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 17

post #321 of 339

I honestly can barely parse together what you are saying. But here is a recap of what I am saying:

 

1. When salt water has an electrical current run through it (electrolysis) it produces Chlorine gas, Hydrogen Gas, and Sodium Hydroxide - NaOH which is caustic lye.

1a. As the above process continues, the pH of the solution increases as a the concentration of NaOH increases. An alkalai NaCl electrolysis reaction will produce Sodium Chlorate. Which explodes when mixed with sugar. Also is a highly effective weed killer. This combination is a very popular pipe bomb mixture, btw.

1b.Sodium Chlorite can be formed by reducing Sodium Chlorate with hydrogen peroxide. I hope people are not doing that.

 

2. Sodium Chlorite is commercially available in various forms and concentrations. Such as a stablized form like Saf-T-Chlor. As the various websites I have perused detailing how MMS is made from "flake" Sodium Chlorite using a sodium stabilized solid, I have deduced that they are using such a commercially available compound and repackaging it. Not mentioned before, but I watched a video of a man making a sodium chlorite solution from "flake" stabalized sodium chlorite using a coffee maker. This is not a good idea. Like at all. Sodium Chlorite is highly caustic. Please do not do this.

 

3. Sodium Chlorite is also available in several liquid solutions. Such as ADOX brand sanitizers commercially sold in the US through DuPont. These sanitizers are approved for a number of uses including water sanitation and surface sanitation. As you can go into several restaurant supply stores and purchase these sanitizers, why would you fill your house with chlorine gas making Sodium Chlorite at home? Again, I have deduced that those selling MMS solutions are repackaging commercially available compounds. Although, I guess since I saw that one of the people selling it is making it by dissolving the 'flake' who really knows.

 

4. Chlorine Dioxide is toxic. Can cause anemia, nervous system problems in infants and young children and similar effects on fetuses during pregnancy.

 

5. When it causes stomach upset and nausea - that is because it is poison.

post #322 of 339
Thread Starter 

Whatever works for you.  I support your choice and your view of this.  Hundreds of thousands disagree with the idea that it is unsafe and that it doesn't work, and have had success; apparently the kind of success that some here call "miraculous" and find it "unbelievable".  

 

I know that if you stood in front of even one of the people who have gotten rid of diseases that were burdening their lives, you'd be forced to think again.  Preferably a small child who now isn't sweating all night and screaming in malaria ridden pain. Yes... please do regale me with how toxic this stuff is and how it doesn't work... oh wait, that's right, those kids aren't real, the testimonials are all some hoax, the videos of the men and women and children are all fake so I can snake twenty bucks from you and finally buy that penthouse in New York.  Mmyes.  That's a sane explanation.  

 

17 pages I have posted and reposted the studies showing chlorine dioxide cannot do harm, and more tellingly has not done harm, at a particular dosage.  Saying chlorine dioxide can harm is like telling me salt can.  I could tell you salt will shut your kidneys down... but that makes absolutely no sense unless we are going to take a dose that can do that.  

 

If you can bring me damaged people, some of this carry on might hold water.  But you're screaming down an empty hall, love.  There ain't no damaged people.  Yet thousands of testimonies of cure.   Hmmmm.  Methinks ye give up something real, or just give up.  I'm sick of chatting chemistry... the stuff speaks for itself.  Speak to someone who has used it and stop bringing me speculation of what you think should happen when you take MMS... I work with reality, not speculation.  And the reality is...

 

1) no one is harmed

 

2) many helped 

 

You cannot compete with that with all this speculation, regardless how much fear mongering you enjoy.  If this was theory, and I came onto this thread saying "hey, I have an idea, chlorine dioxide works to kill pathogens, perhaps it will do it inside animals also!" and then we had this discussion... it might be congruent.  But this thread completely ignores the fact that MMS has been used for 12 years now, without one person being killed.  

 

The best people have been able to do in the face of those two inconvenient truths is to deny they exist at all - by simply calling a lot of people either liars or charlatans.  That's the best response to the testimonies and people working in Africa and the massive work being done globally with MMS.  So we pretend that doesn't exist and fart around with the nitty gritty of chemistry??  

