From defense of MMS to attacks

21 Jun

When I first heard of Miracle Mineral Solution (aka MMS) and it’s presentation at AutismOne, I thought that here was something so obviously bad in both theory and execution that pretty much anyone who took a critical look would agree: why is this faux therapy being promoted?

Paint me naive.

I thought that AutismOne might actually reconsider their promotion of giving bleach to disabled children.

Paint me naive again.

I thought that perhaps the Age of Autism blog would stay away from this, allowing it to sink into the past. The best I’ve seen so far is a non-pology from Kim Stagliano:

“AofA isn’t endorsing the protocol or slamming it – just providing perspective via one of our wonderful contributors.”

About par for the course.

While I am naive, I will say that I did expect that there would be a core of MMS users who would not take kindly to the discussion. And in this I am not surprised. Apparently, “investigative journalist” Kelly Stone has submitted a response to Todd Drezner’s Huffington Post article The Curious Case of Autism and MMS. I assume this is intended for the Huffington Post to publish. If so, Ms. Stone may be in for disappointment.

Ms. Stones’ response is on an MMS discussion forum.

Huffington Post – Negative Exposure

Todd Drezner’s “A Curious Case of Autism Exploitation”

By Kelly Stone

Investigative Journalist

In it Ms. Stone takes the attack on Mr. Drezner right away

Signature contributor to the Huffington Post, Todd Drezner, takes ‘blogging for dollars’ to a whole new level with his latest post on Autism. Drezner’s online column is little more than a clever marketing effort for his self-directed documentary, “Loving Lampposts: Living Autistic”.

Yes. It’s all supposedly about Mr. Drezner making money from his movie “Loving Lamppoosts“.

As an aside, Ms. Stone seems to have difficulty with the concept of what a director is in film-making. The term “self-directed” is very odd in this context.

After introducing and attacking Mr. Drezner, Ms. Stone then takes on attacking Emily Willingham, Ph.D..

Willingham, known elsewhere as “Daisy May Fatty Pants” is a contributor to “A Thinking Person’s Guide to Autism”. – According to the Child Health Safety blog, Willingham is a “self-professed scientist with selective blindness to basic observations”. All too à propos, Drezner and Willingham team up in their petition to denounce chlorine dioxide therapy as “child abuse”, a sobering case of irony given it could be the very thing its signers have been looking for.

Ms. Stone, investigative journalist, is welcome to do just a little more digging than the junk blogs she’s read and discover that Emily Willingham is much more than a “self-professed” scientist. A simple google search (which I assume Ms. Stone did, then ignored the results) will quickly get one to http://www.emilywillinghamphd.com/. Her biography includes:

I have been a dedicated writer since about 1972 and practicing science since 1996. My background, as I say in cover letters, includes a bachelor’s degree in English and a PhD in biological sciences, both from The University of Texas at Austin, with a completed postdoctoral fellowship in pediatric urology at the University of California, San Francisco. Throughout, my focus was vertebrate development and genetics, specifically how gonads and penises develop. Talking about my work has always carried a frisson of the risque.

I’ve seen Ms. Willingham’s publication list. It is impressive. Which is just one point of many which can be used to say: Emily has the chops to call herself a scientist. Frankly if you don’t follow her writing, I’d recommend you do. (Thinking Person’s Guide to Autism and Biology Files are two good places to see her work).

Ms. Stone, investigative journalist, moves into defending MMS. First she pulls a quote from a US Patent. Notably, I only find references to this patent on (a) patent search sites and (b) MMS sites. Ms. Stone appears to have not done much investigation.

Here is her discussion of the patent:

However, based upon clinical research, a 1993 U.S. Patent (No. 6086922) states the following facts about sodium chlorite and chlorine dioxide:

“It is therefore quite unexpected that, with an intravenous administration of an appropriate chlorite matrix in the appropriate concentration, HIV viruses can be directly combated in the blood… The chlorite matrix solutions of the present invention also do not exhibit adverse effects such as severe cytotoxic damage and the like, typically associated with highly toxic chemicals which are administered intravenously [i.e. vaccines]. The chlorite matrix solutions of the present invention further are capable of inactivating the HIV virus to thereby inhibit infection of undamaged cells.”

