The story of Jim Humble’s MMS, or “Miracle Mineral Supplement,” which he made infamous in the eyes and gunsights of the FDA, continues to evolve, and apparently, my voice still has some influence, however small my audience may be.
A couple of days ago, Jim Humble wrote the following reply in the comments from my article, Rethinking MMS: A Cell’s Eye View,” which was published in October, 2012. Instead of addressing his points in the comment thread, I feel that it best be done here.
My inclination was to present it in its entirety and summarize at the end, but that is impractical. I re-read the article in question that engendered the response below. I’ll comment as they come to me:
JH: Adam Abraham was what I thought a super Guy. He wrote super articles about the establishment and dozens if not hundreds of other things telling both what was right and what was wrong. In my opinion he was mostly right. He wrote a number of good reports about MMS and Jim Humble. But now I am not so sure. You know the old story about the Trojan horse. It was a beautiful large statue of a horse left standing outside of a Greek City, on wheels even. The Greeks came out and rolled the horse inside closing the city door thinking they were safe. And then that night in the dark a door opened in the belly of the statue and the enemy came out. They opened the gates from the inside of the city which brought destruction to the city.
I find it rather melodramatic to even infer that my actions, either by intent, or effect, might “destroy” the “city” that is MMS. However, it is also illustrative of the problem at hand. Even in your analogy you’ve got the story backwards. The city where the horse was left, was Troy, which had been at war with Greece for 10 years. It was the Greeks, seeking to end the war, who left the horse. The soldiers inside opened the gates to the city and let the army in. (Source: Wikipedia)
The issue here is fact checking. Before I write and publish anything, I do my best to check the facts regarding what is being communicated, and cite them if and where possible. This helps deepen my own understanding, and that of my readers.
JH: Well that story has happened with MMS and it took me by surprise. Adam Abraham was I thought my friend. I paid his airplane ticket to Europe and several places and he made acceptable Videos about me and MMS and he sold those videos to the public although I don’t know how many, my group also bought them from him and sold them to the public.
I have written over 100 articles on MMS. All free. No book to sell, although there is enough for several. I did it, not because Jim Humble approved or disapproved of them, but because the subject and the product was/is that important to know and understand. I’ve done it in spite of struggles to make financial ends meet.
Jim did indeed cover my travel expenses to the Dominican Republic for the first and third MMS workshops (to shoot video), and on a trip to Amsterdam, where he spoke at the Nexus Conference (2010), and headed an MMS workshop in Germany the next day, but this hardly equates to the energy that I have put out on behalf of consumer understanding of MMS on my own.
I shot, produced and sold my documentary on MMS, but this hasn’t resulted in any personal financial enrichment. Someone took the video and put it on YouTube. I didn’t oppose it. I was surprised to see that the people who put on the Nexus Conference in Amsterdam, were selling my MMS DVD, but hadn’t purchased any from me in quite some time at that point, or since then. Same thing happened in Australia. A few initial sales, then zero. At the wholesale price I charged your organization Jim, you made twice as much on my DVD as I did.
JH: Then all of a sudden out of a clear blue sky comes various articles and I assume radio programs by Adam and his new friend, Grant, whom he believes to be a super non-degreed chemist.
You shouldn’t assume things you don’t know Jim. Not only about whether I produced “negative” radio programs, or whether Grant’s knowledge of chemistry is substandard simply because he doesn’t have a degree.
I have met too many “degreed” people who don’t have a clue about anything that their professors and institutions told them to steer away from. Worse than not having a clue, they are biased against the “unknown” or “unapproved” subject. You should know a thing or two about that.
Society is being poisoned to this very day by mostly the work of “degreed” people who do what they’re told. Yet, they’d bristle at the thought that they have become like automatons.
Grant introduced me to specific areas of research, also performed by degreed people in laboratories, that supported everything he said about the chemistry of the chlorine dioxide anion (ClO2-) that is produced when a few drops of MMS are “activated.”
JH: The articles explained how the theory of MMS is all wrong and thus MMS could even be harmful.
I’m sorry you took this tact and came to this conclusion. At NO point did I, or Grant, suggest that MMS is either “wrong,” and certainly not ALL wrong, much less harmful. The chemistry and history does tell us that sodium chlorate (NaClO3) in the source material should be avoided. Evidence shows that, in general, the chlorate presence is negligible at best, and that MMS suppliers were conscientious about this factor.