 

You can (and no doubt have) google your widdle heart out and not find any evidence of anyone using MMS being "damaged" or killed.  Although I did enjoy the early attempts on this thread to do so with the dramatic "Oh YEAH?  Well, how about THIS person who DIED while using MMS?"  and shows me the (same old worn out) law suit that was thrown out of court due to lack of ability to link chlorine dioxide to her death - or ANY death.  

 

Regarding the nausea etc... when injected, that does not happen.   People inject it quite often, and do not get nausea.  IV avoids the side effects... so does an enema of it, actually, which is how one of my "fake" HIV positives took MMS because he didn't like the nausea from the oral route.  Most of the nausea orally was also overcome by taking the dose down to three drops.  

 

People have tested how much needs to be injected before symptoms appear and although I don't recall exact figures, I remember being shocked that someone would IV that much into themselves.  This, as far as I'm concerned, does not uphold the idea "nausea is a symptom of poisoning"... however it also blows the idea that the nausea is a herx/detox reaction.  Hence why I've said several times that the nausea is probably not a detox symptom.  I think the nausea from oral dosage is much more mundane and boring - it's just harsh on the stomach.  But so are herbals, some of which leave me with the same feeling in my stomach - and again, I don't find that compelling evidence of "poisoning", nor do I find such an immediate sensation of nausea compelling evidence of a detox reaction, for any substance.  

 

So by all means, carry on, it's very entertaining although as you can probably tell, I'm kind of tiring of it ... do roll out the info on how poisonous this stuff is... without a shred of evidence it has harmed anyone ... ever.  Kewl.tea6.gif

 


Edited by Calm - 5/16/11 at 3:10am
post #323 of 339
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhiandmoi View Post

I honestly can barely parse together what you are saying. But here is a recap of what I am saying:



Sounds like a personal problem.

post #324 of 339
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElizabethE View Post





Sounds like a personal problem.


Honestly, this sounds like something that belongs in a note passed in junior high and not on a message board of intelligent adults. I have found that when you stoop to petty, snarky replies people rarely take anything you have to say seriously.
Edited by TCMoulton - 5/20/11 at 7:34pm
post #325 of 339
Quote:
Originally Posted by TCMoulton View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by ElizabethE View Post





Sounds like a personal problem.




Honestly, this sounds like something that belongs in a note passed in junior high and not on a message board of intelligent adults. I have found that when you stoop to petty, snarky replies pele rarely take anything you have to say seriously.

If that's true, than I suppose Calm and I needn't defend ourselves against the likes of you! Thanks. :)
 

 

post #326 of 339
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElizabethE View Post



If that's true, than I suppose Calm and I needn't defend ourselves against the likes of you! Thanks. :)
 

 



If you can point out just one place where i have been either petty or snarky towards you then I will personally show you how to put me on ignore.

Listen, you have been here a very short time in comparison to many members yet you have personally attacked more people than most ever will here. Not sure why you are so hostile all the time, your anger seems to be a bit misplaced.
post #327 of 339
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElizabethE View Post





Sounds like a personal problem.

Do you have anything of value to add to this discussion? Anything at all?
post #328 of 339

I love it when the, I've been here longer than you knives come out.

 

Calm, thanks for all the info!

post #329 of 339
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElizabethE View Post





Sounds like a personal problem.


It probably is. But it also makes it difficult for me to follow the course of the discussion and identify the salient arguments being presented. As best as I can identify, Calm's points are:

 

1. MMS (Sodium Chlorite) is created by Jim Humble by running electricity through water.

 

I would be very interested in how he does this, if there is any literature on this that I can read without purchasing his book. This is not what happens when thousands and thousands of science students do this activity as part of a general electrolysis lab, and is not what happens when hundreds of home pyromaniacs do this activity as part of a home fireworks project in their garage.