Wow! Did you read that? Chlorine dioxide, via sodium chlorite (aka “MMS”), is effective at “combating”, “inactivating”, and “inhibiting” HIV, without any “adverse effects”. Why doesn’t your doctor know about this? I have a few ideas, but let’s put that aside and stick with the facts.

Let’s put that sentence from the patent back into context, shall we. And emphasize a few points while we do:

However, the use of chlorite solutions for parenteral administration typically was not thought to be possible because of their extraordinary toxicity.

It is therefore quite unexpected that, with an intravenous administration of an appropriate chlorite matrix in the appropriate concentration, HIV viruses can be directly combatted in the blood, demonstrated by the rapid and strong decrease of the viruses detectable in the blood.

First notice that the [i.e. vaccines] was added by Ms. Stone or someone else. Second, notice that the inventor notes that these solutions have “extraodinary toxicity”, but by chosing the “appropriate concentration” they can find a solution which they think is viable.

Appropriate concentration. Sounds a lot like “dose makes the poison”, right?

How does one chose the “appropriate concentration” of MMS? By upping the dose until the subject is obviously sickened. From the MMS handout for AutismOne

Weird things can happen when we begin using MMS

The immune system wakes up and sometimes we find the body detoxing an old cold, flu or rash. It is common to find that the child gets a fever. This is good.

There is so much pseudo-science in that statement it is difficult to imagine someone presenting that with a straight face. No evidence that the fever is due to “detoxing an old cold” or the other nonsense.

Ms. Rivera even has a slide devoted to “Fever Therapy with MMS”, essentially telling parents to dose their kids until they have a fever reaction.

One need only do a simple internet search for MMS and nausea to see that this is a common and expected reaction to MMS. Some people try to paint this nausea as a “good sign” as well.

Back to Ms. Stone. And the patent she cites to defend the use of Chlorine Dioxide. Here’s another section of that patent:

A significant inhibition of a new infection is found in vitro even at concentrations of 5 micro-mo1/l, whereas a concentration of 150 micro-mo1/l brings about a practically complete inhibition. However, concentrations of more than 100 ,micro-mo1/l can, over a prolonged period of time, lead to cytotoxic damage. Thus, concentrations of from 10 to 100, preferably of from about 40 to 80 and especially of 50 micro-mo1/l are preferred.

So, the dose described in the patent is chosen to avoid cytotoxic damage. They can’t reach the concentrations needed for complete inhibition of HIV due to this limit.

Apparently, investigative reporter Kelly Stone didn’t read the full patent as she makes the blanket statement:

OK, so sodium chlorite and chlorine dioxide are relatively safe to use intravenously, but what about oral ingestion, is that safe? A very good question; one Drezner might have thought to research.

I guess it depends on your definition of “relatively safe”.

When considering the value of this patent, keep this in mind. There’s an old saying: patents don’t have to be correct, they have to be novel. (think of Andrew Wakefield’s vaccine patent for an example of an idea which wouldn’t work but was patented). When was the last time, or only time, you heard someone talk about treating HIV patients with IV bleach?

If you are like me, the answer is never. The invention appears to have never been used. Well, never used except to defend MMS.

As an aside–another of the arguments has been, “of course Big Pharma would downplay this. They can’t patent it and make money off of it”. Then why did Oxo Chemie of Switzerland patent this?

In her attempt to paint Todd Drezner as a profit-driven Ms. Stone quotes from Mr. Drezner’s documentary:

“Autism is a gift disguised as a dilemma”, a profound take-away from Drezner’s documentary; but rest assured Drezner’s film isn’t a “gift” to the Autism community. No, you’ll have to buy the DVD, or have a paid Netflix account to watch it.

That’s exactly the kind of propaganda the medical-industrial complex can really get behind. Build your world around Autism! Accept it, don’t fix it! To quote the documentary, “You ‘cure’ hams… and ‘treat’ people.” This is the standard medical line. There’s no money in curing, only in perpetual treatment… well, that and selling DVDs.

Actually, you can see the segments she discusses online. And in those segments you can see that the comments are not made by Mr. Drezner. “Autism is a gift disguised as a dilemma” and “You ‘cure’ hams… and ‘treat’ people.” are quotes from Sharisa Kochmeister, autistic adult featured in Loving Lampposts.

It’s rather a stretch for the author to claim that Ms. Kochmeister is somehow involved in profiting from the lack of an autism cure.

This article is already rather long so rather than go on point by point in response to Ms. Stone’s attack, I’ll skip to the end of her piece:

Much unlike Drezner, we will be contacting the parents of the children that have reportedly made significant improvements using MMS, and we are currently collecting case by case clinical data showing MMS does what those singing its praises claim.

The thought crossed my mind; who’s underwriting Drezner, someone with ties to the FDA or Big Pharma? In a huge effort to not allow myself to be given over to absolute speculation like Drezner, I will wait and report my findings when they become factual.

Surprised by this conclusion? Both the “we have anecdotes” claim and the “pharma shill” gambit, with the “I’m more open minded because while I am attacking him, I’ll reserve final judgement until I have evidence” approach.

Would that she applied the same reasoning to MMS. As in waiting for evidence. Not anecdotes, evidence. How about at least something speaking more to biological plausibility. Again, paint me naive. The website she works for has already defended MMS using the anecdote defense.

Ms. Stone writes for the US~Observer. My strong suspicion is that her article will end up there with a complaint that even the Huffington Post wouldn’t take her article. But, we are talking about the Huffington Post. I’ve been caught being naive before.

19 Responses to “From defense of MMS to attacks”

  1. Lawrence June 21, 2012 at 10:35 #

    @Sullivan – I saw that reprinted over at another MMS support site (they seem to be popping up like weeds now) & thought the author was a raving lunatic, now a supposed “journalist.”

    I still can’t believe people are trying to defend this practice. Especially within the autism community – but then again, people still defend the practice of chemical castration and chelation – which are at least as bad as MMS.

    Here was one moment when even the wackos at AoA could have shown they weren’t completely off the deep end, and they missed it.

  2. psychtld June 21, 2012 at 12:23 #

    I’m finding this very interesting that Emily DMFP has specialised in gonadal and penile development, since Stone’s write-up on her hs absolute bollocks for sure, and all that Stone has done in her ‘article’ is to demonstrate to the world what a total knob she is!

  3. psychtld June 21, 2012 at 12:24 #

    is*

    • psychtld June 21, 2012 at 12:25 #

      This is a correction to a comment being held in moderation ….

      • psychtld June 21, 2012 at 12:27 #

        Just noticed…. Stone refers to the Child Health Safety blog run by, I think, John Stone … is she any relation to that imbecile?

  4. Todd Drezner June 21, 2012 at 14:53 #

    Thanks for this rebuttal to Kelly Stone, Sullivan. It’s also worth noting that my entire film is available online for free at http://www.snagfilms.com/films/title/loving_lampposts and

    . Kind of puts the final nail in the coffin of the whole get rich quick scheme that I’m supposedly running.

  5. Landon Bryce June 21, 2012 at 15:23 #

    I understand that having a club to bet AutismOne with feels good. I don’t understand how taking a single presentation there and giving it tons and tons of free publicity does not make it more likely that children will actually be treated with MMS. Google really does not care not what you are saying is “negative.” Your disapproval is a badge of honor for AofA parents– how many of them will seek it out just because people they regard as Enemies have told them not to? Fun for you to get into a flame war? Sure. Dangerous to kids? I think so.

    • Sullivan June 21, 2012 at 15:37 #

      I’ve considered that angle.

      By that logic, displaying outrage over films like “I am Autism” only helped to advertise it and Autism Speaks.

      By that logic, displaying outrage at the damaging words spoken by Jenny McCarthy only helps her brand and sells more of her books.

      MMS is a potentially harmful practice. I can’t stand by and hold my outrage. I’m comfortable with my choice to speak out.

    • Sullivan June 21, 2012 at 16:27 #

      Landon Bryce,

      To further clarify, while I had thoughts that perhaps these groups might back away from supporting this “therapy”, influencing that decision was not my motivation in writing about MMS.

      I don’t write like that.uch less thinking two moves ahead like “if I write about this, it may give more publicity to this and backfire”.

      If I make a mistake speaking my mind, that’s one thing. If I make a mistake by trying to game the system somehow–like remaining quiet–that is something else entirely.

      I can’t stop people being sickened by mms. But I can speak out.

      • Landon Bryce June 21, 2012 at 20:29 #

        The difference, of course, is that “I Am Autism” was publicized by Autism Speaks and continued messages it had an entire TV network at its disposal to spread. Jenny McCarthy is a genius of self-promotion. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of parents who have heard of MMS ONLY because anti-AutismOne bloggers decided it needed to be a huge, huge deal.

        And you don’t care about that AT ALL. Got it.

        Keep flogging your dead horse.

      • Sullivan June 21, 2012 at 20:57 #

        “And you don’t care about that AT ALL. Got it.’

        No, you don’t “Got it”. But thanks for telling me what I supposedly think. When it comes to what I think, I believe information should flow *from* me *to* you. But we’ve been through that before. If that wasn’t clear before or now, I know what goes on in my mind better than you do. The playground taunt “Got It” doesn’t change that.

        Kids are being made sick by this stuff. So, yeah, it is a huge deal. I will speak my mind. You are welcome to stand by while this happens. You are welcome to criticize me for speaking my mind. But you are wrong. Plain and simple.

  6. Roger Kulp June 21, 2012 at 20:13 #

    I would like for everybody to read what Heliantus posted on June 18,at 11:57 pm here http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/06/18/mms-apologists-strike-back/#comments
    ,in response to questions I raised about MMS,fever,and what it does to the intestines,if you have not already.This was what really opened my eyes about just how horrible it is,

    Just curious,how many blog posts have been made at AoA to sell books?Ms.Stagliano’s and others?

    • Thomas June 22, 2012 at 00:55 #

      Remember – Ms. Stagliano was against feeding children bleach two years ago, but that was before there was money in it for the “biomed” community.

  7. Saraquill June 22, 2012 at 00:15 #

    It’s so rich that this alleged journalist calls vaccines “toxins” but considers bleach in the bloodstream to be a good thing.

    • Roger Kulp June 23, 2012 at 00:18 #

      “toxins” that benefit “big pharma”=bad
      “toxins” sold by alt med “practiotioners” as a “cure”=good

  8. Greg Boyle June 22, 2012 at 14:41 #

    Please to everyone out there, do not drink sodium chlorite and especially the conversion to chlorine dioxide for any reason. This should make the MMS question immediately moot. (Using credible water purification tablets for purifying water from specifically bacterial endospores is ok) There is not a credible

    I have ten years of experience in R&D and delivery of chlorine dioxide into the air and surface for disinfection. Yes, it’s a miracle chemical compound but only for specific uses. There are over 120 years of peer publications that overwhelmingly support the power of Clo2 disinfection with very noticeable under-whelmingly kindredness for internal application. A great website to gather published information for any discussion re: chlorine dioxide is http://www.odorscience.net/Technology.html.

    Chlorine Dioxide and Sodium Chlorite are very powerful oxidizers. That’s why they work. There is no educated chemical engineer or chemist that would ever endorse using an oxidizer of this magnitude internally. Yes, it does burn on the way down.

  9. autiemum June 22, 2012 at 20:41 #

    Why extend the support of Autism One to something both so daft and so dangerous? I wonder if there is a need for novelty, the old ideas (chelation, lupron, MB12) have rolled in as big news but somehow the problems are still around. These “cures” are not “curing” so they need the Next Big Thing. Kent Heckenlively had a go with XMRV but parents didn’t really bit. Stem cells don’t seem to appeal. They are trying MMS.

    Also I think that when you are peddling anti-scientific nonsense you can’t admit that the ideas and techniques of science have any merit at all. If you acknowledge that MMS cannot work because it is bleach, you might have to consider the idea that chemical castration might be bad too. That whole way of thinking has to be avoided in case the punters take it too far.

  10. Neuroskeptic June 23, 2012 at 09:07 #

    What a bunch of sillies.

  11. mikema June 23, 2012 at 17:28 #

    autiemum may be close to the truth. All their altie miracles aren’t really panning out. Got to have something new to hope for on a regular basis. Science, real science, takes too long. And laughs at their loopy cure(s) du jour.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 953 other followers

%d bloggers like this: