Mothering › Mothering Discussion Forums › Health › Health and Healing › Spin-off discussion about Chlorine Dioxide/MMS and the eradication of disease
New Posts  All Forums:
 

Spin-off discussion about Chlorine Dioxide/MMS and the eradication of disease - Page 5

post #81 of 339

I'm going to be disagreeable here - I don't believe that it's peachy keen for people to promote something that causes harm just because they passionately believe it does good.  Further, there is no rational reason to believe that MMS does good.  

 

There is plenty of evidence that it is not safe to ingest bleach.  MMS is (one of many forms of) bleach.  You wouldn't reach under your sink, pour a splash of clorox into some OJ and offer it to your child.  You know that drinking cleaning products is harmful to your internal organs.  If your child drank bleach, you would call poison control.  You would not mistake their vomiting and diarrhea for signs that they were being cured of an illness.  

 

That is what supporters of MMS are asking you to believe.  

 

The FDA has no problem with medications that cause vomiting and diarrhea as side effects.  Most of the available treatments for AIDS, malaria, and cancer cause those problems.  The difference between those treatments and MMS is that those treatments have been shown to help people.  The "side effect" of MMS is the ONLY effect.  The FDA and other health agencies have warned against MMS.  

 

 

post #82 of 339

Thread temporaily closed pending review.

post #83 of 339

There are several posts to this discussion that contain personal attacks. While strong disagreement and criticism of ideas and information are fine, words against a person's character or intentions are not. These posts must be edited to remove such remarks. I am reopening this thread so that everyone who posted in this way can edit their posts and the discussion can continue. If you're not sure if things you said were attacking and think perhaps they are borderline please edit them to remove the borderline remarks. 

post #84 of 339

edited out my inappropriate comments!

I hope someone else will do the same.

I have nothing  more to add to this thread, enjoy! I will follow along with interest.

post #85 of 339
Thread Starter 

 

Quote:
 
There is plenty of evidence that it is not safe to ingest bleach.  MMS is (one of many forms of) bleach.  You wouldn't reach under your sink, pour a splash of clorox into some OJ and offer it to your child.  You know that drinking cleaning products is harmful to your internal organs.  If your child drank bleach, you would call poison control.  You would not mistake their vomiting and diarrhea for signs that they were being cured of an illness.  

You didn't read my post.  The visual of someone gulping down chlorox is invaluable to your argument, in fact, it is the only thing critics have - hence it is what you will see repeated over and over and over and over and over.... but nothing substantial other than that.  Chlorox is sodium hypochlorite, so you do need to distinguish between the chemistry, you cannot just say something to the effect, "all bleach is the same" because that is untrue.  If you are going to state these things, you need to back them up, because there are things being stated on here that are false, and that is not helpful to people dealing with MMS in their lives, or if they know someone who is.  They need the information to back up why it isn't safe, because if their relative has been sent home from hospital to die... Have you thought this through?  

 

In an effort to kill off cancerous cells people are being pumped with all sorts of rubbish, stuff that has been proven to kill in small doses, to harm in small doses.  They do this because it is life or death.  Not all our decisions are made holding the hand of someone in a lab coat.  Not all medicines we take have the approval of some agency with more power and money than God.  

 

Not one person can furnish evidence it is harmful.  I ask... is there any?  Can anyone help us see what damage this does to the body?  I can quickly find evidence chlorox is harmful if ingested.  A quick google and I can find tons of it, and people who have died from drinking it and the thousands of hospital visits due to household bleach.  If it is so toxic, surely there would be a ton of evidence to support that belief.  

 

In one of the links I provided, there is extensive references to decades worth of research on chlorine dioxide... perhaps reading what I have will give you better science than "it is bleach", which, as I said, so is lemon juice.  Do you know how lemon juice bleaches?  It is an antioxidant, so it certainly doesn't work like an oxidiser.  It doesn't chlorinate either.  You do need to give more chem than "hey, it's bleach".   "Bleach", without understanding the chemistry of how an oxidiser works, is not a helpful argument.  It isn't chlorox, just as it also isn't table salt - both of which are sodiums with chlorine in them.  Chlorox chlorinates... do you know the difference between that and an oxidiser?  Do you know at what point, and how, an oxidiser becomes harmful to body tissue?  Do you know why chlorination is a harmful chemical reaction, and why oxidation is a natural process used by the immune system?  If you don't know this difference, that is a good place to begin.

 

I have given evidence it is not harmful in settings where people ingested it, and in comparative mice studies - 70% of those who didn't have it died and 100% of those who did, survived.  That is significant.  The option is always there to ignore clinical studies, I'm the first one to suggest they are highly flawed at best.  

 

 

 

Quote:
 
Again you are not ingesting it. You are using it like Listerine which also cautions you against swallowing it. Same with gargling salt water. If you swallow it chances are very good you will vomit. Does this mean a salt water gargle is cleansing my body of toxins and pathogens? Because that is what the makers of MMS claim when you vomit.

Yes, but you wouldn't gargle with chlorox, right?  Not every link was to prove efficacy or to prove safety.  Each one served it's own purpose.  

 

Herxheimer reactions aren't mysterious.  I personally do not know if MMS is a herx or if it is a side effect.  I do know that the new protocol, which is only 3 drops per hour for 8 to 10 hours a day, does not cause it for most people and if a worsening occurs to drop the dose.  The workers in Malawi discovered this method for chronic issues like AIDS and cancer.  When it was malaria, a 15 drop dose was used due to the dangerous and acute nature of malaria.  15 drops (I've been told, not making claims) took the malaria away.  The doctors have written about it as they had blood labs done and even in the most profuse case of malaria not one parasite could be found in the blood work after three doses of 15 drops.  However, 15 drops, the first ever protocol born of the malaria discovery, could not be maintained by chronic cases where they might have to stay on MMS for four weeks.  So they found 3 drops, but more often, kept the dioxide in the system, but not enough to create symptoms.  As I am told by two people I trust, in 3 weeks most of the AIDS and cancer patients were free of symptoms with this method.  A small number of people took longer.  If you think I don't know how ridiculous that sounds, well, we're on different planets.  I know it sound ridiculous.  If it weren't for the people I actually know personally who had similar results, I would not have researched to the extent I did.  

 

It was when I saw what the missionaries were doing, plus the chemistry, plus the total absence of evidence of harm that led me to look deeper.  What those missionaries are achieving should be on 60 minutes or something.  It's absolutely crucial to the progress of medicine for people to at least look at this with scientific eyes, with logical eyes, not clouded by a determination not to be "wrong".  I first wanted to know if and how it works in the body... no point finding out it is safe if it doesn't even work.  I found studies that the gas does permeate, throughout the whole body very effectively.  So then I wanted to know what byproducts it created (chlorox, for example kills via byproducts) and learned it creates benign substances, such as table salt.  In the doses taken (three drops) you can imagine the tiny amount of table salt that is.  