 

2. Chlorite is a targeted oxidizer.

 

Again, I would be very interested in any literature that I can read on this that is available from sources other than the book. This is not how it works when used as a water or surface sanitizer. In fact it works great because it is not specific in what it kills.

 

3. MMS Solutions are safe to take intravenously.

 

Possible. The only research I was able to find results for was a WF10 small scale safety test done in 1993 with 10 test subjects.  It appeared safe in that study. Only one test subject died, but (s)he was already HIV positive, so it could be unrelated to the WF10. There are other trials listed on clinicaltrials.gov but the results are not available.

 

4. Chlorite IV solutions are an effective treatment for Malaria and HIV.

 

The trials did not provide their results, so it is very hard to say one way or another. Anectodotally, trials that are successful find a way to get published, or at least get their results listed.

 

5. MMS solutions are safe to drink because they are below the toxic threshold.

 

Probably true in most cases. From what I can tell of the directions for using MMS, "proper" mixture would be safe to drink and below the toxic threshold. Proper mixture being very important. I don't think I would trust people making it out of fire retardant in a coffee pot. But other people might review the same materials and decide differently.

 

 

post #330 of 339
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhonwyn View Post
I had always thought that the parents of Mothering were more open to non-Western medicine.


Being open does not mean blindly believing things that are posted that make claims that defy science and logic.  Being open means sure, I'll consider it, give me some evidence.  Blindly believing things makes you a sucker.

 

Here is a good post about MMS

 

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?s=mms

 

post #331 of 339

Ms.Fortune, I didn't like that link. I did not like the way they talked about us "antivaccinationists". Yep, I guess I am "anti-science"!

 

You know, just because researchers have not yet produced a study showing the link between vaccines and autism, does not mean there is no link to be found.  (Researchers funded by.....?) Can we get off the whole mercury bandwagon for a minute, and take a look into aluminum? Aluminum and fluoride reactions, maybe? Can we do study after study? Can we never take the possibility of vaccine damage off the table? I mean, really, why are they so quick to slam the book shut on vaccines? Case closed, move along, nothing more to see on the vaccine issue.

 

So, the MMS link on your Science Based Medicine website was not very convincing. More FDA mumbo jumbo lol.

 

 

post #332 of 339

So for the record, I am an engineer and a scientist, hence I always ask where the money is coming from.  Follow the money.  Facts are relative when not all sides are presented.  Many pharm companies are master manipulators of their data.

post #333 of 339

I don't understand what big Pharma companies possibly have to hide over this. Stable chlorite precursors are sold EVERY SINGLE DAY in huge huge quantities by chemical companies around the world. This is not a secret product. This is product that produces millions and millions in sales already. If it cured malaria they could sell billions of dollars worth of it. If you're following the MMS money, you would see that it doesn't go anywhere except to Jim Humble.

post #334 of 339

Given the countries that MMS is being used in as a treatment for malaria, HIV, etc, I am highly suspicious of any claim that states unequivocally no one has been harmed by taking MMS. Countries like Haiti and those in sub-Saharan Africa have little to no capability for anything but the most rudimentary of epidemological data collection. If mortality data (not even counting adverse treatment reactions which I'm sure are not monitored at all) are collected it is extremely basic and would likely be attributed to the underlying cause (i.e. malaria) than to the outcomes of whatever treatment (MMS) might have been in use.

 

Just because there has only been one case report of a death, which I guess was found un-related in a Western court of law, does not convince me in the slightest that other serious adverse events/deaths have not also occured in such countries where things are not monitored.

 

I actually think it's highly unethical to go into countries with such rudimentary health systems and even more rudimentary health data systems and offer this treatment. Vomitting might not kill here in the Western world but you can be sure it does in sub-Saharan Africa.

post #335 of 339
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamacolleen View Post

Given the countries that MMS is being used in as a treatment for malaria, HIV, etc, I am highly suspicious of any claim that states unequivocally no one has been harmed by taking MMS. Countries like Haiti and those in sub-Saharan Africa have little to no capability for anything but the most rudimentary of epidemological data collection. If mortality data (not even counting adverse treatment reactions which I'm sure are not monitored at all) are collected it is extremely basic and would likely be attributed to the underlying cause (i.e. malaria) than to the outcomes of whatever treatment (MMS) might have been in use.

