or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Women's Health  › Spin-off discussion about Chlorine Dioxide/MMS and the eradication of disease
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Spin-off discussion about Chlorine Dioxide/MMS and the eradication of disease - Page 8

post #141 of 339
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bokonon View Post

Is this the same stuff we're talking about?  Because it came highly recommended in Backpacker Magazine.

http://www.rei.com/product/736897/potable-aqua-chlorine-dioxide-tablets-package-of-20

Yes.  I mentioned travelers use it.  They've been using it for a very long time.  That is why Jim Humble had some, as he was in the jungle.  Some people make it too strong, so it has been drunk by travellers for years.  

post #142 of 339
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pers View Post



 

Yes.   But it is being recommended to kill pathogens in water from streams and such, which is an appropriate use for it.  As discussed previously in this thread, it is an effective disinfectant for water, surfaces, and even air.  It is used in some places to treat municipal water.  This is considered safe because of how diluted it is, MMS is a much higher concentration.  It does kill bacteria and viruses, but that is no reason to think it can do so inside the human body without harming healthy cells any more than drinking Lysol or any other disinfectant would.   Nor is it any better a cure than lysol for AIDS, malaria, cancer, autism, basically every malady every suffered by man or woman, etc. 

I linked the chemistry showing the levels of tested safety for ingesting chlorine dioxide.  I also linked the lethal dose level, which seems to vary from 300 to greater than 10000mg/kg.  That is substantially higher than caffeine and aspirin.  Do you know how much chlorine dioxide is recommended in one quart of water to kill all the pathogens?  Did you know vinegar is a disinfectant?  What amount of vinegar can you drink before you "harm healthy cells".  

 

Are you aware that not all chemicals are the same, even if they all share a similar action, eg, "disinfectant"?  
 

 

post #143 of 339
Thread Starter 

 

 

 

Quote:

Calm, I would like you to present one, just one feasible way that MMS can cure conditions as disparate as cancer, AIDS, malaria, fibroids and ovarian cysts, and autism.

 

In a word: microbes. It oxidises microbes internally, just as it does externally. It isn't that wild a claim. Proof it enters all body tissues has been established so we can't say it is a huge leap to the conclusion that it also kills microbes in those areas of the body that it reaches.  That matches the overwhelming anecdotal evidence.

 

But because that needs more than that, I'll give some background, although I don't hold any hope in altering your thinking which is possibly based in years/decades of a particular approach. I will assume the first thing that came to your mind is that not all those things listed are microbial. Koch's postulates are responsible for why you think that, but more on that later...

 

Research DMSO.  That will help open the door to a whole new world of viewing disease.  DMSO helps so many things, and is proven to do so... yet they are all so different.  

 

Another thing to think about is... what if it was 1995, and I told you an antibiotic/oxidiser/any other anti-bug could cure a stomach ulcer.  You'd reasonably ask how on earth is that possible... but only because in 1995 you didn't have all the information necessary to understand why it is possible.  That information is: bacteria causes stomach ulcers. What seemed a ridiculous link becomes common sense now.  

 

Those who use anti-microbial treatments have found their atherosclerosis and Crohn's disease was going away.  How on EARTH could that be possible, the doctors all demanded to know, then promptly rejected the anecdotal evidence in puffed up disgust.  Only to learn years later that research has discovered both those things are caused by microorganisms.  Oops, that was a bit of a silly knee jerk reaction to dismiss anecdotal evidence of such an extensive nature simply because they didn't know what caused those diseases.  I would think that not knowing what causes them was a prerequisite for being ready and open to the possibilities of what MIGHT cause them.  Yet, oddly, this is so often not the case. It's so doggedly like, “We don't know what causes ABC but it isn't THAT.” 

 

Further reading:

 

Crohn's disease research: http://www.crohns.org/research/index.htm

 

Nobel Prize dot org Press Release 2005: http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2005/press.html

 

"Many diseases in humans such as Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, rheumatoid arthritis and atherosclerosis are due to chronic inflammation. The discovery that one of the most common diseases of mankind, peptic ulcer disease, has a microbial cause, has stimulated the search for microbes as possible causes of other chronic inflammatory conditions....The discovery of Helicobacter pylori has led to an increased understanding of the connection between chronic infection, inflammation and cancer."

