MMS supporters fight back…by the dozens…

12 Jun

Emily Willingham and Jennifer Byde-Myers created a Change.org petition No bleach enemas to “cure” autism in children! Right now there are over 1,700 signatures to that petition. If you haven’t signed yet, consider doing so now.

The “inventor” (Jim Humble) of MMS (Miracle Mineral Solution) started his own petition to defend the practice: Emily Willingham: Stop telling people that MMS is bleach because it is not.

The petition is short…and incorrect:

Stop telling people that MMS is bleach because it is not

Because there are some mothers that don’t realize that Emily is wrong and they may never help their child to attain normalcy.

Which so far has 46 of the hoped-for 1,000,000 signatures he was seeking. Mr. Humble, of course, is one of the 46.

As is “credulous nimrod”

Just because this is exactly the same chemical as bleach doesn’t mean Emily should call it bleach! This is because of reasons. And quantum mechanics. And I trust that Jim Humble would never lie to desperate parents just because he’s selling this product for a profit! Enough of the medical establishment and their “science” and their “first, do no harm.” We want pointless feel-good actions that take advantage of our sadness and our scientific illiteracy!

and “Igor K”

Stop the fearmongering. Just because sodium chlorite bleaches through oxidation and is grouped with other chlorine bleaches that operate in a similar fashion (i.e. chlorine dioxide, chlorine, and calcium hypochlorite does not make it a bleach. That tits industrial manufacturer’s label it as such also means nothing. I regularly drink inappropriately named acidic drain cleaners to relieve constipation. That the public health agencies all over the world recognize MMS’ risks as poisoning, renal failure, reduction of the ability of the blood to carry oxygen, abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea doesn’t mean they know what they are talking about. To prove it, I volunteer myself along with everyone to sign this petition for a public demonstration where each person will consume a gallon of undiluted sodium chlorite without any deleterious health effects. Then, they will have to accept it as evidence of our correctness.

And this even with people promoting the petition. It seems safe to say that MMS does not have a broad base of support.

I can not recall anything which has been touted as a method to “recover” children from autism has ever been publicly rejected by groups promoting so-called “biomedical” approaches. But here’s a chance to step up to the plate.

238 Responses to “MMS supporters fight back…by the dozens…”

  1. Science Mom June 13, 2012 at 01:29 #

    Sullivan, AoA will drop this down the memory hole, at best, and simply not discuss MMS openly and/or have Kerri Rivera as a keynote speaker. They will never ever disparage autism quackery no matter how vile and repugnant it is because anything goes to “recover” their children. 😎

  2. passionlessdrone June 13, 2012 at 02:07 #

    Hehe. I don’t know who did that, but it was fair game and well executed.

    +1 sarcasm karma awarded!

  3. MJ June 13, 2012 at 02:11 #

    Not that I think that using this product is at all a good idea.. But, I have to ask, what does the word “bleach” mean to you?

  4. Science Mom June 13, 2012 at 04:44 #

    MJ, please tell me you aren’t going to try and argue that MMS isn’t bleach. It is in the same classification of compounds as household bleach. MMS (sodium chlorite) is an even more powerful oxidising agent than sodium hypochlorite (household bleach). It kills cells, causes diarrhoea, vomiting, kidney failure and diarrhoea at the quantities recommended by Humble and Rivera.

    • Chris June 13, 2012 at 05:48 #

      [sarcasm] Aw, but Autumn Manzo just told with this[/sarcasm]:

      The most common ‘bleaches’ are: sodium hypochlorite, NaOCl, and calcium hypochlorite, Ca(OCl)₂. The agent we are discussing here is chlorine dioxide. MMS + citric acid = chlorine dioxide and table salt. OR: 2 NaClO2 + Cl2 → 2 ClO2 + 2 NaCl. The positive charged oxygen of ClO2 bonds to negatively charged pathogens, toxins, metals – NOT positively charged healthy tissue. The molecule is then neutralized and discarded through the body’s natural detox system. NaCl, table salt, is a safe by-product. I took Chemistry I and II, this makes sense to me!!!!!

      Doesn’t that tell you everything? Oh, wait… it does go into la-la land when Chlorine dioxide is mentioned. Never mind.

      Seriously I don’t think that citric acid is equated with just twelve carbon atoms, there have to be some hydrogen and oxygen involved! That is some seriously screwed up chemistry.

      Does it help that I took Chemistry I, II and III?

    • MJ June 13, 2012 at 13:00 #

      I would argue that is isn’t what it isn’t what is commonly referred to as “bleach” – sodium hypochlorite – but is certainly a bleaching agent. But then again, so are the types of chlorine that are routinely used to sanitize swimming pools and hot tubs and many of the chemicals that are used to sanitize municipal water.

      I just find it funny that that people who stood on the distinction between ethly and methyl mecury and how they act differently all of those years fail to acknowledge that sodium hypochlorite and sodium chlorite aren’t both just “bleach” and that they work differently.

      If you take the “its all bleach” argument to its logical conclusion then you would have to keep your kids from drinking municipal water, keep them out of swimming pools, never use hydrogen peroxide to sterilize a wound, and many other things that you do on a daily basis that involve “bleach”.

      i can’t wait until the dose makes the poison part of the argument starts.

      But, just so I don’t have to hear how I think MMS is a good idea, let me be clear. Even if it isn’t the same chemical that is found in bottles of bleach, it is still isn’t something that is appropriate to be giving to a child.

      • Lawrence June 13, 2012 at 13:38 #

        @Mj – do you believe hydrogen-peroxide enemas would be a good idea? And yes, the dose does make the poison – it isn’t even an argument, but a fact. The amounts found in drinking water, for example, are so small, that it doesn’t pose any issue here at all.

        What we are appalled by, is parents taking what can also be used as an industrial bleaching agent and forcing developmentally disable children to ingest it daily, bath in it, and have enemas forced upon them for no scientifically-valid reason.

        Chemo isn’t pleasant, but we know why it works and what it does as a curative agent.

        MMS, on the other hand, is being peddled as a cure-all with no evidence that it promotes even one positive attribute.

      • MJ June 13, 2012 at 13:48 #

        Lawrence,

        Did you miss the two points where I said, quite explicitly, that mms wasn’t a good idea?

      • Lawrence June 13, 2012 at 14:06 #

        @MJ – yes, I saw that. But you also sounded very much like some kind of apologist – since there is a significant difference between the ethyl & methyl situation & this crap with what is an industrial bleaching agent.

      • Sullivan June 13, 2012 at 14:25 #

        Lawrence,

        The discussion here is starting to parallel an older discussion:

        https://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2010/01/14/toxicmetals/

        MJ doesn’t appear to accept that I can find it outrageous that the alt-med community wouldn’t inform it’s readers that a certain brand of supplements had heavy metal contamination issues. Instead, he informed me that I found it “amusing”. He would not accept that perhaps I was a better judge of my own thought processes.

        And now we start again. Again I think the alt-med community should step up to the plate. But MJ appears to take issue with the accurate and appropriate use of the term “bleach” and the accurate use of the concept of “dose makes the poison”. Which is already embedded in the discussions of MMS. Beyond being implicit in the arguments made, I know I have in online discussions already specifically even used the phrase “dose makes the poison” and discussed its application to MMS.

      • MJ June 13, 2012 at 16:29 #

        Sullivan,

        Nice to see you still prefer ad-hominem style arguments and making straw rather than addressing the actual points raised.

        But since you brought up that old discussion, I have to wonder why you never wrote about the steps that Kirkman has put into place since that incident to prevent contamination like that from happening again. If you were truly “concerned” about the issue, I would think that you would want to note that the problem has been addressed and that Kirkman now does far more testing for contamination than most other supplement makers.

        Anyway, I digress. You still didn’t answer the question.

        You said “The petition is short…and incorrect” presumably in response to this sentence “Stop telling people that MMS is bleach because it is not”, correct me if I am wrong.

        And that statement, specifically “Stop telling people that MMS is bleach because it is not” is factually correct. MMS is not what is commonly referred to as “bleach”. To most people, “bleach” is sodium hypochlorite not sodium chlorite.

      • Sullivan June 13, 2012 at 16:31 #

        MJ,

        You appear to misunderstand the tee ad hominem. I base this on your comment where you misuse the term.

        The misplaced “nice ad hominem” response comes up frequently, not just from you.

      • Sullivan June 13, 2012 at 17:59 #

        The petition is incorrect. MMS *is* bleach. The product of MMS and civic acid is another bleach. It is not “household bleach”. It’s a weak stance on its own but given the MMM proponents’ stance that they are science based, that sort of argument fails completely.

        As to kirkman, why should I have written them? Wasn’t their press release enough information?

        My recollection of their press release is that the phrased it to make them seem to be taking a leadership role with no mention of the previous contamination issues. I also checked their website and couldn’t find mention of the previous problems. Could have missed that. But I was left unenthused about writing about what a “good” job they are doing. I’m glad they are testing. But they should have been testing before, or sourced material from someone who did.

      • MJ June 13, 2012 at 17:06 #

        Sullivan,

        What is a “tee ad hominem”? But seriously, how exactly am I misusing the term?

      • MJ June 13, 2012 at 21:02 #

        “The petition is incorrect. MMS *is* bleach. The product of MMS and civic acid is another bleach”

        That is why I asked what the word “bleach” means to you. When most people see the word “bleach” used as a proper noun, they are going to assume the household variety that you add to the wash.

        They are not going to assume that you mean another substance that creates a different type of bleach when mixed with another substance.

        You might be using the word “bleach” to refer to “a number of chemicals that remove color, whiten, or disinfect, often via oxidation.” (wikipedia)

        But even under that definition you might still be misusing the word. Can sodium chlorite bleach something without being first converted to chlorine dioxide or another bleach? It is my understanding, and maybe I am wrong, that sodium chlorite itself is not a bleach but rather it is the chlorine dioxide that is generated by a chemical reaction that is a bleach.

        Regardless, think of it this way, would you say that “orange juice is acid” or would you say that “orange juice is acidic” or “orange juice contains citric acid”?

        If you were trying to get people to rally against orange juice you would use the first, incorrect phrasing and enjoy the confusion as people thought that orange juice is in fact “acid”. But you would use either the second or third meaning if you were trying to accurately describe orange juice.

        The FDA has a good way of phrasing the reaction so as to avoid confusion –

        “The product, when used as directed, produces an industrial bleach that can cause serious harm to health. The product instructs consumers to mix the 28 percent sodium chlorite solution with an acid such as citrus juice. This mixture produces chlorine dioxide, a potent bleach used for stripping textiles and industrial water treatment. “

      • Sullivan June 13, 2012 at 22:11 #

        MJ,

        I don’t see the value or point in debating facts. MMS is bleach. The end product is bleach.

        The fact that this comes as a surprise to you says that the misdirection that the MMS people are creating works.

        You question whether I should call a bleach a bleach, implying I am inappropriately installing fear. But you don’t seem to have a problem with the MMS people lying about it being a bleach.

        You seem to be on the fence, leaning towards the MMS people.

      • MJ June 13, 2012 at 23:08 #

        “I don’t see the value or point in debating facts. MMS is bleach. The end product is bleach.”

        Good, lets talk facts. Facts are empirical things that should be able to be proven or demonstrated. The facts so far that are undisputed that I can see (correct me if you don’t agree) –

        1. MMS is not the same as what is typically referred to as “bleach”. To be clear, by “bleach” I mean products like regular clorox bleach that are a diluted mixture of sodium hypochlorite.

        2. The main ingredient in MMS is sodium chlorite – not sodium hypochlorite.

        3. Sodium chlorite will generate chlorine dioxide when mixed with the appropriate substance.

        4. Chlorine dioxide is a bleach but it has some different properties than the chlorine that is produced from sodium hypochlorite.

        I can produce references from reputable source that demonstrate the above facts if you need them or disagree.

        Now here is the fact in question. Assuming that we are talking about “bleaches” – meaning a “chemical that remove color, whiten, or disinfect, often via oxidation” – does sodium chlorite itself qualify as a bleach OR does it only become a bleach after it is mixed with some other substance?

        If you can prove that last “fact” by producing a link to a reputable source and are willing to concede that MMS is not the same as standard household bleach (fact 1 above) then I will concede the point and go away and stop bothering you.

      • Sullivan June 14, 2012 at 00:05 #

        And now we get into a classic MJ discussion. You keep re-asserting things that are demonstrably false. Further, you appear to have the need to get the last word in. This makes for an endless and dull discussion.

        1) “MMS is not the same as what is typically referred to as “bleach”. ”

        Fact–MMS is bleach. I don’t really care what you think of as “typically referred to as bleach”. It’s bleach. Again, why are we debating a fact?

        “2. The main ingredient in MMS is sodium chlorite – not sodium hypochlorite.”

        So? Sodium Chlorite is a bleach.

        “3. Sodium chlorite will generate chlorine dioxide when mixed with the appropriate substance.”

        And….as you note in your next point, chlorine dioxide is a bleach.

        “4. Chlorine dioxide is a bleach but it has some different properties than the chlorine that is produced from sodium hypochlorite.”

        again for emphasis: Chlorine dioxide is a bleach. But, by the definition you are promoting, we can’t call it a bleach because it isn’t “commonly referred to as a bleach”.

        “I can produce references from reputable source that demonstrate the above facts if you need them or disagree.”

        Why. They are not in contention.

        “Now here is the fact in question. Assuming that we are talking about “bleaches” – meaning a “chemical that remove color, whiten, or disinfect, often via oxidation” – does sodium chlorite itself qualify as a bleach OR does it only become a bleach after it is mixed with some other substance?”

        No, this is not in contention. Sodium Chlorite is a bleach.

        From the FDA warning

        FDA Warns Consumers of Serious Harm from Drinking Miracle Mineral Solution (MMS)
        Product contains industrial strength bleach

        The warning doesn’t just say that as used it creates a bleach. It says it contains “an industrial strength bleach”.

        Sodium chlorite is used commercially to bleach fabrics and paper and to purify and disinfect municipal water.

        Its use as a bleach for textiles was first discovered during the 1920s.

        MSDS for sodium chlorite solution: PRODUCT USE: CHLORINE BLEACHING AGENT

        Here’s a question for you: sodium chlorite makes ClO2 in the presence of an acid. What is the pH in the human stomache?
        “If you can prove that last “fact” by producing a link to a reputable source and are willing to concede that MMS is not the same as standard household bleach (fact 1 above) then I will concede the point and go away and stop bothering you.”

