If MMS, CD, chlorine dioxide, “parasite protocol” is safe, why does ClO2 dissolve tissue?

15 Jan

One of the marketing ploys for MMS* is that it somehow attacks viruses, bacteria, parasites, heavy metals, toxins and more but doesn’t affect human tissue. It’s safe! Of course this is from the same people who said that it isn’t a bleach. Emily Willingham did a very simple and elegant demonstration that, MMS: Yes, It Is Bleach. Put a few drops on a black cloth and, lo an behold, it bleaches it.

photo+%25286%2529[1]

I thought about taking this to the next step–putting some drops on raw meat to see how much tissue would be bleached. Then I thought, I wonder if there’s a study on this already? Consider this paper, Comparison of Organic Tissue Dissolution Capacities of Sodium Hypochlorite and Chlorine Dioxide (full paper here).

Organic tissue dissolution capacity. In other words: how well do these solutions dissolve tissue.

According to the main site promoting MMS as an autism cure:

What is MMS?

MMS stands for Master Mineral Solution. It’s chemical name is Chlorine Dioxide (ClO2). ClO2 is a gas that is produced as a result of combining 2 liquids, Sodium Chlorite (NaClO2) and citric acid. When added to the sodium chlorite, the citric acid brings the combined pH level to under five, causing the sodium chlorite to become unstable and release chorine dioxide. (ClO2) Chlorine dioxide is an oxidizer with a lower oxidation potential (.95 V) than any of the other oxidizers in the human body.

MMS starts out as sodium chlorite, not the hypochlorite as mentioned in the paper. But the final solution contains ClO2, the same as one tested in the above paper. In that paper they were exploring whether these solutions (sodium hypochlorite and ClO2) could be used in dental work. They wanted to test whether ClO2 solutions would have an effect on tissue, in this case the pulp from the inside of teeth. They already knew that sodium hypochlorite dissolved tissue.

What did they find? When they put tooth pulp (taken from cows) into these solutions, after 20 minutes about 28% of the tissue was dissolved.

Dissolved.

In ClO2 solution.

But wait, you say. That’s a paper using cow teeth, published in Turkey. Realizing that this argument would come up, I searched for more papers. Such as Effect of chlorine dioxide and sodium hypochlorite on the dissolution of human pulp tissue e An in vitro study. Which concludes

5% Chlorine dioxide is capable of dissolving human pulp tissue but sodium hypochlorite was more effective.

Or

Comparison of Organic Tissue Dissolution Capacities of NaOCl and ClO2

Conclusion: Within the limitations of this in vitro study, it was concluded that ClO2 is efficient as well as NaOCl in dissolving organic tissue.

Not all tissues are the same. Skin, especially the dead skin in the outer layer, is likely more resistant than tooth pulp. But, how about the intestinal lining (a consideration for those using this as an enema solution)? Or once absorbed in the stomach (for those taking an oral route) or the esophagus?

OK, it dissolves tissues. But why go to these papers? How about just looking at the MSDS? People have long brought out the MSDS for thimerosal to tell us that it should be removed from vaccines. The MSDS for thimerosal shows that the LD50 level (the exposure where 1/2 of the test animals died, lethal dose 50) is Acute oral toxicity (LD50): 75 mg/kg [Rat] for thimerosal. A chlorine dioxide solution of 0.054 weight% Chlorine Dioxide is less toxic than thimerosal, with an LD50 (oral) rats: 292 mg/kg. So, it would take about 4 times as much chlorine dioxide solution at this concentration to kill a rat as thimerosal.

The thing is, people don’t drink thimerosal solutions. Or do so repeatedly. People are encouraged to drink MMS.

Consider what happens if we increase the concentration of ClO2. Up the concentration to 3% ClO2 in water and it is as toxic as thimerosal. But, again, dose makes the poison and the dose of ClO2 from MMS is much higher than the dose of thimerosal from a vaccine.

The idea that MMS, or CD or Chlorine Dioxide is somehow a magical solution which rids the body of harmful substances while having no effect on human tissues is just flat out incorrect. It dissolves organic tissue. It’s toxic and the doses are significant.

(*MMS is “miracle mineral solution”, a relatively new bit of alternative medicine that is being sold as an autism cure. It has been promoted at parent conventions such as Autism One and by the blog The Age of Autism. It is a scam and if the discussion above wasn’t clear: it should be avoided.)


By Matt Carey

732 Responses to “If MMS, CD, chlorine dioxide, “parasite protocol” is safe, why does ClO2 dissolve tissue?”

  1. damonmatthewwise January 15, 2015 at 23:32 #

    Reblogged this on fatheroftheaspiesmovement.

    • macaddict08 January 16, 2015 at 21:34 #

      Who ever wrote this webpage has FLUNKED basic chemistry !!!

      You should really LEARN more about what you are condemning first, before posting it on the web.

      CL02 will stain clothes at FULL concentration … which is why before its drank or used for enemas.. you dilute it 100’s of times over…. to an acceptable ppm.

      Only an idiot would use it straight…..

      So please.. stop writing such BS about it.. the stuff works !!

      • Gray Falcon January 16, 2015 at 21:56 #

        So in other words, you dilute it to the point where it would have no effect at all?

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) January 16, 2015 at 23:21 #

        “So in other words, you dilute it to the point where it would have no effect at all?”

        And claim that adverse reactions are good. Call them “Herxheimer reactions” and ignore the nausea, the diarrhea, the tissue irritation–all those are good things. Signs that this “dilute” substance is supposedly working.

      • macaddict08 January 16, 2015 at 22:08 #

        If you cared to even learn the Protocol…. you’d know its 3 drops of CD per 8oz of water …. for drinking….

        Do the math

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) January 16, 2015 at 22:15 #

        Who says I don’t know the protocol?

        You state “for drinking”. Really? How many times is the word “enema” used in Kerri Rivera’s book? (answer: 277)

        How many times is nausea mentioned? (answer 15).

        Does she talk about irritation to the esophagus? Yes.

        But it’s just harmless, right?

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) January 16, 2015 at 23:47 #

        “If you cared to even learn the Protocol…. you’d know its 3 drops of CD per 8oz of water …. for drinking….”

        Funny how your previous comment accepted that it is used for enemas. And now the protocol is just “for drinking”. Right. Downplay the nonsense that is MMS.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) January 16, 2015 at 22:17 #

        “Who ever wrote this webpage has FLUNKED basic chemistry !!!”

        Nope. Got pretty high marks. My Ph.D. is in physics, though.

        “CL02 will stain clothes at FULL concentration ”

        The bleaching effect was seen using MMS per directions. Follow the link to Emily Willingham (also a Ph.D. in science, by the way) page.

        “Only an idiot would use it straight…..”

        You said it, not me.

      • macaddict08 January 16, 2015 at 22:22 #

        It IS harmless when used correctly … any idiot can follow directions…its the ones that don’t that YOU use as the protocol then being harmful.

        Again… 162 kids recovered …. NO injures(detox, yes) .. NO death…. so WHY all the drama on your end ?… and WHY all the lies here ?

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) January 16, 2015 at 23:40 #

        Right. No injuries. Because they are called “Herxheimer reactions” by those selling their wares and their services.

        This is at best useless. At worst abusive. Yes, it causes harm. Just because

        162 kids “recovered”. Because the person selling her services says so? You don’t care about data? Proof? You just accept what she says as she sells books and her time and her clinic? OK. I have higher standards of proof than you do. I don’t just take her word. Why? Because for 10 years I’ve been hearing people tell me about how they recovered kids with one method or another. When the claims can be checked, they’ve turned out false.

        ClO2 can dissolve tissue. It’s been shown. It can cause nausea. I’m not the one lying. People saying that this substance magically attacks anything bad while having no affect on a person are lying.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) January 16, 2015 at 23:45 #

        take a look at those pictures of “worms”. Consider that they are not, in fact, worms but are, in fact, tissues from the disabled children subjected to these chlorine dioxide enemas.

        Considering that Kerri Rivera admits that the “parasites” she sees are not identified as such by lab tests, the idea that they are parasites is questionable at best.

        The fact that she believes that autistic children have parasites but doesn’t encourage parents to seek qualified expert help is highly problematic. If my kid is suspected of having a health problem, say parasites, I want the best care I can get. I don’t want a do-it-yourself cookbook for treatment. I want people who have trained their lives to treat a given problem.

        When I see evidence that disabled children are being made to pass their own intestinal tissues, I will speak out. That is not “drama”. Claiming without evidence that this nonsense has recovered children, so I should buy her book and call her up and pay for a consultation–that is drama.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) January 16, 2015 at 23:48 #

        “It IS harmless when used correctly ”

        To use this correctly is to never use it. Or to leave it to those bleaching fabric. So, yes, if used correctly it is harmless. Unfortunately, you and others are promoting the misuse of this chemical.

      • macaddict08 January 16, 2015 at 23:43 #

        Ya..uh huh…. keep rambling on…you NutJob !!!

        get a clue

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) January 16, 2015 at 23:50 #

        Ah, well, that’s a substantive, adult discussion.

        I don’t apologize if you feel challenged by people on this site pointing out that this “protocol” makes no sense and is abusive.

        Throw your insults. They say more about you than they do about me.

      • novalox January 17, 2015 at 13:50 #

        @macaddict08

        Thank you for proving that you support child abuse. You’ve proven that you are a vile person, deserving of no respect from any rational person.

        I truly pity your child if you have done this to them.

      • macaddict08 January 17, 2015 at 13:57 #

        … and thank YOU for continually proving your ignorance about such a simple procedure…

        Don’t you people have better things to do than post ignorant rants on a blog ?

      • Lawrence January 17, 2015 at 14:25 #

        That is rich coming from a person who is forcing bleach down the throats of autistic children.

      • macaddict08 January 17, 2015 at 14:34 #

        You don’t fool us… we know you people are well educated, Pharma Trolls … who have an agenda…. so keep posting your BS about Chlorine Dioxide … the more you call it “bleach”, the dumber you look and sound.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) January 17, 2015 at 16:17 #

        Well you “know” things that are wrong.

        I do have an agenda, speaking out against abusive faux treatments used on autistics. The question is why don’t you have that agenda.

        OK, you don’t think Chlorine Dioxide is a bleach. What term do you use for a chemical used to remove the color from fabric or paper? Because that what ClO2 is. You can try to say “it’s not household bleach so it’s not bleach” but that is simply wrong.

        Since you seem to know more about pharma shills than i do, perhaps you could tell me where I can get paid. I like it when people throw the “pharma shill” slur around. It shows that they can’t respond to the factual arguments presented to them. If you had facts you would have to resort to lying about me.

        Here’s a question for you. Who has made more money , Kerri Rivera off MMS or me on writing? One consult, one speaker fee, one book sale and she’s made more than I have. So, if being paid were really the trump card you think it is, think about that.

      • Lawrence January 17, 2015 at 19:04 #

        You know what really grinds my gears – idiotic anti-vaxers & purveyors of “bleach” therapy that seem to think that people have to get “paid” to have opinions and a desire to protect the health of both the public and private individuals – especially those who lack the ability to protect themselves.

        At the end of the day, logic, rational thinking and science shows that MMS is nothing more than child abuse, plain and simple.

      • Dr. Smith April 16, 2015 at 21:23 #

        So you feel that ingesting poison is an effective method for killing parasites….well you are right they used to use (As) to kill parasites back in the day…but that also killed the patients. Hg was also used but that drove the patients insane…Cl02 is extremely dangerous and should not be used by anyone ever…Also, the major problem here is that Autism is not caused by parasites or heavy metals, instead these “parasites” people are finding in their children’s stools are intestines, my PhD is in biochemistry and I can say that the OPs science while brief at least follows the proper channels for testing, I fear that it is you macaddict08 who does not understand basic chemistry. Also this is not a basic chemistry question this is a biochemistry/molecular biology question, very far from chemistry and your assertions that this a chemistry question speaks to your ignorance.

      • damonmatthewwise January 22, 2017 at 17:50 #

        LOL – you test it, it will never be safe and completely diluted enough to be safe – and gets used way above the safe limits – wherever you go you will see it listed as either a toxin or poison not for ingestion, no matter how dilute; or feel free to look up lab tests reported! 🙂

    • truluv4u April 17, 2015 at 20:35 #

      Chlorine dioxide works! Hundreds are being healed of auto-immune disease (including me!), and even autism that results from gut dysbiosis. CD does not bleach or oxidize body tissue in the tiny doses given – and is positively charged, so it only eliminates negative pathogens. Chlorine has been used for decades to purify drinking water – and many critics don’t mind swimming in pools quite thick with it. Ignorance is not bliss on this topic – and your misinformation may prevent many from the wonderful benefits of this healing gift!

      • louveha April 17, 2015 at 22:45 #

        *sigh*
        On testimonials and “living proof”, see : https://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2015/01/15/if-mms-cd-chlorine-dioxide-parasite-protocol-is-safe-why-does-clo2-dissolve-tissue/comment-page-1/#comment-185992

        https://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2015/01/15/if-mms-cd-chlorine-dioxide-parasite-protocol-is-safe-why-does-clo2-dissolve-tissue/comment-page-1/#comment-185963

        And is chlorine used in drinking water at the same doses recommended that “healing CD” proponents ? That’s one of the main problems with your argument.

      • Lisa May 3, 2015 at 00:41 #

        I don’t drink pool water. It makes me angry that parents are forcing this stuff on their children

      • wzrd1 September 27, 2015 at 04:53 #

        I’ve arrived late, so I apologize for the very late reply.
        Pool water is typically 1 – 3 parts per million chlorine residual.
        US Army field water supplies range from 5 parts per million chlorine residual from post purified water supply to 10 parts per million under austere conditions, with 15 – 20 parts per million used for contaminated water supply.
        Once, I drank a sip of >100 parts per million chlorine residual, it burned my throat, esophagus and stomach. The excess was due to three individuals chlorinating the water without anyone else’s knowledge, resulting an unmeasured overdose of chlorine. I instituted control measures that only those appropriately trained and assigned by my battalion field sanitation team would measure, then treat the water and log it on the water vessel in chalk.
        Fortunately, I had discovered the issue incidental to filling my canteen to drink.

        As was said above in the article, the dose makes the poison and active chlorine compounds do act as a bleach. We had four different bleaching compounds authorized for water treatment. This one is a bit too active to risk in military field conditions, save for nuclear, biological and chemical warfare. We stick to HTH, STB and DS2 for decontamination there and heaven help anyone who permits super tropical bleach and DS2 to mix, an explosion would result.

      • damonmatthewwise January 22, 2017 at 17:54 #

        Yes and millions of years of genetic and neurological autism has diddly squat relevance to Wakefield Syndrome, or Mock autism. It simply is made up. Just look up of all the health shakes and tonics you could take – and give a better result, do not make such failing statistical effect. We have water purification systems to take out Chlorine and Fluoride which we react to;why would we further affect our immunity by giving what affects us more negatively?

    • Matt O Stroben April 22, 2015 at 06:50 #

      3 drops in a cup of water see how well that bleaches something.of course chlorine dioxide will bleach something when its not diluted. So if you have a P.H.D why are you writing such a one sided report? You know they don’t use it straight like that. I no longer have any cirrhosis of the liver after using it. explain that. it was stage 3 cirrhosis.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) April 22, 2015 at 07:27 #

        Gee another internet testimonial. Bleach now cures cirrhosis of the liver.

        Nonsense.

        I didn’t take MMS and I don’t have cirrhosis of the liver. Obviously not taking bleach prevents cirrhosis. And every other disease I don’t have.

        Same logic as yours. Prove I am wrong.

        It’s Ph.D. Not P.H.D. By the way.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) April 22, 2015 at 07:35 #

        So, why do so many proponents of MMS claim it isn’t a bleach?

        They are wrong. Only question is how many know they are wrong.

      • damonmatthewwise January 22, 2017 at 17:57 #

        Belief in something and stop drinking and eating better and balanced food has a better chance of helping then using what causes us serious reactions and severe immunological response. Last time I had a drip I vomited and pissed and crapped liquid all at the same time. You think I would deliberately give a higher dose then in the drip?

    • Chris May 8, 2015 at 13:50 #

      Two arguments you ignorant pundits always bring up are that it is actually bleach and that it induces vomitting and diahrrea. First of all, It is LIKE a form of bleach only it breaks back down to a salt. Does Chlorox do this??? No! Now… look at how many lawyer commercials you see on television for harmful medications that the CDC has passed as efficacious. The side affects of their approved medications are 10 times more heinous than MMS. Diahrrea with MMS, unlike its pharmecutical counterparts, is actually a good thing as is your body getting rid of poisons. Before you blast this Panacea, please do your basic homework.

      • Gray Falcon May 8, 2015 at 14:05 #

        [citation needed]

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) May 8, 2015 at 17:58 #

        It is “LIKE a form of bleach” in that it is used commercially to bleach the color from fibers. That is so much “LIKE” bleach that one can and should call it a bleach.

        Are you claiming that only Big Pharma can sell products that can be harmful with insufficient warnings? What makes you think that Little Pharma (not really that little) like MMS can’t sell a dangerous product without proper warning.

        Where’s the approval process for MMS (answer: none)
        Where’s the efficacy data for MMS (answer: none)

        How can one do a risk/benefit analysis without data (answer: one can’t)

        It’s a “panacea” even? Really? Explain.

      • Narad May 10, 2015 at 01:28 #

        First of all, It is LIKE a form of bleach only it breaks back down [sic] to a salt. Does Chlorox do this???

        Yes. Anything else?

      • wzrd1 September 27, 2015 at 04:56 #

        A good question is what this genius thinks what salt ClO2 breaks down into.
        Oxygen salt or Chlorine salts from dissolved tissue?

        Bleaches are oxidizers, that’s how they work. Add to it that the oxygen molecules will depart the Chlorine atom, leaving free Chlorine and likely Oxygen radicals to interact with tissue.
        This isn’t a treatment, it’s a torture!

      • watch god May 12, 2016 at 17:58 #

        i wonder Chris why you bother to reply this wizard of oz logic above that actually eradicates any validity of internet info personal testimonials whilst doing it on the internet…we have a serious problem here.no respect.no trust. the web is full of lies.corrupt commercial and government agents.who can we believe?

      • damonmatthewwise January 22, 2017 at 17:58 #

        Sick.

    • Jenn September 18, 2015 at 03:11 #

      If it is so unsafe, why do they use it to decontaminate drinking water and to treat chickens after they are killed in the slaughterhouse BEFORE you eat them? Sorry but this product has been around forever – and in low concentrations makes contaminated drinking water safe. So how is it THEN unsafe for human consumption? Isn’t this a bit retarded…your whole article?

      • Lawrence September 18, 2015 at 10:45 #

        First, you’ve used a derogatory term that should not be used, ever, and especially is frowned upon on this blog.

        And using something to “decontaminate” is one thing, but forcing autistic children to ingest it or use it for enemas is something else entirely……

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) September 18, 2015 at 18:47 #

        Yep. Sad that the MMS crowd feels free to use stigmatizing language in general, but especially that they feel free to use it here.

        Jenn–notice the “autism science, news and opinion since 2003” at the top of this page? How about all the discussions of autism and disability in this thread? And you still feel like the R-word is OK here?

        Do you also walk into NAACP meetings and use the N-word?

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) September 18, 2015 at 18:49 #

        Yep, the whole “treat chickens after they are killed in a slaughterhouse” argument is wonderful evidence for a supposed medicine.

        “What will cure autism?”

        “well, we have this susbtance which is used on dead chicken carcasses.”

        Who needs, oh, say, evidence of efficacy and safety when we have the chicken carcass argument?

      • damonmatthewwise January 22, 2017 at 18:06 #

        Ireland has regularly been criticized for excessive use, and thus is observing severe reactions; and has for years been the last to use what is proven so harmful.

  2. Lawrence January 15, 2015 at 23:46 #

    Not only that, but they are using this rectally as well – shooting bleach directly into the colon……how is this not child abuse?

    • Sullivan (Matt Carey) January 16, 2015 at 00:22 #

      “how is this not child abuse?”

      It is. Clearly child abuse. It’s just not prosecuted.

      • Rodney February 18, 2015 at 21:44 #

        Sullivan,

        There are thousands of families, all over the world, successfully using chlorine dioxide to recover children and adults from the symptoms known as autism. It is unfortunate that tiny self-interest groups such as this have taken to the internet to raise false alarm, concern and mistrust in the public about a simple chemical that is doing good for thousands in both industrial and personal use.

        Chlorine dioxide is not only promoted by government agencies for use in treating municipal drinking water, but also used as an ingredient in many patented products, such as eye drops, open wound treatment, mouthwash, toothpaste, nail fungus treatment, acne care, etc. Hard to imagine that a so-called “toxic” substance could find so many healthcare uses.

        Chlorine dioxide has been mentioned on news reports for clearing anthrax from buildings after terrorist attacks, removing mould from buildings after Hurricane Katrina, killing bedbugs and is even helping in dealing with the current Ebola crisis, after its usefulness was established by the US Armed Forces. There is even an issued US Patent from the year 2000, describing the use of chlorite, by injection, to successfully treat human HIV patients. Is THIS abuse ???

        In the pulp and paper industry, the use of chlorine dioxide is promoted by government agencies in ECF (Elemental Chlorine Free) plants, which helps to minimize the environmental impact of this industry. Also, because of it’s thorough, yet gentle oxidizing properties (which is why internal use can be so safe as to promote health, even though such use is alternative) it does less damage to paper fibers than chlorine bleach.