JH: There are no records anywhere of harm that MMS could have done, and with hundreds of pharmaceutical drugs causing hundreds of thousands of deaths each year they have decided it is their job to inform the public of the possible harm that MMS might do.
You are writing as though I’m not aware of this history. Even more so, you’re writing as though I don’t agree with it.
JH: Did you see the contrast there.
Of course I do… the question is, why don’t you see my continued support for both you and the work that you’ve done?
JH: Pharmaceutical drugs cause many deaths, including even aspirin caused more than 300 deaths last year, and MMS no death in 15 years and not even some sort of permanent damage, not one and these guys decide they must warn the public of a possible problem that MMS might cause.
A properly informed public is the best protection, not only for the public itself, but for MMS. You may not think it wise to “upset the apple cart,” but it’s already upset, by persisting in not differentiating the species of chlorine dioxide (ClO2 @ 1.5V) that is produced by the MMS recipe, and suggesting that the stabilized chlorine dioxide anion (ClO2- @ 0.954V) is the same thing. The molecules are the same. The electron count and spin, are different, as is the behavior.
JH: Of course there is the one death that occurred near an island near Australia that was in question for a while, but not now. The FDA and other involved evil groups were able to keep the autopsy held up for over a year from being released, because of course, the autopsy proved that the death could not be MMS caused. Meanwhile they got a year of mileage talking about it and saying it was MMS. Finally they had to quit saying it, but no one apologized for saying it.
A person who understood their friend, and what they had mutually experienced, would have saved their energy with what you wrote above. You’d KNOW this was meaningless… just my opinion. I’ve written about all of this because I witnessed it too.
JH: Then when I sent emails to, Adam and his friend Grant, saying that it seemed like that we should tell the people the facts, but we should tell them so they don’t get all upset and decide against using MMS. I offered to help them get the data to the public. You should understand that I am not now and was not then selling MMS. I make no money from it and never did. I just wanted to see people get well. What I explained to Adam was lets tell people the risk which I estimated to be one in one thousand at that time. Well they completely ignored me.
Risk is never infinitesimal or great. It’s always “50:50.” Something will either impact the experiencer, or it won’t. Whether it impacts a person or not depends on the person, more so than any other factor.
JH: I know that there were some who chose not to use MMS because of what Adam and his friend wrote, I know because those who suffered called me. So there were people who went on suffering because of Adam’s and his friend’s handling of the “Truth.”
I got over guilt trips a long time ago Jim, even before meeting you. They are unbecoming. People don’t suffer because of how “I” handle the truth. They suffer because of how they choose to handle it. You are not responsible for any suffering that I may have gone through any more than I am responsible for yours. It would be silly for me to suggest such a thing. Why are you trying to infer such a thing on me?
JH: When I wrote an article about it Grant got mean about it and said I wasn’t the discoverer. Evidently according to him the fact I brought it to the public meant nothing. And I said in my book it was not my original discovery. But I have also said because I discovered it independently the world has it. I was the second discoverer. So what? The world has it now and didn’t have it before.
This too, is water under the bridge. Your contribution is known and respected here; has always been. Why should you care what Grant had to say, when you know what you’ve done, where you’ve been, and what has happened?
JH: Grant said why should he ask my permission to tell the truth. There is a point there. But all I was asking was let’s tell it so it doesn’t scare people away from MMS.
Jim, if a person maintains their fear, they’ve gained nothing. They’ll move from one “remedy” to another, still afraid. If truth is always going to be subject to editing and modification “for fear of” some unwanted reaction, nothing positive would ever get done.
How many people are not telling you the truth, “for fear of” you throwing them under the bus with excommunication or some other public verbal flogging? Is that what you started your church to do? Use people until they did something you disagreed with, and then publicly chastise them? Do you think that practice is getting you more “converts?” If so, what would the draw be?
Grant introduced me to credible, independent, verified, and corroborated information. He didn’t ask me to believe it because he told me so, which I wouldn’t have done anyway, as I didn’t believe you simply because you said MMS worked as it does. I followed through and checked for myself.
