The new wave of stories about illness and death make the following points increasingly obvious:
- Just how little we know about ourselves, meaning our metabolic, mental, spiritual, and imaginal nature,
- How having money, or throwing money at a problem, is no guarantor of solution, and will more likely escalate the problem.
The newest scare is out of Germany. It involves a frantic search for the source of an E. coli strain that induces Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome, the most common cause of acute kidney failure. This is the latest example of an application where a scaled-down round of chlorine dioxide disinfection, my new designation for what we know here as MMS, would drastically diffuse a very diffusible situation.
Chlorine dioxide will eradicate the O104:H4 E. coli. Period. Not because it is an “industrial strength bleach,” as the FDA and other MMS detractors have incorrectly asserted, but because regardless of the cause, the E. coli is still a bacteria whose natural voltage and polarity is under and within the range of reactivity that would engender a chlorine dioxide oxidative response.
If any scientists are reading this article, please consider it a hypothesis. If you happen to have some O104:H4 sitting around the lab, or on some tomatoes from Germany, prepare a weak solution of chlorine dioxide, using Jim Humble’s protocol for a topical spray (10 DROPS of activated MMS per ounce of water volume), apply it and let us know what happens.
As an example, for a 4 ounce bottle, use 40 drops of MMS activated with 40 drops of 50%-strength citric acid. After the solution turns a dark orange color, usually within 30 seconds or so, fill up the rest of the bottle with water, which will turn it to a light yellow.
This is a great topical spray that would safely inactivate any E. coli, Salmonella, or Staphylococcus bacteria that may be lounging in your food or on your skin. Of course, if it’s already in your body, you can prepare according to the standard Protocol 1000 that Jim Humble recommends, and ingest.
In either event, the active chemical load within the environment would have been lessened via this novel form of benevolent oxidation. This, in conjunction with other elements that should be considered, allows the body to then restore and repair itself.
That’s been the story of chlorine dioxide’s value all along that some folk just haven’t wanted to acknowledge, or want you to know about.
This charade can’t continue much longer.
E. coli as Biological Weapon?
Some people are circulating the notion that the O104:H4 E. coli is particularly deadly strain and that it may be the result of research in biological weaponry. (See linked article.)
I suggest that it isn’t important. If one were to embark on a witch hunt into who might have created it or for what reason, what would the results yield? Most likely more suppositions that cannot be confirmed. Even if confirmation were possible, what would you do?
On the other hand, if chlorine dioxide disinfection will actually help solve the problem—a supposition that can easily be confirmed or refuted—then that’s all that really matters. Peace of mind comes in proof, not of conspiracy, but that you can’t be harmed by the threat any more.
The public is not being informed that the kind of solace being referred to here, is even possible. If you remain afraid of the O104:H4 or angry at the possible conspiratorial idiocy, you’ll remain in the same unhealthy mindspace. Can’t touch it, but it’s very real, and it is self-devastating.
The good news is that you, and only you, can change it for you.
It is equally possible that the emergence of the O104:H4 E. coli was not the product of some form of nefarious “man-made” research, but the result of the legal, ignorant, and irresponsible treatment of a water supply. With all the expensive efforts to recall produce from Spain, along with the blood transfusions and dialysis treatments that have impacted over 1,700 people thus far, not one news report has suggested that anyone is looking at the water, and seeing a connection as to how it—if contaminated with certain chemicals—might induce a natural bacterial mutation.
Whether it was intentional or otherwise, chlorine dioxide disinfection can help resolve the threat, whether infection is problem, or has already happened.
If the authorities don’t see the potential connection and aren’t moved to test and confirm this for themselves, then informed individuals can and should do it on their own.
The only mention of water that I’ve seen thus far, is in an article that advised readers to wash your produce with normal tap water. The writer doesn’t mention of the chemicals that are already in the standard water supply.
Dr. Bruce Lipton (The Biology of Belief, Spontaneous Evolution (co-written with Steve Bhaerman) really brought home the idea that, as a result of Newtonian, particle-based scientific thinking, we fail to factor in one of the major influences to behavior, that is essentially “hiding in plain sight.” That is, the environment.
That truth applies for all life, from human beings, to cells, fungi, tumors, cysts, yeast, bacteria, and viruses. Yet, we act as though the chemicals that are in an environment have no effect on what happens there.
From one person to the next, the chemical, ecological, electrical, and metabolic makeup inside their body is going to be unique. And, if we looked at people as the unique beings that they are, it would become evident why those 1,700 people were susceptible to this strain, and why this strain mutated in the first place.
Believe it or not, one’s state of mind will also impact the chemical makeup (and susceptibility) of his or her body. In other words, you can make your own body susceptible to an O104:H4 E. coli by your pattern of thinking. But most people don’t believe this. Others have neither the time nor the inclination to make that kind of examination.
Money, Sports, and the Great Deception
Money gums up the wheels of positive change even more, in part due to our belief that power (knowledge, etc.) follows it around. The belief is so strong that we put the pursuit and possession of money ahead of our humanity and happiness. We’ll set both aside in order to pursue a buck, in order to feel “secure.” But then, we become slaves to a lessor god.
Money doesn’t buy you happiness, and certainly doesn’t guarantee that you’ll get the best in health care. Knowledge, patience, and the courage to persevere, will get you much further along the path of health than any prescribed medication.
Last week I watched the French Open tennis championships, as well as the NBA finals, which are going on presently. With all the “health” advice and facilities that sports figures have available, they are not particularly resilient people.
Tiger Woods certainly has money, but he has a persistent problem with a knee and Achilles tendon that have been slow to heal.
They’re talking about the possible “need” for replacement surgery.
Andy Murray, of Great Britain, claimed to be on pain medication during the French Open after sustaining an ankle sprain.
Serena Williams has been off the tennis court for over a year, and her career has been punctuated with withdrawals and cancellations due to illness or injury.
Dirk Nowitski carried a 101-degree fever from a sinus infection (another environmental condition), in Dallas last night, as the Mavericks beat the Miami Heat to even the series at 2-2.
My point in bringing this up is that the higher the profile that a person attains, for example, through sports, the more likely they will “break down” physically, and eventually be under “doctor’s care”.
The conversation could justifiably be about magnetic field therapy for Tiger Woods and Andy Murray instead of pain medication and replacement surgery. A baseball pitcher could also forego the perceived need for “Tommy John” surgery.
For a sinus infection, Nowitski could have taken chlorine dioxide disinfection (MMS) and most likely would not have needed to try to overcome the ill-effects of the medication that he was on, which the press has been attributing to a bug. The problem with all this is that when their health problems become public, the resolution methods become de facto standards in public perception. Isn’t it interesting that Magic Johnson’s method of recovery from HIV remains a mystery today? Well, the public message is that he is still HIV positive, but at the time he retired from basketball, it was considered a death sentence to be so diagnosed. Yet, he didn’t die.
His foundation is now dedicated to “fighting” HIV, another misguided pursuit. An article in Newsweek suggests that a daily regimen of antiretroviral medications is helping him. An article on another site suggests something else, a product called Natrol, which contains an immune system enhancer. This site also reports that Magic may have used ozone therapy too, but that his doctors are remaining tight-lipped about that.
There are some amazingly wonderful technologies available to help us restore health when gets sidelined, but you’ll hear precious little about them through mainstream media.
However, I believe that is changing.
A new “anti-MMS” article was brought to my attention this week. This one, written by Sara Vaughter, a nutritionist, has her conclusion in the title, “No Miracle, No Mineral, No Solution.”
She and I agree that MMS is no miracle, but that’s where the agreement ends.
Vaughter’s commentary on the chlorine dioxide disinfection (CDD) method introduced by Jim Humble that we’ve come to know as “MMS” reads as an “authoritative” analysis that is based on faulty, or misinterpreted, information. As such, she supports her assessments with negative personal characterizations of Humble himself.
Vaughter came across MMS because her customers have often asked whether it works with a product that she sells; a product known as Lufenuron, a Liver-safe candida killer that is between natural and chemical.
We discovered a prescription-free, over-the-counter, totally harmless veterinarian remedy that kills Candida as effectively – but differently – than Diflucan (oral “azole” antifungal medicines), while putting no burden on liver and kidneys! It makes holes in Candida’s cell wall. It can cure vaginal yeast, oral Candida, Candida rashes and intestinal Candidiasis. More serious semi-systemic Candidiases such as IBS may need multiple treatments and are at least greatly improved. The Lufenuron is “loaded” into the fatty tissues over a period of five days, and then slowly releases, maintains tissue concentrations high enough to kill the Candida for three weeks. We sell a 2-month course. Antifungals such as Diflucan are harmful to the liver and kidneys. Lufenuron is not metabolized or eliminated by the liver or kidneys, but excreted through the feces. Lufenuron is about as toxic as orange juice. It has no side effects but indirectly, it can make you feel bad as reported below – but stay the course – it’s an immune response against dead Candida fragments and suddenly released Candida toxins (“die-off”, or “detox” reaction). Before you decide, it is important to read the details of Lufenuron as a Candida treatment.
Change a few words and her description of Lufenuron sounds very much like how chlorine dioxide works.
She starts out with a disclaimer saying that she never knew what it really was. Yet, her conclusions indicate that she still doesn’t.
”It turns out that MMS, instead of curing cancer, causes cancer!”—Sarah Vaughter
Being a nutritionist and having a chemist as a husband doesn’t appear to be enough for Vaughter to get her very bold and false statements in order.
She says that sodium chlorite is a common form of household bleach, a toxic industrial disinfectant, and powerful oxidant that caused cancer when ingested in small quantities and massive organ damage when taken in significant quantities.
Neither of these factors apply to MMS. The ingestion amounts are miniscule, highly diluted, using no more than a few drops at a time; scaled down to levels that allows the oxidation/disinfection to be done safely and effectively. This is very different from what is inferred in Vaughter’s article.
Acknowledging that there have been precious few reports of harm caused by MMS use, she moves to Humble himself, and does her best to turn the man into a cartoon character.
As though the word “bleach” were the secret word that, by hypnotic suggestion, produces a psychological gag reflex, she applies it liberally, as have so many others who find the ideas associated with chlorine dioxide disinfection, i.e., dramatic improvements in health, so hard to swallow.
Vaughter attributes the now massive body of positive results from chlorine dioxide disinfection use to the sellers, motivated by the 10,000% profit that they must be making on each $20 bottle. At least, that’s what Vaughter figured Jim Humble was making, even though in actuality, he doesn’t make money on MMS sales.
Apparently, truth isn’t important if the story can be made to sound sordid enough.
This is not to say that Jim hasn’t given his discovery’s critics fodder to work with. The church thing is one. Having the audacity to claim that the very tiny doses of chlorine dioxide, produced from an inexpensive, abundantly available, unprocessed salt product, could resolve an entire laundry list of conditions that hundreds of millions spent each year haven’t resolved, is quite another.
Most critics appear so intent on discrediting the man that they’ve not stopped to even consider if what he has said, may be true. And if not totally true, all-the-time, what about some of the time? The people who are using MMS aren’t making their claims up simply to have a good story.
On the other hand, most critics haven’t taken the time to rationally consider what effect the intake of substantially reduced amounts of chlorine dioxide—a proven pathogen inactivator for everything from anthrax to E. coli, plus MRSA, Staph, fungus, mold, and yeast (including Candida)—might have on a chronically compromised human body.
Said critics also fail to discern the behavioral differences between chlorine (also an active agent of bleach), and chlorine dioxide. While they would have you gag at the mere thought of taking in “bleach”, as though that was what you were doing with chlorine dioxide intake, they are mum at the daily intake of elemental chlorine that water management agencies across America have done for years, without raising an eyebrow.
If they don’t know the difference between chlorine and chlorine dioxide, then why aren’t they appalled at the involuntary exposure to chlorine that the public is being subjected to?
These questions are rhetorical. The reasons may vary, simply depending on who the critic is.
I’m sure Sarah Vaughter’s product is what she says it is, and does what she says it does. It’s not that I don’t see why she can’t accord the courtesy of an unbiased look at something that isn’t Lufenuron, and withhold her suppositions about Jim Humble to what she knows to be true, which is very little. It was, for me, difficult to read a mean-spirited article dressed in “concerted expert” clothing.
Personally, I don’t care for the church thing. I’ve told Jim that, and he respects my position. However, the efficacy of chlorine dioxide disinfection doesn’t depend on whether the original discoverer started a church or not.
Given that MMS sellers have been harassed and threatened, in the United States, UK, and Japan, and the protocol has been maligned by the FDA, FSA, and the BBC (in the UK), it isn’t hard to see why anyone who fears for their safety and freedom might not take desperate measures to protect them.
Jim Humble doesn’t have a financial stake in MMS product sales. From what I’ve seen, he struggles with life issues just like you and me. But his insight to use small amounts of chlorine dioxide internally—which has been known for over 200 years, and used as a water purifier for almost 100—was a stroke of genius that no attempt at character attack can take away.
All this is happening while news stories report of a new strain of E. coli infecting over 1,500 and killing 17 people in Germany. (Click here to read the story.)
We’re being advised to be on the watch for E. Coli that might be “lurking in our salads,” when a little chlorine dioxide, applied with a sprayer, would stop it immediately. Even if we ingested it, a tiny bit of chlorine dioxide would put it down. This has been tested by many agencies over the years, including a 1982 study commissioned by the National Institutes of Health, the EPA (in a product marketed under the Selectrocide brand) and the FDA.
Chlorine dioxide is not new to the FDA. Jim Humble’s proposed application is the cause of the most controversy.
To get an “inside view” of how the FDA works, below is a response letter from Laura Tarantino, Director of the Office of Food Additive Safety, to a proposal by Engelhard Corporation for approval to market a misting system that, using one of two methods, would generate and spray chlorine dioxide on produce on your grocery store shelves. (Click here to read the entire letter.)
At issue was the GRAS (“generally recognized as safe”) status of this “additive”. With it, Engelhard would be able to market the system; without it, they would not.
Since an extension of shelf-life would result from the process, the FDA interpreted the proposed application of chlorine dioxide by the Engelhard system in the context of a preservative—a stretch, in my opinion. Nonetheless, they concluded thusly:
Based on the information provided by Engelhard, as well as other information available to FDA, the agency has no questions at this time regarding Engelhard’s conclusion that chlorine dioxide generated by either of their two CSR systems is GRAS under the intended conditions of use.—Laura Tarantino, Ph.D. (FDA)
This exchange happened in April, 2005, well before Jim Humble emerged on the scene to suggest that we look at the potential of chlorine dioxide in a different context.
Instead of acknowledging the known merits of chlorine dioxide after the good news continued to pile up, the agency went the other way, issuing their warning against MMS use in August, 2010.
Nowhere was the term “industrial bleach” used in the FDA’s correspondences with Engelhard’s representatives, or any concerns over the potential dangers, even though the amounts of chlorine dioxide that would be generated were likely higher than those that were eventually developed and proposed by Jim Humble.
I am as eager as the next person for the FDA, EPA, Sloan Kettering, or the Mayo Clinic, or any other agency to study the potential benefits of the therapeutic use of chlorine dioxide. But so far, they have been not just unwilling, but hostile toward the idea.
They are like the Roman Catholic church that tried Galileo in 1633 for declaring that the earth was not the center of the universe. Their rationale was not the evidence—they refused to look themselves—but that his conclusions went against doctrine. He spent the rest of his days under house arrest.
When will we have the humility to acknowledge that we not only don’t have all the answers, but that the way that we’re currently doing things—with respect to health care—is not working very well?
Instead of flaunting its authority by intimidation and squashing, obstructing, or delaying the emergence of new ideas, the FDA could play a valuable role in helping the public prosper in a rapidly changing world by welcoming new ideas and methods, and confirming their efficacy.
But it won’t happen with dis-information.
And while Sarah Vaughter doesn’t know Jim Humble, the Jim Humble that I know would never publicly make such personal characterizations about a stranger simply because they had another product that could help people. He’d be more inclined to support them if he saw that the product worked. He certainly did that with the probiotic product that used to be called Paradophilus, and Indian Herb. The probiotic was so popular, due in part to Jim’s bravado (and ultimately the success of its use with MMS), the developers changed the name.
June 4, 2011 | Categories: Alternative Medicines, Blogroll, Cancer, Education, FDA, Fear, Healing, Health related, Jim Humble, MMS, Tuberculosis, Water | Tags: chlorine dioxide, FDA, Jim Humble, MMS, water treatment | 17 Comments
CHICAGO, IL – Shifting paradigms and disappearing paradoxes dominate these times, as the world turns while hurtling its way through the galaxy on a much speculated upon path, its present in upheaval, its future, uncertain.
Is it the beginning of The End, or of The Beginning? is the question.
