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
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.