        Often compared by opponents of chlorine dioxide use to common bleach, because of CD’s oxidizing capabilities, CD is actually a very different chemical, that produces no chlorinated byproducts when used.

        Chlorine, on the other hand, produces carcinogenic byproducts when used to treat drinking water. This is why the use of chlorine dioxide is instead being promoted by governments for so many applications.

        Alternative approaches to healthcare will always draw scrutiny and criticism from government agencies or people such as yourself that have not yet tested the efficacy of such methods. This simply means that the use is untested and therefore unapproved, but as any investigations will show, no harm is being done in the case of chlorine dioxide use.

        If you and these small self-interest groups would simply do more thorough research, they would soon discover that their concerns (though understandable without having fully researched chlorine dioxide) are unfounded. Much good can be done through the safe and appropriate use of this simple, useful chemical: Chlorine Dioxide.

        Many thousands in every nation that is pursuing healthcare-related use for CD are having amazing success, even with recovering from autism symptoms. A whole new light is being shown as to the causes of such health issues, as a result. Of course, the FDA and the medical community has NO interest in looking into or documenting anything to do with CD in a medical way.. and I think you and I both know why.

        The successes by those pioneering such methods are mounting, are being documented and are verifiable. The sheer volume of consistent success will soon be apparent the world over, despite having to be done in an environment where any alternative approach to healthcare is attacked and opposed….. unfortunately … much like this forum.

        Yours in health

      • Gray Falcon February 18, 2015 at 21:52 #

        I’ve seen similar defenses of bloodletting historically. I need evidence, not unfounded claims.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 18, 2015 at 23:57 #

        I see pretty much the same arguments that have failed over and over in this discussion. But let’s go through this again.

        “It is unfortunate that tiny self-interest groups such as this have taken to the internet to raise false alarm”

        It is unfortunate, and telling, that you start with an ad hominem attack on the parent of an autistic child, whose interest is in a better life for autistics.

        “There are thousands of families, all over the world, successfully using chlorine dioxide to recover children and adults from the symptoms known as autism”

        Really? And the data for this is where? Yes, you will (and have) tell us all that there are 163 kids recovered from autism with this “miracle” mineral supplement. (MMS is not a miracle, a mineral nor a supplement, by the way). The evidence for these 163 kids is a bunch of testimonials allegedly submitted to Kerri Rivera, whose business right now depends on people using MMS for autism. Book sales, talks, phone consultations. And, as we have seen, she does nothing to check the veracity of these testimonials.

        https://nomorebleach.wordpress.com/2015/01/13/163-children-healed-from-autism-nope/

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 19, 2015 at 00:00 #

        “Chlorine dioxide is not only promoted by government agencies for use in treating municipal drinking water,”

        You and everyone else leave out an important point in that argument: it is used to treat drinking water, but it does not remain in the drinking water.
        http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/disinfectants.cfm

        Chlorine dioxide is a water additive used to control microbes and can be used to control tastes and odors. It rapidly disappears from stored water.

        Emphasis added. One can use ClO2 to treat water, but by the time it gets to the tap it is no longer present.

        If it is present it does cause problems.

        Some infants, young children, and fetuses of pregnant women who drink water containing chlorine dioxide in excess of the maximum residual disinfectant level could experience nervous system effects. Some people who drink water containingchlorine dioxide well in excess of the MRDL for many years may experience anemia.

        Chlorine dioxide for water treatment is a very different animal than producing chlorine dioxide for immediate consumption.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 19, 2015 at 00:02 #

        “but also used as an ingredient in many patented products, such as eye drops, open wound treatment, mouthwash, toothpaste, nail fungus treatment, acne care, etc”

        Autism is no an eye, an open wound, a mouth, a finger or toenail.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 19, 2015 at 00:05 #

        “Chlorine dioxide has been mentioned on news reports for clearing anthrax from buildings after terrorist attacks, removing mould from buildings after Hurricane Katrina, killing bedbugs and is even helping in dealing with the current Ebola crisis, after its usefulness was established by the US Armed Forces. There is even an issued US Patent from the year 2000, describing the use of chlorite, by injection, to successfully treat human HIV patients. Is THIS abuse ???”

        Autism is not a moldy building. Autism is not a bed filled with bugs.

        What patent are you referring to? Is this the same WF10 patent that has been discussed above repeatedly? That would be the one where injections of a stabilized chlorite solution (which is not MMS at all) is used not more than once every six months. How does that compare to constant exposure to chlorine dioxide? Answer: it doesn’t.

        By the way–does the patented treatment work? what are the adverse reactions involved? Can you answer that without looking things up?

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 19, 2015 at 00:07 #

        “In the pulp and paper industry, the use of chlorine dioxide is promoted by government agencies in ECF (Elemental Chlorine Free) plants, which helps to minimize the environmental impact of this industry.”

        Right. It is a bleach. Something that MMS proponents usually deny.

        “Also, because of it’s thorough, yet gentle oxidizing properties (which is why internal use can be so safe as to promote health, even though such use is alternative) it does less damage to paper fibers than chlorine bleach.’

        “Take this medicine. It does less damage to paper fibers than does chlorine bleach” is not a sales pitch that makes me want to experiment on my child with this.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 19, 2015 at 00:08 #

        “Often compared by opponents of chlorine dioxide use to common bleach, because of CD’s oxidizing capabilities, CD is actually a very different chemical, that produces no chlorinated byproducts when used.”

        Nope. Not compared to common bleach. It is just noted that it is a bleach. It is the proponents of “MMS” who build the straw man arguments that it isn’t household bleach. It is a different chemical but is in the same class: bleaches.

        Not all bleaches are household bleach.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 19, 2015 at 00:10 #

        “Chlorine, on the other hand, produces carcinogenic byproducts when used to treat drinking water. This is why the use of chlorine dioxide is instead being promoted by governments for so many applications.”

        If true, so what? This has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

        “Alternative approaches to healthcare will always draw scrutiny and criticism from government agencies or people such as yourself that have not yet tested the efficacy of such methods”

        Actually all approaches to healthcare draw scrutiny. Actual medicine, though, has to prove safety and efficacy. MMS has skipped both of those hurdles and gone straight to marketing.

        “This simply means that the use is untested and therefore unapproved,”

        No, untested and unproved. Not demonstrated safe or effective. No where can one look at data on adverse reactions or efficacy. Just internet testimonials by people such as yourself.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 19, 2015 at 00:12 #

        “If you and these small self-interest groups would simply do more thorough research, they would soon discover that their concerns (though understandable without having fully researched chlorine dioxide) are unfounded. Much good can be done through the safe and appropriate use of this simple, useful chemical: Chlorine Dioxide.”

        Funny how people such as yourself always attack others as having not done the research. If we would just do the research, we would agree with you. Thus, the fact that we disagree with you must mean that we haven’t done the research.

        Even though the discussion here shows that I have done the research. I understand this better than the proponents, who continually make the same false claims.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 19, 2015 at 00:13 #

        “Many thousands in every nation that is pursuing healthcare-related use for CD are having amazing success”

        Argument by popularity. Since a tiny fraction of the population can be classified as “thousands”, supposedly it works. I’ve seen the same arguments for over a decade for treatment after treatment offered for autism. They all failed. But all had staunch proponents who claimed that it was curing autistics

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 19, 2015 at 00:17 #

        “The successes by those pioneering such methods are mounting, are being documented and are verifiable.”

        Really? Then why are people not doing the verification? https://nomorebleach.wordpress.com/2015/01/13/163-children-healed-from-autism-nope/

        “The sheer volume of consistent success will soon be apparent the world over, despite having to be done in an environment where any alternative approach to healthcare is attacked and opposed….. unfortunately … much like this forum.”

        Not attacked and opposed. Investigated and evaluated.

        I have a very strong interest in making the life better for my kid. I have taken a very close look at the claims, both scientific and efficacy, for this “miracle mineral supplement”. I have the background to properly evaluate the science. And the claims make no sense.

        I wish you well, even though you are spreading dangerous misinformation.

        I’ve noted that very few proponents of the “cures” that have been touted ever come forward afterwards and apologize for the harm they have caused. Perhaps you have more backbone than most. We will have to wait and see.

      • Rodney February 18, 2015 at 22:15 #

        Obviously, you didn’t read my post Grey Falcon ….

      • Rodney February 18, 2015 at 22:24 #

        163 kids FULLY recovered from Autism IS the evidence … convincing you really isn’t a priority… if you think about it

      • louveha February 18, 2015 at 22:26 #

        The evidence would be if it was correctly documented and compared to a control group.
        Given that we saw that Rivera doesn’t check some success stories, wariness is warranted.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 19, 2015 at 00:24 #

        “163 kids FULLY recovered from Autism IS the evidence ”

        And therein lies your problem. That claim is empty.
        https://nomorebleach.wordpress.com/2015/01/13/163-children-healed-from-autism-nope/

        Did you read how child #163 didn’t exist? But the claim was made anyway.

      • Lawrence February 18, 2015 at 23:42 #

        If something is powerful enough to remove hazardous waste / bacteria from the inside of a building, what the hell would you use it as an enema?

        You people are completely loony….

      • Rodney February 19, 2015 at 00:19 #

        Gee… sure got a response out You….didn’t I ??

        … a response ONLY a true Troll would give. Again, no one needs to prove anything to you .. the recovered kids are enough.

        Nice try Sullivan…

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 19, 2015 at 00:25 #

        I respond to each and every claim in your comment politely and with substance and I am a troll?

        Tell me, what do I supposedly gain for trolling on my own website?

    • elearah January 16, 2015 at 14:44 #

      Kids are effectively getting better. The fact that the science is not resolved doesn´t change that.

      • Gray Falcon January 16, 2015 at 14:59 #

        Are they getting better because of or in spite of the treatment?

      • elearah January 16, 2015 at 15:18 #

        I don´t know. Ask the mothers. They are the ones there every step of the way. They KNOW what´s best for their babies.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) January 16, 2015 at 19:19 #

        “Ask the mothers.”

        OK, I’ll ask my wife. Oh wait, I already did. It’s a scam.

        Ask the parents. And ignore those who don’t say what you want. That’s been the game plan for these scams since long before MMS.

      • Gray Falcon January 16, 2015 at 15:22 #

        Ask anyone who works for Family Services if they think the mother always knows best.

      • Rodney February 18, 2015 at 22:43 #

        THE only Scam being run here Sullivan you you and your Trolls … having done NO research yourselves … and you sit back and poo poo any recovery using CD …

        Even IF you were to be shown an ATEC score from start to finish, and see lab results from a an MD…. and see the words ‘Recovered from Autism’ … you’d still turn a blind eye ….
        Your Sole purpose of this site is to Downplay alternative healing methods.

        No proof necessary for that … you are it 🙂

      • louveha February 18, 2015 at 22:56 #

        Did you read that comment by Sullivan ?
        https://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2015/01/15/if-mms-cd-chlorine-dioxide-parasite-protocol-is-safe-why-does-clo2-dissolve-tissue/comment-page-1/#comment-192267
        “I have seen many products where people claim amazing claims. I have been told to chelate my mid for two years and it will be a cure. I have been told that secretin will cure my kid. I have been told that zeolite, “magnetic” clay baths, energy medicine, homeopathy, the list goes on and on, are all miracle cures.

        People come, sell treatments, other people claim they really do work and how could i be so mean as to even think they may not be telling the truth, and then that therapy goes and a new one comes to take it’s place.

        You are just the latest. Whether you profit or just are evangelizing I don’t care. You are touting nonsense. And it is being used in an abusive manner on disabled kids in my community.”

        If you really want this therapy to be more widely used, just do the damn clinical trials already. With all the past disappointments, people are bound to be exasperated by claims based on simple testimonies.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 19, 2015 at 00:22 #

        “having done NO research yourselves ”

        How many times to I have to read the books? The websites? The testimonials?

        You can make huge claims. It’s been done before and will be done again. For example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7Hhgaf3Co0

        “Your Sole purpose of this site is to Downplay alternative healing methods.”

        I take it, then, that you are not interested in an actual discussion? Having met resistance to your claims, you immediately claim it’s because I haven’t done research, haven’t understood the claims, am somehow biased against you.

        Very, very, typical response from a proponent of a “therapy” untested for safety or efficacy.

      • Science Mom February 19, 2015 at 02:14 #

        Even IF you were to be shown an ATEC score from start to finish, and see lab results from a an MD…. and see the words ‘Recovered from Autism’ … you’d still turn a blind eye ….

        Well then Rodney, why isn’t the Queen bleach bitch Keri Rivera conducting a double-blind RCT to demonstrate the veracity of her claims? The answer is why should she when gullible, desperate fools like you and the “mommies know best” crowd lap up phony testimonials.

    • Vanessa Callahan March 26, 2015 at 20:18 #

      As if the MMS isn’t bad enough the mere act of giving enemas so frequently is in itself abuse! Particularly to a child who may have no clue what you are doing to them and why.

      • Monica ileas FerrAn November 25, 2016 at 04:22 #

        All of you being so mean, as people have children with autisim, all I know, if my child was sick, i would try anything and more and more are doing the same, because medicine has failed to healed one person, not even the comon cold, they will never heal anything, is not on there interest, talk abput child , adult abuse!!! the past one hundred years will go down as the worse in medical history, in spite of all there huge machines, expensive test and expensive drugs, so sad, because everyone looses to this evil plan, rest tonight, if you can sleep with ypur own self…your own self . Happy Thanksgiving.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) November 28, 2016 at 20:12 #

        the “I would try anything” argument is clearly false.

        If someone tells you that your child is possessed by demons and you need to purge said child with fire, would you do that? That would be “trying anything”.

        And, yes, people have claimed that autism is demonic posession.

        I can sleep with myself just fine. I have not made my child into a guinea pig for the profit of charlatans like those selling MMS.

      • wzrd1 November 30, 2016 at 15:39 #

        So, Monica, medicine has healed nobody of nothing is what you are saying?
        So, I still have a gallbladder full of stones, despite medicine and surgery removing the obstructed gallbladder, right?
        I still have an inguinal hernia, despite surgery?
        I’m blind from my trauma induced cataracts, despite one being removed and an intraocular lens installed?
        I died from polio as well?

        So blasted much stupid wrapped up inside of such a loud mouthed, tiny package!

  3. elearah January 16, 2015 at 14:38 #

    Very interesting. Is it any study of Chlorine dioxide dissolving living healthy tissue? The main thing with Chlorine dioxide if I got it right is polarity. It attacks and dissolves neutral or positively charged tissue. But there is a buffer due to electrostatic that doesn´t allow it to get close to negatively charged tissue (the external side of the cellular wall of normal, healthy cells is at -30 microvolts if I remember right). This could be one of the reasons, if this is true, why it effectively cures tancer.

    • Gray Falcon January 16, 2015 at 14:59 #

      Well? Do you have any evidence for that? I’m not just going to drink bleach because some stranger on the Internet told me to.

      • Lawrence January 16, 2015 at 15:00 #

        That’s the biggest cop-out I’ve ever heard….that statement by elearah doesn’t even begin to make sense, either rationally or scientifically.

      • elearah January 16, 2015 at 15:23 #

        Explain your statement, please? it doesn´t make any sense for me.

      • elearah January 16, 2015 at 15:22 #

        I don´t need evidence. Like you don´t need evidence for your own opinions. If science ever wants to catch up, they will. Good luck getting funding for it though… it would be suicide for any researcher, unfortunately.

      • Gray Falcon January 16, 2015 at 15:26 #

        Yes, you do need evidence. Without that, there is no science.

      • elearah January 16, 2015 at 15:33 #

        There is evidence, and there is science. Science is the application of the scientific method to experimental points (experimental points are facts, like this one: someone is sick, someone drinks mms, that person gets better).
        The scientific method postulates a theory why that fact happens, and tries to explain it. Under no circumstance it works backwards. That is: lack of science has no logical value to negate reality.
        I know it is hard to grasp for many, because science has been taken over by politics and it is in practical terms the new inquisition.
        Let me try to put it simple: was the Earth a sphere before Magallanes made it all the way around? or it was flat before and magically changed form?

      • Gray Falcon January 16, 2015 at 15:38 #

        No amount of claiming the Earth was flat made it flat. Likewise, nothing you say will make MMS anything more than a bleaching agent. Without evidence, there is no science.

      • elearah January 16, 2015 at 15:50 #

        I think the main point here is that you think that all the people who drunk it and received benefits are lairs. And as such you will negate their experiences as facts. And with no facts there is no way around this conversation.
        I tried mms three years ago. It cut short a cold I had, from 7 days to 3. I think it is a good result. Of course you might negate the validity of my statement and say I am a plain liar, or think I´m just stupid to know the difference and that would happen anyway.
        You can negate this guy´s experience too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEugrDsfj3E
        Does it change the facts? Not really.
        What happens in your mind is your kingdom, I wouldn´t dare to get in there and try to change anything. I don´t really it is worth the effort either. “You can´t fill a cup that is already full,” Avatar.

      • Gray Falcon January 16, 2015 at 15:54 #

        Wrong. I’m saying that they are mistaken. Do you know why we have double-blind clinical trials? Conditions can improve on their own, and they, in error, attribute their improvements to the medicine they take. How do you know that isn’t what happened?

      • elearah January 16, 2015 at 16:06 #

        And what if they are mistaken? what if this is the best placebo ever? What is the main goal? Isn´t it to get better?

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) January 16, 2015 at 19:18 #

        You can go back over a decade on this blog and find people saying one after another “treatment” did amazing things. I’ve read so many testimonials that they just don’t work anymore. Anything and everything is a treatment. It doesn’t matter if it doesn’t make any sense. It doesn’t matter if it causes harm. If someone has a testimonial it can’t be touched.

        10 years ago everyone was telling me about how chelation was curing autistic kids. Thousands of kids. Tens of thousands. Chelate your kid for 2 years and you “get him back”. Guaranteed. You couldn’t argue against chelation because it was doing so much good. Read the testimonials!

        It was a scam. Most of the doctors pushing it have moved on. Parents have abandoned it. Hell, some of the methods have been shown to not even deliver the chelation drug to the patient (think trans-dermal chelators). But they had so many testimonials.

        Sure, MMS cured your cold. And cures cancer. And autism. And malaria. And everything else. It’s a scam.

        And no one has the time to actually show it works. Just testimonial after testimonial and fake science that can convince enough customers to keep them coming. Oh, and let’s ignore all adverse reactions. Those are good. They show you are getting the toxins out, right?

        It’s a scam.

    • brian January 16, 2015 at 16:02 #

      elearah, that’s just pseudoscientific babble. The shysters who sell MMS just made that up.

      • elearah January 16, 2015 at 16:08 #

        Thanks for your opinion. Interesting how people who can´t exchange ideas, exchange insults. It says it all about you, and nothing about me.

    • lilady January 16, 2015 at 16:27 #

      Looks like you’re spamming this blog, because clearly you know nothing about the abusive treatment of autistic children and nothing about chemistry.

      • elearah January 16, 2015 at 16:37 #

        So a conversation is spam? Hum… I´m just answering to people who writes answers to my answers.
        Define spam in your words, please? (or not if you don´t want me to talk anymore)

    • Sullivan (Matt Carey) January 16, 2015 at 19:20 #

      I take it you don’t have a degree in a scientific or engineering field. You are repeating the pseudoscience that Humble and Rivera use to sell this scam.

      • Brian Deer January 16, 2015 at 21:36 #

        I have a table in my files prepared by the Autism Research Institute (a project begun before the late Bernard Rimland completely lost the plot) of dozens of different interventions – from various vitamins to whathaveyou – with surveys of respondent experiences.

        Essentially, what it showed was that for pretty much any intervention at all with autistic kids, about a third of parents will say their child improved.

        Although Rimland’s table includes neither, you can be pretty confident that, from ileocolonoscopy to a fried egg hair-wash, about a third of parents will see an improvement.

        But, sadly, even the perception doesn’t last. Nor will it with bleach.

    • brian January 17, 2015 at 00:35 #

      elearah wrote:

      the external side of the cellular wall of normal, healthy cells is at -30 microvolts if I remember right

      Mammalian cells do not, in fact, have cell walls. You’re just repeating nonsense.

    • Narad January 19, 2015 at 04:08 #

      The main thing with Chlorine dioxide if I got it right is polarity. It attacks and dissolves neutral or positively charged tissue. But there is a buffer due to electrostatic that doesn´t allow it to get close to negatively charged tissue (the external side of the cellular wall of normal, healthy cells is at -30 microvolts if I remember right).

      You don’t remember right, by a factor of ~2300, but it hardly matters. There’s no such thing as “charged tissue.” The anions in the cytosol are balanced by extracellular cations, so the system is electrically neutral.

      There aren’t any cells with a positive rest potential across the membrane, but this doesn’t matter either, because those oxychlorine anions are going to be far too busy reacting with the first thing that they encounter to wind up in circulation and go looking for nonexistent “positively charged tissue.”

  4. Gray Falcon January 16, 2015 at 15:21 #

    “I don´t know. Ask the mothers. They are the ones there every step of the way. They KNOW what´s best for their babies.”

    I work for the Department of Family Services. I know better than to assume mothers always know best.

    • elearah January 16, 2015 at 15:24 #

      OoO that explains a lot. 🙂

      • Thomas January 16, 2015 at 16:06 #

        If you think I’m going to treat my child with a chemical for which no one is willing to provide any basic safety information, you’re crazy. If you were a parent, you’d say the same.

