Monthly Archives: October 2010

A Real Life ‘Clinical Trial’ Opportunity for MMS

69 Replies

Many new people are being introduced to MMS, the “Miracle Mineral Supplement,” in part due to the FDA warning against it, but also, from more credible sources; i.e., doctors and other health care practitioners who know that, when used as directed, it is a safe, effective, powerful, and inexpensive detoxifier. While it’s not likely you’re going to see Dr. House recommend using MMS to stop flesh-eating bacteria (although it would) anytime soon (perhaps by next season), a growing population of naturopathic, chiropractic, and even some quiet MD’s have studied the chemistry, weighed the evidence, and seen the potential benefit, enough to incorporate it into their practice.

As such, there is also a growing demand for information about MMS, not so much from those who want to shut it down, but from people who want to help themselves and others improve their well-being in spite of the myriad of “ordinary” factors that tend to compromise health, which start at the most basic, fundamental, and overlooked of areas; water.

Water content percentages in an adult human body.

The human body is over 70% water, by weight. However, life doesn’t begin that way. While in utero, upon its inception and development into a human form, the body is almost 100% water. Water is — as I suggested at a talk I gave with Ann Cullen in London at the NutriCentre in the Hale Clinic — the medium by and through which we enter this world. We are not physical forms; we are intelligent, living consciousness. Our bodies are energy and informational patterns that coalesce, organize, and form in water. If the water is not pristine, balanced, and energy rich; if it is unbalanced and full of distortion, then how can the formation, and hence the pregnancy flawless? Healthy water creates healthy bodies. And yet, water is routinely deadened, by adding chlorine and other chemicals, with apparently little concern over how this simple, accepted practice may be contributing to the health problems that show up later in life. The good news is that water’s health can be restored easily.

A water station in Cite Soleil district in Port au Prince, Haiti

A water station in Cite Soleil district in Port-au-Prince, Haiti

For a reminder of the importance of water we have to look no further than the unfolding events in Haiti. Still reeling from a devastating earthquake in January 2010, Haiti’s citizens are now dying of cholera. This is a clear, direct, and timely example of the ramifications of unhealthy water run amok. However, instead of looking at how to deploy a proven water purifier in the chlorite matrix, the main therapeutic component in MMS, the authorities — including the CDC — are compiling an arsenal of antibiotics with which to treat people after the fact. They want to deal with the effects by trying to kill the bugs (if they can), but not the cause, which would be done by clarifying the water.

The World Health Organization’s (WHO) solution includes powdered chlorine, which continues the cycle of producing derivative contaminates, the trihalomethanes or “THM’s”. This demonstrates either how blind the establishment has become to fundamental causes of illness and disease, or how indifferent they are.

I believe that chlorination and fluoridation, which produce halogen substitutes for chloride (Cl-) — essential in the proper function of the Krebs Cycle — is a direct cause of full spectrum of health problems, including breast cancer. This theory could be tested in a “clinical trial” by simply selecting a method that does not inundate the body with carcinogens, ensuring sufficient chloride and oxygen uptake, and seeing what happens.

I drank some of the bottled water when I visited Haiti in April, and my throat tensed up as it went down. Its energy was so chaotic, it seemed to be dryer than before I swallowed. The label on the bottle indicated that it was “purified,” produced via reverse osmosis process. However, biologically inert, processed water alone is not the solution. For there to be health or healing, the water itself must be healthy, energy-rich, and coherent. There are some water sources that naturally fit that criteria, and technologies that can transform existing water and restore its coherence.

Used on a large-scale basis, the chlorite matrix would certainly deliver sufficient oxygen to safely disinfect the water and make it safe to drink. Barring that, with the help of Jim Humble’s protocol, MMS can be used effectively and safely to generate a detoxified version of chlorine dioxide (ClO2-) in smaller quantities, to be added to water before drinking, or it can be taken internally to prevent, or arrest cholera on the back end.

MMS is effective against cholera, malaria, and dengue fever.

MMS is effective against cholera, malaria, and dengue fever.

Not being satisfied with people simply being well, certain “scientists” would prefer risking the deaths of countless individuals by withholding treatment to a control group via a “double-blind” study in order to prove that the new treatment worked. When you’re talking about a drug that didn’t exist a year ago, and itself is synthetic, it makes sense. But the chlorite matrix has proven itself to be a natural disinfectant, yet we have kept it in the closet when it could have been used extensively to save lives.

