For several months now there has been a quiet “war” on Wikipedia with respect to its portrayal of the product known as MMS. Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia written and editable by anyone, made itself a popular and in some cases, invaluable reference tool by taking the science of search engine optimization to a high art. If you search for information on just about any subject, you can generally count on finding a Wikipedia entry at, or near the top of the list.
In general, the information presented on Wikipedia appears to be credible, which by definition, means that each subject presented has been confirmed to be, as best as possible, factual, and neutral.
Neutrality in an online reference resource is perhaps more important than factuality because the facts can be updated as more is learned.
Neutrality is the most important element that Wikipedia can have, for it makes them credible more so than “to the letter” factual accuracy. When the editors are neutral, facts not only can be corrected quickly, they will be. If they are not, then Wikipedia can become a convenient tool for anyone with an agenda.
With the majority of the people who access Wikipedia doing so because they want to learn about a subject — meaning that they are not already familiar — it can be a very important influence on public perception… if its objectivity – its neutrality – is unquestionable.
Unfortunately, such is not the case with Wikipedia as it relates to MMS. The “Miracle Miracle Supplement” abstract is heavily populated with information that suggests it to be (1) dangerous, (2) fraudulent, and (3) to be avoided.
There is no other possible conclusion that one can make if they know nothing about the product and protocol. Furthermore, there is no other conclusion that the editors of Wikipedia want the reader to make.
Efforts to correct the biased and negative information contained in the Miracle Mineral Supplement abstract by people who are knowledgeable about MMS have been reverted back by Wikipedia editors. An examination of the change log shows anything but neutrality.
While this is not the purpose of Wikipedia, which just finished raising $16 million in donations from its community in order to remain ad free, the MMS slam isn’t isolated. (See related article.)
An article posted on The Daily SEO Blog title, The Dark Side of Wikipedia, explains that informational gerrymandering may actually be common. Here’s a partial list of reasons why:
- Reputation Management — if Wikipedia has bad things to say about a topic, there will almost certainly be someone who wishes to see that information removed.
- To Spite – If your competitor is ranking ahead of you on Google, or kicking you around in sales, you might find that Wikipedia is an excellent place to create a page on their company and detail the long list of terrible misdeeds they’ve committed. What’s great (or horrible) about this practice is that generally, they’ll be the ones who later come in and look like spammers for erasing the content or trying to have it removed, which actually helps to bolster the veracity of information in the eyes of other editors or administrators. It’s a dirty but highly effective tactic to leverage against an opponent. I’ve even heard a story about using this technique for blackmailing the company referenced in the negative article, and pretending to “switch sides” in the editorial debate on the talk page once the money had been paid (it’s DMOZ all over again!).
To be honest, the MMS entry in Wikipedia is consistent with the official position taken, and warning issued on MMS by the FDA. But this is where Wikipedia, the referencing organization sold its soul, thereby invalidating itself as a credible tool. It could have presented the FDA’s information, but informational neutrality would demand that it be presented in such a way as to allow the reader to decide what is true, or not.
Is MMS a competitor? You bet it is! It’s a competitor to everything that the FDA holds dear, an entire way of doing things where the prices are high and liability low. When you can influence perception, its easy to appease the public on the idea that their welfare is being protected when in fact, the interests of the industry are the only truly sacred cows.
With human health, healing, and well-being are treated by orthodox medicine as unrealistic ideals, MMS and Jim Humble must be portrayed as no more than a Pied Piper.
So obsessed, or I dare say afraid, are the authorities that the results-seeking public will understand that MMS/chlorine dioxide actually can be effective for what they have been billing billions and trillions for in medical care, that they can’t even allow any information about MMS that is within their sphere of influence, to not be tainted by negative spin.
I’m not suggesting that the tainting of Wikipedia is the FDA’s work. It doesn’t really matter who is behind it. It’s just important that you know what is being done, and if you are so inclined, do something about it.
The jury is not only still out on MMS, the court is not even in session. In other words, in spite of the authorities wanting MMS to go away, the story is only beginning. The “facts” will change, as private use and public understanding continues to grow.
The real question is will there still be a Wikipedia around to reference it?
Watch it!