        P.S.

        Scientists knew the Earth was round 2000 years before Magellan set sail. Your knowledge of history builds real confidence in your knowledge of anything else.

      • elearah January 16, 2015 at 16:16 #

        “If you think I’m going to treat my child with a chemical for which no one is willing to provide any basic safety information, you’re crazy. If you were a parent, you’d say the same.”

        When did I contact you and told you to do anything? I don´t even know you. All I´m saying is that I respect the work of those mothers from what I have seen in their testimonials.
        Do you have an autistic child? I´m terribly sorry.

        “Scientists knew the Earth was round 2000 years before Magellan set sail. Your knowledge of history builds real confidence in your knowledge of anything else.”

        Reference, please?

      • Gray Falcon January 16, 2015 at 16:20 #

        Here you go:
        http://www.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses/astro201/eratosthenes.htm
        Knew the world was round, measured its radius. How? Evidence!

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) January 16, 2015 at 19:22 #

        “Do you have an autistic child? I´m terribly sorry.”

        I will withhold my initial reaction to that statement.

        My child brings me joy every day. Why would you feel the need to be sorry for me?

      • Thomas January 16, 2015 at 16:09 #

        Interesting how people who can´t exchange ideas, exchange insults.

      • elearah January 16, 2015 at 16:17 #

        How come?

      • lilady January 16, 2015 at 16:27 #

        More Spam.

    • brian January 16, 2015 at 16:42 #

      Yes, I suppose that once a mother has accepted pseudoscientific nonsense to the point where she’s willing to expose her child to concentrations of industrial bleach sufficient to cause him to slough off his intestinal mucosa — and then saves the “worms” as evidence to support her wacky and dangerous beliefs — it’s pretty clear that that mother doesn’t “know what’s best.” At that point, I hope that Departments like yours might intervene.

      • Gray Falcon January 16, 2015 at 16:43 #

        Truth be told, I’m just the IT guy. If the database breaks, I fix it.

    • Lisa May 3, 2015 at 01:06 #

      These “mothers” have no clue what’s go let alone best for their children. They are desperate and people are making money off of it.

      • Lisa May 3, 2015 at 01:07 #

        Good

  5. Thomas January 16, 2015 at 16:21 #

    >>Scientists knew the Earth was round 2000 years before Magellan set sail. Your >>knowledge of history builds real confidence in your knowledge of anything else.”

    >Reference, please?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth#Antiquity

    “The concept of a spherical Earth dates back to ancient Greek philosophy from around the 6th century BC,[1] but remained a matter of philosophical speculation until the 3rd century BC, when Hellenistic astronomy established the spherical shape of the earth as a physical given. “

    • elearah January 16, 2015 at 16:23 #

      Thank you, highly appreciated.

    • elearah January 16, 2015 at 16:32 #

      How did you change the answer? Hum… I answered to this one:

      “Here you go:

      http://www.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses/astro201/eratosthenes.htm

      Knew the world was round, measured its radius. How? Evidence!”

      Wikipedia is not a real reference.

      Funny.. I can´t edit my answers or delete them but you can. Are you related to the writer of the blog?

      And this happened also with one answer by Grey Falcon. *scratching my head*

      • Gray Falcon January 16, 2015 at 16:36 #

        1. I never edited anything. That’s a different comment. If you can’t even keep track of that, how can I trust your testimonials about medicine?
        2. I didn’t cite Wikipedia.

      • elearah January 16, 2015 at 17:01 #

        Yeah, you are right. It was someone else. There are people who thrive in violence and people who thrive in harmony. I´m of the second kind, like most women. If I stay I will go on making mistakes, because it is just not in my nature to fight and this is getting too aggressive. So, I think it is time for me to leave.
        About you believing me… I would never dare. Follow your gut, wherever it takes you.

        Have a good one, you and the others. 🙂

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) January 16, 2015 at 19:27 #

        Those of us here are people who thrive on a lack of violence. That’s why we speak out against abusive treatments like MMS.

      • Gray Falcon January 16, 2015 at 20:25 #

        Somebody needs to explain to her that being asked questions is not “violence.”

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) January 16, 2015 at 19:29 #

        No one can edit comments here except me. And I wasn’t even paying attention to this conversation until just now.

        If you can’t recall what the conversation was, don’t blame others for changing their comments.

  6. Science Mom January 16, 2015 at 17:10 #

    All I´m saying is that I respect the work of those mothers from what I have seen in their testimonials.

    Testimonials are what these hucksters thrive on but as has been demonstrated and linked on this blog, https://nomorebleach.wordpress.com/2015/01/13/163-children-healed-from-autism-nope/ they are completely unvetted. That is why we have clinical trials but I wouldn’t hold your breath for one. Any rational human isn’t going to feed or give a bleach enema to a child.

    • louveha January 19, 2015 at 14:08 #

      Yes, these people have to understand the necessity to rigorously check testimonies and to complete them with clinical trials.
      As surprising as it is, you can be intelligent, honest, motivated to help your child… and still be in error when evaluating the efficacy of a treatment.
      The example of bloodletting is pretty illustrative : http://skeptvet.com/Blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/2011-Equine-Guelph-Bloodletting-to-EBM-May19.pdf
      So, it’s not a matter of lack of trust in patients ; it is that we discovered that mistakes and inaccuracies were unavoidable if you only rely on testimonies.
      That’s why, yes, I am shocked that Rivera & co didn’t put in place any kind of clinical trial before spreading their treatment. And now we know that they don’t even keep close tabs on the testimonies they use as argument ; so they don’t even qualify as case studies.

  7. shay January 16, 2015 at 18:39 #

    My job makes me a mandated reporter. If I ever…EVER…come across anyone doing this, CPS is getting a call. How can people be so stupid?

  8. shay January 16, 2015 at 18:40 #

    “Ask the mothers. They are the ones there every step of the way. They KNOW what´s best for their babies.” Tell that to London McCabe or Alex Spourdalakis.

    • Sullivan (Matt Carey) January 16, 2015 at 19:26 #

      tell that to the mothers (and fathers) who got scammed by chelation. Or secretin. Or zeolite.

      Being a parent doesn’t give one some magical ability to understand everything and never make mistakes. People who feel that they should “go with their gut” are the perfect marks for scam artists.

  9. STIVVANOS January 23, 2015 at 02:38 #

    Hola @macaddict08 – Just so you know, We know who you are. You are not top of the list yet because some of your activities are actually helping us shut down Kerri & Co., but you are close. Just working our way through the important bleachers first.

    If anyone is curious, some fun facts
    – CD is typically used in industry at 1-5 parts per million (can be as high as 25ppm in some applications)
    – the key study of the effects of repeated exposure to “high” doeses of oral CD (Lubbers et al – look it up on pubmed) was conducted at a maximum concentration of 24 ppm
    – that study showed the beginnings of detrimental effects even at that concentration
    – the normal ‘Kerri Rivera mix’ as we might call it is 3000 ppm
    – yep three thousand part per million. she says so in her lovely book, and we’ve also independently confirmed this several times
    – even diluted to one hundredth of that concentration, this stuff will still be stronger than used in that Lubbers study
    – thing is, its not diluted to anything like that level. both users and ex-users have confirmed it is usually administered to children at 800ppm-2000ppm
    – nobody will ever carry out tests of CD on humans at levels remotely near that for the simple reason that no lab would ever get such a proposal past any ethics committee

    Oh I almost forgot. The doctor impersonators. Yep, the people who claim to be doctors but aren’t. Dr. Andreas Kalcker – purchased a dummy “doctorate”. Dr Kerri Rivera – holds a basic “degree” in homeopathy. What’s that you say? Impersonating a doctor is a prosecutable offence? Well, we’ll add that on the pile.

    Finally, thank you Matt for… yeah, everything.

    STIVVANOS
    Ban CD/MMS International (European Team)

  10. commonsense February 4, 2015 at 09:17 #

    For those who want to know how ClO2 really works here is a link http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1304/1304.5163.pdf
    For those who stubbornly refuse to find out how to stay healthy – get well soon.

    • louveha February 4, 2015 at 11:04 #

      Uh, what I see here is :
      – What was studied here was treatment of local infections of wounds, not ingestion.
      Yes, they say “drinking ClO2 solution is practically harmless for animals [16] and human beings [17]”.
      This is this reference :
      “drinking ClO2 solution is practically harmless for animals [16] and human beings [17]”
      17. Lubbers JR, Chauan SR, Bianchine JR (1982) Controlled clinical evaluations of chlorine
      dioxide, chlorite and chlorate in man. Environ Health Perspect 46: 57–62
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1569027/
      The “safe” drinking concentration tested by Lubbers was 5mg/l = 5 ppm
      The concentration studied here, not for drinking but for treating wounds, by spraying it on the wound and the gauze (p.6), is 300 ppm.

      – The reason for why it harms only microbes and not larger organisms is that its contact time is limited to a few minutes (on local wounds).
      “When an organism is not submerged in the aqueous ClO2 solution but the solution is applied on its surface only, as in the case of disinfecting wounds, the volatility of ClO2 also has to be taken into account. The effective contact time is much shorter using a ClO2 solution than with less or non-volatile disinfectants. ” (p.11)
      I’ll admit I don’t know if the conditions when drinking ClO2 are closer to “submergerd organism” or “solution on its surface”. However, my point above is, I think, the most important (ingestion vs spraying, concentrations studied)

      So it doesn’t seem to me that this study tell us anything on safe concentrations for drinking (5 ppm). Not to mention the effectiveness on all the disease this product is claimed to heal.
      In case I missed your point or an important part, what did you think was important in this study ?

      • louveha February 4, 2015 at 12:14 #

        I meant : “So it doesn’t seem to me that this study tell us anything on safe concentrations for drinking (with a concentration superior to 5 ppm).

      • commonsense February 4, 2015 at 12:44 #

        The important part in this study is that pathogens are more vulnerable to ClO2 than mammal cells.
        There are numerous reports on ClO2 safety, for instance the EPA report http://www.epa.gov/iris/toxreviews/0496tr.pdf and http://www.tristel.it/download/Toxicological_info.pdf
        However it is probably better that interested parties exercise due diligence and do their own research.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 13, 2015 at 18:37 #

        “The important part in this study is that pathogens are more vulnerable to ClO2 than mammal cells.”

        First, you misunderstood the point. The fact is that cells, be they mammalian, bacterial or virus particles, are all vulnerable to ClO2. We just have a lot of cells so we can sacrifice some. A bacterium can not.

        The important part is that people selling this stuff claim that there is no interaction with cells or other components of your body. The throw up a lot of nonsense about oxidation potentials but basically they are lying.

        We can discuss whether the doses given to people are below the toxicity limit, but that’s very different from suggesting to people that this is perfectly safe because it somehow only attacks pathogens. (and, miraculously, heavy metals or anything else that is deemed “bad” while magically ignoring everything that is “good”)

      • commonsense February 13, 2015 at 21:54 #

        I posted a link about size selectivity of ClO2. In short, mammal cells are usually much larger than pathogens. They need more ClO2 to die. If the supply of ClO2 is exhausted they survive. Chemotherapy is based on a similar (not identical) principle.
        MMS sponsors do not know how ClO2 works. It is annoying but they don’t seem to be eager to learn. They are probably not lying, just ignorant. This will negatively affect treatment.

      • Gray Falcon February 4, 2015 at 14:43 #

        Relevant xkcd cartoon:
        http://xkcd.com/1217/

      • rix February 11, 2015 at 02:58 #

        You know that Nuvo Research was awarded a patent in US and abroad, and in Thailand the Ministry of Health has also given them the green light to use their WF10.

        WF10? Yeah. To cure some serious do-do, like radiation poison for those after chemo and other dangerous (yet legal) treatments.

        Major active kicker in this: Sodium Chlorite (eh MMS), Chorine Dioxide.

        FDA approved in US? Nope. Yet it was approved abroad after having proven to be effective. What’s the hold-up here? FDA does not want it here because Big Pharma does not want it here. It works, so they would lose $$$ unable to push their harmful drugs.

        See “Dr. Friedrich W. Kuhne”, “Chlorite Matrix”

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 11, 2015 at 04:12 #

        “Major active kicker in this: Sodium Chlorite (eh MMS), Chorine Dioxide.”

        I take it you did not study chemistry. Sodium chlorite is not chlorine dioxide and neither is Tetrachlorodecaoxide

        A couple of things about patents–a patent grant does not state that a specific invention works (readers here may be familiar with Andrew Wakefield’s fanciful autism cure and vaccine patent). Further, when a patent has the first 77 claims cancelled (as one of Nuvo research’s patents has), this doesn’t speak well to it being innovative
        http://www.google.com/patents/US20100233118

        Here’s claim one of their recently granted patent

        . A method of reducing, inhibiting or treating allergy-like symptoms in a subject suffering from or at risk of developing at least one of allergic asthma, allergic rhinitis and atopic dermatitis, the method comprising administering to the subject a therapeutically effective amount of a pharmaceutical composition comprising chlorite ions wherein the allergy-like symptoms comprise conjunctivitis, and wherein the administering is effected not more than once every six months, once every year, or once every two years.

        Tell me how that applies to one using MMS frequently each day, including multiple enemas, for autism. I’ll answer for you: it doesn’t. You did notice the “not more than every six months…” sentence, right? You did notice the lack of “autism” in the patent, didn’t you?

      • macaddict08 February 11, 2015 at 17:28 #

        RIX:

        The FDA HAS approved Chlorine Dioxide …for MANY things … not sure where you’re looking.. but.. heres a few:

        In the eyes use of CD:
        http://www.google.ca/patents/US5736165

        Treatment of HIV:
        http://www.google.ca/patents/US6086922

        CD for use in foods:
        http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/CFR-2012-title21-vol3/CFR-2012-title21-vol3-sec173-325/content-detail.html

      • rix February 11, 2015 at 19:07 #

        Yes, I have noted quite a few references as well.

        While I have no immediate need for MMS/CDS or whatever name it is given, the facts as I have seen them after extensive research is that those who are screaming for the heads of those who promote it or use it are not basing their reasonable facts.

        To dismiss all the results people are experiencing as quackery really erks me. Some of my friends turn their eyes when I try to tell them how I cured my own serious health issues that plagued me for decades using natural remedies and avoiding so-called “modern” medicine, that did me no good for decades!

        I’m healthier and stronger today than I was back in my 30’s. Young guys who play basketball with me comically call me “the wall”, as they tend to bounce off me guarding the hoop.

        If I did not open my mind to different possibilities and actually do some hard research to basically cure myself, I’d be a mess right now (assuming there was still a ‘right now’ for me).

        The evidence is right there in front of everyone’s eyes but it is the usual battle.

        Thanks for the reference links.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 11, 2015 at 19:28 #

        Who cares if this “ercks you”?

        Disabled kids are being abused by this junk. Let’s weight the seriousness–random guy on the internet is erked vs abuse of disabled children.

        The ” evidence” is a bunch of unsupported claims on the internet backed up by lies and junk science by people profiting by this abuse.

        I bet your friends call you thew wall. Perhaps if you were open to reason they would find a new name for you.

      • rix February 11, 2015 at 19:48 #

        The evidence is against you. These ‘disabled’ kids have been given up on by your heroes of modern medicine as “incurable”. Yet, here we have reports coming out of many kids being “cured” by using easily accessible components.

        We’re not seeing hundreds of kids dying of this treatment, but the exact opposite. What you will do is find that one or two persons that might appear negatively affected and make a poster child out of it.

        Yeah, my being erked is not important. What is important is that people have access to cures that are helping without having people with agendas trying to eliminate our choices in favor of Government dictating how we deal with our health.

        I have this friend who lives in S. Cal. that has suffered from weird chemical imbalance (his doctor’s diagnosis, not his) most of his life. Chronic coughing every single day for years and years. When I lived there I remember what a mess he was. You are afraid to ask him “how you doing Brad?” as a greeting because he’d start to list his issues for the day.

        Last year I shared with him some “alternatives” I had discovered from just doing research and noting testimonials.

        He actually did what was suggested and I ended up getting a few emails over a period of a few months on how fantastic the advice was, how he is no longer chronic, etc. etc. etc. Just really great news! He’s beside himself.

        Now if he viewed this advice the way you seem to approach this subject, he’d still be very sick.

        Now you can say whatever you like, that I am making this up and so are all those other people you read and see on vids saying they have benefited. I know and he knows what the truth is.

        All truth passes through three stages.

        1. It is ridiculed.
        2. It is violently opposed.
        3. It is accepted as being self-evident.

        (Arthur Schopenhauer)

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 11, 2015 at 22:21 #

        “The evidence is against you. These ‘disabled’ kids have been given up on by your heroes of modern medicine as “incurable”. Yet, here we have reports coming out of many kids being “cured” by using easily accessible components.”

        Sorry, but you have no evidence. You have claims. Which as I’ve said I can produce a decade of empty claims.

        Modern medicine is working hard on understanding the biology of and treatments for autism. To the tune of many millions of dollars a year. That’s not “given up”.

        You do point out a valid point. Where there is a vacuum, charlatans will fill the space. Just because there is no cure for autism (including MMS) that doesn’t mean that we can consider these individuals lab rats for any “therapy”.

        Wow, you back up your testimonials with a testimonial of how your testimonials are effective. Good for you.

        Don’t flatter yourself. Schopenhauer would likely find your arguments as vacuous as others do. Pointing out that your logic is flawed is not ridicule. So, get back to me when you reach stage 1.

      • macaddict08 February 11, 2015 at 22:35 #

        Sullivan,

        the mere mention of the statement that you have a child, SCARES the hell out of me … cause I feel SO sorry for your child (which is BS anyway) …

        Rix,

        Save your breath … Sullivan is a PAID Pharma troll, this is a job for him… to put down alternative ways of getting healthy. It doesn’t matter what you say….

        To date…. 164 kids TOTALY recovered from Autism…. and counting… using CD, and other things. But, to Sullivan …. well, its STILL bleach ! lol … duh !!

        Save your breath Sullivan … we know who you are

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 11, 2015 at 22:54 #

        No you are denying the existence of my family. This goes to the fact that you make stuff up.

        I’m sorry I scared you. My family, however, remains unafraid. Perhaps due to the fact that I do not inflict bleach enemas upon them.

        And your proof for kids being recovered from autism is? Oh, yeah, the unsubstantiated claim of someone who sells MMS.

        Yes, you know who I am. Matt Carey. Says so on every comment.

      • rixtertrader February 11, 2015 at 23:26 #

        What they say, “no atheist in a foxhole”?

        When you or a family member confronts spending cancer and are told you will die, let’s see how hard you hold onto your aversion to alternative treatments.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 12, 2015 at 00:46 #

        So, you assume I have not made this choice already?

        Read my comments, I have an autistic child. I’ve researched all the proposed “therapies” closely. I have to.

        Not an athiest. An informed consumer. I got informed and I found this is not a real therapy.

      • rixtertrader February 12, 2015 at 03:37 #

        Having an autistic child and condemning him/her to that is not the same as dying of cancer.

        I’m sorry you have a child suffering from Autism. I know it is not easy. My child is not Autistic but is ADD. Another form do neurological damage.

        I’m dumbfounded that you don’t at least go down there and see first hand what is up and actually speak to those parents firsthand before trying to cut them off from treatments they truly believe is working.

        I’d be trying to make sure I’ve covered all my options if my kid was Autistic.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 12, 2015 at 03:55 #

        Condemning him/her?

        You have zero idea what you are talking about. Don’t patronize me with “you know it is not easy”.

        Who says I haven’t explored this? The fact that I have checked the facts and found this “treatment” to be bugus does not mean I haven’t explored it. I understand it better than you do.

        I do cover my options. Making my kid into a guinea pig for whatever the charlatan of the year’s treatment plan is is not “covering my options”.

      • rix February 12, 2015 at 17:34 #

        Then YOU be the guinea pig!

        I’ve taken this stuff as part of my own investigation and have not experienced any ill effects whatsoever. The reason I don’t keep doing it is because I don’t have anything to cure. I’m bloody healthy now!

        You keep ignoring the testimonials of many people who say it works for them!

        This is what defies logic.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 13, 2015 at 01:13 #

        “Then YOU be the guinea pig!”

        If you had a convincing argument about the science behind this idea, or safety or efficacy data. But you have none of these.

        So, yet another internet testimonial. I get it, you believe. I’m glad you feel better. You don’t need to actually have an explanation that makes sense, or safety data. You don’t need proof that it actually works and is not a placebo. You believe. Got it.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 12, 2015 at 04:00 #

        This sort of passive aggressive attack is very common in the discussion of alt-med. People frame their comments as though it is a given that their unproven and often abusive treatments work and then go on to assert that the other person is a bad parent for not subjecting their children to these “treatments”. Basically a “you are a bad parent and, besides, what have you got to lose? Your kid’s autistic. It’s not like he/she needs to have a treatment proven to be safe and effective”.

        Covering one’s options means discarding that which will cause harm. MMS clearly falls into the discard pile.

      • rix February 12, 2015 at 17:16 #

        “passive aggressive attack”…

        Oh come on now. Are you bringing this down to some kind of attack?

        Look. You clearly miss the whole point of the discussion.

        The “point” is that, if you do not want to make the effort to REALLY be sure that something might help you kid or not, that’s your business.

        But you are going beyond that. You aren’t moving onto something else. You are aggressively going after (attacking) an alternative treatment that you DO NOT have complete facts on. You do NOT know the whole story and you’d be lying otherwise.

