Spin-off discussion about Chlorine Dioxide/MMS and the eradication of disease - Page 9 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#241 of 339 Old 05-04-2011, 05:56 PM
 
ElizabethE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 479
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Oh yeah, we are all fluent in smiley. I've got some choice ones to add. Let me just find them.

 

This conversation is absurd because it seems that no one is actually willing to listen to and consider the possibility of what the OP is saying. It is full of nothing other than most of the people trying to vehemently knock her down with little to no actual thought towards her ideas and the guise of respect and civility. I see a million demands for proof and not one ounce of satisfaction at her tries to point you in the right direction. It's a lost cause. Nothing she'll say will ever be good enough for you, unless it were already totally mainstream knowledge. Why does it continue? For fun, I suppose. Carry on.

BeckyBird likes this.

treehugger.gifhippie.gifhomeschool.gifnovaxnocirc.gif
Vegetarian Spiritual wife to Joshua (HS sweetheart, together since 1999); mother of Eve (Dec 2003)  Cian (March 2009), and Sage (March 2011)! <--uc.jpg!
geek.gifMy book about what I learned from my experiences with childbirth was published April 2011. om.gif
ElizabethE is offline  
#242 of 339 Old 05-04-2011, 10:12 PM
 
moaningminny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 240
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I didn't realize that basic chemistry was considered subjective and mainstream.
moaningminny is offline  
#243 of 339 Old 05-05-2011, 07:34 AM
 
Annie Mac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,150
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I think this is why this thread has struck a chord with a few of us on here. If you, god forbid, demonstrate any critical thinking skills, you are accused of being closed-minded, "mainstream" (the ultimate of insults here on MDC) and a mindless automaton who just gobbles up (literally and figuratively) anything the FDA and Big Pharma dish out. There is a middle ground between unthinking consumer of any therapy labelled alternative, *because* it's alternative and therefore somehow virtuous, and the unthinking consumer of lipitor, etc, just so long as the doctor prescribes it, and you're seeing that middle ground in process here: people who ask questions, do research, compare the answers to the paradigms they have learned (ie the scientific method), consider the sources and question motives. 

 

That usually isn't a problem, but the information on MMS is being presented in a dogmatic, "I"m 100% right" manner that understandably raises a few hackles. But as I said previously, whether or not you take MMS is going to come down to whether or not you're OK with basically a faith approach or whether you want something a little colder and harder than that. 

 

ETA: I do have to thank Calm for introducing me to something I'd never heard of before. Before this thread, MMS was wholly unknown to me and now I've done a few hours reading about it, in addition to this thread. I've made up my own mind about it and learned something new. That is always welcome :)

Annie Mac is offline  
#244 of 339 Old 05-05-2011, 01:51 PM - Thread Starter
 
Calm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: The Illusion
Posts: 3,131
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Look, I presented what I know about it, and did not lie.  I'm sure many have had no success with MMS.  But I am not them, I was talking about ME.  Three men with AIDS got healthy using it.  That's HUGE.  And because it is so huge, I've been ridiculed for mentioning it. Don't you see how that is absurd??  

 

So to claim the ridiculous notion that people have been innocently just asking me logical questions is either having poor memory, or selective memory. Because that is not how it went, and three times a moderator had to come on here and basically tell people to stop making it so personal for God's sake.

 

Take a look at the thread from page one.  Just click on page one and open it in a new tab, and read what this so called "oh don't be silly we were just asking for chemistry" actually looks like.  No one asked for any chemistry for a very long time, but they sure had a truck load of sarcasm and veiled insult and were quick to tell me that it can't work - that it simply CANNOT work and is HIGHLY dangerous and to even think of ingesting it you must be out of your mind.  Go and recheck it.  Imean, one poster even said "oh that's not chemistry, how could an oxidiser rip electrons" when that is exactly how an oxidiser works!  People were quick to make claims, slow to ask questions, quick to point out error and slow to point out when they'd learned something... actually, no one ever did point out that.  Yet the discussion did change from outright "that's impossible" to the finer points of the chemistry.  So what was insulting and impossible became possible and the insults diminished and THEN the finer points of chemistry were brought into it.

 

We've come a long way.  And it is pointed out how I've been hopeless at explaining it, no doubt... but although I can't show you a clinical trial that has never been done, I did show how ClO2 could work, and gave the explanations a doctor has given as to how it works.  Instead of carrying on in the manner some did after seeing Kerri's post, I don't think it is a big deal to make sure it can't work, if you are so damned sure of it.  A lot of lives are relying on it, so if you're going to ridicule it, then don't you want to make sure you're right first?  Don't you want to look at the links and read from doctors who are actually using it... don't they trump little ol' me as far as credibility goes?  The question should have been "what if this works, do I really want to be a party to squashing this, if people are getting relief with it?"  But no.  That wasn't important to people at all.  

 

What's wrong with checking the chemistry themselves?  As you can see in the more recent links, it all checks out.  Oxidation is not mysterious science and certainly isn't new science.  

 

Mamakay asked the same question I've answered multiple times on this thread.  How does it recognise the target?   That is the same question as how does it selectively destroy pathogens.  It is the same question as if it does penetrate the whole body, how does it do this without harming healthy cells?  They're all the same question and I've answered them several times now.  Here was my post that I spent hours on, in an attempt to explain it, and it still wasn't good enough so that is when I gave the links.  

 

The answer put simply is: oxidation potential.  But read this link if you haven't yet.  I'll leave it at one link so as not to overwhelm.  Please look at it, and if you have any residual questions, ask them again.  