I talked with Daniel Smith of Project Green Life about it on this week’s Talk For Food. I also continued my conversation with Wil Spencer about his experience helping people in the Gulf Coast with his relabeled MMS (Advanced Oxygen Therapy), and microbial replenishment strategy. In the second half of the show, please pay particular attention to Wil’s description of the pathologies that his clients were reporting (around 50 minutes in), and his explanation of why it made sense.
Listen
You can listen to the same show by clicking here.
It is now 2014 — no one has died from MMS — interesting, isn’t it. A malaria cure cover up by the FDA has serviced — guess what, I had been a user for about four years now and I am not a ghost yet.
Yes I kept my comments simple and I too could argue more for MMS but people really do need to study things and facts for themselves. Visit my website if you have a desire to learn more about MMS.
Good Health
By they way, why don’t you mention that Jim Humble created a user page on wikipedia to promote his opinions, you can find it right here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DataBishop
It’s quite funny I think..
Further, you can see the talk page of the MMS article right here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Miracle_Mineral_Supplement
You can see for yourself how “unfair” or biased the wikipedia editors are.
I didn’t come here to change your mind, don’t worry, I know fully well how convinced you are. I came here to comment about the neutrality of wikipedia, which is what this article is about.
If the wikipedia is saying that MMS does not work or is dangerous, then it is not objective, because we users use it for years and are still alive and in better health than ever before. 🙂
The measure of “objective” is not how much you believe or disbelieve something, the measure of objective is whether all the major views from REPUTABLE sources are presented.
In the wikipedia article, all the major views from reputable sources ARE presented. Sorry, but your view on this blog is NOT a reputable source, neither are the countless anecdotes on internet forums.
There are very many support forums for diseases with people who tried MMS and it did nothing for them, you’ll notice however that those don’t get included in wikipedia either.
To get your view presented in wikipedia, all that MMS supporters would have to do is compile a case report and have it published in a reputable source. This is the same standard that ALL wikipedia articles are held to. Now I understand that’s not easy for someone like you, but for a doctor or a research scientist, it’s part of their job! Jim already claims doctors proscribe MMS, so there’s no reason it couldn’t have been done already, especially since Jim has had ten years… He replies with many excuses, that he didn’t have time or money, and when really cornered, he admits he doesn’t even want evidence, because that would make him the enemy of all medical establishment (as if he doesn’t make that claim already). Well, he can’t have it both ways, he can’t say he doesn’t want the evidence but he wants his views to be in wikipedia.
Of course Jim also argues that the required studies or case reports “wouldn’t get published” but is just a complete excuse because no one has even tried! If someone like Hesselink had tried, they’d at least have a rejection letter or some proof that their work wasn’t going to be published. But the truth is, no such research has ever been done.
I’m not trying to change your mind, I’m not trying to tell you what to do, I’m simply telling you what standard wikipedia holds to publish articles. THIS blog starter it, this blog is the one claiming wikipedia is not objective and in the wrong, I’m simply standing up for wikipedia.
Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, I think the main problem here is that the people here are just not quite understanding what that word means. You might as well write a blog post to complain that encyclopaedia Britannica is not going to publish an article expressing your views on MMS either. They are fundamentally the same thing, The only reason this blog targets wikipedia is because anyone can go and edit it, but if you submitted an article to Britannica presenting your views on MMS you’d get a similar reply. It’s not because encyclopaedias are biased, it’s because your view is not expressed in any reputable sources. If your view was in reputable sources, you would have a legitimate claim to include it in an encyclopaedia.
And before you “thumbs down” my post for no reason which is really funny, why don’t you tell me what you don’t like about my post? I’m not making any bold statements, I’m not even saying anything about MMS working or not, I’m simply trying to tell you why your views about MMS are not in wikipedia and what you’d need to do to get it in there. Wikipedia is not fundamentally biased, the same standard is applied to all articles, present a reliable source and you can include your information, simple.
Difinition of reputable: having a good reputation; honoured, trustworthy, or respectable
That is were I have a problem with your argument!
Just because I or other users are not famouse and we have no DR. in front of our name, does not make our witnessing re MMS less true.
