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 12

post #221 of 339
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMJ View Post


Calm, I am convinced that there is minimal risk of death from MMS, but I am not buying your claim that it causes no harm.  There is ample evidence that people have used and are using this product.  People are mixing the solution on their own in their homes, and there is no way that every person is mixing it correctly to get the intended concentration.  There also seems to be much confusion out there about how many drops to use for this or that, and people are using all sorts of concentrations of this stuff, and the fact that there is only one person whose death has been blamed on the product is encouraging.  It does seem like there is a theoretical risk of death, though, since severe vomiting and diarrhea could potentially lead to death from dehydration, especially in areas that do not have good medical care.  These deaths are also less likely to be reported, and it is also exactly where MMS is being used.  I do hope that the people distributing MMS are also giving their patients access to IV fluids to prevent dehydration in case of a poor reaction.  I consider vomiting and diarrhea to be harm.  I consider the body having to detox chemicals that were not intended to be there to be likely harmful.  It may be an acceptable risk, but it is not "no harm."

 

I am open to the idea of something that is broad-spectrum in its use.  We have antibiotics that treat ear infections, strep throat, mastitis, and many other seemingly unrelated diseases in the body.  We have various foods such as garlic, thyme, blueberries, etc, that are known to boost the immune system to give it what it needs to fight off a great number of unrelated diseases, but the difference is that these are supplying what the body needs to use its own natural processes to eradicate disease.  I don't see ClO2 supplying nutrients that the body requires to perform its natural processes.  For this reason, I dislike the product being called "Miracle Mineral Supplement," because it seems to imply that this is what it is doing while Calm, you are describing an entirely different method of action.  I think it is possible that MMS may have some benefit in treating at least some of the diseases claimed.  There seems to be the most information on its use against malaria, though I confess I do not understand much of your link by the physician who was trying to explain how it is supposed to work against malaria.  However, I think it is unlikely that it has 100% efficacy against all the diseases it is being claimed to work against.  Calm, your patient who is still HIV+ despite having used it against his fungus is evidence of this.  Even if MMS did have a positive effect on his life, it did not cure his AIDS.

 

I think that for all our sakes, it is important to speak critically about what MMS is and is not doing when it comes to both safety and efficacy.  Chemotherapy is not effective against Cancer in general, but it is reasonably effective against some cancers and may be useful in helping other patients reach their treatment goals.  My grandfather was diagnosed with lung cancer in the summer time.  The entire family made plans to come for Christmas, and then he learned that he had an estimated 8 weeks to live without chemo.  He went through one round (maybe 2 rounds, I don't remember exactly) of chemo and lived for about a year afterward.  He did not live 5 years.  The chemo did not cure him.  It would not be considered to be a success by your standards, Calm.  It did delay the inevitable long enough for both him and the family to come to terms with his death and to celebrate his life before he died.  Vaccines are reasonably effective against the diseases they are intended to prevent, but we criticize the vaccine manufacturers and the government for not giving us better information on their safety and efficacy.  People act as if there is practically no risk to injecting yourself with foreign chemicals and viral parts and act as if they are "safe" from those diseases, but some people die after vaccines, and some people still get the diseases.  I'm also concerned about the quieter effects of injecting a healthy person with foreign substances, what it does to bypass some of the protective measures of the immune system, how it changes from how the way the immune system was designed to work, and what chemicals it forces the body to detox.

 

These are similar to my concerns about ClO2.  Calm, you mentioned some concern about attacking the natural flora of the stomach because you believe that ClO2 attacks acid-loving bacteria.  What effects does it have that we don't understand?  It is an unnatural, foreign substance being introduced into the body.  Even if the body does make and use ClO2, it does not do so in the same way as what is being administered.  If it did, all that would need to be done is to assist the body in making its own to enhance the immune system, which is how I believe the body should be treated whenever possible.

 

Claiming that anything has 100% efficacy is a very dangerous claim.  All it takes is one study showing one case that it doesn't work, and your claim is blown, and people do not believe you at all.  Speaking in more objective statistics helps people accept that a few cases that it doesn't work is expected but does not mean that it is not an effective treatment in other cases.  Also, speaking objectively about to what extent it is working is also helpful.  Calm, you have mentioned seeing improvements in HIV+ individuals, but that is a very subjective claim.  You credit MMS with curing a fungus off of an HIV+ patient but that he is still HIV+.  Relieving symptoms or extending life in people who are HIV+ is a great thing, and if MMS can do this, it would be important to speak of it as such rather than calling it a "cure" for AIDS, which would imply that the patient is no longer HIV+.  The extravagant claims about MMS that it can heal so many seemingly unrelated and varied diseases without admitting what it cannot or does not always do destroys people's trust in the treatment.  Using the vaccine example, when we see with our own eyes that vaccines are not preventing the VPD's as often as the CDC says they do, we lose trust in the vaccines and the CDC.

 

Calm, I know you are excited about what you have seen that you attribute to MMS, and it is difficult to be so objective when you are sure something is true, but you do not have absolute proof, but the more objectively and critically you can explain these things, the easier it is to trust you as a source.  I know that just because a source seems biased, and Calm, you are coming across as quite biased in my opinion whether you intend to or not, does not make the claims true or false.  It is just easier to trust a source that more willingly acknowledges the limitations with one's theories.  I do give you credit for acknowledging several limitations, but I have had to read through 11 pages of posts to get that, while claims of 100% efficacy and no harm are present throughout.



great post, the bolded are parts I agree with empathically.

post #222 of 339


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marnica View Post



 


No I don't think so. I appreciate how long it can take for a new drug to be approved. But drugs that are not being accelerated for approval are not using surrogate endpoints as markers of efficacy, but rather actual clinical outcomes.

 

I found this article a very interesting approach to thinking about the potential problems of using surrogate endpoints

http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/24/1/67.full

 

 

see that's where I have an issue, because this is not being done as it should be - this is a controversial issue as most things are....

 

http://www.fdalawblog.net/fda_law_blog_hyman_phelps/2009/11/gao-issues-report-on-surrogate-endpoint-accelerated-approvals-calls-for-enhanced-oversight.html

 

http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/304/16/1773.extract

 

http://www.pharmalot.com/2011/02/should-fda-hit-the-brakes-on-accelerated-approval/

 

http://www.pharmalot.com/2011/03/fda-officials-talk-tough-about-accelerated-approval/

 

 

Anyway this is getting off topic - back our regularly scheduled program @ MMS
 

 


I'm pretty sure you're wrong about that.

