It comes as no surprise that the first official response to my latest articles on MMS chemistry would amount to a circling of the wagons, as though I had attacked the Doctrine. Given what I’ve learned recently, I am saying that Chlorine Dioxide, or ClO2 should indeed be avoided, and IS being avoided when MMS that contains no sodium chlorate is used. Given what I’ve learned, I am also saying that MMS that is free of sodium chlorate is a formulation that avoids or minimizes ClO2 exposure, hastening the natural cascade that leads to the production of ClO2- and Cl-.
If there is no sodium chlorate in the MMS, there would be no issues with the FDA, due to the particular ClO2- species that is produced.
This doesn’t make me a critic, or even critical of either MMS or Jim Humble. However, he’s taking it as though I am. After signing up to follow me on Twitter (@phaelosopher), then leaving a long comment in the thread Rethinking MMS: A Cell’s Eye View this morning, he sent me this personal message. I’m sure that Grant will have his own take on this, but I will comment below as I feel it appropriate.
You and Grant just ignored my last email a couple of months ago. Now you have put out reams of junk. You have just bought everything Grant has said hook line and sinker. Sodium Chlorite has been being used in the US for 80 years and has have(?) very little effect on health.
While I didn’t ignore it, it might as well had been so, since I didn’t reply to Jim’s last email, sent a few weeks ago. However, after receiving his email I wrote and published MMS: No Desire for Drama, Just Beneficial Results (09/20/2012). I’ve listened to Grant more than anyone connected with this idea would have been willing to, or have the temerity to publish without first seeking permission. Grant told me this morning that he attempted to contact Jim directly well over a year ago, but did not receive a response. His knowledge of biochemistry and biophysics is far deeper than mine, or what anyone would expect from a layman, but he has not tried to “tell” me anything. Instead, he has shown me where the information is that supports or explains what he’s saying. It’s buried in scholarly papers and scientific databases, and are on point to the application, i.e., biochemistry; not general commercial or industrial uses.
I told you that chlorite is not yellow. You just chose to ignore that fact. Chlorine dioxide gas is yellow or yellowish green and it is yellow when dissolved in water. Chlorite is not colored in water and definitely it is not yellow. And if it actually kills pathogens it is not by blowing a hole in the side of pathogens. For a year and a half I had a dark field microscope and you could see that the pathogens were killed by destruction of the outer layer of the pathogen.
The yellow color may not be conclusive proof that chlorine dioxide (ClO2), is in the water. It can come from a number of other minerals, including dissolved organic carbon. We also know that the ClO2 molecule REMAINS in the water, however as ClO2-. Something is different about that molecule beyond the minus sign, which determines or affects its behavior. The chemicals selected to generate the ClO2 determine what the species, and as such, the differences in its behavior are.
If I understand you correctly, you’re saying that chlorite not being yellow in water is proof that it’s not there. Yet, every document that I’ve read on the subject states that ClO2 becomes ClO2-, which becomes Cl-. Every document I’ve read refers to ClO2- as “chlorite.”
None of the usual commercial sources of chlorine dioxide information, such as Lenntech and The Sabre Companies are concerned with preparing a solution for human intake. Their recipes are different. They use sodium chlorate as well as sodium chlorite. In 1814, Sir Humphrey Davy used potassium chlorate and sulfuric acid. I’ve found around 11 different recipes for generating the chlorine dioxide molecule. Each one produces its own unique species, with unique properties.
If all Chlorine Dioxide are the same, then why isn’t MMS produced with the same compounds that Lenntech and Sabre use, just scaled down to smaller proportions? That would make sense if all ClO2 were the same.
I don’t care how you decided on the MMS formula. Whether by happenstance or not, we’re saying that independent scientific research, starting with Cornford, et. al, in 1971, affirms that you chose a recipe that is right for the application. The people who studied the properties of that particular species of chlorine dioxide have confirmed that the switch from a highly reactive ClO2 to to a highly therapeutic ClO2- state, happens in less than 1/2 second. Apparently, the ClO2 last longer in other species.
The benefit of acknowledging this distinction is to be able to cite independent proof that the FDA’s assertions of MMS harm, (i.e., “potent bleach”), are specious. Given their motives and mindset, the people who run the agency are likely to change their position, so it makes sense to inform The People, to give them greater confidence to use MMS in these the times of change.
You can draw all the pictures of all the things in the pathogen you want, but the kill is by blowing a hole in the side of the pathogen. That has been proven time and again with dark field microscopes. I had one of the most expensive dark field microscopes that money can buy at my use for a year and a half in Mexico. And that is what I saw. LENNTEK has been using chlorine dioxide to kill pathogens for 50 years. Their chemical technology is not surpassed by Grant.
What do you or anyone care about where “the kill” actually happens? Why would this need to be the litmus test of what is “right?” “Conclusion by microscope” is problematic for what you don’t see, in this case, the cellular dynamics inside the body, before and after MMS intake.
I just learned that cells exhale carbon dioxide (CO2) after taking in Cl-. With up to 100 trillion cells, it’s no wonder that we let out ClO2.when we exhale. Conclusions are based both on what we look for, and what we overlook. I acknowledge having overlooked cellular dynamics for the five years I’ve been around this story, since it has never been mentioned. And yet, it’s the most exciting one.
The bottom-line for me is that MMS can and should help hundreds of millions more than the 10 million that have discovered and tried it in the past five years. And as more people awaken to the HeLa cell attack we’ve been under for 60 years, they’ll want it even more. But it’s got to be the right formulation.