 

BeckyBird and ElizabethE 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  
#245 of 339 Old 05-05-2011, 02:06 PM - Thread Starter
 
Calm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: The Illusion
Posts: 3,131
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

 

I just found out two days ago that chlorine dioxide is ingested, in the mainstream!  Imagine if I'd had that info earlier in the thread.  But I didn't, and we can't go back now.  

 

WF10 is ingested chlorine dioxide (I think it may even be injected, but I'm still learning about it), with hydrogen peroxide and chlorite (chlorite is what ClO2 is made out of).  It is used for HIV, cancer, autoimmune and basically all the things I suggested it CAN treat, they are using it for.  And it has clinical trials showing efficacy and safety.  I didn't have that information before.  Why is no one saying anything about that?  I linked it a page ago.  

 

By the looks of this mixed agent WF10, much of this thread is rendered obsolete.  

 

 

BeckyBird likes 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  
#246 of 339 Old 05-05-2011, 04:01 PM
 
ElizabethE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 479
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie Mac View Post

I think this is why this thread has struck a chord with a few of us on here. If you, god forbid, demonstrate any critical thinking skills, you are accused of being closed-minded, "mainstream" (the ultimate of insults here on MDC) and a mindless automaton who just gobbles up (literally and figuratively) anything the FDA and Big Pharma dish out. There is a middle ground between unthinking consumer of any therapy labelled alternative, *because* it's alternative and therefore somehow virtuous, and the unthinking consumer of lipitor, etc, just so long as the doctor prescribes it, and you're seeing that middle ground in process here: people who ask questions, do research, compare the answers to the paradigms they have learned (ie the scientific method), consider the sources and question motives. 

 

That usually isn't a problem, but the information on MMS is being presented in a dogmatic, "I"m 100% right" manner that understandably raises a few hackles. But as I said previously, whether or not you take MMS is going to come down to whether or not you're OK with basically a faith approach or whether you want something a little colder and harder than that. 

 

ETA: I do have to thank Calm for introducing me to something I'd never heard of before. Before this thread, MMS was wholly unknown to me and now I've done a few hours reading about it, in addition to this thread. I've made up my own mind about it and learned something new. That is always welcome :)


You're right, there IS a middle ground, but that involves asking "what if?" and hearing the other person out rather than just repeatedly disregarding them and carrying on claiming "no evidence".

 

This is totally dismissive, and you're leaning on the "I'm so not-mainstream at not-mainstream MDC, ever the victim" crutch. It's similar to cries of reverse racism. If you feel the climate here is so quick to dodge fact in favor of just being quirky, hippie, "crunchy", etc., why even partake? If this environment is not for you, what's in it for you to hang around and poke at people?

 

I'm sure you've convinced yourself it's to save people from such "dangerous" thinking such as this. Unfortunately, Calm cannot help if someone misuses or misunderstands anything she's presented, just as you cannot be helped for whatever conclusions others may come to on your informational tidbits (if you ever provide them). I say there are better ways to save the world, and coming here and arguing chemistry with a clearly intelligent poster seems... well, absurd.

 

The reason it's dismissive, btw, is because people to continue to ignore her logical reasons for things and her in-depth explanations as well as personal experience. The only reason I can even see for that is because it's not mainstream. Obviously if her ideas were already common knowledge, you would all be leaving her alone. Simply put.

 

BeckyBird likes this.

treehugger.gifhippie.gifhomeschool.gifnovaxnocirc.gif
Vegetarian Spiritual wife to Joshua (HS sweetheart, together since 1999); mother of Eve (Dec 2003)  Cian (March 2009), and Sage (March 2011)! <--uc.jpg!
geek.gifMy book about what I learned from my experiences with childbirth was published April 2011. om.gif
ElizabethE is offline  
#247 of 339 Old 05-05-2011, 06:13 PM
 
rhiandmoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: San Jose CA
Posts: 1,632
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Sodium Chlorite is manufactured by DuPont as a stable Chloride Dioxide precursor. They already make big bucks off Chloride Dioxide precursors. And if they could make more by rebranding it as an AIDs cure they would.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

rhiandmoi is offline  
#248 of 339 Old 05-05-2011, 07:08 PM
 
oaktreemama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 402
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

 

Quote:

coming here and arguing chemistry with a clearly intelligent poster seems... well, absurd.

  

 

 

People who sell snake oil are intelligent-or at least good writers. That's why they are able sell snake oil. ElizabethE-please come back when you have something to actually add to the conversation. Other than that you should probably stick to the UC forum where facts aren't necessary or encouraged.

D_McG likes this.
oaktreemama is offline  
#249 of 339 Old 05-05-2011, 07:18 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,028
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by ElizabethE View Post


 


You're right, there IS a middle ground, but that involves asking "what if?" and hearing the other person out rather than just repeatedly disregarding them and carrying on claiming "no evidence".

 

This is totally dismissive, and you're leaning on the "I'm so not-mainstream at not-mainstream MDC, ever the victim" crutch. It's similar to cries of reverse racism. If you feel the climate here is so quick to dodge fact in favor of just being quirky, hippie, "crunchy", etc., why even partake? If this environment is not for you, what's in it for you to hang around and poke at people?

 

I'm sure you've convinced yourself it's to save people from such "dangerous" thinking such as this. Unfortunately, Calm cannot help if someone misuses or misunderstands anything she's presented, just as you cannot be helped for whatever conclusions others may come to on your informational tidbits (if you ever provide them). I say there are better ways to save the world, and coming here and arguing chemistry with a clearly intelligent poster seems... well, absurd.

