Spin-off discussion about Chlorine Dioxide/MMS and the eradication of disease - Page 5 - Mothering Forums
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#121 of 339 Old 04-29-2011, 02:05 AM - Thread Starter
 
Calm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: The Illusion
Posts: 3,146
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

 

 

Quote:
When I said I would not be modifying my assertion, I meant that I would not be changing my statement in any way that would imply that your assertions about MMS are correct.  Because they're baloney.

Something just dawned on me.  Are you afraid of saying "I believe it doesn't work" because that sounds less powerful than "it doesn't work"?  What I bolded in the quote above seems like you are afraid that if you admit that there is no proof it doesn't work, that means you're saying it does work?  Allow me to relieve your mind: it doesn't mean you're saying it works.  It's just being brave enough to acknowledge you have no proof for your belief.  

 

Lack of evidence it works doesn't mean it doesn't work, but likewise, lack of evidence it doesn't work doesn't mean it does.

 

We both lack the evidence we need to show what we want to show.  

 

 

 

Quote:
In your view, what process would doctors and scientists need to carry out in order to show that dog feces are, or are not, an effective cure for cancer?  In your view, what does the scientific method look like?  

Considering some of the things you've said in this thread, I think the question is: what does the scientific method look like in your view?  I'm sure it would be very interesting.

 

Unfortunately, it isn't subjective, our views of it are irrelevant.  

 

Steps of the Scientific Method

 

 

The steps of the scientific method are to:

  • Ask a Question

  • Do Background Research

  • Construct a Hypothesis

  • Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment

  • Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion

  • Communicate Your Results

 

That's a crude definition, but workable for a basic understanding.  Figure out for yourself how you'd prove dog poop cures cancer or doesn't.  Formulate your hypothesis, and go from there.  For poop curing cancer, I put my money on the hypothesis remaining unproved... but maybe poop contains some enzyme or bacteria that does all kinds of wonderful things... you'll never know unless you have the guts to move past the first step.  I guess that's one of the differences b/w you and I... I see possibilities and you, well, you just see poop.  tiphat.gif 


Hunger is political.  Wherever there is widespread hunger, it is because people with guns are preventing other people from bringing in food.  
Calm is offline  
#122 of 339 Old 04-29-2011, 02:25 AM - Thread Starter
 
Calm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: The Illusion
Posts: 3,146
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

 

 

 

sleepytime.gif


Hunger is political.  Wherever there is widespread hunger, it is because people with guns are preventing other people from bringing in food.  
Calm is offline  
#123 of 339 Old 04-29-2011, 05:19 AM
Administrator
 
cynthia mosher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: An Arabian kingdom far far away
Posts: 28,860
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 83 Post(s)

This thread is once again seeing inappropriate posting. If you cannot post in discussion of the topic without making sarcastically insulting remarks, your access to this forum will be removed. 

 

oaktreemama and stik - this applies particularly to you both. Please edit your posts to remove the rude sarcasm and accusations of scam. You may then continue this discussion respectfully or you will lose your posting privileges. 


cynthia mosher is online now  
#124 of 339 Old 04-29-2011, 05:37 AM
 
BabySmurf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: MA
Posts: 1,224
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Calm, I truly appreciate that you have responded to each of my points, but regrettably I just don't have the time to reply to everything.  I'll try to keep the rest of my posts short enough :)


Quote:

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

 

Basically, this was all I was trying to establish, in a more organized way without a personal attack on you :)

 

 

 

Quote:

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.  

 

You are right, I have a very basic understanding of Chemistry, and by all means very little understanding of specific conditions within the body, but I do know enough to realize that this  makes sense on the surface.  The article you linked didn't go into these details, but it was an interesting read anyway.  I would like to read the info if you can find the post though.

 

 

Quote:

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.

 

I don't disagree, I just wanted to point out that people who can figure out how to make some sort of profit from almost anything; this isn't in an accusatory tone.

 

 

 

::removes skeptic hat, puts on student hat:::

 

I am curious about the selectivity of ClO2, and I hope to read more on that.  In the article you posted above there was mention of how this treatment helped put back into balance oxygen levels...how do you feel about the current antioxidant craze then? I have been sort of weirded out by all of the "antioxidant rich" stuff on the market lately. And quite frankly all of the fish oil and multivitamin stuff in general.  I just bought a book by Nick Lane called Oxygen, and it goes into the delicate balance of O2 in the atmosphere and our bodies.  I haven't read it yet, but I know from reviews that he goes into how all of the antioxidant stuff can actually disrupt our systems.

 

I'm also curious about how ClO2 behaves with heavy metals.  I believe you posted something about it, but I haven't had a chance to look much into it yet. 

