Spin-off discussion about Chlorine Dioxide/MMS and the eradication of disease - Page 9

[Bokonon]

Originally Posted by treeoflife3 

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.
 

When my father was dying from cancer over a couple of years, very painfully I might add, if someone had told him that there was a small chance that drinking Clorox would make him feel better, he would have done it, and I would have supported him.  If it killed him, then that probably would have just sped up the inevitable, which was him losing his dignity, his mental capacity, and any comfort he had once remembered.  Instead, he died alone, after his first night in hospice care after he got so weak that my mother couldn't care for him at home anymore.  Dying from drinking bleach would have been an improvement over the hell he went through for those two years, and especially the last few months.

[Calm]

Originally Posted by WildKingdom 

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.  

I already posted the link.  The overall rate of chemo success is actually less than 3%, if you want to get particular.  

 

http://fiocco59.altervista.org/ALLEGATI/MORGAN.PDF

 

excerpt: http://healyourselfathomefl.health.officelive.com/HEALTHPROBLEM_CANCER_ChemotherapySuccessRates.aspx

 

[mamakay]

"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

Do you understand why case reports are near the bottom of the evidence based medicine pyramid?

There are testimonials saying that all kinds of stuff works:

http://www.realvoodoos.com/voodoo-testimonials.html

Wormwood has a proven 100% success rate against malaria.

No, it doesn't.

http://www.tropicalmedandhygienejrnl.net/article/S0035-9203%2804%2900011-2/abstract

_____________________

I see you didn't comment on the animal study where CIO2 cleared the air of flu before it was transmitted. Now, I'm sure you're not intentionally misrepresenting the content of these studies you're posting, so you must have just made a mistake or two.

Are you now aware of the fact that there aren't even any animal studies showing that CIO2 has any curative effect on any disease whatsoever?

[Calm]

double

[Calm]

Look, the safety of MMS is established for the dose level.  It is less than 10% of a 0.001% concentration.  

I know you won't read these links, but, sigh, tperhaps you'd like to read through some patents that have been applied for on uses against AIDS and various other pathogens IN THE BLOOD and the papers establish safety to such body tissue.

Patent # 4944920  Novel Method to Treat Blood: http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/4944920/fulltext.html

Patent # 4971760  Novel Method for Disinfecting Red Blood Cells, blood platelets, blood plasma, optical corneas and sclera: http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/4971760/fulltext.html

Patent #  5211912 Method for disinfecting red blood cells blood products and corneas: http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5211912/fulltext.html

Patent # 5,185,371 methods for disinfecting red blood cells http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5185371.PN.&OS=PN/5185371&RS=PN/5185371

At least open ONE of them, and learn the amounts used and WHY it is considered safe to body tissue.  Pretty please.  

[mamakay]

I could patent a special preparation of cat pee as a cure for diabetes, and that wouldn't mean it works.

Regardless, in vitro results rarely translate into therapies useful in vivo.

[treeoflife3]

and if he was okay with the risk of dying after being told the effectiveness of MMS was only anecdotal and possibly only a correlation rather than a true cure, then I'd fully support him doing it.  He made a choice with the truth.

I have a problem with people getting sick due to lies about there being so many studies and proof that it totally works, that it actually caused the cure and not understanding that there is a real risk with potentially no positive results (unless, like your father, they considered death a positive result to how they were currently living.)  I don't want to suffer based off lies and I don't think anyone else should have to either.
 

Originally Posted by Bokonon 

When my father was dying from cancer over a couple of years, very painfully I might add, if someone had told him that there was a small chance that drinking Clorox would make him feel better, he would have done it, and I would have supported him.  If it killed him, then that probably would have just sped up the inevitable, which was him losing his dignity, his mental capacity, and any comfort he had once remembered.  Instead, he died alone, after his first night in hospice care after he got so weak that my mother couldn't care for him at home anymore.  Dying from drinking bleach would have been an improvement over the hell he went through for those two years, and especially the last few months.