 

The reason it's dismissive, btw, is because people to continue to ignore her logical reasons for things and her in-depth explanations as well as personal experience. The only reason I can even see for that is because it's not mainstream. Obviously if her ideas were already common knowledge, you would all be leaving her alone. Simply put.

 


I'm confused are you saying that people are primarily dismissing Calm's claims because those claims aren't "mainstream" enough? Common knowledge? Just because something IS common knowledge certainly doesn't make it correct. Coming to MDC and claiming people are disagreeing because it is mainstream is silly considering that most mamas here are far from "mainstream" themselves. 


It's funny that ANYONE who disagrees with Calm is just close minded, ignorant, doesn't understand chemistry or now apparently mainstream. It is clearly impossible to conceive that a lot of people had pointed out the many flaws in the claims Calm makes and have come to the conclusion that MMS is not at all what she claims it to be, which once again is a cure for AIDS, malaria, cancer, autism, acne, bad breath and numerous other ailments. That is the claim, not that it makes people "feel better or be healthier"....The actual claims are that it is a CURE...That is the problem. There is no evidence it cures anything at all. Just feeling better is NOT being cured no matter how much people supporting MMS want it to be.

 

Ldavis24 is offline  
#250 of 339 Old 05-05-2011, 07:33 PM
 
mamakay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in la la land, or so they say...
Posts: 8,986
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)

 

Quote:
Mamakay asked the same question I've answered multiple times on this thread.  How does it recognise the target?   That is the same question as how does it selectively destroy pathogens.  It is the same question as if it does penetrate the whole body, how does it do this without harming healthy cells?  They're all the same question and I've answered them several times now.  Here was my post that I spent hours on, in an attempt to explain it, and it still wasn't good enough so that is when I gave the links. 

 

Do you realize that the question "I" asked was a question posed to you (by someone else) in response to the post you just linked to?

 

Of course that post you wrote wasn't good enough. The basic fact of the matter is that we would all quickly die if our phagocytes went around destroying everything in sight with reactive oxygen species. Our immune systems are incredibly sophisticated at only very selectively deploying those tools.

 

 

Quote:
The answer put simply is: oxidation potential.  But read this link if you haven't yet.  I'll leave it at one link so as not to overwhelm.  Please look at it, and if you have any residual questions, ask them again.  

 

Which part of that link explains how CIO2 recognizes a good target? Quote it if you know the answer.

 

 

D_McG likes this.
mamakay is offline  
#251 of 339 Old 05-05-2011, 07:38 PM
 
mamakay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in la la land, or so they say...
Posts: 8,986
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by ElizabethE View Post
 Nothing she'll say will ever be good enough for you, unless it were already totally mainstream knowledge. Why does it continue? For fun, I suppose. Carry on.


Hello, Elizabeth.

 

What's the difference between "mainstream knowledge" and "not mainstream knowledge" to you?

 

Is it a matter of "ideas with good evidence to back them up are mainstream?"

 

Or, "Good science that goes ignored is not mainstream knowledge?"

 

Or, "Stories I read on the internet with no good science to back them up" are "not mainstream knowledge?"

 

Or what?

 

Just wondering what your own point of reference is.

mamakay is offline  
#252 of 339 Old 05-05-2011, 07:51 PM
 
mamakay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in la la land, or so they say...
Posts: 8,986
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by ElizabethE View Post


 

The reason it's dismissive, btw, is because people to continue to ignore her logical reasons for things and her in-depth explanations as well as personal experience. The only reason I can even see for that is because it's not mainstream. Obviously if her ideas were already common knowledge, you would all be leaving her alone. Simply put.

 



I don't doubt that it seems that way to you. I'm not sure you know enough to even be aware of what you don't know, though.

 

I happen to have a long and verifiable history of "taking issue" with things that are/were considered "common knowledge" in medical science, and speaking up for ideas that were/are extremely obscure and contrary to the current scientific consensus. 

 

I seriously doubt that people who go around thinking any old feel-good hypothesis that sounds outrageous and alternative must be/probably is true, can even tell a logical reason from an illogical one. If they even really care to make the distinction beyond just try to give the appearance of caring about facts and logic.

Petronella likes this.
mamakay is offline  
#253 of 339 Old 05-05-2011, 08:09 PM
 
Annie Mac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,150
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by ElizabethE View Post


 


You're right, there IS a middle ground, but that involves asking "what if?" and hearing the other person out rather than just repeatedly disregarding them and carrying on claiming "no evidence".

 

This is totally dismissive, and you're leaning on the "I'm so not-mainstream at not-mainstream MDC, ever the victim" crutch. It's similar to cries of reverse racism. If you feel the climate here is so quick to dodge fact in favor of just being quirky, hippie, "crunchy", etc., why even partake? If this environment is not for you, what's in it for you to hang around and poke at people?

 

I'm sure you've convinced yourself it's to save people from such "dangerous" thinking such as this. Unfortunately, Calm cannot help if someone misuses or misunderstands anything she's presented, just as you cannot be helped for whatever conclusions others may come to on your informational tidbits (if you ever provide them). I say there are better ways to save the world, and coming here and arguing chemistry with a clearly intelligent poster seems... well, absurd.

 

The reason it's dismissive, btw, is because people to continue to ignore her logical reasons for things and her in-depth explanations as well as personal experience. The only reason I can even see for that is because it's not mainstream. Obviously if her ideas were already common knowledge, you would all be leaving her alone. Simply put.

 

I don't really understand your accusation of my being a victim, but I assure you being a victim is not part of my mentality. I also really don't think I hang around poking people either. In fact, I have said very little in this discussion, except to point out that the compilation of chemo stats in a particular fashion is rather misleading. I have, however, read with interest the comments of others, especially those who clearly have chemical knowledge (which I don't, although I wish I did). 

 

Here's the thing: there's a particular circumstance here that does and should raise flags for people, and that is rather large unsubstantiated claims coupled with the exchange of money. I am not saying that Calm is receiving money for MMS, but people are. People are saying" here's this thing, it cures cancer, aids, lyme disease, malaria, blackheads, heartbreak and psoriasis. I know it works because people told me it does, and now I'm telling you it does, so send me your money." It has nothing to do with mainstream or not mainstream. It doesn't even have anything to do, specifically, with MMS. It is simply unsubstantiated claims + money = skepticism. When that skepticism is greeted not with the results of scientifically grounded experimentation, but with ad hominem attacks (you don't know your chemistry, you shouldn't be on MDC, you're just too mainstream, etc) and/or conspiracy theories, the skepticism level soars. When there is the possibility of real harm being done, either by not treating the underlying disease or actually being harmed by the cure, emotions can run very high. I will admit that this has been a heated discussion, and people (on both sides of the debate) have not always remembered their manners. That should (and was) checked. Civility is important.

 

Maybe, maybe MMS really does work. Who knows? No one has really checked it out. But they're selling it as if they know for sure, and that is wrong, and I will absolutely defend those who question and think critically about things. 
 

 

D_McG likes this.
Annie Mac is offline  
#254 of 339 Old 05-05-2011, 09:14 PM
JMJ
 
JMJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,301
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Calm View Post

I just found out two days ago that chlorine dioxide is ingested, in the mainstream!  Imagine if I'd had that info earlier in the thread.  But I didn't, and we can't go back now.  

 

WF10 is ingested chlorine dioxide (I think it may even be injected, but I'm still learning about it), with hydrogen peroxide and chlorite (chlorite is what ClO2 is made out of).  It is used for HIV, cancer, autoimmune and basically all the things I suggested it CAN treat, they are using it for.  And it has clinical trials showing efficacy and safety.  I didn't have that information before.  Why is no one saying anything about that?  I linked it a page ago.  

 

By the looks of this mixed agent WF10, much of this thread is rendered obsolete.  

 

 

Oh, but the obsolete thread continues.  Hmm..... from what I'm seeing, it's just injected, not ingested.  OK, so I'm using Wikipedia for my source, but it's easier for me to understand.  WF10 is (charges in parentheses) H2Cl4O11(-4) grouped into O2  4 ClO2(-)  H2O in a 10% solution (also used topically in a 1:55 ratio).  Calm, if I'm understanding this correctly, MMS works out to be Na(+)ClO2(-), but it we can show that it is the ClO2(-) that is what has the active role, that is the main component of both.  I'm sure you put it in here someplace, but I don't have time to go digging.  What is the %solution in MMS?  It is interesting to see that it is being researched as a treatment for late stage AIDS and some cancer.  I wonder what the side effects are for the injected drug, and I'd be interested in seeing how successful it is showing itself to be.  Quite interesting, though I don't trust Big Pharma any more than I trust you, Calm.  As you figure stuff out, Calm, I would be interested in learning about what they say this drug can do and how MMS compares.  If you can gather good support that MMS is pretty much the same treatment, it'll be interesting to see the fall-out as WF10 gets approved for use in the US.  Will MMS get more respect, or will it get covered over in favor of the patented drug?

 

That's quite interesting information, Calm.  My viewpoint is evolving, but this just lends more support to my thought that it may have some success in treating some things.  I'd be interested in learning more about exactly how much success.  I noticed that it is being used to treat these diseases, but I'm not seeing any claims of curing them.  I'm still skeptical about some of the claims that some people are making about some of the things that they are trying to treat with it.  I'm doubtful that it is the panacea that some believe it to be, but that's interesting stuff.

JMJ is offline  
#255 of 339 Old 05-05-2011, 10:01 PM - Thread Starter
 
Calm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: The Illusion
Posts: 3,131
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by oaktreemama View Post

 

 

People who sell snake oil are intelligent-or at least good writers. That's why they are able sell snake oil. ElizabethE-please come back when you have something to actually add to the conversation. Other than that you should probably stick to the UC forum where facts aren't necessary or encouraged.


Oh my God.  Not nice.  Unnecessary.  

 

 

Marnica and ElizabethE 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  
#256 of 339 Old 05-06-2011, 05:01 AM - Thread Starter
 
Calm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: The Illusion
Posts: 3,131
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I don't think what happened to me in this thread is because it is mainstream or not.  This therapy is neither mainstream nor alternative.  It is a chemical, so it is not going to appeal to the alternative-ists.  It is used in a similar fashion with similar claims as alternative stuff (treats disparate diseases, has few/no evidence etc) so it is not going to appeal to mainstream-ists.  It is a bit of a black sheep of treatments really.

 

The use of such a denigrating term to alternatives as "snake oil" in this apparent safe haven for radicals is a bit off putting.  (now that I've said that I trust I'll hear it more often, much like the bleach thing)  Things like oil pulling (speaking of snake "oil") has some great testimonies and whatnot but it has no evidence to support it.  I still mention it if it comes to mind, because that's what I do.  That's how we learn what is out there.  I've got plenty where that came from.  Wild.  Wacky.  Crazy stuff.  I don't give a rat's.  I simply believe in moving information around.  It's others that think we should all be mushrooms because we can't be trusted to figure things out on our own.  What a load of bollocks.  