 

Just because there has only been one case report of a death, which I guess was found un-related in a Western court of law, does not convince me in the slightest that other serious adverse events/deaths have not also occured in such countries where things are not monitored.

 

I actually think it's highly unethical to go into countries with such rudimentary health systems and even more rudimentary health data systems and offer this treatment. Vomitting might not kill here in the Western world but you can be sure it does in sub-Saharan Africa.


I think the bolded is an extremely valid point. Those who died, died of malaria. Those who got better, got better because of MMS. Even outside of the the developing world, people with serious illnesses (HIV, cancer, e.g.) who died while taking MMS, their deaths would very likely be attributed to their conditions, not their treatments.  I guess you could say the same thing about almost any treatment though. 

 

post #336 of 339

This is a most interesting discussion.

I work around and with these chemicals, so I may be able to answer some of the questions that have been raised.  I am not a medical professional, so any comments on its ability to disinfect the body should be taken with the understanding that I have no medical training.

I am going to bounce around a little, but let's start with WF-10.

WF-10 is not sodium chlorite.  WF-10 showed some wonderful results in Phase I and Phase II trials, but the rumor from those in the sodium chlorite and chlorine dioxide industry is that the Phase III trials did not go well.  I have yet to find confirmation of this, but it has been a few years since the Phase III trials were announced and one can speculate that no news about the results is not encouraging.

Here is a comparison of WF-10 and sodium chlorite.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8131712

Of particular interest is this comment...

"In contrast, NaClO2 solution suppressed bone marrow function, exhibiting a toxic effect when given on a long-term basis."

The question keeps coming up asking why if MMS is so toxic are there no observable adverse effects.  The answer is simple.  Jim Humble, and all of the clinics he works with, don't bother to check for signs of oxidative stress.  

With oxidative stress, the damage occurs over a long time period.  If you have suppressed bone marrow function, you don't immediately drop dead after drinking a dose of MMS.  But, eventually it catches up with you.

Do any of you remember smoking?  The first few experiences resulted in a rather severe "Herxheimer" effect, didn't it.  After a while, that effect subsided and there was no apparent signs of damage.  Doctors even went on record promoting smoking.

Fast forward a few years and now people are concerned not only with smoking, but also the effects of second hand smoke.  What happened?  Someone finally connected the dots.

This example is not intended to compare MMS with smoking, but simply to point out that a lack of visual evidence may not tell the whole story.  It may take time before the real damage manifests itself.

There is a theory on aging that suggests that free radical damage is the root cause of aging.  Since free radicals cause oxidative stress on the body, we may be able to see if MMS causes oxidative stress.

Jim Humble has been taking MMS for many years.  Look up a video of him from 5 years ago, and compare it to a more recent one.  

When I did this, I noticed that his skin is much more wrinkled, and his metal cognitive ability seems to be a little lower now.  Oxidation stress on the skin causes wrinkles, and oxidation stress to the brain causes all sorts of problems.

Does this prove anything?  No.  Keep in mind that Jim Humble is 79 years old, and this may simply be the results of his normal aging.  Still, I know several people of advanced years that are much sharper in appearance and cognitive ability than Jim Humble.  It is an interesting comparison never the less.

Keeping in mind my lack of medical qualifications, I also find it very interesting that Jim Humble recently sent out a newsletter stating that he had evidence that he was on a FBI kill list.  He has even gone to not wearing his "signature" hat because he feels that it will help "them" target him.  I can say that my friends of advanced years are in now way concerned about the FBI and some of them are very radical in their thinking.

The disinfection by product of chlorine dioxide of concern is chlorite.  In water disinfection and food processing rinsing the chlorine dioxide goes through a degradation process.  Chlorine dioxide quickly gives up 1 electron and forms chlorite.  The ORP of this reaction in water is 0.95 volts.  However, that is only 1 electron loss, and there are 4 more to go.  Over time the chlorite is reduced to chlorate and then ultimately to chloride.