        So if you don’t like something, don’t come off as if you are trying to save “the community”. We don’t need people like you on crusades that attempt to limit our freedom of choice and puts the Government in position to dictate how we care for our own.

        Just move on and use this time to help your kid.

        As far as MMS or its derivatives, if there are enough people that are coming forth saying it has helped them, who are you to attack them as quacks? You won’t even take the time to investigate first hand for your own.

        So just leave it alone and go do something else.

        Otherwise, it should be clear to everyone that you have an agenda and it looks like you might actually be a shill for Big Pharma or one of their ilks. Are you? Then move on.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 13, 2015 at 01:33 #

        “As far as MMS or its derivatives, if there are enough people that are coming forth saying it has helped them, who are you to attack them as quacks? You won’t even take the time to investigate first hand for your own.”

        Nice how you did that. See what you did? You shifted the discussion. I have pointed out that the people selling this are charlatans and you make it seem like I am calling everyone with a testimonial a “quack”.

        “You won’t even take the time to investigate first hand for your own.”

        I have investigated it. I’ve read the book, the testimonials. I’ve read what you’ve written here. It’s unconvincing, to put it mildly.

        But, unless I’ve tried it, actually ingested it, I can’t discuss it? Is that it?

        People used to say that purging by fire would cure people. Have you tried that? If not, do you feel that you could comment on whether it is a good idea?

        “Just move on and use this time to help your kid.’

        OK, so we are back to the “Matt is a bad parent” argument. Since I don’t apply this (or many other) brand of “treatment” I am not helping my kid. Got it. And you don’t like it when I point out you making attacks, so I’ll let the reader just work that out for herself.

        “Oh come on now. Are you bringing this down to some kind of attack?”

        Very funny. You start with this and then move into attack mode.

        “Look. You clearly miss the whole point of the discussion.
        The “point” is that, if you do not want to make the effort to REALLY be sure that something might help you kid or not, that’s your business.”

        Nonsense. Tell me when in this discussion you started making it about my decision? You’ve been here touting this stuff in comment after comment. You have not been claiming that it’s a matter of whether I make a choice.

        By the way, funny how people who promote themselves as being about “freedom of choice” attack others for not making that choice. I research this “treatment”, more thoroughly than you I will add, decide to not use it, but I am a bad parent who doesn’t treat his disabled kid in your description. All because I don’t make the choice you made.

      • rixtertrader March 23, 2016 at 16:57 #

        MMS does NOT clearly fall into the discard pile as you say. I do not know if it works. But I’m not going to just ignore the preponderance of evidence that suggests it is helpful rather than not.

        As I sift through the hundreds and hundreds of sites on the issue, I see a massive amount of testimonials of health benefits from those who ‘actually’ have used it.

        Then logic suggests that, if it is as harmful as you and others of your elk claim it is, where are all the deaths? All I’ve seen is one man who claims it killed his wife, although this was not positively determined. She was sick BEFORE she used it. Considering it is an isolated case, could it not be the sickness itself that killed her? Seems more probable, since we are NOT getting reports all over of others dying.

        I’ve watched several vids of people mixing and drinking the stuff. Years later they are still doing it!

        It just amazes me how some are quick to judge that which they know nothing about, to the detriment of those who could possibly benefit from it.

        Do I believe it to be a cure of these things? I do not know. Period. I don’t. I was never really sick enough to try it for that purpose. But I’m not just going to shrug off what is possible in light of the number of people testifying it helped them, and those who are opposed simply have not used it to begin with and are just repeating fears propagated by those who want to make sure something cheap and non-patent-able doesn’t take hold.

      • wzrd1 March 23, 2016 at 17:00 #

        There were thousands of testimonials to the salutary effects of thorium and radium water, people drank them for years before succumbing to cancer.
        I guess we made a mistake in banning those drinks, at least under your standard, where elk herds make erroneous findings based upon evidence based science or something.
        MMS is a potent oxidizer, one might as well drink rocket fuel and proclaim it healthy as that radium water was claimed.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) March 23, 2016 at 17:59 #

        From what I can see, you go around promoting this nonsense AND TAKE NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR IT.

        So, I try this on my kid. My kid reacts badly and is injured. How much do you agree to pay my family?

        You are doing the classic, “I’m just asking questions. ” Sorry, but you spend way too much time on this. You are a believer, someone raising the noise level so that more people will be suckered into this nonsense. No one sifts through “hundreds and hundreds” of sites on this without a stake in the game.

        You are promoting what amounts to the abuse of disabled children. You come here, a disability focused website, to create doubt so that more people will get pulled into this scam.

        And you don’t even have the guts to admit to what you are doing. Very much classic behavior for your community. You lack the backbone to be honest.

      • rixtertrader March 23, 2016 at 17:09 #

        How did you get informed? How do you address the fact that the AustismOne folks have helped nearly 200 autistic children? How do you address that no child has been harmed, cured or otherwise?

        This is what I don’t get. Again, I have no clue of its effectiveness. And I do not have an autistic child. So I don’t know how I would respond. However, I would not be quick to condemn what many are claiming effective. Why not fly down there and talk face to face? Why not actually meet those children who were autistic and claimed healed?

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) March 23, 2016 at 17:50 #

        “How did you get informed? ”

        Follow the links I provide and you will get an idea. Why are you too lazy to do that?

        “How do you address the fact that the AustismOne folks have helped nearly 200 autistic children? ”

        So, you missed the discussion where someone sent a “success story” and they accepted it with no evidence? All you have to do is tell them “your cure works” and they count it. Even if you make the whole thing up.

        is that the level of evidence that convinces you? Would you risk the health of yourself or your disabled child with evidence like that? If so, you are a fool.

        ” I would not be quick to condemn what many are claiming effective”

        Key word–claiming. Plus loaded word “condemn”. They are making extravagant claims. It is on them to provide proof. All they do is provide claims.

        Criticizing people who sell “cures” without informing people of the actual science, the actual effectiveness, the actual risks…that is not condemning. Frankly, these groups deserve a LOT more than criticism. Who pays out for adverse reactions to MMS? Who even keeps track? I’ll answer that for you: no one.

        Last thing–you bring up AutismOne. Kerri Rivera was the person pushing MMS at AutismOne. AutOne is held in Chicago. The state of Illinois presented Rivera with a simple choice–back up your claims or stop promoting MMS in Illinois.

        Rivera agreed to stop presenting in Illinois. She has no real evidence.

      • louveha February 11, 2015 at 22:45 #

        … Oh wow. Things got active around here.
        Now that you are talking about testimonials, I’d want to make something clear : I am not saying people who they say they or their child felt better with MMS are liars or stupid. No.
        However, let me repeat what I wrote earlier :
        “Yes, these people have to understand the necessity to rigorously check testimonies and to complete them with clinical trials.
        As surprising as it is, you can be intelligent, honest, motivated to help your child… and still be in error when evaluating the efficacy of a treatment.
        The example of bloodletting is pretty illustrative : http://skeptvet.com/Blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/2011-Equine-Guelph-Bloodletting-to-EBM-May19.pdf
        So, it’s not a matter of lack of trust in patients ; it is that we discovered that mistakes and inaccuracies were unavoidable if you only rely on testimonies.
        That’s why, yes, I am shocked that Rivera & co didn’t put in place any kind of clinical trial before spreading their treatment. And now we know that they don’t even keep close tabs on the testimonies they use as argument ; so they don’t even qualify as case studies.”

      • rixtertrader February 11, 2015 at 23:38 #

        Clinical trials are usually funded by those entities looking to profit. There is no profit to be made from curing Autism or anything else with something you cannot patient.

        There is profit to be made by keeping cheap cures off the market, and keeping folks and kids sick indefinitely.

        Yes millions are poured into organizations claiming to be looking for solutions to Autism and Cancer. The largest cancer institutes raked in millions and millions annually and employ thousands. After decades of existence, you are still left with the same 3 terrible choices: chemo, radiation, surgery.

        What would happen if a cure were to become easily and cheaply available? Thousands lose their job, and these institutions lose billions in assets. You think they are going to let that happen?

        Get real.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 12, 2015 at 00:42 #

        “Clinical trials are usually funded by those entities looking to profit. ”

        And then reviewed by an external agency before approval.

        There is a lot of profit in “cheap” cures.

        “After decades of existence, you are still left with the same 3 terrible choices: chemo, radiation, surgery.”

        And a survival rate that has improved dramatically and can be quantified. What’s the survival rate for MMS “cured” cancer? Oh, yeah we don’t know.

        We can guess. It’s as bad or worse than doing nothing. Because at best it *is* doing nothing. At worse it is causing harm

      • rix February 12, 2015 at 17:41 #

        Oh man. Are you kidding me? A “survival rate that has improved dramatically”…?

        Wrong!

        You are being mislead by the graphs. Thought you claimed to be smarter than that.

        Search “cancer survival rates misleading” and you’ll see plenty of evidence that in reality the war on cancer has gone nowhere and the number of people getting cancer has skyrocketed.

        A never ending stream of customers. That’s how your friends you defend see cancer victims.

      • commonsense February 12, 2015 at 19:20 #

        This article may explain how MMS prevents cancer: http://www.chlamydiacure.net/News/20130624/294.html
        Some viruses are suspected of causing cancer.
        Since cancer has serious outcomes and the war against cancer has been effectively lost any possible cure should be investigated.
        Article http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15028437 (antibiotics against cancer) gives an interesting perspective. Unfortunately antibiotics can cause cancer too.

      • Gray Falcon February 12, 2015 at 19:38 #

        Technically, fire, handguns, and arsenic will also kill bacteria and cancer cells.

        Oh, and to clarify, I do not and have never used illicit drugs, and I strongly discourage anyone else from doing so.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 12, 2015 at 20:16 #

        So, in place of medical journals we should take our advice from http://www.chlamidiacure.net?

        You have a very low bar for what constitutes good evidence.

      • commonsense February 12, 2015 at 20:39 #

        There is more evidence but I prefer everybody to search for himself so there is no “leading the witness.” sciencedaily.com could be a starting point.
        NIH is supposed to be reliable.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 13, 2015 at 00:47 #

        And NIH has what data showing the safety and or efficacy of MMS as a treatment?

        None.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 13, 2015 at 00:56 #

        Right. chlamidia cure dot net is where I should look for safety and efficacy for this as a cancer cure?

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 13, 2015 at 01:15 #

        “Search “cancer survival rates misleading” and you’ll see plenty of evidence that in reality the war on cancer has gone nowhere and the number of people getting cancer has skyrocketed.”

        Right. There are exactly 5 hits on Google.
        https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=%22cancer%20survival%20rates%20misleading%22

        One a newspaper from 1985 and a few others that are related to Dr. Oz. What exactly was I supposed to find out? Or did you just expect me to not check?

      • rixtertrader March 23, 2016 at 17:11 #

        This is not correct. There is not a lot of profit in cheap cures. People are finding they can cure using high doses of Vita-C, baking soda, and other easily obtained items. The Money does not follow these things. They do not support these things. They will not fund studies for these things. You cannot patent these things.

      • wzrd1 March 23, 2016 at 17:18 #

        Sodium bicarbonate is an extremely well studied and understood substance, you call it baking soda. It’s great to neutralize acids, indeed, sterile forms are injected to treat lactic acidosis and that’s been done for decades. So, science knows a hell of a lot about “baking soda”.
        Ah, the miracle vitamin C, a chemical championed to cure everything and even improve the weather or something. One key study spoke volumes about its phenomenal ability to prevent colds, a study retracted by the author when flaws were found littered all over the study methodology, but when the study was repeated with the flaws addressed, no benefit was found. Vitamin C is well enough understood for a century that lime supplements were brought onto British sailing vessels, resulting in the term Limey used for British sailors. Oh, but it’s not well understood, because of magic or something.
        Let’s bring back radium water too! So what if it kills someone with cancer in 20 years or so, it cured everything, even the weather.

      • Gray Falcon February 12, 2015 at 01:37 #

        Do you know what other forms of medicine were strongly supported by personal testimonials? Bloodletting! There’s a reason why the scientific method exists, and it’s not to suppress cancer cures.

        Oh, and if you try to claim that bloodletting does have some medical uses, I will preemptively remind you that they constitute very nearly 0% of the conditions that bloodletting was prescribed for historically.

      • Rix February 12, 2015 at 03:48 #

        Funny you would mention “bloodletting”.

        You better read your history.

        Bloodletting was being promoted and performed by the allopathic doctors and opposed by those practicing natural (alternative today) medicine.

        These “bloodletters” are the forefathers of your AMA licensed doctors today!!!

        Nice analogy Gray.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 12, 2015 at 03:56 #

        The bloodletting analogy is apt. They are the forefathers of both Doctors and charlatans. The AMA doctors evolved. The charlatans, such as those pushing MMS, did not. Simple as that.

      • Gray Falcon February 12, 2015 at 13:23 #

        To be more specific, bloodletting was based on the concept of the balance of humors, a concept that has as much to do with modern medicine as the concept of the Greek elements (earth, fire, wind, and water) has to do with modern chemistry. The true forerunners of modern medicine were those who bothered to check to see if what they were doing was working, rather than just arrogantly assume that they were right.

      • rix February 12, 2015 at 18:13 #

        Let’s go with that Gray.

        “The true forerunners of modern medicine were those who bothered to check to see if what they were doing was working, rather than just arrogantly assume that they were right.”

        Yes, they tried it and watched to see what would happen. If it worked, wonderful. If not, oops.

        And this is exactly how you should be treating this MMS issue.

        They are trying it in different ways, making changes along the way, and gathering data on the responses of users.

        They’ve found ways to make it taste better, go down easier, less negative effects (ie. CDS, CDH).

        Nobody is dying and many are getting well. There are many reports of users who were told they had only months to live telling their stories years later!

        I’d call this “checking what is working”.

        When I buy something from Amazon.com, I read all the Reviews. Why? Obviously I want to know if people like me liked the product and to get a feel for whether it would be what I want. Peer review is, IMHO, one of the best ways to gauge whether something works or not.

        This MMS thing has been going on now FOR YEARS!!! You’d think that people would be dying all around us who have been using this stuff daily. But no, that’s not happening.

        So where is the fire?

      • Gray Falcon February 12, 2015 at 18:15 #

        rix, have you tried using methamphetamine?

      • rix February 12, 2015 at 18:22 #

        “rix, have you tried using methamphetamine?”

        Why, are you a pusher selling it?

        No thanks.

        Dude, I’m Mensa eligible.

        Making it more personal now, are we?

      • Gray Falcon February 12, 2015 at 18:26 #

        How do you know it it’s bad if you haven’t tried it yourself?

        Remember, that’s your logic.

      • rix February 12, 2015 at 19:01 #

        Dumb question.

        Because, like I already said before, you can go by how others are affected by it.

        Since we can all SEE that many people are not doing well taking this drug, it is a no-brainer.

        This is NOT the case with MMS. Here we read of all kinds of people BENEFITING, not jumping off buildings, losing their teeth, looking like crap, getting the shakes, etc. etc. like Meth.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 12, 2015 at 20:19 #

        Right

        Where can I get the statistics on adverse reactions to this substance? If I am to make an informed decision, I need that information. But no one collects it, do they? No one publishes it, do they?

      • commonsense February 12, 2015 at 21:09 #

        Search for “epa clo2 safety study”
        There are too many studies to count: 100,000+
        If you think the EPA is above suspicion look here: http://www.epa.gov/iris/toxreviews/0496tr.pdf
        Admitting you are wrong is a sign of strength, not a weakness.

      • Gray Falcon February 12, 2015 at 21:15 #

        What part should I be looking at, specifically. That report’s fifty-six pages long. I’ll need you to be more specific.

        And yes, there have been thousands of studies on its safety. You’d do that if a substance were particularly toxic or caustic.

      • commonsense February 12, 2015 at 21:38 #

        Look at 6. MAJOR CONCLUSIONS IN THE CHARACTERIZATION OF HAZARD AND DOSE RESPONSE (page 45)
        The point is that there are many studies.

      • Gray Falcon February 12, 2015 at 21:44 #

        What should I be looking for, specifically? They come to a large number of conclusions there. Which one are you referring to?

      • commonsense February 13, 2015 at 08:06 #

        This is in response to your request for studies on ClO2. I assume you just want to know if such studies have been done. The link, one out of 100,000, confirms that this is indeed the case. The actual content is probably less important than the fact that this topic has been studied in detail.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 13, 2015 at 00:45 #

        Which of those safety studies apply directly to the human ingestion of this in the form as sold as MMS?

        None.

      • commonsense February 13, 2015 at 08:52 #

        Here is human clinical safety study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1569027/pdf/envhper00463-0059.pdf
        Don’t accept old articles at face value. They are based on emotion, not research.
        It may interest you that NaClO2 which is the precursor to ClO2 was used since world war one as a medicine for gangrene. It is less efficient and more poisonous that ClO2 but it must have had some effect.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 13, 2015 at 15:20 #

        Where does that study show the safety of enemas using mms? Since that is a big piece of how mms is used, seems necessary.
        what is the safety record of mms dosed to the point of making the patient ill? Again, since that is how it is used in practice, that is the necessary study.

      • commonsense February 13, 2015 at 21:31 #

        I am strongly opposed to enemas. If somebody comes in my vicinity with the paraphernalia and an evil glim in his eyes I will defend myself vigorously. Inflicting this on defenseless children amounts to child abuse.
        I have no experience with overdosing myself. I suspect the human body would react reflexively and expel any suspicious substance. Let me not go into detail.
        An overdose is far from a lethal dose. A lethal dose of ClO2 is at least 20 times the lethal dose of paracetamol by weight.
        A big risk factor is that a person who experiences an overdose will not be able to continue treatment because of mental aversion.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 13, 2015 at 21:56 #

        “I suspect the human body would react reflexively and expel any suspicious substance.”

        In which case any medicine, even those by pharmaceutical companies, would be safe.

        “A big risk factor is that a person who experiences an overdose will not be able to continue treatment because of mental aversion.”

        One learns that a substance can make one’s self sick and it is a “risk factor” that they won’t continue?

      • commonsense February 14, 2015 at 06:04 #

        “In which case any medicine, even those by pharmaceutical companies, would be safe.” Yes but there are exceptions: Medicine that builds up in the body, medicine that has a sedative effect, medicine that is injected, medicine that works slowly.
        “One learns that a substance can make one’s self sick and it is a “risk factor” that they won’t continue?” Yes; once physical aversion sets in some people will not be able to use ClO2 at all. It’s psychological.
        It is not unreasonable to expect discomfort when a substance is used that reacts strongly against pathogens. The same thing happens naturally in the human body and this causes many disease symptoms. It can even cause death in the event of a “cytokine storm.”

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 14, 2015 at 15:39 #

        “Yes; once physical aversion sets in some people will not be able to use ClO2 at all. It’s psychological.”

        Right. Ingest chlorine dioxide, feel sick and it’s all psychological.

        This is denialism on your part.

      • commonsense February 14, 2015 at 16:42 #

        Denialism? no. Personal experience, first hand and second hand.
        Coming back to gangrene, this was successfully treated with Dakin’s solution (NaClO2+boric acid) which would produce ClO2. Not taken orally but it would permeate the skin through wounds.
        While looking up MMS on internet I found that there is now an alarming development, It is similar to MMS and called WF10 (see wikipedia). Not sure of the status now. It seems several clinical trials have been submitted to the FDA. It will be difficult to block as several countries have already approved it or are in the process. It would be interesting to read your opinion on this.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 14, 2015 at 21:46 #

        Right. Your personal experience applies to everyone who has ever taken this faux medicine?

        The gangrene argument is not relevant at best. It’s not an internal consumption and it isn’t for “parasites” or whatever else it’s sold for now.

        WF10 has already been discussed at length on this site, probably this discussion. It’s not MMS. The patent is also for use only rarely–every 6 months or so. Chemically it is a different compound. If you are really interested, you can read my opinion on this as it’s already been discussed.

      • commonsense February 15, 2015 at 10:35 #

        “Your personal experience applies to everyone who has ever taken this faux medicine?” Yes, provisionally. While people are similar, they are not identical. There may be exceptions. You should refrain from asking loaded questions. Accutane is approved by the FDA but it is faux medicine for instance. ClO2 is not approved and it is not.
        “The gangrene argument is not relevant at best.” I have to explain some more. ClO2 is a gas and applying it externally would cause some ClO2 to be inhaled. Some would permeate the skin. It is useful for establishing long term safety. It does not prove anything about oral ingestion.
        In theory ClO2 should not be effective against parasites.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 13, 2015 at 19:03 #

        “It may interest you that NaClO2 which is the precursor to ClO2 was used since world war one as a medicine for gangrene.’

        Really? They give oral doses of NaClO2 to treat gangrene? Can you give a citation for that? Other than an MMS website?

        Funny how people try to avoid the fact that MMS is a bleach and then compare it to a bleach.

      • commonsense February 13, 2015 at 22:02 #

        See for yourself Try googling “chlorite gangrene treatment world war”
        There are 500,000+ hits. It was used on the wounds.The MMS crowd is not even aware of this..

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 13, 2015 at 22:12 #

        Right. I just tried it

        No results found for “chlorite gangrene treatment world war”.

        without quotes, one finds a number of hits. Pick one that you think actually supports your claims. Most of the hits have nothing to do with your statement. The main one is a paper that mentions the use of chlorite, but notes that other methods were preferred.