[Calm]

Originally Posted by mamakay 

No, it doesn't.

http://www.tropicalmedandhygienejrnl.net/article/S0035-9203%2804%2900011-2/abstract

_____________________

Yes it does.  I  can go and cherry pick a study that doesn't show 100% success rate, too.  But some do show 100% and close to 100%.  

Wiki: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemisia_annua#Malaria_treatment

Three days after treatment, 133 (100%) of the evaluable patients in the CGP56697 group and 128 (93%) of the evaluable children in the P/S group were free of parasites. 

http://www.drugs.com/npp/sweet-wormwood.html

The isolated chemical from wormwood with another chemical is used 100% successfully in Ethiopia currently: http://www.ocha-eth.org/Reports/downloadable/FocusonEthiopiaApril2005.pdf

In 1972, scientists in the West called this crystalline compound "qinghaosu" or "artemisinin". Since then, studies in China and Vietnam have confirmed that artemisinin is a highly effective compound with close to 100 percent response rate for treating malaria. It has the ability to destroy the malaria parasite by releasing high doses of free radicals that attack the cell membrane of the parasite in the presence of high iron concentration. In fact, over one million malaria patients have been cured via this method. Their symptoms also subsided in a matter of days.

 http://www.drlam.com/articles/Artemisinin.asp

Most cite a "close to" 100%  success rate, such as this, which is substantially higher than the study you linked: 

http://knol.google.com/k/anonymous/artemisinin-and-malaria/2f2g2eph3nt7q/1#

This paper has all kinds of interesting things about wormwood.  Such as its use with DMSO, where skin cancers fell off in 5 days with the use of DMSO and wormwood topically.

How strange, since cancer and malaria are apparently so unrelated. 

I can't find my links to the vietnam trials, which showed 100% cure rate.  When I do, I'll post them.
 

[Calm]

Originally Posted by mamakay 

I could patent a special preparation of cat pee as a cure for diabetes, and that wouldn't mean it works.

Regardless, in vitro results rarely translate into therapies useful in vivo.

Hence why I trusted your brain to read the literature which is rather extensive adn explains WHY it is safe... which is why I linked it.  For evidence of SAFETY, not efficacy.  Don't confuse them.  They need to be dealt with as separate issues, because they are separate issues.  Does it work?  Is it safe?  Two different issues, following?  And I clearly stated I was showing evidence of SAFETY, as everyone keeps calling it poison, which is fine if  that turns them on... but they should at least educate themselves on what exactly it is they are calling poison.  

It can be used on body cells, SAFELY.  

Does it work when they do that?  Well, many patent applications seem to think so, and something tells me they would know better than you.  

[Calm]

MMS, even in much stronger dilutions, will not harm bugs in your garden or the plants themselves if you spray it on them.  Clorox will kill bugs on your plants, and the plants themselves.  That is because there is chlorine in clorox.  

 

I assume that confuses people unfamiliar with chemistry.  But it is a significant thing to grasp if you want to get deep into this.  

[mamakay]

Wiki: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemisia_annua#Malaria_treatment

Three days after treatment, 133 (100%) of the evaluable patients in the CGP56697 group and 128 (93%) of the evaluable children in the P/S group were free of parasites. 

http://www.drugs.com/npp/sweet-wormwood.html

The isolated chemical from wormwood with another chemical is used 100% successfully in Ethiopia currently: http://www.ocha-eth.org/Reports/downloadable/FocusonEthiopiaApril2005.pdf

This is getting off topic, but both of your legit links talk about PHARMACEUTICALS that use wormwood as a COMPONENT. That said, against milder cases of malaria, "pure" wormwood is really effective, and against complicated cases, it's still fairly effective.

ETA:

And actually, I was even wrong about the effectiveness of pure wormwood, because Artemether is also a pharmaceutical derived from something that's derived from something in wormwood. It's very, very un-natchurul and processed.

Edited by mamakay - 4/30/11 at 6:04pm

[mamakay]

Originally Posted by Calm 

Look, the safety of MMS is established for the dose level.  It is less than 10% of a 0.001% concentration.  

I know you won't read these links, but, sigh, tperhaps you'd like to read through some patents that have been applied for on uses against AIDS and various other pathogens IN THE BLOOD and the papers establish safety to such body tissue.