In animals it was discovered that this process is a little different.  About 70% of chlorine dioxide forms chlorite.  Chlorite concentrates in all of the major organs of the body, including the brain, and is believed to cross through the placenta.  The half life of chlorite is around 40 hours.  

Jim Humble is correct in that chlorine dioxide does eventually break down to chloride, but he left out the part about the free radical chlorite floating around in the organs of the body with a half life of 40 hours.

Keep in mind that the chlorite testing was done on rats, so there is probably some adjustment necessary when looking at humans.  Unfortunately, there are no studies done looking at chlorite half life in humans.

This is probably enough on these questions.  This is turning into a book, so I will continue the discussion about the other questions in another post.

Tom

post #337 of 339

OK, let's talk about oxidizers.

Oxidizers work by having a concentration of them in contact with what you are trying to kill for a period of time long enough for a kill.

Chlorine dioxide, chlorite, chlorate, and chlorous acid are all oxidizers.

Let's back up a moment and understand that sodium chlorite does not occur naturally.  It is a man made chemical.  Chlorine dioxide, chlorite, chlorate, and chlorous acid are all foreign to the body.  These are man made chemicals.

The idea of using the electrolysis of salt to produce sodium chlorite probably won't work, but I have not tried that.  Sodium chlorite is made from chlorine dioxide.

Here is the process...

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_gx5205/is_1998/ai_n19125001/

The dry salt ends up being 80% pure.  Various concentrations of sodium chlorite solutions are made by dissolving the  powder in water.

MMS is 28%, by weight, but since it is only 80% pure you end up with 22.4% sodium chlorite.

The idea behind sodium chlorite is that it is a stable form of chlorine dioxide.  Chlorine dioxide is extremely unstable, and explosive at higher concentrations (above 10% in air), so sodium chlorite is used to transport the chemical to where it is used.

When dealing with sodium chlorite and chlorine dioxide we are using small amounts and often refer to concentrations in parts per million.  

28% MMS has 22.4% sodium chlorite, and that works out to 224000 PPM.  This is an industrial strength chemical.  It is supposed to be shipped with hazardous labels indicating that it is an oxidizer, and should also be shipped with a Material Safety Data Sheet to notify the recipient of how to safely handle this industrial strength chemical.

Jim Humble doesn't agree with the national and international shipping regulations and prefers to simply ship MMS in the mail.

You can run down to a feed store and pick up a gallon of Oxine and ship it without problems.  The difference is that Oxine is a 2% sodium chlorite solution.  For those keeping track, that's 20000 PPM.  There are other formulations that have 5% sodium chlorite and that is the limit for not needing hazard labeling.  5% gives you 50000 PPM.

One way to think about this is to look at hydrogen peroxide.  You can't run to the store and pick up a bottle of 35% hydrogen peroxide.  The reason is that it is not safe to handle.  However, you can pick up bottles of 3% hydrogen peroxide.  You still have to take care when handling the 3% concentration, but it is much safer to handle.

Let's look at concentrations used.

Water disinfectant typically uses 1 - 2 PPM.  Waste water treatment uses up to 5 PPM.  Wilderness water treatment and emergency water treatment uses 4 PPM.  Legionnaires disease is controlled using a 0.5 PPM concentration.  Anthrax was removed from the senate office buildings and the effected post office using a concentration of 750 PPM.  This same concentration was used to kill off mold in buildings after water damage during hurricane Katrina.

The list goes on and on, but as you can see different situations call for different concentrations.

These concentrations are derived from testing.  Extensive testing is done to determine the concentration and contact time needed to kill off pathogens.  

Jim Humble is quick to point out that human studies were done using chlorine dioxide and they found that there were no adverse effects.

This is the Lubbers study.  In that study people consumed 1 liter of water a day for 12 weeks with chlorine dioxide in it at a concentration of 5 PPM.  There was another part of the study were people took a single dose that increased each day.  The highest dose was 24 PPM.

In contrast, a 3 drop dose of MMS has a concentration of about 330 PPM.