 

I had endometriosis, fibroids, and huge cysts on both ovaries and cysts all throughout my uterus and cervix.  After I heard from my HIV+ friends, I became my own guinea pig.  Indeed, my first period after taking it was pain-free, no clots, nice bright red blood... just a totally healthy period that I hadn't had in a very long time.  So I went and got an ultra sound.  All clear.  No cysts, no free fluid, nothing.  Perhaps it was a coincidence.  I'm not giving my opinion on it.  Just stating the correlation.  

 

From that point on, well, things spiralled into where I am today with it.  I do a lot of research.  For instance, this is an old experiment I did on myself (not with MMS): http://sagaciousmama.synthasite.com/moles.php

 

This is a thread here at MDC I did that took much more concentration than this one, and again, I didn't do it cos I'm nuts or making money because I'm neither (well, nuts is debatable)... I love what I do.  I LOVE it.  I spend most of my free time learning about health and healing, I do it because it is my thing, my joy.  Not all of us have ulterior motives.  I don't need money, I don't want money, and I believe all people should have access to healing, just like they do in tribal cultures.  I acknowledge I am a radical, I am usually the most radical in a group of extreme radicals.  I know that.  I just don't see the significance.  All my research errs on the side of "that is crazy", and again, I don't care.  Crazy thinking is what gets us out of a rut.  

 

The missionaries are not lying to suggest they are is... well, I can't even validate the scope of such an accusation and they certainly are not faking African video footage... so that only leaves room for one thing.  It still doesn't tell us if it is safe, ultimately.  So you either trust the fact that people get better, not worse from it...or you don't.  But if you discredit something, opinion isn't strong enough, not when it opposes all those Jesus lovin' liars in Africa.  When it comes to unconscionable, ignoring the success of the work in Africa has got to take the cake.  Millions of people die from malaria every year, mosquito nets are not helping the sick.  If you don't believe it is working, is it that you don't trust missionaries, are you suggesting they're lying?  Do you think it is a coincidence?  What is it that makes anyone say "it doesn't work" with absolutely no personal experience, science, or data to suggest such a thing when all the data says it does kill malaria, in water and in the body.  

 

That is precisely why it is used to treat water in the first place.  

 

Perhaps the disbelief rests on the idea that it works externally, but not in the body.  Is that the problem?  Why can't people be clearer about the concerns? I fail to understand the vagueness about this.  

 

I recognise this new and unbelievable, I realise people jump to the idea that those spreading it must be either motivated by greed or something else less altruistic.  I can't prove I'm not, but I can give you the history that at least shows that I have a history of helping for nothing, that I do not get anything in return for the information I give, and that is, again, all this is. 


Edited by Calm - 4/26/11 at 4:28pm
post #86 of 339

I am not trying to convince you of anything Calm. I am trying to ensure that no one else believes this hoax, wastes their money, and more importantly is given false hope by charlatans and snake oil salesmen.

 

You seem genuine enough-but it can't and won't change the fact that I believe what you are defending so vigorously (and with so many links that have absolutely nothing to do with MMS and it's safety) is a huge fraud perpetuated on the most vulnerable amongst us.

 

I won't be back to this thread because your links are useless, your science isn't science at all, and your desire to help people is not served by continuing to pretend this product does anything besides make people vomit. 

post #87 of 339
Quote:
Originally Posted by stik View Post

I'm going to be disagreeable here - I don't believe that it's peachy keen for people to promote something that causes harm just because they passionately believe it does good.  Further, there is no rational reason to believe that MMS does good.  

 

There is plenty of evidence that it is not safe to ingest bleach.  MMS is (one of many forms of) bleach.  You wouldn't reach under your sink, pour a splash of clorox into some OJ and offer it to your child.  You know that drinking cleaning products is harmful to your internal organs.  If your child drank bleach, you would call poison control.  You would not mistake their vomiting and diarrhea for signs that they were being cured of an illness.  

 

That is what supporters of MMS are asking you to believe.  

 

The FDA has no problem with medications that cause vomiting and diarrhea as side effects.  Most of the available treatments for AIDS, malaria, and cancer cause those problems.  The difference between those treatments and MMS is that those treatments have been shown to help people.  The "side effect" of MMS is the ONLY effect.  The FDA and other health agencies have warned against MMS.  

 

 


Just to reiterate what's being said here... my mom sat me on the washer while she did the clothes one day. I was a toddler.. I grabbed the cup of bleach and drank it. I nearly died. I was in the hospital for days. Ingesting bleach is not a cure for anything.

If I suspected you gave your child bleach on purpose, I might call CPS to protect your child.
post #88 of 339
Quote:
Originally Posted by stik View Post

I'm going to be disagreeable here - I don't believe that it's peachy keen for people to promote something that causes harm just because they passionately believe it does good.  



Couldn't the same be said for vaccines?

post #89 of 339


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by stik View Post

mbravebird, I'm sorry to hear about your father's illness.  Does his doctor know he is taking MMS?  Bleach really is toxic, but the effects of the toxicity are presented as "evidence" that MMS is working, so people who are desperate for hope can cling to the idea that they are being cured.  Do you feel comfortable bringing this up with your father's MD?


I don't. I am in another state, and have never met his doctor, and his doctor does not seem all that competent from the few actions I've seen. He also is at a stage where the traditional doctor does not have much to offer in terms of survival rate with chemo -- the stats just don't support much benefit, and many people choose not to do chemo with stats like that, even those who aren't into alternative approaches. He just got the diagnosis last week, so it's all new. My father is applying to work with a very well-respected physician who also does nutritional cancer treatment, and plans to tell him about the MMS.


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ldavis24 View Post

edited out my inappropriate comments!

I hope someone else will do the same.

I have nothing  more to add to this thread, enjoy! I will follow along with interest.

 

Lauren, I appreciate your perspective, and am interested in what you have to say.
 


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calm View Post

Perhaps the disbelief rests on the idea that it works externally, but not in the body.  Is that the problem?  Why can't people be clearer about the concerns? I fail to understand the vagueness about this. 


Yes, that is one of the reasons for disbelief that is rattling around in my head. I think the "different chemical processes" argument that you present is an interesting one, although I don't fully understand it yet, so can't judge if it's accurate.

 

My main concern and suspicion is based on the symptoms my father is having, which to me seem very similar to poison reactions. Detox or herx reactions that I've seen and worked with have never been this intense. This seems very consistent with poisoning symptoms. My father is having trouble getting the calories he needs because of these reactions, and we all know that starving won't help him. He is not even actively vomiting; he reduced his dose when that happened. But even at a low dose, his stomach almost completely shuts down, and he can't abide even small bites of food. He can only eat in the morning, after he's had a break from the MMS all night.