Patent # 4944920  Novel Method to Treat Blood: http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/4944920/fulltext.html

Patent # 4971760  Novel Method for Disinfecting Red Blood Cells, blood platelets, blood plasma, optical corneas and sclera: http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/4971760/fulltext.html

Patent #  5211912 Method for disinfecting red blood cells blood products and corneas: http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5211912/fulltext.html

Patent # 5,185,371 methods for disinfecting red blood cells http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5185371.PN.&OS=PN/5185371&RS=PN/5185371

At least open ONE of them, and learn the amounts used and WHY it is considered safe to body tissue.  Pretty please.  

A couple of them say:

A sterilizing solution is prepared from, e.g., a commercially available disinfectant (such as LD.RTM. of Alcide Corporation) containing primarily lactic acid and sodium chlorite. Normal saline solution is used as diluent instead of distilled water. The blood constituent or cornea or sclera is exposed to the disinfectant for a time sufficient to inactivate or reduce the infectivity of disease agents. The normal-saline environment prevents or deters hemolysis of the red blood cells or damage to the corneal or scleral epithelium or endothelium, disruption of the platelets, or denaturation of the proteins. The blood cells or platelets (or both), or the cornea or sclera (or both) are then washed with normal saline solution until the disinfectant concentration is insignificant.

1) that's not even CIO2

2) even if it were, they wash the disinfectant out with saline before the virus-free blood is considered safe for humans.

[Annie Mac]

OK, coming out of lurkdom. I'd like to address the chemo success rates. This is a fantastic example of making the numbers dance to the tune you want them to. I found this page & chart:

http://cancerfighter.wordpress.com/2008/10/01/chemotherapy-statistics/

This page is claiming "that chemotherapy has an average 5-year survival success rate of just over 2 percent for ALL cancers!" But then they give you the handy dandy chart so you can see for yourself. If you look at the breakdowns, on some cancers it performs WAY better. Hodgkins is just over 40%, which is pretty damn good. Testis is close behind at 37%. But when you take all the cancers, and all the percentages and average them all out, it comes out to just over 2%.  The numbers do not in any way accurately represent the page author's claim of "2% for ALL cancers!" For whatever reason, this author would like you to believe that if you have cancer, any cancer, all cancer, chemo will give you a 2% chance of survival. Period. If you had, say, stomach cancer, and your doctor wanted to do chemo right off the bat, you'd be right to question that course of treatment. But if you had stomach cancer, and had tried everything and nothing was working, may as well give it a go. Maybe you'll be in that 1.7%. 

I know that's not about MMS, but it bugs me when numbers are manipulated in a misleading manner.

As for the MMS, I guess it comes down to whether you put your faith in the scientific method or whether you are fine accepting anecdotal evidence.  For me, I go for the former. It may be flawed, but to my thinking it's the most objective method we've got going. But each to their own.

 

[WildKingdom]

Originally Posted by Calm 

I already posted the link.  The overall rate of chemo success is actually less than 3%, if you want to get particular.  

 

http://fiocco59.altervista.org/ALLEGATI/MORGAN.PDF

 

excerpt: http://healyourselfathomefl.health.officelive.com/HEALTHPROBLEM_CANCER_ChemotherapySuccessRates.aspx

 

I highly suggest you read the complete text of the paper.  I don't think it says what you think it's saying.  Make sure you read the part about how they exclude hematologic malignancies from their data set.

[mamakay]

Originally Posted by Calm 

Look, the safety of MMS is established for the dose level.  It is less than 10% of a 0.001% concentration.  

Are you saying the concentration of CIO2 in MMS is similar to the (safe) level of CIO2 sometimes used in disinfected drinking water?
 

[Calm]

AnnieMac and WK, even if you add in rare cancer, the success rate would have to be quite high for it to push up the overall rate of 2.1%.  Most people, including doctors I've spoken to about this, quote a 5% success rate, and I feel that is being generous as you can see.

Clinical Oncology published those numbers, so they feel it is relevant to know overall chemo success rates.  For many of the cancers, the overall rate is higher than the specific rate (such as stomach cancer, which has a 0.7%, btw).