 

Gotta run...I'm responding during DS's ever shorter naps...:)


     Mommy to DS born 11-10-10  wave.gifAnd DD born 6-3-13 baby.gif  

BabySmurf is offline  
#125 of 339 Old 04-29-2011, 08:15 AM
 
mamakay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in la la land, or so they say...
Posts: 8,995
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Calm View Post

 

 

It prevented flu deaths in 100% of mice treated, and of those on placebo 70% died.  That is verifiable evidence suggesting it works.  You cannot pretend that doesn't exist just because it weakens the argument that it doesn't work.  Obviously, it does work... to what extent might be a clever question.  Indeed.

 

 


The mice weren't treated; the air they were breathing was, and the gas apparently inactivated the virus and prevented infection. So that's pretty good evidence that it might/probably works as an air disinfectant. This is a completely different thing from curing an already established infectious disease.

 

What do you consider to be the highest-quality evidence demonstrating that it is effective in curing an already-established disease?

 

mamakay is offline  
#126 of 339 Old 04-29-2011, 09:28 AM
 
WildKingdom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 684
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Calm, I would like you to present one, just one feasible way that MMS can cure conditions as disparate as cancer, AIDS, malaria, fibroids and ovarian cysts, and autism.

 

And I would beg all those reading this to remember- when something appears to be too good to be true, it usually is.
 

Also, the onus is not on "skeptics" to prove that MMS is ineffective and unsafe.  You are the one making wildly improbably claims about it.  The onus is on you to prove that it is safe and effective.

WildKingdom is offline  
#127 of 339 Old 04-29-2011, 10:17 AM
 
SleeplessMommy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,431
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Calm, if you are going to claim "cure" of HIV/AIDS, cancer and autism, you need to provide peer reviewed studies. The ball is in your court to PROVE the treatment cures the disease (or alters the brain in the cause of autism). Even some links to PLOS will help to make your case.

 

There is significant potential for harm in the use of alternative treatments ONLY when effective conventional treatments exist. Christine Maggiore's daughter was HIV infected at birth, for example, when Maggiore refused AZT. Her daughter would likely be alive and HIV-negative today had it not been for Maggiore's choice to avoid conventional medicine.

 

Additionally, it would be helpful for you to provide a proposed mechanism of action. We all understand how bleach (airborne) kills the flu virus on surfaces in the right concentration. But how does it kill HIV-infected cells without killing non-infected cells? How does it "cure cancer"? How does it also re-wire a child's brain so that child becomes neurotypical?

MusicianDad likes this.
SleeplessMommy is offline  
#128 of 339 Old 04-29-2011, 11:48 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,028
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by SleeplessMommy View Post

Calm, if you are going to claim "cure" of HIV/AIDS, cancer and autism, you need to provide peer reviewed studies. The ball is in your court to PROVE the treatment cures the disease (or alters the brain in the cause of autism). Even some links to PLOS will help to make your case.

 

There is significant potential for harm in the use of alternative treatments ONLY when effective conventional treatments exist. Christine Maggiore's daughter was HIV infected at birth, for example, when Maggiore refused AZT. Her daughter would likely be alive and HIV-negative today had it not been for Maggiore's choice to avoid conventional medicine.

 

Additionally, it would be helpful for you to provide a proposed mechanism of action. We all understand how bleach (airborne) kills the flu virus on surfaces in the right concentration. But how does it kill HIV-infected cells without killing non-infected cells? How does it "cure cancer"? How does it also re-wire a child's brain so that child becomes neurotypical?


I think the short answer to the bolded is that it doesn't. Period. Someone saying it does means little considering anyone can say, well anything. An email from "someone" singing the praises of it is about as trustworthy as the emails I get claiming bracelets will make me live 20 years longer.

 

To the larger question of evidence... Well I think that question has already been answered by the lack of actual evidence provided (yes I looked at all the links) and the links that are provided rarely have anything to do with the idea of "curing" anything.

 

Ldavis24 is offline  
#129 of 339 Old 04-29-2011, 12:08 PM
 
Marnica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 5,585
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

I again reserve judgement pertaining specifically to MMS because I dont know enough about it to make one.

 

I did want to say however that this demand for PROOF that MMS does what it is claims to do and is safe to ingest (while I understand the need and desire for proof) is something to think about. The FDA approves drugs all the time on an "accelerated basis" based on preliminary indications that a drug MAY help an illness. In fact, there have been dozens of cases where that actually hasn't been the case at all and the FDA allows the drug to remain on the market even though it DOESN"T HELP or in some cases have never done the follow up studies they promised to do. So there are drugs on the market whose clinical benefit has never actually been established or worse yet remain on the market despite evidence that it is not effective.

 

I do appreciate that these drugs have had preliminary trials that suggest safety and efficay (ie there has been SOME study even if minimal) - but that is not the kind of proof that seems to be being demanded here.

BeckyBird likes this.

If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." Thomas Jefferson.

Marnica is offline  
#130 of 339 Old 04-29-2011, 12:11 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,028
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I guess my issue is that if you are going to claim you have something that cures AIDS, Cancer, Autism, Malaria and a host of other ailments you better have some damn good evidence of it. Which there isn't so it is more than a little frustrating.