 

This study: http://www.alternative-cancer-care.com/MMS_Cancer_Study.html

is an informal study on MMS and cancer patients, and I'm not sure it has very convincing things to say, honestly. The thing that stands out the most to me is the fact that most people in the study discontinued the MMS because of the side effects. Seeing what my father is facing, I can understand that. It really does not seems like something to dismiss, and it seems a rather widespread experience, so I'd like to see some further investigating of that. I understand you are saying that no one can prove it is "safe", and that you are simply arguing that it is, rather, "not life-threatening" -- is that right? But that doesn't seem like a curious enough reaction, honestly, given the feedback that people taking MMS are giving -- which is that the "side effects" are so bad that they just can't continue taking it. Side effects of chemo are bad, too, but everyone freely admits that that's because it's a process of poisoning. If that's what's happening with MMS, I'd like it to be discussed just as openly, instead of dismissed.

post #90 of 339
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calm View Post

 

You didn't read my post.  The visual of someone gulping down chlorox is invaluable to your argument, in fact, it is the only thing critics have - hence it is what you will see repeated over and over and over and over and over.... but nothing substantial other than that.  Chlorox is sodium hypochlorite, so you do need to distinguish between the chemistry, you cannot just say something to the effect, "all bleach is the same" because that is untrue.  If you are going to state these things, you need to back them up, because there are things being stated on here that are false, and that is not helpful to people dealing with MMS in their lives, or if they know someone who is.  They need the information to back up why it isn't safe, because if their relative has been sent home from hospital to die... Have you thought this through?  

 

In an effort to kill off cancerous cells people are being pumped with all sorts of rubbish, stuff that has been proven to kill in small doses, to harm in small doses.  They do this because it is life or death.  Not all our decisions are made holding the hand of someone in a lab coat.  Not all medicines we take have the approval of some agency with more power and money than God.  

 

Not one person can furnish evidence it is harmful.  I ask... is there any?  Can anyone help us see what damage this does to the body?  I can quickly find evidence chlorox is harmful if ingested.  A quick google and I can find tons of it, and people who have died from drinking it and the thousands of hospital visits due to household bleach.  If it is so toxic, surely there would be a ton of evidence to support that belief.  

 

In one of the links I provided, there is extensive references to decades worth of research on chlorine dioxide... perhaps reading what I have will give you better science than "it is bleach", which, as I said, so is lemon juice.  Do you know how lemon juice bleaches?  It is an antioxidant, so it certainly doesn't work like an oxidiser.  It doesn't chlorinate either.  You do need to give more chem than "hey, it's bleach".   "Bleach", without understanding the chemistry of how an oxidiser works, is not a helpful argument.  It isn't chlorox, just as it also isn't table salt - both of which are sodiums with chlorine in them.  Chlorox chlorinates... do you know the difference between that and an oxidiser?  Do you know at what point, and how, an oxidiser becomes harmful to body tissue?  Do you know why chlorination is a harmful chemical reaction, and why oxidation is a natural process used by the immune system?  If you don't know this difference, that is a good place to begin.

 

I have given evidence it is not harmful in settings where people ingested it, and in comparative mice studies - 70% of those who didn't have it died and 100% of those who did, survived.  That is significant.  The option is always there to ignore clinical studies, I'm the first one to suggest they are highly flawed at best.  

 

 

 

Yes, but you wouldn't gargle with chlorox, right?  Not every link was to prove efficacy or to prove safety.  Each one served it's own purpose.  

 

Herxheimer reactions aren't mysterious.  I personally do not know if MMS is a herx or if it is a side effect.  I do know that the new protocol, which is only 3 drops per hour for 8 to 10 hours a day, does not cause it for most people and if a worsening occurs to drop the dose.  The workers in Malawi discovered this method for chronic issues like AIDS and cancer.  When it was malaria, a 15 drop dose was used due to the dangerous and acute nature of malaria.  15 drops (I've been told, not making claims) took the malaria away.  The doctors have written about it as they had blood labs done and even in the most profuse case of malaria not one parasite could be found in the blood work after three doses of 15 drops.  However, 15 drops, the first ever protocol born of the malaria discovery, could not be maintained by chronic cases where they might have to stay on MMS for four weeks.  So they found 3 drops, but more often, kept the dioxide in the system, but not enough to create symptoms.  As I am told by two people I trust, in 3 weeks most of the AIDS and cancer patients were free of symptoms with this method.  A small number of people took longer.  If you think I don't know how ridiculous that sounds, well, we're on different planets.  I know it sound ridiculous.  If it weren't for the people I actually know personally who had similar results, I would not have researched to the extent I did.  

 

It was when I saw what the missionaries were doing, plus the chemistry, plus the total absence of evidence of harm that led me to look deeper.  What those missionaries are achieving should be on 60 minutes or something.  It's absolutely crucial to the progress of medicine for people to at least look at this with scientific eyes, with logical eyes, not clouded by a determination not to be "wrong".  I first wanted to know if and how it works in the body... no point finding out it is safe if it doesn't even work.  I found studies that the gas does permeate, throughout the whole body very effectively.  So then I wanted to know what byproducts it created (chlorox, for example kills via byproducts) and learned it creates benign substances, such as table salt.  In the doses taken (three drops) you can imagine the tiny amount of table salt that is.  

 

I had endometriosis, fibroids, and huge cysts on both ovaries and cysts all throughout my uterus and cervix.  After I heard from my HIV+ friends, I became my own guinea pig.  Indeed, my first period after taking it was pain-free, no clots, nice bright red blood... just a totally healthy period that I hadn't had in a very long time.  So I went and got an ultra sound.  All clear.  No cysts, no free fluid, nothing.  Perhaps it was a coincidence.  I'm not giving my opinion on it.  Just stating the correlation.  

 

From that point on, well, things spiralled into where I am today with it.  I do a lot of research.  For instance, this is an old experiment I did on myself (not with MMS): http://sagaciousmama.synthasite.com/moles.php

 

This is a thread here at MDC I did that took much more concentration than this one, and again, I didn't do it cos I'm nuts or making money because I'm neither (well, nuts is debatable)... I love what I do.  I LOVE it.  I spend most of my free time learning about health and healing, I do it because it is my thing, my joy.  Not all of us have ulterior motives.  I don't need money, I don't want money, and I believe all people should have access to healing, just like they do in tribal cultures.  I acknowledge I am a radical, I am usually the most radical in a group of extreme radicals.  I know that.  I just don't see the significance.  All my research errs on the side of "that is crazy", and again, I don't care.  Crazy thinking is what gets us out of a rut.  

 

The missionaries are not lying to suggest they are is... well, I can't even validate the scope of such an accusation and they certainly are not faking African video footage... so that only leaves room for one thing.  It still doesn't tell us if it is safe, ultimately.  So you either trust the fact that people get better, not worse from it...or you don't.  But if you discredit something, opinion isn't strong enough, not when it opposes all those Jesus lovin' liars in Africa.  When it comes to unconscionable, ignoring the success of the work in Africa has got to take the cake.  Millions of people die from malaria every year, mosquito nets are not helping the sick.  If you don't believe it is working, is it that you don't trust missionaries, are you suggesting they're lying?  Do you think it is a coincidence?  What is it that makes anyone say "it doesn't work" with absolutely no personal experience, science, or data to suggest such a thing when all the data says it does kill malaria, in water and in the body.  

 

That is precisely why it is used to treat water in the first place.  

 

Perhaps the disbelief rests on the idea that it works externally, but not in the body.  Is that the problem?  Why can't people be clearer about the concerns? I fail to understand the vagueness about this.  

 

I recognise this new and unbelievable, I realise people jump to the idea that those spreading it must be either motivated by greed or something else less altruistic.  I can't prove I'm not, but I can give you the history that at least shows that I have a history of helping for nothing, that I do not get anything in return for the information I give, and that is, again, all this is. 