In Hodgkin's and testicular cancer, the rates are 38 and 42% respectively.  It is those two cancers alone that bring the statistics up to 2.1%.  If it weren't for those two, can you imagine what the total stats would be?  More like 1%!  So although I know what you're saying, that those two cancers respond more favourably to chemo... however you are missing the point.  The fact is, chemo, as a treatment for cancer, fails for 97% of people with cancer.  

Chemo has a sad, pitiful, awful, miserable, low low low rate of "success" and that is statistically verifiable.  It also has a high rate of harm and death.  But doctors recommend chemo to patients, regardless of those two facts.  It's disturbing, but I do understand it because what else are they supposed to say?  "You have cancer and treatment for it will make you so sick you will wish you were dead and it will probably fail anyway so just go home and die." I don't think so.  But they are offering chemo because it is the best they have.  It is better than nothing, esp for inoperable or systemic cancer.  It may be the best American med has to offer with gov't approval in many cases, but that doesn't mean it is the best there IS to offer. 

Do most doctors know of wormwood as an option?  Probably not.  Or if they did, are they even allowed to apply it?  Probably not.  Yet it showed 100% success rate against breast cancer and close to 100% on many other cancers.  (google Lai and Singh on scholar)  Tumor specific (didn't harm healthy cells) and minimal side effects.  Again... why these things aren't used is beyond me, why they aren't on the news... I don't understand.  I mean, they can make patentable products with these things, they either isolate the chemical from the plant (in this case, artemisinin) or make a synthetic one (I'm not a fan of that in any way).  

If not wormwood, what about cesium... with studies like these: 

 Quote:

Tests have been carried out on over 30 humans. In each case the tumor masses disappeared.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6522424?dopt=Abstract

Or raising the pH in general, which destroys a tumour.  A tumour is a microenvironment, it alters the pH (they are acidic), they are hypoxic (low oxygen), even the way it metabolises alters... it goes from respiration to fermentation (yes, just like a FUNGUS), they accumulate iron at a high rate (yes, just like a PARASITE). 

All of those things can be used against a tumour cell if you've got any kind of creativity or inspiration.  Which many researchers do have.  They oxygenate the cells, the hypoxic cells die and it also switches it back to respiration.  

The way malaria is destroyed by wormwood is the same way a cancer cell is - via the way both accumulate excessive iron.

Malaria is a parasite (Plasmodium) that infects the iron-rich red blood cell and accumulates iron. While the body avidly shields iron in a bound-up state (hemoglobin, enzymes, etc.), excess iron accumulates in the parasite, and the accumulation allows some iron to spill out of the bound state and become free. When the artemisinin products contact the iron – boom! A huge burst of free radicals is unleashed, virtually blowing up the cell harboring the free iron and destroying the parasite

http://www.springboard4health.com/store/artemisinin.html

To save me time, if you need further evidence of the iron connection go to google scholar.  

If you've been paying attention, you've probably guessed that wormwood has uses beyond these two diseases also, all the proven microbial diseases and those that have yet to be proven as microbial.  There is that link again, of a substance that works against disparate diseases.  It is originally a Chinese herbal remedy with use over thousands of years against all kinds of things.

So these things aren't all that "off topic" really.  To fully appreciate why oxidation could work against many things, it is helpful to study other treatments that also do that.

ETA - arteminisin is the active chemical in wormwood against parasites.   

[Calm]

Originally Posted by mamakay 

Are you saying the concentration of CIO2 in MMS is similar to the (safe) level of CIO2 sometimes used in disinfected drinking water?
 

I'm not sure what levels are recommended in drinking water.  I know that 1 drop (15mg chlorine dioxide) treats 1 liter of water when you travel.  That is about 4 drops per gallon.  3 drops is an MMS dose, which is apparently in the system an hour or so as the gas is used up fast.  So I would assume from that it is higher than the dose used to treat water.  

The patents relied on the fact that at concentrations below 0.001%, ClO2 is isotonic - cannot harm red blood cells.  All uses of MMS are concentrations below 10% of 0.001% concentration.  