 

There are many things we do not know the cause of.  If those things are responding to oxidation, or anything really that is anti-microbial, that should sound alarm bells... perhaps it is a microbial cause.  To not at least wonder that seems... well, kinda blind to me.  The cervical cancer vaccine is against a virus.  The treatment for stomach ulcers is against bacteria.  These things go against previous awareness of disease, and certainly open our eyes to the idea that pathogens are playing a role here.  So when I first heard of a colleague having success against autism using an antifungal treatment in the gut, that made sense to me.  Then to find out MMS was being used for it, also made sense to me.  I don't understand rejection of it just because we don't currently know the cause... in fact, BECAUSE we don't know the cause should make us prick our ears at these things we hear.  But when there are many getting relief, no one getting maimed, and potentially kids getting their suffering alleviated?  Well, I'll NEVER pretend to understand why people can turn and spit on that.  

 

I'll be interested to learn if WF10 is used for autism.  And again I won't be surprised if it is.  

 

ETA - I'm not sure where people got the idea I said MMS cures everything.  Have you any idea how many diseases are out there?  Diet is a huge contributer to many diseases and I've never been shy about saying that at MDC.  But there are some seemingly different diseases that share a common thread - successfully treated with oxidation or anti-microbial herbs.  


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  
#257 of 339 Old 05-06-2011, 05:01 AM - Thread Starter
 
Calm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: The Illusion
Posts: 3,131
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

 

 

 

Quote:

Do you realize that the question "I" asked was a question posed to you (by someone else) in response to the post you just linked to?

 

My post?  Ok.  Did you open the link to the mechanisms page at all?  

 

This is from my post:

 

 

 

Quote:

The oxidation power of an oxidizer is measured in electrical potential, usually in millivolts. Of the oxidizers that have been used in the human body:

  

• Ozone is the strongest known oxidizer used in the body with an oxidation potential of 2070 millivolts;

  

• Hydrogen peroxide is the second strongest oxidizer used in the body and it has an oxidation potential of 1800 millivolts;

 

 • Oxygen itself has an oxidation potential of about 1300 millivolts;

 

• Chlorine dioxide has an oxidation potential of 950 millivolts.


 

 Note that chlorine dioxide has the lowest oxidation potential.

  

Oxidation potential also determines what an oxidiser cannot oxidise.  It cannot oxidise the blood, tissues or cells.  High enough doses of anything will cause damage, including ClO2, but doses used according to the protocols are 100 times less than required to do such damage.

 

 

 That it destroys pathogens seems to be understood, so the question is, why doesn't it also destroy healthy human cells, and how does it recognise pathogens amongst all that other stuff in the human body?  Is that right?  Well, that post explained it, that you didn't understand how it explains it is a separate issue.

 

Perhaps Adam can explain it better:

 

 

Quote:

Oxidation potential (also referred to as redox potential) of a given element is expressed in volts. For chlorine dioxide, that value is .95 volts. Anything that has a lower voltage than .95 will give up to 5 electrons to the chlorine dioxide molecule on contact.

By way of comparison, chlorine dioxide has a milder oxidation effect than hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), which has an oxidation potential of 1.78 and collects 2 electrons, or Ozone (O3) whose oxidation potential is 2.07, and only collects 2 electrons. [Source: Lenntech Water Treatment Systems] A healthy human cell has a natural electrical of just over 1 volt, which means that it would be unaffected by chlorine dioxide, yet, it has been long known that extended use of hydrogen peroxide or ozone is damaging to healthy cells and tissue. Yet, they are used widely today.

 

 ClO2 is deficient in four electrons, which gives it a positive charge. This makes it seek and be attracted to the negatively charged, from which it takes electrons (oxidation/reduction reaction) destroying both itself and the donor in the reaction. The surfaces of pathogenic microbes are negatively charged. 

 

The oxidation potential is why it only does that to pathogens. It isn't that the molecules have consciousness and go seeking microbes, heavy metals or toxic substances specifically. 

 

But it can only oxidise those things due to the limits of its potential. 

 

Pathogens are in its range – human tissue is not within that range, it cannot oxidise anything except that which is below its range of .95V. It will bolt around the body desperate to be “quenched” and actively seek out negatively charged items that are acidic as it is a very active, unstable molecule - but it has a low potential. So this makes it wickedly fast and active at ripping apart a microbe, but it goes right past a healthy human cell. 

 

If ClO2 does not get quenched on its ripping journey, it will make it all the way to the bone marrow and into every little corner of the body. As it moves along, it will destroy everything in its potential range... this is how it does it to malaria in the blood stream.  

 

If ClO2 had a higher potential, it could also destroy human tissue along with all those beneath that potential. Inside the body, whether ingested, injected or via enema, ClO2 molecules bolt around until they make contact with something that “quenches” them.  It is a proven selectivity factor of oxidation.  Molecules can attract or repel, depending on charge and acidity etc.  That is how it "targets", yet leaves healthy tissue alone.  

 

 

 

Quote:

Which part of that link explains how CIO2 recognizes a good target? Quote it if you know the answer.