 

One of the fundamental differences between orthodox medicine and naturopathy is orthodox medicine follows Koch's postulate.  

 

Koch's postulates are:

  1. The microorganism must be found in abundance in all organisms suffering from the disease, but should not be found in healthy organisms.

  2. The microorganism must be isolated from a diseased organism and grown in pure culture.

  3. The cultured microorganism should cause disease when introduced into a healthy organism.

  4. The microorganism must be reisolated from the inoculated, diseased experimental host and identified as being identical to the original specific causative agent.

 

Note point 3.  The cultured microorganism should cause disease when introduced into a healthy organism.  All experiments done in the early 1900's to prove microbes cause particular diseases could not make that postulate stick.  Koch's postulates have caused untold damage to humanity and held back medical progress in massive ways.  There are so many diseases that could be easily treated if medicine would just recognise they are microbial, but this postulate is a necessary test to pass, so how on earth are those diseases ever to be recognised as microbial?  And then there is point 1, not found in healthy organisms... again, this renders things like candida as a cause impossible, because candida is found in healthy subjects.  

 

One stumbling block is that some of the microbes responsible for these diseases are present in most or all human systems... such as candida and H. pylori and mycobacterium.  You cannot test for candida for instance, because it is present in all human beings.  A test can only show there is perhaps an overgrowth. If you have vaginal thrush and get a blood or stool test for candida, it will show negative... but the woman sure as hell knows she has candida, and an antifungal or douche of yoghurt cures the infection.  So "tests" for microbes are all but useless if those microbes are naturally part of our flora.  If that woman has thrush, she almost certainly has it in her gut also but she gets no treatment for that because the doctor will find no evidence of overgrowth.  Antibiotics cause thrush so often that a vaginal cream is often given at the same time these days "for the vaginal thrush".  What about the colon thrush?  

 

From the Crohn's link above:

In the early 1900's, the disease we call today "Crohn's disease" was characterized as an infectious disease, specifically intestinal tuberculosis. However, by the early 1930's, definitive classification (proof) that this disease was infectious was not forthcoming. More specifically, when Dr. Burrill B. Crohn failed to prove an infectious cause in 1932, the disease became formally known as "Crohn's disease" (named after Dr. Crohn) and the search for an infectious cause was largely discontinued.

 

 

H. Pylori, the bacterium responsible for the stomach ulcers, is considered normal stomach flora because up to 80% of people have it, and only 20% of people actually get disease from it.  The question researchers are finally asking is why do some people get attacked by these microbes? Previously, they didn't even acknowledge they existed, and naturopaths world over were “quacks” for treating them as microbial... regardless of the anecdotal evidence people were getting cured.

 

Things are moving back to where we were before Koch's postulates halted medical progress. Back then, we discovered a bunch of diseases were caused by infection that passed the postulates and so much medical progress was made. Infection was the biggest scourge of mankind 100 years ago and lo and behold, it turns out they are STILL the biggest scourge of mankind, we just couldn't prove it due to postulates. You cannot prove stomach ulcers with Koch's postulates very easily, because the stomach acid will kill of most via the oral route, and the immune system of a healthy subject will fight off an injected route. Koch's is great for things like measles and influenza, but not all microbes behave that way.

 

Koch split all disease into two groups: infectious microbial or non-microbial. Naturopaths simply acknowledge a third type: non-infectious microbial, or put another way: non-contagious microbial.

 

The whole concept that the “body just turns on itself” is guess work by ortho med, and is as ridiculous as it sounds. They don't know what causes so many issues because of the limiting tests they've put to researchers to pass like Koch's, so they just put it all down to genetics or “well, it just happens sometimes”. “oh, you have inflammation? You need an anti-inflammatory”. That is just unacceptable in naturopathy. Naming the symptoms, ie, you have inflammation (flame/heat), you have diabetes (sweet urine) is stating the obvious and tells us nothing of the cause. We go to a doctor and tell them what we have and in exchange they... tell us what we have only using different language. This is called a “diagnosis”. I find the whole thing strange. Naming and treating the symptoms is not good enough.  