My vote is for the latter. The beginning of The Beginning. The birth of a new reality that emerges from the tumult of the Here and Now, of which we are witnesses, writers (by the choices we make), and experiencers.
I am in my hometown of Chicago, taking some time to be with mom, enjoying the golden apple pie that, like a great alchemist, she conjures up from humble ingredients. Her pies (sweet potato too) have served as the benchmark for every pie I have ever tasted. She’s still got it; apples neither too tart nor too sweet. Maybe it’s the love she puts into each ingredient that transcends its potential ill-effects, and reminds me of home.
Over the past weekend I spoke at the South Eastern Iowa Longevity Conference, in Fairfield, itself an oasis of transcendental thinking among the expanses of pasteurized dairies and genetically engineered farmlands.
The New Beginning (i.e., natural, unpasteurized dairy, GMO-FREE growing practices), will evolve as we move away from many practices that have become familiar. Dependence on “the miracle of chemistry” being one. We use chemicals in so many ways, without question, that the detrimental cumulative effects on our physiological and mental health, has not even been noticed by the powers that be, much less acknowledged to be culpable.
So we must take notice ourselves, as well as embrace new methods.
The New Beginning won’t necessarily look drastically different from the familiar. But our experience will be very different.
The talk that I gave was titled, “PHOTONIC WATER: For Better Energy, Health, and Life.” This too represents an old concept looked at from a new perspective. The view itself isn’t new. Energy has always been with us, because we have always been Energy. What’s new is that we’re acknowledging its primacy. We’re seeing the energetic perspective as a viable, valuable, and indeed, the FIRST FACTOR that should be considered, in determining what’s beneficial or not with regard to water treatment.
“Purity” is no longer measured in terms of nothingness. Water with no minerals is electrically inert, the intent behind which would act as a slow poison. Optimal water is balanced, not only in terms of pH, but energetically, in terms of negative entropy.
In the new energy conscious world, positive entropy is known to be disruptive and destructive on subtle systems, whereas negative entropy, as are negative ions, have harmonizing and cohering properties. Harmony and coherence are present when we are healthy. If they introduced when we are sick, heal begins to return.
Our observations about entropy apply to water, but also, to every product, every thought, idea, or concept, and every emotion. When we “tune-in” to energy (and everyone can do it), we gain insights that don’t reveal themselves if we’re limiting ourselves to information confirmable only by our five senses.
Over the past two years my attention has turned to the subject of water, its nature, and role in the unfolding story of human life and health on earth. The fact that we have been “fighting” what has become a losing battle with health, can be tied very closely with our relationship to, and thoughts about water, and related topics.
Needless to say, if we’re losing a battle to maintain health, the more looming specter is that we’re also on the deficit side of the quest to sustain life.
Life WILL be sustained, but not by continuing to do things that way we’ve been doing them. Therefore, the beginning of The Beginning is upon us, as The End of the Familiar is at hand.
I had a wonderful time in Fairfield and absolutely enjoyed getting to know Steve Bhaerman, both the co-author of Spontaneous Evolution: Our Positive Future and How to Get there From Here, and the alter-ego of the comedic stage personality known as Swami Beyondananda (www.wakeuplaughing.com).
Having heard of, but never having seen a Swami performance myself, I could not have imagined enjoying comedy that much. He speaks with comedic brilliance from a familiar, but rarely broadcast perspective. There was no obligatory laughter to be found masking over uncomfortable, or downright dangerous ideas.
Not only did I have the pleasure of watching the Swami’s performance at Fairfield’s Morning Star Studios, I captured it on video. I will give Steve an opportunity to view it as a process of gaining permission to share it as a video or CD title, but in my opinion, he’s that good.
A Visit to the Gulf Coast
My original plans were to travel to New Orleans from here to co-present, along with Wil Spencer, a series of workshops, titled, The Power to Heal is Within – in New Orleans and Baton Rouge, LA, and in Biloxi, MS. You may recall that Wil was the object of some controversy and scorn when he had the audacity to try to help residents of the Gulf Coast states who are experiencing the ill-effects of the highly chemicalized environment, using a number of products, including one he called, “Advanced Oxygen Therapy,” which was a relabeled MMS/chorine dioxide product.
Instead of avoiding controversy, he incited it when someone recognized the ingredients of his AOT and, putting two and two together, deciding that a fraud was being perpetrated. Fortunately, several people who have in fact been helped by Wil’s protocols – of which MMS/AOT was only a portion – have mobilized to organize the workshops so that more people who were interested could hear and learn.
For my part, I will talk about water and energy, and electricity, bringing with me some new technologies that I’ve been introduced to recently that can help restore cellular, energetic, electrical, and lymphatic system circulation, all of which are natural byproducts when energetic coherence is increased with a concomitant decrease in entropy.
The developments that are unfolding at this moment on the Mississippi River, which will impact the Gulf Coast region over the next several weeks to some presently unknowable extent, made it prudent to postpone the gatherings until things settle down.
This is all part of The New Beginning.
You can watch my presentation here.
May 18, 2011 | Categories: 2012, Alternative Medicines, Blogroll, energy medicine, Gulf Oil Spill, Health & Nutrition, Hydration, Intention, MMS, News and politics, Philosophy, Water | Tags: 2012, energy medicine, Gulf Coast oil spill, MMS, Water, water treatment | Leave a comment
Each day I gain a greater appreciation for the important roles that minerals and microorganisms play in the maintenance of health, as well as its restoration. Yet, if we choose to embark on the journey from the depths of chronic dis-ease and return to our home in Well-being, we’ll discover profound solace in natural elements. Central to that process are the natural properties and power of water and salt. Specifically, coherent water and crystalline, or full spectrum salt.
These factors go a long way to explain, in part, why chronic and degenerative diseases evolve (as we move away from healthy forms of these products), as well as why MMS – which is derived from a salt –is as effective as it is.
Having just finished reading Water & Salt: The Essence of Life, by Peter Ferriera and Dr. Barabara Hendel, I am somewhat amazed that this information isn’t taught even in our first science courses. However, if it were, we’d have far less disease, and more robust health throughout the course of life, than we presently can lay claim to.
Instead, our industrialized, technological methods routinely, and as a matter of course, desecrate two of the most basic components that make life as we know it, possible, at a price we all pay to one degree or another.
The authors begin by making a clear distinction between biochemistry and biophysics, which they refer to as the realm of living energy. They conclude that all disease, as we know it, can be looked upon as expressions of an energy deficit. The term imbalance would also apply, since disproportion in any aspect – whether it is molecular, microbial, or even in consciousness – away from what is optimal will result in energetic degradation and a loss in coherency.
Seeing life and experience in holistic terms, which includes an energetic perspective, allows new insights and interpretations to emerge. New behaviors and then experiences will naturally follow.
Desecration is a most appropriate way to describe water and salt treatment, an often overlooked factor that contributes to the disease parametrics that we are currently experiencing. If that were the extent of the sacrilege, it would be a simple matter to fix. The problem runs through virtually every thread in the fabric and tapestry that is modern life.
It is neither my purpose, nor intention to get you down or piss you off in sharing this viewpoint, although such reactions would not be unreasonable. The realization of just how pervasive our collective ideological and technological perversity is, can mark the turning point where one makes the personal decision to not only claim, but exercise their innate and inalienable power to heal, and be well again.
WHEN we get “the memo” that the power to heal is innate and inalienable – when that simple idea begins to ring true, even though we may have no clue as to how, or even if everything we’ve done thus far has not worked – the new path that one must take becomes evident.
The closer our return to fundamentals – water, salt, food, environment, etc. – in their optimal state, the closer our return to health. Water and salt in their optimal states should be part of our daily intake, because they are necessary requirements to repairing the body and restoring, as well as sustaining health. They facilitate and deliver balance because they are integral parts of our Original Design.
More to come.
MMS & Dead Sea Salt
On the video edition of Talk For Food I conclude my conversation with Wil Spencer on the flap that developed on the Gulf Coast, and then talk about some of the powers of salt with Pavel Gershkovich of Salt Chalet, located in Scottsdale, AZ.
This is also available as an mp3 on Webtalkradio.net.
January 29, 2011 | Categories: Alternative Medicines, Blogroll, Cancer, consciousness, Education, Education & Thought Leadership, energy medicine, Healing, Health & Nutrition, Health related, Hydration, MMS, structured water | Tags: Alternative Health, crystal salt, Healing, Hydration, water treatment | 8 Comments
I’m going to begin this lengthy post with gratitude to Jonathan Campbell for writing his article, What is Miracle Mineral Supplement (MMS), and Why is it Dangerous? Mr. Campbell is a health consultant, whose motto is helping people take charge of their health. You may have guessed that he and I presently are not in agreement as to the dangers that are posed by MMS, but he presents his thoughts with such conviction, it’s quite possible that some people will take them on face value. That’s what millions of people do with their doctors these days while their health continues to decline. I have no problem listening to, or taking an expert’s advice, as long as I feel it represents the best available understanding on the subject.
Unfortunately, from the research that I’ve done, Mr. Campbell’s representation of MMS is full of holes. Since these variances from the truth are so glaring, it is almost perplexing to understand why such lengths would be taken, if his concerns were genuine. I’ll let you decide for yourself.
His statements are indented and italicized.
Miracle Mineral Supplement (MMS) is being touted on the Internet as a natural antibiotic and cure-all for a wide range of diseases and afflictions: colds and flu (including swine flu), malaria, cancer, “HIV & AIDS,” fungus, and, more recently, autism. But MMS is actually a synthetic industrial chemical – it is a concentrated (28%) chlorine bleach – sodium chlorite. When MMS is “activated,” it creates CLO2, chlorine dioxide, a very strong chemical oxidizer and bleaching agent. CLO2 is the active molecule in many water purification systems. It does kill germs, but it is toxic. If you ingest it in the concentrations recommended, it can cause you direct harm.
I talked about this paragraph on my radio show.
- I did a short video on the concentration, and by the time you ingest activated MMS, it is around 0.00166389% if drank in 3 oz of water. The dilution would be even higher if more water is used to wash it down.
- He claims MMS is “toxic,” but what does that mean? Heavy metals in the body are toxic, but go down after taking MMS. How can anything that will reduce toxicity levels be labeled toxic itself? He doesn’t warn people against heavy metals, which can cause direct harm.
- If you drink MMS directly from the bottle, it would be caustic, but even that wouldn’t be toxic. It should be handled with care and awareness, but not fear.
It’s not that chlorine dioxide is toxic, as in poisonous. The need for caution is in determining the best dosing method (via drinking, osmotic through the skin, sprayed on and rubbed in, vapors, etc.), and amount.
Jim Humble has worked out a framework by which to beneficially use chlorine dioxide inside the body. The specifics, of what works best for the individual, are best to be worked out by the individual, hopefully with the assistance and/or guidance of his health care professional. This includes the guidance of one’s own Inner Wisdom. This is something we’re not practiced at, and through fearful tactics, are too often dissuaded from using.
CLO2 is a toxic chemical oxidizer
CLO2 can cause direct oxidation harm to mucous membranes and epithelium (lining of the esophagus, stomach, and intestines).
This is not true if used as outlined. If it were true, then the buzz on MMS would be about how people had harmed their mucous membranes when they correctly followed the outlined protocol. It doesn’t happen because the protocol doesn’t result in such damage. People have taken MMS for such recurring conditions as migraines and discovered that their asthma went away.
It can cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, dehydration, and reduced blood pressure.
This is untrue. The operative instrument of falsehood is the word cause. Chlorine dioxide does not cause nausea, vomiting, etc. If it did, vomiting would occur under all circumstances… as happens in some FDA approved medications for cancer. In the case of MMS, nausea and other detoxification effects may happen through a purge effect. It’s not always pretty or comfortable. However, a purge is to be expected as a part of one’s healing process if they have become chronically toxic. The upside is that when the even is over, the individual may find that pain that had been constant has now disappeared, and they have regained precious energy that had been routinely siphoned off by the toxicity.
Once ingested, it is absorbed into the bloodstream and can cause harm to tissues, to red blood cells, and to the developing brain of infants, children, and the fetus in pregnant women.
This is pure fiction, not supported by experience. People have reported amazing improvements among autistic children and Alzheimer’s patients, because the chlorine dioxide cleared the heavy metals (such as mercury) that had accumulated in the brain. Many vaccines – which are mandatory in some cases, – are laced with mercury which is used as a preservative. It “preserves” the shelf life of the drug while killing human cells and tissue.
Because CLO2 is a chemical oxidizer (called a “free radical”) it depletes vitamin C.
This is a false and misleading statement. The writer presupposes that the person using MMS had an adequate store of vitamin C before ingestion, which was therefore depleted due to the introduction of chlorine dioxide. This is unrealistic for a number of reasons.
An individual that has a chronic or degenerative disease will, by definition, already have had an ongoing vitamin C deficiency. The idea that chlorine dioxide “depletes” vitamin C is a fantasy. If it does anything, it will oxidize the synthetic and bio-unavailable vitamin C imposters that most people are being sold, thinking that they are taking care of their health while remaining on the slippery slope of chronic disease.
What Mr. Campbell is saying is important, because vitamin C is important (as are many other vitamins and minerals that have been co-opted by commercial process). Tagging MMS as a depleter of vitamin C masks a larger issue. Here’s some great information on vitamin C from a company that produces plant-cell grown vitamin and mineral products.
Human bodies cannot manufacture vitamin C as most animals do. We are dependent upon getting it in our diet. Vitamin C plays a vast and significant role in our health. It enhances immunity, protects against the harmful effects of pollution, maintains collagen in the formation of connective tissue in skin, ligaments and bones, and it effects arterial walls, capillaries, and the healing of wounds. It is a powerful antioxidant, active in the formation of red blood cells and the production of interferon and anti-stress hormones, effecting the body’s ability to withstand stress, resist infections, and support the body’s natural defenses. It also reduces the effects of some allergy-producing substances, and plays a significant role in adrenal gland function and healthy gums. Vitamin C is also involved in the body’s absorption, assimilation, and metabolism of other vitamins and nutrients. Stress, alcohol, smoking, analgesics, oral contraceptives, antidepressants, and steroids may all deplete the body’s levels of vitamin C in a short time.
Almost without exception, all vitamins utilized in the manufacturing of supplements are made from what are called hydrocarbonaceous intermediates. So they can technically be called “natural,” since they can be said to be derived from “natural sources.” But their isolated state is not at all the same as their “natural form” as found in food.
According to the redefinitions of technology, what is natural as nature created it, may not qualify as “natural” as technology defines it. When research scientists discovered how to isolate d-alpha tocopherol (a form of vitamin E) from food in a lab, for example, the accepted generic term for that structure came to be known as “Natural Source Vitamin E”. D-alpha tocopherol, however, does not exist as an isolated molecule in food. Food contains multiple tocopherols in a highly complex molecular structure that assures that “dl,” rather than “d,” is present. Isolated pure molecules rotate light, and once molecules are isolated to reveal their exact structure, molecularly the form they take can no longer be considered food. Thus, D-alpha tocopherol is not food as nature defines it, and wholistically it is not vitamin E as nature creates it. Still, patents exist for synthesizing d-alpha tocopherol, which is then labeled “Natural Source Vitamin E,” and the impression given to those buying and consuming it, is that they are getting something nature created as it would be found in food.
THE BODY IS AN ECOSYSTEM
Our cells eat, drink, breathe, “go to the bathroom,” generate electricity, do their job, and replicate themselves, twenty four hours a day. Each and every one of them is totally dependent upon the integrity of the resources available to them to perform these functions efficiently. To the extent the quality of these resources is lacking, the quality of the cell’s performance is diminished. Quality goods cannot be created from inferior resources.
In other words, junk in, junk out.
When a body’s cells are formed from inferior resources, our bodies are handicapped by a diminished capacity for health that continues to diminish throughout each subsequent generation born and raised on deficient resources. Our bodies have only what we consume to supply the materials with which our cells are generated, maintained and restored. Deficient, processed, adulterated food provides a deficient quality of material considerably different from what nutrient-rich, non denatured foods produce. A cell membrane made from damaged or deficient raw materials lacks the integrity to fulfill its healthy function. The body is designed for vital health, and nature provides all the resources by which such health can be accomplished and enjoyed. Nature is our ally, and supplementation and food production which looks to nature’s wisdom as its mentor, is nature’s ally. Lifestar and nature are allies.
Until recently, and almost without exception, USP-grade material was the only vitamin material available in the world for formulating and tableting vitamin supplements. Unknown to most consumers, there are no brand name vitamin companies that actually manufacture their own vitamins. There are close to 3,000 brand name vitamin supplements in the marketplace in the United States whose nutrient contents are all purchased through distributors from the same seven sources in the United States or from their seven foreign counterparts. (Source: www.LifeStar.com)
Even if a person were taking vitamin C supplements, there is a strong likelihood that the product is delivering only a fraction of the nutritional value it purports to supply.