Jim Humble’s 5-day workshop covers many ways to prepare and use MMS, along with a wide range of situations in which it might apply. He discusses the protocols, which have been updated, and shows how to prepare it, in small amounts for personal use, or for large.

Listen

Just click the player below to listen.

Is Informing the Public Jim Humble’s ‘Sin?’

85 Replies
Jim Humble

Introduced sodium chlorite for personal use as "MMS".

The term “MMS” has taken on a life of its own, thanks to Jim Humble, a once itinerant contract gold prospector. On an expedition in the middle of nowhere he recognized that he had stumbled upon something of great importance when he helped two men, stricken with malaria, avert possible death after taking a hastily prepared concoction of “stabilized oxygen.”

Now, over 10 years later, after extensive solitary research, grass roots testing that started in Africa, three years after writing and self-publishing his book and countless private trials in the far flung corners of the world, the product that emerged from that fateful day has turned health prospects around for 100’s of thousands of people and animals.

However, instead of celebration or benign investigation, a spate of warnings were issued by the FDA. Public health agencies around the world were now on record that MMS had garnered their attention, and presently, it appears that they don’t want you to know any more about it.

I personally think that’s not going to happen. MMS use will grow, as more people learn how it works.

In the meantime, if you listen to the agencies’ warnings, you’d think that MMS and the chlorine dioxide that is generated from it (with the aid of an activator), was the most dangerous substance imaginable, that would cause your throat to melt as it went down or your hair to fall out. But wait, there is a long list of drugs that already make this happen, and they have earned – or shall I say that their companies have paid for — the FDA Seal of Approval!

The FDA doesn’t differentiate between natural which I refer to as “public domain” chemicals, and synthetic, or patented pharmaceuticals. They get a good penny for granting approvals that allow these companies — the most profitable on the planet — to issue poisons to the public. They hold purveyors of unpatentable products up to the same economic barrier, and standard of proof. But why does “proof” have to be demonstrated for something we can understand in a high school chemistry class?

Perhaps they can’t fathom the idea of the public knowing that the “bugs” we spend billions of dollars for, and lose lives over, each year could be controlled with the help of a few drops of water disinfectant that carries oxygen?

On the other hand, why does paying a fee that can be millions of dollars justify approving drugs that clearly are dangerous, but the agency and the medical industry embrace as staple tools? The anticoagulant Coumadin (also marketed as Warfarin) is one example. According to Wikipedia, the product was originally marketed as a pesticide for rats and mice, and is still popular for that use. I’ve made these observations before, and will likely make them again. How can introducing a chemical designed to kill life help life get healthier?

Now I realize that there is a logic associated with Coumadin use (as well as chemotherapy, etc.) that existed before the product became a popular medicine, but shouldn’t an “efficacy check” be ongoing? If you look at the effects that coumadin has on overall chemical and microbial balance in the body, I’m willing to bet that it is not improved. All that synthetic, unmetabolized stuff has to be stored somewhere, and the body attempts to maintain functionality as long as possible, and then existence as long as possible. That is life’s purpose.

I find it ironic that researchers often test products on mice and rats, determining their safety by how quickly they kill. Here’s a product (Coumadin, etc.) that was designed to kill rats and mice, and yet it is approved for “therapeutic” use in humans! Do they really believe that this is the best our “research” can come up with?

I have speculated, and continue to, that the problem may not be in the microbial population, but in the deluge of inorganic material we expose ourselves to — voluntarily and involuntarily — each day. I believe that microbial forces of certain types (i.e., aerobic and anaerobic) proliferate under certain environmental conditions; conditions that change according to the presence of (1) adequate hydration, (2) a full-spectrum mineral presence, and (3) proper movement and elimination of waste matter. Predominant methods of water and food processing severely compromises the first two factors, which by combined effect, then compromises the third.

The various agencies are too busy protecting and defending the system to actually assess what effects it is having on the public, and more importantly, whether better approaches are available. MMS is showing results that the agencies want their expensive, limited access, approved chemicals to demonstrate, but aren’t. So instead of taking a genuine look at it, they use the last bit of confidence that the public might have had in them, and tell them straight up, “This stuff is bad, don’t go near it!”

So the public grapples with conflicting information. Who are they to believe? Since this is easily verifiable science, don’t you think the FDA would have checked their data before making their claims? I would certainly think so, at least, that is what I would expect of any science-based organization. But science is only as effective as the scope of its study and inquiry, and its commitment to truth. Schooled at the University of Pharmacology (with campuses all over the world), FDA scientists and other researchers see nature as an alien landscape with which they are unfamiliar and have little interest, except if they can patent a trait that they have observed, thereby limiting benefits that were intended for all to an elite few. Unable to do that with MMS, their information is therefore misleading; a blend of truth, half-truth, and outright falsehood.

Who, on the other hand, would listen to a geezer named Humble? Detractors criticize his writing style, others criticize his grasp of chemistry. They call him a charlatan and ridicule his efforts to build an aura of protection around himself through a church.

Continues researching ways to increase effectiveness.

Continues to research ways to increase effectiveness.

Yet, his information about chlorine dioxide has been confirmed time and time again by the effects. Even if clinical trials have not been done in a manner that would satisfy “critics”… (a “satisfied critic” is an oxymoron if I ever heard one), there is enough information available on the nature of the chlorine dioxide molecule to postulate its potential as a superior substitute for a myriad of currently used pharmaceuticals.

In spite of the much higher price that could have been charged for a product that actually works and reduces one’s toxic, fungal, and microbial load, as a condition of sharing his information with sellers, Humble made them promise to keep the retail price low, so as to make it available to anyone who needed it. He even gave instructions on how to make it on one’s own.

An evolution ensued, and new people are now questioning and denouncing the use of this “industrial bleach” only to eventually see it for what it is, and can become.

More Scientific Support For Chlorine Dioxide Use

Today someone sent me yet another piece of scientific evidence of the efficacy of chlorine dioxide. This one, created in 2001 is titled, “Sodium Chlorate, A Potential Treatment of Salmonella in Pigs,” was produced by the Canadian Ministry of Agriculture Food & Rural Affairs.

It points out that there are 1.4 million cases of human Salmonellosis and 600 deaths annually in the United States. Bacteria can be passed during meat processing due to fecal spillage from evisceration. Therefore, reducing the amount of Salmonella in the gut and feces is considered a good thing.

They elected to follow a strategy set forth in a laboratory study conducted by USDA scientists in 2001 and outlined, according to the abstract, in the Journal of Food Protection.

It turns out that E. coli and Salmonella contain an enzyme, known as respiratory nitrate reductase, which converts the chlorate into chlorite (ClO2), which, in turn, kills both pathogens. In other words, the pathogens have enzymes within them that, upon contact with the chlorine dioxide molecule, initiates the oxidative event that eliminates the pathogen.

Aerobic bacteria, on the other hand, do not have the respiratory nitrate reductase enzyme, and are not affected by chlorine dioxide. (Sounds pretty much like what Jim Humble has said all along.)

The researchers observed a 150-fold reduction in intestinal Salmonella after administering the chlorate tablets.

They conclude:

The research is still in the early stage and this new approach needs to be approved by the FDA before it can be widely used by the U.S. livestock industry. Possible applications include feeding chlorate to animals before they are transported to slaughter or adding it to drinking water before loading or at lairage.

It’s likely that said approval has not been granted, even though it is for pigs. I’m happy to be wrong, and issue an apology. But if these scientists observed such profoundly beneficial changes, and pig physiology works very much like humans, then this is more third-party evidence that the FDA, all its cronies, and the new-found legion of critics, are wrong about chlorine dioxide.

It’s now almost 10 years since this research was done, before Jim Humble was a gleam in the FDA’s eye, or committed the “sin” of informing the public that chlorine dioxide might be helpful. Once we hit a critical mass of irrefutable evidence, they’ll act as though they knew it was a good thing all along.

—————-

MMS Workshop DVD Set Cover Art

MMS Workshop 8-DVD Set

MMS Workshop Video Update

After a first production run that produced more errors than base hits (a little World Series humor), Jim Humble’s 5-day MMS Workshop presentation re-emerges as an 8-disc set.

New shipments will start the week of November 8. Orders are being accepted.