I never asked you for permission to write what I did. I didn’t ask you if it was correct. I checked my own facts. That’s what anyone who wants to understand a subject is going to need to do; give their own energy to developing their own understanding. It doesn’t mean we’re always going to agree on the details, but if your cause is legitimate, then you, your organization, and all who champion the use of MMS will welcome refinements of understanding, even if they didn’t come from you. They should honor (as in respect, not worship) you, which is the only way you’ve been treated here.
JH: After all even if the contention they expound is true it is still hundreds of times less likely to cause harm than Chemo therapy or radiation.
You’re not in a position to make that rationalization. You and your position sit “on the outside” (of the United States). You’re asking people who are “on the inside,” such as Daniel Smith, to stand up for what you are saying is “true.” Now he’s “doing battle” with the system that wants to make an example out of him. Would you come here to support him?
Is being “right” about chlorine dioxide that important to you when there is AMPLE evidence that (1) chlorine dioxide can be dangerous, and (2) the MMS activation recipe produces a species of chlorine dioxide (ClO2) that converts so fast to chlorine dioxide anion (ClO2-) that the user is actually not exposed to the free radical?
Just my opinion, but if you continue to claim that “chlorine dioxide” was “killing the bad pathogens”, then the full adoption of MMS is going to get hammered. This doesn’t mean that it’ll go away. Just that the people who really ought to use it liberally, i.e., trained healthcare professionals, are unlikely to in any significant numbers. I’m happy to be wrong on this.
And while I’m talking about health care professionals, I’ll remind you of a suggestion I made to you several years ago, when you were inspired to start your church and recruit Health Ministers. Anyone who took your course and went out on a field trip for to treat a handful of people for a day or two would became a Health Minister.
I suggested that after training, they should administer MMS to 1,000 people, then give them the title “Doctor of MMS” (DMMS), something like that, since we are so enamored with acronyms. The idea here is that there should be a deep understanding about bio-physiology that comes, not only from head learning, but life experience. There should be no rush to “entitlement.” Needless to say, the suggestion wasn’t adopted.
MMS is but one of many available, viable remedies, a fact that has taken me several years to learn and appreciate. Some, like conscious breathing exercises, don’t cost a penny.
A Health Minister should know MMS, but more importantly, he or she should know the psyche and spirit of the person they’re trying to help. This applies to all who would genuinely help others, conventional health care practitioners included, and is not beyond the purview of MMS treatment. Unfortunately, we’ve become so accustomed to “specialization” that we spin these myopic views as an “advantage,” all the while never knowing or even studying relevant information that could change everything.
So you must ask yourself whether you keep the story of MMS as it is, in spite of credible, demonstrable, reasonable doubt evidence to the contrary, and let Daniel “fall on the sword” instead? What is the harm in embracing the science that preceded it? You are still the originator of this view. You still took MMS from the antiseptic halls of medicine and encouraged people to act on their own behalf. That is a great step in the right direction, but they can’t move forward with the mistaken belief that “only MMS” can help them.
You talk about “friendship” in past tense, because I kept hold of my mind, ability to form my own opinions, and state them, even if they differed from yours. Jim, that’s being a friend, even now. A friend is happy with life, free in their love, and truth. Look around you and see how many happy, truth sharing people do you keep near you? It’s not enough to say the truth. Can you listen too?
Few people seem to notice, or take umbrage with how opinion and behavior changes when money is placed in prime position in the matrix.
Grant certainly didn’t do what he did for money. He did it out of respect for you and to spread the benefit that he has experienced by using MMS. And yet, he wants people to know the whole picture, the “pros” and potential “cons,” so they can get the best out of their MMS experience.
So yes, he bristles when talk of taking MMS with Pepsi or baking soda is mentioned, because he knows the effect that the chemicals will have on molecule size and cellular absorbability. We are so accustomed to the chemicals and so indifferent to the effect that they have on us that we include the problem in the apparent solution, creating bigger problems. It’s not a knock on you, it includes me; it’s virtually everyone in this society. How do we change it? By doing better when we KNOW better.
JH: But no, they decided to tell the truth regardless who it hurt.
Truth known, but untold is the only one that “hurts.” The same applies to truth known but ignored. Just look at the FDA, and how disinterested they’ve been in hearing anything positive about MMS. They want to prosecute this case based on their mandate of:
- what constitutes a “drug,” and
- the healing qualities of said drug
They persist in doing so, and the public, many of whom are “degreed” individuals from “prestigious” universities, continue to look the other way, not holding them accountable for their absolutely farcical “laws.”
No synthetic drug can “cure” any human disease, and yet, the FDA is unlikely to give their “approval” any safe, effective, organic chemical compounds, of which MMS is but one example.
JH: But I doubted what they were saying was the truth. I doubted that MMS could cause harm. So I asked Bishop Andreas Kalcker our research director in Spain to check it out. Well he doubted that their contention was right as well, but to be sure he run it by several other scientists in two universities, and guess what, Grant and Adam’s complex explanation doesn’t fly with Andreas and quite a number of other scientists who are now doing research on MMS.
I’m no longer impressed by opinion, even if it is a collective one. The number of scientists that still insist that MMS is a bleach would likely dwarf the group you and Andreas have put together. If any of them have an issue with what we’ve described, let them inform the public themselves. Or is it that they only speak when someone is paying for their opinion? How reliable is that?
JH: MMS, Chlorine Dioxide is one of the simplest formulas you have ever seen, ClO2. That’s it, just chlorine and oxygen, nothing more. But it is one of the hardest formulas to understand and any university will tell you that science still does not understand all of the chemistry of this formula.
If this is true Jim, then they’re not in a position to dismiss another interpretation of what is going on, and neither are you.
JH: But the actual chemistry and truth of it is that thousands of lives have been save and tremendous suffering stopped. But do you see the Trojan Horse effect?
No. Since I have not advised anyone against taking MMS, and have in fact stated a deeper respect for it. I can’t say that I agree with your analogy or conclusion.
JH: Adam came in and said a lot of nice things about MMS and then when he had thousands of people’s attention and trust about MMS turned around said it might hurt them. He explained that he finally understands chlorine dioxide and that he realizes it might hurt them.
If you care about your own credibility Jim, I’d suggest that you re-read what I wrote. With Grant’s help, I gave another interpretation of what MMS did, which didn’t follow the “good bacteria/bad bacteria” paradigm. Instead of “heroes and villains,” we gave spinach (ClO2-), not bullets (ClO2) to Popeye the Cellular Man. Newly energized, he was able, once again, to fend for himself.
JH: In this case they brought the darkness to those who believed them. Why wouldn’t the people believe? They already trusted them.
Where was the darkness Jim? Was it “dark” because you didn’t see, say, or believe it? And what do you think is happening to you? You think that your Star Wars analogy, where chlorine dioxide is blowing holes in the sides of “bad” pathogens, represents “the Light?”
JH: Basically the problem is this, Adam and Grant claim that the oxidation potential of the chlorine dioxide ion is too high and causes damage in the body.
No Jim. You claim that any oxidation potential that is higher than 1.1 to 1.4V is likely to damage healthy cells, which actually makes sense.
JH: They claim that the 0.95 volts that we talk about is wrong.
Not so. I wrote specifically that this voltage happens after the first electron exchange, when chlorine dioxide (ClO2) becomes the stabilized and therapeutically beneficial chlorine dioxide anion (ClO2-).
JH: They claim that the actual oxidation potential of the active chlorine dioxide ion is 1.49 volts and thus does damage when released in the body. But not so, as you will see below. The potential is 0.95 volts in the Chlorine Dioxide formula and cannot be otherwise, unless you change the pH of the body. In order to have a 1.49 volt oxidation potential you must have a pH of 3 in the body.
The only molecule that has an oxidation potential of 0.95V is ClO2-. That molecule is electron reduced, stabilized chlorine dioxide, or the chlorine dioxide anion.
JH: So about 6 months ago I sent Adam a reasoning letter attempting to show him some logic. Since one of Adam-Grant’s contentions is that it really isn’t the chlorine dioxide that is killing the pathogens, but rather the sodium chlorite, since according to their chemistry the chlorine dioxide turns back into sodium chlorite in the body and the chlorite runs through the body killing the pathogens.
Jim, you’re making things up here… or at least not communicating what I have written.
This isn’t “my” chemistry or Grant’s. When ClO2 exchanges the first electron, it becomes ClO2-. The acid has taken its pH down, but it is still paired with a chloride ion. It doesn’t become “sodium chlorite.”
The chlorite ion is now absorbable by the cell, both as organic sodium chloride (NaCl), and as chlorine dioxide anion (ClO2-). Cells need oxygen and chloride ions, and a multitude of synthetic chemicals that are ingested daily literally bind up the available oxygen (due to hydrocarbons in their molecular chains), making the oxygen no longer bioavailable. (See membrane potential.)
You can imagine all the “good guys” vanquishing the “bad guys” until the cows come home, but unless both chloride and oxygen ions get into cells, to jump-start the Krebs Cycle, not much healing is going to happen. ATP is one byproduct of a healthy Krebs Cycle. Healing is another. This isn’t Adam or Grant talking. It’s basic cellular physiology. It is possible things have changed, but this wasn’t taught in the two Health Minister classes that I attended.
JH: I pointed out that sodium chlorite had been on the health food store shelves for 80 years throughout the US and literally hundreds of thousands of people had taken it without the results we get from MMS. Sodium chlorite gets a little bit of results now and then, but never the result that MMS does. Adam was totally disinterested in anything I had to say and wouldn’t discuss it.
I was disinterested in being told what was so by someone who didn’t feel it necessary to also listen. You weren’t alone there. On several occasions when he called me to “set me straight,” Ron Neer also wanted to tell me where we were “wrong,” and assume much about what we did, and did not understand, without ever having an interest in learning what led to the evolution in our thinking.
Even now, you’re choosing to see my actions as an attack against you and MMS, even though my support has not wavered. I simply have no desire, nor need to “convince” you or anyone else about what is true. I’m not presuming that I have all the answers either. However, all parties in a mature conversation must be willing to exchange thoughts, being equally willing to be receptive as well as giving. This is how knowledge is spread. You can’t judge a book by the cover… well you can, but then you’d get what we have now. I’ve had enough of that already.
We’re all giving our best guess, even the FDA is making up a grand fairy tale, and facilitating a massive degeneration of human health in the process. Nothing that either you or I am doing can compare to what has been, and is still being done by them. The way to change things is for people to KNOW the truth themselves. If my truth makes better sense to me than yours, then I’m going to go with it. I’m not forcing anyone else to follow. If my understanding changes, then it is my responsibility to share what I have learned, and why it is relevant now. That’s what I’ve done.
I am not against learning something new; in fact, I love learning. However, with all due respect, no one is above gaining better understanding, even you.
JH: Below is the truth of the formula as close as we can get by several scientists –true — degreed — scientists and it shouldn’t have to be proven as the formula required is a well-known chemical formula that can be easily proven and is given in 365,000 places on the internet. You see, chemistry is chemistry and certain formulas work for all chemicals, not just a select few.
This is it from Dr.Andreas Kalcker:
AK: Yes there is a potential of 1.5Volt as they state but: only if you apply the Nernst equation p. e.
AK: [the Nernst equation is a known equation that relates the equilibrium reduction potential of a half-cell in an electrochemical cell (which is what the body is) ]
AK: The Nernst Equation:
ClO2- + 2H2O + 4e-↔ Cl- + 4OH-Eº ≈ 1.409v
AK: that means simply ClO2 has 1.5V with pH 3. and 0.954 V with pH 7.
AK: we do not have pH3 in the body ! period! in our body we have: ClO2 + 1e-↔ ClO2 – Eo = 0.954V.
Andreas attempted to “correct” me with this same admonishment, but if a pH of 3 doesn’t exist in the body, then please tell me how food gets digested. Basically, he’s saying just what I’ve stated here, and found in other publications, such as the EPA Guidance on Chlorine Dioxide.
Their equation is as follows: ClO2(aq) + e- = ClO2- E° = 0.954V [In other words, ClO2 in an aqueous solution, receives an electron (e-) becomes ClO2- which has an electrical potential of 0.954V.]
The fact is that when ClO2 is at 1.5V, it is unstable, and is the so-called, “free radical” that your (FDA) “mother” warned you about. That is chlorine dioxide. When it is 0.954V, it is the chlorine dioxide anion (ClO2-), same molecule, different biochemical behavior, different emission spectroscopic signature, and different biophysical results.
AK: Any acidic pathogen receives even a higher discharge as 0.95V due to this condition!
I don’t know what he meant here. The exclamation point didn’t make it any clearer.
AK: The problems that are true that they see are probably due to the Citric acid:
1. 50% is too strong
2. it has traces of aspergillus niger ( mold)
3. it feeds Citrobacter
Dr. Andreas Ludwig Kalcker (Ph.D)
JH: That’s it, it’s really simple. Anyone can look up the entire formula and chemical reactions on the internet. Start at Wikipedia, check it carefully, take it to a chemistry professor at a University.
I did Jim. Your interpretation isn’t the only one. That same chemical information was and is available to the folk who claim MMS is “bleach,” including the FDA. Quite a few “PhD’s” working for them too.
JH: The problem that Adam Abraham and Grant claim exists is really rather childish and would smack of someone being paid to throw confusion into the question. After all, every cancer patient they convince to not use MMS is worth 800,000 dollars to the medical industry.
This is almost funny… but it’s not.
JH: But the really crazy part is, hundreds of thousands of sufferers have benefitted and there are simply no recorded deaths or permanent damage claims made. If their story had of been the truth they wouldn’t have refused to discuss it with me.
I have no desire, nor need to argue a point with someone not willing to listen, even if considering the point would help their stated mission. The FDA says that they’re moved by the call to “protect” the nation’s health, but their actions are doing the opposite.
You try to equate my actions to that of a Trojan Horse, yet you’re doing the same thing that your real enemy, which is the status quo, are doing; considering any position other than one you originated or endorsed, to be “wrong,” with you as the sole arbiter of what is “right.”
I don’t need to be “right.” If I come to an understanding that takes me beyond what I understood, then I’m okay with going there. If others want to stay where they are, it’s okay by me.
I don’t need to “prove” that my intention is to help people, since that is all that I’ve done as it relates to MMS.
JH: The opposite of where there is smoke there is fire is that where there is smoke there should be some sort of fire. The fire in this case would be people who have been damaged by the bad MMS. After all about 10 million people have tried MMS and thousands of success stories are around the internet. Your chances of being damaged by MMS are so remote as not to really be a problem even it it were true. Grant’s warnings only scare people but have saved no one.
All you or anyone else had to do was to reassure people that sodium chlorate is not in the MMS material.
That same EPA Guidance made the following statement:
One of the most undesirable byproducts in generators is the chlorate ion (ClO3-).
At least one of the MMS suppliers had gone to specific lengths to ensure that his source sodium chlorite material was free of any chlorate before I knew anything about this. He figured something out and made sure his product was above reproach. Is it such a big deal to officially support this position? It’s in perfect alignment with your description of the contents of the raw 80% sodium chlorite. I’ve never seen you mention sodium chlorate at all. Therefore, you aren’t teaching that it is present, you’re simply acting like it’s no big deal, when it is. MMS users aren’t in any danger by the teachings you’ve presented. They simply need to be more precise in moving forward if greater adoption is ever going to happen.
JH: My decency suggestion is that if Grant really believes what he is saying he should start selling the really good stuff. Since it isn’t available anywhere else, it would only be decent when you scare someone away from a product that might save their lives, YOU AT LEAST PROVIDE A PLACE TO BUY THE ALTERNATE. Ever wonder why he doesn’t. He can’t say he doesn’t want to compete with me as I have never sold it. I’ve never made a cent from the sales of MMS.
Bill Clinton said he “never had sex with that woman” too. The mere claim of money not made raises questions of concern, legitimate or not, about money made. You don’t have to defend your record or motives regarding money to me, except if you think you need to. I don’t really care.
JH: My money which is little comes from seminars and books. So I wouldn’t take the chance if there were bad things wrong with MMS as all I have ever wanted was to see people get well and overcome their suffering.
I believe you Jim. You’re not alone, but in my opinion, you’re alienating yourself and painting MMS in a corner. MMS use will grow through greater understanding, not by a few people, but by all.
JH: For some years now I have had the backup of scientists and professors from several universities who do continuous research on the use of chlorine dioxide for the purpose of overcoming disease.
If so, then they should freely offer their opinion so as to allay any misconceptions that might arise. If so, then my musings would be meaningless. If so, you’d have many independent links to cite, just as I have cited numerous references in each article that I’ve written.
I’ve not asked people to rely on my word, or on Grant’s. I’ve pointed them to the places I’ve gone, to read for themselves, the material that I’ve read, so that they can form their own opinions, and follow their own guidance of what is best for them.
If what you say is so about MMS, then you won’t be the only one saying it. Everything that I’ve written about the chlorine dioxide anion was synthesized from research papers and scientific data. Also, our research material should be appropriate to the intended use. In other words, instead of talking about the industrial, commercial, and inanimate use of chlorine dioxide, the science described will be for the intended application, i.e., inside a living human body, with its specific environment, dynamics, and needs. I’ve done that, with Grant’s help.
JH: I apologize for being overly irritated about scaring people away from MMS. I truly only expected that from FDA, pharmacies, and medial doctors. But I am still willing to discuss it with Grant. Maybe I am wrong about his actions.
Archbishop Jim Humble
If I have done anything by writing what I have, it is to communicate in a way that makes sense to people. Believe it or not Jim, some of the explanations that you give don’t make sense. This is easy to overlook if one achieves the desired results, which MMS has certainly earned, for which your tireless work should be commended. As such, you earned what we might call, a “grace period,” and rightfully so.
As the numbers grow, and more people take a critical look at MMS, some of your “scientific” explanations break down, which give folk who are not interested in positive results fodder to criticize and ridicule the product and the man. If I’m a “Trojan Horse,” please show me where I have done such things.
If MMS acceptance is to grow, then it must stand up to all critical observation. Critical observation is not criticism. It is close scrutiny. There are many more factors involved in the genesis of diseases than microbial “pathogens,” or pH, which are effects, and not cause. They include:
- chemical additives in food,
- the chemical nature of medicine,
- chemical treatment and delivery of denatured water,
- toxic electromagnetic fields in our homes and places of work,
- noxious atmosphere,
- our generally isolated and ungrounded bio-electrical state, and
- toxic (fearful) thinking (sense of powerlessness, victimhood, etc.)
- our general unawareness of self (probably the most important)
MMS can address some issues, such as heavy metal toxicity, transient viral and bacterial issues, but not all. If a person gags at the thought of taking more, then that’s a sign they should let up for a time, not that MMS itself is ineffective.
MMS won’t make a courageous person out of a fearful one, or a smart person out of one that has not valued knowledge. What would they be courageous or knowledgeable about? Knowing more ways to restore balance and taking responsibility for their choices in life, not expecting someone or something else to “fix” their problems, and complaining or whining when they don’t get well as quickly as it takes to buy a Big Mac.
Human beings are a wonderful, curiously amazing species that has been lied to repeatedly, continuously, throughout the ages. They’re being fed lies now, coming from every direction, from people and institutions they have been led to believe they could trust. They have taken many of these lies, presented by trusted sources, to be “truths.”
That’s why the FDA can FABRICATE what they suggest to be “laws” that say “only drugs can cure,” and if anything is deemed to be “curative,” it is a “drug.” Neither of these statements are true, even if the FDA says it’s so. In other words, both are lies. Yet, in the spirit of the emperor that had no clothes, many fearful, degreed people are acting as though these lies are true, and “enforcing” them, mostly without our knowledge or consent, down our throats.
Just some of their tools include:
- flu shots
- GMO manipulation of food
- atmospheric geo-engineering (chemtrails)
- HeLa cell propagation
You’ve garnered the attention of “the Emperor,” and your story is going to need to hold up. MMS has been mis-characterized as an “industrial bleach,” and highly dangerous by a medical institution that approves giving battery acid to cancer patients and calling it “chemotherapy.” When the trusting patients die, the disease and “naughty tumor” gets the blame. The denaturing orthodoxies of “modern day living” continue on as if nothing was wrong.
As I have written on numerous occasions, MMS should be part of the physician’s “tool box.” It is a far superior remedy for many of the conditions that ail a human… or animal or plant, than the swill sick people are being prescribed by a pharmaceutically controlled medical profession.
Perhaps you only see MMS being adopted by a small group of followers, and never by the medical establishment. Well, keep telling people about “good” bacteria and “bad” bacteria. If anaerobic bacteria didn’t exist, the body wouldn’t survive the chemicals we’ve grown to think are superior to Nature. All life, including viruses, bacteria, cysts, and tumors, are RESPONSES to the non-living, unconscious, disruptive chemical SUBSTITUTES that we have embraced as part of “modern life.”
MMS can help, but nothing can stand as a substitute for one’s own awakening to the realization that life, love, and living are not their “enemies,” and that they have a great partner in health, not only in nature, but within each cell of the human body.