In addition, people who have compromised health or are in chronic pain are very likely to be under stress. They may also drink, or have habitually drank alcohol, smoke, taken analgesics, antidepressants, steroids, and many other chemicals, which would deplete vitamin C, if the vitamin C they were taking was actually real.
Add to this the crippling effects of processing that vitamin supplement products go through, and you see that the problem of vitamin C availability precedes MMS.
You would think that Mr. Campbell would be aware of such nuances and able to guide his audience accordingly. The people who run the FDA haven’t seen it, so why should he? But you should. You should know for yourself.
Putting it another way, the vitamin C in our body gets depleted in its attempts to detoxify CLO2; vitamin C is our “free radical scavenger.”
The first part of that statement is false. The second part is true only if we add the word, real before vitamin C.
The instructions provided with MMS specifically warn people not to take vitamin C while they are taking MMS because vitamin C “interferes” with it.
Not true. The advice is to spread your dosing between vitamin C and MMS in order to gain the full benefits of both. Chemical vitamin C will inactivate the generation of chlorine dioxide. Yet, when you want to mask the taste, you can use fruit juices that contain natural, bio-available vitamin C as a substitute for water.
This is a red flag that MMS is a toxic chemical, since vitamin C is our primary detoxification agent. Vitamin C depletion is extremely dangerous: it is the bulwark of our immune system, and it is needed for dozens of other body functions.
IF vitamin C was our “primary detoxification agent,” as Mr. Campbell asserts, then you’d think he’d note the myriad factors that work against having an adequate supply, which have nothing to do with chlorine dioxide. To hear him tell it, you have enough vitamin C already, and the evil MMS comes in and takes it away. The real and present danger is ignored while a promising alternative is demonized and defamed through a “grim” fairy tale.
“Activated” MMS contains elemental chlorine
Despite the claims of its “inventor” Jim Humble that MMS is elemental chlorine free, the fact of the matter is that when CLO2 is created in water, it immediately reacts with the water to create elemental chlorine and hypochlorous acid.
False. ClO2 is not elemental chlorine. Even the MMS-biased Wikipedia describes ECF, elemental chlorine free technique, as a wood pulp whitening process that does not involve elemental chlorine, meaning that it is safer than the chlorine-based process. According to the EPA, chlorite is one disinfection byproduct of chlorine dioxide. Salt (NaCl) and water (H2O) are others.
Commercial bleaching operations that use only CLO2 end up with elemental chlorine in the processing tanks and organic chlorine compounds in their wastewater. (Thornton, page 321-322) What does this mean to you?
What it means to me is that you either have your information mixed up, or you’re doing it intentionally. This goes against everything that any unbiased source has said about chlorine dioxide (when they weren’t talking about MMS). That includes the National Institutes of Health, EPA, and even the FDA. It’s not even about the dangers of ingestion of MMS. The FDA simply wants to be the one who approves what you and I ingest. They don’t know what’s best for you. If they did, why would they approve Corexit-laced seafood from the Gulf Coast? Is it more important to put people back to work than it is to provide toxin-free food?
If the FDA is protecting the public interest, why would they approve transgenic (genetically modified) food and fish products? Their priorities are different than the public’s. Their take on GMO foods involves whether to require labels so that the public can tell what they are buying.
The real problem with MMS is the effect; not the harm, but the benefit that disinfection can bring It represents an available solution – not THE solution, but an available and viable one – that has been in our midst for almost 100 years, that doesn’t cost billions of dollars to develop or produce, or hundreds of billions more to charge for.
When elemental chlorine comes in contact with human tissue, it immediately destroys the molecules it comes in contact with, harming tissue and organs. In doing so it also combines with the natural biological chemicals (aromatic hydrocarbons) in your cells, forming chemicals that could never exist in nature, called polychlorinated aromatic hydrocarbons.
This is the description of the chemical behavior of chlorine (Cl2), which chlorine dioxide (ClO2) is not. The writer should be up in arms over chlorination, the huge municipal water treatment elephant in the room that he seems oblivious to. But to read this, you’d think that chlorine didn’t exist. What he and the FDA have been banking on, is a belief that the public won’t know, or figure out, the difference.
These new chemicals are almost always carcinogenic (cause cancer) because they mimic chemicals that look like them but do not include chlorine. So when you ingest MMS, you create cancer-causing chemicals from your own body fluids and tissue. These bio-accumulate in fat tissue, eventually causing cancer.
This is total fiction. Is it hard to conceptualize that most people who are suffering from degenerative diseases have already been saturated with the effects of chlorination, processed foods, airborne pathogens, mal-illumination and electrosmog for many years?
Chlorination byproducts are understood, by the Environmental Protection Agency, for example, to be different from the byproducts of chlorine dioxide. Yet, Mr. Campbell writes as though they are one in the same.
However, he’s not writing about how chlorination is dangerous, which it is, and would be true. He’s not writing about the consequences to health, such as various forms of cancers, that are happening among people who have been, and are exposed to chlorination year in and year out. He’s writing about what can happen with chlorine dioxide, and then justifying his argument by describing the behavior and effects of chlorination.
What are the effects of chlorination? THM’s – trihalomethanes, one of which is chloroform. The EPA includes them among what it terms “disinfection byproducts” for chlorine. The only disinfection byproduct of chlorine dioxide is chlorite. The EPA doesn’t explain anything about the chlorite ion, but additional research confirms that it is a triggering mechanism for the electron exchange by any pathogenic bacteria that is host to the respiratory nitrate reductase enzyme. Salmonella and E. Coli are two such bacteria. Aerobic microorganisms are unaffected by either chlorine dioxide or its chlorite byproduct, as they do not host the respiratory nitrate reductase enzyme.
The danger is in what’s already in the water that hundreds of millions of people are consuming right now based on currently prevalent water treatment methods. If you followed Mr. Campbell’s assertions to his suggested conclusion – meaning that MMS was no longer used – it would infer that the problems he warns against would never happen.
But the problems are already, and have been happening well before MMS came along. Then he describes the chemical effects of chlorination and attributes them to MMS and chlorine dioxide. By virtue of its oxidative method, it appears that chlorine dioxide actually reduces toxicity (heavy metals, etc.) whereas chlorination increases toxicity.
MMS attacks healthy tissue
CLO2 is actually even more dangerous than elemental chlorine for healthy tissue. According to the data on CLO2 cited to support its use for disinfection, it destroys amino acids and sulfurous bonds, both of which are integral to healthy human tissue. CLO2 cannot differentiate healthy tissue from diseased tissue. It is a universal biocide, not for human internal consumption.
If Mr. Campbell’s statement were true, then this would be corroborated (1) in the science associated with chlorine dioxide, and (2) in the outcomes that MMS users have reported.
There has been no such corroboration because this is not what people are reporting.
As mentioned earlier, a link has been established to the chlorite ion and an enzyme that triggers the electron release which destroys the pathogen. In that sense, chlorine dioxide doesn’t differentiate. The enzyme determines whether conditions have been met that fulfill the purpose for the anaerobic microorganism’s presence in the first place – a lack of sufficient oxygen. When that oxygen arrives, the enzyme – respiratory nitrate reductase – shoots off an electron which destroys the anaerobe. In a cascade fashion, up to 5 electrons may be given up.
MMS invokes the poison reflex
Many people report that when they take MMS they get nauseous or vomit. This is the autonomic poison response of the human body. Jim Humble’s literature says that this is an indication that MMS is “working” and not to worry about it. He attributes it to a detoxification (Herxheimer) reaction. This is not the case. The nausea and vomiting that people experience is caused by the recognition by the body that MMS is poisonous.
Writing a lie in boldface only makes it a boldface lie. While it is possible to experience one, MMS does not inherently cause vomiting or Herxheimer response. It depends on the degree to which the individual is toxic. In other words, how much has the individual already been poisoned?
I experienced the Herxheimer response on my fourth day of using MMS, and on just 4 drops. Vomiting, diarrhea, the works. Something was inactivated, and the body got rid of it as soon as possible. I have taken larger doses since that time, and have not even experienced nausea, much less other, more dramatic examples of purging.
It is juvenile to call one’s self a “health consultant” and not recognize or acknowledge that a person who is chronically ill is already toxic, and likely has been so for some time, before ever coming across MMS. The more acute the illness, the higher the toxicity, and lower the available oxygen in the system. But then, most traditionally trained medical doctors are just that juvenile, as they don’t acknowledge the toxicity that they add to their patient’s environment by reciting scriptures from their “Pharmacology Bible,” a book that has been good for the for profit medical industry, but not for the health – of patients.
Toxicity levels increase inside the human body in direct relation to the decrease in available oxygen, which gets bound up by synthetic materials, much like the hydrocarbons and the petrochemical Corexit bound up the oxygen in the Gulf of Mexico, killing masses of oxygen breathing aquatic life.
MMS can’t bring back life that has been killed off inside the body, but it is delivering oxygen, which immediately affects the affected area’s ability to safely support new aerobic microorganisms, which includes healthy cells, once again.
Water that is oxygen deficient, which tends to be on the acidic side, will not support cell health, nor will water that is too alkaline.
MMS is the wrong approach to immunity – it is chemotherapy!
The entire approach of Jim Humble is to treat the human body as if it were a simple plumbing system, and MMS is akin to Drain-O, chemically killing pathogens. But the human body does not work that way. Your body does not need chemicals from a factory to kill pathogens.
Mr. Campbell’s last statement is true. The body does not need chemicals from a factory in order to kill pathogens. It doesn’t need the chlorine or fluoride that is put in municipal drinking water. It doesn’t need chromium 6 and other contaminates that are now found in water. It certainly doesn’t need the many additives and synthetic hormones, from aspartame to rBST, to transgenic products developed in laboratories, in order to maintain our health. But none of these have anything to do with MMS being dangerous. MMS doesn’t portend the dangers that this long list of FDA approved bioactive agents do.
MMS is used to generate chlorine dioxide, and there is no such thing as “synthetic” oxygen. When chlorine dioxide is introduced to the system, pathogens are oxidized, turning them into debris. It breaks down into salt (NaCl) and water (H2O). All of the other items that I mentioned above produce new chemical derivatives. Chlorine dioxide reduces the chemical load in the body. The art and science of using MMS to greatest effect is in determining the best dosing method, striking a balance to achieve a manageable rate of toxin reduction. The body has remarkable ability to repair itself when this chemical drag has been lifted.
When fortified properly, your body has the capability to fight literally any pathogen or illness.
Yes, another true statement.
A healthy immune system automatically and selectively targets pathogens with an array of antibodies and white blood cells. MMS disrupts this natural immunity by depleting antioxidants.
The first sentence is true, the second is not. The results do not support Mr. Campbell’s claim. The results suggest that the opposite is true.
I am not suggesting that MMS is the answer to every situation. I’m saying that it is not the scourge that is being portrayed here. It is a legitimate tool that produces the valuable service of chemical disinfection. I suggest that chemical toxicity is the reason for microbial imbalance, particularly the upsurge in anaerobic factors.
Modern medical practices actually further infect the body when bio-antagonistic chemicals are used. They don’t give you Salmonella directly. They simply introduce agents that deplete oxygen and block other natural metabolic functions, thereby requiring the body to bring in organisms that do not require oxygen in order to keep us alive. However, while we may still live, the vital ecological and microbial balance within the body is upset, and cannot be restored until environmental balance is restored. This is why degenerative and chronic diseases evolve. This is why cancers return. They are helped along by the medication, both medical and commercial, in the form of processed, nutrient-deficient foods.
MMS is Toxic – Do Not Use It
Even if you didn’t understand all of the explanations above, please take my word for it – Miracle Mineral Supplement is very toxic to your body. It may seem to get rid of bacteria – chlorine bleach does do that – but at great expense to your long-term health: tissue and organ damage, compromised immunity, and possibly cancer.
Mr. Campbell’s explanations were purposefully made to be misunderstood, just like the FDA’s. Anyone willing to do a modicum of fact checking can see his misstatements on chlorine versus chlorine dioxide. He’s not alone; the FDA did it too.
If you look for scientific descriptions of chemical behavior produced by agencies that have no agenda, you’ll see that chlorine dioxide is clearly different than, and superior to chlorine as a disinfectant. Yet, chlorine is by far the predominant water disinfectant modality, which affects 100’s of millions of people every day, and contributes to the growth in our population of “functional dysfuncts” – people who are too sick to enjoy life, but not sick enough to stop what they’re doing. They become today’s Zombies.
There is nothing natural about MMS, it is not a supplement, and the only mineral in it is sodium. It is a synthetic industrial chemical. And the only thing miraculous about MMS is that it hasn’t been taken off the market.
Salt is sodium chloride (NaCl). If you took pure sodium and put it in water, it would ignite and burn. Combined with a chlorine ion, it is a staple for life. Yet, according to Mr. Campbell, sodium is the only mineral in MMS. Chlorine is a member of the periodic table, but in Mr. Campbell’s view, it doesn’t qualify as natural. Neither does the oxygen that is bound with the chlorine ion to make chlorine dioxide. According to Mr. Campbell, these are “synthetic.” This is also consistent with FDA thinking, because they believe that the only “cures” are drugs.
Not true on either count.
The writer only shows that he hasn’t had any direct experience with MMS (as have others who have slammed it), and in the absence of actual knowledge, he’s intellectualizing with faulty information.
Chlorine dioxide is used in many industries to reduce or eleminate Salmonella and E. Coli. It is approved by the FDA to be sprayed on meat and poultry before final packing for the same purpose. It doesn’t have to be rinsed off. Why do you think that is so? Because it safely disinfects while leaving NO toxic residue.
Chlorine dioxide is used to disinfect mold in homes. Mold is a living organism that thrives when oxygen levels are down. Humans can live when oxygen levels are down too, but not be healthy. When mold grows in our homes, it is not unreasonable to see how mold can grow inside our physical body too. If chlorine dioxide can safely and effectively inactivate mold in the volume of a home, then it will do the same, in appropriately scaled down amounts, within the human ecosphere. This is not rocket science. It’s simple logic that needs further study and benign examination, not fear.
In October 2009, and man named Doug Nash reported on the curezone website that MMS had killed his wife, Silvie Fink. Her death certificate states that the cause of death was MMS. Jim Humble issued a cruel, blithering response, attacking this man who was grieving the death of his wife, for filing the report. Humble went even further: he included an outright falsehood: “MMS is a natural chemical manufactured by the human immune system to help prevent diseases and to keep the body healthy.” The truth is this: your body cannot create sodium chlorite or chlorine dioxide. MMS can only be created in a chemical factory.
Jim Humble’s response was to Doug Nash’s assertions that Silvie’s death was due to MMS. Some people took umbrage with that, but he was right. Even with an unprecedented amount of influence on Mr. Nash’s part in pointing the finger at MMS, which included contacting the FDA and filing a complaint, going to sites and forums pleading his case as a victim, the scientific facts could not, and did not support his claim. The prosecutor finally closed the case in November 2010, noting that the toxicological facts did not support the claim. Unfortunately, the true cause was left in question, but I will speculate that it has something to do with chemical toxicity that she was exposed to before MMS had time to inactivate it.
In the meantime, two articles were published in the Sydney Morning Herald (January 2010) demonizing MMS, followed by the FDA warning. They both cited the Sylvìa Fink case, not waiting for validation, which people who understood how MMS works knew would not be forthcoming.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a press release on July 30, 2010, warning people not to consume MMS.
Please, please do not use this substance. If you have any, don’t use it, but save it for evidence. If it has harmed you, please obtain the services of a lawyer to sue the distributor who sold it to you and the manufacturer. Jim Humble must be held accountable for creating this fraudulent product and thereby harming people. Send a complaint to the Federal Trade Commission. The website is https://econsumer.ftccomplaintassistant.gov/.
This is the same plea that the FDA issued. They also did not ask for any balanced information. They asked only for negative information. They tried to make an example out of one MMS supplier to dissuade others from selling the product, severely disrupting his operations. Thankfully, he’s back in business.
I was going to leave Mr. Campbell with the last words, but they merit occasional comment:
Note: I am not attempting to “compete” with Jim Humble. I am astonished that it has come this far, that he has fooled so many people into thinking his remedy is safe. It is not.