The original MMS protocol had people trying to work up to 15 drops.  There was a lot more nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea then.  A 15 drop dose of MMS has a concentration of close to 1650 PPM.

The argument seems to be that since 5 PPM over 12 weeks is safe, and since a one time dose fo 24 PPM is also safe, then weeks of 330 PPM must also be safe...  And in the case of malaria, 1650 PPM must also be safe.

As you can see, there are big holes in the safety argument.  Yes, a study was done looking at the effects of chlorine dioxide in humans, but the levels used were much lower than what is called for in the MMS protocols.

Tom
 

post #338 of 339

Now let's take a closer look at MMS.

Sodium chlorite is a stable form of chlorine dioxide.  In order to release the chlorine dioxide you need to lower the PH of sodium chlorite.  Sodium chlorite has a PH that is alkaline, and it varies with concentration.  

This is where things get very interesting...

In order to get to the chlorine dioxide, you add an acid to sodium chlorite.  This forms chlorous acid (HClO2) and some free chlorine dioxide.  You then bubble air through the chlorous acid to collect the chlorine dioxide, and then deposit it into another container of distilled water.  You end up with chlorine dioxide in water.

Chlorine dioxide is a gas, and remains a gas in water.  Since it is a gas, it does not alter the PH of the water.

Chlorous acid is an acid that is extremely PH sensitive.

When you mix up a dose of MMS according to the MMS protocol, you end up drinking chlorous acid that has a PH of about 3.

There are no studies looking at the safety of drinking chlorous acid.  All of Jim Humbles claims of how safe it is to consume chlorine dioxide have little to do with chlorous acid.

Chlorous acid is used in food processing.  The chlorine dioxide produced is considered a waste product and efforts are made to eliminate it from the chlorous acid.  The wonderful antimicrobial properties of chlorous acid are due to its high ORP.  It has an ORP that is much higher than that of chlorine dioxide in water, and just a little higher than the ORP of chlorine dioxide in air.  The ORP of chlorous acid is 1.58 volts.  In comparison, chlorine bleach is 1.36 volts and ozone is 2.07 volts.  As mentioned earlier, chlorine dioxide in water has an ORP of 0.95 volts.

The argument that chlorine dioxide won't harm body cells because of its low ORP may be valid for the Lubbers study where they used chlorine dioxide in water, but it does not hold true for MMS because MMS involves chlorous acid.  Remember that oxidizers work by having a concentration high enough and a contact time long enough to kill.

Now when we look at the Lubbers study we find that a much lower concentration was used, and chlorine dioxide in water has a much lower ORP than the chlorous acid involved with in the MMS protocol.

By now you should be asking how anyone lives after ingesting MMS.

That brings us back to the wonders of chemistry.  Chlorous acid is PH sensitive.  When it hits the stomach, it wipes out the flora in the stomach, and it appears to also dig into some of the stomach lining.  However, as it passes further down the GI tract, its PH is neutralized and the chlorous acid goes back to sodium chlorite.  Diarrhea occurs when the dose has increased to a point where the colon can't neutralize the PH of it, and it spasms to eliminate it from the body.

Throughout all of this, chlorite is absorbed into the blood stream and it flows to all the organs in the body.  

While reading this, keep in mind my medical qualifications...  I have none.  This speculation is complied from discussions I have had with medical professionals as I have tried to figure out what is going on with these chemicals.

MMS is actually about chlorous acid and chlorite, but there is a component of chlorine dioxide that is also involved.  There are conditions where chlorite can pick up an electron and transform back to chlorine dioxide.  It is possible that this can happen inside the body, if I am to believe what I have been told, so MMS may also involve chlorine dioxide.

This is where things get complex.  At least for me.  The body has different PH values for different areas of the body.  Since chlorous acid is PH sensitive, it is possible that if it encounters an acid PH, it could release a small amount of chlorine dioxide.