 

Somehow, the font just changed.  

 

I love that so many diseases are coming out as microbial, because that lends weight to the way those diseases have been treated alternatively for millennia.  Considering Europe is just about to pass a law that makes it illegal to buy supplements or herbs unless prescribed by a doctor and the supp has passed rigorous and prohibitively expensive testing... that kind of validation is needed ASAP before our health freedoms are stomped further.  

 

I know, you don't believe those diseases are microbial, and all I can say is... watch it unfold.  Stomach ulcers, Crohn's, inflammatory conditions... so many have already proven microbial or so close to proven it can't be dismissed any longer.  It really is a matter of time before all the dots are joined on so many other conditions and in the meantime, alternative practitioners are having what is considered "miraculous" success with things when it really is very simple: kill the bugs!  The biggest single contribution to medicine we could possibly find right now is a substance that safely and effectively kills pathogens on all spectrums, be it viral, bacterial, parasitic... whatever.  Esp the mycobacteria because they are seriously ugly guys and at the root of so much.  Is MMS that substance?  I don't know.  The evidence as I see it seems to suggest it has the best potential.  But if it isn't, something with that kind of broad spectrum power has got to come out soon.  

post #144 of 339
Thread Starter 

 

Remember:

 

There is no evidence of harm - even after millions of uses.

 

 There is evidence of safety taken orally - more specific data is required.

 

There is anecdotal evidence it works.

 

 

There is scientific evidence it permeates the entire system even to the bone marrow.

  

  

I don't know how anyone can look at the bare facts of that and not see what I see.


Edited by Calm - 4/30/11 at 7:45am
post #145 of 339
Thread Starter 

 

 

Quote:

What do you consider to be the highest-quality evidence demonstrating that it is effective in curing an already-established disease?


For me personally, it would be my personal successes, and those of clients/friends. After that it would be friend's reports from Africa... they blew my mind, I wanted to run out on the street shouting at everyone. I was warned I'd be considered crazy and a liar and that things have to go at a certain pace through certain hoops but I didn't care. Those little babies, I couldn't get them out of my mind... I couldn't believe people wouldn't at least imagine the potential, and support furthering the research. To battle the army of greed this faces, we will need the majority of people basically picketing the streets, demanding the lid be lifted and studies be done. Yet... I've been disillusioned, people won't budge. It is so depressing, so disheartening, I wish I could afford to send everyone to see it work in person... we need to move this so those poor sick children can have that parasite oxidised out of them. Or at least get some wormwood to them, but NO ONE is telling the public these things. People still think malaria is incurable. It's sick. Wormwood has a proven 100% success rate against malaria.


 

Wormwood against malaria, wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemisia_annua#Malaria_treatment


 

More info on wormwood against malaria in Africa: http://african-restoration.info/Proof.html


 

Drug companies know they can't make it worth their while to bottle an herb, not when any ol' hippy herbal company could become serious competition, so they isolate the parts of the herb that work and bottle that. They've always done this. For instance, aspirin was synthesised from the herb meadowsweet. The problem with this method is, herbs contain complex buffers... nature knows best. Man just screws things up. Meadowsweet will work in the same ways as aspirin but won't give you the same side effects. Drug companies have extensive wormwood plantations in Africa and Vietnam but they don't sell wormwood... which has worked for millennia against parasites (hence it's name). They isolate the assumed effective chemicals and sell that. And in some of them, they even add other chemicals to make it patentable. I assume at some point they will synthesise the chemicals responsible in wormwood and it will become unrecongisable as an herb, and its humble herbal origins with be forgotten and disrespected, like aspirin.