        You seem to be asserting that chlorite was used externally on wounds as a way of defending the internal consumption of chlorite and ClO2 for treating other conditions.

        I don’t see common sense in your logic.

      • commonsense February 14, 2015 at 06:41 #

        Gangrene:
        I responded to a request for a citation about NaClO2 used for gangrene.
        I generally avoid pointing out a specific web site. This could be construed as bias.
        It is just an interesting fact. No good records were kept and speculation is useless.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 13, 2015 at 00:46 #

        How about FDA? What do they say about this.

        FDA NEWS RELEASE
        For Immediate Release: July 30, 2010
        Media Inquiries: Elaine Gansz Bobo, 301-796-7567, elaine.bobo@fda.hhs.gov
        Consumer Inquiries: 888-INFO-FDA

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

        The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is warning consumers not to take Miracle Mineral Solution, an oral liquid also known as “Miracle Mineral Supplement” or “MMS.” The product, when used as directed, produces an industrial bleach that can cause serious harm to health.

        The FDA has received several reports of health injuries from consumers using this product, including severe nausea, vomiting, and life-threatening low blood pressure from dehydration.

        Consumers who have MMS should stop using it immediately and throw it away.

        MMS is distributed on Internet sites and online auctions by multiple independent distributors. Although the products share the MMS name, the look of the labeling may vary.

        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.

        MMS claims to treat multiple unrelated diseases, including HIV, hepatitis, the H1N1 flu virus, common colds, acne, cancer, and other conditions. The FDA is not aware of any research that MMS is effective in treating any of these conditions. MMS also poses a significant health risk to consumers who may choose to use this product for self-treatment instead of seeking FDA-approved treatments for these conditions.

        The FDA continues to investigate and may pursue civil or criminal enforcement actions as appropriate to protect the public from this potentially dangerous product.

        The FDA advises consumers who have experienced any negative side effects from MMS to consult a health care professional as soon as possible and to discard the product. Consumers and health care professionals should report adverse events to the FDA’s MedWatch program at 800-FDA-1088 or online at http://www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm.

      • commonsense February 13, 2015 at 09:19 #

        Well, I agree with the FDA that MMS can have unpleasant side effects. This can happen when overdosing but also when a person is already ill. I personally know someone who took MMS because he felt generally unwell. He had to stop after one week because of severe nausea. It turned out he had lymphoma, fortunately curable with chemo.
        In the future when somebody can not tolerate MMS I will advise to go for cancer screening.
        “The FDA is not aware of any research that MMS is effective in treating any of these conditions”. This is a useless statement. It means there may be research but the FDA does not know about it.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 13, 2015 at 15:13 #

        Kerri Rivera’s recommendation is to dose to the point of making someone ill. Then increase the dose.

        Are all of her “patients” harboring undetected cancers?

      • commonsense February 13, 2015 at 20:35 #

        I know nothing of Kerri Rivera.
        Overdosing should be avoided. Even if it accelerates the healing process the discomfort is not worth it.
        If someone feels side effects after a standard weight-adjusted dose something is wrong. Not necessarily cancer, it can be tuberculosis or another chronic condition. Most if not all people using ClO2 will do so for a health problem and then something is indeed wrong. In that case a standard dose could make them ill,
        For the record I don’t think ClO2 is the right approach to autism since it is not a disease.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 13, 2015 at 22:07 #

        What are you doing on an autism website? Just touting the general use of MMS because you believe in it? Defending it’s use on a site where most of the readers are in the autism community?

        Kerri Rivera is the main person responsible for subjecting this to autistics.

        Find somewhere else to tout how this works for other conditions. Let the people there who understand those conditions educate you. Right now you are defending an abusive fake treatment that is being subjected to disabled children on a disability focused website.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 13, 2015 at 15:17 #

        The FDA and the people touting MMS are unaware of research showing efficacy. Unless you think those selling this are just keeping the research studies secret.

      • commonsense February 13, 2015 at 21:08 #

        The FDA will remain unaware of MMS health benefits because they work by rules. They have procedures that must be followed. A big stumbling block is that most sponsors of ClO2 don’t know how it works. Fleming faced a similar problem when working with penicillin.

      • Gray Falcon February 13, 2015 at 21:12 #

        Actually, there are a large number of drugs on the market whose mechanisms aren’t fully understood. Lithium, for instance. That excuse doesn’t work at all.

        Now, why can’t you create a simple controlled study? Or even try pouring a bit of it on a piece of black cloth to see what happens?

      • commonsense February 14, 2015 at 06:15 #

        “Now, why can’t you create a simple controlled study?” Good advice. I will.
        “pouring a bit of it on a piece of black cloth to see what happens?” I did better. Undiluted ClO2 at 28% causes first degree burns on skin that is not exposed to sunlight, without pain. For some reason there is no effect on skin that is regularly exposed to sunlight.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 13, 2015 at 22:04 #

        The big stumbling block is that the people touting MMS don’t know if it works. They have no data. Just testimonials. No idea if their “treatment” does as good, better or worse than a placebo.

        “Fleming faced a similar problem when working with penicillin.”

        That was, what, 80 years ago? With modern science, showing that “Miracle Mineral Solution” does anything is a much lower bar.

        The “sponsors” of MMS claim they do know the mechanism of action. In autism they are claiming a parasite infection at this point. A claim that is not based in fact. They are “treating” a parasitic infection with something not proved to treat parasitic infections in patients without parasitic infections. How many mistakes do you see in that logic?

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 13, 2015 at 01:04 #

        “Dude, I’m Mensa eligible.

        And, no one mensa eligible would do drugs?

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 13, 2015 at 01:05 #

        “Dude, I’m Mensa eligible.”

        People who think they are too smart to fall for a trick are often the easiest to fool.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 12, 2015 at 20:10 #

        “Yes, they tried it and watched to see what would happen. If it worked, wonderful. If not, oops.

        And this is exactly how you should be treating this MMS issue.”

        Back then they didn’t have a good idea of biology, so taking an Edisonian approach was understandable. Nowadays we have a better understanding of biology and chemistry, so we can evaluate MMS from that perspective.

        And it fails.

        the idea that we can treat autism as a “parasite” conditions is wrong. The idea that MMS would actually give benefit if this were a parasite problem is wrong.

        There’s the funny thing–why don’t people just go to a specialist in parasites for this “parasite protocol”. The answer, simply, is that there are no parasites and the experts tell people this.

        It’s very much the same thing with chelation for “heavy metal toxicity” that didn’t exist. People were warned away from actually going to medical toxicologists, because the “diagnoses” of “heavy metal poisoning” were fake.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 13, 2015 at 01:09 #

        “This MMS thing has been going on now FOR YEARS!!! ”

        And yet, no peer reviewed study showing it works for anything.

        Glad you like Amazon. Here’s a review from there:

        5,210 of 5,279 people found the following review helpful
        They’re here.
        By George Takei on May 29, 2013
        I purchased this gizmo to play a prank on my husband Brad, who still prattles on about his “fourth-kind” encounter when he was just thirteen. (The 4th kind involves a probe, if you’re wondering. I keep saying it was likely his redneck neighbor dressed as ET, but that possibility is too dreadful for him to truly accept.)

        On the anniversary of Brad’s alleged abduction, I placed the device by our bedside, then set-up an electromagnetic wave generator under the bed, with a timer to go off right at midnight. (If you’re wondering where to get one, I recommend the Skymall Catalog. I also picked up some Motivational posters and fake garden rock speakers to save on shipping. You’re welcome.)

        But back to my prank. It was all set to go, and I was as giddy as a six year old waiting for Santa. But like a typical six year old, I fell asleep before the damn thing went off. I awoke to the flashing of multiple LEDs from the UFO-02 Detector, and bolted up, eager to see Brad’s petrified face. Aha!

        But Brad wasn’t there.

        In fact, I wasn’t even in our bedroom any more. Instead, I stood face-to-face with Leonardo da Vinci. Or perhaps it was Professor Dumbledore, I’m not really certain. In either event, It was a manifestation that the being I shall call the “Intelligence” had determined my brain would most easily accept for deliverance of The Message.

        You see, the Intelligence had come to convey to us humans that the Imperative was nigh, that what we loosely dub the Singularity was only the beginning of a limitless existence unbounded by physical space and time, and that sugar-free alternatives are actually WORSE for us than the real deal. He made sure that last point was clear by making me repeat it twice.

        When I came to, Brad was sound asleep in his tin foil hat, the UFO-02 detector was gone, and, sure enough, all of my Splenda had been replaced with little, brown raw sugar packets. When I tried to tell Brad about Leonardo/Dumbledore and The Message, he rolled over away from me, grumbling that I shouldn’t eat so much ice cream or any dairy product before bed.

      • rix February 12, 2015 at 17:30 #

        History in the US has proven that Alopathic medicine is corrupt, with the front line persons (AMA licensed Doctors) mostly uninformed on simple things as NUTRITION. They have been trained from the beginning to be pill-pushers. If they go outside this, they risk losing their license even if it is in the best interest of the patient.

        Naturalistic Doctors have been on the right track from the beginning. Excluding doctors on both sides that are not altruistic, they did not agree with the bloodletting and other barbaric methods used by the alopathic doctors.

        There have been cures for cancer decades ago. But sure enough your friends back then attacked either what they did not believe or simply to shelf anything threatening their own practice and profits. Labeling anything and everything that goes against the establishment as “quackery” has been very effective, although a disservice to all mankind.

        But what do your friends do? Oh, they put out all kinds of pills that don’t cure, but are designed to help you get by, while including a LONG LIST of nasty side-effects! “May cause internal bleeding, vomiting, liver disease, death….”

        Anyone with a television watching commercial after commercial hears them read these off very low toned and super-fast. Maybe the dumb public won’t give it much thought, eh?

        “The bloodletting analogy is apt. They are the forefathers of both Doctors and charlatans.”

        Yep, you are right there. Except you should clearly state they are forefathers of “alopathic” Doctors and charlatans.

        Before you label someone a charlatan, you need to do a lot more than just ignore the testimonials of your own community that say it works for them.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 13, 2015 at 01:18 #

        Right. It’s all corruption. A conspiracy. Sure.

        But what do your friends do? Oh, they put out all kinds of pills that don’t cure, but are designed to help you get by, while including a LONG LIST of nasty side-effects! “May cause internal bleeding, vomiting, liver disease, death….”

        Like,

        The FDA has received several reports of health injuries from consumers using this product, including severe nausea, vomiting, and life-threatening low blood pressure from dehydration.

        So, reports to the FDA made by consumers of MMS just don’t count? Or is it because the FDA is part of the conspiracy that I am supposed to discount what those users of this product say?

      • rixtertrader March 23, 2016 at 17:05 #

        We’re not living in the dark ages. The unfortunate thing about the “scientific method” is that most of it is controlled by those who would oppose cheap alternatives. Doing studies requires a massive amount of money, for which much of it these days are provided by Pharma or some food conglomerate looking to push their own brand. Common sense tells me that if drinking the koolaid is bad for you, you would be seeing people dying all over the place and the issue would be over. But that is not the case here. There is a 50,000 to 1 pro:con ratio in actual users. I see ONE death promoted as “see, it kills”, and that on the word of a husband’s opinion, not fact. The woman took ill ‘first’. Her illness killed her.

        It is ironic that opponents would parade around a death of a single person in a wide world of thousands of users and use that as the poster child against, yet accepted drugs with FDA approval are killing thousands every year!!!

        So how is your “scientific method” working now?

        Apply your same reasoning on Pharma drugs.

      • wzrd1 March 23, 2016 at 17:13 #

        I have applied that same reasoning to my pharmaceutical drugs, I’d be deader than last month’s news without them from an aortic aneurysm and/or ventricular fibrillation. Instead, my hyperthyroid condition that caused both conditions is being medically managed with pharmaceuticals that suppress thyroid function and lower both my pulse and blood pressure. All, because of the scientific method.
        Indeed, all testing conducted by the scientific method is expensive?! Wow, when did penicillin become so expensive? The rabies vaccine? The polio vaccine?
        Yellow #5? Annatto? All in common usage, all cheaply tested.
        Indeed, even rocket fuel, of which MMS could be a component, was inexpensively tested. Your objection speaks to the ignorance of the scientific method. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
        There are teens experimenting with fusion in their garages, all using the scientific method.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusor#Amateur
        Learn a little about what you are talking about, learn what a powerful oxidizer does to the GI tract, learn what happens when one chronically consumes powerful oxidizers can do, things like cancer and malnutrition.
        Learn what quackery is.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) March 23, 2016 at 17:55 #

        “We’re not living in the dark ages.”

        No. But we are no smarter than the people in the Dark Ages. We have more knowledge, but if we choose to ignore it, we are basically in the Dark Ages. We also have the same basic psychology as people in the Dark Ages. In fact, in many ways it’s worse because we pat ourselves on the back for being advanced and think “I can’t be fooled”.

        “Doing studies requires a massive amount of money”

        So we can pay with the lives and health of people who are used as human guinea pigs by alt-med practitioners?

        Not me. Not my family.

        “It is ironic that opponents would parade around a death of a single person in a wide world of thousands of users ”

        Where is the database of adverse reactions to MMS? Who is keeping track? Where can I access that data and do an analysis?

        Answer–there is no data. No one is keeping track. Adverse reactions are relabeled as “good”, Herxheimer reactions, “detoxing” events and ignored.

        It’s ironic that you don’t even see how ironic your own comment is.

      • louveha February 12, 2015 at 06:42 #

        The reason I mentioned bloodletting is because I KNOW that.
        I mentioned it because it symbolizes the fact that, when they checked its efficacy, allopathic doctors realized that they needed something better than testimonials from satisfied patients and their own clinical expertise.
        It shows that even if the theory behind a treatment seems sound, you still have to check, whether it is an allopathic or alternative treatment.
        (Regarding “no finance for alternatives” : you do find some if you look hard enough, for example NCCAM. And refusing to even attempt one give your opponents a very easy card to play, for good reason.)

      • rix February 12, 2015 at 18:05 #

        Back in 2002 I remember having two orange boxes of Vioxx on my pantry shelf that was prescribed to me by my family physician (back when I still had one).

        I never took it, not because I was worried about something (why would I? my doctor prescribed it to me), but at the time I didn’t really feel I needed to take it.

        Lo and behold, not long after I hear (2004) that it is pulled off the market. Why? Because it can wreck havoc on your body (heart attacks, strokes, etc…)!

        Yay for clinical trials!!!

        Most drugs aren’t tested long enough before being approved. Sure they get “clinical trials”, but they are weak. Fast tracking is common practice where FDA receives a ‘fee’ from Big Pharm to push a drug through its system quickly to approval.

        In affect, FDA becomes an employee of Big Pharma. So much for good clinical trials.

        And how clinical trials are performed are faulty to begin with.

        https://clinicaltrialist.wordpress.com/clinical/why-clinical-trials-fail/

        Take for example the issue with GMO foods. They did a trial that lasted only 90 days and called it “safe for human consumption”. However, trials done abroad found that you won’t see any signs of tumors (cancer) until AFTER 120 days!

        So supporters of GMO say “see, we did a clinical trial and it is safe”. Yet, disease, cancer and diabetes is on the rise with much correlation to the food supply changes.

        Hey, I would like to see REAL clinical trials on everything! I really would. But the system is rigged to prevent this from happening with most things that Big Pharma cannot patent and make money on, anything that threatens their bottom line.

        I have a few friends who are nurses. One of them told me the other day that there were always Pharma reps showing up, taking doctors to lunch, giving gifts, and of course samples of new drugs or pushing the old ones.

        Patient comes into the Doctor’s office and says “Doc, I have really bad heartburn.” Doctor says, “you appear to have GERDS. Here, take try this…”

        Nizatidine (Axid)
        Famotidine (Pepcid)
        Cimetidine (Tagamet)
        Ranitidine (Zantac0

        (Side effects can include headache, abdominal pain, diarrhea, nausea, gas, sore throat, runny nose, and dizziness.)

        Rabeprazole (Aciphex)
        Esomeprazole (Nexium)
        Lansoprazole (Prevacid)
        Omeprazole (Prilosec, Zegerid)
        Pantoprazole (Protonix)
        Dexlansoprazole (Dexilant)

        (BTW, that was the route I was sent down years ago. Not any more!)

        Instead, the non-alopathic Doctor (Naturalistic, Holistic, Nutritionist, etc.) tells you, “try drinking a tablespoon of organic apple cider vinegar before every meal.”

        Yay!

        Sleep like a baby every night now. And just think, it did NOT need to have clinical trials. All we needed was many people saying, “wow, this worked for me!”.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 13, 2015 at 01:11 #

        Yep, don’t trust data in studies. Big Pharma is bad. They hire salespeople.

        Instead, pay someone to tell you take organic apple cider vinegar before every meal. Why see a doctor, it’s 100% certain that this isn’t a sign of a serious condition for 100% of the people with this symptom.

      • macaddict08 February 12, 2015 at 19:20 #

        Like I said, Save your Breath Rix !! … Mr Sullivan is here ONLY to downplay things like Chlorine Dioxide(CD) and other treatments that don’t support Big Pharma.

        I’ve taken CD now for 8 years on and off… and helped MNAY other get well with it … but, to Sullivan.. well, lol… its STILL bleach. 🙂

        Personally, I pity him …

      • Gray Falcon February 12, 2015 at 19:22 #

        Why haven’t you tried to perform double-blind studies? If your miracle medicine is so great, why haven’t you put forth the effort to prove it to the world?

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 12, 2015 at 20:16 #

        Like the answer to that isn’t the same for every alternative “medicine” that gets touted on the internet?

        “the man doesn’t want to see this proved because it will cut into his profits” or some such.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 13, 2015 at 00:58 #

        “Mr Sullivan is here ONLY to downplay things like Chlorine Dioxide(CD) and other treatments that don’t support Big Pharma.”

        You got me. That’s why I’ve been writing here for years about autism. I knew that “Miracle Mineral Solution” would someday be invented and applied to autistic children.

        It is bleach :). Please, keep denying that.

        http://www.thinkingautismguide.com/2013/01/mms-yes-it-is-bleach.html

        Here’s a towel that had CD/MMS applied to it

      • macaddict08 February 12, 2015 at 19:40 #

        Gray Falcon,

        That has to be THE most idiotic statement/question yet …

        Perform Studies WHERE ?? … and with who ? NO one form the FDA or the WHO, etc… is interested in something like CD … they tried with Ozone therapy, Rife Therapy, etc… and all were shelved or thrown under the rug.

        CD IS Shared with the world already.. many are catching on, and KNOW its not “bleach” … there are people all over the world teaching it …..

        164 kids fully recovered from Autism is the proof… as well as numerous friends of mine recovered…

        Problem is, there’s no profit in it for the drug companies .. its not a drug…

        Are you really that ignorant ??

      • Gray Falcon February 12, 2015 at 19:43 #

        Ozone is a pollutant. It failed in studies because it’s toxic, that’s all. Now, why haven’t you gotten together to do studies yourself. You’ve got the money, you’ve got the resources, why haven’t you done anything?

      • Gray Falcon February 12, 2015 at 19:46 #

        Here’s a nice, simple study you can perform. Find 100 parents with autistic children. Give 50 of them your medicine, 50 of them a placebo. Keep track of the children’s progress over several years. I’m sure you’ll find no shortage of volunteers, and the peddlers have already made quite a bit of money off of this, selling their product at a huge markup. So, why can’t you do something that simple?

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 12, 2015 at 20:13 #

        FDA doesn’t run studies. They evaluate them.

        CD/MMS whatever you wan to call this is a scam.

        And, again, there is no evidence that any kids have been “recovered” from autism. If this is your proof, you have to be trying every single therapy out there that has people claiming to “recover” autistic kids. The fact is, anyone can put out claims. Producing data, that’s another thing.

        It’s not a drug? Really? What is it then? What do you call a substance that “cures” diseases? If it works, it’s a drug.

        But I agree with you, it isn’t a drug.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 12, 2015 at 20:15 #

        One more use of “idiot” or “retarded” and you will no longer be welcome here.

      • rix February 12, 2015 at 20:36 #

        I agree that this debate needs to be kept civil.

        There is no point, nor nothing gained, by direct insults.

        And with that said, I am going to take my leave now and say THANKS to everyone who has participated on both sides.

        I believe I’ve expressed my opinion clear enough. There are many, many people claiming they benefit from MMS and I am not willing to dismiss them offhanded regardless of what both sides claim. These are real people, real issues, and I’ve seen the tears of joy as well as the tears of pain when the Government has stepped in to take away a treatment that was working. It hurts to see this.

        I’m not going to do trials on MMS or anything else. I’m going to continue to watch the debates, read personal accounts, acknowledge what people I meet say, and go from there.

        Some people can box themselves in with strict requirements laid out by groups with agendas not in the best interest of mankind, that’s their choice.

        My own ‘personal’ health journey has convinced me 10 years ago that I was on the wrong track (like the majority of people today blindly believing Doctors and FDA, Gov’t, Pharma) is looking out for their best interest. They are not. And they have successfully used fear to keep people in the dark and dependent on them.

        My health has never been better. I’ve cared for my own wife and daughter who have not had to deal with Doctors for 9 years now. When they get sick, I know what to do and it does not involve drugs. This has truly benefited my immune system (no antibiotics since 2003).

        What better proof for a person than ones own health journey experience. Nothing anyone can say to me at this point will ever make me believe otherwise, because I have experienced it. Only those who have not are easily swayed by fear or prejudice.

        So it doesn’t help for me to continue debating this issue here. I’ve said what I’ve said and anything more is just repeating myself.

        Believe or don’t believe. Try or don’t try. Personal choice is precious. Freedom of choice is precious. Those who try to limit choice by grandstanding that they are trying to protect you are instead working to limit you. Whether or not you wish to use MMS should be your choice. Whether or not you believe it is a good thing should not be your reason to try to prevent others assess. You may strongly feel you need to keep parents from treating their own children. Just imagine what it would be like if this were happening to you, that you wanted to treat your child and others were trying to prevent you because they don’t agree with you. Who made you God to judge others? (rhetorical question)

        I do not dislike Doctors personally. I’ve liked most of the ones I’ve met. But they are locked into a mold and for those who realize that there are better ways, they are also between a rock and a hard place. To go outside the allowable prescribed route, they risk their jobs. Not an easy thing to do when you’ve invested so much in becoming a licensed practitioner.

        We are from the Earth. Everything we need to be healthy is found naturally from the Earth. Messing with Mother Nature has only stressed the Earth, caused disease, and a future dependent on drugs for many.

        Now I step down from my soapbox and bid you all well, regardless of your position.

        Best regards. Rix

      • Gray Falcon February 12, 2015 at 20:37 #

        So, rix, if you wish to be civil, why did you lie about us and say we claimed ClO2 was bleach because it contained chlorine>

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 13, 2015 at 00:51 #

        “There is no point, nor nothing gained, by direct insults”

        And there are no insults here. Using the “you have insulted me” argument is older than internet forums.

        Personal choice is one thing. You are free to try fake medicine to your heart’s content. You are welcome to believe that something which has no evidence is a “cure” for everything.

        What you and everyone else do not have is the ability to promote this as a treatment for children, especially disabled children. No one here has challenged your choice. That is a straw man argument.

        You have the choice to propagate misinformation, such as claiming that MMS is not a bleach, or that it is somehow demonstrated safe and effective. I also have the choice to counter your misinformation. I could take your approach and claim that you are somehow impinging on my choice, but that too would be a straw man.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 13, 2015 at 00:55 #

        “164 kids fully recovered from Autism is the proof… as well as numerous friends of mine recovered…”

        How many of these 164 kids have you met? Or seen the medical records for? Or seen described in a credible (or any other) study?

        None.

        The person promoting the idea that this has cured 163 kids doesn’t even do the least amount of checking whether the testimonials are accurate or not.
        https://nomorebleach.wordpress.com/2015/01/13/163-children-healed-from-autism-nope/

        So, your proof is nothing. I need more than nothing to accept that something works.

      • Narad February 12, 2015 at 20:47 #

        sciencedaily.com could be a starting point.

        Somehow, I don’t consider a site that does nothing but regurgitate press releases as a particularly useful research tool.

      • Narad February 12, 2015 at 20:52 #

        Dude, I’m Mensa eligible.

        Twice.

      • macaddict08 February 12, 2015 at 21:18 #

        I’ve posted this study before … and it was shoved aside ….

        “… how is it possible that contacting or even drinking ClO2 solution is practically harmless for animals and human beings while the same aqueous solution can be a very effective and a rapid killer for bacteria, fungi, and viruses?”

        “Moreover ClO2 can remove biofilms swiftly because it is
        highly soluble in water … This way ClO2 can penetrate into biofilms rapidly to reach and kill the microbes living
        within the film.”

        http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0079157

      • macaddict08 February 12, 2015 at 21:21 #

        Also….

        “… by the absence of detrimental physiological responses within the limits of the study, the relative safety of oral ingestion of chlorine dioxide and its metabolites, chlorite & chlorate, was demonstrated.”

        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1569027/

      • Gray Falcon February 12, 2015 at 21:46 #

        The concentration in the article is listed as 5 mg/l. What concentration are you using?

      • commonsense February 13, 2015 at 08:16 #

        I use about 50 mg/liter.
        This would bring my plasma concentration to about 1 mg/liter.
        I use it when necessary, usually once and in rare cases up to 10 times.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 13, 2015 at 00:44 #

        Then why do kids get sick when their parents give them this? Because they do. It’s in Kerri Rivera’s book. It’s in many discussions posted by parents on the internet. Why do they get sick?

        If you claim it is due to a Herxheimer reaction, show your data that proves your point.

        You can’t. There is none. It’s just hand waving by Kerri Rivera to avoid having to admit that kids are made sick by this stuff.

      • macaddict08 February 12, 2015 at 21:56 #

        The concentration depends on what you are trying to accomplish.
        The ‘Concentration’ you speak of, is measured in PPM’s.

        1 drop of activated Sodium Chlorite (CD) is approx 3,000ppm … you then Dilute it in 4-10oz of distilled water,making it much less concentrated. Or..dilute it less to treat topical burns… there are over 100’s of applications for CD.

        So.. you question is hard to answer.

        It CAN have a “bleaching” effect IF left undiluted,,, but you NEVER take it that way… you always mix it in water, and drink it ….followed by another 8oz of water.

      • Gray Falcon February 12, 2015 at 21:59 #

        So what is that compared to the concentration in the study? Could you convert to use the same units as they did?

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 13, 2015 at 00:42 #

        “drop of activated Sodium Chlorite (CD) is approx 3,000ppm”

        3,000 ppm of what? Show your math. How did you calculate this number.

        If this is so dilute, why are kids made sick by it? And they are. As already noted, these adverse reactions are alleged to be Herxheimer reactions and Kerri Rivera claims that people should up the dose when their kids get sickened.

        Bleaches still bleach even if diluted. You do know that, right?

      • macaddict08 February 12, 2015 at 22:08 #

        Why Mr. Falcon ? ….so you can create your own junk Science and declare that CD is TOXIC ? …or say it’s “Bleach” ?!? lol

        CD whether at Low doses (100ppm) or at High doses (3,000-5,000ppm) is fine to take… as long as its mixed with distilled water

        2 year old kids take it as part of a Parasite protocol…. AND do enemas with it. NONE have been hurt or died from it. I know most of the moms doing this in Facebook groups… who wish to remain anonymous, as mainstream medicine has given up on them, and they don’t wish to explain themselves to any agency.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 13, 2015 at 00:39 #

        I love the pseudo-scientific framing of this. 100ppm? Really? As measured by whom? This isn’t a medicine or something regulated, this is a home brew with no quality control.

        “2 year old kids take it as part of a Parasite protocol…”

        And the studies showing that this is safe and effective are where? That’s right, they don’t exist.

        2 year old disabled children are being made to drink bleach and take bleach enemas as part of a “protocol” made up by people with no expertise and absolutely no liability.

        What happens when a kid feels sick on MMS/CD? If they are following the “protocol” the dose is increased. Because Kerri Rivera claims this is a sign of a Herxhemer reaction. Does she have any data to show this is a real Herxheimer reaction? No. Does she have a way to determine if this is a real Herxheimer reaction or an adverse reaction? No.

        The Herxheimer reaction idea has been used a lot by alternative practitioners to hide adverse reactions. “Oh, it’s good for you” is the claim.

        “NONE have been hurt or died from it. ”

        Because adverse reactions are explained away as alleged Herxheimer reactions. Tell me, where is it that people report and list the reactions to “miracle mineral solution”? That’s right, no where. No where can I check for even a passive reporting system. No where can I see the fraction of kids who have adverse reactions or what those reactions are.

        I can see pictures of intestinal linings passed by children. I guess that doesn’t count as “hurt”.

      • macaddict08 February 13, 2015 at 01:00 #

        Sullivan,

        Sorry, but I cannot believe that I’ve come across someone as ignorant as you …. its stunning.

        I don’t need to prove to you or anyone that 164 kids have recovered. It’s be like You asking ME….”hey, is your heart beating right now” ?

        My answer… yes… it just is….

        and YES, I do know a lot of the moms from the Facebook groups…. they are close friends (them and their kids)… but, there’s no way to prove that either… so… why ask ?

        Pick another topic to debate … your rants are sounding old… and outdated.

        CD works… its just is. Duh !!!

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 13, 2015 at 01:37 #

        Yep, I’ve read the book, I understand the science better than you, but I am ignorant. Got it.

        I don’t need to prove to you or anyone that 164 kids have recovered. It’s be like You asking ME….”hey, is your heart beating right now” ?

        Because you can put your fingers on your wrist and prove that kids have been recovered? It’s nothing like “hey is your heat beating right now”.

        Well, since you seem bored with this discussion, I take it you are through. Enjoy yourself wherever you spend your time. Next time you want to cruise a disability website making false claims of a treatment’s efficacy…well, I was going to say think twice first, but instead I’ll say, good luck. I’m sure you can find one where people won’t actually read and question what you claim.

        “CD works… its just is. Duh !!!”

        I get it. You believe. I need to have proof. At least some evidence. And you don’t. “it just is” is sufficient for you.

      • Narad February 13, 2015 at 02:17 #

        Also….

        “… by the absence of detrimental physiological responses within the limits of the study, the relative safety of oral ingestion of chlorine dioxide and its metabolites, chlorite & chlorate, was demonstrated.”

        The dose was 2.5 mg per day in adults. Rivera’s “protocol” is 64–192 mg per day in children.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 13, 2015 at 18:46 #

        Per the EPA, the limit is set based on neurodevelopmental toxicity. Ironic that this is being sold as a treatment for autism. Ironic. Sad. There are a lot of other stronger words one could pick.

        http://www.epa.gov/iris/toxreviews/0496tr.pdf

        The oral RfD for chlorine dioxide or chlorite is 3 × 10-2 mg/kg-day. This is 1/100 of the NOAEL, using neurodevelopmental toxicity in a two-generation rat study as the indicator of adverse effects. Overall confidence in this RfD assessment is medium to high. Confidence in the CMA (1996) principal study is medium. Although the study design and analytical approaches are consistent with EPA testing guidelines, some limitations in the design and conduct of the study exist. Confidence in the database is high because there are studies in multiple species, chronic duration studies in males and females, reproductive/developmental toxicity studies, and a multigenerational study. The threshold for adverse effects is consistently defined among the animal studies.

        We don’t have data for exposure via enema, just oral.

        if “Big Pharma” tried to sell a drug using this sort of flimsy evidence and low standard of safety, there’d be very appropriate outrage from the very people touting this “miracle” cure.

      • Narad February 13, 2015 at 12:14 #

        In the future when somebody can not tolerate MMS I will advise to go for cancer screening.

        It’s always cute when someone accidentally cops to engaging in the unlicensed practice of medicinr.

      • Narad February 14, 2015 at 01:32 #

        I use about 50 mg/liter.
        This would bring my plasma concentration to about 1 mg/liter.

        Uh-huh. Let’s have the calculation, including (prompt) reduction to neutral chloride in the stomach, and the absorption figure for whatever’s left, which is going to be quite busy denaturing serum albumen before it has a chance to do any magic tricks.

    • louveha February 12, 2015 at 18:56 #

      Wat.
      Please explain to me how pharma companies (who know really well the weaknesses in the system) doing weak (= badly done) and badly interpreted clinical trials + hiding data invalidates the usefulness of well done clinical trials.
      Seriously, how do you think Vioxx’s dangerosity was found out ? Not because of individual testimonials.
      “The VIGOR (Vioxx GI Outcomes Research) study, conducted by Bombardier, et al., which compared the efficacy and adverse effect profiles of rofecoxib and naproxen, had indicated a significant 4-fold increased risk of acute myocardial infarction (heart attack) in rofecoxib patients when compared with naproxen patients (0.4% vs 0.1%, RR 0.25) over the 12 month span of the study.”
      “Months after the preliminary version of VIGOR was published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the journal editors learned that certain data reported to the FDA were not included in the NEJM article.”
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rofecoxib

      You say yourself that MMS proponents are “gathering data” ; if so, are they publishing it somewhere (even freely on their website) instead of simply presenting testimonials ?

      • rix February 12, 2015 at 19:05 #

        “Seriously, how do you think Vioxx’s dangerosity was found out ? Not because of individual testimonials.”

        Are you kidding me????

        I feel I’m having a debate with a rock.

        “Initially hailed as a superior non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), Vioxx spent only a few years on the market before it was the focus of thousands of consumer lawsuits. Within five years of being approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of arthritis and menstrual pain, the painkiller was linked to thousands of heart attacks, strokes and deaths. At the same time, the drug’s manufacturer, Merck, vehemently denied any problems.”

        It was AFTER all these people suffered from the drug that they decided to pull it.

        I think I’ve made my case. Done.

      • Gray Falcon February 12, 2015 at 19:13 #

        “I think I’ve made my case. Done.” We gladly accept your unconditional surrender.

        Also, I’d bet I could find more than a few testimonials about how wonderful any number of dangerous substances are. Doesn’t make them any less dangerous.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 12, 2015 at 20:17 #

        “I feel I’m having a debate with a rock.”

        I need a fuse for my irony meter.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 12, 2015 at 20:18 #

        “I think I’ve made my case. Done.”

        You keep declaring victory and then keep coming back to make your case again.

        You have made your case. Problem is your case fails.

      • macaddict08 February 12, 2015 at 19:40 #

        Gray Falcon,

        That has to be THE most idiotic statement/question yet …

        Perform Studies WHERE ?? … and with who ? NO one form the FDA or the WHO, etc… is interested in something like CD … they tried with Ozone therapy, Rife Therapy, etc… and all were shelved or thrown under the rug.

        CD IS Shared with the world already.. many are catching on, and KNOW its not “bleach” … there are people all over the world teaching it …..

        164 kids fully recovered from Autism is the proof… as well as numerous friends of mine recovered…

        Problem is, there’s no profit in it for the drug companies .. its not a drug…

        Are you really that ignorant ??

      • commonsense February 12, 2015 at 20:18 #

        Yes, people who benefit from MMS are encouraged to get an affidavit to that effect and it will be published. Few people would do that.
        Making a video for youtube is also encouraged. Some do but it’s a minority.
        The sponsors of MMS are doing a poor job promoting it. They should provide links to scientific articles on ClO2 and a database of disease cases.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 13, 2015 at 00:52 #

        Affidavits and YouTube?

        I don’t get medical advice from random people on YouTube.

      • Narad February 13, 2015 at 01:30 #

        Yes, people who benefit from MMS are encouraged to get an affidavit to that effect and it will be published. Few people would do that.

        Congratulations, “what an affidavit is” can be added to the list of things you’re ignorant of. Let’s check one out.

        It’s not even a scan of a notarized document, it just appears to be amateur legalese. But the uproariously funny part is the text preceding it:

        “_Should it be proven that he has lied on his Affidavit he can go to prison as well as pay a large fine. On the other hand critics are not allowed to say that the affidavit is a lie or that the affiant has lied.

        “_Should anyone such as a critic of MMS make such a statement he must prove it, and in the event that he cannot prove that it is a lie he can go to prison or pay a large fine or both. Up to this point a critic could say that a testimony is a lie, or the person giving a testimony is lying.”

        This is phenomenally stupid. There is no magic legal privilege gained by cranking out some half-assed recitation and slapping the word “affidavit” on it.

    • Narad February 12, 2015 at 20:49 #

      (Arthur Schopenhauer)

      You lose (PDF).

  11. rix February 11, 2015 at 02:50 #

    So many people are so easily swayed by the fear mongers. “Watch out, it is bleach!” “It is chlorine and it will eat your flesh!”

    Seriously?

    Do you realize that your body has a good amount of chlorine already there? Why aren’t you dying from flesh eating mombas then?

    You drink water that has been chlorinated. You swim in chlorinated pools without worrying about being dissolved.

    And you salt your food. Did you know that Salt Sodium Chloride?

    People, you are being led to believe chlorine dioxide is bad for you by those who are either ignorant of the different applications or simply want to push some agenda by demonizing good therapies.

    Follow the money people. Who stands to lose if this stuff actually works and catches on?

    • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 11, 2015 at 03:49 #

      “Did you know that Salt Sodium Chloride?”

      Yes, in obtaining my degrees in science (and in high school and Jr. High) we covered that. Did you know that Sodium Chloride, a salt, is different than Chlorine Dioxide, a bleach?

      I’ve been told a lot of hogwash about reduction potentials, it’s not a bleach, etc., by people selling this “miracle” solution. I’ve been told it can’t harm tissue, somehow it can only harm “bad” things.

      I notice that you don’t actually discuss the fact that chlorine dioxide has been tested and shown to dissolve tooth pulp. I guess that’s a “bad” thing, since MMS only attacks “bad” stuff.

      You throw up a lot of smoke.

      • rix February 11, 2015 at 06:03 #

        Lot of “good for you” stuff dissolves flesh amigo.

        I’ve just noted that Pineapples eat flesh, thus is why your mouth burns when you eat it. Yet, it is perfectly fine and actually good for health.

        And we all know what cola can do to flesh, paint, your teeth! Are you going to wave your degrees around about how dangerous pineapples are?

        Your “degrees” mean little when you consider that other “degree’d” individuals argue against your line of thinking. So let’s table the “degree” flag as pointless. I promise not to wave mine to be fair.

        What goes on inside the body requires an understanding of PH differential. To understand the charge of CL02 and how it relates to killing microorganisms. Discriminating between healthy cells and unwanted microorganisms is a matter of oxidation below a certain threshold, which CL02 is believed to do.

        As for “dissolving tooth pulp”, An in vitro study on the effects of CL02 on tooth pulp for purposes of root canals found that Sodium hypochlorite was more efficient compared to CL02, and that CL02 was better fit for disinfecting, having the ability to penetrate and kill serious viruses (such as Epstein-Bar and Cytomegalovirus), as well as killing Candida albicans. CL02 produces little or no trihalomethanes, making it ideal as a dental disinfectant.

        You have to hold the CL02 in your mouth for a long time to have undesirable effects. For brief periods, it does a mouth good!

        Now try that with cola. Why not write about how cola dissolves tooth enamel! Or leave pineapple juice in your mouth for as long as you would leave CL02 in your mouth to achieve the negative effect you mentioned. Where is your argument now?

        That is not smoke. That’s real science.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 11, 2015 at 19:16 #

        But the people selling MMS claim it doesn’t affect flesh. All their claims of oxidation potentials is a good smokescreen, but it is a bunch of lies.

        They are lying. About this point and more.

        And that is the point.

      • rix February 11, 2015 at 19:58 #

        You make the claim that all these people are lying. Every one of them lying.

        I’m lying too! We’re all lying!

        What is the motive?

        If they had a corner of the market in selling this stuff then I’d see motive here.

        But the instructions to make this yourself is FREE to the world!

        And with more and more people using it, we are not seeing people dying left and right.

        What we are seeing is many people claiming they feel better now. Liars you say!

        What is your motive for attacking all these people? We know what the motive is for certain Gov. agencies and the established medical hierarchy, including the big legal drug pushers. Their motive is really clear (follow the money!)

        But you seem to just label everybody as a liar, most with absolutely no motive to do so.

        Andreas Kalcker has a webpage (http://andreaskalcker.com/en/) that goes on to explain his understanding of Chlorine Dioxide and human use. What is his motive? Why do you call him a liar? And he has impressive credentials. The guy does not come across as a liar.

        Look. If you don’t want to use something because you have some strong opinion about it, fine. It’s your health. But to go on attacking people labeling them as liars and to try and limit our freedom of choice is just plain wrong. This puts your motives in question.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 11, 2015 at 20:18 #

        I don’t care about motives. I care about the effect this has on my community.

        People act like there is logic and science behind the use of this. There isn’t.

        People claim this can not harm people. That is incorrect.

        People claim this is not a bleach. It is.

        People claim this will not interact with tissue. It does.

        People claim no one makes money off this. They do. Selling it. Selling books. Selling consultations.

        I call people liars who propogate lies. That is not an attack. It is a defensible position. Backed up by facts. Which is more than what people pushing MMS can say.

        I have seen many products where people claim amazing claims. I have been told to chelate my mid for two years and it will be a cure. I have been told that secretin will cure my kid. I have been told that zeolite, “magnetic” clay baths, energy medicine, homeopathy, the list goes on and on, are all miracle cures.

        People come, sell treatments, other people claim they really do work and how could i be so mean as to even think they may not be telling the truth, and then that therapy goes and a new one comes to take it’s place.

        You are just the latest. Whether you profit or just are evangelizing I don’t care. You are touting nonsense. And it is being used in an abusive manner on disabled kids in my community.

        If standing up for them amounts to “attacking” you, I am good with that.

        But you do protest too much. There is no attack here.

      • rix February 11, 2015 at 20:39 #

        I’m protesting too much? Kettle, black…

        I’m not pushing anything. I don’t sell the stuff either.

        When someone reaches into my pocket and takes out of it something that I feel I need, because that person has a strong opinion against it, then I speak up.

        The powers to be wants to dictate what we can or cannot treat ourselves with. They want to remove choice. Their motives are not for the public good, but for control and profit.

        Assuming I live in your community (country, world, …), do you think I want you to limit my freedom on how to protect my family because you feel strongly against it, because you think you are right or smarter than us?

        I’m so thankful for YouTube and the Internet because I’ve learned so many ways to feel better that I would otherwise not have known. I’m thankful that those who try to limit the dissemination of this information has not succeeded doing so.

        These kids you claim to want to protect don’t seem to need your brand of protection. We’re not seeing kids being harmed here. We’re seeing reports flood in of kids getting better.