I wonder how gullible does Mr. Campbell think people are, that they can’t tell the difference between pain being constant before MMS, and it being gone afterward. Tumors being present before, and gone afterward; headaches, viral and bacterial or respiratory problems being present before, and gone afterward. How is that being “fooled?” This is not to say that such effects have happened for every person that has tried MMS, because each person is unique. If you’re trying to “cure” a condition, MMS cannot produce uniform results any more than any other product can. However, if you’re trying to safely oxygenate and disinfect your body, it is one of the most simple and flexible options available
My only concern is for you and for your health. This is my life work. I don’t make a lot of money doing it. I do not have multi-level marketing people selling for me. I do not even sell the supplements that I recommend. I just tell you where to buy them, inexpensively and reliably. My goal is to help you become healthy and stay healthy throughout your life, and not to be harmed by pharmaceutical drugs and “alternative” medical frauds like MMS.
This “holier than thou,” “I’m on your side, but the other guy is not” approach is familiar. Call someone else a fraud to prop himself up. And yet, with his science not holding up, his main tools are misinformation and fear.
End Notes: The documentation presented by Jim Humble for Miracle Mineral Supplement is replete with biological misinformation and fraud. They make no sense.
He offers no examples that support his point, and his description of accepted science is replete with misrepresentations.
Humble claims that activated MMS (chlorine dioxide) is absorbed into the body through the stomach lining. No nutrients are absorbed through the stomach lining; the first place in the alimentary canal where anything can be absorbed is the small intestine.
Water passes through every aspect of the body. It carries its contents as both intracelluar and extracellular fluids. If oxygen is in it, you can bet it passes through the stomach lining. By the way, once activated, chlorine dioxide can also be absorbed through the skin, because water travels everywhere.
Humble claims that red blood cells “armed” with chlorine dioxide will destroy “parasites, fungi, or diseased cells that all have low pH.” Red blood cells do not and cannot have this capability – their function is to carry oxygen to cells all over the body, not to kill pathogens. (It is white blood cells that are the components of the immune system that destroy pathogens, and they don’t need MMS to help them.) When red blood cells pick up chlorine dioxide, they can no longer pick up oxygen, and they become useless. In essence, they are destroyed, and this can cause reduced oxygen to your body, similar to carbon monoxide poisoning.
He’s saying that the opposite of what is actually happening, can happen. There is a very strong desire for you to not see what is happening, not acknowledge what people are saying they’ve experienced by way of MMS disinfection. I’m not saying that this is the only way. You should simply understand that this is a viable one.
Humble claims to have cured thousands of people in Africa of malaria, hepatitis, cancer, and AIDS with MMS. But the only public evidence is that he provided MMS to people; there was no standardized medical evaluation of the results. He appears to me to be someone who knows just enough about chemistry to make his claims believable by people who don’t study chemistry or human physiology, intent on making money selling his books and supporting the people who sell the product and his book..
The only really important factor here is whether the science is credible. Jim Humble has spent more time studying the health effects of MMS disinfection by way of application on willing human beings (not mice or rats), for a wider variety of conditions than anyone else earth. Irrespective of whether “mythbusters” can follow an audit trail of his travels, he described the science correctly enough to show people how to do it. Mr. Campbell has taken great effort at misquoting the science of chlorine dioxide in his attempts at dissuasion. If the truth isn’t convincing or supportive of your reasoning, then lie.
Humble claims that MMS kills the “little bugs” in cells that cause cancer. By this claim he proves himself to be a complete charlatan or know-nothing.
This sounds pretty personal to me.
Cancerous cells are genetically deformed cells; they have no “little bugs” in them, and they are not affected by MMS.
Mr. Campbell is entitled to his opinion, just as Jim Humble. I don’t know if Mr. Campbell has helped anyone mitigate cancer using methods that he discovered, but I do know people who have done so using Jim’s protocol.
Quite the contrary: MMS depletes the antioxidants the human body uses to destroy cancer cells. Humble has likely caused the deaths of thousands of people, by negligently promoting this false “miracle” cancer cure that people then rely on instead of seeking a real, proven natural therapy. There are proven cures for cancer, developed by Matthias Rath and Hugh Riordan, which use natural food-based substances such as vitamin C to enhance immunity, stop cancer spread, and kill cancer cells.
The beauty of MMS is that it doesn’t compete with any method that actually works. It enhances the effectiveness of natural modalities. This “sky is falling” story is worse than Chicken Little.
Humble’s product has sickened many, many people, killed at least one person, as I noted above, and has likely lead to the death of many others.
This is an example of how truth takes a back seat when there is an agenda. Not only is the assertion false, unsupported even after an investigation that lasted over one year, since no other deaths are even remotely connected to MMS use, he speculates on what he believes is likely to happen.
Humble and/or his supporters appear to have created an organization called the Health Freedom Alliance which heavily promotes MMS along with information about some valid health and environmental concerns on its website and mailing list. Its website is hosted in The Netherlands, the site owner and contact information are privacy protected, and the website has no information about the organization or contact information, no address, no phone number. This is all extremely unusual – and very suspicious – for a supposedly public purpose organization.
This has nothing to do with whether MMS works or not.
And now (this really takes the cake) Humble has founded a new church (Genesis II Church of Health and Healing) and made himself a Bishop of it! So now, assumedly, his words will have the backing of God Almighty.
Chlorine dioxide was around before Jim Humble was a gleam in his parents’ eyes. It was doing what it does right under our noses. It doesn’t need a church to protect it. It needs intelligent people who have eyes to see the environmental, nutritional, and cultural contributors to disease, and have the courage change our ways. I can’t change you, only you can change your ways. I can give you the best information as I understand it, and update it when I learn something better.
Jim Humble is a human being just like Jonathan Campbell. Mr. Campbell is in no position to judge Jim Humble’s actions, whether he knows the difference between chlorine and chlorine dioxide or not. MMS is just one way that we can safely and effectively disinfect the body.
If anything, Mr. Humble’s most significant contribution and influence, outside of gaining the insight and working out the MMS protocol, was to insist that the pricing remain low, so as to be accessible and available to everyone. Outside of deep, conscious breathing exercises, and conscious reorganization of water, which cost nothing, there are precious few products that can do so much for a person’s toxicological repair, for so little money.
A CNN story on the discovery that the water supplies of 31 of 35 U.S. cities is contaminated with the carcinogenic chemical chromium 6, is evidence of how our media tells itself they’re protecting the public interest when, in truth, they’re doing little more than helping us “feel good” about chasing our collective tail.
Millions of people have learned that there is one more layer of concern that they should wrap themselves up in, as pointed out in a report published by the Washington, DC-based non-profit Environmental Work Group. Chromium 6 gained some recognition when it became a central plot point in the movie, Erin Brockovich (2000), based on a true story when the chemical leached from a manufacturing plant into the water table in Hinkley, CA, which resulted in a sharp rise in sickness and hospitalizations.
Instead of being a happy ending when Brockovich got Pacific Gas and Electric (PG & E) to pay out over $330 million in claims, the bell has continued to toll on the town of Hinkley.
The town’s citizens have been dismayed to see that the contamination area is now doubled what it was originally, and a new round of “woe” is about to begin.
This is reminiscent of how the death toll continued to rise after George W. Bush’s famous “Mission Accomplished” declaration when the U.S. led invasion of Iraq brought down Saddam Hussein in May, 2003.
The woe has not ended. The infection has even spread to Afghanistan.
This situation points out two fundamental flaws in our collective thinking about the value we place on life, and when the going gets tough, how we go about resolving it.
The first flaw is our thinking that money is the solution to every problem. If the problem persists, either not enough money has been thrown at it, or it can’t be solved. The notion that Jim Humble’s MMS could actually help mitigate many diseases is met with skepticism by some because not a lot of money, or even an expensive education is needed to either see how it works, or make it available to everyone. When money is made king, humans and humanity take a back seat, leading to a long list of expensive and ineffective remedies that are thought to be, because of the money that went into their development, infallible.
Did you noticed how, during the discussions and debates about health care reform, the overriding topic is how we’re going to pay the continually escalating costs?
Healing, as in the full restoration and sustaining of health – which would actually and ultimately lower health care costs –was never considered.
This leads us to wonder whether it is assumed that when the “cures” to various diseases, such as cancer, etc., are found, that health care costs would go down? Or whether no such cures are being projected?
Given news like the CNN story on chromium 6 in the water, you can see how there might be little inclination to project success at something that conventional science has, so far, failed so consistently at.
This points out the other fundamental flaw, which is illustrated in an often recalled quote by Albert Einstein:
“The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them.”
This simple statement describes why the problems are escalating, the projected costs are all on the increase, and we’re just getting more of what we’ve already had.
We lull ourselves into a false sense of security by thinking that life will be better if or when we raise enough money. We fight battles and declare wars over money. The battles can be political, medical, economic, or personal. Our logic will always sound quite reasonable and appropriate.
However, a false sense of security is simply a real state of insecurity.
By making money the chief raison d’etre in our life endeavors, it becomes more important than life itself, not because it is, but because we will have made it so.
Money itself is not a great evil, any more than a gun is dangerous in and of itself. The chances of a gun harming anyone are very slim, if a human does not it. The potential harm or harmony that we create and ultimately experience, are the progeny of our thoughts and beliefs, aspirations, motives, and fears, both collectively and individually.
The chromium 6 contamination issue is an indication that we can no longer ignore the proverbial elephant in the room, content to endure it growing case of indigestion while waiting for someone to fix our problems, whatever they are. While money may help a situation, it cannot be at the expense of our health and humanity.
So a new contamination threat is no longer limited to Hinkley, California. It’s now across America, thanks to precious little change in our ways of thinking.
The problem problem with contamination of the water supply didn’t begin with, and is not limited to chromium 6. Chemicals that are routinely used to make water safe to drink, are in large effect, contaminants, because of the energetic and informational state that they leave the water in. This state is not measured, nor considered by current standards of water analysis, which focuses strictly on its molecular properties. The molecular state is the densest energy state, around which Newtonian physics is based. However, its behavior is influenced and regulated far more subtle, quantum forces, to which the terms entropy (chaotic/destructive) and fractality (coherent/harmonizing) are germane.
I’ve been studying these issues and factors intently recently, knowing that answers to our social and individual challenges in life are available, if we are willing to view them with fresh eyes.
It was at first surprising to see the resistance, if not outright opposition to new approaches by orthodox science. The FDA’s initial disinterest, and subsequent smear campaign against MMS is by far not isolated. A history of such activity has evolved right under our noses, at an incalculable price to humanity.
Given that water contamination is so pervasive and spreading, it is all the more ironic that chlorine dioxide could possibly be used to inactivate chromium 6. The answer lies in whether the chromium 6 has an oxidation potential of less than .95 volts. Or… it may be that a microorganism that consumes chromium 6, thereby converting it to a non-factor, might then be oxidized by chlorine dioxide electron transfer.
Also, after experimenting, witnessing, documenting, and experiencing the remarkable difference they bring, transformation technology that restores balance and coherence to chaotic water, looms large in its ability to not only help us solve the problems of present thinking, but to live long and prosper in harmony with each other, and our planet.
These new, unconventional, “out of the box” approaches merit earnest consideration because it is quite evident we’ve been in the box for too long.
December 21, 2010 | Categories: Alternative Medicines, Belief, Blogroll, Education, energy medicine, FDA, Fear, Healing, Health & Nutrition, Health related, MMS, Uncategorized, Water | Tags: chromium 6, contamination, MMS, water treatment | 13 Comments
Warnings by the FDA et. al, about the personal and therapeutic use of chlorine dioxide as a disinfectant, via Jim Humble’s MMS protocol are not being heeded by people who look at the available science. I’m not talking about toxicity reports, but about the fundamental behavior of the oxidant known as chlorine dioxide.
The published toxicological data about chlorine dioxide were produced with a specific application in mind; i.e., large-scale pathogen eradication, which require large-scale concentrations of chlorine dioxide. These concentrations are too high for human use. Given that internal human use had never been considered in spite of chlorine dioxide’s fundamental behavior, it was rightfully deemed hazardous, and left at that.
However, Jim Humble has now upset that applecart. Given what we have learned since he came on the scene, the “hazard” must be a qualified one because, far from being “toxic” unto itself (such as chloroform), chlorine dioxide is actually beneficial for its ability to safely reduce the active toxic load that an individual may be carrying.
This stands in stark contrast to the fact that medicine today still relies on methods that add toxicity to an already overloaded environment; a strategy that yet appears to be unquestioned among medical professionals. And why should they? The System considers these methods to be sacrosanct. Insurance companies pay the exorbitant prices, and then extract exorbitant premiums from those who can pay, and deny services to those who can’t.
Simple disinfection through the medical use of MMS would solve a host of medical problems for tens of millions of people around the world, in the same way that we get more longevity and reliability from our cars by regularly changing the oil, flushing the cooling system and other fluids.
I believe that day is coming, but not without additional examination of present-day thinking that has become outmoded. Critics and pundits who bash MMS cite a litany of allegations based on outmoded, but still current thinking on chlorine dioxide.
One of the most vocal MMS denouncers on this blog sent this link about the dangers of chlorine dioxide, published by the Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry. It is a Public Health Statement for Chlorine Dioxide and Chlorite, published September 2004.
The document is the summary chapter from the Toxicological Profile for Chlorine Dioxide and Chlorite.
You could say that this document represents how information from a “credible source” may not be providing the best understanding of the subject that it covers. When you consider the application that chlorine dioxide has been used for, this advice is most appropriate. However, the RESULTS that people have reported from preparing and using MMS is compelling evidence of a need to hone and fine tune our thoughts on this natural chemical element.
Instead of producing a long treatise, let’s look at the first point, and see what we can learn or unlearn from it. All the excerpts from the Toxicological Profile will be indented.
1.1 What are chlorine dioxide and chlorite?
Chlorine dioxide is a yellow to reddish-yellow gas that can decompose rapidly in air. Because it is a hazardous gas, chlorine dioxide is always made at the location where it is used.
Chlorine dioxide decomposes rapidly in air is a true statement. In the next line they say it has to be prepared on site because it is a hazardous gas. This is not true. Chlorine dioxide has to be prepared on site, not because it is a hazardous gas, but because it does not hold together – i.e., it decomposes rapidly – in air. The first sentence is the reason for the second.
If you activate chlorine dioxide in concentrations for what have been its traditional uses, the gas will indeed be “hazardous.” However, in comparatively minute concentrations, it can be highly therapeutic.
Chlorine dioxide’s rapid decomposition can easily be seen when you activate a small amount, for example 3 drops, of MMS (adding 3 drops of citric acid) in an open dish or shot glass. Within 30 seconds it will turn from clear to dark, which notes the chlorine dioxide formation (from the sodium chlorite) in solution (as shown in the opening photo).
Naturally rising, the chlorine dioxide will “offgas” from the solution it was formed in, which you can readily smell. If left alone, the dark liquid will clear up again in 30-60 minutes.
Chlorine dioxide is an oxidizer. The term “hazardous” is misleading. A highway that has no traffic, or even sporadic traffic is not hazardous. The traffic itself is not even hazardous. However, if the traffic is heavy and swift, the highway environment will then have become hazardous. Yet, when traffic ebbs, and becomes light and sporadic again, the highway environment will have once again become benign.
An environment where temperature and humidity support mold growth is hazardous, as mold colonies produce mycotoxins which are known health hazards. When molds exist in sufficient numbers to colonize, mycotoxin levels are high. Yet, introducing sufficient amounts of oxygen into such an environment will reduce or eliminate these harmful elements, making the environment itself benign.
Chlorine dioxide will safely and effectively inactivate mold colonies and their mycotoxins byproducts, leaving behind no toxic residue. It will do this if the environment is a building (involving amounts that do require great caution), or a gut (requiring significantly smaller amounts). The hazardous quotient of chlorine dioxide is strictly a matter of concentration. It is as therapeutic when applied, in appropriately reduced concentrations, to a correspondingly small environment as it is in a large one.
The Wikipedia article on mycotoxins is pretty informative. The proliferation of mold byproducts, microscopic spores that contain mycotoxins, can result in anything from “the common cold,” to allergic reactions, to certain forms of cancer.
Mycotoxins themselves point to another factor; that is, the lack of sufficient coherent energy within the environment to maintain a state that supports life and health. The key is energy’s coherency. Environments that are high in positive charged ions lack such coherency, cause significant stress, and support the growth of lifeforms (i.e., anaerobic microorganisms) that begin the breakdown process, otherwise known as decay, that allows new life to be formed.
Some mycotoxins, such as Patulin, are involved in the rotting and decay of fruits and vegetables. They actually break down the apple or fig after it has passed its ability to enhance life so that it can be transformed into something else that can support and enhance life. This is part of life’s natural ebb and flow.
Oxygen will halt the decay process because it brings energy that had been lacking or insufficient.
Chlorine dioxide has been shown to safely inactivate mycotoxins as well as the molds that produce them. Unlike chlorine, it produces no derivative chemical toxicity as a result of its activity.
Here’s a news story on how chlorine dioxide was used to inactivate molds in Louisiana after hurricane Katrina.
Chlorine dioxide is used as a bleach at pulp mills, which make paper and paper products, and in public water-treatment facilities, to make water safe for drinking. It has also been used to decontaminate public buildings.
The only way that a building (or any environment) can be de-contaminated, and therefore made safe for human re-habitation, is by removing or inactivating the elements that threatened health or may have brought about death. Chlorine dioxide has clearly proven itself in that regard.
Contrast this to some methods of eradicating infestations with pesticides where, by using chemical sprays, the environment has actually be further contaminated. The bugs are gone (temporarily), but the air, carpet, clothes and surfaces are loaded with toxicity. Initially you can smell it, but the aroma wearing off doesn’t mean it’s gone.
The statement below has some fuzziness that can support misperception.
Chlorine dioxide is soluble in water and will react rapidly with other compounds. When it reacts in water, chlorine dioxide forms chlorite ion, which is also a very reactive chemical. Because chlorine dioxide is very reactive, it is able to kill bacteria and microorganisms in water.
The “reactivity” of chlorine dioxide has nothing to do with its ability to kill bacteria. The statement suggests that all bacteria and microorganisms in water will be killed off. That is not true. All bacteria and microorganisms that have respiratory nitrate reductase enzyme will be killed off. This enzyme, carried in certain anaerobic strains, such as Salmonella and E. coli, governs the electron transport function.
Some people have criticized Jim Humble for saying that chlorine dioxide “blows a hole” in the pathogen. It appears that the respiratory nitrate reductase enzyme actually pulls the trigger on contact with the chlorine dioxide molecule, setting off a chain reaction that blows up its own host.
There is no “good” or “bad” connotation here. There is only purpose being served naturally by all involved parties.
About 5% of large water-treatment facilities (serving more than 100,000 persons) in the United States use chlorine dioxide to treat drinking water. An estimated 12 million persons may be exposed in this way to chlorine dioxide and chlorite ions. In communities that use chlorine dioxide to treat drinking water, chlorine dioxide and its by-product, chlorite ions, may be present at low levels in tap water.
A friend who lives in Spain informed me that chlorine dioxide is the predominant water treatment method for 90% of France. However, he says that their water also contains high amounts of uranium.
The report fails to note that an estimated 75% of the American public, approximately 240 million people, are “consuming” chlorinated water in one way or another. We are paying a dear price for our deep and long-standing immersion into this and other chemical agents. Who decided that the course we have taken could not be reversed, or the effects, not mitigated? The term “incurable” only applies if we continue to embrace the same way of thinking in our efforts to change.
In this profile, the term “chlorite” will be used to refer to “chlorite ion,” which is a water-soluble ion. Chlorite ion can combine with metal ions to form solid salts (e.g., sodium chlorite). Sodium chlorite dissolves in water and forms chlorite ions and sodium ions. More than 80% of all chlorite (present as sodium chlorite) is used to make chlorine dioxide to disinfect drinking water. Sodium chlorite is also used as a disinfectant to kill germs.
We have cultivated a perception that all microorganisms are “germs” and therefore, should be killed off. We think that all “germs” are harmful, and therefore allow people to give us synthetic medications that will kill the “bad guys”. This is part of the problem with our thinking. Imagine what life would be like if chemicals rushed into an environment and bound up available oxygen, as the hydrocarbons did into the Gulf of Mexico during the BP Oil Spill, suffocating a large proportion of the marine life population. If this happens in the human body and anaerobic microorganisms don’t show up, what would such oxygen deprivation do to the body? Necrosis would set in, and do so in short order. So how “bad” can anaerobic microorganisms be?
Yet, we create a condition of gross over-chemicalization via our predominant method of water treatment, knowing full well the potential outcomes. When the disease pathologies eventually show up, which is now projected with the same anticipation as a bull market, we respond medically with treatment regimens that is largely chemical-based. This is why diseases come earlier in life and last longer. It’s a great way to get you sick, keep you sick and dependent on chemical medications, and appear to prolong your life.
I’ll continue examining the Toxicological Profile for Chlorine Dioxide and Chlorite and see what else comes up.
November 19, 2010 | Categories: Alternative Medicines, Blogroll, Education, Healing, Health & Nutrition, Health related, MMS, Random Thoughts, Water | Tags: chlorine dioxide, Jim Humble, MMS, mycotoxins, oxidation, water treatment | 45 Comments
After the FDA came out with its public warning against the use of MMS, one of the first widely circulated articles in support of the warning was written by Gabriella Segura, MD. I’ve posted the article in its lengthy entirety below, with my own comments.
You can read the unsullied original by following the link.
The Miracle Mineral Solution (MMS) is marketed feverishly as a miraculous alternative treatment for AIDS, hepatitis, malaria, herpes, tuberculosis, cancer and many more of mankind’s most feared diseases. The truth is that MMS is a dangerous poison, and as such it has no business whatsoever in the alternative health arena.
Strong statements. Let’s explore her hypothesis.
Many people do not know that MMS is essentially bleach.
What fewer know is that sodium chlorite, from which MMS is derived, is a salt. On the other hand, chlorine is also considered a bleach. If you have a chronic disease, it is FAR more likely that you have been exposed to chlorine for YEARS. People using MMS to generate small amounts of chlorine dioxide, are actually mitigating chronic diseases.
It’s very effective for killing bacteria in toilets, but you certainly shouldn’t be swallowing it.
This statement applies more to chlorine than chlorine dioxide (which is produced by activating MMS… however, the public is swallowing, and bathing in chlorinated water every day. Doctor Segura either doesn’t know this, doesn’t think it is significant, or doesn’t know the fundamental chemical differences between chlorine and chlorine dioxide.
The toilet reference is cute too. Bacteria in toilets is not a problem. Very expensive drugs, much stronger than chlorine dioxide, are being prescribed and administered daily for medicinal use inside the human body, not toilets. Yet, are becoming increasingly ineffective at killing pathogens, and more so at increasing one’s toxic load.
The active ingredient in MMS is not a mineral, but chlorine dioxide (oxygenated chlorine),
Calling chlorine dioxide “oxygenated chlorine” is like calling salt “sodiumized” chlorine. She’s attempting to assign the chemical properties of elemental chlorine to chlorine dioxide, when in fact, it has its own unique and very different chemical behavior.
which is formed from the chemical combination of sodium chlorite and acetic acid (vinegar) or citric acid. MMS as a poison does kill intrusive germs in your body, but it would be naïve to believe it to be carefully selective in what it kills and destroys, or to think that the damage done has only limited consequences.
What is a “poison”? Chlorine dioxide is an oxidant. On the other hand, chlorine interaction produces byproducts that could be correctly termed, poisonous.
It is shocking that MMS is recommended so widely, that it is recommended to already weakened individuals AND that it is recommended for long-term use. In truth, the potential long-term and dangerous side effects of regular MMS use should give anyone the shivers.
The writer appears oblivious to the travesty that the public is presently undergoing as a result of officially sanctioned and approved water treatment methods, along with other factors that follow below. Chlorination IS affecting the public now.
I found the following from www.friendsofwater.com.
“A study published in the November 2006 issue of the American Journal of Epidemiology has reported a link between exposure to chlorinated water and an increased risk of bladder cancer. According to researchers, ingestion of, and bathing, showering, and swimming in chlorinated water can all lead to increased incidence of cancer.
“The study of the Municipal Institute of Medical Research in Barcelona, Spain, found that “long-term THM exposure was associated with a twofold bladder cancer risk” in households with high levels (50 or more micrograms per liter) of THM. (THMs, or trihalomethanes, are chemical by-products of chlorination.) Researchers discovered that these chemicals invade the human body through ingestion of water, by inhalation and dermal absorption. They also believe that THM that is absorbed or inhaled into the body does not go through a detoxification process in the liver, which may make the chemical much more dangerous in those situations.
“The results of that study showed that drinking highly chlorinated water raised the cancer risk by 35 percent and that swimming in chlorinated pools raised the risk by 57 percent. Those who took longer showers and baths in THM-contaminated water saw their risk of bladder cancer increase 83 percent.”
Dr. Segura talks about chlorine dioxide as though it could it be such a danger when used in concentrations associated with MMS. Those who know the difference understand that chlorination is a present danger, whereas chlorine dioxide disinfection, with its entirely different chemical personality, is showing itself to be effective at mitigating the danger, helping the user’s body restore its own health.
The news about MMS was spread largely by word of mouth as the public read Jim Humble’s story, listened to the available audio conversations on the product and protocol. Some watched and shared my documentary, then decided to try it out for themselves. A large percentage of them had already undergone years of debilitating illness and pain, for which medications were seen to be the symptom suppressants that they are.
Dr. Segura’s admonitions are made in a vacuum of evidence of harm, yet she appears oblivious to, or unwilling to acknowledge, ample evidence of beneficial effect.
Before we continue, an important lesson on oxidation and free radicals is needed to help us understand the long-term consequences of the use of MMS1 and its successor MMS2. This information is crucial to see why MMS is NOT an alternative health solution.
This is a “scientist?” No. This is a person with an agenda; to sell the reader on the idea of being fearful of MMS. She leaves no room for any interpretation of why chlorine dioxide use could make sense.
In spite of the damage that it can be shown to cause today, I can see how chlorination may have made sense when it was selected as the water disinfection method of choice many decades ago. But who could have imagined just how pervasive chlorine use would be?
As a further aside, did you know that 93% of all pharmaceuticals that are manufactured use chlorine? Did you know that chlorination is an industry that does $46 billion in sales?
Oxygen is an essential element that supports life, but in the wrong place or at the wrong time, oxygen can wreak much havoc on our cells, causing cancer, contributing to cardiovascular disease, degenerative diseases, and aging through a process called oxidation. You have seen the effects of oxidation whenever you have observed an apple turn brown and go bad after being exposed to air, or when you see the flame of a candle.
You can’t live without oxygen, and neither can normal human cells. On the other hand, where there is disease, there is normally an oxygen deficiency. Molds, yeasts, fungi, and tumors, all can exist where there is insufficient oxygen to support life.
Yet, if you took Dr. Segura’s explanation to heart, you’d be afraid of oxygen and normal metabolic activity.
What she also doesn’t tell you is that, if that apple turns brown, it’s because it lacks sufficient oxygen (energy) to sustain life, and is essentially dead. Nature is then signaled to begin the decay process. When there is insufficient oxygen within the body, the same process occurs. Chlorine dioxide differs from chlorine in that it delivers oxygen, and even then it’s only where needed, as determined by the activity of enzymes (respiratory nitrate reductase) that naturally occur in certain anaerobic bacteria such as Salmonella and E. coli.
Chlorine dioxide also has a net reducing effect on chemical toxicity. When you take it and it acts, your body will be less toxic afterwards than it was before. This may be one reason why people are reporting improvements in their health, because when pharmaceutical-based medicines are administered, the patient’s toxic load is increased. Nausea, diarrhea and vomiting under those circumstances are simply coping mechanisms by the body, with little actual improvement, because the environment itself – that supported the pathology (and dysfunction) in the first place – has not been improved.
Don’t you find the incredulity that MMS could be actually helping people – by the FDA, et. al, and by the writer, fascinating?
We use oxygen in order to take electrons from the sugar and fat molecules that we use for fuel.
Nowhere in any science book will you hear this kind of description of why we use oxygen. We need oxygen to breathe. Oxygen is one of the fuels that is needed to produce usable energy. And yet, we exhale carbon dioxide (CO2). We are constantly exchanging oxygen in one form or another. It’s part of how life as we know it is perpetuated.
The molecules we wish to keep intact, however, are subject to oxygen’s burning influence and they are at risk of losing electrons as well. The fire from a candle flame aptly illustrates oxidation in which the electrons of the candle wax are ripped off by oxygen in the atmosphere with the resulting, self-perpetuating release of light and heat. As oxygen makes its way through the body, many of its molecules lose an electron. This means that they become chemically unstable and highly reactive ions as free radicals are formed. These unstable metabolic by-products of energy production in cells strive to stabilize by ‘stealing’ a replacement electron from any neighboring molecule, leaving even more damaged molecules in their wake. This is how free radicals in our bodies are produced and cause inflammation, a process that is best known as oxidative stress or oxidative damage. Oxidation can even cause debilitating changes to your DNA.
This is simply a bunch of gobbledygook. She appears to be making a case against oxygen, something we cannot either live, or be healthy without!
Depending on where this oxidative damage takes place, it can lead to any number of the following diseases: atherosclerosis (plaque in blood vessels), cancer, arthritis, cataracts, neurodegenerative disorders such as Alzheimer’s disease, autoimmune diseases, and many other health problems generally related to aging. Any free radical involving oxygen can be referred to as a Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS).
She is blaming these diseases on oxidative damage, when they are more likely caused by the lack of sufficient oxygen. I mean oxygen in sufficient amounts to nullify the effects of low level chemicals, heavy metals (aluminum, mercury, etc.).
By the way, some of the anaerobic microorganisms that tend to proliferate in oxygen deficient environments also go away when chlorine dioxide is introduced. Tests run by the USDA confirmed the presence of an enzyme, respiratory nitrate reductase, which governs the electron transfer function. Electrons aren’t “stolen” by ClO2, but given up when the right stimulus is encountered.
This enzyme appears to be responsible for releasing the ClO2 from the sodium chlorite (NaClO2), which in turn, kills the pathogen, its host. Aerobic bacteria are not hosts to respiratory nitrate reductase, and therefore, are not affected by the action of ClO2.
This finally answers the question of selectivity, which MMS denouncers have claimed is impossible. The chlorine dioxide does not “select” anaerobic microorganisms to destroy. An enzyme carried by the anaerobic microorganism triggers the transfer of electrons, thereby destroying the bacteria. Why? Because something that was needed for proper metabolic function — i.e., oxygen — had arrived, thanks to chlorine dioxide.
A perfect example of a ROS is hypochlorous acid, which is now also known as Miracle Mineral Solution 2 (MMS2). Keep in mind that the loss of electrons from molecules whose integrity is vital to the structure of our cell membranes, DNA, skin or eyes results in damage and disease. Oxidation is the most toxic force affecting all the molecules of the body; it’s the enemy of youth, the ally of all diseases, and the fundamental mechanism of all injury, all aging, and eventually, of death .
The only molecules that give up electrons are those connected to organisms that live in oxygen deficient environments. The lack of sufficient oxygen is a primary stress factor unto itself. There is no anaerobic presence without a preceding lack of sufficient oxygen.
If oxygen is delivered to the environment, then normal function has a chance to be restored, thereby ending the need for the anaerobic presence. Thus, the enzyme transfers electrons of its anaerobic host, and the host no longer exists, with no new toxic chemistry, e.g., chloroform, being created.
By now, you should understand why anti-oxidants are so important.
Although they are, it was not evident to me from her explanation.
Antioxidants help to counteract or neutralize the free radicals before they can damage our healthy cells by lending a hand (actually, an electron) when stabilization is needed. This is the reason why we are fond of so many antioxidants such as vitamin C, E, carotenoids, resveratrol, taurine, coenzyme Q10, and melatonin, to name but a few.
Chlorine dioxide is considered a free radical. However, it is a well-behaved one. Holding an oxidation potential of .95 volts, it is less potent than ozone, hydrogen peroxide, and even oxygen (O2), and doesn’t affect healthy cells, tissue, or aerobic microorganisms. That can’t be said about the other oxidants, or about antibiotics either.
Each person is exposed to oxidants and each one of us has a variety of antioxidant defenses and DNA repair ability. These factors together determine the extent of oxidant-induced DNA damage in each of us, and the levels of such damage may well contribute to cancer risk, especially in tissues where other changes may have already occurred. But keep in mind that DNA protection is essential not only to guard us from cancer, but also because in all of our cells, DNA carries our ancestral identity and the instructions and information that maintain our bodies. We might also wonder what other special properties could be lying dormant in our DNA.
A lot of talk about DAMAGE that hasn’t been supported by the evidence. What HAS been demonstrated is that present environmental practices, facilitated via current methods of water treatment as one example, are already causing the very damage that Dr. Segura projects might come from MMS usage. She fully ignores the positive effects that are being voluntarily reported by people who have used MMS.
Also, as for hypochlorous acid. It is a chemical that is naturally produced by the human body. That is, when the immune system hasn’t been literally saturated with toxic chemicals. Given the regular exposure to chlorinated water that Westerners get, along with the chemical remedies that doctors prescribe when their bodies finally get overloaded, it was a stroke of genius for Jim Humble to devise a way to give the immune system a boost of its own medicine. A small capsule of calcium hypochlorite when ingested, will provide a hypochlorous acid boost inside, where help is needed.