 

I know that isn't MMS, but it is necessary to know what is going on out there.  It ain't roses and sunshine.  Millions die unnecessarily from malaria every year, most of them kids.  Now you know just how unnecessary those deaths are.  It's shameful. 

post #146 of 339

It has been proven that a mosquito net is one of the most effective ways of preventing Malaria. 10 bucks for the net and a whole family is protected. I personally would suggest that before encouraging people to poison themselves.

post #147 of 339
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ldavis24 View Post

It has been proven that a mosquito net is one of the most effective ways of preventing Malaria. 10 bucks for the net and a whole family is protected. I personally would suggest that before encouraging people to poison themselves.

Mosquito nets would not have helped this girl.  They would not have helped these people.

 

They were already sick.

 

MMS did help them, according to their own testimonies.  You can only call them liars or assume it is placebo.  

 

Vaccination is encouraged around here yet that has killed people!   MMS hasn't even one death attributed to it.    

 

I am not encouraging anyone to do anything. 

 

I happen to believe the missionaries.  I happen to believe my clients and friends who work with MMS.  I'm sharing their stories and sharing info.  What is done with it is up to the reader.  

 

 


Edited by Calm - 4/30/11 at 8:30am
post #148 of 339

yes a woman did die and i don't call extreme vomiting and diarrhea "no harm" especially when afterward they still have the disease they were trying to cure, but hey thats just me... your stance on "harm" has been made abundantly clear.

nak

post #149 of 339

yeah, a simple google search shows that MMS has killed.  Whether or not your belief that it'll work at curing all this stuff is true, you won't get far if you state false information that is very easily looked up.


 

post #150 of 339
Thread Starter 

 

 

Quote:

you won't get far if you state false information that is very easily looked up.

 

Right back atcha. 

 

The woman you are referring to did not die from MMS.  It was dismissed from court.  It could not be linked to MMS.  Read the reports a little closer.  

 

There has not been any death attributable to MMS.  Sorry if that inconveniences the "poison" argument.

post #151 of 339
Thread Starter 

And yanno, even if there was a death, really, or ten deaths, or a hundred... that is but a drop in the ocean compared to things sitting in your medicine chest right now.  Things you've probably given your children.  Did those deaths influence your decision to buy those products?  

post #152 of 339
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ldavis24 View Post

yes a woman did die and i don't call extreme vomiting and diarrhea "no harm" especially when afterward they still have the disease they were trying to cure



Sounds like chemo.

post #153 of 339

you mean my lavender EO and netti pot?
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calm View Post

And yanno, even if there was a death, really, or ten deaths, or a hundred... that is but a drop in the ocean compared to things sitting in your medicine chest right now.  Things you've probably given your children.  Did those deaths influence your decision to buy those products?  



 

post #154 of 339
Quote:
Originally Posted by treeoflife3 View Post

you mean my lavender EO and netti pot?
 



 


eucalyptus oil, garlic and ginger in my house...

 

there is a massive difference between herbs roots used in small quantities to alleviate symptoms and telling people to drink a poison when it doesn't cure them...and yes it sounds "like" chemo except that it doesn't cure anything, it just makes people ill.

 

 

 

post #155 of 339
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bokonon View Post





Sounds like chemo.



You mean chemo can't cure cancer?  Shit, don't tell that to my mom, now 10 years post-chemo for breast cancer with no sign of recurrence.  Don't tell it to my 3 patients who survived childhood ALL more than 15 years ago thanks to chemo.  Don't tell that to my 2 patients who had their stage IV testicular cancer CURED by chemo.  Don't tell my patient who had her Wilm's tumor cured at age 4, who just went on to deliver a healthy baby girl at age 28.

 

Your comparison stinks. 

post #156 of 339
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by treeoflife3 View Post

you mean my lavender EO and netti pot?
 



 


You don't have any tylenol in your house?  No drugs at all?  Me either, but we're pretty rare.  What I was referring to, as you know, is that drugs do kill people, a lot of people, but that doesn't seem to bother anyone.  But if MMS is shown to kill someone it would be a big "SEE!  It's lethal!"  It doesn't kill anyone, yet apparently it is poisonous (even though people show absolutely no  understanding of the chemistry) and all those drugs are just fine.

 

And that I have to explain all of the things I mean is incredible.  

post #157 of 339
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by WildKingdom View Post





You mean chemo can't cure cancer?  Shit, don't tell that to my mom, now 10 years post-chemo for breast cancer with no sign of recurrence.  Don't tell it to my 3 patients who survived childhood ALL more than 15 years ago thanks to chemo.  Don't tell that to my 2 patients who had their stage IV testicular cancer CURED by chemo.  Don't tell my patient who had her Wilm's tumor cured at age 4, who just went on to deliver a healthy baby girl at age 28.

 

Your comparison stinks. 


That's great you know people who have survived chemo.  But 7 cures as a testimony from a doctor is about right.  3% is the statistics for chemo success.  The rest of them who use chemo and die a painfully horrible death from it,... well, for them, Bokonon's comparison is absolutely spot on to what the PP described.  

 

 

 


Edited by Calm - 4/30/11 at 1:36pm
post #158 of 339
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calm View Post




That's great you know people who have survived chemo.  But 7 cures as a testimony from a doctor is about right.  3% is the statistics for chemo success.  The rest of them who use chemo and die a painfully horrible death from it,... well, for them, Bokonon's comparison is absolutely spot on to what the PP described.  

 

 

 


Last time you said 5%.  Now you say 3%.  And I ask, where are you finding these statistics?  The cure rate for testicular cancer is 90%.  That includes cancer with mets. The cure rate for ALL is 80%.  Cure rate for stage 2 breast cancer is 74%.  Cure rate for stage 3 is 67%.    The rates for colon cancer are similar to breast cancer.

 

Yes, for some cancers the cure rate is pretty dismal.  Pancreatic, ovarian, glioblastoma, for example.  

 

However, your claim of a 3% success rate is flat out wrong.  

 

post #159 of 339
Quote:
Originally Posted by WildKingdom View Post





You mean chemo can't cure cancer?  Shit, don't tell that to my mom, now 10 years post-chemo for breast cancer with no sign of recurrence.  Don't tell it to my 3 patients who survived childhood ALL more than 15 years ago thanks to chemo.  Don't tell that to my 2 patients who had their stage IV testicular cancer CURED by chemo.  Don't tell my patient who had her Wilm's tumor cured at age 4, who just went on to deliver a healthy baby girl at age 28.

 

Your comparison stinks. 



Well, you can't tell it to my dad, maternal grandfather, or paternal grandmother, because they all died of cancer despite extensive chemo and radiation.  Seriously, you don't know ANY cancer patients who weren't "cured" by chemo? 

 

And if chemo cures, then isn't the vomiting and diarrhea worth it?  If MMS works, wouldn't vomiting and diarrhea be a small price to pay?

post #160 of 339

People aren't concerned that it might hurt people... people are concerned that people will get hurt and/or die from something that DOESN'T WORK.  There is a difference.  A couple anecdotal stories about MMS working doesn't mean it actually works... correlation does not equal causation, but a bunch of people getting extremely sick from it in hopes that it works but ends up not doing anything other than making them extremely sick is quite a big problem.  I'm willing to suffer if in the long run it will make me better... I'm not willing to suffer just because something might have worked for a couple people or might have been taken at just the right time to make it seem like it worked.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calm View Post




You don't have any tylenol in your house?  No drugs at all?  Me either, but we're pretty rare.  What I was referring to, as you know, is that drugs do kill people, a lot of people, but that doesn't seem to bother anyone.  But if MMS is shown to kill someone it would be a big "SEE!  It's lethal!"  It doesn't kill anyone, yet apparently it is poisonous (even though people show absolutely no  understanding of the chemistry) and all those drugs are just fine.

 

And that I have to explain all of the things I mean is incredible.  



 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Women's Health
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Women's Health  › Spin-off discussion about Chlorine Dioxide/MMS and the eradication of disease