Ldavis24 is offline  
#131 of 339 Old 04-29-2011, 12:30 PM
 
WildKingdom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 684
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Marnica View Post

I again reserve judgement pertaining specifically to MMS because I dont know enough about it to make one.

 

I did want to say however that this demand for PROOF that MMS does what it is claims to do and is safe to ingest (while I understand the need and desire for proof) is something to think about. The FDA approves drugs all the time on an "accelerated basis" based on preliminary indications that a drug MAY help an illness. In fact, there have been dozens of cases where that actually hasn't been the case at all and the FDA allows the drug to remain on the market even though it DOESN"T HELP or in some cases have never done the follow up studies they promised to do. So there are drugs on the market whose clinical benefit has never actually been established or worse yet remain on the market despite evidence that it is not effective.

 

I do appreciate that these drugs have had preliminary trials that suggest safety and efficay (ie there has been SOME study even if minimal) - but that is not the kind of proof that seems to be being demanded here.



 I wouldn't say the FDA does this "all the time."  It's actually a pretty rare situation for that to happen.  At the very least, the drugs will have had successful Phase I and Phase II trials, and usually have at least some Phase III trials where there is some efficacy shown in humans.  There's nothing "preliminary" about that.  What the FDA will not do is approve something based on internet testimonials.

 

Calm has not produced any data supporting safety and efficacy.  She wants us to prove to it is unsafe.  Sorry, that's not how it works.

 

I think the double standard is quite amazing.  I see people in the vax forum all the time demanding MORE SAFETY STUDIES.  More studies of vaxed versus unvaxed.  There are thousands of studies done already, but people want more, more, more.  Yet, Calm wants us to accept that a known irritant is safe for ingestion, just on her say-so and that of some random people on youtube.

 

OK.  Ummmmm...no.

WildKingdom is offline  
#132 of 339 Old 04-29-2011, 12:40 PM
 
Marnica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 5,585
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

Lauren I hear you and to a certain extent I totally agree. However I guess my point is that everything we put in our bodies has the potential to help, harm or do nothing or a combination of those. All any 1 person can do is learn all they can about certain things and then make their own calculated decision.

 

When there is a lack of evidence either way, that makes that choice all the more risky. I guess my beef is is that the FDA - the very agency that is supposed to gather evidence of efficacy and/or safety/harm fails miserably at doing so. - but thats a whole other thread!

 

All I know is that clinical experience should count for something (not saying that is something calm has). I have used natural and alternative "snakeoils" to cure various ailments in myself and my family over the years. Some of these things have been around for hundreds of years and natural practioners have been using them forever - there may not be any acceptable clinical trials demonstrating efficacy and safety - but the fact that  a substance has been around for hundreds of years means something to me. I guess it would mean enough that I would risk trying it. I do however appreciate that MMS has probably not been being rountinely ingested for hundreds of years peace.gif

 

 


If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." Thomas Jefferson.

Marnica is offline  
#133 of 339 Old 04-29-2011, 12:52 PM
 
Marnica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 5,585
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by WildKingdom View Post





 I wouldn't say the FDA does this "all the time."  It's actually a pretty rare situation for that to happen.  At the very least, the drugs will have had successful Phase I and Phase II trials, and usually have at least some Phase III trials where there is some efficacy shown in humans.  There's nothing "preliminary" about that.  What the FDA will not do is approve something based on internet testimonials.

 

Calm has not produced any data supporting safety and efficacy.  She wants us to prove to it is unsafe.  Sorry, that's not how it works.

 

I think the double standard is quite amazing.  I see people in the vax forum all the time demanding MORE SAFETY STUDIES.  More studies of vaxed versus unvaxed.  There are thousands of studies done already, but people want more, more, more.  Yet, Calm wants us to accept that a known irritant is safe for ingestion, just on her say-so and that of some random people on youtube.

 

OK.  Ummmmm...no.


Well I guess what you feel is rare - is not so rare to me. Perhaps "'all the time" suggests a daily occurrence and I shouldn't have used the term so loosely. I guess I should say it is done far more routinely than I am comfortable with.
 

 


If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." Thomas Jefferson.

Marnica is offline  
#134 of 339 Old 04-29-2011, 02:06 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,028
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I hear ya Marnica.. I am nothing if not skeptical by nature..kewl.gif

Ldavis24 is offline  
#135 of 339 Old 04-29-2011, 02:27 PM
 
mamakay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in la la land, or so they say...
Posts: 8,995
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I honestly can't think of a single drug the FDA's approved in recent years that was approved based on the sort of anecdotal non-evidence that's used to promote MMS.

mamakay is offline  
#136 of 339 Old 04-29-2011, 02:32 PM - Thread Starter
 
Calm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: The Illusion
Posts: 3,146
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by BabySmurf View Post

I am curious about the selectivity of ClO2, and I hope to read more on that.  In the article you posted above there was mention of how this treatment helped put back into balance oxygen levels...how do you feel about the current antioxidant craze then? I have been sort of weirded out by all of the "antioxidant rich" stuff on the market lately. And quite frankly all of the fish oil and multivitamin stuff in general.  I just bought a book by Nick Lane called Oxygen, and it goes into the delicate balance of O2 in the atmosphere and our bodies.  I haven't read it yet, but I know from reviews that he goes into how all of the antioxidant stuff can actually disrupt our systems.