        So instead of attacking what appears to work for many, why don’t you come up with a better alternative? So far, I’ve not seen you provide any useful information on how to deal with Autism or health. Your supporting a system that has basically given up on Autism as “incurable”.

        Have you ever stopped to think WHY the number of Autistic kids has grown substantially over the last few decades?

        It doesn’t take a degree to realize that something is wrong with society today and the way things have been handled in recent decades. Provide solutions! Don’t just go off handle and attack the efforts of others to do so.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 11, 2015 at 22:09 #

        “I’m protesting too much? Kettle, black…”

        I’m not protesting at all. I am not throwing up a shield by crying that people are attacking me.

        “I’m so thankful for YouTube and the Internet because I’ve learned so many ways to feel better that I would otherwise not have known. ”

        I’m so grateful for graduate school and years as a researcher. It helps me to understand the junk on YouTube.

        ” Your supporting a system that has basically given up on Autism as “incurable”.”

        If this were true, we wouldn’t be spending hundreds of millions of dollars on autism treatments and biology. Which we here in the U.S. are.

        “These kids you claim to want to protect don’t seem to need your brand of protection.”

        Because we should just stand back and let them be abused by charlatans? I can and do speak out. The question is why you don’t.

      • Rix February 11, 2015 at 23:08 #

        “No, we can’t. Our bodies produce formaldehyde. We ingest formaldehyde every day. More in a banana than in a vaccine.”

        Formaldehyde is highly toxic to all animals, regardless of method of intake. Ingestion of 30 mL (1 oz.) of a solution containing 37% formaldehyde has been reported to cause death in an adult human.[35] Water solution of formaldehyde is very corrosive and its ingestion can cause severe injury to the upper gastrointestinal tract.

        (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formaldehyde#Safety)

        On the one hand you defend the ingesting of Formaldehyde, while you demonize CL02 for similar reasons.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 12, 2015 at 00:56 #

        And how much is that in comparison to the amount in, say, a vaccine?

        Again, our bodies produce formaldehyde, so you can’t claim that we are unable to tolerate small amounts. We ingest formaldehyde all the time. Banana’s, pears, etc.

        So, your response is a non-response. You do not address the actual point at hand.

        “On the one hand you defend the ingesting of Formaldehyde, while you demonize CL02 for similar reasons.”

        Yes, I defend eating bananas and pears. Add apples, meat, and other common foods
        http://www.cfs.gov.hk/english/whatsnew/whatsnew_fa/files/formaldehyde.pdf

        But that’s not really your point, is it? Your point is to re characterize my refutations of many myths you have propagated as “demonizing”.

        Wow. Did I make your favorite non medicine into a demon? Did I portray it as “wicked”?

        No. I have countered misinformation. I have pointed out that the claims that this is a harmless substance (somehow magically harmless to humans but not to parasites, toxins, etc.) are false.

        You have failed to counter the statements I have made and now resort to scare tactics like “demonize”. Clearly you realize that you are failing.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 11, 2015 at 19:18 #

        Chlorine dioxide kills microorganisms quickly because they have a high surface to volume ratio.

        ClO2 affects tissue, but slower.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 11, 2015 at 19:20 #

        So chlorite is faster at dissolving tooth pulp. So what? Both dissolve this tissue and the people selling mms claim chlorine dioxode doesn’t affect tissue.

        The fact that there are faster ways to dissolve tissue doesn’t change that.

      • commonsense February 11, 2015 at 06:15 #

        I had to look up what is “tooth pulp”. It is living connective tissue. Therefore it will be degraded by ClO2 in high concentration and after a few hours.
        However I have used ClO2 for over 5 years and experienced no adverse effects on my teeth. That is in low concentration of course.
        The medical profession has lost an estimated $500 on me. I feel confident that I will never need a doctor again, barring accidents.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 11, 2015 at 17:48 #

        Teeth bleaching kits, both home and in office, use hydrogen peroxide

        http://www.webmd.com/oral-health/teeth-whitening-and-bleaching

        I doubt your claim of using ClO2 for this purpose.

      • rix February 11, 2015 at 19:28 #

        Exactly. There are plenty of things that will dissolve flesh and nobody seems to be concerned about it, such as sodas. In fact when I want to tenderize meats, I will use simple salt water (brine). Whoa! We need to ban salt and water!

        Moderation is the key. This point seems to escape some. Too much of anything is bad for you.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 11, 2015 at 19:41 #

        Moderation is key if there is any benefit. There is both no benefit nor moderation in mms.

        Tell me how applying bleach enemas twice a day is moderation? Tell me how making disabled kids drink a bleach solution until they feel sick is moderation. Tell me how upping the dose once these disabled kids feel sick is moderation.

        Because that is what people selling mms do.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 11, 2015 at 19:44 #

        Have you looked at the “worms” that disabled children pass after these bleach enemas? Have you read how these are not identified as parasites by actual doctors who specialize in parasitology? These are intestinal linings.

        Don’t paint yourself as being moderate when you defend this practice. Because that is what you are doing.

      • rix February 11, 2015 at 20:07 #

        No, what I’m doing is not labeling people who say that they are getting better by using something that others (including your medical professional hero) says is not possible.

        Clearly you have not personally experienced many years of being ‘doctored’ and never getting better or healthy following the standard medical advice, as I have.

        Clearly you have not personally experienced what it is like to take control of your own health (ignoring your doctors line of thinking) and finally cured and healthy.

        I HAVE!

        You can tell me all you like about “specialists” of parasitology saying this or that, or “specialists” of cancer, or diabetes, or whatever and it won’t make a hill of beans to me BECAUSE I have been to many “specialists” that only made me poorer and never feeling better. They can keep their wall plaques and narrow-minded views.

        Having the FREEDOM to make my own choices is what eventually brought me to full strength in health.

        Do I fully understand what MMS is doing inside kids or people? No. Nor did I fully understand what the stuff I choose to take was really doing inside me. All I know is that I became better. All I know is that these people are saying they are feeling better, or their kids are better. That is enough to really take it seriously rather than prejudicially attack them as criminal or liars.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 11, 2015 at 22:16 #

        OK, more unsubstantiated claims of miracles.

        It’s great that you feel healthy. Just don’t expect us to accept that this is in any way due to MMS. MMS makes zero sense.

        The thing is you don’t understand that the arguments used to sell MMS are nonsense. You repeat them as though they actually stand up to scrutiny. Which, as has been shown abundantly in this discussion, it doesn’t.

      • macaddict08 February 11, 2015 at 19:31 #

        Of COURSE it affects the flesh … you NEVER put Chlorine Dioxide on your skin a Full strength, you have to read how to use it first. You have to use common sense …. would you take a Whole bottle of Vicodin thinking more is better ? uh !…. No, you wouldn’t.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 13, 2015 at 18:38 #

        I do use common sense. I don’t use MMS at all.

      • Gray Falcon February 13, 2015 at 18:42 #

        So what concentration do you use? Try mixing some of it in that concentration and pouring it on a dark-colored piece of cloth like the person in the article did. You want to convince us this isn’t dangerous, right? Why aren’t you making a real effort at doing so? Don’t you want to help people?

      • macaddict08 February 11, 2015 at 19:44 #

        WHY would I tell You anything Sullivan ?… if you’re still stuck in the stone age that “CD is Bleach” … you’re either retarded, or just that immature.

        You use CD at various strengths for different ailments. NEVER at full strength.

        Get a clue dude !!

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 11, 2015 at 22:26 #

        Using terms for intellectual disability (or any disability) is unacceptable behavior in polite society and will not be tolerated on this, a disability focused, website.

        CD is bleach. It’s been explained and demonstrated again and again. You can go on and assert that it isn’t, but what do you call a substance that bleaches fabric and is used in industry to bleach fibers and fabric? The rest of the world calls it a bleach.

        the world of bleach is not limited to that found in a household laundry.

      • macaddict08 February 11, 2015 at 19:48 #

        “Disabled children” ?!! lol please…. not a one.

        “Intestinal linings” ….. lol….

        its ropeworms….duh !

        Again … get a clue.

        Stop already with your ignorance.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 11, 2015 at 22:17 #

        Your comment is incoherent. What do you mean by “not a one”. No disabled children are subjected to MMS? Since this is patently untrue, you must mean something other than what you wrote.

      • Lawrence February 11, 2015 at 20:06 #

        “ropeworms?” You mean these things:

        http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/rope-worms-cest-la-merde/

        Which aren’t biological organisms but identified as the linings of the intestines?

        Wow, you are a moron, aren’t you?

      • macaddict08 February 11, 2015 at 20:11 #

        lol….uh huh.

        Brought to you by THE same people who say Fluoride & GMO’s are safe … Iraq has weapons of Mass Destruction… and Vaccines a re safe to take !! lol..

        You’re a Moron for working for these people…

      • rix February 11, 2015 at 20:21 #

        It’s funny that you would bring up GMO’s and Fluoride. I don’t even want to get into that discussion. It makes no sense to me why some defend THAT practice.

        And the vaccine issue. It’s not okay to ingest CL02 but it is okay to be injected with aluminum, formaldehyde, MSG and Mercury (Thimerosal).

        You know, we could debate about how NUTS it is to ingest formaldehyde with the same intensity that is being put against ingesting cl02.

        So I’m beside myself seeing all this cl02 will bleach you, dissolve you, etc. etc., and yet we all know how wonderful healthy formaldehyde is to living tissue. (tongue-n-cheek).

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 11, 2015 at 22:11 #

        “You know, we could debate about how NUTS it is to ingest formaldehyde with the same intensity that is being put against ingesting cl02.”

        No, we can’t. Our bodies produce formaldehyde. We ingest formaldehyde every day. More in a banana than in a vaccine.

        But, it is interesting to see vaccine antagonist standard arguments popping up in your comments.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 11, 2015 at 22:13 #

        I realize that using terms that stigmatize the intellectually disabled is a common practice in our society.

        However, given that this is a disability focused website, I would think one might be a bit more aware of the harm that these terms use.

        Or to put it simply, “moron” is not a term that is welcome here. Using my child’s disability as an insult is beyond rude. It speaks more to you than to those you try to insult.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 11, 2015 at 22:29 #

        Gotta love the way “macaddict08” slipped in the pharma shill gambit.

        Sure, I “work for these people”. As in I’m part of the grand conspiracy. Sure. But you aren’t a conspiracy theorist, right?

      • Narad February 11, 2015 at 20:33 #

        What goes on inside the body requires an understanding of PH differential. To understand the charge of CL02 [sic] and how it relates to killing microorganisms. Discriminating between healthy cells and unwanted microorganisms is a matter of oxidation below a certain threshold, which CL02 is believed to do.

        This entire routine is complete gibberish, as already noted.

      • Lawrence February 11, 2015 at 20:37 #

        And what we have here is a perfect example of “crank magnetism.”

        Thanks for the show guys, it has been fun to watch the crazy.

      • Narad February 11, 2015 at 23:02 #

        Andreas Kalcker … has impressive credentials.

        Really? What are they? This isn’t very detailed: “He first licensed in economics and later in biophysics and alternative health (Ph.D). Former Member of the the Research Institute I.I.E.E. Barcelona.”

        Where’s the degree from? Did you bother to check what the IIEE is, or did it just sound “impressive”? Think it might be these cranks? You’d be correct.

      • rix February 11, 2015 at 23:17 #

        “Credentials” in the form of accomplishments, not meaningless “Degrees”.

        The greatest man to ever walk the earth had no Degrees.

        The riches men ever had no need for Degrees.

        People who think ‘Degrees’ means intelligence lack real intelligence.

        I need not expound further on this indisputable fact.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 12, 2015 at 00:49 #

        OK, you keep bringing up a patent for a similar sounding but very different compound.

        How many patents do *you* have?

        To take an example you have presented (cancer), people have accomplished improving the lives of people with cancer. The vast majority of these people have advanced degrees, by the way. But, accomplishment: saving lives of people with cancer. Then documenting it and presenting it to the world in a manner that can be replicated and proved.

        Not, “I had an idea that bleach would cure cancer, aids, malaria and everything else and I have testimonials so I don’t have to actually show that I did anything”

      • Narad February 11, 2015 at 23:04 #

        That should be “You’d be correct.”

      • Narad February 11, 2015 at 23:41 #

        “Credentials” in the form of accomplishments, not meaningless “Degrees”.

        And what are these impressive accomplishments? Having been part of a crank UFO, etc., outfit? Founding the “ONG Earth Help Project,” which nobody seems to have heard of except Kalcker? Promoting the idiotic fraud of MMS?

        C’mon, I’m waiting to hear what exactly bowled you over about this New Agey self-promoter.

    • commonsense February 11, 2015 at 19:41 #

      Teeth bleaching is not my aim.
      However since ClO2 is a gas some of it will be in contact with teeth. I hope this will keep streptococcus mutans under control, the main destroyer of teeth. That would be great. It’s too early to tell though..

      • Lawrence February 11, 2015 at 19:48 #

        common sense is certainly an uncommon virtue – the use of bleach for anything related to health, especially with the ingestion of what is a textile bleaching agent, is one of the stupidest things I’ve ever heard.

        The people on here defending the practice are either completely deluded (and delusional) or perhaps have suffered mental degradation from consuming too much of the product.

      • commonsense February 11, 2015 at 20:47 #

        ClO2 has been successfully tested on animals. That seems to exclude delusion.
        I have cured myself about a dozen times of the common cold and flu. Without fail. A delusion would not be that consistent.
        The result is compatible with the mechanism of action in vitro (destruction of thiols) which decreases the probability of delusion.
        I am not in favor of enemas. Organs should be used for their intended function.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 11, 2015 at 22:04 #

        Which organ has as it’s intended function the digestion of chlorine dioxide?

      • Narad February 11, 2015 at 20:57 #

        I have cured myself about a dozen times of the common cold and flu. Without fail. A delusion would not be that consistent.

        No, that there would be a hallmark.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 11, 2015 at 22:04 #

        I have cured myself of the common cold and flu as well. It’s called my immune system

      • commonsense February 11, 2015 at 22:43 #

        ClO2 is not digested. It is ingested by mouth. It can also permeate the skin.
        It is true that the immune system cures all diseases. It just takes too long. I don’t feel like a hero after 3 days of snot and tears. That motivates me to share my experience by the way.
        It is proper to doubt extraordinary claims. It is not proper to dismiss a claim on the authority of unknown parties. .

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 11, 2015 at 22:51 #

        It is ingested in drinks. Not ingested by mouth, other than as the opening to the stomach.

        And there is no reason for it to be ingested.

  12. rix February 11, 2015 at 05:26 #

    Faulty reasoning.

    “If MMS, CD, chlorine dioxide, “parasite protocol” is safe, why does ClO2 dissolve tissue?”

    You know what else dissolves tissue? Pineapples! (http://www.randominterestingfacts.com/the-flesh-eating-pineapple-2/)

    Yet this is one of its major benefits! It aids in digestion for one. I regularly chew on Bromelain tablets.

    Or lets talk about Sodas! Did you know it will dissolve flesh? Doesn’t seem to stop millions of people from drinking it.

    And there is more!!!

    Drink Coffee? Oh no! Get that on your clearcoat and it will destroy it if left on.

    And let’s not forget that our tummies hold hydrochloric acid, a real flesh eater if there ever was one. Yet we seem to be just fine with it rumbling around inside.

    Think people!

    There are a lot of things you can put on your skin and it will burn it unless it is either diluted or combined with something else. Many toxic compounds are used to make many very safe products.

    If someone wanted to make something sound very dangerous, it would not be difficult to do. That’s what is being done with chlorine dioxide.

    If you breathe it in concentrated form, it’s going to harm you. If you use it in a diluted form, that’s another thing.

    Don’t forget that your body is made up of mostly water and salt. Salt is Sodium Chloride.

    A lot of salt will suck the water out of cells (thus used as a preservative of meat/tissue), but in moderation is necessary for life.

    Just the fact, jack.

    • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 13, 2015 at 18:39 #

      “Think people!”

      Funny how people who promote alternative medicine seem to think that they are the only ones who can think.

      The fact is that MMS is sold as having zero interaction with people, any adverse reactions are explained away as being “good”. It’s a sales pitch. You fell for it. I didn’t.

    • lilady February 15, 2015 at 16:29 #

      “Don’t forget that your body is made up of mostly water and salt. Salt is Sodium Chloride.

      A lot of salt will suck the water out of cells (thus used as a preservative of meat/tissue), but in moderation is necessary for life.”

      Nope. Have you forgotten your high school biology and chemistry classes rix?

      http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemicalcomposition/a/Chemical-Composition-Of-The-Human-Body.htm

      Just the fact(s) rix.

  13. Lawrence February 12, 2015 at 02:07 #

    My apologies Matt – my language was improper & I’ll watch it from now on.

  14. Gray Falcon February 12, 2015 at 19:16 #

    By the way, rix, at no point did any of us say “chlorine dioxide is a bleach because it contains chlorine”. We said it was bleach because it is a caustic substance that whitens fabric. If you really have the truth, why do you need to lie about us?

  15. lilady February 12, 2015 at 22:47 #

    Look at the comments from “louveha” and “macaddict08” which have posted in defense of MMS ingested and in enemas as treatment for autism. It would be nice if these two dullards learned the differences between a disinfectant and a medicine prescribed by Kerri Rivera:

    https://nomorebleach.wordpress.com/2015/01/02/is-it-bleach-and-is-it-safe/

    and, here:

    https://nomorebleach.wordpress.com/2015/01/04/proof-that-cd-is-safe/

    • louveha February 17, 2015 at 13:00 #

      … Wait, what ?
      My only problem is with the use of the word “bleach”.
      If you read my other comments on the Nomorebleach blog and on this very page, I am certainly NOT “in defense of MMS ingested and in enemas as treatment for autism”.
      I’d rather not be classified in the same category as “macaddict08”.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 17, 2015 at 19:41 #

        Ok.

        But it is a bleach.

  16. elearah February 13, 2015 at 00:16 #

    I just found something that seems relevant to this discussion. Apparently there is a mouthwash in Japan that uses ClO2, and people from the University of Tokyo did a placebo controlled study of CLO2 in relation with mouth odors. it was supported by the Ministry of Education, and the authors have no competing interests.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2831889/

    The conclusion was that it worked to freshen the breath better than the control in a 14 days trial. They measured tong plaque, and different types of bacteria in the saliva. They also acknowledge general health of the mouth in the process.

    Something that called my attention was that there is no safety assessment of ClO2 in relation to possible damage to teeth in the paper. Apparently it is widely accepted in Japan that is a safe product.

    • Narad February 13, 2015 at 05:40 #

      Apparently there is a mouthwash in Japan that uses ClO2, and people from the University of Tokyo did a placebo controlled study of CLO2

      One spits out mouthwash, and if you can find where the concentration of the “experimental mouthwash” is stated in the paper, that might help.

      Oh, wait, scratch that, lazybones. “ClO2 Fresh” isn’t even in the “miracle” “mineral” ballpark.

      • Narad February 13, 2015 at 06:03 #

        You know what? The concentration of a mouthwash is irrelevant, and I oughtn’t to have fallen for the attempted distraction from the deranged nonsense about “PH [sic] balance” (read: monolithic “cancer”) and “parasites.”

        What is relevant is the total, internal dosing of Rivera’s prescription for child abuse.

  17. Gray Falcon February 13, 2015 at 03:31 #

    OK, everyone who insists ClO2 is harmless. Do you want an experiment? Take some of it, in the concentration recommended, and do what the person in the article did and pour it on a piece of black cloth.

    Don’t just insist that it works. My faith is in the Lord alone, I don’t owe you anything.

    • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 13, 2015 at 19:05 #

      Actually, I’ve been considering doing this experiment on raw meat. Since it is touted to not affect tissue and all.

      • Gray Falcon February 13, 2015 at 19:06 #

        Just remember to use it at the recommended concentration. Which is pretty high, actually.

  18. Narad February 14, 2015 at 08:08 #

    OK, so I mentioned that I had needlessly blown three PACER dollars updating the crash-and-burn MMS docket of Louis Daniel Smith because I had trouble sorting out the five different case IDs. It got worse: I used a browser build that started to fail with the RECAP plugin sometime last year.

    This has been corrected. I also sprang for Friday’s bonus of the most recent filing (PDF).

    This is comedy gold.

    • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 14, 2015 at 15:36 #

      Wow, that second one is pretty amazing all on it’s own. The conclusion where he states that he’s doing some sort of habeas corpus thing in expectation that the judge will retaliate and have him arrested on a trumped up charge is amazing all it’s own. The rest reads like a rant formatted into a legal document.

    • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 14, 2015 at 15:38 #

      507 entries in the docket for a case like this? Wow.

      • Narad February 17, 2015 at 07:38 #

        Pro se defendant, man.

      • Gray Falcon February 17, 2015 at 13:51 #

        The man who represents himself in court often has a fool for a client, with a jerk for a lawyer.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 17, 2015 at 19:43 #

        Yeah, I noticed that when I saw him arguing something about the case should be thrown out because the U.S. and the United States are separate legal entities (or some such convoluted argument).

        I would have worked hard to get my case separated from his, were I a codefendent.

      • Narad February 17, 2015 at 07:44 #

        Again, though, everybody gets $15 of free PACER per quarter. Register for an account, install the RECAP plugin, and those documents will be memorialized for all. All four documents with “Google” in the title are likely to be excellent. I don’t have the bread to break the ceiling.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 17, 2015 at 20:26 #

        Turns out my PACER account is inactive. With luck I’ll be back again soon.