But for now, let’s get back to MMS1, which is basically the combination of sodium chlorite and acetic acid (vinegar) or citric acid which together form chlorine dioxide (oxygenated chlorine). The toxic effects of chlorine dioxide are associated with those of sodium chlorite – a very strong oxidant that at a dose of 10-15 grams is considered to be lethal.
She may be right about a dose of 10-15 grams of sodium chlorite being lethal, but what does that have to do with MMS? 10-15 grams of table salt, may kill you too. Sodium chlorite is a salt. It is natural. Too much of anything, taken out of context, can be damaging. Where is her acknowledgment of this simple truth?
Even small amounts of about 1 gram can be expected to cause nausea and vomiting.
Even 1g of MMS would be considered a VERY large dose. However, what one can *expect* from using MMS in recommended amounts, is a reduction of toxicity. If an individual is very ill, they are already very toxic. Dr. Segura writes as though healthy people are taking MMS, and it’s going to make them sick.
Conventional “modern living” is making people sick on its own. Then the medical treatment that most people are guided to keeps the condition in tact while appearing to mitigate symptoms. We’ve seen it enough. We get it. The jig is up!
Now get this: the MMS protocol suggests that taking up to 60 drops per day is within reason.
Some people have taken this much, but this amount has never been part of the protocol. And even that has changed, as Jim Humble has continued to refine the protocol from feedback he has received. The protocol now calls for a smaller number of drops (up to 3) spread out hourly over an 8-hour period (10 hours for acute cases).
There are 20 drops in one gram, which means that the protocol may call for the ingestion of 3 grams or more of what amounts to household bleach.
This is alarmist. If she correctly stated that chemotherapy is ingesting pharmaceutical grade mustard gas, then there would at least be some balance here. However, the characterization of MMS to “household bleach” is false.
I wonder how would she justify chlorination? Whether it is inadvertent or intentional, she is actually intermixing the chlorination chemical behavior with chlorine dioxide oxidation. They are distinctly different unto themselves.
If she were sincere (which I question), she’d beg the question of why the vast majority of the population is already being exposed to such “bleach” every day? I don’t hear her saying that chlorine is dangerous, although it is. She’s saying that chlorine dioxide might, and should be dangerous, although when used as outlined, it is not.
This is three times the amount required to produce nausea and vomiting and 20% of the amount required to kill you . Even though we are told that nausea and diarrhea are positive signs of detoxification when following the MMS protocol, you can be sure that they are actually the way our body tells us that we’ve just been poisoned.
That’s certainly true for chemotherapy and a long list of other drugs, but doctors prescribe them anyway. The difference is that when diarrhea or other effects happen with MMS, the body will have actually reduced its toxic load. Healing can then occur.
If you happen to vomit, then be reassured that it might have saved your life by way of avoiding a lethal overdose of MMS! There are in fact several testimonials of negative side effects and at least one death related to MMS which you can easily find on the internet .
This is almost funny, but it’s not. With over 5 million people now, or having used MMS, there is but one death associated with its use, and MMS has not been shown as the cause. It was coincidental; it was involved, but that is as far as the evidence has taken anyone, over a year after she passed away. If chlorine dioxide was actually the cause, it would have been proven by now.
This is not to say that a death could never occur concomitant with MMS use. People will continue transition from this world as long as they enter it. The issue is whether chlorine dioxide is, and can be, an effective disinfectant, and whether simple disinfection is a viable treatment strategy in a myriad of disease pathologies. The answer appears to be yes.
Supporting this hypothesis are numerous reports of people who were virtually used up by the present medical system and its modalities, and on death’s door, who are not only still with us, but have restored their health. If even one such case can be documented (many more have), that would be reason to explore MMS with sincere interest, and not as a witch hunt.
The popularity of MMS and its fervent, almost religious marketing involved the claim of curing malaria in tens if not hundreds of thousands of people. Sounds very noble indeed, but this is only natural as MMS’ sodium chlorite is well known to cause hemolysis in red blood cells – meaning that red blood cells are ruptured and destroyed. It is actually by killing red blood cells that the malarial parasite is killed since it invades red blood cells. MMS probably kills the parasite and the red blood cells. In fact, MMS consumers may develop anemia.
Conjecture is conjecture, no matter who conjects it. She’s projecting her own false hope once again. The people who got over malaria with MMS (and I’ve met a few), knew when they had been cured versus when they were sick. For me, their knowing will trump Dr. Segura’s conjecture any day.
MMS really does sound like a dangerous allopathic drug, similar to antibiotics or chemotherapy.
Big difference. People from all over the world are reporting that they’ are getting better after using MMS. Not so with either antibiotics or chemistry (or steroids, coumadin, or yada yada yada).
Why is it that we don’t see many efforts to remove this poison from the market when in recent times there has been a push to remove healthy vitamins and antioxidants by agencies like the FDA and Codex? MMS is more of a killer than antibiotics and has the potential to kill all kinds of microbes including viruses.
This is actually an irresponsible statement, although since facts aren’t important, I guess it’s no more irresponsible than the rest of the article. Antibiotics kill in two ways, (1) by the imbalance that they exacerbate in an already compromised system, and (2) by the time, energy, and attention not given to giving the patient what was really needed… i.e., a restoration of balance. Balance cannot be achieved via synthetic chemicals. Chlorine dioxide is a chemical compound, but it is not synthetic. It is natural, and it very effectively reduces overall toxicity.
Such a killer weapon has other consequences for your body, and killer therapies should never be the first course of action when dealing with disease. They should never be an option when we are able to take control of our health through diet and appropriate, real alternative health therapies.
I agree with her here. However, she doesn’t seem to have a problem being the harbinger of incorrect information.
Let us review some safety data sheets of MMS ingredients: Chlorine dioxide is a strong oxidant, and as such it reacts violently with combustible materials, mercury, ammonia, sulphur and many organic compounds . Sodium chlorite is a strong irritant of the skin, eyes, and respiratory tract; a strong oxidizer that promotes combustion; concentrated solutions may be corrosive to the skin and eyes; mild hemolytic anemia and increased methemoglobin in males was observed in animal feeding studies . Acute health effects of chlorine dioxide: ingestion is not a normal route of exposure (except thanks to MMS!), harmful if swallowed, can cause irritation to mouth, esophagus, stomach, and mucous membranes (hence, the diarrhea, nausea and vomiting!). Eye contact: contact causes redness, irritation, pain, blurred vision, tearing, corneal injury and burns. Inhalation: harmful if inhaled, coughing, headaches, labored breathing, nausea, shortness of breath, pulmonary edema. Chronic health effects: may have effects on lungs, resulting in chronic bronchitis and permanent lung damage . In short, MMS should NEVER be a health treatment, alternative or otherwise!
All of the statements above are true, IF you’re using sodium chlorite by the gram, pound, barrel, or drum. That’s not happening with MMS. You would think that an intelligent doctor would able to discern and articulate the difference. I bet that she can, but is selectively choosing what she will, or will not see.
Now here is where things get even more interesting. Enter MMS2, which works more subtly and therefore more dangerously than its predecessor.
So what we saw above was the appetizer.
MMS2 is basically calcium hypochlorite, which is a chemical compound widely used for water treatment and as a bleaching and disinfecting agent (bleaching powder). This one is indeed a mineral, but a mineral that reacts to produce hypochlorous acid when ingested. Hypochlorous acid (HOCl), which is a combination of hydrogen, oxygen, and chlorine, is what some of our white blood cells produce in order to kill bacteria through the well-known process called oxidation. HOCl is a powerful oxidant indeed, and as I mentioned before, it is the perfect example of a hazardous reactive oxygen species (ROS). Just as with MMS1, pathogens can’t develop a resistance to MMS2 and this is related to the powerful free radicals that it liberates. Sound good? Well, not really. MMS2 is meant to create high concentrations of this dangerous oxidative hypochlorous acid in our bodies in order to kill ‘powerful and incurable’ diseases, or so it is claimed. Unfortunately, the amount of HOCl that our body is already capable of producing on its own is dangerous enough. In fact, some of our white blood cells have toxic and damaging effects on our DNA through the formation of hypochlorous acid [6, 7]. What is more, antioxidants are being studied and used successfully to block hypochlorous acid from creating DNA damage [7, 8, 9, 10]. Yes, DNA damage! This is dangerous to the extreme!
The healthy human body is a symphony of diverse microbial and metabolic processes, that work so well together we would be in awe, not in fear. A wonderful treatise on the workings of the human body and the evolution of knuckleheaded thinking that we endure today, is Spontaneous Evolution, by Bruce Lipton, PhD and Steve Bhaerman.
The oxidative process described by Dr. Segura reads like that of a mine field, to be traversed with great caution and trepidation. It is devoid of the innate intelligence and wisdom that is built in to each cell of the body.
Listen to this “grim” fairy tale.
Another way in which MMS2 can cause damage is through activation of ‘evil’ transcription factors. Free radicals such as hypochlorous acid and other toxins may cause transcription factors to initiate a series of genetic reactions that result in cancer.
She’s essentially saying that natural chemicals and metabolic processes initiate genetic reactions that cause cancer! The human body is a chemistry factory unto itself. Producing hypochlorous acid is just one of its ways to protect the host – meaning you and me. Dr. Segura would leave an uninformed reader nervous to simply be human!
Transcription factors are proteins that facilitate gene expression – that is, they cause genetic material to do something.
“They cause genetic material to do something?!”
A particular transcription factor, NF kappa B, is influenced by free radicals or toxins which usually activate it. Once activated, this transcription factor goes into the nucleus of our cells where our DNA resides and may activate genes that might change a potentially malignant cell into an absolutely malignant cell . Hypochlorous acid (MMS2) activates this infamous NF-kappa B transcription factor, especially in the absence of antioxidants like taurine [11,12]. NF-kappa B has also a crucial role in inflammation, and thus ultimately it induces illness. That MMS2 is promoted as a cure for cancer and many other illnesses is just plain baffling.
People who have a compromised immune system that take MMS2 already have a deficiency in their capacity to produce hypochlorous acid. The positive results they’ve reported indicate that the small boost must have helped.
It’s not hard to comprehend how such a shortage in producing hypochlorous acid “immune factor” could come about. The following is but a short list of metabolic stressors that we expose ourselves to each day either as a function of environmental, nutritional, or medicinal action.
- Synthetic vitamins and minerals with missing cofactors that pass through the body unabsorbed
- Beta carotene and Vitamin E (dl-tocopheryl acetate) – caused heart attacks, lung cancer (New England Journal of Medicine 1994)
- Vitamin A – 22,000 women 400% increase in birth defects (New England Journal of Medicine 1995)
- Synthetic Vitamin C (Ascorbic acid) – caused thickened arteries in men (Reuters Health, March 2000)
- Synthetic Vitamin D
- Calcium Carbonate
- Sucralose or glucose
- Titanium Dioxide
- Antibiotics, acetaminophen, steroids, and thousands of other allopathic medicines
- Genetically modified (transgenic) products.
- The list goes on, and on, and on…
Each one of these, and the many thousands of others that could have been listed, do not appear on the list of components and materials needed to “construct” or “repair” the human body. Instead, we are presented with what some laboratory scientist has convinced someone are “suitable substitutes” from trusted professionals… not just water treatment and the health care system, but agriculture (antibiotics and pesticides) and dairy (antibiotics and hormones), and the food and beverage industries (chemical additives) as well.
All of these are foreign to the human body and therefore either require supplemental metabolic actions in order to be utilized, or destruction, via oxidation, if they cannot be. Given the enormity of our synthetic addiction, it’s easy to see how the body could simply exhaust its ability to produce enough of its own natural chemical defenses, such as hypochlorous acid, which would safely oxidize these low level interlopers.
Again, the results will confirm or debunk the theory. Dr. Segura simply provides a fearful smokescreen while failing to see, or acknowledge the very real need for assistance that the body, especially a chronically ill one, might have.
But that’s not all, folks. It gets worse! In fact, hypochlorous acid (MMS2) has the power to chlorinate the building blocks of DNA, breaking the DNA double helix apart and thus interfering with its vital biological functions . By the way, the new airport security scanners can break apart our DNA’s double helix as well . Do we see a pattern here?
I rest my case. Yes, we see a pattern of doubt and fear being promoted without regard to, or concern for, observed results. If a person says that he or she experienced an improvement by taking MMS1 or MMS2, it would behoove a true scientist to say something like, “what did you do?” and see if the results are reproducible. Dr. Segura, the FDA, et. al, are running in the opposite direction. They want nothing to do with true observation, discovery, and reproducibility.
The public is discovering, learning, and understanding on its own.
Some claim that hypochlorous acid is hazardous only to intrusive germs, but there are actually studies that have determined that the properties of hypochlorous acid that make it such a potent bug killer agent can damage our bodies by the same mechanism used to destroy the invading pathogenic bugs . One such study could not have a more appropriate name: “Living with a killer: the effects of hypochlorous acid on mammalian cells .
I trust nature to know what to do with hypochlorous acid, especially after learning that it is one of the body’s natural products of immune system response.
It has been well documented that there are a variety of disorders tied to the deleterious effects of hypochlorous acid in our bodies including diabetes, obesity, depression, hypertension, gout, kidney failure, and autism, among other conditions .
This is another example of where laboratory study, devoid of any natural context, provides us with useless understandings. The referenced article makes room for the presence of absolutely no other environmental factors. HOCl can be examined on its own to see how it behaves against lycopene, but this is not representative of the environment inside the human body. What will be present there? When HOCl is produced, it is with a specific purpose and intent, which is to protect the host. Dr. Segura doesn’t appear to believe such intelligence is innate at that level, or perhaps at any level outside her own skewed perspective.
This makes sense in view of our brief review of oxidation: wherever there is oxidative damage, there is disease.
Wherever there is oxygen deficiency, there is disease. Wherever there is synthetic chemical saturation, there will be oxygen starvation, and there will be disease. My description makes more sense than the doctor’s.
What is more, our brains have a high oxygen demand, and thus are particularly sensitive to oxidative damage. So it doesn’t come as a surprise that our mind is often the canary in the coal mine. We often notice our body’s first inflammatory effects through brain fog, memory problems, and insomnia. Hypochlorous acid has the potential to be extremely neurotoxic to our brains, where it literally oxidizes certain lipids and proteins, preventing them from performing their functions and contributing to neurodegenerative disorders like Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease and Multiple Sclerosis .
Talk about shooting the messenger. Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease, and even Multiple Sclerosis, are likely caused by damage due to heavy metal toxicity, from mercury and aluminum, as well as fluoride. Hypochlorous acid and chlorine dioxide appear to be effective at oxidizing, thereby inactivating these chemical luddites.
In addition, hypochlorous acid can be very dangerous in certain settings . Its strong oxidative power makes the chemical very dangerous, because it can become explosive when combined with certain substances. Adding acids to a hypochlorous acid solution will precipitate this process, making the mixture unstable, releasing chlorine gas, and potentially causing an explosive chemical reaction. The compound needs to be handled carefully because it can release dangerous chlorine gas if mixed with seemingly safe household products. Chlorine gas can cause considerable health problems or death, especially in poorly ventilated spaces, which is one reason why it is inadvisable to mix household chemicals like bleach at random.
If you view the sun from the planet Mercury or even Venus in Bermuda shorts, you’re not going to enjoy the view very long. Yet, we cannot live without sunlight. It is a mischaracterization to paint chlorine dioxide, or even chlorine in such wide and negative brush strokes. Nature has a reason and a wisdom all its own that we should honor and respect. We should also recognize the sincerity of those who have used MMS and reported their results. Clearly, we haven’t won the war on disease. Perhaps we should declare a truce and engage in substantive talks with people who have cured themselves, rather than deny that such cures are even possible outside a laboratory.
Further complicating this tragedy, MMS is now being promoted with the use of DMSO . DMSO (Dimethylsulphoxide) is a solvent which enhances the availability and effectiveness of many drugs throughout our bodies, thus potentiating their effects. It has the capacity to distribute a drug deep into our bodies. The worrying thing is that DMSO also very easily crosses the blood-brain barrier. This property is exactly why DMSO is widely used as an effective transporter of certain substances into our brains that may not otherwise cross the mentioned barrier . Even though DMSO by itself is a powerful antioxidant, keep in mind that it has the ability to potentiate and carry a dangerous poison such as MMS1 and MMS2 into the brain. By now, I hope that it is clear why this is a very, very bad idea.
DMSO actually mitigates the harmful effects of many drugs, thereby “enhancing” their perceived effectiveness. And yet, it has very narrow FDA clearance for use in humans. You can buy it at a feed store to rub your horse down with it. Ninety percent of the DMSO purchased at such stores find human use, because it is as effective as Dr. Walker describes in his book. On the other hand, while it is an antioxidant, DMSO has also enhanced the penetrability of MMS. The two can be used topically, to great benefit, effectively reducing one’s toxic load.
Please give this article to any MMS consumer. They have the right to know what is going on within their bodies – and DNA – when they take this Trojan Horse!
I agree, because, dressed up under the guise of a wise and helpful physician, this article represents a clear example of the proverbial “pot calling the kettle black.” It shouts, “Trust me while I misinform and frighten you!”
November 12, 2010 | Categories: Blogroll, Cancer, Education, FDA, GMO, Healing, Health & Nutrition, Health related, MMS, News and politics, structured water, Water | Tags: chlorination, chlorine dioxide, FDA, Jim Humble, MMS, water treatment | 20 Comments
History is always in the making, and we’re part of it. The initial official response of public health agencies to MMS is hardly the last word, as their advisories run counter to the actual experience of so many who have already used it and speak from experience.
Used in appropriate, scaled down amounts, chlorine dioxide is not the harmful chemical that has been suggested. Indeed, there is great evidence that it can be even more invaluable as a disinfectant than it already has been for over 60 years. The agencies will either align their policies and positions on a truthful foundation, or be clearly seen as organizations that are at odds with their charters, and undeserving of the public’s trust.
The large population of people who have recently been introduced to MMS (Jim Humble’s “Master Miracle Supplement”), by way of alarmist warnings issued by the FDA, FSA (UK) and counterparts around the world, are going to naturally want to know what the hubbub was all about. They will want to know the truth. They will also determine whether they can expect the truth from public agencies, or otherwise.
Trying to ward the public off MMS actually increases interest, and creates a natural desire to understand why. Calling the product “bleach”, and attempting to create an aversion response in the process, is really weak. But then, that is probably the best that the agencies can do, given that their claims of harm are dubious, at best.
Considering the number of widely known toxic therapies that are not only approved by these agencies, but considered “go to” drugs that are administered each day, you have to wonder what caused MMS to gain such urgent treatment.
Could it be because the accounts of beneficial outcomes, which the agencies said were made by the sellers, but were actually made by MMS users, were actually true?
The agencies suggest that claims of recoveries from a wide range of pathologies are untrue, because said pathologies themselves are “unrelated.” But what if they are related?
What if it is, like Louis Pasteur is reported to have said before his death, that it is not “the germ,” but the terrain?
I mean no disrespect to those who feel that Pasteur has been targeted by scientific revisionists who are positing a new interpretation of familiar, and sometimes sacred conceptual cows.
Our escalating dance with disease and unnecessary death, is in part a byproduct of our futile and unquestioned “war” with microbial life, whose only purpose is to protect and perpetuate life. It is a memo we have yet to get. Predominant efforts to find “cures” revolve around the perpetuation of this microbial war. Yet, the weapons themselves are synthetic, un-living, foreign, alien, and disruptive to the human inner ecosphere.
Therefore, a new spate of “MMS naysayers” have risen, resolute in the belief that simply referring to MMS as “bleach” will be enough to stimulate a public aversion to the product. They may even be conceding that those who know the truth about MMS are not going to be persuaded, but will attempt to use fear or the threat of force to keep the uninformed, disinterested, and the more “obedient” sector at bay.
There will be those, however, who really want to know the truth. “Is MMS, the product — that these agencies have joined together in unison to denounce — really dangerous?
Perhaps this series of selected comments, quoted from a document whose source I’ll reveal at the end, will be helpful. It is a comparison of the disinfection properties of chlorine dioxide and chlorine, the result of numerous published scientific research that said naysayers suggest has never been done.
I’ll offer my own comments at the end.
Several investigations have been made to determine the germicidal efficiency of chlorine dioxide since its introduction in 1944, as a drinking water disinfectant. Most of the investigations were carried out as a comparison to chlorine; some studies have compared chlorine dioxide and ozone. Chloride dioxide is a more effective disinfectant than chlorine but is less effective than ozone.
- poliovirus (Scarpino et al., 1979)
- Naegleria gruberi cysts (Chen et al., 1984)
- E. coli (Chen et al., 1984) (Ridenour and Ingols, 1947)
- Cryptosporidium (Le Chevallier et al., 1997)
- Giardia (Liyanage et al., 1997)
Quantitative data were published as early as the 1940s demonstrating the efficacy of chlorine dioxide as a bactericide. In general, chlorine dioxide has been determined to be equal to or superior to chlorine on a mass-dose basis. It was demonstrated that even in the presence of suspended matter, chlorine dioxide was effective against E. coli and Bacillus anthracoides at dosages in the range of 1 to 5 mg/L (Trakhtman, 1949). Ridenour and Armbruster (1949) reported that an orthotolidine arsenite (OTA) chlorine dioxide residual of less than 1 mg/L was effective against Eberthella typhosa, Shigella dysenteriae, and Salmonella paratyphi B. Under similar pH and temperature slightly greater OTA residuals were required for the inactivation of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus.
Chlorine dioxide was shown to be more effective than chlorine at inactivating B. subtilis, B. mesentericus, and B. megatherium spores (Ridenour et al., 1949). Moreover, chlorine dioxide was shown to be just as effective or more effective than chlorine at inactivating Salmonella typhosa and S. paratyphi (Bedulivich et al., 1954).
In the early 1960s several important contributions were made by Bernarde et al. (1967a and 1967b). Chlorine dioxide was found to be more effective than chlorine at disinfecting sewage effluent and the rate of inactivation was found to be rapid.
The disinfection efficiency of chlorine dioxide has been shown to be equal to or greater than chlorine for Giardia inactivation.
Both Chen et al. (1985) and Sproul et al. (1983) have investigated the inactivation of Naegleria gruberi cysts by chlorine dioxide. Both studies concluded that chlorine dioxide is an excellent disinfectant against cysts and that chlorine dioxide is better than or equal to chlorine in terms of inactivation.
Chlorine dioxide has been shown to be an effective viricide. Laboratory studies have shown that inactivation efficiency improves when viruses are in a single state rather than clumped. It was reported in 1946 that chlorine dioxide inactivated Poliomyelitis (Ridenour and Ingols, 1946). This investigation also showed that chlorine dioxide and free chlorine yielded similar results. Other studies have verified these findings for poliovirus 1 (Cronier et al., 1978) and Coxsackie virus A9 (Scarpino, 1979). At greater than neutral pHs (where hypochlorite ion is the predominant species) chlorine dioxide has been found to be superior to chlorine in the inactivation of numerous viruses such as echovirus 7, coxsackie virus B3, and sendaivirus (Smith and McVey, 1973). Sobsey (1998) determined CT values based on a study of Hepatitis A virus, strain HM 175. The study found 4-log inactivation levels are obtainable at CT values of less than 35 at 5°C and less than 10 at a temperature of 25°C.
Chlorine dioxide is regarded as a strong disinfectant that is effective at inactivating bacterial, viral, and protozoan pathogens. CT values for Giardia and virus inactivation are shown in Figure 4-5 and Figure 4-6, respectively (AWWA, 1991).
CT values shown in Figure 4-5 are based on disinfection studies using in vitro excystation of Giardia muris. Average CT values for 2 log removal were extrapolated using first order kinetics and multiplied by a safety factor of 1.5 to obtain the CT values for other log removal CT values. Due to the limited amount of data available at pH values other than 7, the same CT values are used for all pHs. Because chlorine dioxide is more effective at a pH 9 than at a pH of 7, the CT values shown in Figure 4-5 are more conservative for higher pHs than for lower pHs. A lower safety factor was used to derive the CT values for chlorine dioxide than for ozone due to the fact that the chlorine dioxide values were derived from Giardia muris studies, which are more resistant than Giardia lamblia.
Organic DBPs Produced by Chlorine Dioxide
Chlorine dioxide generally produces few organic DBPs. However, Singer (1992) noted that the formation of non-halogenated organic byproducts of chlorine dioxide has not been adequately researched, and expected that chlorine dioxide will produce the same types of oxidation byproducts that are produced through ozonation. The application of chlorine dioxide does not produce THMs and produces only a small amount of total organic halide (TOX) (Werdehoff and Singer, 1987).
A study was conducted in 1994 by Richardson et al., to identify semivolatile, organic DBPs produced by chlorine dioxide treatment in drinking water. Samples were taken from a pilot plant in Evansville,
Indiana that included the following treatment variations:
- Aqueous chlorine dioxide;
- Aqueous chlorine dioxide, ferrous chloride, (FeCl2), chlorine (Cl2), and dual media filtration (sand and anthracite);
- Gaseous chlorine dioxide; and
- Gaseous chlorine dioxide, ferrous chloride (FeCl2), chlorine (Cl2), and dual media filtration (sand and anthracite).
Using multispectral identification techniques, more than 40 different DBPs (many at sub-nanogram/L [ng/L] levels) were identified including carboxylic acids and maleic anhydrides isolated from XAD™ concentrates, some of which may be regulated in the Stage 2 DBPR. THMs were not found after chlorine dioxide was added to the water; however, THMs did show up during subsequent chlorination.
Now one thing is clear by the terminology, this was not a consumer report. The document is the EPA Guidance Manual, and these excerpts were from Chapter 4, “Alternative Disinfectants and Oxidants,” which is 41 pages in length. Published in 1999, this document publishes official guidelines for water treatment.
What the EPA document says about chlorine dioxide compared to chlorine is enough to raise even larger questions, and come to some conclusions on one’s own.
Now what did it say?
It didn’t call chlorine dioxide a “bleach”. Of course, if they did, they would have had to acknowledge that chlorine is one too.
But then, they weren’t trying to dissuade. This was an actual objective, unbiased guideline.
As an aside, given how many hundreds of millions of people are exposed to chlorine, day in and day out, you wonder how they decided to base their MMS alert on the idea that a bleach was being used?
Being a “bleach” is not the issue in this document.
The excerpts indicate several important points:
- Chlorine dioxide is effective at “inactivating” the following:
- Naegleria gruberi cysts
- E. coli
- Giardia muris
- Bacillus anthracoides
- Eberthella typhosa,
- Shigella dysenteriae,
- Salmonella paratyphi B.
- Pseudomonas aeruginosa
- Staphylococcus aureus
- B. subtilis, B. mesentericus, and B. megatherium spores
- Salmonella typhosa
- Coxsackie virus A9
- Echovirus 7
- Coxsackie virus B3
- Hepatitis A virus, strain HM 175
- Protozoan pathogens
- Chlorine dioxide is a superior disinfectant to chlorine.
- Unlike chlorine, chlorine dioxide, produces NO THM’s.
The EPA appears to be confirming what Jim Humble and the tens of thousands of people have reported about chlorine dioxide. It is a pathogen inactivator extraordinaire. MMS, on the other hand, has been demeaned by the FDA, et al, and other detractors, as an industrial strength, bleach. Yet, MMS is not chlorine dioxide, but simply a means of generating it in significantly reduced quantities.
The EPA’s manual is clearly not about the personal application of chlorine dioxide. However, it is about the internal application of chlorine dioxide, just as chlorine is taken internally as the predominant disinfectant now. Since the products are used for water treatment — which would be “consumed” by the public — a comparison was natural. The results clearly show that chlorine dioxide is superior to chlorine as a disinfectant. The reality today shows that the best option healthwise, isn’t necessarily what the public is going to get.
The EPA document also confirms that chlorine dioxide is effective at inactivating a long list of bacteria and viruses (and more). These microorganisms and many more, figure prominently in the onset and treatment of disease. In addition a long list of expensive, discrete pharmaceutical drugs are presently being administered for various infections, vaccinations, and chronic conditions. This lends credibility to the “anecdotal” claims from a wide range of people about amazing health improvements after using MMS. In this era where success in health care reform is defined by the ability to pay the increase in costs, and not in the ability to help people heal, how many of these drugs might be shown to be expendable by MMS? Not to mention the expense, what about the lives that would be saved?
Perhaps the FDA’s real issue is with people choosing their own methods of disinfection. Perhaps if the agency had chosen the disinfectant, it would be okay. But then, the government has given agencies the opportunity to allow a predominant disinfectant to emerge, and it wasn’t chlorine dioxide. Maybe it is because the chlorine dioxide would inactivate the fluoride that they are also so fond of, whereas chlorine combines and forms new toxic chemistry.
While we might imagine that the agencies would see this problem and fix it on their own, it is more apparent that the agency is unlikely to change what it thinks “ain’t broken.”
It is apparent that we can’t trust authorities to choose the best approach over the least costly. Yet, when we do our own research and demonstrate the benefits to ourselves, we can trust them to take an adversarial, alarmist stand.
But while the inactivation of viruses and bacteria appear to be the primary litmus test of both products’ efficacy, something else is being overlooked. I believe that it is chlorine dioxide’s effect on low energy, inorganic, synthetic, non-living stuff that can’t be metabolized by the body, and is subsequently stored.
As I mentioned in an earlier article1, trihalomethanes, or THM’s are known carcinogens. Last time I checked, a “cure” for cancer was still believed to be sufficiently not yet achieved, that the fund raising effort continues at full, if not accelerated pace. Yet, have any studies been published with outcomes measured to see what would happen if we stopped exposing people to THMs daily, for years and decades at a time?
In spite of the clear superiority of chlorine dioxide, and the fact that, according to the EPA, between 700 and 900 cities currently use it as their disinfectant of choice, the human health continues to take a back seat to costs.
I’m not pointing the finger at chlorine either, as it is part of nature. We can’t have salt without chlorine binding with sodium. We can’t live without salt (full spectrum, that is), in proper measure.
My point in bringing this up is to show what the EPA has reported, which indicates that an extensive amount of research has gone into the nature of chlorine dioxide dating back several decades. The research confirms what Jim Humble has said about this naturally occurring (which we could call “public domain”) chemical. It is not a drug. It is a chlorine ion, an essential element, bound to with two atoms of oxygen, which is also an essential element.
It is amazing to see the new wave of indignant “scientists” and “professionals” who have attempted to add the weight of the initials, either in front of, or beyond their names, to give greater credibility to the FDA’s and company’s warnings about chlorine dioxide. None of them have done their homework. Or if they did, then they are clearly trying to keep the public from seeing a far greater harm that could be hiding in plain sight.
October 24, 2010 | Categories: Alternative Medicines, Blogroll, Education, FDA, Healing, Health & Nutrition, Health related, MMS | Tags: chlorination, chlorine dioxide, FDA, FSA, water treatment | 41 Comments
The interest in, and use of “MMS,” which Jim Humble has recently dubbed, Master Mineral Supplement, continues, as the United Kingdom has publicly denounced the use of this product. Even the often reliable Wikipedia, which usually presents the appearance of unbiased information, now presents an entry on MMS that is a boldface lie.
A story in the BBC recently reported that the Food Standards Agency (FSA) praised a 15 year-old with Crohn’s disease for alerting it to MMS. Now chlorine dioxide, which is generated by using MMS (along with a citric acid “activator”), could in fact, help someone with Crohn’s disease.
“Why?”, you might ask.
It’s pretty simple. Anyone who has Crohn’s symptoms is going to have an inner system that is out of balance. I believe we can agree on this.
Balance is synonymous with health. When an individual not healthy, they will not be in balance. Yet, if balance is restored, health returns.
Most current medical treatment methods don’t restore balance. Not only that, most current living methods compromise balance on many levels. One of the most fundamental places where imbalance, and hence, disease is started, is in our water.
Current methods of water treatment are most effective in giving us water that looks good, but are ineffective in providing water that is actually healthy. In fact, water that comes to the tap, as well as many bottled waters are touted to be safe, are actually highly chemicalized, with chlorine (a bleach), fluoride, ammonia, and many other inorganic materials. And yet, in light of the urgent warnings against using MMS, the cumulative effects of this ongoing, daily intake of inorganic information is given no consideration anywhere in the current medical treatment matrix. According to the authorities, the bleach called MMS shouldn’t be used, but the bleach that is being used, without any input or consent by the public, is okay.
And if you don’t already know it, chlorine and chlorine dioxide demonstrate very different chemical behavior.
Humans are ingesting a multitude of inorganic and synthetic chemicals daily in going about the business of living life. A significant portion of this is through ingesting chlorinated water, about which no warnings or calls for reductions are being made.
When it combines with other materials, chlorine spins off another group of chemicals called, trihalomethanes (THMs). They are made up of chloroform, bromodichloromethane, dibromochloromethane, and bromoform. All of these are known carcinogens, which mean they can increase the likelihood of cancer. Imagine that this IS going on today, every day, each year, and for decades.
Look at some of the many pathologies linked to iodine deficiency, which is estimated to affect 2 billion people. Iodine is a natural antibacterial, and needed to produce the thyroid hormone. Potential problems include hypothyroidism, goiter, mental retardation and birth defects, and breast cancer.
Iodine is a member of a group of elements on the Periodic Table called halogens, as are chlorine and fluoride. However, it is the only essential trace element among them. In other words, iodine is essential for health. The other halogens are, in fact, harmful. Could it be that getting so much incidental chlorine and fluoride through water intake leaves less room for iodine, which we admittedly get too little of?
Yet, there are no warnings or suggestions forthcoming from the watchdog agencies of this dire situation or that we should adopt other methods.
Are you hearing me on this? Chlorination produces byproducts that are known carcinogens. Yet, it continues to be the “disinfectant of choice” among water treatment agencies around the world. According to americanchemistry.com, the chlorine industry “contributes” $46 billion to the North American economy annually. Included in their list their contributions:
- Clean drinking water
- 93 percent of all life-saving pharmaceuticals
- 86 percent of crop protection compounds
“Clean” drinking water is not necessarily safe drinking water. Safe drinking water will actually hydrate you and reduce toxicity. Clean water, as it is presently treated, can actually increase the body’s toxic load.
While it may not kill you on ingestion, ingesting chemically treated, i.e., chlorinated water will slowly and steadily deteriorate health. One exception, based on its known chemical behavior, is chlorine dioxide, which actually decreases the toxic presence in the environment when taken in appropriate amounts.
Drinking is only one of the ways that we ingest water, and not even the major way. The main way that we intake water is through showering and bathing. It is absorbed directly through the skin. When water is chlorinated, we turn our showers into gas chambers, open our pores, and step in.
That is, unless we take conscious, and heretofore unconventional measures to counteract the effects of our “advanced” ways. Based on the results that people have reported after using MMS, it appears to be doing something beneficial. And yet, none of the “protective agencies” around the world have seen fit to investigate for right doing, so convinced they appear to be that something “wrong” is being done.
Chlorine isn’t the only chemical culprit that we have developed a blind eye and deaf ear to. Fluoride is right up there, having gained a privileged general perception as beneficial; so good in fact, that it is put in water, toothpaste, and supplement tablets, including some vitamins.
Fluoride is a neurotoxin. Taking it on a regular basis can compromise health. Long-standing evidence bears the statement out. A 1992 report published by the New Jersey Department of Health found that bone cancer in male children was two to seven times greater in areas where water was fluoridated. Another study linked fluoridation of water to uterine cancer deaths.
There is no scientific or experiential evidence to support the FDA and FSA’s claims against MMS. It’s chemical behavior suggests that, if scaled down to sufficiently enough, it should reduce toxicity, and if that is done, health should improve. That is what has happened, and perhaps why the world is not being warned against using MMS.
We could go on for days listing the chemicals that, on a daily basis, are routinely ingested, either through water, in gaseous form, in our foods and beverages, or via airborne inhalation, which ultimately cause cellular stress and eventually metabolic dysfunction within the body. Not only are no actions being taken toward warning the public, reducing and replacing these methods, the remedies that we are offered to counteract the effects of these products — and are incessantly admonished to “ask our doctors” about — are also more chemicals.
Health care costs are rising, yet disease onset is coming earlier in life, and staying longer. Yet, MMS has been deemed by these and other “experts,” a dangerous bleach.
I’m inclined to believe that the 15-year-old with Crohn’s disease who, if we are to believe the story, notified the authorities about MMS, is most likely not aware of these nuances of its chemistry. The greater darkness, however, is awareness of his own chemistry which, even after several decades or even a lifetime, is a darkness shared by the general public.
The FSA and FDA should know better. They should be letting the youngster, and the public know about MMS, in the context of how it can actually help his young body reduce its toxic load. But then, that would mean dumping all the chemical stuff they have been supporting, and having to admit that they have been wolves guarding the henhouse and all its chicks.
October 20, 2010 | Categories: Alternative Medicines, Blogroll, Education, Education & Thought Leadership, GMO, Healing, Health & Nutrition, Health related, MMS, structured water, Water | Tags: BBC, chlorination, chlorine dioxide, crohn's disease, FDA, fluoridation, FSA, Jim Humble, MMS, water treatment | 147 Comments
Let’s give the FDA, Health Canada, the Ministry of Health (Japan) and National Health Service (UK), a round of applause and gratitude. With the able assistance of a league of similar “watchdog” agencies around the world, they have increased MMS awareness. The fact that the information they have spread is misleading or downright false, is of less concern, as there will be time and opportunity for clarification.
There will always be those who, trusting “the authorities,” will follow their guidelines to the letter. There will also be those who elect to do their homework, have seen the misplaced priorities and ulterior motives that are at play with announcements that claim to “protect the public.” This latter group will make their own decisions about what’s harmful or harmless about this “bleach.”
“Bleach” is also the subject of a new rash of debates about Jim Humble’s MMS protocol. Reciting the FDA chapter and verse, the nouveau MMS critics claim that chlorine dioxide is a bleach, as though that’s the beginning and the end of discussion. They dismissively proclaim that anyone silly enough to drink bleach must have a screw loose. Yet, the very same critics will very likely bathe or shower in chlorinated water each day, the effects of which are worse than drinking it.
If you didn’t already know it, chlorine is also a “bleach.” It’s a distinction worth knowing, about which the FDA must have thought few would notice, or care.
The term “bleach” is used in a pejorative context with regard to chlorine dioxide, yet since chlorine is also a bleach, then it is either equally “dangerous” (some people mistakenly assume it’s the same thing), or there really are different chemical behaviors at play.
This subject is covered in my documentary, Understanding MMS: Conversations with Jim Humble. However, here is a thumbnail explanation.
Although chlorine dioxide has "chlorine" in its name,
its chemistry is radically different from that of chlorine. When reacting with other substances, it is weaker and more selective. For example, it does not react with ammonia or most organic compounds. Chlorine dioxide oxygenates products rather than chlorinating them. Therefore, unlike chlorine, chlorine dioxide does not produce environmentally undesirable organic compounds containing chlorine. [Source Clordisys.com
The interesting thing about the chlorine versus chlorine dioxide conversation lies in considering the uproar over the new kid (chlorine dioxide), with the claims of its associated danger. It smacks of the tale of chicken little who declared that the sky was falling.
It wasn’t and didn’t.
MMS users have reported, and continue to report amazing improvements in their health, a fact that critics would rather not look at. The FDA only asked for negative information from the public in issuing their warning. If improvements from such a wide range of pathologies have been reported by actual MMS users, this should be cause for greater interest and attempts at confirmation, instead of attempts to shut down.
I write this as another group of sincere souls prepare to “race for the cure” this weekend, and the public is made to be more “aware” of breast cancer.
The radio announcer in the spots for this weekend’s “race for the cure” says that “we’re closer than ever.”
Suppose it is as simple as using the right bleach, and disinfecting a chemically overloaded body. Now I know that MMS is not a cure all. I don’t even suggest that it would be all that is needed. However, it is very effective at doing something that has been generally overlooked.
I’ll talk more about that further down.
Just today while writing this article the first time (a momentary power outage during an electrical storm sent it to the ethers), the phone rang. From Houston, the caller was inquiring about the Photonic Water transformation technology. Somehow the conversation turned toward MMS. She was quick to let me know she was familiar with this one.
Before I could say that I knew a thing or two about it, the caller let me know that she recognized me, and then said that MMS has helped her children improve dramatically from autism spectrum disorder.
A former ophthalmologist, MMS was suggested to her by another doctor friend. She said she had tried a multitude of ways to help her children, but they showed dramatic improvements after they began taking MMS. This was on the “old school” regimen. (Children were never given 15 drops at a time under the original protocol, but up to 3 drops per 25 lbs of body weight. That limitation still applies in the 8 hourly dose regimen.)
The caller is now practicing energy medicine, as her horizons have continued to expand after her original introduction to MMS. And yet, in spite of her success, she is at odds with the autism activist group, Defeat Autism Now! (D.A.N.), part of the Autism Research Institute. The group asserts that autism is treatable, but it appears that the “treatment” may also include a chemical-based component.
One of the salient points that I made with the caller, is that with all the hubbub about MMS being “dangerous bleach,” few are considering the effects of the daily bleaching that millions in America and around the world currently go through via chlorination. Many are trying their best to remove chlorine – resorting to expensive treatment methods – to no avail. This is one of the important aspects of water transformation that looms on the horizon.
The talk about the lack of clinical trials and publishing in “peer review journals” on MMS are laughable when you consider the absence of any long-term studies or published papers on studies on how health faired when water was treated without chlorine.
Furthermore, it would be interesting to observe the effects of removing synthetic materials – toxins, heavy metals, etc. – from the body. Chlorine dioxide appears to do this very well. Again, I say this based on results that have been reported.
For all the talk about “good” and “bad” bacteria, it has become evident that no living organism exists to do us harm. However, the non-living, the synthetic, and unnatural will bring about cellular stress, disrupt metabolic function, and instigate one’s decline into degenerative disease.
We have operated under the mistaken idea that technology is superior to Mother Nature, and we are paying the high price of our arrogance and ignorance. Yet, many still ignore what is staring them in the face.
Chlorine dioxide appears to discharge, by way of electron exchange, the low level, inorganic disruptors that are deemed close enough to the real thing, such as vitamin D, to be acceptable substitutes, in addition to such other additives as aspartame, MSG, and many more. In truth, they are not acceptable. They don’t kill you on contact, but they don’t help sustain or restore health. These facts are hard to deny.
What if autism spectrum disorder is simply one way that the body, and the being, responds to certain types and levels of chemicalization?
It has been demonstrated that when chlorine interacts with the chemicals within the body, tertiary chemical compounds are produced. These compounds can be carcinogenic. Yet, this “bleach” is acceptable… not only acceptable, but its use unquestioned.
On the other hand, the “bleach” that people are reporting positive results from, is branded harmful and dangerous.
There is something far bigger hiding in plain sight that either the FDA and its cronies don’t see, or don’t want you to see. A public whitewash that has gone on for generations. Before installing a Photonic unit on my showers, I used to see that “ashy” stuff on my skin every day, and think it was “dry”. I now know it was the chemical bath that I had embraced as my own problem. They can try to run the game, but they can’t hide it anymore, because the bleach is ON!
October 5, 2010 | Categories: Alternative Medicines, autism, Blogroll, Cancer, energy medicine, FDA, Healing, Health related, MMS, Water | Tags: autism, chlorine dioxide, FDA, MMS, water treatment | 104 Comments
Sylvia Fink died on a yacht near the island of Vanuatu in the South Pacific in August 2009. As a passing, hers is noteworthy because, from eyewitness accounts, death came unexpectedly, after she took the Miracle Mineral Supplement, widely known as “MMS.”
Death by medication isn’t unusual. In fact, death by medication has gained such social acceptance that its significance only seems to matter to the people whose lives were directly touched by the passing. You don’t hear about the people who die each day from standard medication unless they’re well known. However, estimates range from 200,000 to well over 700,000 people die each year from standard medical treatment in the United States alone. Yet, this fact does not call into question whether the treatments themselves are actually useful or effective. The only thing anyone seems to care about, is whether they have been approved by the FDA.
With FDA approval, 700,000 deaths due to prescribed medication is considered acceptable. Without approval, one death is not. On the contrary, it is considered valid reason to issue a public warning against MMS use – without an impartial investigation or verification of the claim. It appears to be reason enough for the FDA to go on a campaign to dissuade the public from using MMS as an internal disinfectant.
Let us clearly state that the FDA did not cite Sylvia Fink’s death in its warning, nor did they infer that death was a possible result of using MMS as outlined. However, they do infer that the myriad ailments that people who have used the product have reported relief from, such as diabetes, herpes, hepatitis, many forms of cancer, and HIV/AIDS are unrelated. Doug Nash, Silvia Fink’s husband, who claims that consuming MMS killed his wife, portrayed her as the picture of health who died on a two-drop dose.
Someone is either misinformed, misinforming, lying, or all of the above.
Over one year after Mrs. Fink’s death, a toxicology report has not been made public. Yet, articles have been published in the January 9, 2010 edition of the Sydney Morning Herald, implying that MMS may have caused her death, and is dangerous. Several other articles that are supportive of Doug Nash’s conclusion, or critical of MMS have been also published. (The Age, Vanuatu Daily Post, Gabriel Segura, MD)
Playing the role of the grieving husband, Doug Nash made it his mission in life to “pin” his wife’s death on MMS, having pleaded his case in various forum communities where MMS information is exchanged as curezone.com, and Health Salon, among others. (He has steered clear of this one.)
In addition, he has been in the unusual position of interpreting toxicology, and even offering suggestions on how the coroner should present his results. So intent is he on “proving” that MMS did his wife in, I don’t believe Mr. Nash considers how his zealousness naturally draws attention to him.
I don’t know if the FDA’s campaign was instigated by Mr. Nash, but a copy of a complaint issued by Nash to the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the FDA, reads in part, “From this experience I conclude that MMS is a dangerous and potentially lethal substance if ingested as a medical remedy.”
If this was true, toxicology reports should have confirmed it and be public record by now. They have not.
In his complaint, Mr. Nash claims that Sylvia took two drops of MMS, as a prophylactic remedy against malaria. At that time, she would also have used ten drops of lime juice as a catalyst to generate chlorine dioxide, which is the real disinfecting agent of the protocol.
I cannot speak to whether MMS was promoted by the people in that South Pacific yachting community as a prophylactic for malaria, but given its demonstrated effectiveness in cases where malaria has been contracted, no protocols had been issued for its use before the fact. In attending two of Jim Humble’s MMS workshops in the Dominican Republic in 2010, the subject of the prophylactic use of MMS for any condition has never been brought up, much less promoted.
While it was a question a year ago, as people around the world were gaining experience with MMS, it is understood today that two drops of MMS wouldn’t harm a sick mouse, much less the healthy 56-year young picture of a woman that Doug Nash painted his wife to be. It is more likely that such a dose would help a diseased state, and have no impact on a healthy person (or mouse).
Eyewitness accounts of Sylvie’s last hours written by the people who supplied the MMS, observed her the night before the incident before taking MMS (exhibiting labored speech and breathing), and valiantly offered their assistance in resuscitation, paint a very different picture. Mr. Nash showed telltale signs of another agenda – of a man who cared more, even then, about making a case, than helping his wife.
The FDA’s claim that the wide spectrum of conditions abated that have been attributed to MMS are unrelated, is another place where misinformation, misunderstanding, or lies are being perpetrated. However, the problem here is much larger than Sylvia Fink. It goes to the thinking that causes doctors and medical institutions to routinely engage in simultaneous medication, which could also be termed, parallel poisoning. It is the practice of prescribing multiple (expensive) products to treat various symptoms that are thought, by said medical “book” of standard, accepted procedures, protocols, and practices, to be “unrelated.”
When the public gets wind of the fact that the human being is a single, whole system and capable of systemic correction when a problem is mitigated – in other words, many symptoms can be resolved with a few effective corrections – it’s going to be a very abrupt wake up call.
MMS addresses the condition and state of the water that courses through the system, dealing not only with bacterial, viral, and fungal factors, but inorganic chemicals and heavy metals that have been absorbed, are unmetabolizable, and have been stored in tissue.
In a recent conversation I had with C.W. Reed on Talk For Food, a woman from Florida who got over breast cancer with the help of MMS, she noted the alarmingly high levels of heavy metal toxicity that showed up in a hair analysis test run in January 2009. In May 2010, a follow-up hair analysis indicated that heavy metal levels were now negligible. In spite of 23 pages of data explaining how sick she was, she worked herself up to the original, 15-drop, 3-times daily limit, taken orally, as the FDA is now warning against doing.
When you know for yourself, or have met people who have had such transformational experiences using MMS under their belt, the dubious nature of Mr. Nash’s and the FDA’s campaign is magnified.
While Doug Nash and the FDA are birds of a feather, neither case will stand if it is not based in truth. I can’t imagine his wife wanting her passing to be attributed to, or based on, a false claim.
Money and force will not derail genuine truth. If MMS is harmful, it will become as self-evident as the harm being done by Standard Medical Practices each and every day.
Another year has passed since this MMS controversy began, and this one death remains the worse anyone can come up with to pin on Jim Humble’s simple, inexpensive, and effective chemistry protocol, while another 700,000 or so have died, and tens of millions have had surgeries and other medical procedures that might have been unnecessary, or gone smoother if this simple disinfectant and chemical neutralizer had been used.
In this video, I show you what two drops of MMS looks like, and introduce you to Joe Grenon, who got rid of a staph infection using MMS
The alarm is about to go off.
September 10, 2010 | Categories: Alternative Medicines, Blogroll, Cancer, Education, Education & Thought Leadership, Healing, Health & Nutrition, Health related, MMS, Random Thoughts | Tags: cancer treatment, FDA, Jim Humble, MMS, water treatment | 21 Comments