        I don’t care if you concede the point or not. Well, I’d prefer you understood what you were talking about, but this is not some silly internet debate.

        Here’s a point for you. Ask 100 people on the street what the active ingredient is in household bleach. Other than “chlorine”, I doubt you will get a real answer. Alternatively, ask those 100 people, “Is household bleach sodium hypochlorite or sodium chlorite?” The point being (since you tend to miss those) that you can’t use the “this is what is commonly considered bleach” argument given that what is “commonly considered bleach” is something in a bottle from the store, with little or no knowledge (or need for knowledge) of what the actual chemical is.

        This isn’t about what *you* mean by “bleach”. It’s about what the facts are.

        Again, nice fence sitting. While debating whether it is OK to call a bleach a bleach, you sit back and consider giving a substance which sickens people “inappropriate”. The entire “therapy” is built on upping the dose until the person is sickened to the point of nausea and diahrrea, based on the incorrect assumption about what causes autism and what this “miracle” will do in the body…and the most you can muster is “inappropriate”.

        When the time came to stand up, you sat on the fence.

      • MJ June 14, 2012 at 00:59 #

        Sullivan,

        If you address actual points instead going for the typical ad-hominen style arguments (still waiting to hear how I am misusing the term), then we wouldn’t have these sorts of discussions.

        1. Sorry, no sodium hypochlorite is not the same as sodium chlorite. If you walked up to ten random people (non-chemists) on the street and asked them what “bleach” was, I would be willing to bet that they would point to regular household bleach. Even Wikipedia says it –

        ‘Chlorine is the basis for the most commonly used bleaches, for example, the solution of sodium hypochlorite, which is so ubiquitous that many people just call it “bleach”, and calcium hypochlorite (bleaching powder).’

        Even you seem to admit it later in your comment.

        2, 3, & 4. I take it you agree on these facts. But I note that you switched from it is “bleach” to “chlorine dioxide is a bleach”. The “a” switches the meaning from a proper noun (it is bleach, ie point 1) to a more generic usage.

        “Why. They are not in contention.”

        Sure they are, you disagreed on point 1.

        “From the FDA warning”

        Keep reading past the headline to the actual text of the warning –

        “The product instructs consumers to mix the 28 percent sodium chlorite solution with an acid such as citrus juice. This mixture produces chlorine dioxide, a potent bleach used for stripping textiles and industrial water treatment. High oral doses of this bleach, such as those recommended in the labeling, can cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and symptoms of severe dehydration. ”

        I think that is pretty clear, don’t you?

        “The warning doesn’t just say that as used it creates a bleach”

        Actually, the full text says exactly that. And I don’t know about you but I don’t judge an FDA warning by its title, do you?

        “Sodium chlorite is used commercially to bleach fabrics and paper and to purify and disinfect municipal water.

        Its use as a bleach for textiles was first discovered during the 1920s.”

        Sodium chlorite is used to generate chlorine dioxide which is what bleaches fabrics and paper and is what purifies and disinfects municipal water.

        Via wikipedia – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_chlorite

        The main application of sodium chlorite is the generation of chlorine dioxide for bleaching and stripping of textiles, pulp, and paper. It is also used for disinfection of a few municipal water treatment plants after conversion to chlorine dioxide.[1]:2 An advantage in this application, as compared to the more commonly used chlorine, is that trihalomethanes (such as chloroform) are not produced from organic contaminants.[1]:25,33 Chlorine dioxide generated from sodium chlorite is approved by FDA under some conditions for disinfecting water used to wash fruits, vegetables, and poultry.[2]

        Some random blog – http://dyeingworld1.blogspot.com/2009/12/bleaching-with-sodium-chlorite.html

        “Sodium Chlorite is an oxidant particularly adapt for synthetic fibre bleaching (polyamidic, acrylic, polyester) and cellulosic (man-made and natural, particularly for linen). Its oxidant action works thanks to Chlorine Dioxide which develops through an acidification process: therefore it is highly recommended to work with closed equipment and to furnish the bleaching departments with aspiration systems.”

        From the random web site you cited – http://sodium-chlorite.com/sodium-chlorite-application

        “The main application of sodium chlorite is the generation of chlorine dioxide for bleaching and stripping of textiles, pulp, and paper. It is also used for disinfection in a few municipal water treatment plants after conversion to chlorine dioxide”

        And the EPA –

        http://www.epa.gov/ogwdw/mdbp/pdf/alter/chapt_4.pdf

        Or, in simple terms, the point is that chlorine dioxide is a bleach and not necessarily sodium chlorite. But again, show me that I am wrong.

        “The point being (since you tend to miss those) that you can’t use the “this is what is commonly considered bleach” argument given that what is “commonly considered bleach” is something in a bottle from the store, with little or no knowledge (or need for knowledge) of what the actual chemical is.”

        That is exactly my point – you say “bleach” and most people assume you mean the bottle from the store and MMS is not the same thing as you buy from the store.

        “Again, nice fence sitting. While debating whether it is OK to call a bleach a bleach, you sit back and consider giving a substance which sickens people “inappropriate””

        I think I also called it stupid, does that help? Seriously, does using stronger language make the point more? Does exagerating the facts and saying that MMS is bleech and making people think that it is the same stuff as is sold on store shelves really a good thing? Especially since that is misleading at best or factually incorrect at worst.

      • Sullivan June 14, 2012 at 02:19 #

        “Sorry, no sodium hypochlorite is not the same as sodium chlorite. If you walked up to ten random people (non-chemists) on the street and asked them what “bleach” was, I would be willing to bet that they would point to regular household bleach. ”

        Did you really misunderstand such a simple scenario? Really? It is really hard to imagine someone not purposely making this mistake.

        Ask people what chemical is bleach. The point, which you obviously either missed or ate pretending to miss: the public doesn’t know what the active chemical in bleach is.

        Method (a) give thence the choice as I presented above. Use words. No pointing involved.

        Method (b) no choice. Ask people “what’s the chemical in bleach?”. I would be astounded if the majority or even a sizable minority chose the chemical you assert us “assumed” to be bleach.

        Again. No pointing. How can I be more clear?! That’s a rhetorical question, by the way. The answer is it is clear enough.

        MJ, once again you are back to your bad habits. I don’t care if you don’t understand or you are only pretending. He fax is that a conversation with you is pointless.

        Go ahead. Define bleach in your own special way. Just don’t ask the rest of the world to agree with you.

        That’s ok. The world needs to make room for rigid thinkers.

        What I do care about is the fact that when people are being made to suffer, you can’t take a stand.

  5. K_Dad June 13, 2012 at 05:29 #

    The fact that AoA, the Canary Party, and similar groups aren’t denouncing the “bleach cure” is a sure sign of how unbelievably stupid they are. Condemning MMS would be a total public relations win for these groups. They could get years out of patting themselves on the back for such a stance. (“Hey! Our detractors say we endorse anything as long as it’s alternative. Well, we don’t! Remember how we came out against MMS?”)

    Publicly rejecting MMS would be a “Sister Souljah moment” for the antivaxers. Will they let it pass them by? (Answer: Of course they will.)

    • Sullivan June 14, 2012 at 05:37 #

      K_Dad,

      Sorry, your comment got stuck in spam and delayed.

  6. Catherina June 13, 2012 at 08:16 #

    actually, Humble is TWO of the signatories (at least he was when I last checked at 7 signatures)

  7. Science Mom June 13, 2012 at 15:43 #

    I would argue that is isn’t what it isn’t what is commonly referred to as “bleach” – sodium hypochlorite – but is certainly a bleaching agent.

    One of these things is not like the other; perhaps you should try for some consistency. Say what you really mean which is probably, “I don’t like the image that bleach invokes.”

    I just find it funny that that people who stood on the distinction between ethly and methyl mecury and how they act differently all of those years fail to acknowledge that sodium hypochlorite and sodium chlorite aren’t both just “bleach” and that they work differently.

    Of course you would find it funny especially when you’ve constructed such a massive strawman and sympathise with the mercury militia. Ethyl and Methyl are mercury compounds and Ethyl will cause adverse reactions and even death with sufficient quantities to do so, just like Methyl. Where you and others go off the rails is understanding the minute quantities of Ethyl mercury don’t cause adverse reactions, barring allergy of course. MMS and Clorox are bleaches and oxidising agents in fact, the former is even more potent as an oxidiser. But we shouldn’t call it bleach because it hurts your friends’ fee fees? Why don’t you tell me how MMS differs as an oxidiser or is safer than say Clorox when shoved into autistic children?

    If you take the “its all bleach” argument to its logical conclusion then you would have to keep your kids from drinking municipal water, keep them out of swimming pools, never use hydrogen peroxide to sterilize a wound, and many other things that you do on a daily basis that involve “bleach”.

    That is hardly a logical conclusion when you don’t even have facts right. Bleaching potable water is done as far less concentrations than an MMS cocktail or enema and the former volatilises. It also isn’t recommended to use H2O2 for wounds unless a last resort due to the destruction of tissue. There is also a movement to reduce bleach in pools and replace with saline systems.

    i can’t wait until the dose makes the poison part of the argument starts.

    It’s relevant so why shouldn’t it be mentioned? MMS is recommended in doses that are harmful and cause adverse effects, even the mere act of forcing something down a child’s throat or up his rectum is horrible on it’s face.

    But, just so I don’t have to hear how I think MMS is a good idea, let me be clear. Even if it isn’t the same chemical that is found in bottles of bleach, it is still isn’t something that is appropriate to be giving to a child.

    Then why are you being such an apologist and engaging in pedantry? If you recognise that it’s still a bleach and shouldn’t be given to children then what is your point really? It’s very telling that you would try and whitewash this. Defend your little ‘community’ at all costs right?

    • MJ June 13, 2012 at 17:02 #

      Science Mom,

      You see to be missing the point a little bit. My point is that mms isn’t the same as what is commonly referred to as bleach and that calling it bleach is misleading.

      I am not an expert in chemistry but I do know enough to know that different versions of the same chemical react differently and saying that one is automatically like the other is misleading.

      For example, do you think that lithium hypochlorite and sodium hypochlorite both act the same way when mixed with water and have the same potency? (Hint the answer is no to the second part).

      So why assume that sodium hypochlorite which leads to chlorine has the exact same properties as sodium chlorite which generates (I believe) chlorine dioxide. Do both oxidize the same way? (Hint, again the answer is no). And saying one is more “potent” than the other is not a description of how it differs chemically.

      And speaking of getting facts right, you need to look at your understanding of water sanitation. For example, this statement –

      “There is also a movement to reduce bleach in pools and replace with saline systems.”

      Shows that you don’t understand the process. Saline systems generate the exact same type chlorine that you normally add in chemical form.

      The point of these systems is that you don’t have to manually add chemicals and that you can keep the concentration of chlorine (i.e. bleach) lower than you would otherwise because the chlorine is constantly being generated at a lower level.

      “Then why are you being such an apologist and engaging in pedantry? If you recognise that it’s still a bleach and shouldn’t be given to children then what is your point really? It’s very telling that you would try and whitewash this. Defend your little ‘community’ at all costs right?”

      Defend my little “community” and protect my friends’ fees?

      Really? He disagrees with us so he must be one of those people. How exactly are you different than the people who think that vaccines are the root cause of all autism and anyone who disagrees must be in the pocket of big pharma?

      I thought I was pretty clear in my motivations above but let me try this again. I care about accuracy and correct information and saying that mms is bleach is not accurate or correct. But it does make for a good headline and sounds terrible.

      If you are going to blast someone for doing something stupid then at least get the facts of their stupidity right.

      • Julian Frost June 13, 2012 at 22:55 #

        @MJ:

        My point is that mms isn’t the same as what is commonly referred to as bleach and that calling it bleach is misleading.

        Soap can refer to sodium stearate or to any salt where the acid is a fatty acid. Sodium chlorite bleaches, so it is a bleach, even though it’s not sodium hypochlorite.

        So why assume that sodium hypochlorite which leads to chlorine has the exact same properties as sodium chlorite which generates (I believe) chlorine dioxide

        Straw Man. The fact that the two substances have different qualities does not mean one of them is a bleach and the other isn’t.

        [S]aying that mms is bleach is not accurate or correct. But it does make for a good headline and sounds terrible.

        It is correct to call it a bleach, because it is a bleach. Mangling the semantics of words does not change the fact that sodium chlorite is a bleach.

  8. Science Mom June 14, 2012 at 00:20 #

    You see to be missing the point a little bit. My point is that mms isn’t the same as what is commonly referred to as bleach and that calling it bleach is misleading.

    No no one is missing your point; you’re just trying to pick at nits. Do you have a problem with the FDA referring to MMS as a
    “potent, industrial bleach”
    ? Do you also take issue with the ADA, scholarly articles and dentists referring to
    dental bleaching
    ? That’s done with hydrogen peroxide or carbamide peroxide after all, NOT TEH CLOROX.

    I am not an expert in chemistry but I do know enough to know that different versions of the same chemical react differently and saying that one is automatically like the other is misleading.

    Strawman, no one said they are automatically alike, bleaching agents are a classification. So what would you deem as accurate since you don’t like what is the accepted nomenclature of ‘bleach’, you know by
    actual chemists and public health officials.

    pedantry…
    pedantry…
    pedantry…

    Shows that you don’t understand the process. Saline systems generate the exact same type chlorine that you normally add in chemical form.

    That is my mistake and shame on me; I meant to say PHMB.

    Really? He disagrees with us so he must be one of those people. How exactly are you different than the people who think that vaccines are the root cause of all autism and anyone who disagrees must be in the pocket of big pharma?

    I thought I was pretty clear in my motivations above but let me try this again. I care about accuracy and correct information and saying that mms is bleach is not accurate or correct. But it does make for a good headline and sounds terrible.

    It’s not your disagreement, it’s the fact that you veil your semantics wank in how much you disapprove of the use of MMS when you have offered absolutely no reason or evidence as to why we shouldn’t be calling it what it is…bleach. And considering the most vehement MMS defenders are screeching, “It’s not bleach!!”, you’re in rather daft company.

    • MJ June 14, 2012 at 01:17 #

      Science Mom,

      “No no one is missing your point; you’re just trying to pick at nits. Do you have a problem with the FDA referring to MMS as a “potent, industrial bleach””

      Where did they do that exactly? They said it ” produces chlorine dioxide, a potent bleach” which isn’t really the same thing.

      “Do you also take issue with the ADA, scholarly articles and dentists referring to dental bleaching? That’s done with hydrogen peroxide or carbamide peroxide after all, NOT TEH CLOROX.”

      Notice the use of the word “bleaching”? That is different that it is “bleach”. It you said “MMS produces a bleach” or “MMS produces a bleaching agent” that would be more accurate.

      “So what would you deem as accurate since you don’t like what is the accepted nomenclature of ‘bleach’, you know by actual chemists and public health officials.”

      No where on that page does it call it “bleach”. It says it is used as a “bleaching agent and disinfectant”.

      ” pedantry… pedantry… pedantry”

      And why exactly isn’t the entire ethyl / methyl distinction pedantry as well?

      “That is my mistake and shame on me; I meant to say PHMB.”

      Really, you confused a saline generator, which the market is heavily moving towards (which was your entire point), with PHMB which is primarily used in limited amounts in hot tubs and (from the little I know) in extremely limited situations in swimming pools? Ok, if you say so then I guess I can give you the benefit of the doubt.

      “And considering the most vehement MMS defenders are screeching, “It’s not bleach!!”, you’re in rather daft company.”

      Ah, so an idea can’t be correct if someone you consider daft says it?

      • Sullivan June 14, 2012 at 03:14 #

        “Where did they do that exactly”

        The title of the FDA warning.

        FDA Warns Consumers of Serious Harm from Drinking Miracle Mineral Solution (MMS)
        Product contains industrial strength bleach

        Yes, I know you dodged that already. I found your dodge unsatisfying.

        Here’s another citation for you

        The Theory and Practice of Sodium Chlorite Bleaching

        The decomposition of sodium chlorite during the bleaching of flax has been studied at different pH values and various temperatures. Bleaching with sodium chlorite should be accompanied by maximum formation of sodium chloride and minimum formation of sodium chlorate and chlorine dioxide. The oxidising power of the bleaching agent is discussed. Whilst there is a good margin of safety with sodium chlorite under normal bleaching conditions, extreme conditions must be avoided, in order to prevent chemical damage. The effect of sodium chlorite on the impurities present in cotton and flax is discussed. The use of hot, weakly acid oxidising solutions permits shortened bleaching processes.

        The main problems in practical sodium chlorite bleaching are (1) choice of a suitable method of activation of the bleaching agent, (2) selection of corrosion-resistant materials for construction of bleaching plant, and (3) design of the equipment to be used

        But it isn’t in a bottle marked “Clorox”, so it isn’t a bleach, right? Or is it that somehow something that does “bleaching” isn’t a bleach?

        While you are focused on redefining terms you don’t understand, everyone else is focused on phrases like “serious harm” or the fact that corrosion resistant materials are needed to use this chemical. Pretty sad, really. I don’t know your experience, but I haven’t heard of autistic children as being referred to as “corrosion resistant”.

  9. Sullivan June 14, 2012 at 04:08 #

    Consider Clorox bleach. It is 5-10% sodium hypochlorite.   (plus other ingredients, but this is the bleaching agent)
    http://www.thecloroxcompany.com/downloads/msds/bleach/cloroxregularbleach0809_.pdf

    At 12% solution, the LD50 (amount required to kill 50% of a population) is 5800 mg/kg (oral, mouse)
    http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9925001

    Consider sodium chlorite. A substance used to bleach textiles but MJ tells us it is not a bleach.  We are using the term to frighten people, he asserts, since real bleach is so scary. 

    LD50 of sodium chlorite at 31% solution? 284 mg/kg (oral, rats)
    http://www.arkema-inc.com/plants/canada/msds/AP10079.pdf

    So, is MJ correct? That using the term bleach is incorrect because it gives the casual reader the wrong impression?

    Yes and no. Yes, one is more toxic than the other. But MMS is about 100 times more toxic than household bleach (ignoring the non bleach additives)

    Should we be titling our articles, “using a substance 100x more toxic than bleach as a therapy for autism”?

    • Sullivan June 14, 2012 at 05:09 #

      Sorry, got the math wrong. You need 20x more “bleach” to kill an animal than MMS, not 100x.

      Still, calling it “bleach” was downplaying MMS.

  10. Science Mom June 14, 2012 at 04:44 #

    Where did they do that exactly? They said it ” produces chlorine dioxide, a potent bleach” which isn’t really the same thing.

    You have got to be joking. From the FDA warning: “The product, when used as directed, produces an industrial bleach that can cause serious harm to health.” and “This mixture produces chlorine dioxide, a potent bleach used for stripping textiles and industrial water treatment.” and from Health Canada: “Health Canada advises that sodium chlorite is a chemical used mainly as a textile bleaching agent and disinfectant.”

    Notice the use of the word “bleaching”? That is different that it is “bleach”. It you said “MMS produces a bleach” or “MMS produces a bleaching agent” that would be more accurate.

    What are you on about? You tout yourself as Mr. Reasonable and this is what you have chosen to carp about? A noun vs. a verb and an adjective? For your information, every single piece I have read critical of MMS has qualified it as sodium chlorite and when mixed with citric acid (as directed) forms chlorine dioxide or chlorine dioxide when used as directed, a bleach. Do you really wish to argue that there is some vast difference between saying, “stop putting a bleach up your kid’s bum” as opposed to “don’t put bleach up your kid’s bum”? Really?

    And why exactly isn’t the entire ethyl / methyl distinction pedantry as well?

    It’s really sad you need to ask this. Dose, route of administration, safety and toxicity thresholds, kinetics and cumulative body burdens. And the fact that you are arguing about grammar as opposed to scientific nomenclature is pretty damn pedantic.

    Really, you confused a saline generator, which the market is heavily moving towards (which was your entire point), with PHMB which is primarily used in limited amounts in hot tubs and (from the little I know) in extremely limited situations in swimming pools? Ok, if you say so then I guess I can give you the benefit of the doubt.

    Yup, just a garden-variety brainfart. I know the difference hence the “shame on me”. PHMB is more expensive but non-toxic and non-corrosive; sales are expanding.

    Ah, so an idea can’t be correct if someone you consider daft says it?

    You said you are opposed to MMS to treat autism. You should be opposed to it’s very existence how Humble and Rivera are selling it. But you don’t think they’re daft why? Besides they’re not even arguing grammar; they’re claiming there is nothing “bleachy” about it at all. Try as you might, you are not on the side of angels for this one. Children are being hurt, more parents are getting sucked in to more vile and dangerous “treatments” and you’re being a pissant about a part of speech.

    • Sullivan June 14, 2012 at 07:18 #

      Science Mom,

      One of MJ’s current theses seems to be “it’s not a bleach. A disassociation product (ClO2) is the bleach”

      Interesting argument as household bleach (the “real” bleach in this thesis) also acts through the disassociation products.

      How does bleach work?

      Sodium hypochlorite is very reactive, and actually unstable. Left exposed to the atmosphere, chlorine gas evaporates from the solution at a considerable rate, and if it is heated the sodium hypochlorite falls apart into salt and oxygen. This also happens when it comes into contact with acids, sunlight, certain metals, and many gases, and is one of the reasons why bleach can be used on a large scale – after use it decomposes to benign products (salt and water) which can be flushed into the drainage system without problem.

      Bleach works by several methods. The hypochlorous acid (HOCl) component is a very strong oxidising agent (even stronger than Cl2 gas), and can react with and destroy many types of molecules, including dyes. Also, the hypochlorite ion decomposes into chloride and a highly reactive form of oxygen:

      2ClO- 2Cl- + O2

      The HOCl (and to lesser extents the Cl2 and active oxygen) can then attack the chemical bonds in a coloured compound, either completely destroying the chromophore (the part of the molecule that gives it its colour), or converting the double-bonds in the chromophore into single bonds, thereby preventing the molecule from absorbing visible light.

      When it reacts with microbes, sodium hypochlorite attacks proteins in the cells causing the proteins to aggregate and the microbes to clump together and die. It can also cause cell membranes to burst. This broad-spectrum attack makes bleach effective against a wide-range of bacteria.

      Sodium hypochlorite is alkaline, and household bleach also contains NaOH to make the solution even more alkaline. Two substances are formed when sodium hypochlorite dissolves in water. These are hypochlorous acid (HOCl) and the hypochlorite ion (OCl-)….

      So, sodium hypochlorite is not “bleach” by MJ’s unique definition. Hypochlorous acid is.

      And yet one of his arguments is basically that sodium hypochlorite is bleach. Dven though that molecule doesnt do the bleaching. Sodium Chlorite is not a bleach, in his view, because it is a daughter molecule which does the actual bleaching (except that the paper cited above says to limit the production of ClO2).

      So we are left with an inconsistent story. And a parent solution for MMS which is more toxic than “bleach”.

      The argument is not going the way MJ hoped.

      • MJ June 14, 2012 at 12:54 #

        Sigh, lets try this one last time and then I give up. Take the sentence –

        mms is bleach

        In that sentence, the word “bleach” is clearly a noun and can have one of two possible meanings.

        1. The stuff that you buy to put in your laundry.
        2. A number of chemicals that remove color, whiten, or disinfect, often via oxidation.

        My point is that most people will assume that the sentence means item 1 because the word bleach – especially when used as a proper noun – is going to be interpreted by most people as the thing you buy in the store.

        And that meaning is false. mms is not the same as the stuff on store shelves.

        The meaning that you are going for is number 2 and even that is slightly off and for the same reason as why the substance in number 1 isn’t necessarily a bleach until it is activated (yes, Sullivan I actually knew that already, I was trying to not get over technical).

        Also lost in the sentence are all of the everyday things that the chloride dioxide are used for. Things such as water treatment, bleaching flour to create white flour, and as mouthwash (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11199703) in addition to its industrial duties.

        It still is an inappropriate treatment for children with autism not because *gasp* its bleach but because there is no evidence that it does anything useful.

        The non-FUD way of addressing the mms issue is to say that it is a non-evidence based treatment with some rather serious side effects. The FUD approach is to say “its bleach”.

      • Sullivan June 14, 2012 at 13:44 #

        “Sigh, lets try this one last time and then I give up. Take the sentence -”
        We get it. We got it a long time ago.

        It isn’t correct.

      • Sullivan June 14, 2012 at 14:02 #

        They claim that if you don’t use their therapy, your chances of “recovering” your child go way down. They play on the fear of parents. “I’m scared if I don’t do this I’ll lose an opportunity to help my child”

        Fear.

        They claim that their therapy is scientifically based when they clearly do not understand basic chemistry snd their model of autism is wrong. They create an uncertainty where none exists. They bolster this with unconfirmsble testimony rather than data. “it may work, I should try it”.

        Uncertainty.

        They dose this until people get outwardly sick. Until people vomit. Until people get diarrhea. They claim that these are “good” signs. “that doesn’t seem like a good thing to me, but I’m told by experts that I should be happy my kid is throwing up”

        And the present example: “don’t call it bleach. That’s scary. Bleach is a noun and even though this substance is used to bleach, it doesn’t come in a Clorox bottle”

        “it seems like making kids drink something that is a bleach and makes them sick is bad, but there are people like MJ telling me that’s just FUD.”

        Doubt.

        But in your world people who warn others of this are bad people.

        Parents are making their kids sick with this stuff. They are doing so because other people lie to them and make them put aside their common sense.

        And you are helping.

        And it’s not the first time.

      • MJ June 14, 2012 at 14:53 #

        What is this, kindergarten? They did it first so I can do it to.

        The answer to FUD is clear, accurate, and qualified information. The answer to FUD is not more FUD.

        So, in the case of MMS, you describe what it does and how it works (as the FDA did) and you point out that there aren’t any established benefits to go along with the side effects.

        You don’t scream “its bleach. its bleach, these parents are bleaching their kids”, that is just more FUD.

      • Sullivan June 14, 2012 at 15:25 #

        MJ,

        Don’t resort to schoolyard taunts.

        Every part of you logic is faulty and you want to lecture others on the need for accurate information? Seriously?

        The point above is clear: you don’t even see FUD at play, but you throw it around as a debate ploy.

        Stop projecting intent and start trying to educate yourself on the subject at hand.

        I say this realizing that this discussion is not unique.

      • MJ June 14, 2012 at 15:57 #

        “Stop projecting intent”

        And what exactly have you been doing since your very first reply to me –

        “MJ doesn’t appear to accept that I can find it outrageous that the alt-med community wouldn’t inform it’s readers that a certain brand of supplements had heavy metal contamination issues”

        I could go on and copy many more of your responses that do exactly the same thing, but I don’t really see the point.

        “and start trying to educate yourself on the subject at hand.”

        The funny thing is that one of us actually did take the time to understand what bleaches are, what forms they come in, and how they work before commenting while the other one kept repeating “its bleach, its bleach, its bleach”.

        Now, I don’t actually expect you to admit this, but I suspect that you know more about bleaches now than you did when this discussion started.

        The only thing I learned is that PHMB sanitation is becoming more common in swimming pools. Although that is a good thing to know because I would prefer my children swim in a pool with less toxic chemicals. Although, by your logic, I guess I should say that my children swim in bleach because all bleaching chemicals are the same, right?

      • Sullivan June 14, 2012 at 15:59 #

        You could go on and on? Predicting the past.

        And now we move into the MJ has to have the last word phase of the discussion.

      • Sullivan June 14, 2012 at 16:09 #

        “Now, I don’t actually expect you to admit this, but I suspect that you know more about bleaches now than you did when this discussion started.”

        Too bad I can’t say the same about you.

        Not a taunt. A fact. Presented with a large volume of data, you refuse to admit that your arguments don’t stand up. You ask for information. You are given the information. And you just move on as though nothing happened.

        And you still can’t get off the fence and say anything more than this is “inappropriate”.

        Giving people accurate information about a potentially dangerous “therapy” is not installing fear. Standing on the sidelines–or worse–as you are doing is sad.

        MMS is a clear example of the problems with the Biomed community. Your defense of these people is a part of the problem.

        Note: edited to change “ate” to “are” on one sentence.

      • MJ June 14, 2012 at 16:33 #

        “You ask for information. You ate given the information. And you just move on as though nothing happened.”

        Since I am a glutton for punishment, which piece of information do you think I ignored? Everything you cited seemed, in my uneducated little mind, to say that solidum chlorite bleaches only when it is combined with an acid and turns into chloride dioxide.

        The only thing that I am unsure of is how a liquid vs powder sodium chlorite is going to react. If you spread a powdered form on a dry substance, cloth for example, it isn’t going to do much of anything but a liquid form might. But then again, liquid chlorine bleach doesn’t do much until it is combined with water or something else.

        As I said, my chemistry is a little weak.

        And please, if you are just going to repeat “its bleach” again, don’t bother to respond.

      • Sullivan June 14, 2012 at 18:14 #

        Try the paper abstract quoted above where they specifically stated that they want to minimize ClO2 production.

        Try the fact that what you call bleach is not the molecule which does the bleach. So if you were consistent in your argument, neither household bleach nor MMS would be bleach by your unique definition.

        Try some facts.

        MMS is bleach. I’m comfortable stating facts.

      • MJ June 14, 2012 at 18:51 #

        “Try the paper abstract quoted above where they specifically stated that they want to minimize ClO2 production.”

        Which one was that, the uncited one under the title “How does bleach work?” that talks about sodium hypochlorite?

        And doesn’t ClO2 refer to cloride dixoide which you want to minimize because a) it is hard to get rid of and b) it is exposive but c) is the chemical that actuallly does the bleaching?

        None of the sources you cited suggested that sodium chlorite can bleach outside of being converted to chlorine dixiode.

        “Try the fact that what you call bleach is not the molecule which does the bleach. So if you were consistent in your argument, neither household bleach nor MMS would be bleach by your unique definition.”

        Go back in the discusion and point out were I said that what is commonly refered to as bleach is actually a bleaching chemical. You are the one who keeps saying that.

        If anything, I think I suggested (but did not explicitly state) that several times. For example, see where I said –

        “For example, do you think that lithium hypochlorite and sodium hypochlorite both act the same way when mixed with water and have the same potency? (Hint the answer is no to the second part).”

        “So why assume that sodium hypochlorite which leads to chlorine has the exact same properties as sodium chlorite which generates (I believe) chlorine dioxide. Do both oxidize the same way?”

        Why do you think I was talking about combining the stuff in the jug with water and talking about how it acted if I didn’t know that it didn’t actually act as a bleach until it was mixed?

        That is why I kept writing things to differentiate the common usage of the noun and the more scientific one, for example –

        “In that sentence, the word “bleach” is clearly a noun and can have one of two possible meanings.”

        1. The stuff that you buy to put in your laundry.
        2. A number of chemicals that remove color, whiten, or disinfect, often via oxidation.”

        Neither one of these meanings is my own made up, private definition.

        You can’t have your definitions both ways. Either you are saying that mms is bleach as in the household bleach (which isn’t really a bleach under the scientific definition), it is a bleach using the scientific definition, or you are using a different definition of the word bleach.

        The first isn’t true and the second is a questionable usage at best. And the third option brings us all the way back to my first comment. If you are rejecting both of the definitions of the word “bleach” then what exactly does that word mean to you?

        So, do you want to answer the initial question as to what the word “bleach” means to you or are you going to just keep repeating that mms is bleach?

      • Sullivan June 14, 2012 at 19:09 #

        MJ,

        “Which one was that, the uncited one under the title “How does bleach work?” that talks about sodium hypochlorite?”

        Search above for:

        ” Bleaching with sodium chlorite should be accompanied by maximum formation of sodium chloride and minimum formation of sodium chlorate and chlorine dioxide. ”

        if you aren’t even reading the replies I make, why should this go on? If you can’t even be bothered to read the comments in this thread, why should anyone bother? If you don’t understand the science, why are you taking so much time with it?

        Engaging you is, again, a waste of time. If you have something valuable to say, I’ll approve it. If you want to repeat your failed arguments, please stop. It’s not just wrong, it’s dull.

  11. MikeMa June 14, 2012 at 15:03 #

    Just read through as much of the MJ/Bleach commentary as I could stomach (pun intended). I feel like I need a lice treatment after all the nits flying around.

    Clearly MMS is a bleaching agent. Maybe not the same chemical agent in household bleach but a bleaching agent likely to be a biologically powerful oxidizer.

    Used as directed by the MMS purveyors, serious harm is likely.

    Used as directed by the MMS purveyors, no scientific evidence exists to expect any positive results for ANY disease, including autism.

    Hats off to Sully, Science Mom and others for the futile responses to MJ.

    Cheers,
    Mike

  12. daedalus2u June 14, 2012 at 19:00 #

    I think this well illustrates the problem of trying to reason with True Believers. It is impossible to argue someone out of an idea using facts and logic when facts and logic played no role in the adoption of the idea.

  13. Wilby June 15, 2012 at 03:20 #

    Not one of you has posted the chemical formula for CLO2. It has two oxygen molecules and one chlorine molecule. Clorine has two chlorine molecules and one oxygen molecule thereby making it dangerously reactive. Chlorine Dioxide(CLO2) is NOT dangerously reactive and when it does react it reacts with negatively charged pathegens breaking them apart. While Chlorine reacts with healthy molecules causeing mutations and forcing bad reactions. Lets face it folks, the FDA is very scared of MMS because it kills all pathegens, as a result there is no need for a pill for every ailment ending the money train for these criminals. More people die from big Pharma socery and it just gets swept under the table. FOOLS and shame on you for defending the FDA cartel & the poison drug pushers such as Big Pharma. Stop repeating lies & only speak of the true facts. Christ Jesus is watching and you will stand before Him one day so be prepared to defend your statements ti Him.

    • Sullivan June 15, 2012 at 03:23 #

      You would bolster your credibility if you used a lower case “L” in ClO2.

      Chlorine is Cl, not CL.

      Not that this will really help as your science acumen is poor.

      • Wilby June 15, 2012 at 03:29 #

        Prove the science is poor — plus, there are many typing errors from others that I ignore so try to do the same.

    • Sullivan June 15, 2012 at 03:40 #

      “Clorine has two chlorine molecules and one oxygen molecule thereby making it dangerously reactive. Chlorine Dioxide(CLO2) is NOT dangerously reactive and when it does react it reacts with negatively charged pathegens breaking them apart”

      Chlorine is an atom. It doesn’t have “two chlorine molecules”

      You don’t appear to understand the difference between an atom and a molecule. ClO2 is two chlorine atoms and one oxygen atom.

      • Wilby June 15, 2012 at 05:10 #

        Sullivan you proved my point. Sorry I just feel upon this site and jumped in and made mistakes in my comment but nevertheless the facts I have are the same as the facts you stated.

        Thanks for correcting me. If I make more comments I will try to be more accurate by checking my notes — it has been a while since I reviewed them.

    • Gray Falcon June 15, 2012 at 04:21 #

      Wilby, do you have any evidence for your claims? All you’ve shown is that you can’t simply take someone at their word if they can make a profit off of something, which does you no favors at all.

      • Wilby June 15, 2012 at 05:26 #

        Don’t make me laugh about taking someone at their for profit! Just consider all the drug recalls after so called trials by Big Lying Pharma! Consider all the deaths etc etc.
        NOW, what profit is being made by Jim Humble or anyone else? I can by a bottle of Sodiun Chlorite & an Acid for less than $30.00 that could last me for two years or more depending on my usage.

        You are just looking for issues — anyway so what if he did make a profit selling books (he does not sell MMS) even though he owns the patten. He gives it away for FREE for anyone to use!

        Good Science and good chemistry is the evidence plus all the people that MMS has helped. Two things MMS did for me, one it cleared up my lungs and two it cleared up my arthritus. As far as I know I don’t have any other problems. Oh yes, when I brushed my teeth with it it immediately stopped my gums from bleeding thereby killing the infection.

        I don’t care if you don’t believe me, I really don’t! By the way, we can see very clearly whom the MMS dubunckers are — we call them Big Pharma Trolls, paid for by the cartel.

        NOW, do you have any evidence that it does not work? NO YOU DO NOT! Just lies from Big Pharma puppets called the FDA!

        You will only be able to deceive people that would have been willing to try MMS as for the rest of us that use it we are already committed. We have heard all the lies over and over and over & it has gotten quit amusing to see this manipulation of people through controlled media outlets. Sad very sad to see how easily they deceive the unlearned masses.

      • Gray Falcon June 15, 2012 at 05:26 #

        Wilby, is MMS given away for free? Don’t complain about profit motives unless you have no profits of your own.

  14. Wilby June 15, 2012 at 05:29 #

    Excuse me?

    • Gray Falcon June 15, 2012 at 05:33 #

      Is MMS given away for free? Seriously, do you really think you can’t be cut by your own blade?

  15. Wilby June 15, 2012 at 05:35 #

    Jim Humble owns the right to MMS, he could legally charge a fee to anyone that sells this product. He does not charge a penny, he lets the people have it for free. Of course we have to either buy it from someone or else make it ourselves. Jim Humble does not make any money on the sale of MMS.

    This is NOT the issue here!

    MMS will kill pathogens in your body and make you feel well again.

    • Gray Falcon June 15, 2012 at 05:40 #

      Really? Then why does his webpage, when I first enter, give a link to where I can BUY his product? Don’t lie, especially when you present the truth where all can see.

      Oh, and I can also kill pathogens in the body with fire, and make people feel well again with heroin. Not your best testimony.

  16. Wilby June 15, 2012 at 05:40 #

    Gray Falcon — you are a bird of prey and you work for the FDA!

    My time with you has ended!!

    • Gray Falcon June 15, 2012 at 05:44 #

      An accusation means nothing. Prove it.

    • James June 15, 2012 at 10:07 #

      The profit motive is proven by all the links to his website to buy things. Plus all the events and seminars running into $1500 and above. Its a sales tactic now to basically give away some free stuff (or at what looks like insanely good value) to spread the word and ‘good feeling’.

      Plus for all the ‘big pharma’ distrust you anti-vaxx nutters are awfully trusting of sim-sim-sala-sing magical miracle cures arent you without verification? I mean MMS cures cancer, HIV and autism! Wow several communities that have either desperate suffers themselves or relatives of sufferers to manipulate, and in the case with the autistic community with large numbers of insular people distrustful of modern medicine who will just suck up anything and everything else without regard.

      I mean seriously… does the hypocricy not come across to you at all? You rant against ‘evil big pharma’ and god knows I’m sure as hell not against stricter safety standards and more checks against bad science with the rise in retractions in papers of late.

      The difference is extreme anti-pharma movement is just insane. They don’t practice what they preach. They don’t even make the attempt to see if the shit their sticking in themselves (or worse in their children) is safe. You’d think with all the money they’re fleecing from scare tactics that if they believed what they said they do they would set up some safety screenings to test alternative medicine that would put the ethics and practical methods currently employed to shame. But they dont.

      Hell for all the clap-trap about a vacinnated versus unvacinnated study you’d think considering all the moaning they do they’d be able to get some unvaccinated candidates easily. Wouldnt really be ethical from a medical standpoint but nothing really stopping them from doing that with their money and resources. But again they dont.

      Fact is for the anti-vaxx movement theres just WAY too much money, publicity and endorsements from the fringe quacks and the parents to take a rational approach to tackling problems. Its easily to be insular, rant against everything else as ‘evil’ and portray their followers as ‘just’ to keep them in your pocket, and keep trotting out and endless cycle of ‘cures’ to cycle desperate/stupid parents in and out of. Either depriving the parents of money or getting it from the insurance companies whichever. Theres not a lot of benefit for them to say ‘actually we don’t know’.

      So you know even if you skip all that answer me this: if MMS was clearing out the ‘parasites’ and people with their ‘stay at home’ bleach kits are seeing their kids poop out these worms… why isn’t this being shouted about by the anti-vax movement? They found the CAUSE OF AUTISM!! MMS CURES IT! THE WORMS ARE VISIBLE TO PEOPLE AT HOME WITHOUT SPECIALISED EQUIPMENT!

      Surely we could study them? Find out what they are? Where do they come from? Are the motheres infested too and pass it on during pregnancy? Should we start pumping all pregnant mothers with MMS? But wait… no none of thats happening. Because the only thing that matters is they can convince parents that it works. That all their seeing is intestinal lining being flushed out doesnt matter so long as they dont ask further questions. And thats just how the anti-vax movement likes it.

      • Wilby June 15, 2012 at 14:35 #

        Boring!

      • Gray Falcon June 15, 2012 at 15:03 #

        Wilby, I suggest not acting like a petulant four-year-old, unless you wish to be treated like one.

      • Chris June 15, 2012 at 16:19 #

        James:

        MMS CURES IT! THE WORMS ARE VISIBLE TO PEOPLE AT HOME WITHOUT SPECIALISED EQUIPMENT!

        Well, some works are visible. Warning: not for the squeamish: the following are podcasts about parasites that are visible to the naked eye, and have real science:
        Doctor! There’s a worm in my eye!
        and
        Dracunculiasis

        I’m sure Wilby would be eager to pour MMS into his eye or the foot in second linnk.

      • Chris June 15, 2012 at 16:20 #

        oops… some worms are visible. Just check out the “This Week in Parasitology” podcast at MicrobeWorld.

      • James June 15, 2012 at 19:29 #

        @Chris

        Yea its not that I’m amazed that these supposed worms are visible to the naked eye. Just if they are so obvious for the average person to see them, and they CAUSE the autism its really really funny how little is said by MMS proponents to say what the worms are, where they come from etc. But of course they can’t do that because its enough to dupe parents by saying ‘the parasites!’

      • Chris June 15, 2012 at 20:06 #

        James, I understand. I also wanted to post what real parasitic worms are like. It is also a good podcast, as the parasite expert is a great story teller.

  17. Lawrence June 15, 2012 at 10:47 #

    @Wilby – so how exactly does giving Bleach enemas & forcing developmentally disabled children to drink bleach solutions several times per day – to the point of forcing vomiting and diarrhea supposed to cure autism again?

    I would like to see the “scientific” rationale as to why this is supposed to help……of course, since there isn’t one, I won’t be holding my breath.

    • Wilby June 15, 2012 at 14:36 #

      You are brain washed — it is not bleach.

  18. mikemawords June 15, 2012 at 13:52 #

    The MSDS sheet for ClO2 is quite ominous. The link is here: http://www.puremash.com/pdfs/MaterialDataSheetCIO2.pdf I will try a link directly.

    The key phrases I see are:
    Solutions are highly irritant,
    May be absorbed causing tissue and blood cell damage.

    There is more, all of it bad and a screaming warning to those with half a brain (Wilby Jessica) to stop poisoning their kids.

  19. Wilby June 15, 2012 at 14:52 #

    FDA DATA PROVES
    MMS KILLS DISEASES

    The data and regulations of the FDA prove
    that MMS actually works!

    MMS kills 95% of all diseases: It may surprise you that there is one point
    concerning MMS that all people agree on. At least all government agencies that
    are involved, universities, scientists and even my critics all admit to it. The
    chemical chlorine dioxide, which is what MMS generates, is one of the most
    effective killers of disease pathogens known to man. At this late time in the
    game, no group argues against the point that chlorine dioxide kills at least 95%
    of all disease pathogens upon contact. It is simply a known scientific
    fact. There are plenty of scientific papers on the Internet giving this data. Just
    google “chlorine dioxide.” FDA 21CFR173.300 is just one of many FDA
    regulations authorizing the use of chlorine dioxide to kill pathogens. Google
    “FDA chlorine dioxide” for more evidence. You can read 21CFR by putting it in
    your browser.

    _______________________________________________

    Debunking the FDA: The FDA has decided that they can lie
    about anything and everything that they want to keep the public in
    the dark about and keep people from knowing the truth. They talk
    about using the 28% solution of sodium chlorite in MMS bottles now
    being sold.

    Well, here is the truth:

    The bottles do not contain 28% sodium chlorite but rather 22.4%.
    You only take 3 drop doses at any one time.
    The three drop doses are diluted with ½ glass of water or
    juice, so in fact it is only a 0.0015% dose.
    The three drop dose is about one thousand times less than
    the FDA claims.
    For those who don’t understand percentages very well, that is only
    0.015 of a one percent dose. Which means about one hundredth of
    one percent. That’s not very much.

    The FDA lies a lot. More than 220,000 people, perhaps as many as
    900,000 (depending on your source) died last year after taking an
    FDA-approved drug.

    No one died from MMS. Have you watched the commercials for FDA-approved drugs? After the long list of side effects, they even, in passing, mention: “and sometimes
    death”. They are telling you on TV that you can die from those
    drugs. Hopefully you realize that they are not kidding. People do die
    from those drugs.

    No one has died from MMS world wide.
    Yet the FDA attacks legitimate legal sellers of MMS attempting to make it
    illegal because they claim someone has complained.
    MMS sells for less than 2 cents a dose and FDA-approved drugs
    often go for several hundreds of dollars a dose, or even $1000
    dollars a dose and more. For example, the leukemia drug Sprycel
    costs about $8,000 or more (according to your dosage)
    every month. So something that replaces their fantastic income
    scares the FDA and Big Pharma a lot.

    Chlorine Dioxide will kill all viruses & pathogens regardless of a person alilment. We don’t have a 1000 different forms of ClO2, just one way to take a small dose to almost kill every disease know to man. Anyone with intellegence can easily see why BIG MONEY PHARMA HATES MMS!

    • Gray Falcon June 15, 2012 at 14:58 #

      [citation needed]

      • Sullivan June 15, 2012 at 15:19 #

        Here’s what “archbishop” Humble had to say

        “that MMS actually works!
        1. MMS kills 95% of all diseases: It may surprise you that there is one point concerning MMS that all people agree on. At least all government agencies that are involved, universities, scientists and even my critics all admit to it. The chemical chlorine dioxide, which is what MMS generates, is one of the most effective killers of disease pathogens known to man. At this late time in the game, no group argues against the point that chlorine dioxide kills at least 95% of all disease pathogens upon contact. It is simply a known scientific
        fact. There are plenty of scientific papers on the Internet giving this data. Just google “chlorine dioxide.” FDA 21CFR173.300 is just one of many FDA regulations authorizing the use of chlorine dioxide to kill pathogens. Google “FDA chlorine dioxide” for more evidence. You can read 21CFR by putting it in your browser.”

      • Sullivan June 15, 2012 at 15:22 #

        From the FDA document:

        “(b)(1) The additive may be used as an antimicrobial agent in water used in poultry processing in an amount not to exceed 3 parts per million (ppm) residual chlorine dioxide as determined by Method 4500-ClO2 E, referenced in paragraph (a) of this section, or an equivalent method.
        (2) The additive may be used as an antimicrobial agent in water used to wash fruits and vegetables that are not raw agricultural commodities in an amount not to exceed 3 ppm residual chlorine dioxide as determined by Method 4500-ClO2 E, referenced in paragraph (a) of this section, or an equivalent method. Treatment of the fruits and vegetables with chlorine dioxide shall be followed by a potable water rinse or by blanching, cooking, or canning.”

        So, the FDA says leave less than 3ppm but Humble uses this document to support drinking the stuff.

      • Sullivan June 15, 2012 at 15:35 #

        Begs the question of how people use FDA chronic exposure limits of mercury to try to link vaccines to autism can support a chronic exposure to chlorine dioxide.

        Let’s see, studies have shown no increased autism risk from the levels of thimerosal exposure in infant vaccines, and the MMS people suggest upping the dose of their bleach product until people are visibly ill.

    • Sullivan June 15, 2012 at 15:00 #

      Dump bleach on disease organisms in a petri dish and the organisms die.

      Is that supposed to be surprising?

      Boiling water kills disease organisms. Should we boil sick people?

    • Sullivan June 15, 2012 at 15:45 #

      Leaving aside the math, MMS makes people sick.

      And that’s where the problem lies

      And that’s where the difference lies between MMS and substances like thimerosal: demonstrated ill effects.

      Heck, MMS proponents tell you to expect it to make you sick. They claim this is somehow a good sign.

  20. Wilby June 15, 2012 at 15:07 #

    You have the facts but you don’t want the truth — you want to push your beliefs unto other even though you are propogating a lie. In times of trouble for you or a loved one you will come to seek out MMS because Pharma products make a person more ill than when they first got sick. So I say call me when you get smarter.

    You do not care about the true facts — only your own foolish beliefs.

    FDA are liars and big pharma are killers for profit! Some of their product works but most just go after the symptoms and not the cause of the problem. MMS goes after the cause of the problems. Thank God for MMS.

    So be it and so long!

    • Gray Falcon June 15, 2012 at 15:10 #

      Why should we trust you? Attacking the FDA and Big Pharma doesn’t prove you right, it just shows that deception exists, and the need for rules. Rules that you blatantly refuse to obey. I wonder why?

      • Wilby June 15, 2012 at 15:36 #

        Everytime you bad mouth MMS without just cause you potentially sway someone away from taking this product thereby preventing them from getting well again. NO one has died from MMS or even been hurt in anyway when they follow instructions and protocals.

        If you trust Big Pharma after all their warnings including death then I think you could trust the facts if you wanted too.

        Have you notice that most people bad mouthing MMS are the ones that have never used it? Some don’t like the taste or did not follow instruction properly but other than that it is just people like you & the FDA that are making a big fuss.

        Do your homework — this is NOT Industrial strength bleach especially at the dose we subscribe. In fact, MMS is weaker than oxygen & ozone at our doses.

        STOP the misinformation — we as a group are just trying to help the sick — nothing more. No hidden agendas and no secrets, it is just out of kindness that we spread the word about MMS. 99.9% of us do not sell this product or make any money what so ever. We do it out of LOVE!

      • Sullivan June 15, 2012 at 15:46 #

        What more just cause do we need other than this is being used to make disabled children sick with no biological plausibility that it will provide benefit?

      • Gray Falcon June 15, 2012 at 15:45 #

        Wilby, why should we trust you? Do you have any research? Any statistics? Any lab tests? Anything?

      • Sullivan June 15, 2012 at 16:02 #

        They have a website, a church and testimonials. Isn’t that enough?

      • Big Morbillie Style June 16, 2012 at 03:15 #

        NO one has died from MMS or even been hurt in anyway when they follow instructions and protocals.

        No, they are just tortured by it.

  21. Wilby June 15, 2012 at 16:49 #

    Gray Falcon June 15, 2012 at 15:45 #

    “Wilby, why should we trust you? Do you have any research? Any statistics? Any lab tests? Anything?”

    DO YOU have any real facts to support your beliefs other than propoganda from the FDA?

    Search the facts for yourself — contact Jim Humble and he will be glad to help you.
    ___________________

    Sullivan June 15, 2012 at 15:46 #

    “What more just cause do we need other than this is being used to make disabled children sick with no biological plausibility that it will provide benefit?”

    YOU have no facts that children are getting sick — you are just repeating what someone may or may NOT have said. Have you checked to see if any of these sick children were cured? NO YOU HAVE NOT! Shame on you!
    ___________________

    NOW, when people get infected with a virus or disease they will get sick as the body tries to kill this disease. The killing process causes toxins that the body needs to eliminate. If the body can not eliminate the toxins fast enough you will get sick. That is why we say when or if you feel sick or nausea to back off on the doses or usage until your body can catch up with the elimination process. It has nothing to do with trying to make you sick, getting sick is a sin that you are killing off the disease and you may have to slow down. If children have gotten sick it is for this reason and getting sick is a sign to slow down but it is also a sign that it is working.

    When you get food poisoning you feel very sick — the sickness is your body killing off the poisnons generating toxins in the process.

    If a person is really ill and they take MMS they must start very slow for this reason and we do not to create more toxin than the body can eliminate. Dieing diseases & pathogens will create toxins and you must proceed slowly when this happens. So we say back off on the usage if you feel sicker. It makes perfectly good sense.

    Some diseases are to strong and reproduce faster than the body can kill it off. That is where MMS comes into play. We are just helping the body to kill off the disease faster than it can reproduce itself.

    One doctor calls MMS Advaced Oxygen Treatment. MMS is a powerful oxidant. It destroys diseased cells & kills bacteria on contact.

    So to really learn what MMS does first you need to learn exactly what it is before you can proceed. So what is MMS?

    MMS is Chlorine Dioxide in a very small quantity.
    MMS is an oxidizor — learn what an oxidizor does
    Learn why MMS kills only the pathogens — re: the bad cells
    Learn why you ‘may’ feel sick when taking MMS — because you are already sick!
    Learn why you must go slow with MMS and when to back off.
    Learn why MMS kills all diseases

    STOP the propoganda and learn the facts from the very begining. Like what does a ClO2 adom look like and why does one adom of ClO2 kill 5 bad adoms at one time.

    Never mind about the chlorine propoganda stories — get the true facts that the FDA does not want you to learn.

    MMS is your opportunity for good health in a matter of weeks for most illnesses & with NO side affects. Just follow the protocals.

    • Gray Falcon June 15, 2012 at 16:55 #

      Wilby, do you have any double-blind studies? Long term studies? Independent replication? The reason why we trust modern medicine is because we have all of those things, not because of some “propaganda”.

      • Francesca June 19, 2012 at 23:32 #

        @Grey Falcon…
        Wilby, do you have any double-blind studies? Long term studies? Independent replication? The reason why we trust modern medicine is because we have all of those things, not
        because of some “propaganda”.

        Do you remeber Fen-phen, or Vioxx, Bextra, Rezulin? I bet they had some double blind studies, and some ind. replication, didn’t stop them from killing/harming thousands of folks and costing the industry BILLIONS in payouts to injured folks. Just because it didn’t get the FDA stamp of approval doesn’t mean it’s unsafe. No one is going to pay for a double-blind study for a product that is not patentable, and costs pennies on the dollar to make in your own home.

        For the moment, we have anecdotal evidence, thousands who have taken MMS and have improved their health. Check out the curezone survey where over 80% or participants reported improvement of symptoms after taking MMS.

        You say we have to prove ourselves right….I would like to know if you ever met or heard of anyone who was severely maimed or harmed by taking MMS according to the protocols?

        http://www.factsheetproject.org

        links to testimonials from people who have improved their health with MMS

      • Sullivan June 20, 2012 at 01:15 #

        Francesca,

        “Just because it didn’t get the FDA stamp of approval doesn’t mean it’s unsafe.”

        MMS isn’t missing a “stamp of approval”. It has an all out warning.

        For the moment you have anecdotal evidence. Good for you. You also have anecdotal evidence of people being made sick by this product, but you don’t seem to discuss that.

        Do you have any idea of what you are talking about when you repeat the oxidation potential discussion from the MMS talks. Seriously. If I told you that the oxidation potential of ferrocyanide was -0.37 volts, would you (a) be able to tell me if or why this is relevant to the comparisons you make and (b) whether you would ingest ferrocyanide given that it has a lower oxidation potential than MMS?

    • mikemawords June 15, 2012 at 17:10 #

      Wilby
      You claim (with no proof) that MMS kills only the bad stuff. That ClO2 must be pretty smart crap to do that. Or you are lying.

      ClO2 is used to (among other things) remove industrial waste from water. It is in no way surprising that it kills biologically active stuff. It would be expected to do so. Therein lies the problem. We are mostly biologically active beings. You see the problem, right?

  22. Lawrence June 15, 2012 at 17:20 #

    @Wilby – I would love to know how a bleaching solution can tell the difference between “healthy” and “diseased” cells – seems to me that it would harm both equally…..Not exactly something I’d encourage for use in anyone, including children.

    • Francesca June 20, 2012 at 00:09 #

      The strength of an oxidizer is measured in volts.
      Oxidation potentials of common substances:

      Chlorine dioxide .95 volts
      Oxygen 1.28 volts
      Hydrogen peroxide 1.73 volts
      Ozone 2.07 volts

      • Francesca June 20, 2012 at 00:14 #

        The second half of my comment didn’t post….

        Healthy human tissue can withstand 1.28 volts (the potential of oxygen) therefore it can easily withstand the .95v potential of ClO2. Pathogens, such as bacteria, with their weak or negative charges cannot withstand .95v of chlorine dioxide.

  23. Wilby June 15, 2012 at 18:38 #

    You guys just don’t care.
    How about Big Pharma phoney blind tests? You know, the ones where people get sick and die from after FDA approval — you guys are a joke.
    You are FDA debunckers but the fact is you can not scientifically debunck this product because the facts speak for themselves.
    Remember how smart you guys are — well then put the scientific facts out on the table for all to see. Problem is you can not do that because you are just here and paid for by the big pharma cartel.

    Keep bounding the bleaching solution lie around just as you have been ordered too!

    I am happy with MMS so get a life. A healthy life like me!

    • mikemawords June 15, 2012 at 18:44 #

      I care very much that you are sanctioning the abuse of children.

      As for my pharma check, I guess it must be late.

      I see no facts other than MMS is dangerous.

    • Gray Falcon June 15, 2012 at 18:46 #

      So, you have no evidence? It’s not up to us to prove you wrong. You have to prove yourself right. Here’s a hint: Invective against others doesn’t help your case, it just makes you dishonest. Declaring your righteousness doesn’t help your case, good intentions are not proof against evil. Claiming to work for God doesn’t help your case, it only means you have to answer to the divine for actions. Where’s your evidence?

    • James June 15, 2012 at 19:38 #

      Yes nothings perfect. Yes there are cases of bad scientists and falsified ‘big pharma’ studies (though most of what I’ve seen where misconduct has been performed is mainly to rush safety trials). I’m an inherently cynical person and frankly would never object tomore safeguards and oversight of large companies especially in pharmaceuticals becaues theres a constant research turnover there for the affects of drugs. God knows I wouldnt know what ‘too much regulation’ is in the case of large companies my mode is pretty much set too ‘its not enough’

      That said… you can’t handwave everything ‘big pharma’ does as evil 9when you admit yourself that a lot of it works) but then completely dismiss ANY attempt to test the asfety of woo. People make money from selling tap water ffs. The fact of the matter is you don’t practice what you preach about safety. Because its easier to have one scapegoat to blame for something when it goes wrong (‘big pharma’) while pretending that the answers out there just waiting to be discovered (MMS and pretty much all other woo). The burden of proof is on these whackjobs like Humble if you idolise themselves who should be (and if they won’t do it the autistic community should be doing it) to proof that things like MMS work and are completely safe. That explanations dont go beyond ‘parasites’ (again really funny that if we know the cause of autism from this NOTHING is said about it by anti-vax groups and telling) says worlds really. Stop being a blind spokesperson for this guy and how about getting on the road to proper testing. I mean havn’t you just gone from trusting ‘big pharma’ to trusting any old for profit crack who lies TO YOUR FACE about these things?

      • James June 15, 2012 at 19:43 #

        And yea. Noones objecting that MMS kills stuff… actually thats the point of why its so dangerous. You said it kills cells and bacteria. True. Thats kind of the problem. Because we as humans are mostly (in fact some fundamentalist whackjobs would go as far to say we are totally composed of) composed of biological matter. You know… things like cells and bacteria that bleach kills indiscriminately. Kind of why its not medical to drink household bleach. And why you shouldnt be drinking MMS either.

        Though frankly I care less about these gullible tossers who do it themselves so long as they are not vulnerable cancer or AIDS victims. Just stop feeding it to autistic kids whose every complication you can blame on something else other than the random crap your torturing the poor thing with!

  24. Wilby June 19, 2012 at 18:09 #

    Parents choose to treat their children after they read all the facts and they also likely attended a seminar by our expert in autisum.

    The SUN causes bleaching so is the sun a bleach? OR does the sun do us good if we don’t get to much of it?

    Oxygen is good for us but too much will kill us. It also oxidizes metals & causes damage.

    Ozone is also good for protecting us from disease but again too much ozone will kill us.

    Taking certain substances in the proper proportions can help us.

    Debunckers are very ignorant and very boring to me. You are not looking for answers you are just out there proclaiming false information against this product. You also group together to make your claims look more authentic. Well. it is not working! Most people are on to you and see your tactics. All the astute people will search this out for themselves like I did before I begain to take the product and now promote it for health & healing.

    Strange, for something that has not hurt anyone the FDA is showing a lot of interest! They are charging people with crimes, entering their homes, taking all their products, computers including freezing their bank accounts. All this when NO ONE has been hurt???

    We have a web site coming out with signed affidavits from people that have been healed by taking ClO2 in very very small doses. So small that it is weaker than oxygen & ozone in the body.

    We can NOT be stopped & when the viruses are released out by the EVIL EVIL moneychangers as they begin their goal of population reduction by disease WE WILL HAVE A CURE! WE WILL SURVIVE the outbreak.

    Whose side are you on — good or evil?

    BTW we have documented over 40 autistic children that have been healed and cured of their disease with many more to come.

    We haven’t even began our true mission of healing the masses but we will be there to help when things get really bad so don’t be afraid to come calling for us to save yourself & your family. Beware — instead of dieing you might get a little stomach ache with some nausia.

    • Sullivan June 19, 2012 at 18:19 #

      “BTW we have documented over 40 autistic children that have been healed and cured of their disease with many more to come.’

      Where is this documented?

      After Jenny McCarthy and other people’s claims of “recovery”, I remain skeptical of claims of cures.

    • brian June 19, 2012 at 21:40 #

      We can NOT be stopped & when the viruses are released out by the EVIL EVIL moneychangers as they begin their goal of population reduction by disease WE WILL HAVE A CURE! WE WILL SURVIVE the outbreak.

      It’s not possible to diagnose someone over the internet but I can suggest this:

      If you have been prescribed medications but you are not taking them, start taking them. If you are taking medications that have not been prescribed, stop taking them. That should help.

      • Gray Falcon June 20, 2012 at 02:41 #

        What would the anyone gain from such an outbreak, anyway?

    • Rebecca Fisher June 20, 2012 at 00:20 #

      I’d like to see all those who push MMS as a “cure” have bleach pumped up their arses and down their throats for a couple of weeks. Maybe it’ll cure them of being evil bastards.

  25. Francesca June 19, 2012 at 23:27 #

    http://www.MMSAutism.com

    Article by Kelly Stone in response to the Todd Drezner Huff Post article. While you’re on MMS Autism, check out the miracle section, real Moms talk about real advances of their children on MMS.

    http://www.factsheetproject.org

    Get the facts on MMS and check out some of the references, especially the study on the effects of chlorine dioxide on humans.

    • Lawrence June 20, 2012 at 00:46 #

      WTF Fransesca – if you want to shove bleach up your child’s ass or try to convince other people it is a good idea, you are a complete and utter fool…..

      • brian June 20, 2012 at 02:10 #

        Get the facts on MMS and check out some of the references, especially the study on the effects of chlorine dioxide on humans.</BLOCKQUOTE.
        Yes, and be sure to note that chlorine dioxide is five times more toxic than sodium chlorite (household bleach) to human fibroblasts (LD50 0.16 vs. 0.79 mM.)

        Also, it's useful to note that citing whale.to (as you did in the very first citation in your "fact sheet") indicates rather profound ignorance, unless you actually believe in flying dolphins: http://www.whale.to/b/flying_dolphin.html

        Major fail.

  26. MikeMa June 20, 2012 at 11:05 #

    It has already been alluded to but should be pointed out more forcefully that oxidation potential does not represent the only way MMS might be harmful or dangerous.

    A miracle page is not evidence. It is parents (likely lying to garner favor or cover their child abuse) telling stories with no evidence of causation. In fact, no evidence of MMS efficacy has yet been linked. Until there is, it remains poisonous, dangerous crap that is being forced up autistic kid’s butts.

    There is some blogging law somewhere that says if you link to whale.to in support of an argument, you automatically lose the argument. Well done Francesca.

  27. Francesca June 21, 2012 at 00:30 #

    @Brian
    Is this what you are referring to?

    http://www.jodjournal.com/article/S0300-5712%2808%2900237-6/abstract

    • Gray Falcon June 21, 2012 at 00:34 #

      To draw your conclusion from that article is like seeing three Shih-tzus and determining that all domestic dogs have short noses and are less than a foot tall.

      • Francesca June 21, 2012 at 00:55 #

        @Grey Falcon

        What conclusion?

        Bryan stated

        He didn’t cite a source, so I was simply trying to determine where the info was from to see if it is applicable to this discussion. What he stated turned up that study, and I am wondering if he meant human gingival fibroblasts?

        It’s not my reference article.

  28. Francesca June 21, 2012 at 00:58 #

    Bryan stated:

    Yes, and be sure to note that chlorine dioxide is five times more toxic than sodium chlorite (household bleach) to human fibroblasts (LD50 0.16 vs. 0.79 mM.)

    • Gray Falcon June 21, 2012 at 01:13 #

      Ah, in that case, thanks for proving us right. I assumed you were sane and intelligent and were trying to defend your statements about oxidation of human cells vs. bacteria.

      • Francesca June 21, 2012 at 02:07 #

        I apologize for misinterpreting your analogy. Bryan did not state a source for his fact, and I (mistakenly) looked at an abstract that referenced that value.

        I was trying to find out the means by which the LD50 on the human fibroblasts was derived, as I believe that method of exposure could lead to variations on the dose. (aqueous solution vs. gas)

        Can you provide me with a source?

  29. Gray Falcon June 21, 2012 at 02:15 #

    You first, Francesca. You’ve made several claims, you’d better be willing to back them up. Oh, and don’t bother with whale.to, which also contains the full text of “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”, and present them as fact.

  30. Francesca June 21, 2012 at 06:37 #

    I understand that no one likes the whale.to reference, and no I don’t personally vouch for the articles there. However the figure stated on the facts sheet is from a table that derives its figures from articles published in JAMA, Emerging Infectious Diseases, and Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, amongst others.

    I claimed that we have anecdotal evidence, that is in the form of testimonials from people who have improved their health with chlorine dioxide. Here are the references that are on the Facts Sheet, and I am sure some googling would turn up more. I imagine you will say they are fabricated, the same way I could say the same about the claims of those who were sickened by chlorine dioxide that led to the FDA’s warning. Their warning came after Health Canada’s warning, which was supposedly based on 2 reports of negative consequences reported after ingesting chlorine dioxide. The FDA cited “several reports of health injuries” from MMS use. Do I hear anecdotal evidence?

    http://jimhumble.biz/testimonials.html?view=display
13.
    http://mms4life.wordpress.com/mms-testimonials/
14.
    http://www.natmedtalk.com/f50/2115-mms-testimonials-only.html
    Ihttp://curezone.com/faq/p/s.asp?a=2840&s=59
12.

    • Sullivan June 21, 2012 at 18:07 #

      “The FDA cited “several reports of health injuries” from MMS use. Do I hear anecdotal evidence?”

      Yes. Anecdotal evidence that is probably missing from the site you reference. Where are the reports of people who have adverse reactions?

      Are these groups telling people where to report adverse reactions? Much more seriously, they are telling people that adverse reactions are “good”. They should expect nausea and diarrhea and fevers.

      “Their warning came after Health Canada’s warning, which was supposedly based on 2 reports of negative consequences reported after ingesting chlorine dioxide.”

      Right. That’s all that went into the warning. They didn’t stop to think, “hey, people are promoting ingesting bleach as a curative. Chlorine dioxide makes people sick, but let’s ignore that and just work from these two reports of people having bad reactions. We won’t even read the discussion threads where talk of nausea and other adverse effects are common.”

      “. I imagine you will say they are fabricated, the same way I could say the same about the claims of those who were sickened by chlorine dioxide that led to the FDA’s warning.”

      Perhaps we could move this conversation away from your imagination?

  31. Wilby June 22, 2012 at 02:37 #

    All MMS users — do NOT waste your time on these sites.
    These people have an agenda and absolutely nothing you say will make a difference.
    Wait until they get really sick than even sicker by taking the poison pharmeceutical products. They will come calling one day — if they can find us!

    LEAVE THIS SITE AND DO NOT GIVE THEM ANYMORE INFORMATION.

    DO NOT CAST YOUR PEARLS AMONG THE SWINES

    LEAVE NOW!

    • Gray Falcon June 22, 2012 at 04:06 #

      Wilby, whenever somebody called into question the evidence you presented, instead of answering us back, you falsely accused us of being in the pay of your rivals. Do you believe this is the way an honest person behaves?

    • mikemawords June 22, 2012 at 10:43 #

      Wilby, what a load of bollocks. I will never be sick mentally deranged enough to drink bleach. I would never abuse a child by forcing MMS on them.

      Take your ball and go home. We have far better toys.

    • novalox June 22, 2012 at 16:40 #

      @wilby

      Was that your best response. Because that was rather pathetic.

      But do continue to support this form of child abuse. Your words do betray you and shows your true personality.

    • Thomas June 28, 2012 at 00:45 #

      Leave now!!! Before you hear more information that will keep you from buying useless dangerous products!!

      I love it when the quacks get so worried about their victims hearing the truth…

  32. Gray Falcon June 22, 2012 at 04:27 #

    Correction: Whenever somebody called into question your unsupported statements, instead of providing evidence for your claims, you falsely accused us of being in the pay of your rivals. Do you believe this is the way an honest person behaves?

    We don’t hate you because we’re closed-minded. We despise you because you are a proven liar.

  33. Wilby June 27, 2012 at 17:19 #

    Worried that you might feel a little nausia, diarrhea and dehydration when ingesting MMS?

    BUT you and millions like you are so willing to take the extremely poison Chomotheraphy Durgs that are being forced on us by Big Pharma.

    You guys are not very bright — that is why we (the MMS movement) can not waste time with people like you.

    The most common chemotherapy agents act by killing cells that divide rapidly, one of the main properties of most cancer cells. This means that chemotherapy also harms cells that divide rapidly under normal circumstances: cells in the bone marrow, digestive tract, and hair follicles. This results in the most common side-effects of chemotherapy: myelosuppression (decreased production of blood cells, hence also immunosuppression), mucositis (inflammation of the lining of the digestive tract), and alopecia (hair loss).
    You can even do a search about the specific chemicals in chomo drugs to see just how toxin they are to your body.

    YOU should have a forum against these extremely dangerous drugs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BUT no, you are on a mission against MMS so why would you try to be reasonable?

    NONE I repeat NONE of these side affects appear when taking MMS.
    NONE I repeat NONE of these side affects appear when taking MMS.
    NONE I repeat NONE of these side affects appear when taking MMS.
    NONE I repeat NONE of these side affects appear when taking MMS.
    NONE I repeat NONE of these side affects appear when taking MMS.
    NONE I repeat NONE of these side affects appear when taking MMS.
    NONE I repeat NONE of these side affects appear when taking MMS.

    • Sullivan June 27, 2012 at 18:35 #

      I would complain even more loudly if someone was giving chemotherapy drugs as a “therapy” for autism.

      What’s your point?

    • Thomas June 28, 2012 at 00:47 #

      Wow. I doubted you the first time you asserted without evidence that MMS causes no side-effects, but when you repeated it seven times, it became much more believable!

  34. Lawrence June 27, 2012 at 17:48 #

    @Wilby – you do also realize that the “worms” that some parents have identified coming from their children are, in all likelihood, the sloughing off of their intestinal lining, right? And comparing Chemo – which is proven to work in many cases, to MMS which is proven to work in exactly ZERO cases is pretty stupid.

    I accept the side-effects for a treatment that can actually work vs. the side-effects from a “treatment” which has no plausible biological process to work.

    You, my idiot friend, are pushing an “industrial bleaching agent” as some sort of miracle cure – you are the dangerous one, especially in light of what you are doing to children.

    • Wilby June 27, 2012 at 19:21 #

      You are fucking stupid.

      • Wilby June 28, 2012 at 20:11 #

        I hate getting this angry but it happens — my apologies.

    • Wilby June 28, 2012 at 00:34 #

      Intestinal lining??? Making up stuff like you just did is criminal! I would like to hear from a parent that has had their child cured instead of from you morons. Strange but, I have not experienced worms, hmmm must be only children that suffer from this OR could it actually be worms???? Not everyone always gets cured from anything no matter what you do as there are underlying circumstances at times but, if even a few are getting cured then you are doing a great injustice to mankind. Time will tell who the fools are??

      Still selling the industrial strength bleach stroy are you — very old and very boring. Try coming up with something new if you can — which you can not as you are just preaching the same lie over and over again.

      Surely the FDA and Big Pharma can come up with something new– can they not?

      • Julian Frost June 28, 2012 at 15:36 #

        @Wilby:

        Intestinal lining??? Making up stuff like you just did is criminal!

        Right, because a potent alkali would never kill intestinal cells and cause them to slough off. Oh wait.

        Still selling the industrial strength bleach stroy are you — very old and very boring.

        And completely true. Sodium Chlorite is used to bleach paper and wood pulp and to disinfect air circulation systems.
        Cut it any way you like, sodium chlorite is a bleach, and MMS involves giving children bleach enemas. It’s child abuse, pure and simple.

  35. Lawrence June 27, 2012 at 21:23 #

    I’ll take that as a badge of honor from the moron pushing an industrial bleach on children…..

    • Wilby June 28, 2012 at 00:37 #

      hahahahaha — no problem, you earned it fair and square.

      • novalox June 28, 2012 at 02:02 #

        @wilby

        Congratulations on showing yourself to be the classless individual you truly are, in your abundant use of ad hominem and support of child abuse.

        I am truly awed at your shining example of Dunning-Kreuger and arrogance of ignorance in action.

        Keep posting, your ignorance is truly something to be laughed at.

  36. Science Mom June 28, 2012 at 01:02 #

    Wilby, perhaps you would tell us what kind of ‘worms’ these children have? How is it that no one has had them tested? It’s easy enough. Also, how are these children getting these ‘worms’ and why don’t we see them in neurotypical children?

    • Wilby June 28, 2012 at 20:12 #

      Do your own homework!! The answers are out there!

      • Gray Falcon June 28, 2012 at 20:52 #

        Wilby, what are you hoping to accomplish by saying that?

      • Sullivan June 28, 2012 at 22:51 #

        Gray Falcon,

        he’s doing what happens all too often: demonstrating that he doesn’t understand the other person’s position. He’s basically saying, “since you don’t agree with me, you must not have looked at the information”.

        It’s not that I haven’t checked the information he’s discussing. It isn’t that I don’t understand his arguments. It’s that I disagree with his conclusions.

      • MikeMa June 29, 2012 at 02:05 #

        The answers are indeed out there.
        MMS is not a valuable ally in treating autism.
        MMS is a hazard when taken internally (at either end).
        MMS is valuable as an industrial bleach and water treatment.

        If MMS has been subjected to clinical trials and found useful as an agent to treat autism or any other disease, please link to the study. Anecdotes are not data. Passionate parent’s tales shared over coffee or blogs are not valid references.

  37. Wilby June 29, 2012 at 15:21 #

    The US~Observer is deep into their investigation of MMS. They have already began obtaining clinical proof of the benefits of MMS and they have just published their first edition covering our issues like no other news source could, and it is currently being circulated around the globe.

    http://www.usobserver.com/archive/june-12/humble-on-mms.htm

    (From the article)

    Jim Humble — Hello, I am Jim Humble. I discovered Master Mineral Solution (MMS) back in 1997. I then spent several years studying the chemistry of MMS. Did you know that table salt that all of you use is more than 50% chlorine. If you find out that I am correct, does that mean that you will quit using table salt because chlorine is used in 98% of the world’s bleach? Well, MMS is no more bleach than table salt.

    I have 426 Ministers of Health bringing health to people in 72 different countries of the world using MMS. I am so sorry to say that all you Critics do with your efforts to convince people that MMS is bleach, is hurt hundreds of people and sentence them to great continued suffering or even death, that they could have otherwise avoided. All you have to do is to spend a little bit of time reading and studying chlorine dioxide, chlorine and bleach, instead of talking from total ignorance of the two subjects, MMS and bleach. They are not the same. Please, you hurt yourselves most of all.

    The one thing that is evident with every single Critic on the internet is that not a single one of them ever check out MMS to see if it works. Not a single one of them understands or has checked the chemistry of MMS. More than 10 million people have tried MMS and there are thousands of testimonies on the internet that people just put there without being asked, plus, we have thousands of testimonies that we asked for. How could we fool millions of people and somehow not fool Mr. Critic. Is that how you look at it? You Critics were wrong from the very beginning, without checking a single thing, without checking the fact that the FDA has approved the use of chlorine dioxide (MMS) on food, without checking the chemistry of MMS in any way. Without checking any of the facts, you just add your opinion to all of the other negative opinions. The terrible thing about all the Critics is, they do what they accuse MMS of doing, they hurt people. MMS is not bleach and MMS is not about big bucks!

    Yours in health and love,

    More articles:

    http://www.usobserver.com/archive/june-12/mms-myth-or-miracle.htm

    http://www.usobserver.com/archive/june-12/fda-targets-family-man.htm

    Get your facts straight people — MMS is here to help you and there is extremely little money to be made by the sellers. One 4oz bottle of Sodiun Chlorite & a 4oz bottle of Citric Acid cost about $20.00 to $30.00 and can last for years depending on usage. Jim Humble does not sell any products, he only just his books.

    • Sullivan June 29, 2012 at 16:05 #

      Did he really write that MMS is no more a bleach than table salt?

      Chlorite and chlorine dioxide (MMS) are bleaches.

      Why do people trust this man with their health?

      • Wilby June 29, 2012 at 19:39 #

        Table Salt is Poison
        http://www.healingnaturallybybee.com/articles/salt6.php

        In small doses salt will not hurt you in fact you need salt. But in high doses it will kill you.

        This analogy can be applied to MMS. In small doses it will NOT hurt you but it can help you.

        MMS at a low dose is not industrial strength bleach — maybe in extremely high doses.

        The bottles do not contain 28% sodium chlorite but rather 22.4%.
        You only take 3 drop doses at any one time.
        The three drop doses are diluted with ½ glass of water or
        juice, so in fact it is only a 0.0015% dose.
        The three drop dose is about one thousand times less than
        the FDA claims.
        For those who don’t understand percentages very well, that is only
        0.015 of a one percent dose. Which means about one hundredth of
        one percent. That’s not very much.

        Certainly not enough to bleach anything never mind being called an industrial strength bleach.

        We are using it as an oxidizor to destroy pathogens in the body. It stays in the body for about an hour then you may have another dose if that is what you feel you need to over come an illness of some type.

        It is NOT industrial strength bleach. Chlorine Dioxide is being used in drinking water to kill pathogens for water purification. Some remains in the water when it reaches your home.

        Stop being so dramatic — these small doses will not hurt you nor has it hurt anyone to date. Millions of people are using this product with absolutely no side effects.

        Personally my lungs have been cured, my gums were instantly cured and my arthristis stopped. I have had personal victories after having taken MMS so if you are trying to convince me or anyone that has been cured by MMS you are wasting your time.

        If I did things the Big Pharma way I would taking anti – inflamatories until I die. Or antibiotics for my gums, and inhalers for my lungs. I cured all these with one product — MMS.

        That is why the FDA and Big Pharma hates MMS — no profit in it for them.

        Argue and complain all you want too but we are not going away and we want to share are good fotune with others — others that have succumed to the posions and toxins of Big Pharma.

        Do you know that a person found a cure for tumours and after a 12 year battle and millions of dollars spent to fight this man they dicided to let him continue. BUT, he was only allowed to treat patience that have not be cured by chemo — therefore Big Pharma was allowed to maintain their profit margins first. http://www.burzynskiclinic.com
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRua3NLg-Z8 — The full story!

        It is good to be cautious but have an open mind.

    • Gray Falcon June 29, 2012 at 17:06 #

      Wilby, you do know “try it yourself before criticizing it” could also be applied to methamphetamine?

      • Wilby June 29, 2012 at 18:40 #

        Has anyone been cured by taking a methamphetamine? NO — dumb analogy. But, I am not surprised that you said it !!

      • Chris June 29, 2012 at 19:12 #

        And no one has been cured with MMS, which is bleach.

        And Jim Humble is not a reliable source of information.

      • Wilby June 29, 2012 at 19:40 #

        Many have been cured, you are ignorant of the facts.

      • Chris June 29, 2012 at 19:44 #

        You have supplied any verifiable facts. You refuse to understand the chemistry, and do not understand that unproven anecdotes are not facts.

      • Chris June 29, 2012 at 19:48 #

        Correction: You have not supplied any verifiable facts.

  38. Lawrence June 29, 2012 at 19:44 #

    Wilby has no problem with bleach enemas or forcing kids to take MMS orally until them develop signs of toxicity (vomiting and diarrhea)….especially developmentally disabled children who are already highly sensitive to begin with.

    What a monster.

  39. Science Mom June 29, 2012 at 19:56 #

    I would like to ask Wilby to answer my questions. What kind of worms are these and why aren’t they parisitising neurotypical children?

    • Sullivan June 29, 2012 at 22:00 #

      I agree. In general, a lot of alt-med tries make itself look more legit by claiming they are doing some real treatment. The odd chelation protocols which have sprung up, for example. Why don’t people go to medical toxicologists if they feel that they or their kids have an issue with heavy metals? Lupron? Why not engage a pediatric endocinologist.

      Ridding ones self of worms. There has to be someone who specializes in that.

      Of course the answer is always that “mainstream medicine” can’t or won’t look into the “real” problem.

    • Autismum June 30, 2012 at 03:06 #

      The radioactive DNA of autistic children attracts them, silly.

  40. Wilby June 30, 2012 at 04:12 #

    I guess if you people can repeat the same things over and over again so will I.

    Table Salt is Poison
    http://www.healingnaturallybybee.com/articles/salt6.php

    In small doses salt will not hurt you in fact you need salt. But in high doses it will kill you.

    This analogy can be applied to MMS. In small doses it will NOT hurt you but it can help you.

    MMS at a low dose is not industrial strength bleach — maybe in extremely high doses.

    The bottles do not contain 28% sodium chlorite but rather 22.4%.
    You only take 3 drop doses at any one time.
    The three drop doses are diluted with ½ glass of water or
    juice, so in fact it is only a 0.0015% dose.
    The three drop dose is about one thousand times less than
    the FDA claims.
    For those who don’t understand percentages very well, that is only
    0.015 of a one percent dose. Which means about one hundredth of
    one percent. That’s not very much.

    Certainly not enough to bleach anything never mind being called an industrial strength bleach.

    We are using it as an oxidizor to destroy pathogens in the body. It stays in the body for about an hour then you may have another dose if that is what you feel you need to over come an illness of some type.

    It is NOT industrial strength bleach. Chlorine Dioxide is being used in drinking water to kill pathogens for water purification. Some remains in the water when it reaches your home.

    Stop being so dramatic — these small doses will not hurt you nor has it hurt anyone to date. Millions of people are using this product with absolutely no side effects.

    Personally my lungs have been cured, my gums were instantly cured and my arthristis stopped. I have had personal victories after having taken MMS so if you are trying to convince me or anyone that has been cured by MMS you are wasting your time.

    If I did things the Big Pharma way I would taking anti – inflamatories until I die. Or antibiotics for my gums, and inhalers for my lungs. I cured all these with one product — MMS.

    That is why the FDA and Big Pharma hates MMS — no profit in it for them.

    Argue and complain all you want too but we are not going away and we want to share are good fotune with others — others that have succumed to the posions and toxins of Big Pharma.

    Do you know that a person found a cure for tumours and after a 12 year battle and millions of dollars spent to fight this man they dicided to let him continue. BUT, he was only allowed to treat patience that have not be cured by chemo — therefore Big Pharma was allowed to maintain their profit margins first. http://www.burzynskiclinic.com
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRua3NLg-Z8 — The full story!

    It is good to be cautious but have an open mind.

  41. Wilby June 30, 2012 at 04:12 #

    Table Salt is Poison
    http://www.healingnaturallybybee.com/articles/salt6.php

    In small doses salt will not hurt you in fact you need salt. But in high doses it will kill you.

    This analogy can be applied to MMS. In small doses it will NOT hurt you but it can help you.

    MMS at a low dose is not industrial strength bleach — maybe in extremely high doses.

    The bottles do not contain 28% sodium chlorite but rather 22.4%.
    You only take 3 drop doses at any one time.
    The three drop doses are diluted with ½ glass of water or
    juice, so in fact it is only a 0.0015% dose.
    The three drop dose is about one thousand times less than
    the FDA claims.
    For those who don’t understand percentages very well, that is only
    0.015 of a one percent dose. Which means about one hundredth of
    one percent. That’s not very much.

    Certainly not enough to bleach anything never mind being called an industrial strength bleach.

    We are using it as an oxidizor to destroy pathogens in the body. It stays in the body for about an hour then you may have another dose if that is what you feel you need to over come an illness of some type.

    It is NOT industrial strength bleach. Chlorine Dioxide is being used in drinking water to kill pathogens for water purification. Some remains in the water when it reaches your home.

    Stop being so dramatic — these small doses will not hurt you nor has it hurt anyone to date. Millions of people are using this product with absolutely no side effects.

    Personally my lungs have been cured, my gums were instantly cured and my arthristis stopped. I have had personal victories after having taken MMS so if you are trying to convince me or anyone that has been cured by MMS you are wasting your time.

    If I did things the Big Pharma way I would taking anti – inflamatories until I die. Or antibiotics for my gums, and inhalers for my lungs. I cured all these with one product — MMS.

    That is why the FDA and Big Pharma hates MMS — no profit in it for them.

    Argue and complain all you want too but we are not going away and we want to share are good fotune with others — others that have succumed to the posions and toxins of Big Pharma.

    Do you know that a person found a cure for tumours and after a 12 year battle and millions of dollars spent to fight this man they dicided to let him continue. BUT, he was only allowed to treat patience that have not be cured by chemo — therefore Big Pharma was allowed to maintain their profit margins first. http://www.burzynskiclinic.com
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRua3NLg-Z8 — The full story!

    It is good to be cautious but have an open mind.

    • Chris June 30, 2012 at 04:26 #

      None of those are verifiable facts. Random websites are often not to be trusted, and only a credulous person would believe them.

    • mikemawords June 30, 2012 at 14:28 #

      @Wilby
      Repeating that salt is poison is silly. So is water by the same reasoning. Both are necessary for life. Bleach is not.

      • Wilby June 30, 2012 at 15:29 #

        Chlorine Dioxide has been proven to kill over 95% of the worlds diseases. When used in proper proportions it can save your life.

    • Sullivan June 30, 2012 at 14:38 #

      “This analogy can be applied to MMS. In small doses it will NOT hurt you but it can help you.”

      Some have calculated the amount of chlorine dioxide ingested in some of the regimens. This is beyond the ld50 for a rat. In other words, some children are being given enough chlorine dioxide to kill a rat.

      Daily.

      No wonder there are reports of nausea and worse.

      • Wilby June 30, 2012 at 15:30 #

        Pure lies and speculation — talk about spreading misinformation.

      • Sullivan June 30, 2012 at 17:34 #

        http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/06/21/mms-a-k-a-bleach-for-autism-just-when-i-think-im-out/

        Rivera’s recommended protocol involves working the dose up to 8 to 24 drops per day (1 to 3 drops administered 8 times a day), depending on the child’s weight. Now, it’s been previously calculated that a drop of MMS contains roughly 10 mg of sodium chlorite, which generates around 8 mg of chlorine dioxide. This means giving children between 64 and 192 mg of chlorine dioxide per day, depending on the child’s weight.

        LD50 for chlorine dioxide (dose which will kill 50% of rats tested) is 292mg/kg.

        http://www.haloxtech.com/pdf/MSDS-Chlorinedioxide(ClO2)-540ppm.pdf

        Since a large rat is about 1/2 kilogram, 192mg woud be nearly 400mg/kg. Well over the LD50.

        That dose would kill a rat.

        People aren’t rats, but it isn’t surprising that people are made ill by this “therapy”

  42. Lawrence June 30, 2012 at 13:24 #

    I love the fact that he posts a link to Dr. B’s website – the cancer quack who has yet to publish any actual results of his “treatments” despite 30 years of work. Imagine, charging hundreds of thousands of dollars per patient, yet doesn’t have a single verified result – I hope to god that the TX Medical Board finally shuts him down…..

    • Wilby June 30, 2012 at 15:32 #

      Very sad. I see you people will lie about anything after reading the lastest comments.

      http://www.burzynskiclinic.com
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRua3NLg-Z8 — The full story!

      Watch the video for yourseves and forget about about the ignorant comments made by ‘Lawrence’

      • Lawrence June 30, 2012 at 16:27 #

        So Wilby – since you’ve brought up Dr. B, why don’t you tell us why he charges hundreds of thousands of dollars for “clinical trials” whereas every other real clinical trial is free to participants – also, why doesn’t he publish his results?

        Also, why has no one been able to replicate his protocols – in fact, in every instance it was attempted, the teams were forced to stop because the treatment was too toxic.

        Seriously, get some help – you are pushing quack cures and dangerous substances on the innocent. You still haven’t addressed the fact that this “industrial bleaching agent” is being forced on helpless children.

  43. Wilby June 30, 2012 at 15:40 #

    The Sun is a bleaching agent and it causes cancer — stay out of the sun!! Especially children — do you let your kids play outside? How cruel of you!!

    Oh, small doses are safe you say — interesting. What? — the sun can help you in small doses & is a source for vitamin ‘D’. How could that be — the sun will harm you.

    Too much of the sun will kill you but in small amounts it is good for you with no harmful side affects.

    Same with MMS — small doses will help you.

    The bottles do not contain 28% sodium chlorite but rather 22.4%.
    You only take 3 drop doses at any one time.
    The three drop doses are diluted with ½ glass of water or
    juice, so in fact it is only a 0.0015% dose.
    The three drop dose is about one thousand times less than
    the FDA claims.
    For those who don’t understand percentages very well, that is only
    0.015 of a one percent dose. Which means about one hundredth of
    one percent. That’s not very much.

  44. Science Mom June 30, 2012 at 15:57 #

    Why can’t Wilby answer simple questions? Funny how the MMS abusers can’t answer that.

    • Wilby June 30, 2012 at 17:43 #

      Do your own search — autism worms in google
      http://devdelay.org/newsletter/articles/pdf/355-parasites-some-with-autism-not-recovering.pdf

      MMS kills parasites

      • novalox June 30, 2012 at 18:06 #

        @wilby,

        Evidence please from proven scientific journals, not just silly biased sites, or be proven a child abuser.

      • brian June 30, 2012 at 18:18 #

        Equally believable:

        http://www.whale.to/b/flying_dolphin.html

      • Sullivan June 30, 2012 at 19:08 #

        That’s the best you can come up with? Three homeopaths in a pdf that makes baseless claims?

      • Wilby=Kilby June 30, 2012 at 21:28 #

        So does gasoline, but before I’ll give it to my kid, I’ll want to see you guzzle some, and see how “cured” you feel

    • Wilby June 30, 2012 at 21:06 #

      I wasn’t trying to prove anything other then for telling people to do their own searches.

  45. lilady June 30, 2012 at 20:03 #

    See where the three homeopaths have presented their theories about parasites and their “treatment/cures” of “parasite-caused-autism”:

    http://www.homeopathyhouston.com/homeopathy-upcoming-events/upcoming-events.php

    Darn, I missed the Autism One Conference and this brilliant presentation.

    • Why is Wilby Suppressing Evidence? June 30, 2012 at 21:31 #

      “Chlorine Dioxide has been proven to kill over 95% of the worlds diseases. When used in proper proportions it can save your life.”

      And yet you refuse to provide evidence… Is the FDA paying you to make Jim Humble look bad, or are you a free-lance creep?

    • brian June 30, 2012 at 22:16 #

      Wilby, you posted that (according to three credulous homeopaths who believe that water mixed with more water can cure various diseases if the water-water mixture has been “succussed”) (1) “many” behaviors of “classic autism” are caused by “parasites,” but (2) you should “probably not” test for the presence of such parasites because you probably won’t find them, but instead (3) you should begin a “four to nine months” treatment program (involving succussed water-water mixtures!) to remove the parasites that are assumed to be present (without testing) in a “specific order of elimination.” Then you posted information that you seem to believe supports your position, although that information suggests that parasites in the gut (um, yes, just like those parasites that you hope to bleach to death with MMS) may have some positive effects on the immune system (at least with respect to Crohn’s disease and the hygiene hypothesis.)

      Strong work.

      I suppose that he misinformation that you post might seem to make sense to people like you (and to those like the authors of the homeopathy article that you linked) who lack even the most rudimentary understanding of science. Here’s a hint: Look at the homeopathy article that you linked with the understanding that Giardia and Cryptosporidia are assuredly NOT “bacterial parasites.” Facts matter. You can take it from there.

      • Wilby June 30, 2012 at 23:32 #

        You have not made any scientific factual claims — just babble.
        You have not proved a damn thing about anything.

      • Chris July 1, 2012 at 00:57 #

        How would you know, Wilby? You are the one credulous one posting websites of very little value.

  46. Wilby- FDA shill June 30, 2012 at 21:33 #

    “Has anyone been cured by taking a methamphetamine? NO — dumb analogy. But, I am not surprised that you said it !!”

    That’s not true! James Modest, high holy Pope of the church of health, has cured many children using methampedamine. Only you and your big Pharma shills would deny this!

    • Lawrence July 1, 2012 at 00:44 #

      Wow – Wilby saying he’s made “scientifically accurate claims?”, just wow…..

  47. Science Mom June 30, 2012 at 22:50 #

    Do your own search — autism worms in google
    http://devdelay.org/newsletter/articles/pdf/355-parasites-some-with-autism-not-recovering.pdf

    That’s research?! That doesn’t answer my questions at all. What kind of parasites specificallly are these children getting; there are tests for these you know and why aren’t neurotypical children experiencing this outbreak of parasites?

    MMS kills parasites

    Sadly, it doesn’t even do that, just kills healthy epithelial tissue in the intestines. Congrats child abuser.

    • Wilby June 30, 2012 at 23:28 #

      So now you are an expert on mms???
      FDA Mom

      • Lawrence July 1, 2012 at 00:42 #

        What country do you live in Wilby that parasites are common? Unless you are in some parts of Africa, the Far East or perhaps Afghanistan, it isn’t the problem these parents are trying to make it out to be.

        You are so full of it – and how dare you continue to support the “raping” of these children with bleach enemas…..

      • Wilby July 1, 2012 at 01:45 #

        You have not made any scientific factual claims —- just babble.
        You have not proved a damn thing about anything.

      • James July 1, 2012 at 02:32 #

        With respect Wilby… even with all the truths put against MMS… even if there wasn’t… its not up to the critics really to prove that it doesn’t work. Rather it is on the onus on proponents of MMS to prove that it works through rigorous tests and studies that stand up to scrutiny.

        Is this really the kind of system you want? Not a system where we test stuff before using it. Oh no. We just ram it into people claiming it ‘fixes’ them just because ‘why not?’. And no a reflexive defense of ‘your being paid by big bad pharma!’ is not a worthy defense. Its a pathetic defense.

        While I’m no fan of big pharma (or any large company or lobby group really), one groups wrong doesn’t make a right. Just because there are questionable business practices in any large company which we rightly should fight against. Does NOT justify the other side to claim ‘inherent goodness’ simply be being anti-whatever. It does not make them incapable of doing harm.

        And it should not leave them completely immune to the burden of proof that they should be providing for medical treatments. Especially invasive and questionable ones like MMS. You have your annocdotale evidence that makes you believe it works? Great. Personally I don’t put weight behind it. But surely full on correctly carried out studies should only prove the efficacy. Not something that you avoid at all costs?

      • Wilby July 1, 2012 at 14:31 #

        James

        Do you realize what it takes to have a new product tested and aproved — by the FDA?

        First of all it cost millions and it takes years. Just because the FDA pushes Big Pharma through fast in the name of profit they will NOT allow anything else through until millions and millions of dollars are spent. This is just another way of maintaining control and profit.

        We have done test doctors are behind this product and more people will come forward when they stop fearing the cartel. The FDA already raided a mans home and took everything he had and they have no legal authority other then they are the moneychangers of the world — money is power.

        I suggest everyone study the chemistry behind this proceedure.

        AGAIN, no one has been hurt by this product. No one!

      • Sullivan July 1, 2012 at 16:10 #

        The chemistry isn’t the problem. The toxicology is. Sodium chlorite plusncitric acid gives chlorine dioxide. Chlorine dioxide in the doses quoted causes ill effects.

  48. Science Mom July 1, 2012 at 02:44 #

    So now you are an expert on mms???
    FDA Mom

    One doesn’t need to be an expert to know that shoving industrial bleach down a child’s gullet and up their bum’s is a really bad idea. All of that mummy instinct and common sense dolts like you claim to have seems to have eluded you. “FDA Mom” really? Because the obvious escapes you you have to believe everyone challenging you is in on the conspiracy? Try answering my questions instead.

    • Sullivan July 1, 2012 at 03:10 #

      The classic “I don’t have to be an expert to promote this as a cure, but you to be an expert to question my non expert opinions”

      I’m guessing that Science Mom has more science chops than Wilby.

      • Wilby July 1, 2012 at 14:40 #

        Really — how about challengings Science Mom’s claims and ask her for facts.

        All I did was I questioned her insight on what she says mms does.

        According to Science Mom — “Sadly, it doesn’t even do that, just kills healthy epithelial tissue in the intestines.”

        Science mom??? — don’t make me laugh.

        I want all your claims quantified as well. OR else don’t make them.

      • Sullivan July 1, 2012 at 16:16 #

        I’ve read enough of science mom’s writing to see that she understands science. I’ve read enough Wilby to see that he/she doesn’t.

        As to educating myself about science, I am comfortable with my level of education. There are areas I wish to understand better, but giving doses of a substance like chlorine dioxide which make people feel sickened without any good exectation for benefit is just a bad idea. Doesn’t take a Ph.D. to work that out.

    • Wilby July 1, 2012 at 14:33 #

      You have no clue what you are talking about! You comments bore me.

      • novalox July 1, 2012 at 19:43 #

        wilby=child abuser

        From your comments, absolute refusal to cite any evidence, and prominent ad hominem, we can assume this.

        And yes, people do have a tendency to get riled up when an individual, particularly a misguided one, promotes child abuse.

  49. MikeMa July 1, 2012 at 13:24 #

    @Wilby,
    You link to fools for support.
    You have no evidence supporting your claims.
    You read a little chemistry and think that because bleach kills parasites in water it should work great in a living body. No collateral damage. Huh.
    When you seem to recognize the potential damage, you compare MMS to other drugs that cause damage even though those drugs have a proven efficacy and MMS has none.
    You understand science in a way a nine year old does. Every new wonder is believed instantly and fervently, proof be damned. Maybe UFOs delivered MMS to huckster Humble.
    Educate yourself in real science. Then come back and apologize.

    • Wilby July 1, 2012 at 14:34 #

      Educate yourself in real science. Then come back and apologize.

      Back at you!

      • mikemawords July 1, 2012 at 15:14 #

        @Wilby,
        Anecdotes are not real science.
        Homeopathy fails as real science so referencing homeopaths as evidence drops your credibility rapidly.
        Real science needs real evidence. You have none.
        I will apologize when you present some.

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: