse off? Truth is, the hormones that the growers use in the meat are a bigger problem to our health than the chlorine dioxide, which kills off salmonella and E. coli and leaves no toxic residue.
Try putting saline solution on meat instead of chlorine dioxide and see bacterial poisoning cases change.
Best wishes,
Adam…
Hi Adam,
If the follow is a fair summary of your trial methodology:
* Establish a benchmark of effectiveness upfront.
* Apply the treatment to a number of people.
* Count how many of the people treated meet the benchmark of effectiveness.
Then this methodology is not enough to show that a treatment (MMS for example), is better than a placebo. (Of course if my summary is wrong, then discount this point!)
The reason for this is that you cannot be sure that the reason people have meet the benchmark of effectiveness is because of MMS. There may have been another cause, such as the placebo effect.
This is why trials are conducted using two arms, one with the treatment to test, and one with a placebo version of that treatment. Then you can compare whether the treatment is actually better than placebo.
Later in your post you say that it doesn’t matter if MMS is a placebo effect.
But it does matter. The placebo effect works due to you believing that the treatment is working.
Therefore if we know MMS is just a placebo we will know that it cannot be used to treat unconscious patients (as they will not know they are being treated, and therefore won’t be affected by the placebo effect).
Whereas a non-placebo treatment such as antibiotics still works on unconscious patients.
Thanks for keeping your replies civil, I know these topics can be very emotive for many people.
Hi Karl,
Your summary of the trial methodology is indeed fair.
You say that it’s not enough to show that a treatment is better than a placebo. I suggest that it doesn’t matter. If people get well, then that is really what’s important, which scientists sometimes forget. I also suggest quite strongly, that it is the individual who determines if or when he or she is responding to treatment. Scientists are looking for a “cure” that ignores the individual, or that is considered “individual proof.” They don’t exist, and never will.
The individual is a living macroorganism. The chemistry that science relies so much on, is not. The living macroorganism is dynamic, and changing. The chemistry is static, and unchanging. Chlorine dioxide is chemistry that, due to its nature, only acts on that which exists in a range that resonates with toxicity. So the microorganisms and parasites that are anaerobic, and are overgrowing in the host, will yet be within the range of chlorine dioxide’s reactivity.
I want to say here that science has living elements available to it for use in its treatment strategies. However, they either are not patentable, or if they would in fact, help restore balance to the macroorganism, they are severely restricted in their ability to make it publicly known.
Please review Gregg Braden’s thoughts on the “nocebo effect.” Belief is operative in every cast of healing or non-healing because the individual is central to his or her own health or disease. Science wants to ignore the individual when in fact, it can’t be done.
MMS can’t be “just a placebo,” because you know when you’ve taken it. There is a physiological reaction. Taste is involved, as are other feelings that indicate something is happening. When clinical trials were done on DMSO, the findings were DISMISSED because there was no way you couldn’t know you had taken it. So the very thing you’re trying to affect could, and given the current thinking, most likely would be used against it because you can’t not know that you’ve taken something that is producing a reaction inside the body.
Antibiotics create, or contribute to an imbalance that manifests itself at a later time, and that is if it solved the problem that it was taken for in the first place. Because they are static chemicals trying to eradicate living microorganisms, antibiotics may appear to be effective initially. However, without a shift in consciousness by the individual, the imbalance will show up in other ways. The body is a perpetual self-healing organism, that is, until it is put out of balance by any number of ways. Modalities that don’t address this fundamental fact will not restore health. They tend to mask the pathology for awhile, that is, until the condition worsens and re-presents itself.
Karl, whether we agree or disagree, I respect your point of view, and thank you for respecting mine.
It’s a pleasure to interact with you. Thanks again.
Adam…
In relation to the rest of your comment, you make some interesting points about the problems with reporting of clinical trials.
When only positive clinical trials are reported this can lead to false positives, especially when performing meta analyses.
For example, if we have a procedure that doesn’t work, but we conduct many trials of it, say 100. Due to random chance we would expect a small number of these, say 5, to actually produce positive results.
Now if those 5 positive trials are published, and only 1 of the negative trials are published, then an meta analysis of the trials would conclude that the procedure is effective!
What we really need is more pressure to publish all trial data, whether it is negative or not.
I agree with you. That’s exactly what is needed, the simple truth of whether a protocol is effective or not. However, we’ve conditioned ourselves to think that if a protocol has been “approved,” and the numbers show it’s clearly NOT LIKELY to get take the patient where he wants to go, i.e., back to health, they INFER that this is the only viable way, because it has been “approved.” They are supported by the fact that insurance companies only pay for these ineffective treatments that people have paid their hard-earned money into, and government agencies have a history of going after, or otherwise suppressing advocates of non-mainstream approaches, ignorant of the fact that natural approaches were mainstream and effective long before petrochemical ones came on the scene.
The time of change is now, and the agents of change will be each individual, who now has full enough understanding of the basics of human physiology, so that he will not allow anyone, no matter how much “authority” they appear to have, treat them with medicines already proven to be antagonistic to the body’s health. MMS and chlorine dioxide have proven to be antagonistic to pathogens only.
Best wishes,
Adam…
Hi Adam, thanks for your response.
Are you saying that you don’t agree with the following statement?
Without conducting a randomised controlled trial, you can never be sure that the reason people who take MMS feel better is because of the MMS or because of the placebo effect.
If so how do you propose that we could show that MMS is more than the placebo effect?
Pretty simple.
Start with assumptions that are based on facts that support the result we’re ultimately attempting to achieve. The desired end result of cancer treatment (and the research that supports it) should be ending cancer, but in actual practice, and the success rate indicates that it’s not.
Establish meaningful benchmarks to determine effectiveness. E.g., whether a tumor shrinks is not a meaningful benchmark, especially when we KNOW scientifically that further acidification of the body prevents it from getting the oxygen that would in fact make a cancerous condition go away.
Apply the treatment accordingly.
Evaluate the efficacy of the assumption based on the results achieved. Presently, we’re not questioning, and hence validating our assumptions (e.g., cancer research), and therefore, they haven’t changed in 100 years, even though the results achieved are abysmal. And yet, approaches that are based on different assumptions, such as Rife technology and others, are suppressed, discounted, if not destroyed, even though they achieved the desired results.
It doesn’t really matter whether MMS is a placebo effect. I have contended all along that the human body is self-healing. It’s not just my opinion. MMS does something that facilitates the natural self-healing ability within the body. We know the consequences of water pollution, but medical practices don’t apply that knowledge when someone walks in with a chronic medical condition. Instead, they pollute the body more. Yet, they DEFEND this approach in spite of the INCREASING incidences of chronic disease rather than see what will happen if they reduced toxicity instead.
What MMS does has been, and is scientifically valid. It is KNOWN to be a safe pathogen destroyer, a free radical that acts only on low pH contaminants in a system that has absorbed far too many. Its evaluation should be on the results, instead of setting common knowledge aside and comparing it against something known to be of little therapeutic value.
Truth is, SOME people can get well again even with radiation or chemotherapy. But EVERYONE AGREES that the vast majority will not, that chemotherapy and radiation leave the body in a worse condition, with respect to homeostasis, than a better one. The cascading residual problems that result after chemotherapy or radiation, and the DEATHS, attest to this FACT. Yet, we’re obsessing over whether placebos are being used to test MMS and ignoring that a large preponderance of people using it are getting better, even when the numbers are way beyond statistical uncertainty.
It’s time for medical science to get real. And as long as it refuses to, there’s no need to really concern one’s self about what they do.
I appreciate your reasoned comments.
Kind regards,
Adam…
Hi Adam,
I think you may have missed Theo’s point.
I believe he was trying to say that, without conducting a randomised controlled trial, you can never be sure that the reason people who take MMS feel better is because of the MMS or because of the placebo effect.
The fact there are many testimonials unfortunately doesn’t address this point. The people giving the testimonials may be feeling better because of the placebo effect, and without a direct comparison there is know way to know.
Cheers,
Karl
Hi Karl,
I didn’t miss Theo’s point; I simply don’t agree with it.
A randomized, controlled trial is in fact, a waste of time and energy, since there’s no objectivity to them. This is not true science. The researchers are (1) unwilling to analyze the chemistry that is being articulated by the confirmed behavior of chlorine dioxide, and (2) unwilling to acknowledge the preponderance of beneficial results from people who have reported them. They use the “uncontrolled” nature of the reported results as the reason to ignore them, remaining ignorant the facts that sit before them, waiting for someone to tell them it’s okay to be enthusiastic about this protocol.
That’s a memo that’s not going to come when it’s clear that to embrace the protocol and help people get well, it’s going to render a lot of very expensive and ineffective drugs passé.
You say that the testimonials don’t address this point. Why not? I’ll tell you this: results of the type of controlled studies that you suggest won’t be reported unless they present the drug in question in a favorable light. A favorable light can only be obtained if the criterion you’re testing for does not include measuring for eradication of the condition that the drug was designed to treat. Who cares if a tumor shrinks a bit if a person still has cancer? Pharmaceutical companies that design cancer drugs care, because they can claim effectiveness at reducing the size of a tumor, while the drug remains ineffective at eradicating cancer; not to mention the other harmful complications it will initiate inside the body. This is a tune that has played way too long.
Furthermore, we need to finally acknowledge that the individual is the facilitator and allower of his or her own healing. We are quick to give anything and everything credit for healing power (including MMS), none of which can be effective without the individual’s willingness and readiness to be well.
You can BET that if a drug appeared in any way to be effective, it would get ALL the credit, and the individual would get none. Yet, if a natural approach was conclusively proven to be effective, it wouldn’t be acknowledged. MMS is too new to be used as an example here, but look at DMSO. Look at Rife technology. There’s plenty of proof, and virtually no approval or wide medical use of these products. When true objectivity is part of medical research and clinical trial practices, we can talk about what’s more effective. That’s not the way things are done today.
Regards,
Adam…
You are very eloquent, and I’m no match for your expansive vocabulary but I do have a question and point good sir: I recall hearing a story as a child of a new stockbroker coming into work his first day and emailing out 500 emails half that a single stock would go up, and half saying it would go down. On day two, he emailed the 250 recipients which had correct predictions a 2nd email 125 predicting up and 125 down. By day five he wrote an email to the remaining 30 people saying “I was correct 100% of the time five days straight are you ready to invest?” I keep getting vibe that 75,000 malaria recoveries falls into that same story and the investment is Jim’s $12 book.