Listen

You can listen to Jim Humble explaining the two fundamental Protocol strategies by following the link below:

Now Look Who’s Suggesting a ‘Miracle Cure’ (NOT About MMS)

6 Replies

You can thank 60 Minutes New Zealand for this suggestion. They recently produced and broadcast the story of Allan Smith, a dairy farmer in New Zealand who contracted Swine flu in 2009 and, lungs filling up with mucous, rapidly came perilously close to deaths door. His condition got so grave that the hospital, on the advice of a consultant, was ready to bid him a bon voyage, by pulling the plug on the life support system that was helping him to breathe. To complicate things further, he also showed signs of leukemia.

Allan Smith on life support with Swine flu and leukemia.

What unfolded was a microcosm of contrasting health care philosophies, a territorial battle wherein the patient’s life was clearly shown to be secondary to standard protocol. This drama is being played out in hospitals around the world. Except that the outcome in this story was the exception when, with genuine cooperation on the system’s part, it could become the rule.

At stake in the area of personal medical discretion is whether human health and recovery will prevail over methods and practices that inhibit such outcomes.

As you will see, while the hospital staff did their best, and while they went “by the book,” standard medical practice and policies at first helped Mr. Smith stay alive, and then, as his condition got progressively worse, the same practices and policies inhibited his ability to stay alive, not to mention restore his health.

Further standing in the way of success, the hospital staff’s collective and unanimous belief was that such restoration was not even possible, under any circumstances.

They had written him off, and were ready to get on to other, “more viable,” patients.

Fortunately for him, his family’s belief was stronger, and positive. As standard treatments were showing themselves to be ineffective and X-rays showed a “white-out” condition prevailing in his lungs, the family suggested high doses (50g / day) of IV vitamin C. I’ll let the video, produced by 60 Minutes New Zealand, tell the story.

Hospital staff agrees that vitamin C would be of no benefit.

Please follow the link below and watch the 18-minute video, and watch the drama play out.

Living Proof: Vitamin C - Miracle Cure? - 60 Minutes - Video - 3 News.

High doses of vitamin C is no miracle cure, any more than MMS is. Vitamin C is an essential nutrient. It has a specific purpose in the human body, as does oxygen. Mr. Smith’s case showed what supplementing the body with a natural element, for which there is a known purpose in human the metabolic process, can do. While the body has no specific need for chlorine dioxide, it does need oxygen. When an environment is chronically oxygen deprived, anaerobic microorganisms — that don’t require oxygen in order to live — must proliferate in order to maintain the life of the host. When medications are given that further deplete oxygen, a downward spiral will continue. Delivering oxygen to an oxygen depleted environment changes all that.

Allan Smith (shown with 60 Minutes reporter) is a healthy man again.

We tend to look at the microorganisms as the culprits, which have become the convenient and silent targets of medical counterattacks and offensives. However, there are many other factors that call for a rise in the anaerobes, including but not limited to malnourishment and various forms of stress. If they didn’t show up under these circumstances, we’d be toast much sooner than later. However, we can’t be healthy with a body that is out of microbial balance. How do you make an anaerobic life form go away? Bring oxygen, and every other nutrient that the body needs. Bring water. Bring aerobic microorganisms. Bring living enzymes. None of these may be in the pharmacological “book,” but they are all essential to sustaining life or restoring health.

The MMS/chlorine dioxide conversation, which has been rather heated lately from the new attention the product has received, is also about a mentality within the health care industry that needs updating. Said mentality, which, if put into words, might be expressed as, “everything knowable is known by us, and if we don’t know it, it isn’t worth knowing,” is part of the reason that medical treatment, as we presently know it, is going the way of the dinosaur.

This is not about doing away with medical treatment. It’s about making changes in areas whose methods and practices do not reflect 21st century understandings of human physiology, chemistry, energy, and environmental dynamics. Too much has changed, too much has been learned, for there to have been so little change in current treatment strategies that remain focused on chemicals. Our chemical dependency contributes to the earlier onset of chronic diseases, and their longer stay as part of human life. Our bodies are not programmed to break down, nor need parts replacement or supplementation by more synthetic chemicals. It needs simple things, including life-enhancing, energy-rich water and foods, and environments that are energy coherent, rather than chaotic.

These factors are not limited to the United States, for conventions of thought have no borders. As you can see in the story of Allan Smith, it’s not even about MMS. It’s about anything that falls outside of “the Book” that guides, or shall we say, dictates, how approved medical treatment will be administered, and who has the right to decide what they will, or will not take, or whether they step outside the box.

Arrogance masks fear; a need to cover one’s ass for tragedy to come. But what if the tragedy isn’t necessary for the willingness to try something different? This is not to say that all “alternative” methods are going to work, but look at what can happen when there is a willingness to try.

Perhaps the real point here is what we imagine from here on, so that more Allan Smiths of the world experience the same triumphant outcome.

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I’ll offer my own comments at the end.

 

Disinfection Efficacy

 

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

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

Bacteria Inactivation

 

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

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

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

 

Protozoa Inactivation

 

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

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

 

Virus Inactivation

 

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

 

CT Values

 

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

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

 

Organic DBPs Produced by Chlorine Dioxide

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now what did it say?

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

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

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

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

The excerpts indicate several important points:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

147 Replies
FDA Warnings

Who is there to warn the public against these?

 

The interest in, and use of “MMS,” which Jim Humble has recently dubbed, Master Mineral Supplement, continues, as the United Kingdom has publicly denounced the use of this product. Even the often reliable Wikipedia, which usually presents the appearance of unbiased information, now presents an entry on MMS that is a boldface lie.

A story in the BBC recently reported that the Food Standards Agency (FSA) praised a 15 year-old with Crohn’s disease for alerting it to MMS. Now chlorine dioxide, which is generated by using MMS (along with a citric acid “activator”), could in fact, help someone with Crohn’s disease.

“Why?”, you might ask.

It’s pretty simple. Anyone who has Crohn’s symptoms is going to have an inner system that is out of balance. I believe we can agree on this.

Balance is synonymous with health. When an individual not healthy, they will not be in balance. Yet, if balance is restored, health returns.

Most current medical treatment methods don’t restore balance. Not only that, most current living methods compromise balance on many levels. One of the most fundamental places where imbalance, and hence, disease is started, is in our water.

Chemicals are foundation of modern water treatment.

Current methods of water treatment are most effective in giving us water that looks good, but are ineffective in providing water that is actually healthy. In fact, water that comes to the tap, as well as many bottled waters are touted to be safe, are actually highly chemicalized, with chlorine (a bleach), fluoride, ammonia, and many other inorganic materials. And yet, in light of the urgent warnings against using MMS, the cumulative effects of this ongoing, daily intake of inorganic information is given no consideration anywhere in the current medical treatment matrix. According to the authorities, the bleach called MMS shouldn’t be used, but the bleach that is being used, without any input or consent by the public, is okay.

And if you don’t already know it, chlorine and chlorine dioxide demonstrate very different chemical behavior.

Humans are ingesting a multitude of inorganic and synthetic chemicals daily in going about the business of living life. A significant portion of this is through ingesting chlorinated water, about which no warnings or calls for reductions are being made.

When it combines with other materials, chlorine spins off another group of chemicals called, trihalomethanes (THMs). They are made up of chloroform, bromodichloromethane, dibromochloromethane, and bromoform. All of these are known carcinogens, which mean they can increase the likelihood of cancer. Imagine that this IS going on today, every day, each year, and for decades.

Look at some of the many pathologies linked to iodine deficiency, which is estimated to affect 2 billion people. Iodine is a natural antibacterial, and needed to produce the thyroid hormone. Potential problems include hypothyroidism, goiter, mental retardation and birth defects, and breast cancer.

Iodine is a member of a group of elements on the Periodic Table called halogens, as are chlorine and fluoride. However, it is the only essential trace element among them. In other words, iodine is essential for health. The other halogens are, in fact, harmful. Could it be that getting so much incidental chlorine and fluoride through water intake leaves less room for iodine, which we admittedly get too little of?

Yet, there are no warnings or suggestions forthcoming from the watchdog agencies of this dire situation or that we should adopt other methods.

Are you hearing me on this? Chlorination produces byproducts that are known carcinogens. Yet, it continues to be the “disinfectant of choice” among water treatment agencies around the world. According to americanchemistry.com, the chlorine industry “contributes” $46 billion to the North American economy annually. Included in their list their contributions:

  • Clean drinking water
  • 93 percent of all life-saving pharmaceuticals
  • 86 percent of crop protection compounds

“Clean” drinking water is not necessarily safe drinking water. Safe drinking water will actually hydrate you and reduce toxicity. Clean water, as it is presently treated, can actually increase the body’s toxic load.

While it may not kill you on ingestion, ingesting chemically treated, i.e., chlorinated water will slowly and steadily deteriorate health. One exception, based on its known chemical behavior, is chlorine dioxide, which actually decreases the toxic presence in the environment when taken in appropriate amounts.

Drinking is only one of the ways that we ingest water, and not even the major way. The main way that we intake water is through showering and bathing. It is absorbed directly through the skin. When water is chlorinated, we turn our showers into gas chambers, open our pores, and step in.

That is, unless we take conscious, and heretofore unconventional measures to counteract the effects of our “advanced” ways. Based on the results that people have reported after using MMS, it appears to be doing something beneficial. And yet, none of the “protective agencies” around the world have seen fit to investigate for right doing, so convinced they appear to be that something “wrong” is being done.

Chlorine isn’t the only chemical culprit that we have developed a blind eye and deaf ear to. Fluoride is right up there, having gained a privileged general perception as beneficial; so good in fact, that it is put in water, toothpaste, and supplement tablets, including some vitamins.

Is this an accurate representation of fluoride's effects?

Fluoride is a neurotoxin. Taking it on a regular basis can compromise health. Long-standing evidence bears the statement out. A 1992 report published by the New Jersey Department of Health found that bone cancer in male children was two to seven times greater in areas where water was fluoridated. Another study linked fluoridation of water to uterine cancer deaths.

There is no scientific or experiential evidence to support the FDA and FSA’s claims against MMS. It’s chemical behavior suggests that, if scaled down to sufficiently enough, it should reduce toxicity, and if that is done, health should improve. That is what has happened, and perhaps why the world is not being warned against using MMS.

We could go on for days listing the chemicals that, on a daily basis, are routinely ingested, either through water, in gaseous form, in our foods and beverages, or via airborne inhalation, which ultimately cause cellular stress and eventually metabolic dysfunction within the body. Not only are no actions being taken toward warning the public, reducing and replacing these methods, the remedies that we are offered to counteract the effects of these products — and are incessantly admonished to “ask our doctors” about — are also more chemicals.

Health care costs are rising, yet disease onset is coming earlier in life, and staying longer. Yet, MMS has been deemed by these and other “experts,” a dangerous bleach.

I’m inclined to believe that the 15-year-old with Crohn’s disease who, if we are to believe the story, notified the authorities about MMS, is most likely not aware of these nuances of its chemistry. The greater darkness, however, is awareness of his own chemistry which, even after several decades or even a lifetime, is a darkness shared by the general public.

The FSA and FDA should know better. They should be letting the youngster, and the public know about MMS, in the context of how it can actually help his young body reduce its toxic load. But then, that would mean dumping all the chemical stuff they have been supporting, and having to admit that they have been wolves guarding the henhouse and all its chicks.

Original MMS Essay - ‘No Miracle’ - Updated

13 Replies

I am sometimes remiss to report on my own activities, but it is worthwhile to note that I have updated my original article on MMS, titled, “No Miracle, Just Wonderful Chemistry.” It now contains updated information on the protocols, including Protocol 1000 (for general use) and Protocol 2000 (for acute cases), as well as a couple new photos to show some of the differences between the original 10% citric acid activator and the now preferred 50% solution.

I preserved much of the original text, which did not become “wrong,” but has been supplanted by several easier to palette approaches. I intend to do the same thing with my documentary, Understanding MMS: Conversations with Jim Humble. While it remains viable, providing useful and correct information, it might be best called an archival piece, showing things as they were started — at least with my involvement — three years ago.

Many of the people that I have interviewed recently, who overcame nasty health challenges like breast cancer and staph infections, did so using the “old school” MMS protocols outlined in the original ‘No Miracle’ article and the documentary; 15 drops (and 75 drops of 10% citric acid or lemon/lime juice), up to three times a day. The maximum of 3 drops per hour for 8 hours called for by Protocol 1000 is, figuratively speaking, easier to swallow. On the other hand, Jim has come up with many other novel ways to generate and deliver MMS inside the body besides oral intake. Most of them are listed in the updated article.

I have also completed editing, condensing, and authoring Jim Humble’s 5-day MMS workshop into a 4 disc DVD product. I originally thought it would be a 5-dvd set, but was able to get the last two day’s sessions on one disc.

Artwork for the MMS Workshop DVD Set

Jim’s workshop is far more comprehensive than there is time, or most people even have the attention span to watch in a video presentation. However, when a life depends on understanding, the information contained in this set is invaluable.

The topics that he covers are broad, in part because we have been conditioned to believe that diseases are unrelated. This allows doctors to “parallel prescribe ,” authorizing the introduction of multiple sets of complex chemicals into the inner ecology of the body, like the Corexit sorties that BP was permitted to dump in the Gulf of Mexico; almost 2 million gallons worth.

In the same way that the prescription chemicals — which suck and bind up precious oxygen in an already oxygen deficient environment — are a traumatic shock to the human body, so it was and is in the Gulf. Under any other circumstances, the planes that dropped the Corexit would have been intercepted and ordered to stop, or face being shot out of the air. This was a blatant act of terror, except that it was about oil, and human and ecological health took a back seat to making a buck.

The same mentality is at work when prescription drugs are issued, or when chemicals and synthetic (e.g., GMO) materials are considered acceptable substitutes for real food and mineral supplements. Even while estuaries continue to die and fish suffocate from the toxic soup, the FDA has given the green light for Americans to consume oysters and seafood from the Gulf (if they can find any that are living or that haven’t mutated), and are giving the go ahead to transgenic (genetically modified) salmon, but are warning the public that MMS is a dangerous “bleach.”

Do you wonder why they have lost any credibility they might have had?

The workshop DVD will be shipping to people who have pre-ordered soon, as they are preparing to leave the manufacturing plant to their fulfillment point as I write this. So the wait is almost over. It should show up on their web site sometime soon. Here is the trailer I produced… (when it was apparent that 5 discs would be necessary).

Lastly, I have written and published quite a few essays on MMS over the past couple years. I printed out the original the other day for a woman whose husband has been sent home to die from cancer, and someone told her about MMS and insisted that she contact me. She knew nothing about it, and had no computer for internet access. I gave her a thumbnail overview of what it does and how it is used, then updated the article (which I had promised myself to do anyway), and sent her a copy of the documentary DVD.

I also sent a request to PGL International, and asked them to ship some MMS to this lady. On the next business day, it was on its way by Express Mail. She now has product and the information I sent. Hopefully, she has a clue as to how and where to begin. The subject of money never came up.

Life is more important than money. Health is more important than wealth.

If you would like me to publish a booklet, or a book of my selected articles on MMS, please let me know. I considered doing this some time ago, but never did.

MMS: The ‘Bleach’ is On!

104 Replies

mms_collage

Let’s give the FDA, Health Canada, the Ministry of Health (Japan) and National Health Service (UK), a round of applause and gratitude. With the able assistance of a league of similar “watchdog” agencies around the world, they have increased MMS awareness. The fact that the information they have spread is misleading or downright false, is of less concern, as there will be time and opportunity for clarification.

There will always be those who, trusting “the authorities,” will follow their guidelines to the letter. There will also be those who elect to do their homework, have seen the misplaced priorities and ulterior motives that are at play with announcements that claim to “protect the public.” This latter group will make their own decisions about what’s harmful or harmless about this “bleach.”

“Bleach” is also the subject of a new rash of debates about Jim Humble’s MMS protocol. Reciting the FDA chapter and verse, the nouveau MMS critics claim that chlorine dioxide is a bleach, as though that’s the beginning and the end of discussion. They dismissively proclaim that anyone silly enough to drink bleach must have a screw loose. Yet, the very same critics will very likely bathe or shower in chlorinated water each day, the effects of which are worse than drinking it.

If you didn’t already know it, chlorine is also a “bleach.” It’s a distinction worth knowing, about which the FDA must have thought few would notice, or care.

The term “bleach” is used in a pejorative context with regard to chlorine dioxide, yet since chlorine is also a bleach, then it is either equally “dangerous” (some people mistakenly assume it’s the same thing), or there really are different chemical behaviors at play.

This subject is covered in my documentary, Understanding MMS: Conversations with Jim Humble.  However, here is a thumbnail explanation.

Although chlorine dioxide has "chlorine" in its name,
its chemistry is radically different from that of chlorine. When reacting with other substances, it is weaker and more selective. For example, it does not react with ammonia or most organic compounds. Chlorine dioxide oxygenates products rather than chlorinating them. Therefore, unlike chlorine, chlorine dioxide does not produce environmentally undesirable organic compounds containing chlorine. [Source Clordisys.com

The interesting thing about the chlorine versus chlorine dioxide conversation lies in considering the uproar over the new kid (chlorine dioxide), with the claims of its associated danger. It smacks of the tale of chicken little who declared that the sky was falling.