 

PCV13 (aka, Prevnar 13, aka, pneumococcal conjugate vaccine 13-valent) was approved with only lab-endpoints in mind, and if ever there was a pharmaceutical product that needed CLINICAL endpoints (like ear infections from all species and invasive bacterial disease from all species) evaluated, it's that product (because of all the replacement issues between s pneumo vs s pneumo, staph vs s pneumo, etc.)

 

I found this about PCV13:

http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/BloodVaccinesandOtherBiologics/VaccinesandRelatedBiologicalProductsAdvisoryCommittee/UCM239495.pdf

 

 

Quote:

To further clarify this point, the proposed studies to evaluate post-licensure vaccine effectiveness of 13vPnC vaccine are not considered “confirmatory studies,” in a strict regulatory sense; such studies would be a condition of accelerated approval, which is not the situation for the 13vPnC infant development program.

 

 

I know for a fact that only "immunogenicity" (lab effectiveness) was evaluated on the effectiveness side for PCV13.

 

Nobody even looked to see if it was effective against vaccine serotypes in vivo (which I'm sure it is; that's not the interesting question, tho. What the scientific community needs to know is what happens after replacement disease is accounted for.)

 

 

 

post #223 of 339
Thread Starter 

Thanks JMJ.  I appreciate all you've said.  I can't do the chem right now but I can address some of the things you mentioned that stood out right away for me.  
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by JMJ View Post

What would help me (and I believe many other people here) would be to hold some sort of experiment to test the hypothesis.

 

I'm wondering how hard it would be to run some preliminary experiments.  Actually, one of the experiments I was brainstorming about was to see if it could disinfect human blood without damaging it, so the links about using a solution including ClO2 to disinfect blood was encouraging to me, but I'd like to see it with the solution sold as MMS.  What about infecting mice or rats with any of these diseases and treating them with MMS.  Test them for the disease before and after treatment.  It's commonly known that rats tend to get tumors.  How about somebody treat some rats with MMS and report back on tumor size?  What about running some objective diagnostic tests on a sample of these people who come for treatment with MMS before and after they are treated?  

I really never understood what they expected me to produce.  They knew the clinical trial showing evidence it worked on pathogens in the body did not exist yet it seemed that's what was being pushed for....I thought a discussion on what we do have would make more sense. 

 

Really, the question most I've discussed this with had (in the past) was if it could reach all areas of the body intact, and when they see the study that shows it does, they are nodding quietly at that point.  If something that can kill parasites can reach the bone marrow intact, that's exciting on its own... safe or not (chemo anyone?).  But to learn that it is safe at all levels tested so far, that's even more compelling.  There isn't much left to do at this point but an experiment to verify the potential all these things seem to suggest.  Just like you say.  However...

 

Whatever I posted here would be trashed and that is exactly what happened and all testimonies are considered either lying, implausible or some gimmick (eg, the autism work of Kerri's).  If I talked about Jim, it would just be "oh get real, he's a scammer"... so the man doing the most with this can't even be brought into it!  So I didn't, you'll notice.  I tried to avoid more controversy than this already has.

 

If I did an experiment, it would be rejected like everything else has been because of the same factor - there is no authentication.  There is no way to authenticate the experiment, testimonial, person, results of MMS use, none of it.  For example, I have posted experiments before on different things and they are not only dismissed, they are dismissed with disgust.

 

One was a mother who just said f*** it one day and started her own experiment.  She fed mice aspartame and had mice she didn't feed aspartame to and the results are compelling.  Of course, when I posted that it was rejected and I really don't see why some make it so difficult to talk about possibilities around here.  I do know that apparently people only support you in pm around here because they're gun shy.  GREAT.  Great system there is going here when an alternative site has members who are too "over it" to speak about alternatives lest it be implied they are "irresponsible parents" or something.  

 

So if I do a test with mice and I take videos and photos and do my best to make it as authentic as I can, it will never get the authentication of the gov't and that is what people want.  They strongly reject anything else. For interests sake, here is the aspartame experiment:

 

 

http://www.mpwhi.com/aspartame_study_female_rats_developed_visible_tumors.pdf

 

as a word doc: http://www.mpwhi.com/aspartame_study_female_rats_developed_visible_tumors.doc

 

I would like to do experiments, but I don't know how to cause cancer in mice and I have a moral issue with it that I'd have to overcome first.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quote:
Calm, I am convinced that there is minimal risk of death from MMS, but I am not buying your claim that it causes no harm. 

It is not my claim.  The only claim I've made is that I have treated myself with it and that I know people who have who claim it worked for them.  The rest I have gotten from the data myself, and from my friends who went to Africa - again, not my claims.  The fact that it causes no harm is verifiable in the human studies up to 24mg, and in the chemistry - both of how oxidation with low potential works, and in the patent info with blood cells - and also the fact that after millions of doses, no one HAS been harmed.  That says more to me than any study.  For example, studies show vaccines are safe.  Yet people die from vaccination.  That is not the definition of safe to me.  So if a study comes out and says MMS is safe, do we trust that?  I don't trust that as much as I trust hospital data and death records. THAT is the data I trust.  Regarding the subjective nature of the word "harm" I understand your point.  You see nausea and diarrhea as harm.  That is anecdotal evidence though.  You don't believe the people when they say they are getting well but you do believe them when they say they got ill.  That is a flaming double standard if ever I heard one.  But since it is a common one on this thread, to cherry pick when they believe data, I'll indulge it a moment.  If you see that as harm, and believe the anecdotal evidence they are experiencing that effect, then ok... shall I say "it causes no harm except nausea and diarrhea if your dose is too high"?  Because that is the truth as I know it to be.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quote:
There is ample evidence that people have used and are using this product.

What evidence are you referring to?  

 

 

 

Quote:
I don't see ClO2 supplying nutrients that the body requires to perform its natural processes.

It doesn't supply nutrients.  It supplies oxygen.  The body uses oxygen in this oxidative way.  The oxidative potential is why it cannot harm body cells, and why the evidence supports that, and why it is considered for use on body tissue in the antibacterial rinses.

 

 

 

Quote:
  For this reason, I dislike the product being called "Miracle Mineral Supplement," because it seems to imply that this is what it is doing while Calm, you are describing an entirely different method of action. 

Jim Humble is a frustrating old man, I'm led to believe by friends who have worked with him.  One of them can no longer work with him because of his dismissal of the proper scientific method and general anger at FDA.  He came up with that name, and it has been a bone of contention ever since.  He has changed it since to Master Mineral Solution to rectify both the miracle and supplement issues.  Sodium chlorite

 

 

 

Quote:
 I think it is possible that MMS may have some benefit in treating at least some of the diseases claimed.