All of it explains that.  With headings like "Targeting Thiols" and Targeting Polyamines:
 

 

 

 

Quote:

Other metabolites necessary for survival and growth in tumors, bacteria and parasites are the polyamines.[68a-68d] Plasmodia quit growing and die, when polyamines are lacking [69a-69k] , or when their functions are blocked [70a-70L] . Polyamines are also sensitive to oxidation and can be eliminated by strong oxidants . When oxidized, polyamines are converted to aldehydes , which are deadly to parasites and to tumors. [71a-71e] Chlorine dioxide (ClO2) is known to be especially reactive against secondary amines. [72a]This includes spermine and spermidine the two main biologically important polyamines. Thus any procedure which is successful to oxidize both thiols (RSH) and polyamines does quadruple damage to the pathogen:

  1. oxidation of the thiol containing enzymeornithine decarboxylase inhibits polyamine synthesis;

  2. oxidation of the thiol containing enzyme S-adenosyl-L-methionine decarboxylase also inhibits polyamine synthesis; (see references with "TARGETING THIOLS" above)

  3. oxidation of the secondary amines spermidine and spermine directly eliminates these essential polyamines;

  4. the products of polyamine oxidation are toxic aldehydes.

 

There are things in microbes, heavy metals and pathogens that are unlike human tissue.  They behave differently, and these things attract oxidation, chlorine dioxide included.  The difference is, chlorine dioxide's potential is low enough that it only targets those things.  

 

Is it clear yet how chlorine dioxide targets pathogens?

 

 

 

 

 


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  
#258 of 339 Old 05-06-2011, 06:08 AM
 
SleeplessMommy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,421
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Calm View Post

Look, I presented what I know about it, and did not lie.  I'm sure many have had no success with MMS.  But I am not them, I was talking about ME.  Three men with AIDS got healthy using it.  That's HUGE.  And because it is so huge, I've been ridiculed for mentioning it. Don't you see how that is absurd?? 


It would be very helpful if you had before/after CD4 counts.

 

Calm, previously you have stated that you believe HIV/AIDS is caused by overuse of "poppers". Have you changed your mind? Do you believe that MMS is treating damage caused by "poppers" or treating virus-infected cells?

 

SleeplessMommy is offline  
#259 of 339 Old 05-06-2011, 02:39 PM - Thread Starter
 
Calm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: The Illusion
Posts: 3,131
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by SleeplessMommy View Post




It would be very helpful if you had before/after CD4 counts.

 

Calm, previously you have stated that you believe HIV/AIDS is caused by overuse of "poppers". Have you changed your mind? Do you believe that MMS is treating damage caused by "poppers" or treating virus-infected cells?

 

As I said, MMS is used by people to try to treat the diseases of AIDS which are almost all fungal in nature (candidiasis, PCP, etc).  One of the men I knew was extremely sick, calculating how long he had to live in months, emaciated... very sick with AIDS; what they call the "end stages", ie, that should have been the curtain call for him.  He did MMS and within 6 months was healthy.  He contacted me from Machu Picchu and he couldn't have cared less what his CD4 was, he'd totally changed his mind about the whole thing due to his and his friend's personal experiences of that disease.  

 

I am certainly not getting into an HIV discussion but I do not believe poppers have anything to do with modern AIDS.  If you'd paid attention at all to what I'd said back then, you'd already know that.  This kind of blinkered picking out of words reminds me of the way people keep calling this "bleach" and starting so-called unbiased threads with titles like, "do you think industrial bleach can cure anything."  I mean seriously?  Can't we move past this yet?  Because...

 

WF10 is chlorine dioxide.  It is used for AIDS, primarily.  It is also used for seemingly unrelated diseases.  

 

Studies on WF10

 

Clinical trial: Treatment of HIV-infected patients with advanced symptomatic disease with WF10 solution (TCDO).

 

 

There are many others like that.  And others on cancer and so forth.

 

Dioxychlor is also chlorine dioxide.

 

It seems we need to look for chlorine dioxide under pseudo names when it comes to medical science, who seem to be trying to hide it under these other names.  I've researched both of those things and they are definitely chlorine dioxide.  Goodness knows how else medical science is researching or using chlorine dioxide without using that word making searches impossible unless you know the words they're using.  
 

Why is no one addressing the fact that we have just discovered chlorine dioxide IS being used by medical science?  Inside the body.  And we now have a veritable legion of studies to draw from on efficacy and safety... so much so, I don't even know where to begin.  Anyone have the guts to address that?


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  
#260 of 339 Old 05-06-2011, 02:48 PM
 
ccohenou's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 1,797
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Calm, what is the resting membrane potential of a normal human cell? How about an intestinal epithelial cell? 

 

 

ccohenou is offline  
#261 of 339 Old 05-06-2011, 02:58 PM
 
WildKingdom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 684
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

 

Quote:

WF10 is chlorine dioxide.  It is used for AIDS, primarily.  It is also used for seemingly unrelated diseases.  

 

Studies on WF10

 

Clinical trial: Treatment of HIV-infected patients with advanced symptomatic disease with WF10 solution (TCDO).

 

 

There are many others like that.  And others on cancer and so forth.

 

Dioxychlor is also chlorine dioxide.

 

It seems we need to look for chlorine dioxide under pseudo names when it comes to medical science, who seem to be trying to hide it under these other names.  I've researched both of those things and they are definitely chlorine dioxide.  Goodness knows how else medical science is researching or using chlorine dioxide without using that word making searches impossible unless you know the words they're using.  
 

Why is no one addressing the fact that we have just discovered chlorine dioxide IS being used by medical science?  Inside the body.  And we now have a veritable legion of studies to draw from on efficacy and safety... so much so, I don't even know where to begin.  Anyone have the guts to address that?

 

I'll have the guts to address it.  The articles you link are from 1994 and 1999.  I can't find anything recent.  So, these small trials are from 12 and 17 years ago, respectively.  Nothing new available.  My sense- later trials did not amount to anything.  If chlorine dioxide was going to amount to anything, Pharma would have jumped on this long ago.