[Ldavis24]

hmm still reading this thread with interest.

I had no idea that Wikipedia was now a respected source for information about medical topics...Who knew..

I also love how anyone who disagrees with MMS as the panacea of all panaceas just "doesn't understand the chemistry"...I had no idea that not agreeing with a certain poster made you completely ignorant of science in general. Finally Calm, why do you continuously cherry pick which questions you want to answer while ignoring some big ones that apparently aren't jiving with the claims you are making. The questions you ignore are the ones that are hard for you to answe because MMS doesn't really do what you want us to believe it does. I don't understand why you keep posting link after link that has little to do with MMS itself...studies about water disinfection, a gas killing pathogens in the air and suddenly that means MMS cures CANCER, AIDS, MALARIA, AUTISM and a host of other ailments...The Autism claim being the most insulting to me having worked with kiddos with Autism and nannied for a very sweet boy who was borderline but was diagnosed as an Aspie. 

To those of you continually pointing out the flaws in Calm's arguments I would simply say, don't waste your time as upsetting and frustrating as it might be...

[Annie Mac]

Originally Posted by Calm 

AnnieMac and WK, even if you add in rare cancer, the success rate would have to be quite high for it to push up the overall rate of 2.1%.  Most people, including doctors I've spoken to about this, quote a 5% success rate, and I feel that is being generous as you can see.

Clinical Oncology published those numbers, so they feel it is relevant to know overall chemo success rates.  For many of the cancers, the overall rate is higher than the specific rate (such as stomach cancer, which has a 0.7%, btw).

In Hodgkin's and testicular cancer, the rates are 38 and 42% respectively.  It is those two cancers alone that bring the statistics up to 2.1%.  If it weren't for those two, can you imagine what the total stats would be?  More like 1%!  So although I know what you're saying, that those two cancers respond more favourably to chemo... however you are missing the point.  The fact is, chemo, as a treatment for cancer, fails for 97% of people with cancer.  

Chemo has a sad, pitiful, awful, miserable, low low low rate of "success" and that is statistically verifiable.  It also has a high rate of harm and death.  But doctors recommend chemo to patients, regardless of those two facts.  It's disturbing, but I do understand it because what else are they supposed to say?  "You have cancer and treatment for it will make you so sick you will wish you were dead and it will probably fail anyway so just go home and die." I don't think so.  But they are offering chemo because it is the best they have.  It is better than nothing, esp for inoperable or systemic cancer.  It may be the best American med has to offer with gov't approval in many cases, but that doesn't mean it is the best there IS to offer. 

No. That's not true. That's taking the numbers and making them say something that's not representative of the situation. Your statement leads people to believe that of all people, with all kinds of cancer, who undergo chemo, only 3 percent have any success with it. And that's just not true. You can't just lump all the cancers together like that and make a blanket statement. Different cancers, different ballgame. It's this very type of math that will lead me to doubt everything else you're saying. You can keep standing behind the math, but it's just number manipulation. It doesn't mean anything to average all the different kinds of cancers together. It's like, OK, I live in a very rainy climate where it is often necessary to lime the soil to bring it back into a desirable pH level. So if I went all over the world, all different types of soils, and limed them all, I'd kill a lot of soil and create some serious growing problems. This is because not everywhere has the same conditions and same soil to begin with. If I then averaged out all the success vs failure rates of all these different soils/grasses, I'd come up with a very low number. But that doesn't change the fact that where I live, the soil here benefits at a very high rate from being limed. And there's very little point in averaging out all the lime failure rates and holding it up as the gold standard of lime efficiency. 

[mamakay]

Do most doctors know of wormwood as an option?  Probably not.  Or if they did, are they even allowed to apply it?  Probably not.  Yet it showed 100% success rate against breast cancer and close to 100% on many other cancers.  (google Lai and Singh on scholar)

Woah, woah...

Wormwood is 100% effective against breast cancer? Can I get a link to the original research?

That is a really extraordinary claim.

Also, do you now acknowledge that your claim about wormwood being 100% effective against malaria is false? (we might need to start a wormwood spinoff thread.)