Why do you think this?

 

 

 

Quote:
However, I think it is unlikely that it has 100% efficacy against all the diseases it is being claimed to work against.

I saw the misunderstanding in the recent posts.  Just because something shows 100% efficacy in one test, does not mean it always will.  Likewise, just because a study shows poor efficacy, doesn't make it so.  There are different, almost endless, variables in experiments.  For instance, when Jim started with MMS against malaria, he had a 100% success rate.  His second group did not, and he learned from that.  He learned that 15 drops followed by 15 drops one hour later removed all the malaria from the blood of 98% of people.  That 2% who were still sick, or who still showed malaria in the blood symptomatic or not, seemed to need significantly more doses.  He found in 2010 that it was 98% effective against cancer, and he had some explanation for the 2% but I don't remember it.  HIV is a complex one... in only some do they sero-convert to HIV negative.  Considering the tests in Africa are for antibodies, that is almost impossible.  For instance, I do not have chicken pox, but I will always be chickenpox positive in a test... because it tests for antibodies.  So he didn't say it cured HIV, unless it did.  He simply said it took away the symptoms of AIDS.  What that means is, when someone was sick and dying, or suffering some AIDS affliction, after MMS, they were well.  Some became very healthy actually.  But he stopped testing for HIV status when he realised that was futile... the antibodies are mostly always going to be there.  What mattered to the people was how they felt.  

 

HIV and AIDS are not the same thing.  HIV is a virus.  AIDS is a collection of diseases the person suffers because their immune system is infected with HIV.  Eg, TB, PCP, Karposi's sarcoma, candidiasis, etc.  If someone with HIV gets candidiasis, it can kill them... but they don't die of "AIDS" and they don't die of "HIV", they die of candidiasis.  It is the disease that MMS is purported to treat, as for the virus... I don't know enough about those results to comment.

 

 

 

Quote:
  Calm, your patient who is still HIV+ despite having used it against his fungus is evidence of this.  Even if MMS did have a positive effect on his life, it did not cure his AIDS.

It takes 2 to 3 months of treatment to do that apparently.  My friend used it for several days.  I was not using his experience as a testimony for HIV.

 

 

Quote:

 

Chemotherapy is not effective against Cancer in general, but it is reasonably effective against some cancers and may be useful in helping other patients reach their treatment goals.  My grandfather was diagnosed with lung cancer in the summer time.  The entire family made plans to come for Christmas, and then he learned that he had an estimated 8 weeks to live without chemo.  He went through one round (maybe 2 rounds, I don't remember exactly) of chemo and lived for about a year afterward.  He did not live 5 years.  The chemo did not cure him.  It would not be considered to be a success by your standards, Calm.  It did delay the inevitable long enough for both him and the family to come to terms with his death and to celebrate his life before he died.

I'm sorry to hear about your grandfather.  I do understand what you are saying.  I do not make the "standards" though.  Cancer survival is measured in terms of five years.  I didn't come up with that, it is the industry standard.  My father died of cancer, and my FIL is currently fighting it with radiation therapy.  Chemo made my father very sick very quickly and the worst part was the inflammation of the brain which meant that my father didn't recognise me.  They stopped the chemo and gave him some drugs for the inflammation and at least he wasn't talking mumbo jumbo anymore, and he started to eat again, and laugh again.  But he was too sick and thin from the chemo and the hospital told us then that it was a risk with him because he was not equipped for the onslaught.  So in our case, chemo took time from us.  I don't hold it against chemo though.  We do the best with what we have, where we are.

 

 

 

 

Quote:
  Vaccines are reasonably effective against the diseases they are intended to prevent, but we criticize the vaccine manufacturers and the government for not giving us better information on their safety and efficacy.  People act as if there is practically no risk to injecting yourself with foreign chemicals and viral parts and act as if they are "safe" from those diseases, but some people die after vaccines, and some people still get the diseases.  I'm also concerned about the quieter effects of injecting a healthy person with foreign substances, what it does to bypass some of the protective measures of the immune system, how it changes from how the way the immune system was designed to work, and what chemicals it forces the body to detox.

Yes.

 

 

Quote:
These are similar to my concerns about ClO2. 

And fair enough.  They should be.  Wholesale acceptance without knowing for sure is just as blind as wholesale rejection without knowing for sure.

 

 

 

Quote:
 Calm, you mentioned some concern about attacking the natural flora of the stomach because you believe that ClO2 attacks acid-loving bacteria.  What effects does it have that we don't understand?

This is a particular risk that each person has to come to terms with on their own.  As we only have the limited data, usually it is word of mouth that has moved this from person to person.  A person tells another they used "this stuff called MMS" and it "was great" and they have a small discussion and the person tries it.  That's all the safety and efficacy evidence they need.  The finer point are things I am interested in, and things I will continue to research and learn.

 

 

 

 

Quote:
  It is an unnatural, foreign substance being introduced into the body.  Even if the body does make and use ClO2, it does not do so in the same way as what is being administered.  If it did, all that would need to be done is to assist the body in making its own to enhance the immune system, which is how I believe the body should be treated whenever possible.

I agree.  But my husband smokes, and does a few things that result in him at risk of bugs.  So when he comes down with something, he takes MMS.  In fact, he is some kind of horse because he has chugged down 30 drops of the stuff.  I fluff around him with my herbs and with fruit and whatnot, but the fact is, with some people, nature has an uphill battle so when he augments his body's oxidation, it works for him, and makes sense for him.  I augment my immune system in a less crisis kind of way... raw food, herbs, water, sunshine, yoga, etc.  I have not had any use for MMS since my girly bits got well.  I have a cyst in my spleen and I have an ultrasound scheduled.  I intend on getting a good "before" shot of it, dated as closely to my "after" shot as I can get it.  It is a tapeworm (it is a hydatid cyst, ie, full of tapeworm lavae, YUK!), so it will take me up to a month of treatment.  The doctor gave me the all-clear to try MMS, because he cannot offer any alternative for me aside from surgery which risks me losing my whole spleen.  I asked him about a particular parasite drug I had researched and discovered it had worked against splenic cysts but he said it put more strain on the liver than it was worth.

 

 

 

Quote:
Claiming that anything has 100% efficacy is a very dangerous claim.  All it takes is one study showing one case that it doesn't work, and your claim is blown, and people do not believe you at all.

I hope my previous note explains this.  If one person tries something and it works, that is 100% efficacy.  The whole thing depends on the individual study or experience.  In several articles they refer to the vietnam study of arteminisin where 100% efficacy was demonstrated compellingly (large study group).  I can't find the stupid thing, even though I had it myself in my links.  That doesn't mean it will always work.  It simply means in that study, it did.  Same with the breast cancer one I mentioned.  These are not my claims, I link those who made the claims, and their references can be checked. 

 

 

 

Quote:
  Speaking in more objective statistics helps people accept that a few cases that it doesn't work is expected but does not mean that it is not an effective treatment in other cases.  Also, speaking objectively about to what extent it is working is also helpful.  Calm, you have mentioned seeing improvements in HIV+ individuals, but that is a very subjective claim.  You credit MMS with curing a fungus off of an HIV+ patient but that he is still HIV+.  Relieving symptoms or extending life in people who are HIV+ is a great thing, and if MMS can do this, it would be important to speak of it as such rather than calling it a "cure" for AIDS, which would imply that the patient is no longer HIV+.

I have not said it cures anything.  Everyone else started saying I said that, but I didn't.  Where ever I used the word "cure" it was in reference to something someone else had said, or in reference to a study (eg, I said wormwood showed a 100% cure against malaria).  I even just did a search of my posts on this thread with the word "cure".  It is used extensively in other people's posts, but I did not claim "cure".  The thing you are overlooking is the same as others, because yes, it is subjective and it not at all verifiable (testimony, that is).  But, what if your grandfather used MMS and got well?  There is only so much you can put down to "well, they probably think they got well, but the mind is a powerful thing" I mean seriously?  

 

We should all stop underestimating our own power, and our own knowledge about our bodies.  Modern medicine amongst other things has been chipping away at our belief in our bodies for a very long time, esp women.  We are told we are "hysterical", and that we can't birth without machines, and we can't work out something as simple as knowing what the hell has made us well!  I don't buy for a second that mental deficit is all that prevalent.  In some poor sods, perhaps, but it would be rare.  For most of us, we know what we're doing... and even with taking MMS, people have been managing.  With no assistance, they manage to not kill themselves with "bleach".  Amazing!  Really, we should all wear helmets just to get out of bed according to how some view our collective selves.  

 

A few reports of stupidity on TV does not a nation of idiots make.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quote:
  The extravagant claims about MMS that it can heal so many seemingly unrelated and varied diseases without admitting what it cannot or does not always do destroys people's trust in the treatment.  Using the vaccine example, when we see with our own eyes that vaccines are not preventing the VPD's as often as the CDC says they do, we lose trust in the vaccines and the CDC.

Yes.  And the claim I am making is that it has not killed anyone... I make that claim because it is verifiable.  If it had, you can bet it would be plastered everywhere including the wiki page and the FDA warning page.  They'd LOVE that.  They know people will not think, "well, one death after all those uses, that's pretty damned good, esp compared to the millions of deaths from drugs."  No.  People would say, "someone DIED!!!???  GASP SHOCK HORROR... poison poison!!  Alert alert!  AUGGHHHHH!"  If only people reacted like that to Every.  Single.  Death  from a drug, hey?  They might have to become much more careful what they call "safe".  But alas, I can claim no one has been killed, because no one has been killed.  I can claim there is no evidence of harm, because there is no evidence of harm.  We can speculate, but the fact is, many uses, no harm, no deaths.  That stands alone as solid safety data for me and many others.  Why wouldn't it?

 

 

 

 

Quote:
Calm, I know you are excited about what you have seen that you attribute to MMS, and it is difficult to be so objective when you are sure something is true, but you do not have absolute proof, but the more objectively and critically you can explain these things, the easier it is to trust you as a source.  I know that just because a source seems biased, and Calm, you are coming across as quite biased in my opinion whether you intend to or not, does not make the claims true or false.  It is just easier to trust a source that more willingly acknowledges the limitations with one's theories.  I do give you credit for acknowledging several limitations, but I have had to read through 11 pages of posts to get that, while claims of 100% efficacy and no harm are present throughout.

Since the media used the word "bleach", MMS has had a horrendous fight on its hands.  That turned it from an unknown chemical to something people thought they recognised, or thought they knew something about.  Before, it was like saying "fluorine dioxide has been working for people who ingest it against their symptoms, regardless of the label given those symptoms."  And people wouldn't have any reference point for it, no idea where to attack it from, so they had no choice but to learn about it, starting from the testimonials and working back to chemistry.  Now, people still don't know the chemical ClO2, but they have this word, "bleach", and it gives them a scary picture in their head, and a point of reference and attack.  Yet, they don't realise it is a pointless reference, it means nothing.  Sulphur dioxide is also a bleach.  Lemons are.  And this point is just not getting through.  If they had no point of reference, no way to say "industrial bleach", how could they attack it?  If I said manganese dioxide does the same thing, would that make people feel better?  It would just be a molecule of manganese instead of chlorine.  But it isn't a bleach... so what would people say then?  See what I'm saying... getting caught up in the word "bleach" has brought anger and misunderstanding to this and it is unwarranted if they just understood the chemistry.  Only now, after pages of explanation, can some even bring themselves to imagine it as a possibility, or not as wildly unsafe as chlorox, as originally assumed.


I still don't claim cure.  I don't claim 100% is what to expect, but rather, what has occurred in some situations according to a trusted source.  

 

I just want people to know it is there.  I trust they'll figure out if it is for them or not.  If it is too freaky weird then that's ok!  no big deal.  But what I object to is the carry on that this is insulting or something.  NO ONE IS BEING HARMED so it's kind of ... strange, to react in such a fashion.  

post #224 of 339
Thread Starter 

I gotta go, I'm sorry, not ignoring other posts.  Nice people get in first orngtongue.gif.    tomato.gif  

 

I just quickly wanted to mention that if this has off topic stuff in it  I DON'T CARE!!   I hate it when people get all fussy about their threads.  If you want to compare nail polish colours, go right ahead.  As I see it, organic discussions don't stay rigidly on a topic, they ebb and flow and move about and that's the best way for them to be.  If the FDA and studies have come up then obviously that is topical or it wouldn't have come up.  Please don't apologise for such things or try to keep away from a topic.  Whatever is here is meant to be here.

post #225 of 339

Im not sure what you are saying Im wrong about? Perhaps that only drugs/products that are approved during an accelerated process use surrogate endpoints? That's what I have gathered but you are pointing to a vaccine that was NOT an accelerated approval and clinical endpoints were still not used. That is even worse!

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mamakay View Post


 


I'm pretty sure you're wrong about that.

 

PCV13 (aka, Prevnar 13, aka, pneumococcal conjugate vaccine 13-valent) was approved with only lab-endpoints in mind, and if ever there was a pharmaceutical product that needed CLINICAL endpoints (like ear infections from all species and invasive bacterial disease from all species) evaluated, it's that product (because of all the replacement issues between s pneumo vs s pneumo, staph vs s pneumo, etc.)

 

I found this about PCV13:

http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/BloodVaccinesandOtherBiologics/VaccinesandRelatedBiologicalProductsAdvisoryCommittee/UCM239495.pdf

 

 

 

I know for a fact that only "immunogenicity" (lab effectiveness) was evaluated on the effectiveness side for PCV13.

 

Nobody even looked to see if it was effective against vaccine serotypes in vivo (which I'm sure it is; that's not the interesting question, tho. What the scientific community needs to know is what happens after replacement disease is accounted for.)

 

 

 



 

post #226 of 339

You've got time to write that huge screed, but can't balance a chem equation for me?

 

Your claim is that ClO2--->NaClO2---->NaCl +O2

 

Can you please balance this for me?

post #227 of 339
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calm View Post

I just quickly wanted to mention that if this has off topic stuff in it  I DON'T CARE!!   I hate it when people get all fussy about their threads.  If you want to compare nail polish colours, go right ahead.  As I see it, organic discussions don't stay rigidly on a topic, they ebb and flow and move about and that's the best way for them to be.  If the FDA and studies have come up then obviously that is topical or it wouldn't have come up.  Please don't apologise for such things or try to keep away from a topic.  Whatever is here is meant to be here.

Haha, I LOVE this! So funny, and so true!

 

 

I just wanted to chime in again with words of encouragement. I am glad you brought up the topic of MMS, and I'm not afraid to say it here on this supposedly alternative forum.

Thanks!
 

 

post #228 of 339
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marnica View Post

Im not sure what you are saying Im wrong about? Perhaps that only drugs/products that are approved during an accelerated process use surrogate endpoints? That's what I have gathered but you are pointing to a vaccine that was NOT an accelerated approval and clinical endpoints were still not used. That is even worse!

 



 

 

Well, yeah, that is even worse. I was just saying that WK is right about the accelerated approval process not being "fundamentally" different from the regular approval process. Surrogate endpoints are used for approvals that aren't accelerated, too.

 


 

 

post #229 of 339

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calm View Post

 

I really never understood what they expected me to produce.  They knew the clinical trial showing evidence it worked on pathogens in the body did not exist yet it seemed that's what was being pushed for....I thought a discussion on what we do have would make more sense. 

 

Really, the question most I've discussed this with had (in the past) was if it could reach all areas of the body intact, and when they see the study that shows it does, they are nodding quietly at that point.  If something that can kill parasites can reach the bone marrow intact, that's exciting on its own... safe or not (chemo anyone?).  But to learn that it is safe at all levels tested so far, that's even more compelling.  There isn't much left to do at this point but an experiment to verify the potential all these things seem to suggest.

 

I am interested in seeing what evidence you have on this.  Any time we can talk about what methods were used in a particular experiment, it is helpful for giving credibility to your results.  How did whoever did this study come to this conclusion?  I assume they took bone marrow samples from people who took MMS.  How many people?  How many tested positive?  How was the test performed and evaluated?  What dose was used?  How long after administration of the dose was it detected in the bone marrow?  If it managed to reach the bone marrow in one out of 1000 people or 999 out of 1000 people in a study, that makes a difference in how we would recommend it to people with diseases that have reached their bone marrow.  Both qualify under your statement that it "can reach the bone marrow intact."  If you do a study on 10 people or a study on 10,000 people, that makes a difference in the relavence of the study.  Both mean something, even one case study means something, but we get a much better picture of the statistics in a larger study.  Can a dose that is safe to consume make it to the entire body in concentrations that are effective?

 

 

Quote:

Whatever I posted here would be trashed and that is exactly what happened and all testimonies are considered either lying, implausible or some gimmick (eg, the autism work of Kerri's).  If I talked about Jim, it would just be "oh get real, he's a scammer"... so the man doing the most with this can't even be brought into it!  So I didn't, you'll notice.  I tried to avoid more controversy than this already has.

 

If I did an experiment, it would be rejected like everything else has been because of the same factor - there is no authentication.  There is no way to authenticate the experiment, testimonial, person, results of MMS use, none of it.  For example, I have posted experiments before on different things and they are not only dismissed, they are dismissed with disgust.

 

Whatever study you posted here, I (and I'm sure other posters) would likely point out some of the limitations in your study, just as they are pointing out the limitations in many of the links you are posting.  It's hard for a study to prove anything (proof is a very difficult thing to get in science), but a study can support or refute a hypothesis.  If you are careful about how you describe it and honest about the limitations before others point them out, it is easier to trust the source.  When you make claims that it may be an effective treatment when taken internally as the MMS solution in treating a wide variety of things, we want to see studies that show this.  In my opinion, you have presented information that has supported parts of this idea, but we're not quite there yet.  You have given us evidence that ClO2 can be used to reliably disinfect surfaces, air, and water, and that the air and water can be safely breathed and drunk after treatment with ClO2.  You say that there are studies that show that it can get to the bone marrow intact, so that is another piece of the puzzle.  It would also be nice to see some chemical equations of how you believe the chemical reactions take place and what byproducts are made.  You have made some allusions to them, but it would be helpful to have it drawn out for us.

 

I think you have about enough information here that we could formulate a hypothesis to be tested.  I have some concerns about using human test subjects at this point, though I wouldn't try to keep informed people from making their own decisions on being test subjects, and if I had been sent home to die, I might volunteer.  I'm just still concerned that some other testing is not happening first before all these human experiments are being carried out in third world countries and on children.  I know, sometimes it is worse to withhold a treatment that might work even if it hasn't undergone enough testing yet.  That is why some drugs are rushed through by the FDA, but sometimes the results are disastrous.

 

Certainly, any experiment done would have some limitations, but that is science.  You run some tests, report back, recognize your limitations, and run a better experiment next time.  Criticism of your experiment and results is not a reflection of your worth.  It can be a valuable jumping off point to put together a better experiment.  I would personally be more in favor of running these experiments on animals first since it's easier to get a more controlled experiement, and there are fewer ethical problems.  If you are randomly assigning rats treatments, that's one thing.  It's completely another to randomly assign humans to treatments that may or may not work and have not had reliable animal experiments, which it sounds as if MMS has not.

 

 

Quote:

One was a mother who just said f*** it one day and started her own experiment.  She fed mice aspartame and had mice she didn't feed aspartame to and the results are compelling.  Of course, when I posted that it was rejected and I really don't see why some make it so difficult to talk about possibilities around here.  I do know that apparently people only support you in pm around here because they're gun shy.  GREAT.  Great system there is going here when an alternative site has members who are too "over it" to speak about alternatives lest it be implied they are "irresponsible parents" or something.  

 

So if I do a test with mice and I take videos and photos and do my best to make it as authentic as I can, it will never get the authentication of the gov't and that is what people want.  They strongly reject anything else. For interests sake, here is the aspartame experiment:

 

 

http://www.mpwhi.com/aspartame_study_female_rats_developed_visible_tumors.pdf

 

as a word doc: http://www.mpwhi.com/aspartame_study_female_rats_developed_visible_tumors.doc

 

I would like to do experiments, but I don't know how to cause cancer in mice and I have a moral issue with it that I'd have to overcome first.

 

That is quite an interesting study, exactly the sort of thing I am talking about.  I appreciate how that woman was quite honest about her methods and humble about her findings.  I think that her results are compelling, and I would love to see another experiment done with a larger sample size and smaller amounts, closer to the amount that might be consumed by a regular diet soda drinker.  13-14 cans/day is possible, but consuming that much daily for a matter of years seems pretty excessive.  I bet she could get significant results even with an amount closer to what most diet soda drinkers are consuming.  It also helps me that I have seen references to other experiments that have shown problems with aspartame.

 

I find it funny that you say you don't know how to cause cancer in rats in your next sentence after you link to a study that showed an effective method of causing cancer in rats.  If you have ethical concerns about causing cancer in rats, I think you could still run an experiment that involved waiting for the rats to get cancer on their own.  It may not be as efficient, but rats get cancer a lot.  You could theoretically just get a bunch of rats and wait until a lot of them develop tumors before you start your experiment.

 

Quote:
Regarding the subjective nature of the word "harm" I understand your point.  You see nausea and diarrhea as harm.  That is anecdotal evidence though.  You don't believe the people when they say they are getting well but you do believe them when they say they got ill.  That is a flaming double standard if ever I heard one.  But since it is a common one on this thread, to cherry pick when they believe data, I'll indulge it a moment.  If you see that as harm, and believe the anecdotal evidence they are experiencing that effect, then ok... shall I say "it causes no harm except nausea and diarrhea if your dose is too high"?  Because that is the truth as I know it to be. 

 

You make a fair point about anecdotal evidence of harm.  It's just that vomiting and diarrhea are more objective standards than "feeling better."  I'm not discounting the anecdotal evidence whatsoever.  I'm sure that the people who experience a decrease in symptoms of disease are experiencing just that.  I'm asking for more objective evidence than a subjective feeling.  What symptoms are being decreased in what diseases?  What percentage of cases experience improvements?  I'll ask those same questions about vomiting and diarrhea.  What percentage of cases experience vomiting and/or diarrhea?  Maybe it's just that I haven't watched the videos you posted, but I have seen very little explanation of before and after symptoms except with vomiting and diarrhea, which there seems to be consensus on both sides that it is the experience of many (though you seem to be saying only with too high of a dose) that before they take it, they are not vomiting and do not have diarrhea, and after they take it, they are vomiting and/or have diarrhea.

 

Besides vomiting and diarrhea, I am still concerned about the fact that it is something being put into the body in places that it would not naturally be, and I am concerned about the collateral damage to tissues, and I am concerned that it may leave the body with byproducts of either the products of reaction or the pathogens that are being killed.  Another analogy: we think of nystatin as a rather safe drug, but it often makes candida symptoms worse before they get better.  The yeasts release their mercury, leaving free mercury in the body, and the body reacts poorly to it as well as other toxins that the yeasts give off as they die.  The mercury released then needs to be detoxed by the body.  Worth it?  In many cases.  Harmful?  Yes, especially if the patient is a woman who is pregnant or breastfeeding and detoxes the mercury into her baby.  I have very little evidence of harm from MMS, but it is what I don't know that scares me.  More research would help us all to form a better understanding of both the benefits and the risks.

 

Quote:
Quote:
There is ample evidence that people have used and are using this product.

What evidence are you referring to?

 

Granted, it is mostly internet sources, but the fact that there are several vendors selling this and other similar products implies that there is a market for it.  Then, there are numerous sites out there where people who appear to be distinct individuals are writing comments and testimonials about this product.  I suppose it could be the same few people making Many of them seem to be confused as to how they are supposed to use it, in what concentration, etc, and people seem to be doing all sorts of things with it that are not what is recommended by Jim Humble or anyone else.  This seems quite dangerous and unwise to me, so the fact that it has had so much uncontrolled use in humans, and there has been only one claim of death that was thrown out by a court, is really encouraging to me.  You would think that if it is as dangerous as the FDA thinks that there would be at least a handful of deaths.  It does sound like there have been some hospitalizations because of dehydration, which isn't terribly dangerous in a country with easy access to medical care, but I have some conerns about using it without easy access to IV fluids.  If we had more research on doses and safety, it sounds promising that doses to minimize side effects could be established.  The question is, is ClO2 effective at that dose?

 

Quote:
Jim Humble is a frustrating old man, I'm led to believe by friends who have worked with him.  One of them can no longer work with him because of his dismissal of the proper scientific method and general anger at FDA.  He came up with that name, and it has been a bone of contention ever since.  He has changed it since to Master Mineral Solution to rectify both the miracle and supplement issues.  Sodium chlorite

 

Well, it sounds to be mutual.  The FDA does not think to highly of the FDA, either.  It is hard for the FDA and many of us to take him seriously if he is not willing to go through the proper scientific method to give us more information.  Without scientific experimentation or traditional use throughout thousands of years of history, it's really hard to convince those who are scientifically minded that something is going to work.

 

Quote:
Quote:
 I think it is possible that MMS may have some benefit in treating at least some of the diseases claimed.

Why do you think this?

 

For the same reasons you do, though with less personal experience.  When thousands of people believe that they have been helped by a particular product, it's unlikely that all of them are wrong.  I know that there it could be a placebo effect.  This is more likely when we are talking about how people feel rather than more objective standards such as test results, size or tumor, etc.  The fact that most of the testimonials that I have read talk about people feeling better or make claims that they are "better" or "cured" without much explanation about what they mean by that does give me reason to doubt.  There are also numerous other theoretical explanations, but when a whole lot of people claim that they believe they benefited from a certain treatment, it is doubtful that all of them are wrong.

 

But I'm just another one of those crazy women who encapsulated her placenta.  I did go through the reasoning process that has been discussed here.  I had suffered from depression in the past.  My mother suffered from depression as well as postpartum depression.  I was concerned about handling the transition to motherhood, quitting my job, being responsible for this new life.  I read anecdotes.  I acknowledged the lack of scientific evidence but the fact that there is perhaps the potential to help.  I figured that the only risks were food poisoning and financial.  I followed proper food handling techniques.  I paid less than $5 for the whole thing (plus my time encapsulating by hand).  I feel like it helped.  I cannot say for sure that taking my placenta helped, but I believe it did.  I made it through the early weeks postpartum with a peace that I have experienced few times in my life.  My stress level rose when my inlaws came for a visit, and I increased my dose, and then the rest of their visit was easier for me.  My stress level rose slightly as I decreased my dose and finished the capsules, but it was managable.  I never had postpartum depression.  Coincidence?  Maybe.

 

Same with MMS.  I just think that more details about the situations would be helpful rather than judgements on the situations.  Just as you can look at my situation and make your own judgement about how credible of a case study it is, it would be nice to look at the MMS cases with more detail than we're getting on the internet to decide for ourselves if they are credible.  If I just said "eating my placenta prevented and cured postpartum depression," I set myself up for a lot of criticism by people who say, "well, how do you know that?"  If I give the detailed facts instead of the judgement, I become a small piece of the puzzle.  Calm, even if you are not making these claims, other people are.  They leave comments on internet sites with judgements instead of facts.  People trying to make a decision on treatments want facts, not someone else's spin on the facts.

 

Quote:

I saw the misunderstanding in the recent posts.  Just because something shows 100% efficacy in one test, does not mean it always will.  Likewise, just because a study shows poor efficacy, doesn't make it so.  There are different, almost endless, variables in experiments.  For instance, when Jim started with MMS against malaria, he had a 100% success rate.  His second group did not, and he learned from that.  He learned that 15 drops followed by 15 drops one hour later removed all the malaria from the blood of 98% of people.  That 2% who were still sick, or who still showed malaria in the blood symptomatic or not, seemed to need significantly more doses.  He found in 2010 that it was 98% effective against cancer, and he had some explanation for the 2% but I don't remember it.  HIV is a complex one... in only some do they sero-convert to HIV negative.  Considering the tests in Africa are for antibodies, that is almost impossible.  For instance, I do not have chicken pox, but I will always be chickenpox positive in a test... because it tests for antibodies.  So he didn't say it cured HIV, unless it did.  He simply said it took away the symptoms of AIDS.  What that means is, when someone was sick and dying, or suffering some AIDS affliction, after MMS, they were well.  Some became very healthy actually.  But he stopped testing for HIV status when he realised that was futile... the antibodies are mostly always going to be there.  What mattered to the people was how they felt.  

 

HIV and AIDS are not the same thing.  HIV is a virus.  AIDS is a collection of diseases the person suffers because their immune system is infected with HIV.  Eg, TB, PCP, Karposi's sarcoma, candidiasis, etc.  If someone with HIV gets candidiasis, it can kill them... but they don't die of "AIDS" and they don't die of "HIV", they die of candidiasis.  It is the disease that MMS is purported to treat, as for the virus... I don't know enough about those results to comment.

 

Most of us take 100% success rate to mean that there has never been a study showing any cases that are not a success.  I have seen reputable sources cite a study (on natural family planning) with a method failure of 0%.  However, they noted that due to the fact that other studies showed similarly high success rates but were not 100%, the authors very carefully followed up their comments about this study by citing other studies and concluded that the method was over 99% effective  When you say that something has been shown to have 100% efficacy, that seems to imply that it is so in every study ever conducted, (taking an example from the original thread, like sufficient vitamin C has been shown to have 100% efficacy in preventing scurvy) not that one study has presented those results.  If it is one study saying that, say so, and preferrably link to the study so that we can examine it critically.  If a study with 10 people in it shows 100% efficacy, it's nothing to scoff at, but it's not enough to tell the world that 100% of people will be cured by it either.

 

I would love to see some write-up of the Jim Humble studies that you are citing.  I have my concerns if you say that he is not big into the scientific method, but I think a lot of us would love to see them for what they are.  I acknowledge freely that just because a study has severe limitations does not make its conclusions false.  That is a logic fallacy, but it is the difference between having evidence and not having evidence.  If you want people to listen to you, the higher quality evidence that you can obtain, the easier it is for us to take you and the product seriously.

 

I understand the difficulties with diagnosing a cure to HIV when you are only testing for antibodies, but we have better ways of testing in this country.  It sounds like there are people in this country who are HIV+ and want to take MMS to treat it.  Why not get some lab work done on them before and after they take MMS?  Yes, taking away symptoms or curing the secondary diseases caused by AIDS would be huge, wonderful, but I think it is important to make that distinction, especially when talking about AIDS.  If a person is still HIV+ but is experiencing no symptoms, they can still pass the disease on to others.  It could be dangerous to make somebody believe that they are "cured" if they are still able to pass on the disease.  Until they have more evidence, they need to be informed that they need to be careful about their bodily fluids.

 

Quote:

And the claim I am making is that it has not killed anyone... I make that claim because it is verifiable.

 

See, I like this claim much better than the next one:

Quote:
I can claim there is no evidence of harm, because there is no evidence of harm.

because your definition of "harm" is different than mine, and by my definition of "harm," there is evidence of harm.

 

 

I just want people to know it is there.  I trust they'll figure out if it is for them or not.

.
I have no problem with this.  I just want people to get better data.  When we have one person telling us one thing and another person telling us another, we need evidence.  This is why the scientific method was developed, to test a hypothesis.  I would just like to see more of the gaps filled in.

post #230 of 339
Thread Starter 

 

http://bioredox.mysite.com/CLOXhtml/CLOXilus.htm

 

That has chemistry diagrams.  It might help.  

post #231 of 339
Thread Starter 

Cross post, that was for WK, for the chemistry.  

 

btw if it doesn't help, let me know.  I'm in a rush today...

post #232 of 339
Quote:
Originally Posted by WildKingdom View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by ElizabethE View Post

disappointed.gif



???? What is that supposed to mean?

Alarm! Alarm! Alarm!  hopmad.gifwild.gif

 

Oh, wait. What now?
 

 

post #233 of 339
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElizabethE View Post



Alarm! Alarm! Alarm!  hopmad.gifwild.gif

 

Oh, wait. What now?
 

 


I still don't get it.
post #234 of 339
Quote:
Originally Posted by D_McG View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by ElizabethE View Post



Alarm! Alarm! Alarm!  hopmad.gifwild.gif

 

Oh, wait. What now?
 

 




I still don't get it.


Me neither.  I have no idea what she's talking about.  I guess I'm not fluent in smiley.

 

post #235 of 339


Will you please respond to this, Calm?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ccohenou View Post



Sure, I'm aware of several ways that leukocytes can deploy oxidants selectively against pathogens and virally infected cells. Like for one example: Neutrophils will phagocytose pathogenic bacteria, phagosome fuses with lysosome, respiratory burst produces reactive oxygen species and the pathogen is killed. But neutrophils have to recognize a good target, and they do this through lots of complex pathways that depend on host cells having receptors that are specific for molecular structures that are unique to pathogens and not expressed by normal host cells. They don't just spray reactive oxygen species indiscriminately around the body - or if they do, you have problems with oxidative damage. 

 

 

So yes, I do know something of how the immune system uses oxidizing agents to kill pathogens - and I know that it is massively complex and depends on the interaction of multiple cell types and receptor proteins and signaling molecules. Not nearly so simple as dumping disinfectant in a bucket. The immune system does not depend on reactive oxygen species figuring out where to go on their own, because they can't do that. And, they absolutely do cause significant collateral damage. 

 

So, what I'm asking is, by what mechanism or mechanisms does ClO2, taken orally, recognize a good target?  

 

 

 

 

It's really trivial to kill or inactivate most pathogens and cancer cells in a petri dish. You can do it in a hundred ways, because the disinfectant does not need to be specific - it just needs to lyse or denature everything in its path. When the viruses are among and inside your cells, though, just killing everything in the bucket will not work. So the same mechanisms that work to disinfect water and air are not applicable in the body. You need activity that is specific to the pathogen or infected cell.

 

It makes no sense to say that ClO2 "is isotonic." This term refers to the concentration of a solution, not to the identity of the solute. And it doesn't say anything about the specific biological activity of a solute. Sodium chloride and sodium cyanide could both be in an isotonic solution, but the effects on your body will be radically different. If you're saying the concentration is so low that there is basically no activity in vivo (a good thing for a water disinfectant and a bad thing for a drug),  how does it do anything at all?

 

It makes no sense to say that ClO2 doesn't have the redox potential to oxidize cellular targets. "The body" does not have one single redox potential. Some critical enzymes require metals to be held in reduced form, like hemoglobin. I can believe that in low concentration, ClO2 doesn't reach Hgb because it doesn't breach the cell membrane - but if it's not breaching cell membranes, how is it killing pathogens or infected or transformed cells? 

 

 



 

post #236 of 339
Thread Starter 

I will.  smile.gif  I'm just taking a bit of a break.  Some of these posts have taken literally hours to write, as you can imagine.  DH is a bit shirty and fair enough so I'll be back into the fray when I can.  Some of the answers can be found in the link I posted above: http://bioredox.mysite.com/CLOXhtml/CLOXilus.htm

 

The doctor who wrote it has worked with oxidative therapies for a long time and his biography can be read here.  People on MDC will especially appreciate what he has been doing, and how he has been influenced.  

 

 

Any answers not found on the malaria specific page might be found in looking through his other work on redox and oxidation, here.

 

Chlorine oxides specifically, here.

 

WF10 (Tetrachlorodecaoxide) is an active oxygen in a chlorite matrix with chlorine dioxide... an oxidiser used for a huge array of diseases - yes, disparate diseases, like a "panacea" you could say... primarily HIV, however cancer, autoimmune, hepatitis and many others are responding to it.  It is being ingested, and many studies can be found on it.  I found some on the same site, here, but also many studies.  

 

Perhaps all that could be gone through thoroughly and any questions remaining from that, ask them again.  I think that will save us all time, as others before me have done a much better job of explaining all this.  Thanks.  smile.gif

post #237 of 339

 

Quote:

Any answers not found on the malaria specific page might be found in looking through his other work on redox and oxidation, here.

 

 

Might be found? You want us to go dig around through a giant website looking for answers that might or might not be found in there?

post #238 of 339
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamakay View Post

 

 

Might be found? You want us to go dig around through a giant website looking for answers that might or might not be found in there?


 

Calm, I have to admit I'm beginning to think you don't really understand what you're talking or the links you're throwing up.

post #239 of 339
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamakay View Post

 

 

Might be found? You want us to go dig around through a giant website looking for answers that might or might not be found in there?



I want you to dig around a large website because you're interested in learning how it works.  Because this thread has shown me that if I answer one question, another one is brought up.  Plus, so many didn't even read my links before dismissing this wholesale... which, considering the venom with which I had to receive that dismissal is pretty friggin' disgusting.  So I am trying to save myself and yourself some time and confusion.  He has written about the chemistry, much of it can be found on that malaria link. IF someone still has questions after that, then yes, whatever question it is might be answered in the other links.  Depending on the bloody question, mate.  Following?  If I were to suggest one link, it would be the first one as it is specific to that oxidiser against a pathogen.  WF10 is a fascinating product, using oxidation, chlorine dioxide specifically.

 

Some very specific chem questions were asked, and keep being asked regardless how I answer so perhaps someone else, with years of experience with oxidation, might do a better job of answering... if not, I'll give it another shot.  If I have a regret for this thread, it is not starting with his links.  The more I go through his stuff, the more I realise he has sufficiently answered all the questions that have been raised here.  Now I know, I'll use his stuff up front in future.

post #240 of 339

If you actually knew where the answer exists within those links, you'd be able to quote that part. That's pretty much the standard way back and forth exchanges of information work all over the internet. Not "Here's metric craptons of info for you to sort though. You go spend 12 hours to maybe (or maybe not) find something to support my point! HTH!"

 

Can you answer this question?

 

 

Quote:

So, what I'm asking is, by what mechanism or mechanisms does ClO2, taken orally, recognize a good target?  

 

 

 

If the answer is "no", just say so.

 

 

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