It wasn’t and didn’t.

MMS users have reported, and continue to report amazing improvements in their health, a fact that critics would rather not look at. The FDA only asked for negative information from the public in issuing their warning. If improvements from such a wide range of pathologies have been reported by actual MMS users, this should be cause for greater interest and attempts at confirmation, instead of attempts to shut down.

I write this as another group of sincere souls prepare to “race for the cure” this weekend, and the public is made to be more “aware” of breast cancer.

The radio announcer in the spots for this weekend’s “race for the cure” says that “we’re closer than ever.”

“Oh really?”

Suppose it is as simple as using the right bleach, and disinfecting a chemically overloaded body. Now I know that MMS is not a cure all. I don’t even suggest that it would be all that is needed. However, it is very effective at doing something that has been generally overlooked.

I’ll talk more about that further down.

Just today while writing this article the first time (a momentary power outage during an electrical storm sent it to the ethers), the phone rang. From Houston, the caller was inquiring about the Photonic Water transformation technology. Somehow the conversation turned toward MMS. She was quick to let me know she was familiar with this one.

Before I could say that I knew a thing or two about it, the caller let me know that she recognized me, and then said that MMS has helped her children improve dramatically from autism spectrum disorder.

A former ophthalmologist, MMS was suggested to her by another doctor friend. She said she had tried a multitude of ways to help her children, but they showed dramatic improvements after they began taking MMS. This was on the “old school” regimen. (Children were never given 15 drops at a time under the original protocol, but up to 3 drops per 25 lbs of body weight. That limitation still applies in the 8 hourly dose regimen.)

The caller is now practicing energy medicine, as her horizons have continued to expand after her original introduction to MMS. And yet, in spite of her success, she is at odds with the autism activist group, Defeat Autism Now! (D.A.N.), part of the Autism Research Institute. The group asserts that autism is treatable, but it appears that the “treatment” may also include a chemical-based component.

One of the salient points that I made with the caller, is that with all the hubbub about MMS being “dangerous bleach,” few are considering the effects of the daily bleaching that millions in America and around the world currently go through via chlorination. Many are trying their best to remove chlorine – resorting to expensive treatment methods – to no avail. This is one of the important aspects of water transformation that looms on the horizon.

The talk about the lack of clinical trials and publishing in “peer review journals” on MMS are laughable when you consider the absence of any long-term studies or published papers on studies on how health faired when water was treated without chlorine.

Furthermore, it would be interesting to observe the effects of removing synthetic materials – toxins, heavy metals, etc. – from the body. Chlorine dioxide appears to do this very well. Again, I say this based on results that have been reported.

For all the talk about “good” and “bad” bacteria, it has become evident that no living organism exists to do us harm. However,  the non-living, the synthetic, and unnatural will bring about cellular stress, disrupt metabolic function, and instigate one’s decline into degenerative disease. 

We have operated under the mistaken idea that technology is superior to Mother Nature, and we are paying the high price of our arrogance and ignorance. Yet, many still ignore what is staring them in the face.

Chlorine dioxide appears to discharge, by way of electron exchange, the low level, inorganic disruptors that are deemed close enough to the real thing, such as vitamin D, to be acceptable substitutes, in addition to such other additives as aspartame, MSG, and many more. In truth, they are not acceptable. They don’t kill you on contact, but they don’t help sustain or restore health. These facts are hard to deny.

What if autism spectrum disorder is simply one way that the body, and the being, responds to certain types and levels of chemicalization?

It has been demonstrated that when chlorine interacts with the chemicals within the body, tertiary chemical compounds are produced. These compounds can be carcinogenic. Yet, this “bleach” is acceptable… not only acceptable, but its use unquestioned.

On the other hand, the “bleach” that people are reporting positive results from, is branded harmful and dangerous.

There is something far bigger hiding in plain sight that either the FDA and its cronies don’t see, or don’t want you to see. A public whitewash that has gone on for generations. Before installing a Photonic unit on my showers, I used to see that “ashy” stuff on my skin every day, and think it was “dry”. I now know it was the chemical bath that I had embraced as my own problem. They can try to run the game, but they can’t hide it anymore, because the bleach is ON!