Calm, no one has done human studies on the impacts of drinking industrial solvents lately - I can't imagine they would get permission from their institutional review boards.  But we don't need to study it, honestly.  There are enough accounts of exposure to make the case for concerns about safety.  According to the msds on ClO2 and on Sodium hypochloride (clorox), ClO2 has an LD 50 of about 292 mg/kg, and bleach has an LD50 of around 90 mL/kg (both measured through oral exposure in rats).  Both substances are respiratory irritants.  Both substances are surface disinfectants, as another poster has already pointed out in her extensive response to your citations.  Both substances are described as hazardous if ingested.  (ClO2: http://www.haloxtech.com/pdf/MSDS-Chlorinedioxide(ClO2)-540ppm.pdfhttp://www.puremash.com/pdfs/MaterialDataSheetCIO2.pdf Sodium Hypochloride: http://avogadro.chem.iastate.edu/MSDS/NaOCl-6pct.htm) I'm going to continue to call both of them bleach.  

 

I have no idea what is going on in the mouse studies you refer to.  Perhaps you could provide a link?  

 

I would have no problem pumping people full of a substance that had unfortunate side effects if that substance had been shown to offer realistic hope of improving their condition.  This is why, while I understand that chemotherapy makes people feel terrible, I think it's still a sensible option for many cancer patients.  My problem with MMS is that no data suggests that it cures any medical condition.  The FDA consumer warning on MMS expressly addresses this.  You've said that it prevents infection, and then provided links to examples of MMS preventing infection when used as a water purifier or a surface disinfectant.  The data you have presented do not support ingestion as a means of curing disease.  

 

You don't get real Herxheimer reactions unless you are recovering from a disease that produces spirochetes, like Lyme disease or syphilis.  HIV does not produce spirochetes.  Neither do malaria or cancers.  You can get diarrhea or vomiting that people call Herxheimer reactions because they want to feel good about the alarming symptoms they are seeing.  But really, that's a side effect of either treatment or disease.  Again, I have no problem with a treatment for a deadly disease that causes short term diarrhea and vomiting.  My issue with MMS is that this is the ONLY effect.  There is no proof of MMS being an effective treatment for any disease.  Neither you, Calm, nor anyone in any of your links has proposed a mechanism by which MMS would travel from the digestive system to the blood, organs, or bone marrow to act on the many conditions MMS is alleged to treat.  

 

Video footage is not medical evidence.  You can produce hours of footage of doctors treating people, and all it proves is that some people were in front of a camera.  You keep mentioning that these people are missionaries.  I don't care.  Calling yourself a missionary does not make you a medical expert.  History has plenty of examples of people calling themselves missionaries and actually being criminals and con men - two groups of people who like to call themselves missionaries because it makes people trust them.  

 

I have no doubt of your history of wanting to help people and loving what you do.  You also have a history of making bizarre claims on MDC.  A couple years back, you claimed that HIV didn't cause AIDS and those symptoms in gay men were actually a result of using poppers.  A few weeks ago, you claimed to have met many people over the age of 130 in your world travels (the world record for longest recorded life is 114 years).  I think it's possible that you genuinely believe these things.  If your belief is genuine, it doesn't make these things true.  

post #91 of 339
Thread Starter 

Quote:
 
but the effects of the toxicity are presented as "evidence" that MMS is working

There are many people out there with things to say on MMS and I've seen some of them present that as evidence it is working.  But Jim and those who have actually worked extensively with this do not say that.  The only evidence it is working is if your disease is getting better, obviously.  They say that if you feel unwell, decrease the dose.  If you still feel unwell, then it probably isn't something MMS can fix, such as poisoning from paint fumes and other non-pathogenic problems.  

 

You don't know anyone who has been helped... so that means it doesn't work?  I don't understand that synapse.  I'm still interested in learning why you say it can't work.  I understand the "is it safe?" question, but if it didn't work, the missionaries would have given up and gone home years ago.  If it didn't work, everyone I know, the thousands who have written testimonies and the many not online must be delusional.  That just doesn't make any sense.  Mass delusion is not a solid argument.  It's one thing to point to me and say that, but there are many sites out there, including the one bravebird just linked which I had not seen before, that are highly unlikely to be a bunch of fakes.  There is nothing to gain from carrying this as a fake.  Nothing.  The whole thing can't be a massive fake or fraud, that is just invalidating so many people.  Have you even met anyone who has used it, let alone successfully?  

 

I know testimonials mean nothing to some of you.  But many of them are contactable, so you can verify their testimony.  And if nothing else, just reading these stories has got to soften anyone... so many people are being helped, this substance needs further studies ASAP.  

 

Testimonials

 

Arrowind's list

 

And there is Jim's massive list, tons of other sites, my friend's personal lists and of course the people on the videos.  Another friend of mine was in Haiti doing work with MMS and were held up at gunpoint and the computer stolen.  They no longer go there, it is too dangerous and politically a nightmare the media avoids reporting the full extent of... but she lost a ton of data there.  However, she still has testimonials.  

 

 

Leo Koehof was in Africa treating with it, and wrote a book about his experience.

 

Many have been helped.  I know that seems inconvenient to some, so much so they have to block that out as a lie, or a delusion.  But it is true.  I know from personal experience.

 

No one has been harmed.  Does that stand for nothing?  There have been no decent clinical trials in the west.  We only have the studies showing no harm, and they are limited.  We have the studies on rats, and those doing their own studies (which, if double blinds don't satisfy some, the backyard genius surely won't inspire them any).  Chlorine dioxide was deemed safe to use on human food and in our water.  So some studies had to be done to prove safety and limits and some of them I linked in my FAQ post.  

 


Edited by Calm - 4/27/11 at 3:00am
post #92 of 339
Thread Starter 

 


 

Quote:

Yes, that is one of the reasons for disbelief that is rattling around in my head. I think the "different chemical processes" argument that you present is an interesting one, although I don't fully understand it yet, so can't judge if it's accurate.

 

My main concern and suspicion is based on the symptoms my father is having, which to me seem very similar to poison reactions. Detox or herx reactions that I've seen and worked with have never been this intense. This seems very consistent with poisoning symptoms. My father is having trouble getting the calories he needs because of these reactions, and we all know that starving won't help him. He is not even actively vomiting; he reduced his dose when that happened. But even at a low dose, his stomach almost completely shuts down, and he can't abide even small bites of food. He can only eat in the morning, after he's had a break from the MMS all night.

 

This study: http://www.alternative-cancer-care.com/MMS_Cancer_Study.html

is an informal study on MMS and cancer patients, and I'm not sure it has very convincing things to say, honestly. The thing that stands out the most to me is the fact that most people in the study discontinued the MMS because of the side effects. Seeing what my father is facing, I can understand that. It really does not seems like something to dismiss, and it seems a rather widespread experience, so I'd like to see some further investigating of that. I understand you are saying that no one can prove it is "safe", and that you are simply arguing that it is, rather, "not life-threatening" -- is that right? But that doesn't seem like a curious enough reaction, honestly, given the feedback that people taking MMS are giving -- which is that the "side effects" are so bad that they just can't continue taking it. Side effects of chemo are bad, too, but everyone freely admits that that's because it's a process of poisoning. If that's what's happening with MMS, I'd like it to be discussed just as openly, instead of dismissed.

Interesting link.  Worth reading.

 

What drop dose is he on, exactly?  If he is on the old protocol, he will be on a high dose, so even if he drops it, it could be higher than the current recommended amount.  My SIL was on it for a particular autoimmune disease and she climbed slowly to 3 drops over three days and felt sick after day 5 and stopped the MMS.  All her symptoms came back 2 days later, which she felt were worse than the sickness so she restarted.  By day three she was sick again so dropped her dose from 3 drops an hour to 1 drop an hour, was better but still had the runs so dropped it to 1 drop every two hours... that was where she felt comfortable.  She was able to raise the dose after a couple of weeks and in total was off the MMS in under a month.  Symptom free.  

 

Plus, does he drink coffee, or eat much meat?  

post #93 of 339
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by stik View Post

 

 

 







Calm, no one has done human studies on the impacts of drinking industrial solvents lately 

Define lately.  Because such studies have been done on chlorine dioxide.  Since you asked for the rat study link, and I had already linked it in my FAQ post, I assume you missed a ton of other links also.  That obviously includes the safety studies done on ClO2.  They were done so it could be approved for use in human food and drinking water.  They had to show limits and safety.  No one approved chlorox for such use because they are different substances.  Do you call lemons bleach?  Or turmeric?  I would think doing so would be very confusing, as calling them by their name defines what it is you are talking about, regardless of the fact that they fade things (bleach).  The only reason to do so is for impact, because it confuses people unnecessarily.  Which is the point, I assume.  

 

I shall link one of them again:

 

Clinical tests in man

However, by the absence of detrimental physiological responses within the limits of the study, the relative safety of oral ingestion of chlorine dioxide and its metabolites, chlorite and chlorate, was demonstrated.

 

 

 

Quote:

Both substances are respiratory irritants.

 

So is salt.  So is dust.  So is ibuprofen.  In fact, have you seen the side effects of ibuprofen?  Here.  Here is the hazardous information on citric acid (used in much cooking and found in citrus fruits). But we aren't going to snort any of those things either.  

 

 

 

Quote:

 Both substances are surface disinfectants,

 

So is orange juice.  So is lavender.  So is vodka.  So is vinegar.  Vinegar will actually strip paint.  If you need to clean stains from your toilet bowl, nothing works better than vinegar.  When my son's potty has sat too long with pee in it, we stick some vinegar in it... it dissolves everything in it in an hour.  

 

 

Quote:

 Both substances are described as hazardous if ingested.  

 

 

They do not give the amounts, and the dose makes the poison.

 

 

 Most substances have an industrial hazard sheet.  From the links:

 

 

Quote:
ACUTE HEALTH EFFECTS
 
INGESTION: Not a normal route of exposure.  Harmful if swallowed. Can cause irritation to mouth, 
esophagus, stomach, and mucous membranes.  
SKIN CONTACT: Corrosive. May cause redness and irritation. 
EYE CONTACT: Contact causes redness, irritation, pain, blurred vision, tearing, corneal injury and burns. 
INHALATION: Harmful if inhaled. Coughing, headaches, labored breathing, nausea, shortness of breath, 
pulmonary edema.  

Do you mean the part I bolded?  The irritation I have personally experienced.  As I cannot stand the taste, I took it in capsules, which means that the dilution recommended was not there.  The capsule burst in my throat.  It hurt, because pure chlorine dioxide does burn, a bit like a hot chili.  Again, other ordinary substances have this effect, stuff we use in cooking... even foods.  But we dilute them, or we mix them with other foods.  Chlorine dioxide is now being used in mouth rinses which would not happen if everyone was getting oral and membrane burns.

 

 

Quote:
TOXICOLOGY INFORMATION
ACUTE ORAL TOXICITY: No information. 
ACUTE DERMAL TOXICITY: No information. 
INHALATION EFFECTS: Strong respiratory irritant. 
IRRITATION TO SKIN: Irritant. Can give transient pain and redness. 
IRRITATION TO EYES: Strong irritant. 
SENSITIZATION DATA: No information. 
REPRODUCTIVE TOXICITY: Chlorine dioxide did not cause birth defects in laboratory animals, even at 
exceptionally high exposure levels. 
CARCINOGENICITY:  This product does NOT contain compounds known to cause cancer accroding to 
NTP, IARC or OSHA. 
MUTAGENICITY: Chlorine dioxide did test positive in a small fraction of mutagenesis assays conducted, 
however, in a two year mouse bioassa

 

 

 

******************

Quote:
I have no idea what is going on in the mouse studies you refer to.  Perhaps you could provide a link?  

 

 

Protective effect of low-concentration chlorine dioxide gas against influenza A virus infection.

 

 

 

Quote:
I would have no problem pumping people full of a substance that had unfortunate side effects if that substance had been shown to offer realistic hope of improving their condition.

By "had been shown to offer realistic hope" you mean in a clinical, expensive, laboratory double blind trial.  Because you do not accept the many testimonies, when doctors are even trained not to ignore testimony.  It is a valid piece of evidence.  Plus the videos... did you watch them?  What do you say of these people, are they lying?  (that is a link, btw)  Is that really irrelevant?  Because I strongly disagree if you think it is. 

 

 

Quote:
My problem with MMS is that no data suggests that it cures any medical condition.

Absence of data is not absence of cure.  

 

To those who aren't solely intent on discrediting MMS regardless of anything and at any cost, the absence of data is just one obstacle to the truth.  It isn't the be all and end all of the whole shebang.  Every medicine starts with no data.

 

 

Quote:

 The data you have presented do not support ingestion as a means of curing disease.  

 

I am different to you... I accept a video as evidence.  So does a court of law.  It helps that I know people who were actually there, I have an advantage in that regard.  I don't have to choose to believe or not.  It would be like your friend telling you about her trip to Africa where she helped missionaries and doctors treat malaria... you wouldn't say "oh BULLSHIT Maria!  That can't be done.".  

 

 

Quote:
You don't get real Herxheimer reactions unless you are recovering from a disease that produces spirochetes, like Lyme disease or syphilis.    HIV does not produce spirochetes.  Neither do malaria or cancers.  

Wiki can only give you limited info, and you misread it.  I'll quote it for you:

 

 

 

 

Quote:

The Herxheimer reaction occurs when large quantities of toxins are released into the body as bacteria (typically spirochetes) die during antibiotic treatment.

Typically the death of these bacteria and the associated release of endotoxins occurs faster than the body can remove the toxins. It is manifested by fever, chills, headache, myalgia(muscle pain), and exacerbation of skin lesions. The intensity of the reaction reflects the intensity of inflammation present.

It is classically associated with syphilis. Duration in syphilis is normally only a few hours. The reaction is also seen in other diseases caused by spirochetes, such as borreliosis (Lyme disease and tick-borne relapsing fever) and leptospirosis, and in Q fever.[1] Similar reactions have also been reported to occur in bartonellosis (including cat scratch disease),[2][3] brucellosis,[4] typhoid fever,[5] and trichinosis.[6]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herxheimer_reaction

 

Note the bolded words.  They are not committing to "only happens when".  Trichinosis is a parasite, for instance, not a bacterium.  And parasites contain viruses and bacteria of their own, it's just how life goes.  When a worm dies inside you, where do you think its contents go?  Exactly.  Inside you.  

 

Herx is a term used in naturopathy.  It is as old as the hills.  If you aren't into natural healing, you won't believe in it but then, you probably don't believe in herbs to heal either in that case.  So we'll have to agree to disagree on that.  At college we studied herx for weeks.  You can bring it on with a fast, you can bring it on with many things actually, because as the body comes back into alignment, it will kill off pathogens on its own.  And this will cause a herx.  This is the natural hygienists approach to health via food, btw, to get the body to heal itself.

 

 

Quote:
There is no proof of MMS being an effective treatment for any disease.

testimony is proof.  And like a clinical trial we are all free to reject such proof.  Doesn't make it true, doesn't make it false.   

 

 

 

Quote:
 Neither you, Calm, nor anyone in any of your links has proposed a mechanism by which MMS would travel from the digestive system to the blood, organs, or bone marrow to act on the many conditions MMS is alleged to treat.  

Yes there is, I already said there was.  

 

There is the malaria data.  Same data, but with chemistry pics.

 

There is Chlorine Dioxide Metabolism in Rats

 

In rats and chickens

 rapidly absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract following the administration of (0.07 microCi) 36ClO2 orally... 

After 72 hr radioactivity was highest in plasma, followed by kidney, lung, stomach, duodenum, ileum, liver, spleen, thymus, and bone marrow. 

 

 Quote:

 

Video footage is not medical evidence.  You can produce hours of footage of doctors treating people, and all it proves is that some people were in front of a camera.  You keep mentioning that these people are missionaries.  I don't care. 

At least you've admitted it.  I do care about what they're doing, and the need there is for them to be doing it.  While you sit there judging them, they sit holding a baby in desperate need... what would you do?  Put a mosquito net over them?  It's too late.  They're already sick. You don't believe videos, you don't believe testimonies and we have no clinical trials yet to show it works on any disease other than flu in mice and the data some radicals are collating such as the cancer link a pp posted.  Not much.  I understand skepticism, I applaud it.  What I do not condone, for anything, ever, not just for this, is to outright condemn it when there is even the slightest chance it is doing what it claims to.  

 

Because look at it:

 

It has not done any harm when taken orally, esp at small levels.

 

It has been proven to be absorbed systemically and quickly.  

 

It has proven safety at small levels orally.  

 

It has proven efficacy against all pathogens.   

 

 
It isn't some massive leap to the next step which is that it works against pathogens internally.  Then the rat study show us that hey, it actually DOES work internally.  You want a clinical trial to show it heals disease in humans, well, so do I.  But we have what we have, and to discount it outright with those stats is premature and potentially tragic for many people it could help.

Edited by Calm - 4/27/11 at 3:13am
post #94 of 339
Thread Starter 

 

Quote:
A few weeks ago, you claimed to have met many people over the age of 130 in your world travels (the world record for longest recorded life is 114 years).  

Oldest Woman in the World about to turn 130

 

Now, what if I couldn't produce that evidence?  That's worth thinking about.  You have your data now... suddenly for you, people who are 130 exist in the world, where before you didn't see the possibility, and I was a just making wild claims.  See how easy it is to be misled?  How easy it is for our world view to be limited, and therefore our potential?

 

Do you think that all you hear in the media is all there is in the world?  

 

Do you think that unless someone with authority tells you something, it is false?

 

Do you think that if someone with authority tells you something, it is true?

 

There are many people around the world without birth records.  Esp the oldest people, because they weren't as meticulous about it in the 1800's.  Esp those in remote places because they often didn't record anything at all.  There are uncontacted tribes all over the world.  There are millions of indigenous still living tribally.  There is so much going on, that the media cannot even begin to claim to know it all.  I happened to live in Japan for seven months.  I met people from Okinawa who I was told were in their mid to late 120's.  If I make wild claims it's probably because I've lived a wild life.  I've stretched my perceptions.

 

As I said, I don't run with the sheep.  If you find that evidence against my credibility, get in line.  That ain't new thinking.  The majority throwing stones at the non conformist is as old as Earth itself.  

post #95 of 339

mbravebird,

I appreciate your interest in my comments. Hehe as annoyed as they may get.

I'm afraid I can't continue in the discussion because at this point I have nothing more to add outside of what I have said and others have echoed.

 

Calm hasn't produced anything that is "evidence" of MMS curing anything. 

My biggest concern is that people take it, get very ill from it poisoning them and then when they stop taking it they feel better so they must have been cured. That Calm has such a vested interest in duking it out with strangers online is suspect to me. She will explain it away but that doesn't make a difference. I think Jim Humble is nothing more than a con man and as a PP pointed out "missionary" can be a veiled cover for anything ranging from trying to convert the natives to someone "curing" people of their ailments.

 

 

Finally, I just don't see the point of arguing with someone whose claims are so all over the place, the links don't have much relevance to the claims she makes and then she just repeats that she is a good person who just wants to help people so take her at her word...How can I argue with that? This is a stranger on the internet, for every comment I or anyone else has made Calm has come up with an explanation for everything, even if it makes no sense. I'm not changing her mind anytime soon because she has a vested interest in her points. I myself won't ever be taking MMS so what do I care personally if other people what to poison themselves, which is what I think they are doing...

 


Edited by Ldavis24 - 4/27/11 at 9:39am
post #96 of 339

Had to come back to point out how convenient it is that all this supposed data on MMS cures is confiscated by customs and stolen at gun point.  

post #97 of 339

This post caught my attention, so I had to give my input :)

 

Calm this is NOT an attack against you, but I do need to point out the errors in your argument.  The links you have provided in NO WAY give support the SPECIFIC claims that you have made in favor of this treatment.  Yes, you have provided links that show that ClO2 can kill pathogens, and no one is arguing that.  Yes, you provided a link that appears to say that treated tap water is safe to ingest...but unless you are indicating that MMS is nothing more than treated tap water, this article does not indicate in any way that this particular treatment is safe.

 

Personal claims and testimony in NO WAY equate to scientific evidence, and there is good reason for this.  To say - no, brag - that this treatment was discovered by someone with no medical training, where the only evidence that he has to start off with is his word that it works.  To use this as the basis to sell it to, as you have said millions(?) of people is dangerous and predatory.  In order to get a clinical trial there needs to be evidence of how this treatment works, why this treatment works, the limits of the treatment, the dangers of the treatment, and it needs to be done in a controlled environment FOR THE SPECIFIC treatment.  Finding articles that support one aspect or another DOES NOT equate to the rigorous studies that would need to be done in order to support the fact that this treatment was safe and effective.  This type of procedure is set up to protect people, to ensure that the treatment does in fact work (is not a placebo effect), and to understand the toxicity and limitations.  One cannot just get a grant to try a largely untested treatment in PEOPLE before proving that it is safe and effective in it's intended arena - and as I said, an uncontrolled study in personal testimony just doesn't swing it.  

 

Just to put my two cents in, if I had to think about how this would work on a common sense level, ClO2 would appear to act kind of like chemotherapy, where you assault the body with substances that are going to work to kill cells.  ClO2 attacks proteins that are also present in healthy cells, so the hope would be that since there are less "bad" cells, they would be knocked out before there was too much damage to our own bodies.  Is this a fair assessment?

 

Just remember that science is SUPPOSED to be questioned; it has and always will, and that is why we are able to progress.  It truly does throw up red flags when people rely on sensationalism to try to negate rational questions, which is what I see here.  If you truly believe that this treatment is effective, then you need to welcome the questions and critique, and take them seriously.  Because if the treatment is really this good, then it should stand up to all of it.  I suggest trying to start from the beginning, as does anyone else with a theory on treatment, and try not to use irrelevant information because is "sounds" good.  It weakens the argument.

 

Also, just food for thought, I can make tons of cleaning solutions and personal hygiene products for next to nothing from ingredients in my kitchen cabinet, and yet these are each multi billion dollar industries, are they not?

 

Calm, I really have enjoyed hearing your POV on issues here since I stumbled across this site. I hope that you can wade through the mudslinging and sensationalism and be able to focus on the facts :)   

post #98 of 339


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BabySmurf View Post


Just to put my two cents in, if I had to think about how this would work on a common sense level, ClO2 would appear to act kind of like chemotherapy, where you assault the body with substances that are going to work to kill cells.  ClO2 attacks proteins that are also present in healthy cells, so the hope would be that since there are less "bad" cells, they would be knocked out before there was too much damage to our own bodies.  Is this a fair assessment?

 

Just remember that science is SUPPOSED to be questioned; it has and always will, and that is why we are able to progress.  It truly does throw up red flags when people rely on sensationalism to try to negate rational questions, which is what I see here.  If you truly believe that this treatment is effective, then you need to welcome the questions and critique, and take them seriously.  Because if the treatment is really this good, then it should stand up to all of it.  I suggest trying to start from the beginning, as does anyone else with a theory on treatment, and try not to use irrelevant information because is "sounds" good.  It weakens the argument.

 

Also, just food for thought, I can make tons of cleaning solutions and personal hygiene products for next to nothing from ingredients in my kitchen cabinet, and yet these are each multi billion dollar industries, are they not?

 

Calm, I really have enjoyed hearing your POV on issues here since I stumbled across this site. I hope that you can wade through the mudslinging and sensationalism and be able to focus on the facts :)   



that's what I think too re: the bolded.  And I appreciate this post-welcome to MDC!

post #99 of 339

I appreciate your work here, Calm. I have not read all of the links yet, but I will try to get to all of them throughout the next few days. This discussion is interesting, and I don't have an opinion on MMS yet since I have not read much about it. So, thanks for starting this discussion, so I can learn and decide for myself.

 

A few points of interest......

 

*Last winter, I [stupidly] took too much Sodium Ascorbate. You know, how everybody here on MDC recommends to take it to bowel tolerance, then scale back a little? Well, I took it way beyond bowel tolerance, to the point where it made me violently ill for the entire day. I threw up 3 times that day, and I hadn't felt so sick since my early 20's (when I learned that I do Not like to drink beer lol!)

So, my bad experience with SA sounds similar to a bad experience with CIO2 (although I'm sure ClO2 in a high dose would kill.)  But still, I took anecdotal advice--not FDA scientific advice, much like other people here on MDC. How many of you have taken "non-scientific" natural remedy advice?

 

*I choose not to vaccinate my children, largely based on the thousands of stories of people who have been injured by vaccines. These reactions are not always recognized by the government, so I have to choose which side to believe. Do I believe the mom who swears her son changed after the MMR, or do I believe the gov't that says there is no proven scientific connection?  

It is my choice to believe the people, the thousands of reports.

 

Sooooooo, this leads me to MMS. If there happens to be much more anecdotal evidence, rather than lab tested scientific proven evidence, I might take that into consideration.

But, that's just me. If there are missionaries using the stuff, videos of people healed, testimonials, etc. then I tend to believe it might actually work. Just because the FDA has not tested it as a malaria cure does not mean that it doesn't work.

To say that something cannot be a cure because it is not recognized by the mainstream medicine machine, well, that is not a valid argument in my opinion.

 

*Annnnnnnnd another thing. Those of you who oppose MMS, who say it is a harmful chemical, I understand completely. I just hope you realize that Sodium Fluoride is a poison as well, and has no business in our bodies, period. You know, the stuff added to our water supply, to nursery water, and toothpaste? I'm not talking about Calcium Fluoride, no. If you hate MMS so much, please add Sodium Fluoride to your list. Go on, Research it!!  Help get it out of the water supply. And while you're at it, take a look at how our loving government (the one who cares so much for its citizens) recommended it to be added in the first place. That's right, industrial waste is good to drink, so your teeth will be cavity-free!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2886269353175462948#

 

Ok, so I'll take the next few days to read the MMS links. Thank you for posting them!

 

 

post #100 of 339
Thread Starter 


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BabySmurf View Post

This post caught my attention, so I had to give my input :)

 

Calm this is NOT an attack against you, but I do need to point out the errors in your argument.  

I can tell a personal attack, and your post was not one of them.  At this stage, absence of sarcasm or making it about me personally or assuming my "vested interests" and that kind of rudeness is most welcome.

 

 

 

 

 

Quote:
The links you have provided in NO WAY give support the SPECIFIC claims that you have made in favor of this treatment.

Which links... the science?  The videos?  That's subjective.  Some do find it in favour of this treatment.  They recognise the limitations, esp regarding clinical trials, and deal with what we do have regarding MMS.   I know some suspend belief (at best) that it is even possible MMS could do that much, but for one moment, suppose it could.   What drug company is going to fund a trial that has the potential to eliminate need for most of the drugs they make?  This isn't some big conspiracy thing about the FDA and big pharma, its fiscal logic.  What company or investor is going to invest to learn that MMS does all that and make no return on their investment?  It is like finding out salt does the same thing, in fact, it is made out of salt so it is basically learning salt does all that... which means that anyone will be able to make it.  It can't be patented.  

 

I mentioned earlier about the nobel prize winners who discovered ulcers were caused by bacteria and had nothing to do with "stomach acid".  I bet you can guess who put up most resistance to their discovery for 25 years... the ant-acid companies.  Ant-acids were the biggest selling prescription meds in the world.  They made it decidedly difficult for those two guys, they were met with derision and it wasn't all that hard to discredit because all they had to chant was "ulcers as infectious disease?  That's ridiculous!"  Which meant that for almost 30 years, people suffered, and died, unnecessarily.  No one at the ant-acid company seemed to care about that of course.  One of the scientists ended up infecting himself with the disease to make a point, and they were finally heard.  But it would be a decade further before people were given this information, as the ant-acid companies tried to find a way to add antibiotics to their products and biotech tried to fashion a childhood vaccine for it.  

 

That stuff happens.  Lobbiests exist and are often having lunch with the agencies.  My husband had dinner with a lobbiest a couple of years ago, who actually helped bring down the economy of the United States, the man admitted.  The prize winners work was instrumental in stimulating research that linked many other inflammatory diseases to infection, such as Crohn's and artherosclerosis.  It seems the more we look for pathogens as the cause of something, we more we find it.  

 

 

 

 

 

Quote:
  Yes, you provided a link that appears to say that treated tap water is safe to ingest...but unless you are indicating that MMS is nothing more than treated tap water, this article does not indicate in any way that this particular treatment is safe.

What else is it, if it isn't simply treated tap water?  It was actually discovered because Jim took the sodium chlorite to the jungle with him on a trip.  He got malaria, as did everyone around him.  The treated bottle of stuff he realised had healed him, so he gave it to his traveling friends.  They all got well.  He took it to a nearby jungle community where malaria existed.  They also got well.  All from nothing but a bottle of treated water.  All Jim did was up the dose, to make it faster.  The dose isn't all that much higher than those who travel to infection places carry with them.  It has been used for as long as i can personally remember to treat foreign water.  Anyone who has left their own country has stuffed a sachet of sodium chlorite into their suitcase otherwise you'll get sick as a dog from any number of parasites, bacteria and fungi.  It isn't rocket science, and it isn't such a big deal as this is being made out to be.  

 

The shock isn't that he discovered it.  The shock is that it took so damned long to make the synapse.

 

 

 

 

Quote:
Personal claims and testimony in NO WAY equate to scientific evidence, and there is good reason for this

I didn't say scientific evidence.  It is, however, evidence of efficacy.

 

 

Quote:
To say - no, brag - that this treatment was discovered by someone with no medical training, where the only evidence that he has to start off with is his word that it works.  To use this as the basis to sell it to, as you have said millions(?) of people is dangerous and predatory.

That is not what motivates me.   My own success, plus my research, plus the word of two friends who have been to Haiti and Africa and the DR is what motivates me.  And as i said, if your friend came to you with the same thing, you'd do the same thing.   It is that simple.  Just because it is potentially massive and world changing doesn't make it any less simple or true.  My brothers and myself and others I know have used it for many things.  You can choose not to believe our testimony, but I know what I know, and that motivates me.  It makes most sense to me that a traveller discovered this, not a doctor.

 

 
Quote:
Just to put my two cents in, if I had to think about how this would work on a common sense level, ClO2 would appear to act kind of like chemotherapy, where you assault the body with substances that are going to work to kill cells.  ClO2 attacks proteins that are also present in healthy cells, so the hope would be that since there are less "bad" cells, they would be knocked out before there was too much damage to our own bodies.  Is this a fair assessment?

If you don't understand chemistry, that would make sense, yes.  I wondered the same thing.  But if you care to look at the chemstry, perhaps the one of how it works against malaria.  Healthy cells have a different pH, and the electrons are not attracted to the oxidation.  Following?  In fact, one way I can tell a genuine chemist is speaking with me about this is that they ask if it will affect acid bacteria in the gut.  That is a sure sign the person knows chemistry, because they've figured out that it is acid-philic, therefore, what about the acid loving beneficial bacteria in the gut, won't they be killed off with the pathogenic ones?  I am, to be honest, still unsure if it can kill beneficial acidic bacteria yet, although Adam has been very good at explaining why it doesn't, on his post here.  And how it cannot hurt healthy cells.  I think that's the post anyway, if not, let me know.  He has addressed it somewhere.  But I am not totally convinced yet.  There are a few things I want to know for sure as I have seen the thyroid was affected at high doses in rats... and although the dose was high, those kinds of things are important to me.  I agree more testing has to be done.  

 

 

 

 

Quote:
Just remember that science is SUPPOSED to be questioned; it has and always will, and that is why we are able to progress.  It truly does throw up red flags when people rely on sensationalism to try to negate rational questions, which is what I see here.  If you truly believe that this treatment is effective, then you need to welcome the questions and critique, and take them seriously.

I thought I was.  I have devoted a lot of effort to give the information out here.  Yet in exchange I am told that I am dedicating too much to this so therefore I must have some sick motive.  I can't win.

 

 

 

 

Quote:
Also, just food for thought, I can make tons of cleaning solutions and personal hygiene products for next to nothing from ingredients in my kitchen cabinet, and yet these are each multi billion dollar industries, are they not?

Nothing, absolutely nothing, compares to the money being made by pharma.  It is the biggest industry on earth.  Each drug is worth billions, and there are... many... drugs on the market.  And it isn't about making money from MMS, it is about who will lose from it.  All the big companies which control most of the drugs, and are in bed with the FDA, will not get together and say, let's ditch all our drugs and just share the profits from a stabilised MMS solution.  To think there isn't vested interests in shutting MMS down is naive.

 

 

 

 

Quote:
Calm, I really have enjoyed hearing your POV on issues here since I stumbled across this site. I hope that you can wade through the mudslinging and sensationalism and be able to focus on the facts :)   

Thank you.  And thanks for being respectful.  I assume you joined due to this thread.  That often happens, although usually they are debunkers from pharma companies.  There are a couple of them on Adam's comments threads who admitted to working with drug companies.  You do not seem to be that.  To answer what you said, I am limited with my info.  most of it I can only now repeat.  But there is that new cancer study that another poster linked.  To many, that is significant.  But you can't keep harping on the clinical trial thing when there isn't one.  If that is what you are looking for, then what is the point in being here?  They haven't done one.  So this thread is to collate what we do have.  I can't give you the clinical trial you want, I didn't say there was one showing a disease being cured in humans by chlorine dioxide.  

 

I said I had science showing safety.  I said I had science showing efficacy against the flu and malaria internally, and other pathogens inside the body and out.  I said I had evidence others are using it effectively.  I said I wanted science showing harm.  None is forthcoming except for hazard sheets which, as you can see yourself, actually show safety!   

 

 People keep saying the same thing when I said they haven't done clinical trials and why they haven't done them even though petitions are given regularly for them.  If I had a clinical trial, wouldn't that be a done deal?  Wouldn't it be all over the news?  Well, actually, maybe not, because you rarely see discoveries on the news, such as the ulcer cure.  But surely this would be an easier thread and its efficacy and safety would not be so easily debatable.  Right?  But I don't have that.  But many of us don't need that... following?    We'd like it, but we're suffering and therefore don't have time to wait in case they decide to do such trial.  Many of us have been disappointed by the mainstream scientific method, the doctors who can't solve the simplest problems and many other reasons.  we  don't care about those things now, although they do help us make decisions.  2 million bottles of MMS were sold by 2007.  Considering it is all word of mouth or online, there seems to be quite a few people who do not need all the details you do before making a decision to try it.  There are people who have been sent home from hospital to die... do you think they care about waiting for a clinical trial?

 

 

 


Edited by Calm - 4/27/11 at 3:25pm
New Posts  All Forums:
 
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Health and Healing
Mothering › Mothering Discussion Forums › Health › Health and Healing › Spin-off discussion about Chlorine Dioxide/MMS and the eradication of disease