 

I'm also curious about how ClO2 behaves with heavy metals.  I believe you posted something about it, but I haven't had a chance to look much into it yet. 

Hi BabySmurf... you're one of my favourite posters.

 

Again, I can't produce a clinical trial proving it pulls out heavy metals (and certain toxic substances) from the human body.  What I can do is much the same as I have been doing here, which is giving information so those with their thinking caps on can figure it out for themselves, contact and verify and basically further their own learning and research.  I can show MMS does oxidise heavy metals scientifically, in water, and in the various other ways oxidation works against heavy metals.  It does not chelate, oxidation is a different process.  Much like its disinfection ability, it is easy to show this particular effect in use in various ways, but just not inside the body.  

 

The other piece of information I have is the before and after hair analysis.  Before MMS, hair analysis shows heavy metal levels and after MMS the metals are decreased or gone.  There have been urine tests done for this also, but I have no links for that myself and would have to do a search.  I'm not sure who would put their urine tests on the internet but at curezone and other sites some do things like that as it is helpful when particular alternative treatments have no formal studies and people rely on each other's reporting and results.  

 

I'm not on my own computer at the moment, and have no links.

 

Regarding antioxidants, it always felt wrong to me to wage such war against such an important element of our health - oxygen.  Most people think oxygen's effects are limited to breathing, but that is so far from the truth.  There are many uses of oxygen in the body such as oxidation against pathogens.  I understand the chemistry of free radicals.  But what seems to have happened is we've found a bunch of really effective vitamins and herbs and put their actions down as simply antioxidant.  They do serve this function (hence why vitamin C for instance must be avoided while on oxidant therapy) but it is far from the only function they serve.  

 

The best argument I've seen against the antioxidant craze was in the book Cancer: Cause, Cure and Coverup by Ron Gdanski.  

 

I'm not against antioxidant therapy.  But I am concerned that people think oxidation is an unnatural process in the body, when in fact it is used constantly... so if your body needs help with the byproducts of oxidation, the problem probably should be addressed from the angle of: why is my body oxidising so damned much?  What is it trying to fight or remove?  There are tests to see how much oxidation is going on in your body, often measuring elevated lipid peroxides in the urine... and this is supposed to tell us if you need more antioxidants or not.  That's a pretty limited way of viewing increased oxidation activity.  And by limiting treatment of increased oxidation to simply supporting the antioxidant effect is overlooking the cause of the oxidation to begin with.  Ignoring cause is a hallmark of modern medicine and most at MDC recognise that anyway.  

 

I don't know if antioxidants can disrupt our systems, but I haven't read that book so I'm open to learning what angle he plays on it.  Because most antioxidants are regular foods, herbs and vitamins... is he suggesting we can have too much of those, based on their antioxidant effects?  Oxygen therapies are old as the hills.  Peroxide used to be used internally until everyone got flibberty about it and it is relegated to the "disinfectant" realm, holding its many other purposes secret.  Again, you don't go and swallow a bottle of peroxide, but in drop amounts, people have had amazing success. Personally, I use it as a mouth rinse and also found it removes moles topically but I haven't done that particular oxygen/oxidation therapy internally.  I do love my DMSO!  (dimethylsulphoxide)  I take that internally, and it leaves me smelling of oysters.  That has scientific studies to back it, too - for use in strokes, arthritis, cancer and many other things.  Yet, it is an industrial solvent... silly doctors probably haven't been told you can't use an industrial substance internally.  wink1.gif

 

At least the antioxidant craze has served to get people taking certain vitamins and herbs they ordinarily wouldn't take, based on thinking antioxidation is what they need above all else... the substances don't care what you take them for, they'll do their work regardless.


Hunger is political.  Wherever there is widespread hunger, it is because people with guns are preventing other people from bringing in food.  
Calm is offline  
#137 of 339 Old 04-29-2011, 02:41 PM
 
WildKingdom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 684
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Marnica View Post



 


Well I guess what you feel is rare - is not so rare to me. Perhaps "'all the time" suggests a daily occurrence and I shouldn't have used the term so loosely. I guess I should say it is done far more routinely than I am comfortable with.
 

 


Here's a link to the FDA fast track info:  http://www.fda.gov/forconsumers/byaudience/forpatientadvocates/speedingaccesstoimportantnewtherapies/ucm128291.htm

 

Drugs get fast-tracked about 9 times a year.  They go through the same approval process and trials as everything else- the FDA review period is just accelerated.