So who are those who decide who is reputable or not? Who do they think they are that call them-self reputable, to call US not reputable?
This to me is the same as calling me a liar, and I strongly object to that.
Ok, now it actually sounds like we’re getting somewhere. My argument is definitely NOT the same thing as calling you a liar. I never called you or anyone on this blog a liar. I believe you are honest and well meaning.
The thing is, no one actually “decides” who is reputable, a reputation is EARNED, not “decided”.
A very important point to remember however is that even individuals with the BEST reputation can be wrong sometimes. No one is infallible. Perhaps the MOST important point is that even WE can sometimes be mistaken too.
This is very hard for a lot of people to accept but personal experience and anecdotes have a very poor reputation when it comes to figuring out the truth. This is why the world is full of superstitions and strange beliefs. Our senses are easily fooled and we have all sorts of cognitive biases, we easily confuse correlation for causation, we don’t understand placebo effect, we don’t understand probability or large numbers. Typically intuition and “gut feeling” serves us well, but it can also sometimes be completely wrong and leads us into trouble.
We need something more then just “authority” to decide between what people tell us, or what we think is true.
What’s the best way to figure out if something is true? How can we tell that we aren’t being fooled or conned or fooling ourselves or mistaken or honestly misinterpreting some phenomena? The best way is to test it objectively and get other people to verify it, that’s what science is.
Science isn’t “one person’s” say so, no one “decides” what science is. Science is just a method we use for figuring out the truth, what works and what is reliable. Science demands that we don’t accept anecdotes or personal experience as evidence because those are not verifiable, there are too many “unknown” factors.
Science only accepts empirical evidence, this is evidence which can be verified and repeated, evidence which has controls in place for the unknown factors that might affect the outcome. It’s not an “unreasonable” requirement at all.
The MAIN fact is if something REALLY works, it’s EASY to get empirical proof. This is done ALL THE TIME in science. It’s not hard or expensive to prove something really works with science IF it really works. Anyone can use science, it doesn’t “belong” to anyone, to the “pharma companies” or the FDA. Jim Humble says doctors really prescribe MMS, he claims thousands of people have ALREADY been cured in Africa, well that’s all that is required, if those things REALLY happened, where’s the proof? He should ALREADY have it, but all he has is excuses.
I accept that I could be wrong, but I’m not going to take your word for it, or the word of any random stranger on the internet. All it would take to convince me that MMS works is some actual empirical proof: some real verifiable test results or some clinical trials, that’s all. If MMS really works, this should be EASY to get, I’m not being unreasonable.
I agree…
“A very important point to remember however is that even individuals with the BEST reputation can be wrong sometimes. Nobody is infallible”
Not to forget how many times science has been proving them-self wrong too.
I’m well aware of the placebo effect, which I could still believe, if it was only one condition that changed, but not when many problems improve or disappear, and this not only once of, but each time I use MMS.
Not to forget the friends I know personally who’s health have improved. Again not only one condition but several health-condition improved or disappeared.
Therefore I’m more inclined to believe this is not a placebo effect, specially, since I do not believe in coincidences.
I understand that you seem to mean well, but your well-meaning does not do anything to improve my health, and forgive me for saying so, but when I feel a cold coming, I take MMS which has proven to be very effective in this situation a few times, rather than suffering and taking your word for it, that MMS can not work, because you don’t believe it can! 🙂
Have a nice day…
PS: Thumbs down are not from me, because I do think you write nice, even do I think you don’t really know what you are talking about, since you are lacking the necessary experiences with MMS. But that is not my problem…;)
I don’t have problems with differant opinions and believes, just with bad manners and bullying… 🙂
I don’t know why but some comments don’t have the “reply” option under them, so I’m replying to this comment even thought it is a reply to the later comment.
Thanks for your post, It’s nice to actually have someone express their opinion rather then just label me as ignorant, or post pretending to be me without actually expressing why they disagree with me.
I understand what you are saying except I have a problem with a couple of the things you mention.
Firstly, you say I haven’t had the “necessary experience” with MMS; well actually, I have had experience with MMS. A very close relative of mine took MMS for quite a few months, almost a year. When I researched MMS and realised what it was I tried to talk them out of taking it. A few months ago they did stop taking it but not because of any argument or evidence that I presented, in the end they stopped taking it because it was still making them sick. You can read my story on my website if you want.