What do you two think you are proving anyway? You should join Silver Fox and make another hundred people be afraid to use MMS. Do you think I haven’t restudied the subject time and again? Well you are wrong because I have. EVEN IF YOU ARE RIGHT, YOU ARE GOING ABOUT IT ALL WRONG. You are scaring people and that means there will be some that go on suffering.
It’s not a matter of what you studied, but where you looked. I searched the same sites as you for my chlorine dioxide education, but they were commercial applications. If you found one like this example, you might think twice:
Detoxification of chlorine dioxide (ClO2) by ascorbic acid in aqueous solutions: ESR studies
Chlorine dioxide (ClO2) which was easily prepared from dissolving sodium chlorite (NaClO2) in acidic aqueous solutions can oxidize l-ascorbic acid (AsA) to give the short-lived intermediate, ascorbic acid free radical (AFR). The detection of the ascorbate radical was made by using the electron spin resonance (ESR) spectroscopy coupled with a rapid-mixing flow technique which enabled us to detect radicals having a life-time of 5–100 ms at room temperature. This result indicates that the ascorbic acid becomes a suitable reagent for detoxification of the ClO2, which is remaining in drinking water, in the living body.1 Ozawa, Kwan
The above study was published in the Feb 1987 edition of Water Research. It both supports and confirms the assertion that it is possible to detoxify of ClO2 with a mind toward human consumption or use.
How many people do you think the folk at the FDA have made afraid of MMS with its generalized and inappropriate warning of its “danger?” Why are you trying to raise money for a “legal defense” fund? Why does he fear for his family? Could it be that focusing solely on the “kill” properties of a generic ClO2 overshadows a more remarkable, but unexamined natural process that occurs when a specific ClO2 species is formulated?
If it could be shown that there is no real danger of chlorine dioxide exposure by using MMS, due to the particular species that is being formulated, and said non-toxicity has been proven via independent scientific study, wouldn’t that remove the need to circle the wagons and go into “defend” mode at the drop of a hat?
I am not a critic of you nor MMS. Simple fact is that I was open to learn more from someone more knowledgeable than me on the subject, in order to perpetuate and build on what you started. IF this new interpretation is correct, which the research suggests that it is, it will take away a huge excuse that naysayers, including “naturopathic types,” have offered about MMS. It would accelerate growth.
The fact is MMS makes a good bleach and I have bleached a lot of cotton with it and then used it to cure diseases from the same bottle after the bleach was accomplished. DO YOU GET IT, THE SAME BOTTLE THAT BLEACHED COTTON ALSO WE CURED DISEASES WITH IT. TIME AND AGAIN OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS I’VE DONE THAT. HOW ARE YOU GOING TO GET AROUND THAT?
Yes Jim, I get it. Why don’t you mix up some sodium chlorate, and hydrochloric acid in an MMS bottle. It will produce chlorine dioxide, but do you want to use it on humans? All chlorine dioxides are not the same, nor do they behave the same chemically. You chose one that helps miracles happen. However, you’re presenting it in such a way that gives some people reasonable doubt. I am bringing this up to remove doubt… to help people be clear what will and will not help them.
I would ignore you guys except you are doing vast damage to MMS and if anyone that is sick decides not to use it because of you then you have caused suffering and maybe death. I’m the expert on MMS and yet you go to someone who probably hasn’t healed a single person. And he is going to tell you that he can use MMS2 to heal cancer and in many cases he cannot. I’ve healed a thousand cancer cases if you count those over the phone and email. YOU WERE A HELP AT FIRST, BUT NOW YOU ARE DOING MORE DAMAGE AND PROBABLY YOU WILL CANCEL THE GOOD THAT YOU DID BEFORE THIS IS OVER.
Each is responsible for his or her actions and inactions. I am comfortable with mine. I saw value in you and your work, and have not changed. MMS use should be expanded. However, the science needs to be shored up, such as
- by acknowledging, embracing, and citing existing scientific findings,
- demonstrating an understanding of ClO2 species,
- specifying that ALL MMS shall be sodium chlorate free (28% solution for 80% and 23% solution for pure sodium chlorite),
- emphasizing that with the reagent the solution is detoxified,
- moving away from the pathogen “kill” story and giving credit to the restored cell
- consider returning to the 10% reagent and the 5:1 ratio.
If you had been willing to listen to Grant when he contacted you directly, perhaps the reasons behind why these suggestions are helpful would have been seen and this exchange wouldn’t unnecessary.
All three of us agree on two things;
- You da man, and
- MMS is valuable and its use should be expanded.
Whether or not you agree on how I am going about doing it, Grant and I both honor you for what you have done, and the many yet to be helped by MMS.
It dawns on me. Become a MMS advocate and then all of a sudden find terrible things wrong. People are more likely to believe you were an advocate at first. Being a critic of MMS might pay better and get you better known, but it generates karma that must be paid. If you keep this up, I will explain to the world.
I hope I’ve made it clear to you that I am not a “critic,” yet you’re free to see things as you will. No one is “paying” me to present this viewpoint, as has been the case for the over 100 articles that I’ve written on MMS over the past five years. I am part of why 10 million people have chosen to use it. MMS will not “win” a fight with the FDA by claiming that chlorine dioxide is the central killer in its work. By looking beyond pathogen killing and exploring cellular restoration, which has been proven to apply, the “dangerous” label could be transcended altogether.