 

WildKingdom is offline  
#138 of 339 Old 04-29-2011, 02:52 PM - Thread Starter
 
Calm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: The Illusion
Posts: 3,146
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by WildKingdom View Post

Calm, I would like you to present one, just one feasible way that MMS can cure conditions as disparate as cancer, AIDS, malaria, fibroids and ovarian cysts, and autism.

 

And I would beg all those reading this to remember- when something appears to be too good to be true, it usually is.
 

Also, the onus is not on "skeptics" to prove that MMS is ineffective and unsafe.  You are the one making wildly improbably claims about it.  The onus is on you to prove that it is safe and effective.

I recognise the onus is on anyone who makes a statement to back that statement up however they can.  Hence, when Stik made her statement, I asked her why it couldn't work.  I think anyone who reads that would also think, well, why can't it work, what chemistry suggests it can't work?  That's a totally different statement to "I don't believe it can work", because if she doesn't know for sure, how can she say it doesn't work?  I would have thought you'd follow what I'm saying there.  I'm not exchanging my need to prove for hers, I'm asking for hers also, following?  Why all the problem with showing me evidence it cannot work in the body.  I can show evidence for why dog poop (to go with this lovely theme) does not work... it is digested and is not assimilated in the form of dog poop... if you were to eat it (gak... I'm no longer enjoying this analogy lol.gif).  Ok, chlorox, since it's such a favourite here.  You say "chlorox cures stubborn closed mindedness"  

 

and I say, "hey, I wish, buuuut, that can't work, that sounds too far fetched you're going to have to give me some evidence to back that up.  If the risk didn't outweigh the benefit, I'd just try it, but that sounds dangerous."  

 

You say, "you say it can't work, that's making a claim of fact, can you back that up, and I'll go and get my studies to show it can work."

 

I say, "Here is my evidence it cannot work... see here where it shows you that sodium hypochlorite is actually altered during digestion and metabolised into ABC and XYZ and these  are not absorbed so they not only have no efficacy on the stubborn closed mindedness organ, but they can also cause liver failure."

 

You say, "well, all I have is anecdotal evidence and studies showing its affect against pathogens... but you have just proven that it cannot actually work internally, so I will go and do further research to figure out why people are getting positive effect, or if it is placebo, or if the whole thing is actually a scam."

 

That's how ideally I would like to see a mature evaluation and critique.  I'm not asking for people to automatically agree and say "great", but if you make a claim that something cannot work, then I'd like to know why... that is significant claim and should be provable.  if it isn't, it would be rejected from a reasonable debate as conjecture.  In a friendly (ideally rolleyes.gif) discussion on a non-science forum, then opinion doesn't really need to be backed up or anything... but I did want to point out that it was opinion, conjecture, NOT FACT.

 

I have to go, but I'll address the rest when I can.  


Hunger is political.  Wherever there is widespread hunger, it is because people with guns are preventing other people from bringing in food.  
Calm is offline  
#139 of 339 Old 04-29-2011, 08:44 PM
 
Bokonon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Diego
Posts: 2,975
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Is this the same stuff we're talking about?  Because it came highly recommended in Backpacker Magazine.

http://www.rei.com/product/736897/potable-aqua-chlorine-dioxide-tablets-package-of-20


A, jammin.gif mama to a boy (2005) and a girl (2009)
Bokonon is offline  
#140 of 339 Old 04-29-2011, 10:22 PM
 
pers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 497
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bokonon View Post

Is this the same stuff we're talking about?  Because it came highly recommended in Backpacker Magazine.

http://www.rei.com/product/736897/potable-aqua-chlorine-dioxide-tablets-package-of-20

 

Yes.   But it is being recommended to kill pathogens in water from streams and such, which is an appropriate use for it.  As discussed previously in this thread, it is an effective disinfectant for water, surfaces, and even air.  It is used in some places to treat municipal water.  This is considered safe because of how diluted it is, MMS is a much higher concentration.  It does kill bacteria and viruses, but that is no reason to think it can do so inside the human body without harming healthy cells any more than drinking Lysol or any other disinfectant would.   Nor is it any better a cure than lysol for AIDS, malaria, cancer, autism, basically every malady every suffered by man or woman, etc. 

pers is offline  
#141 of 339 Old 04-30-2011, 03:11 AM - Thread Starter
 
Calm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: The Illusion
Posts: 3,146
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bokonon View Post

Is this the same stuff we're talking about?  Because it came highly recommended in Backpacker Magazine.

http://www.rei.com/product/736897/potable-aqua-chlorine-dioxide-tablets-package-of-20

Yes.  I mentioned travelers use it.  They've been using it for a very long time.  That is why Jim Humble had some, as he was in the jungle.  Some people make it too strong, so it has been drunk by travellers for years.  


Hunger is political.  Wherever there is widespread hunger, it is because people with guns are preventing other people from bringing in food.  
Calm is offline  
#142 of 339 Old 04-30-2011, 03:22 AM - Thread Starter
 
Calm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: The Illusion
Posts: 3,146
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by pers View Post



 

Yes.   But it is being recommended to kill pathogens in water from streams and such, which is an appropriate use for it.  As discussed previously in this thread, it is an effective disinfectant for water, surfaces, and even air.  It is used in some places to treat municipal water.  This is considered safe because of how diluted it is, MMS is a much higher concentration.  It does kill bacteria and viruses, but that is no reason to think it can do so inside the human body without harming healthy cells any more than drinking Lysol or any other disinfectant would.   Nor is it any better a cure than lysol for AIDS, malaria, cancer, autism, basically every malady every suffered by man or woman, etc. 

I linked the chemistry showing the levels of tested safety for ingesting chlorine dioxide.  I also linked the lethal dose level, which seems to vary from 300 to greater than 10000mg/kg.  That is substantially higher than caffeine and aspirin.  Do you know how much chlorine dioxide is recommended in one quart of water to kill all the pathogens?  Did you know vinegar is a disinfectant?  What amount of vinegar can you drink before you "harm healthy cells".  

 

Are you aware that not all chemicals are the same, even if they all share a similar action, eg, "disinfectant"?  
 

 


Hunger is political.  Wherever there is widespread hunger, it is because people with guns are preventing other people from bringing in food.  
Calm is offline  
#143 of 339 Old 04-30-2011, 03:48 AM - Thread Starter
 
Calm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: The Illusion
Posts: 3,146
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

 

 

 

Quote:

Calm, I would like you to present one, just one feasible way that MMS can cure conditions as disparate as cancer, AIDS, malaria, fibroids and ovarian cysts, and autism.

 

In a word: microbes. It oxidises microbes internally, just as it does externally. It isn't that wild a claim. Proof it enters all body tissues has been established so we can't say it is a huge leap to the conclusion that it also kills microbes in those areas of the body that it reaches.  That matches the overwhelming anecdotal evidence.

 

But because that needs more than that, I'll give some background, although I don't hold any hope in altering your thinking which is possibly based in years/decades of a particular approach. I will assume the first thing that came to your mind is that not all those things listed are microbial. Koch's postulates are responsible for why you think that, but more on that later...

 

Research DMSO.  That will help open the door to a whole new world of viewing disease.  DMSO helps so many things, and is proven to do so... yet they are all so different.  

 

Another thing to think about is... what if it was 1995, and I told you an antibiotic/oxidiser/any other anti-bug could cure a stomach ulcer.  You'd reasonably ask how on earth is that possible... but only because in 1995 you didn't have all the information necessary to understand why it is possible.  That information is: bacteria causes stomach ulcers. What seemed a ridiculous link becomes common sense now.  

 

Those who use anti-microbial treatments have found their atherosclerosis and Crohn's disease was going away.  How on EARTH could that be possible, the doctors all demanded to know, then promptly rejected the anecdotal evidence in puffed up disgust.  Only to learn years later that research has discovered both those things are caused by microorganisms.  Oops, that was a bit of a silly knee jerk reaction to dismiss anecdotal evidence of such an extensive nature simply because they didn't know what caused those diseases.  I would think that not knowing what causes them was a prerequisite for being ready and open to the possibilities of what MIGHT cause them.  Yet, oddly, this is so often not the case. It's so doggedly like, “We don't know what causes ABC but it isn't THAT.” 

 

Further reading:

 

Crohn's disease research: http://www.crohns.org/research/index.htm

 

Nobel Prize dot org Press Release 2005: http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2005/press.html

 

"Many diseases in humans such as Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, rheumatoid arthritis and atherosclerosis are due to chronic inflammation. The discovery that one of the most common diseases of mankind, peptic ulcer disease, has a microbial cause, has stimulated the search for microbes as possible causes of other chronic inflammatory conditions....The discovery of Helicobacter pylori has led to an increased understanding of the connection between chronic infection, inflammation and cancer."

 

One of the fundamental differences between orthodox medicine and naturopathy is orthodox medicine follows Koch's postulate.  

 

Koch's postulates are:

  1. The microorganism must be found in abundance in all organisms suffering from the disease, but should not be found in healthy organisms.

  2. The microorganism must be isolated from a diseased organism and grown in pure culture.

  3. The cultured microorganism should cause disease when introduced into a healthy organism.

  4. The microorganism must be reisolated from the inoculated, diseased experimental host and identified as being identical to the original specific causative agent.

 

Note point 3.  The cultured microorganism should cause disease when introduced into a healthy organism.  All experiments done in the early 1900's to prove microbes cause particular diseases could not make that postulate stick.  Koch's postulates have caused untold damage to humanity and held back medical progress in massive ways.  There are so many diseases that could be easily treated if medicine would just recognise they are microbial, but this postulate is a necessary test to pass, so how on earth are those diseases ever to be recognised as microbial?  And then there is point 1, not found in healthy organisms... again, this renders things like candida as a cause impossible, because candida is found in healthy subjects.  

 

One stumbling block is that some of the microbes responsible for these diseases are present in most or all human systems... such as candida and H. pylori and mycobacterium.  You cannot test for candida for instance, because it is present in all human beings.  A test can only show there is perhaps an overgrowth. If you have vaginal thrush and get a blood or stool test for candida, it will show negative... but the woman sure as hell knows she has candida, and an antifungal or douche of yoghurt cures the infection.  So "tests" for microbes are all but useless if those microbes are naturally part of our flora.  If that woman has thrush, she almost certainly has it in her gut also but she gets no treatment for that because the doctor will find no evidence of overgrowth.  Antibiotics cause thrush so often that a vaginal cream is often given at the same time these days "for the vaginal thrush".  What about the colon thrush?  

 

From the Crohn's link above:

In the early 1900's, the disease we call today "Crohn's disease" was characterized as an infectious disease, specifically intestinal tuberculosis. However, by the early 1930's, definitive classification (proof) that this disease was infectious was not forthcoming. More specifically, when Dr. Burrill B. Crohn failed to prove an infectious cause in 1932, the disease became formally known as "Crohn's disease" (named after Dr. Crohn) and the search for an infectious cause was largely discontinued.

 

 

H. Pylori, the bacterium responsible for the stomach ulcers, is considered normal stomach flora because up to 80% of people have it, and only 20% of people actually get disease from it.  The question researchers are finally asking is why do some people get attacked by these microbes? Previously, they didn't even acknowledge they existed, and naturopaths world over were “quacks” for treating them as microbial... regardless of the anecdotal evidence people were getting cured.

 

Things are moving back to where we were before Koch's postulates halted medical progress. Back then, we discovered a bunch of diseases were caused by infection that passed the postulates and so much medical progress was made. Infection was the biggest scourge of mankind 100 years ago and lo and behold, it turns out they are STILL the biggest scourge of mankind, we just couldn't prove it due to postulates. You cannot prove stomach ulcers with Koch's postulates very easily, because the stomach acid will kill of most via the oral route, and the immune system of a healthy subject will fight off an injected route. Koch's is great for things like measles and influenza, but not all microbes behave that way.

 

Koch split all disease into two groups: infectious microbial or non-microbial. Naturopaths simply acknowledge a third type: non-infectious microbial, or put another way: non-contagious microbial.

 

The whole concept that the “body just turns on itself” is guess work by ortho med, and is as ridiculous as it sounds. They don't know what causes so many issues because of the limiting tests they've put to researchers to pass like Koch's, so they just put it all down to genetics or “well, it just happens sometimes”. “oh, you have inflammation? You need an anti-inflammatory”. That is just unacceptable in naturopathy. Naming the symptoms, ie, you have inflammation (flame/heat), you have diabetes (sweet urine) is stating the obvious and tells us nothing of the cause. We go to a doctor and tell them what we have and in exchange they... tell us what we have only using different language. This is called a “diagnosis”. I find the whole thing strange. Naming and treating the symptoms is not good enough.  

 

Somehow, the font just changed.  

 

I love that so many diseases are coming out as microbial, because that lends weight to the way those diseases have been treated alternatively for millennia.  Considering Europe is just about to pass a law that makes it illegal to buy supplements or herbs unless prescribed by a doctor and the supp has passed rigorous and prohibitively expensive testing... that kind of validation is needed ASAP before our health freedoms are stomped further.  

 

I know, you don't believe those diseases are microbial, and all I can say is... watch it unfold.  Stomach ulcers, Crohn's, inflammatory conditions... so many have already proven microbial or so close to proven it can't be dismissed any longer.  It really is a matter of time before all the dots are joined on so many other conditions and in the meantime, alternative practitioners are having what is considered "miraculous" success with things when it really is very simple: kill the bugs!  The biggest single contribution to medicine we could possibly find right now is a substance that safely and effectively kills pathogens on all spectrums, be it viral, bacterial, parasitic... whatever.  Esp the mycobacteria because they are seriously ugly guys and at the root of so much.  Is MMS that substance?  I don't know.  The evidence as I see it seems to suggest it has the best potential.  But if it isn't, something with that kind of broad spectrum power has got to come out soon.  

dairy2dogs and BeckyBird like this.

Hunger is political.  Wherever there is widespread hunger, it is because people with guns are preventing other people from bringing in food.  
Calm is offline  
#144 of 339 Old 04-30-2011, 03:49 AM - Thread Starter
 
Calm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: The Illusion
Posts: 3,146
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

 

Remember:

 

There is no evidence of harm - even after millions of uses.

 

 There is evidence of safety taken orally - more specific data is required.

 

There is anecdotal evidence it works.

 

 

There is scientific evidence it permeates the entire system even to the bone marrow.

  

  

I don't know how anyone can look at the bare facts of that and not see what I see.


Hunger is political.  Wherever there is widespread hunger, it is because people with guns are preventing other people from bringing in food.  
Calm is offline  
#145 of 339 Old 04-30-2011, 03:53 AM - Thread Starter
 
Calm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: The Illusion
Posts: 3,146
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

 

 

Quote:

What do you consider to be the highest-quality evidence demonstrating that it is effective in curing an already-established disease?


For me personally, it would be my personal successes, and those of clients/friends. After that it would be friend's reports from Africa... they blew my mind, I wanted to run out on the street shouting at everyone. I was warned I'd be considered crazy and a liar and that things have to go at a certain pace through certain hoops but I didn't care. Those little babies, I couldn't get them out of my mind... I couldn't believe people wouldn't at least imagine the potential, and support furthering the research. To battle the army of greed this faces, we will need the majority of people basically picketing the streets, demanding the lid be lifted and studies be done. Yet... I've been disillusioned, people won't budge. It is so depressing, so disheartening, I wish I could afford to send everyone to see it work in person... we need to move this so those poor sick children can have that parasite oxidised out of them. Or at least get some wormwood to them, but NO ONE is telling the public these things. People still think malaria is incurable. It's sick. Wormwood has a proven 100% success rate against malaria.


 

Wormwood against malaria, wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemisia_annua#Malaria_treatment


 

More info on wormwood against malaria in Africa: http://african-restoration.info/Proof.html


 

Drug companies know they can't make it worth their while to bottle an herb, not when any ol' hippy herbal company could become serious competition, so they isolate the parts of the herb that work and bottle that. They've always done this. For instance, aspirin was synthesised from the herb meadowsweet. The problem with this method is, herbs contain complex buffers... nature knows best. Man just screws things up. Meadowsweet will work in the same ways as aspirin but won't give you the same side effects. Drug companies have extensive wormwood plantations in Africa and Vietnam but they don't sell wormwood... which has worked for millennia against parasites (hence it's name). They isolate the assumed effective chemicals and sell that. And in some of them, they even add other chemicals to make it patentable. I assume at some point they will synthesise the chemicals responsible in wormwood and it will become unrecongisable as an herb, and its humble herbal origins with be forgotten and disrespected, like aspirin.

 

I know that isn't MMS, but it is necessary to know what is going on out there.  It ain't roses and sunshine.  Millions die unnecessarily from malaria every year, most of them kids.  Now you know just how unnecessary those deaths are.  It's shameful. 


Hunger is political.  Wherever there is widespread hunger, it is because people with guns are preventing other people from bringing in food.  
Calm is offline  
#146 of 339 Old 04-30-2011, 05:04 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,028
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

It has been proven that a mosquito net is one of the most effective ways of preventing Malaria. 10 bucks for the net and a whole family is protected. I personally would suggest that before encouraging people to poison themselves.

Ldavis24 is offline  
#147 of 339 Old 04-30-2011, 07:55 AM - Thread Starter
 
Calm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: The Illusion
Posts: 3,146
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ldavis24 View Post

It has been proven that a mosquito net is one of the most effective ways of preventing Malaria. 10 bucks for the net and a whole family is protected. I personally would suggest that before encouraging people to poison themselves.

Mosquito nets would not have helped this girl.  They would not have helped these people.

 

They were already sick.

 

MMS did help them, according to their own testimonies.  You can only call them liars or assume it is placebo.  

 

Vaccination is encouraged around here yet that has killed people!   MMS hasn't even one death attributed to it.    

 

I am not encouraging anyone to do anything. 

 

I happen to believe the missionaries.  I happen to believe my clients and friends who work with MMS.  I'm sharing their stories and sharing info.  What is done with it is up to the reader.  

 

 


Hunger is political.  Wherever there is widespread hunger, it is because people with guns are preventing other people from bringing in food.  
Calm is offline  
#148 of 339 Old 04-30-2011, 08:01 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,028
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

yes a woman did die and i don't call extreme vomiting and diarrhea "no harm" especially when afterward they still have the disease they were trying to cure, but hey thats just me... your stance on "harm" has been made abundantly clear.

nak

Ldavis24 is offline  
#149 of 339 Old 04-30-2011, 08:20 AM
 
treeoflife3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: tennessee/kentucky
Posts: 1,513
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

yeah, a simple google search shows that MMS has killed.  Whether or not your belief that it'll work at curing all this stuff is true, you won't get far if you state false information that is very easily looked up.


 

treeoflife3 is offline  
#150 of 339 Old 04-30-2011, 08:31 AM - Thread Starter
 
Calm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: The Illusion
Posts: 3,146
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

 

 

Quote:

you won't get far if you state false information that is very easily looked up.

 

Right back atcha. 

 

The woman you are referring to did not die from MMS.  It was dismissed from court.  It could not be linked to MMS.  Read the reports a little closer.  

 

There has not been any death attributable to MMS.  Sorry if that inconveniences the "poison" argument.


Hunger is political.  Wherever there is widespread hunger, it is because people with guns are preventing other people from bringing in food.  
Calm is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off