Looking at malaria, the best that  I have been able to come up with is that the chlorous acid or chlorite kills off the infected red blood cells.  This gives the person a sense of relief, and Jim Humble calls them cured.  To me this sounds a lot like dilute chemotherapy.  It is possible that someone with simple malaria could recover, but if the malaria is complex things are much different.

As far as chlorous acid curing other ailments, the first question that needs to be ask is what is being oxidized.  If the ailment cause is not sensitive to oxidation, MMS will not work.   If it does work, it is the placebo effect.

Just for a moment, let's speculate that Jim Humble in spite of his lack of knowledge of chemistry and the human body, actually does see some improvement in people he gives MMS to.  Let's put the safety aspects of these chemicals on the back burner for just a moment.

When I tried MMS, I didn't follow the MMS protocol, but I did try it for a short period of time.  I found that I seemed to have an increase of energy a few days into trying it.  Then things deteriorated and I eventually came down with the flu.  I couldn't understand how it was possible to catch the flu when I was "full" of chlorine dioxide.  I don't catch the flu, so this was a warning to me that my immune system was being weakened.

I did some research and found that a lot of others had similar experiences.  I decided that it was time to rebuild my body and I stopped taking MMS and switched to balancing my body with antioxidants and a balanced diet.

In light of this, it is possible that Jim Humble actually sees some improvement in the people he gives MMS to.  He calls that a cure, but in spite of that there may be a place for dilute chemo on the road to health.

Don't get me wrong.  The MMS protocol is flawed, and MMS is an industrial strength chemical that is dangerous to handle.  Sodium chlorite is not a cure all for everything, but there are some times when it works very well.

OK, back to reality.  Safety is a concern and we can't ignore that.

I use a 5% sodium chlorite solution, and have had the opportunity to explore the topical use of chlorous acid and chlorine dioxide with a number of people and animals.  

Sometimes the results are spectacular, other times the efforts don't help at all.  

For example, when encountered with an infected wound on the toe of a person with diabetes, chlorine dioxide can eliminate the infection and chlorous acid can keep further infection at bay, but these chemicals can't do anything to restore circulation that is needed to heal the wound.

This brings us to the point of realizing that MMS is all about killing.  The body needs to kill off infection and pathogens, but there has to be a balance and after the killing you need to rebuild the body.  It is frustrating that Jim Humble only focuses on killing, and ignores the rebuilding of the body.

Tom
 

post #339 of 339

A question came up about the selective properties of chlorine dioxide.

First of all keep in mind that at the correct concentration chlorine dioxide is a bleaching agent.  Below that concentration it is not bleach.

In the 1940's it was observed that chlorine dioxide attacks lignin in pulp while leaving the cellulose untouched.  In addition, when comparing this to chlorine, it was observed that chlorine dioxide did not attach chlorine to the lignin particles in the process.  This made chlorine dioxide "selective."

In water treatment chlorine dioxide doesn't attach chlorine to all the organic material in the water, so it is also "selective" in this application.

Chlorine dioxide targets thiols, phenols, sulfur bonds, secondary amines, magnesium, iron, and a whole lot of other things.  The difficulty in thinking about using chlorine dioxide is that the body needs these items in order to live.  Since it targets specific things, that makes it selective.

Chlorine dioxide is a biocide.  Biocide means that it kills living things.  It doesn't know good flora from bad flora, it just oxidizes everything it can when it comes into contact with it.

If it doesn't kill something, it simply means that the concentration wasn't high enough, or the contact time wasn't long enough.

The advantage of chlorine dioxide is that since it doesn't chlorinate, lower concentrations can be used.  This minimizes the disinfection by products.  The selective properties of chlorine dioxide have nothing to do with indentifying good bacteria from bad bacteria, or aerobic bacteria from anerobic bacteria.  

Chlorine dioxide is effective over a wide range of PH and temperature and it is effective in killing a wide range of pathogens.  I don't know if it works inside the body, but there is a lot that it can do outside the body to promote health.  

If you want to try this internally, be sure to have a medical professional monitor you for signs of oxidative stress.  

That's about it.  I hope this helps you understand these chemicals and if you decide to use them to find a way to use them safely.  

Tom
 

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