This is the main reason I don’t believe MMS does what Jim Humble says it does. Maybe it can help with a cold or an infection for some people, but Jim says MMS is 100% safe and this is not true. If it was 100% safe you could drink the whole bottle in one go. Of course Jim says “the dose makes the poison”, and indeed a lot of “safe” things are poisonous when taken in large quantities, but the main point Jim Humble fails to acknowledge or mention is that ALL those things are NOT 100% safe either when taken in smaller quantities. They might be 99% safe, or 99.9% safe, but NOT 100%. As soon as you acknowledge that MMS might not be 100% safe, then how can you trust Jim Humble’s word that it’s safe at all? Yes he claims lots of people drink it and “seem” not to have any problems, but if he claims it’s 100% safe he obviously doesn’t know that for sure. He doesn’t test people, or follow up people after he claims they are “cured”, what if people ARE getting really sick from it and he just isn’t publishing that information? Instead he just ignores it or says that it’s “normal” to feel sick after taking MMS. People smoked for hundreds of years before it was discovered that smoking was bad for you, so how can we be sure that MMS isn’t harmful? There are a lot of people now, even naturopaths who are speaking out against MMS because they believe, like me that it isn’t as safe as Jim claims.
Different people have different tolerance to MMS regardless of how sick they are or how much toxin they have to remove. My relative eats an organic diet, doesn’t own a microwave, grows a lot of their own food, never eats junk food and very rarely eats out at all, they don’t smoke or drink alcohol at all, they also practice reiki and take colloidal silver. There was absolutely NO reason what so ever to still have a detox reaction after months of taking MMS. If anything, my relative would be very sensitive to poisons and toxins that would enter their bodies and in the end that’s what convinced them that MMS wasn’t 100% safe at all and that it was actually not good for their bodies.
However again, this is really getting off the topic. This blog post wasn’t started about who or what people believe, this post was started claiming that wkipedia is biased. Whether you believe it or whether it is true is actually irrelevant at this point, the point is has Jim presented empirical evidence that MMS does what he claims, the answer to that question is still plainly no.
Look, I’m only a user, and so are my friends. Some of them know more about chemistry than I do, so from that point of view I cannot argue with you. I can just tell you what it did for me and those of my friends who take it, and it healt my asthma in 2 days flat.
You may read up my story on my blog:
http://simunye1.wordpress.com/
One friend of mine lives in South Africa and had trouble getting MMS. But she has a friend who is into chemistry. This friend now produces the MMS herself, which tells me that she must have found it worth while investigating and reproducing it. I just know that my friend was about to have her teeth extracted. Only the use of MMS prevented this. She washed her mouth with it and her gums became firm, plus all infections in her mouth disappeared.
I don’t know why your family member had still be sick after using it for a year. In fact if something would have made me continuously sick, I would not have taken it for so long.
It also sounds strange that after you investigated it, they did not take your advise to stop. That lets me think that they either did not trust your judgement to stop, or they might not have telling you everything they were doing wrong to be sick, like using to much.
I can believe that not everybody reacts the same way to MMS, just like with everything else. Some things that is good for most people can be bad for some, because they may have some sort of allergy to it. Maybe it is the smell that made your family member sick, rather than the MMS? I don’t know, but I have a problem with the smell. I breath through my mouth when I work with MMS. I only had ones the big D. That was when I toke the first time 10 drops at ones. But after that I could take more than 10 drops with no trouble whatsoever.
I hope I made myself clear, because I know sometimes I use the wrong expressions, being German. I sometimes translate directly into English and this I know does not always make sense. sorry..
🙂
I just got a mail from my friend in South Africa. Here is the part of her mail that should interest you my friends: agin excuse the engslih
“A friend of mine – I have introduced the MMS – her boyfriend made now a diploma with Jim Humble and was in direct contact with him– he has now a certificate and is allowed to do the mix by himself – I got the tabletts and the mixture – I use the mixture for my teeth – I am telling it works wonders. You can see how the universe works from you to me to them. (perfect)”
Need I say more? 😉
MMSdebunked
I started reading your blog and stopped when I read the following:
Copy:” Fortunately they listened to their BODY and not Jim Humble, they understood this meant they were putting something harmful into their body! What does Jim Humble suggest instead? Drink it with orange juice to mask the flavour or take it in capsule form so you don’t taste it at all!”
WOW! Were did you get this mis-info from that Jim tells them to drink it in orange juice?
Orange juice it the one juice he tells EVERYBODY NOT to use, because orange has vitamin C in it.
I rather not read any more, least I do not find more misleading comments…smile
That was a simple honest mistake. There ARE pages even on this very blog and on Jim Humble’s websites that say you can drink MMS with apple juice or grape juice to mask the flavor, as long as their isn’t added vitamin C.. So I admit I got my fruit juices mixed up, but read the CONTEXT of what I’m writing: it’s not WHICH juice you use that’s important, my point is that Jim says to mask the flavor of MMS with juice, THAT’S the actual point of my post.
It is exactly this “nitpicking” that makes me think that you aren’t really willing to even critically examine your belief. You find the very first honest but insignificant mistake in what I’m writing and to you it is a “deal breaker”, you automatically dismiss me as someone who doesn’t know what they’re talking about, without considering that it makes no difference to the context of my message. My point wasn’t about the flavor of juice you can use to mask MMS. I read a while ago that if you don’t like the taste of MMS you can drink it with what I consider a common fruit juice and when I wrote that article I mistakenly wrote “orange juice”, but in fact the article still makes perfect sense if you just remove the word “orange” from it. Thanks for bringing attention to my mistake, I admit I errantly named the wrong juice and I will correct it, but it actually makes NO difference to the context of my post.
Well, we all can make mistakes, I accept that.
So who is mistaken regarding MMS, only time will tell.
In the meantime I do what is best for me and I’m old enough to know 🙂
May I ask why you changed your name? 😉
Before I forget, applejuice actually DOES mask the taste, because that is what I use. 🙂
So let me get this straight: you think a tv show made by Jessie Ventura is an authoritative source of information on “conspiracy theories,” and I have no clue what I’m talking about?
Thanks for that insight.
And some people still believe in the Big Bang theory religion.
1) What does that even mean?? Are you saying you don’t believe in the big bang theory? So what’s your favorite theory to account for galactic expansion and cosmic microwave background radiation (MBR) ?
2) Are you saying that people who do believe in the Big Bang are “religious” about their beliefs? Being dogmatic means you ignore evidence that contradicts your belief. You know that the Big Bang theory has only been widely accepted in the last 50 years since MBR was discovered? big bang theory is the best explanation we have for that evidence, so what evidence are scientists (and me) ignoring that “disproves” the big bang?
3)What on earth does that have to do with the wikipedia entry on MMS?!?
4) It’s simple really, tell me how long supporters of MMS need to gather a single piece of empirical evidence? There’s so many supporters, and you “claim” that doctors are even proscribing it, so it should be trivial to get some case studies together.. Why hasn’t hesselink done it? Why hasn’t Jim Humble done it? All i want to see is one study, so tell me how long you need and I’ll lay off for that long, one year? three years? How long do you think it takes to run a basic phase 1 trial? five years? Well Jim has had TEN years and still we’ve seen nothing but excuses. First he says he doesn’t have time, then he says he doesn’t have money, then he says he doesn’t WANT the proof. Well, if he doesn’t want proof, he doesn’t get a wikipedia article, simple.
You obviously mix up supporters with users. The difference being, that users have all the prove THEY need, whether you believe it or not!
You need prove? Try it or but leave us alone with your demands and opinions.
We have heard it all before and the others did not convince us, because WE KNOW BETTER.
So what makes you think that we would change our mind to please YOU?
🙂
mmsdebunked.
I guess you never watched the Jessie Ventura conspiracy documentaries on TV.
Gilgamesh, mmsdebunked has no clue what he is talking about! But he/she just talks for talking sake 😉
Wow really? Posting falsely under my name? That’s the first time I’ve seen someone stoop so low. Thanks.
Oh well, i don’t really mind because the only thing you achieve is you only show how ignorant you are. Someone very close to me was taking MMS and it was still making them sick after months of taking it, I’ve read the books, I’ve done the research, so shows how much you know about me. Anyone can come to my site and read all about it.
And your comments about the peer review process are some of the most painfully ignorant words I’ve read for a very long time. Yes criminals and fraudsters have “peers” too, it doesn’t mean they are qualified to give an opinion!
The Keshe Foundation in their open letter jan.2. 2011wrote, that their science is so far ahead, that they would never want to bother with the peer review thing.And I see this now in every area, the peer review thing, and the debunkers are going down the toilet everywhere.
I agree the peer review process isn’t perfect, but Keshe foundation? really? Is that the best you can do? The guy is an obvious crank, or are you seriously telling me you believe he’s made an anti gravity device? Why doesn’t he show it to some REAL scientists? Oh yeah, right, same conspiracy as Jim Humble? give me a break! Learn about some of the real discoveries made by science, discoveries which CAN’T be suppressed because the evidence can be checked by anyone.
MMS is peer-reviewed!
WE and OUR PEERS used it, reviewed it, and found it to be very effective and less sickening than many other ‘approved’ medication.
So what is your problem?
😉
well…it was really helpfull by reading your blog … i really licked it ..thanks for such helpful sggestions.
http://healthpointing.com/
You guys are just hilarious. The fact is wikipedia is an encyclopedia: an encyclopedia is a REFERENCE work! This means it is a COLLECTION OF KNOWLEDGE gathered from REPUTABLE sources. Wikipedia does not publish original research, OPINIONS or testimonials. By your own admissions, MMS has NOT appeared in peer reviewed journals and has not been verifiably tested. That’s ALL that is required to appear in wikipedia. Where are the 100,000 cases of malaria that were cured in Africa published? You could include that information in wikipedia if it was verifiable, but of course it isn’t, just like most of Jim’s claims. And don’t give me “cock and bull” about how Jim couldn’t publish it, of course he could! If he had the resources to cure 100,000 people, he could have published the results, he could have done it him self if he had to. But of course, there is not one shred of verifiable evidence that this even took place.
“The jury is not only still out on MMS, the court is not even in session”
No crap. How long has Jim had? 7 years? And not one real paper? Not even an “unpublished” one? Does Jim have any letters of rejection from all those journals he has tried to publish in? No? Didn’t think so…
Hi everyone, I’m “mmsdebunked” but I can’t really debunk anything because I don’t have a clue what I’m talking about. My personal research doesn’t extend beyond my own bias and I certainly haven’t spent any real time on Wikipedia. Oh yeah, and as you probably guessed, I’ve never owned an actual bottle of MMS, haven’t read the book in its entirety and haven’t called any manufacturers to ask them why they sell this snake oil. I certainly haven’t followed up with any one of the thousands who have reported life-altering benefits from it. But I’ve done my research! My debunking is purely my parroting of others who know just as little as I. I’m Archie Debunker.
I lke honested, so you have my vote…;)
Oh yeah, MMS has been peer reviewed, just not AMA and Pharma reviewed. Peer reviewed means what Archie? Ah, shucks, let’s ask Wiki since they are the shining example of pure and untainted knowledge. Wiki says: Peer review is a generic term for a process of self-regulation by a profession – or a process of evaluation involving qualified individuals within the relevant field. Guess what Archie, thousands of people, qualified to testify of their own personal experience have reviewed MMS, they are peers in the field relevant to alternative and personal and private health care and they say you should unplug your telly, get some air, and think about things a little before you bring any more children into the world. Did you happen to call any of the umpteen US clinics or medical doctors that actually use and prescribe MMS to their patients? Till then I suggest you dummy up.
Now this is the best answer I have heard sofar for those AAMF. MMS is indead ‘peer-revieved’ by the likes of myself and all my MMS-PEERS who have been testing it for at least a year and more, and found it to be most helpful in improving our health, and even heal us, with less sideeffect than most medication are having.
😉 🙂
Hi.. I had some fair results with MMS…
But I wana ask a single question…
Have you cured any person suffering from malaria with MMS..I know Jim huble cured 75000..But I want you to answer as a witness
Its important that you answer this question honestly since I am planning to do some controlled studies
Ussamah,
Please forgive me, but this is an odd question because my answer tells you nothing about what your answer is going to be, or whether chlorine dioxide disinfection works. Please do your studies and get YOUR answer.
Best wishes,
Adam…
I trust you and wanted to start with a positive mind…May I repeat…Have you cured or atleast been a witness to a MMS Malaria cure
Adam, I tried twice to post a “long” comment regarding articles by B.J. Skane on the Vanuatu Daily Post and Deborah Dupre on Examiner.com regarding the release of autopsy results on Sylvia Fink. However, each time WordPress brought me back to this page without a notification that the post was pending moderation – possibly just TOO long. You can see this comment at:
http://genesis2forum.org/index.php?option=com_kunena&func=view&catid=31&id=276&Itemid=66#278
Now, in the wake of a long, 2-page article by B.J. Skane in the Vanuatu Daily Post, Deborah Dupree (who apparently may have formerly worked in Vanuatu) has weighed in on the death of Sylvie (sic – this was how Doug Nash spelled her name in an Oct. 2009 letter) Fink. Links: VDP p1: http://bit.ly/dL8hWc – VDP p2: http://bit.ly/dSNGeU – Deborah Dupre, “MMS: autopsy report, unsolved mysteries, Gulf targeted”: http://exm.nr/gSQ4Dd
Dupre follows the line of prejudiced (I think) assertions in the Vanuatu Daily Post, presents the results of her claimed interview with Jim Humble briefly in a sarcastic light, and continues to call Naturopath Wil Spencer an “MMS Salesman” in an apparent ongoing attempt to invalidate his work.
Dupre quotes the following from Skane’s article:
“After ruling out all other possible causes for Fink’s death, according to Skane, methemoglobin found in the blood was at a “significantly high” level (45%) according to Ms. Fink’s autopsy report.
“Skane reported that Australian Federal Police wrote in a memo to Vanuatu Police:
“‘Methemoglobin basically results in the inability of blood to carry oxygen within the body causing cyanosis (lack of oxygen to the system). The [autopsy] report states that if the 45% saturation reading was accurate and existed at the time of death, then the symptoms could be consistent with being caused by methemoglobinemia and therefore a possible cause of death. *Most cases of methemoglobinemia are caused by exposure to drugs or toxic substances including chlorate and chlorite.* (Emphasis added)”
I think that these references to the levels of Methemoglobin found in Sylvia Fink’s red corpuscles (two weeks after her death, and after possible degradation of the body’s chemistry by handling and efforts at preservation) offer the explanation for the recent comments in “the anti-MMS press” on the purported alteration of hemoglobin by chlorine dioxide. In Skane’s article, Sylvia’s death is “almost certainly” laid at the doorstep of MMS due to the (non-fatal) 45% level of Methemoglobin found in blood cells two weeks after death, which the article basically states, without a shred of evidence, must have been caused by her taking a “2-drop” dose of MMS. The article does report on the findings of liver abnormality (a “fatty liver”) which would reflect some kind of chronic condition, but this is merely shrugged off, with the comment that [Sylvia had not drunk alcohol for 15 years] for which no other evidence is provided.
B.J. Skane’s article makes a pointed attack on THIS blog: “Various other websites such as “Food for Thought”, http://www.phaelosopher.wordpress.org run by someone calling himself Adam Abraham, are used for longwinded, mind numbing rants extolling Humble’s magnanimity, the benefits of MMS and lashing out at anyone who dares to speak against it – including the Government departments that have done so and Sylvia’s widower Doug Nash.”
I guess “longwinded” and “mind numbing” are in the eye of the beholder. The accusation regarding MMS supporters “lashing out” at those mounting these voluminous ad hominem attacks on those asserting their god-given rights to make their own decisions about how to approach their own wellness and about the truth concerning healing methods, would seem to be the pot calling the kettle black. It’s also of note that nowhere have I seen any honest response to the questions raised or factual observations made in these longwinded rants by “the cult.”
Both of these articles, like so many demonizing MMS, make constant attempts to discredit chlorine dioxide use and users, without citing evidence. Dupre writes “Some refer to the MMS advocates as belonging to ‘the MMS cult.’ Skane, referr(ed) to the MMS ‘traveling sideshow’…” This is supposed to be objective reporting from one of those DOING the branding of people who consider the possible benefits of MMS as a “cult.” It can’t simply be that the people questioning the attacks against MMS have legitimate questions about the lack of objectivity and the emotional vehemence of these attempts to confuse the public.
I made a comment to Dupre’s article on Examiner.com, which I append:
“Another explanation for the incredibly long delay in the release of any details of the results of the autopsy of Sylvie Fink, performed two weeks after her death, would be that the results were inconsistent with the “2-drop”dose of MMS being a significant contributing factor to her unfortunate death.
“Perhaps some defender of the truth or value of FDA’s Warning on MMS’ “danger” (which, eerily, is the criterion under which FDA can now “recall” any product it makes that “regulatory finding” for), may disagree, but one explanation for Vanuatu authorities not being forthcoming with the results is that someone, possibly someone connected to the emerging Global Food and Drug Regime (see S.510/H.R.2751), had taken an interest in using the case as a testimony against the safety of sodium chlorite/chlorine dioxide when taken internally.
“Doug Nash saw the autopsy report – ‘Nash provided his review of the autopsy report to the Vanuatu Police on March 10, 2010,’ (from an article in the Vanuatu Daily Post, now removed from their site). He has since been publishing claims on the internet prominently, and yet hadn’t presented any evidence that points to the responsibility of the small dose of MMS that Silvie took for the cause of her death.
“Even now, the results aren’t complete and the circumstances surrounding the autopsy are not clear. What factors contributed to changes in the chemical results due to the delay in performing the autopsy or to the handling of the body?”
Ominously, in my mind, Skane’s article concludes with this statement: “The only way to stop this is for MMS to be banned worldwide until its promoters come up with substantiated proof that it is not a deadly chemical disguised as a ‘medicine’.”
This seems to conform to my observation that the use of chlorine dioxide is on trial before the general public in the controlled mindspace of the corporate main-stream media, with an eye to the eventual regulatory, undemocratic, unscientific and tyrannical supression of its obvious (to some of us, the “cult” I guess) benefits in supporting human wellness.
Bruce
I have been asking those AAMF (Anti-alternative-medicine-fanatics, because most of them are not only aginst MMS) several times for the prove that Sylvia died from MMS, but all they come up with was this new-paper article written in the early stages of the investigation Long after the case was dismissed, the same paper did not bother writing a report on the findings, which tells me already that they are not interested in the truth. Mr. Nash also fails to inform the public of the coroners report, which he promised to do, according to that first report.
What do they have to hide, I ask you?
I wrote twice a comment under this article, asking for an update of the investigation, but neither of my comments was published, I take a guess guess why! 😉
Bruce
Sorry, but I don’t seem to be able to find THE coroners report, only statements about what is standing in it. Do you have a lik to the report available, or are we suppose to simply believe what Mr. Nash claimes is standing in it? 🙂
One must be aware that Wikipedia is a controlled mindspace, in order to use it at all. It constantly violates its purported mission to let all opinions be presented to readers so they can use their own critical thinking and decide on what’s true for themselves.
As far as the current MMS entry following the FDA party line, it’s vital to put this in the context of what the FDA actually does to “protect public safety.” It might be instructive to look at this article – http://bit.ly/hpDypK – on the processes involved in testing new drugs for approval with FDA. Their actions reflect the height of hypocrisy.
That anyone finds wikipedia to be a reliable source is disturbing. They present many falsehoods and MMS is not the first.
They are pharm controlled me thinks, in some way.
Just go read what they have to say about Ozone therapy!
While thousands of clinics around the world use it as a valid healing modality.
Well, I guess that we could expect something like that happening, and that some AAMF, be it because they lose money, really believe their own opinion to be true or simply have some other agende why they write those one-sided reviews on MMS. Interesting is, that one cannot change the entries at the moment, and that at least one name also comes up on twitter.
Rhys Morgan is mentioned on this article/reference.
That makes me wonder… 😉