WildKingdom is offline  
#262 of 339 Old 05-06-2011, 04:59 PM
 
mamakay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in la la land, or so they say...
Posts: 8,986
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by WildKingdom View Post

 

 

I'll have the guts to address it.  The articles you link are from 1994 and 1999.  I can't find anything recent.  So, these small trials are from 12 and 17 years ago, respectively.  Nothing new available.  My sense- later trials did not amount to anything.  If chlorine dioxide was going to amount to anything, Pharma would have jumped on this long ago.


 

Is WF10 the same thing as CIO2, anyway?

 

mamakay is offline  
#263 of 339 Old 05-06-2011, 06:18 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 mamakay View Post




 

Is WF10 the same thing as CIO2, anyway?

 


Not to my knowledge.

 

WildKingdom is offline  
#264 of 339 Old 05-06-2011, 08:16 PM
JMJ
 
JMJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,301
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by mamakay View Post

Is WF10 the same thing as CIO2, anyway?

 



It has 4 ClO2(-) ions.

JMJ is offline  
#265 of 339 Old 05-06-2011, 11:44 PM - Thread Starter
 
Calm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: The Illusion
Posts: 3,131
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mamakay View Post




 

Is WF10 the same thing as CIO2, anyway?

 

Yes.  It is chlorine dioxide.  It also has sodium chlorite in it (which is what chlorine dioxide is acidified from) and peroxide... that is the total matrix of it.  It is generally injected.  Dioxyclor from my previous post is also chlorine dioxide.  

 

I suspect there are other names and ways companies are trying to patent and/or sell chlorine dioxide and chlorite without actually giving the patient the option to do so at home for a few cents with their own chlorite.
 

 

 

 

 



Quote:
Originally Posted by WildKingdom View Post

 

 

I'll have the guts to address it.  The articles you link are from 1994 and 1999.  I can't find anything recent.  So, these small trials are from 12 and 17 years ago, respectively.  Nothing new available.  My sense- later trials did not amount to anything.  If chlorine dioxide was going to amount to anything, Pharma would have jumped on this long ago.

Actually, that isn't the case at all. WF10 is not only still being used and sold, it is being clinically trialled for a wide variety of diseases – and it is also under other names such as Immunokine and Macrokine - sold to Thailand and another country under those names.

 

So Immunokine is really WF10, which is really chlorine dioxide.

 

This has been a very interesting research project and I have this thread to thank for it. I may not have discovered this otherwise and with it, it is enough credibility to get my FIL to consider asking his doctor about MMS or one of these chlorine dioxide based therapies for his cancer. Everything happens for a reason, and I knew I was to make it through this thread for a reason. So I thank you all for pushing me so hard... I mean that sincerely.


 

Here is Immunokine's site: http://immunokine.info/


 

Here are clinical trials, and I'll start with one published only this year, feb 2011: 

WF10 Stimulates NK Cell Cytotoxicity by Increasing LFA-1-Mediated Adhesion to Tumor Cells

Quote:
The redox-active chlorite-based drug WF10 (Immunokine) was shown to have modulatory effects on both the innate and adaptive immune system in vitro and in vivo. Animal studies suggest that WF10 enhances immunity against tumors. One possible explanation for such an effect is that WF10 stimulates natural killer cell cytotoxicity against malignant cells.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is macrokine, which is the other name WF10 is sold under, 2004 study: 

WF 10: Macrokine, TCDO, tetrachlorodecaoxide.

 

 

 

 

Quote:
Oxo completed a trial in 72 cervical cancer patients undergoing radiation therapy in 1989. Results from this trial demonstrated complete remission in 75% of patients receiving WF 10. A follow-up placebo controlled trial in 1996 produced similar results....
WF 10 is approved for use in Thailand under the name IMMUNOKINE in patients with postradiation chronic inflammatory disease including cystitis, proctitis and mucositis. In July 2003, the European examiners informed Oxo Chemie that they intend to grant the company additional patents to the technology platform that supports WF 10, extending the European protection granted in 1992 to cover a much broader range of diseases. The patents will be granted in Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK. Patent claims cover potential treatment for autoimmune disease, organ transplant or graft rejection, lymphoma and inflammation manifested as hepatitis or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

That's huge.  Note the huge array of different diseases this is purported to treat.  And those are just the ones the patent covers.

 

Phase two clinical trials, Hepatitis C and others:

 

Cancer trials, 2007

 


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  
#266 of 339 Old 05-07-2011, 12:43 PM
 
MusicianDad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tuponia
Posts: 10,838
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Calm View Post


 

Yes.  It is chlorine dioxide.  It also has sodium chlorite in it (which is what chlorine dioxide is acidified from) and peroxide... that is the total matrix of it.  It is generally injected.  Dioxyclor from my previous post is also chlorine dioxide.  

 

 

 

Um, it has neither Na nor H2O2 in it. You could make hydrogen peroxide from it, given the right chemical reaction, but the last I checked you can't get sodium from 2 hydrogen atoms, 4 chlorine atoms, and 11 oxygen atoms. Unless you can change the proton and neutron counts of atoms along with curing HIV and cancer.

 

 

ETA: Minor change in lingo, you don't "turn x into y" you "make x with y and z".
 

