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.
Originally Posted by JMJ
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:
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.
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.
There is ample evidence that people have used and are using this product.
What evidence are you referring to?
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
And fair enough. They should be. Wholesale acceptance without knowing for sure is just as blind as wholesale rejection without knowing for sure.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.