 

Petronella likes this.

malesling.GIFMutant Papa to DD (12)hippie.gif and DS (2)babyf.gif, married to DHribbonrainbow.gif
If it looks like I'm trying to pick a fight... I'm not, I'm rarely that obvious.hammer.gif
MusicianDad is offline  
#267 of 339 Old 05-07-2011, 02:21 PM - Thread Starter
 
Calm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: The Illusion
Posts: 3,131
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by MusicianDad View Post



 

Um, it has neither Na nor H2O2 in it. You could make hydrogen peroxide from it, given the right chemical reaction, but the last I checked you can't get sodium from 2 hydrogen atoms, 4 chlorine atoms, and 11 oxygen atoms. Unless you can change the proton and neutron counts of atoms along with curing HIV and cancer.

 

 

ETA: Minor change in lingo, you don't "turn x into y" you "make x with y and z".
 

 

 

I'll assume that was genuine humour, since taking shots at me has diminished since discovering I'm not such a crack pot after all, and the testimonies could possibly be true.  They're using this stuff in phase 3 trials (complete in 2013) for an array of diseases, including AIDS, so if my friends have claimed a cure of their AIDS symptoms - perhaps they're not delusional after all?  

 

I must have misread what else is in it, while I was reading through this thread on another site.  Chlorite is mostly mentioned but then sodium chlorite was mentioned as the type of chlorite used in one of the patents.  Peroxide is part of the chemical process, it seems, just as you suggested.  

 

Chlorite is also injected as part of the matrix, which has known toxicity.  I would think they would reduce that out of the chemical before use, but they attribute it with part of the affect.  I find that a bit... immature oxide science.  There used to be this "healing water" sold in health food stores.  It was basically traveller's water - sodium chlorite in water.  Because some had had some success with this stuff, it began being sold as a healing drink... but it is chlorite, which is toxic.  When used as a water treatment, you sit the chlorite in the water for four hours and chlorine dioxide is eventually released.  Although chlorite has its own use as a bacteriocidal, it is quite weak.  Adding an acid causes this reaction to ClO2 to happen in a couple of minutes.  Initially, Jim Humble thought it was the chlorite that helped his people with malaria but after experimentation, it turned out to be the chlorine dioxide.  I would suspect most of its action in bodies or in water has always been attributable to the ClO2, not the chlorite.

 

So I wonder why they've left the chlorite in Immunokine and other chlorine dioxide/WF10 based drugs.  


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  
#268 of 339 Old 05-07-2011, 02:56 PM
 
MusicianDad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tuponia
Posts: 10,838
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Calm View Post



 

I'll assume that was genuine humour, since taking shots at me has diminished since discovering I'm not such a crack pot after all, and the testimonies could possibly be true.  They're using this stuff in phase 3 trials (complete in 2013) for an array of diseases, including AIDS, so if my friends have claimed a cure of their AIDS symptoms - perhaps they're not delusional after all?  

 


No, taking shots at you have diminished because it's just too easy. I know I still think you are at the very lease, confused about what your saying.

 

WF10 is being looked at in treating HIV, but it is not the same thing as Chlorine Dioxide. Having Oxygen and Chlorine atoms does not a Chlorine Dioxide make. 


malesling.GIFMutant Papa to DD (12)hippie.gif and DS (2)babyf.gif, married to DHribbonrainbow.gif
If it looks like I'm trying to pick a fight... I'm not, I'm rarely that obvious.hammer.gif
MusicianDad is offline  
#269 of 339 Old 05-07-2011, 03:35 PM
 
mamakay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in la la land, or so they say...
Posts: 8,986
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by MusicianDad View Post




No, taking shots at you have diminished because it's just too easy. I know I still think you are at the very lease, confused about what your saying.

 

WF10 is being looked at in treating HIV, but it is not the same thing as Chlorine Dioxide. Having Oxygen and Chlorine atoms does not a Chlorine Dioxide make. 


 

Well, if your bloodstream is roughly as chlorinated as a swimming pool, you'll get CIO2 out of  tetrachlorodecaoxide:

 

http://wwwroot.swimpool.ca/index.php/hydroxan-the-clean-oxidizer

 

 

Quote:

Process Converting Cl4O102 Discovered
tcdo.gif More than 30 years ago, a process of converting tetracholorodecaoxide (commonly known as TCDO) was discovered by a scientist. The ‘eureka’ part of the discovery was that the TCDO converted to chlorine dioxide when free chlorine was in the pool or spa.

Swimming pools and spas were a natural application for the discovery but numerous other applications are in use today, with various forms of TCDO used to wash the walls in drinking water storage tanks, zoos etc. Dentists use it for treating gum diseases, dermatologists use it for skin eruptions, old age homes use it for washing patients, and growers use it for spraying fruit for international shipment. In the swimming pool and spa industry, it is used to clean sand filters on a maintenance basis or after pool foulings as a regular shock and bio-film removal.

 

 

 

 

mamakay is offline  
#270 of 339 Old 05-07-2011, 04:12 PM
 
MusicianDad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tuponia
Posts: 10,838
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by mamakay View Post




 

Well, if your bloodstream is roughly as chlorinated as a swimming pool, you'll get CIO2 out of  tetrachlorodecaoxide:

 

http://wwwroot.swimpool.ca/index.php/hydroxan-the-clean-oxidizer

 

 

 

 

 



I'm not sure I want to chlorinate my blood stream, considering Chlorine is a gas so deadly that if you breath it you will die.


malesling.GIFMutant Papa to DD (12)hippie.gif and DS (2)babyf.gif, married to DHribbonrainbow.gif
If it looks like I'm trying to pick a fight... I'm not, I'm rarely that obvious.hammer.gif
MusicianDad 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