        I need to check the status of a couple of vaccine court cases I’ve been following anyway.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) March 22, 2015 at 20:05 #

        Yeah, interesting what you find. Like Mr. Brian Hooker appears to have alleged misconduct in his vaccine court case. Is he bringing in his claims about Mr. Thompson of the CDC, or is he making a different claim (say, that misconduct has occurred in the handling of his petition)?

        “Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time until 3/9/2015 to Response to Respondent’s Response to Petitioner’s Allegations of Misconduct and Motion to Strike , filed by BRIAN HOOKER.Response due by 2/26/2015. (Shoemaker, Clifford) (Entered: 02/09/2015)”

      • Lawrence February 17, 2015 at 12:40 #

        This is almost as funny as reading “Sovereign Citizen / Freeman on the Land” documentation and videos of their Court appearances….

  19. novalox February 16, 2015 at 07:38 #

    Wow, just looking at those posters who support such child abuse such as macaddict08, rix, and commonsense, who have to resort to lies, ad hominems, and insults, says a lot about the insecurities about their position.

    Again, I truly pity their children if they have done this nonsense procedure to them.

    • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 17, 2015 at 04:49 #

      Sorry this comment got delayed.

  20. AMS March 8, 2015 at 08:54 #

    I use Chlorine Dioxide everyday and it has saved my life. This author needs to try MMS as part of his investigative research so he really knows first hand.

    Check out DU PONT’s website that explains that Chlorine Dioxide and Chlorine are not the same: http://www2.dupont.com/Chlorine_Dioxide_Solutions/en_US/products/chlorine-dioxide-questions.html

    • Sullivan (Matt Carey) March 8, 2015 at 15:15 #

      Given that I hold four degrees in the physical sciences, I understand the difference between chlorine dioxide and chlorine. Perhaps AMS could actually read the above article and notice that I don’t make the chlorine dioxide = chlorine claim.

      I don’t see why I have to abuse myself in order to comment on the false claims and abusive nature of this treatment. That argument gets pulled out for just about every faux medicine being sold.

      AMS needs to show that MMS has been proved safe and effective in the treatment of autistic children before defending it. AMS hasn’t because AMS can’t. The “you have to try it first” claim is a diversionary tactic to avoid that very uncomfortable fact.

      • elearah March 8, 2015 at 18:15 #

        There is an interesting philosophical discussion under this whole thing, I think.
        Science is a method to seek truth, a good one in my personal view, but not the panacea. Sometimes it gets it right, sometimes it gets it wrong.
        When science is left alone, it has a very fun way to correct itself and use mistakes as a way of advancing the path toward truth, because it is not judgmental–whatever the result shows, stays. Very neat.
        But what you seem to be proposing here is that if something hasn´t been researched yet, normal folk shouldn´t be allowed or, even worst, self restraint from seeking truth by themselves.
        Am I right? Or I read the conversation wrong?

      • Gray Falcon March 8, 2015 at 21:43 #

        You are quite wrong. The substance in question is a powerful bleaching agent, and they are using it as an enema.

      • elearah March 8, 2015 at 23:27 #

        How am I wrong? Has it been researched for that particular purpose and showed it was harmful?

      • Gray Falcon March 9, 2015 at 00:55 #

        It is a bleach. It bleaches clothing dissolves human flesh at the concentrations used. It is far too dangerous for any ethical research to be performed with it. There is no need for research, in the same way that there is no need to conclude that setting people on fire in bad for them.

      • elearah March 9, 2015 at 01:44 #

        I agree it has been used as a bleach, and as a broad spectrum antibiotic for water purification plants. it has also been used to clean hard surfaces, even floors, and to wash vegetables.
        I don´t know about the eating flesh part, the tissue of the research you posted was dead. Considering that the charges are a big part of the active abilities, and that it has been used for some time in Japan as a mouth wash, there is not enough evidence to know it is really harmful under the circumstances.
        Setting people in fire really doesn´t apply here as comparison. I touch the fire, I burn, I touch ClO2 and don´t feel anything. After our last conversation I got curious and actually asked a friend to works in a water purification plant to let me touch it. 😀
        What do apply as example are the following:
        Mercury is so toxic that if a lamp breaks you pretty much need to call SWATT, injected in kids and considered reasonable safe (whether the assumption is right or not), then, why not? why mercury injected can be reasonable harmless in the given concentrations simply because it has not been proved it was harmful and a bleach can´t be good tor some kids with autism diagnosis? (whether it is a right diagnosis or not)
        Same thing with aluminum… it is toxic, it is get right into the body through a needle. The body doesn´t even have the single layer defense of the intestine.
        And lets not forget fluoride, used in concentration camps to keep the population pacified and sold as psychiatric medication, and yet water was sold some time ago with extra fluoride for babies, because supposedly it was good for teeth they didn´t even have.
        Last but not least we have glyphosate. It is so toxic that the only thing it didn´t kill in the wastelands was a string of the bacteria e-coli. Yet, it is in every happy meal, and in every school lunch, and in most kids’ cereals–with exceptions.
        So… if we can believe all that is ok, why not think that a bleach can actually make autistic kids transform in false positives and discover that they were not autistic after all? (because, of course, autism is genetic and there is no cure, so if they cure, they were no autistic in the first place).
        If we believe all that is safe… we can believe in ANYTHING. And you know… the placebo effect is probably the most efficient medicine.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) March 9, 2015 at 03:01 #

        “I don´t know about the eating flesh part, the tissue of the research you posted was dead”

        What evidence do you have to suggest that it would matter whether the tissure were live or dead? They were comparing this to a solution used for dissolving living tissue for the purpose of evaluating it for dissolving living tissue. The authors of the study considered this a good test of the use of chlorine dioxide for use on living tissue. So I ask again, why would you suspect different?

        “Mercury is so toxic that if a lamp breaks you pretty much need to call SWATT”

        Really? Here’s the instructions from the EPA on what to do if a fluorescent bulb is broken. It can be handled without calling in a special team.

        http://www2.epa.gov/cfl/cleaning-broken-cfl

        “Same thing with aluminum… it is toxic, it is get right into the body through a needle”

        So, we have banned antacids? (answer: no)

        “And lets not forget fluoride, used in concentration camps to keep the population pacified and sold as psychiatric medication, and yet water was sold some time ago with extra fluoride for babies, because supposedly it was good for teeth they didn´t even have”

        Nice wording to avoid a full on Nazi reference. I’d appreciate a link to wherever you got this information. Here’s a journalist who tried to find the source of this information and, guess, what? There’s appears to be no substance to the fluoride/concentration camp pacification idea.
        http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2011/oct/06/critics-water-fluoridation/truth-about-fluoride-doesnt-include-nazi-myth/

        “So… if we can believe all that is ok, ”

        Don’t know who “we” are, but your points are largely inaccurate.

        So, if we believe that fluoride is bad (it isn’t) because it was used in concentration camps to pacify prisoners (it wasn’t) then we should allow disabled children to be experimented upon by MMS? Do I have that correct?

        “And you know… the placebo effect is probably the most efficient medicine.”

        Then why are medicines tested against placebos and shown to be more effective than placebos before being approved? If placebos were the most effective medicine, we would have stopped at homeopathy. We didn’t because homeopathy doesn’t work beyond a placebo effect because, well, it’s a placebo.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) March 9, 2015 at 03:02 #

        “After our last conversation I got curious and actually asked a friend to works in a water purification plant to let me touch it.”

        So, it has no effect on the dead skin which is designed to protect your tissues from external threats? And that proves?

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) March 9, 2015 at 03:03 #

        I have a feeling your browser history would be very interesting reading.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) March 9, 2015 at 03:07 #

        “(because, of course, autism is genetic and there is no cure, so if they cure, they were no autistic in the first place).”

        Do you really believe that genetic conditions have no treatment? I ask because that is a very ignorant stance that is so easily disproved that I often wonder how it has stayed alive in the online discussion.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) March 9, 2015 at 03:09 #

        “Last but not least we have glyphosate. It is so toxic that the only thing it didn´t kill in the wastelands was a string of the bacteria e-coli. Yet, it is in every happy meal, and in every school lunch, and in most kids’ cereals–with exceptions.”

        You have links for all this?

        Here’s a discussion of the recent glyphosphate fear by neurologist Steven Novella http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/glyphosate-the-new-bogeyman/

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) March 9, 2015 at 01:14 #

        Science is a method to seek facts. And a way to find a way to describe and model those fact to make predictions.

        But what you seem to be proposing here is that if something hasn´t been researched yet, normal folk shouldn´t be allowed or, even worst, self restraint from seeking truth by themselves.

        What you have just proposed is forcing disabled children into an uncontrolled research project. You have accepted that this is an unresearched topic and you propose allowing people to subject disabled children to a “treatment” which at best is unresearched for safety and efficacy.

        Now, you also seem to be limiting science to experimental work. There’s also theory. As noted above, science makes predictions. One can predict based on the facts and understanding of biology and what MMS is that it will provide no benefit. It certainly won’t chelate heavy metals or kill parasites in the body while leaving tissue alone, as is asserted by the proponents.

        If an adult is fool enough to experiment on him/her self, that’s one thing. Doing this to children, especially disabled children, is wrong.

        I hope that clears this up for you.

  21. Tower of Babel March 17, 2015 at 15:33 #

    What a useless article. I did not even bother reading all replies. As if the allopathic drugs would not do harm? So what if CD would damage, say, 0,1% human tissue when used properly, but at the same time clean out 99,9% of the bad stuff the way no other medicine does. Human being and any living organism has ability to recover itself, cells will soon be repaired back to normal after any possible temporary “damage” CD does if it does. And it is also said by Jim and others to be good idea to take some ascorbic acid in the evening to help body to repair itself from the daily oxidation burden. I can say it does work, but it is nasty tasting.

    In comparison try to use any anti-parasitic/anthelmintic drug for more than 3 days. You start feeling like walking dead by the fifth day on Mebendazole or Albendazole for instance. In comparison to that MMS is very well tolerated beyond that and does same things with less side effects.

    • Gray Falcon March 17, 2015 at 15:45 #

      There were over 30,000 fatal car crashes in the USA in 2013 alone. Does that mean flying carpets work? Whether conventional (allopathic was a snarl word invented by homeopaths) works or not is irrelevant to this discussion.

      Oh, and I need a source for your claims about “cells will soon be repaired back to normal after any possible temporary “damage” CD does if it does.” It isn’t that hard, for example, here’s where I got the stats on car crashes: http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/general-statistics/fatalityfacts/state-by-state-overview

      • Paul Saenen March 17, 2015 at 16:27 #

        As you requested here is a peer-reviewed report on the method of action of ClO2 explaining why bacteria are more vulnerable than mammal cells.
        http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0079157

      • Gray Falcon March 17, 2015 at 17:30 #

        And? An antiseptic isn’t the same thing as an enema.

      • Paul Saenen March 17, 2015 at 18:19 #

        Agreed. The article only explains why ClO2 does less harm to mammal cells than bacteria. It is not about enemas or specific conditions.

      • Gray Falcon March 17, 2015 at 18:23 #

        Then why’d you post it? “Tower of Babel” made a very specific claim, why didn’t you post anything that had to do with it? You may as well have posted a recipe for fried catfish.

      • Paul Saenen March 17, 2015 at 18:38 #

        The report supports “tower of Babel’s” hypothesis that ClO2 does more damage to bacteria than mammal cells and that mammal cells will recover.
        As a vegetarian I would not encourage the consumption of burnt pieces of dead fish.

      • Gray Falcon March 17, 2015 at 18:41 #

        But it didn’t address the specific claim at all.

      • Paul Saenen March 17, 2015 at 20:27 #

        The report is voluminous and technical but there is a synopsis at the end:

        “Conclusion

        Chlorine dioxide is a size selective antimicrobial agent which can kill micron sized organisms rapidly but cannot make real harm to much larger organisms like animals or humans as it is not able to penetrate deeply into their living tissues. Moreover the circulation of multicellular organisms can provide an additional protection to these organisms against ClO2.

        It is an aim of the present work to initiate clinical studies hoping that ClO2 could be applied to treat various local infections, especially where bacterial resistance is a problem. We have already obtained an official permission [49] to start such studies.”

        This supports the Babel hypothesis as it is and more research will probably provide more support.

      • elearah March 17, 2015 at 20:59 #

        I read the paper. It is ok for a medical paper–they are all horrible. Some brave assumptions that will need to be dealt with in the future, but ok-ish compared with others I have seen. There is one problem with it and the background discussion: if it kills all bacteria and spares bigger organisms, then if applied rectally it would wipe out all the gut flora, what we all know is not a good idea… It is coherent with the claims that it deals with bacteria, but not yeast or worms, and that is why additional protocols are used.
        It´s not exactly what´s happening if we believe the validity of the reports (and here I disagree with the gracious owner of the site, I do believe the reports are valid, anecdotal but valid). Unless… are probiotics part of the protocol?

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) March 18, 2015 at 01:48 #

        “It is coherent with the claims that it deals with bacteria, but not yeast or worms, and that is why additional protocols are used”

        Really? So why do people claim that MMS rids the body of worms?

      • elearah March 18, 2015 at 10:05 #

        We haven´t read the same material, apparently. Andreas Kalcker´s protocol adds neem and a lot of stuff to deal with the parasitical part of the equation. Actually he postulates that poisoning from vaccines leads to autism-like symptoms–and the associated wrong diagnostic– in kids who have worms previous to vaccination. I don´t agree with him. It might be a factor but it is not the whole story. The reason why I don´t agree with him is because apparently age is also a factor–as reflected in the raw data of the study by the CDC co-authored by Thompson. Also previous poisoning/malnutrition seem to be an important factor, especially when it comes to glyphosate poisoning, as explained by Stephanie Seneff.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) March 17, 2015 at 22:15 #

        “Chlorine dioxide is a size selective antimicrobial agent which can kill micron sized organisms rapidly but cannot make real harm to much larger organisms like animals or humans as it is not able to penetrate deeply into their living tissues. ”

        And, yet, for some tissues (like the ones discussed above) it actually dissolves them.

        And, yet, ClO2 makes people sick.

        You don’t need “more” support. You need any support. There is no reason for disabled children to be subjected to MMS.

      • Paul Saenen March 18, 2015 at 10:40 #

        Agreed. Children with mental problems should receive mental support.
        ClO2 overdose will cause unpleasant symptoms which is good. It means people can’t accidentally kill themselves. Sleeping tablets and pain medication cause no nausea; they can and do kill.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) March 17, 2015 at 22:21 #

        Gee, more damage to bacteria than to mammalian cells. How about we set a higher bar?

        Let’s see, it is dosed until the patient feels sickened. And there’s no sound biological reason why this should be subjected upon disabled children.

        Risks–yes
        Benefits–no

        Risk/benefit ratio = infinite.

        The math is quite simple.

      • Paul Saenen March 18, 2015 at 10:16 #

        You misconstrue. I counsel against doses that cause physical discomfort. There should be zero risk and a measurable reward.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) March 17, 2015 at 22:24 #

        From the abstract:
        “Thus, a few minutes of contact time (limited by the volatility of ClO2) is quite enough to kill all bacteria, but short enough to keep ClO2 penetration into the living tissues of a greater organism safely below 0.1 mm,”

        And, yet, those who sell MMS (Miracle Mineral Solution–neither a miracle nor a mineral) AKA Chorline Dioxide, tell us that it doesn’t interact with tissues at all. At all.

      • Paul Saenen March 18, 2015 at 10:29 #

        Salespeople know only what they are told. The less said about them the better. ClO2 can penetrate mammal cell walls, otherwise it would not be effective against some germs. Once inside in sufficient volume it will kill a cell.

      • Lawrence March 17, 2015 at 19:00 #

        I’m still confused as to why anyone would think that ingesting this (or worse, using it as an enema solution) is going to do anything but cause harm to the individual….are people really that crazy to believe that bleach, in any form, should be ingested?

      • Paul Saenen March 17, 2015 at 20:51 #

        “bleach” is a soundbite. You should refrain from using it. ClO2 can be used as a bleach but it is not medically used as a bleach.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) March 17, 2015 at 22:13 #

        “bleach” is accurate. Why avoid using it? Except that it points out the fact that those who promote the use of MMS as a “cure” are misleading their clients?

      • Paul Saenen March 18, 2015 at 10:45 #

        Well, for instance sunlight is bleach. It removes color. But nobody ever says “I’m going outside to bleach myself.”

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) March 18, 2015 at 16:57 #

        People don’t claim that sunlight doesn’t bleach. MMS promoters claim that their product is not a bleach.

        How many times do we have to go over this point? The people promoting MMS are not using accurate information.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) March 18, 2015 at 17:33 #

        From Kerri Rivera’s book

        “Critics also frequently cite the fact that sodium chlorite and chlorine dioxide can be used for industrial bleaching processes, as a way to frighten parents
        out of using it. Just because a substance has the power to remove color, or bleach something, doesn’t mean it’s “bleach.” ”

        She’s just plain wrong. Chlorite and chlorine dioxide are used a bleaches (as she admits), removes color (as she admits) and, thus, by definition, these are bleaches.

        Here’s a presentation “Bleaching Chemicals and Their Properties”
        http://ipst.gatech.edu/faculty/ragauskas_art/technical_reviews/Bleaching%20Chem%20and%20Property.pdf

        CLO2 is listed as the second chemical. A high efficiency, medium reactivity bleach.

      • Paul Saenen March 18, 2015 at 20:35 #

        As explained before I did a bleach test today using a 28% and 1% solution of ClO2. I mixed equal portions of a 28% NaClO2 solution and a 5% HCl solution producing a very pure ClO2 solution according to the chemistry found in wikipedia.
        I used 1 drop of each concentration on dyed cotton. After 1 hour there was no visible effect.
        The explanation may be that citric acid normally used leaves a residue that is a bleach.
        Or possibly if there is surplus NaClO2 it may have a bleaching effect.
        Pending independent confirmation or denial by other experimenters the statement that ClO2 is a bleach should be considered false

      • Gray Falcon March 18, 2015 at 20:38 #

        Photos, or it didn’t happen.

      • Paul Saenen March 18, 2015 at 21:04 #

        No, that’s not how it works. Photos can be faked.
        I described the procedure in detail. Anybody can replicate it. A systematic mistake can always happen so independent confirmation by other parties is essential to increase confidence level.

      • elearah March 18, 2015 at 21:18 #

        The lady of the article used mms in its traditional way, not the water infused with chlorine dioxide. She also used the product directly–not diluted in water. Sodium chloride IS used as a bleach, so it is coherent that it will bleach. Also any mix with residue will bleach as well.
        What you did, if I understood right, was the infused water (?). In that case the discoloration properties might be different (or not).

      • Paul Saenen March 18, 2015 at 22:06 #

        You’re right. I made a pure ClO2 solution with NaClO2 and HCl, not perfect but close.
        Citric acid causes a different taste to the solution so there will be other substances in it and they may bleach.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) March 19, 2015 at 18:37 #

        “pure”? By what measure?

      • Paul Saenen March 19, 2015 at 18:45 #

        Pure means no excess chlorite or acid. Chlorite is a bleach.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) March 19, 2015 at 18:52 #

        Chlorite is a bleach. As is ClO2. The end product of MMS.

        So, this is your measure. How do you know? How do you know that you don’t have excess acid?

        By the way–you went the full “HCl” route? Sorry, but that demonstrates even less ability to filter out nonsense.

      • Paul Saenen March 19, 2015 at 19:59 #

        I made a ClO2 solution as pure as possible. I identified it by color, smell and the description of the reaction in wikipedia.and familiar usage.
        I applied it to colored fabric and waited 1 hour.
        The procedure I used is sufficiently clear I think.
        I can easily be proven wrong by replicating the experiment and obtaining a different result.
        Excess HCl would contribute to bleaching by oxydation, It certainly would not protect fabric.

      • Gray Falcon March 19, 2015 at 20:08 #

        I’ve seen professional chemistry labs. That was not the way to identify a substance’s purity.

      • Paul Saenen March 19, 2015 at 21:26 #

        Yes, I do not have a chemistry lab. I would like to have one. It would not change the chemistry though.

      • elearah March 19, 2015 at 21:41 #

        One way to make more or less sure that you have ClO2 is infusing distilled water with the gas of the reaction (I´m assuming there are no other volatile elements, could be wrong). But then comes the hazard of knowing the concentration. It could be too diluted for the bleaching experiment. This is what is called CDS and apparently–haven´t tried it–it is a lot better than the original one. No nausea at high concentrations.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) March 19, 2015 at 22:06 #

        Odd how something touted as a “miracle” can have so many improvements. How can one have something that is “a lot better” than a miracle?

        Right, no nausea at high concentrations. Sure. It’s somehow different than other ClO2 solutions that do cause nausea. Except that the nausea is supposedly a Herxheimer reaction, so why would the source of the ClO2 matter?

        There are so many logical holes in the MMS sales pitch.

      • elearah March 19, 2015 at 22:57 #

        You see a problem in improvement of products? Ok…

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) March 19, 2015 at 23:16 #

        I am not your sock puppet. If you wish to project words into my mouth, find another place to do so.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) March 19, 2015 at 23:16 #

        The improvement that can be had with MMS is to discontinue its use. That much is clear.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) March 19, 2015 at 21:56 #

        Yes, it would. It would change this from “I hope I am making what I think” to “I know I am making what I think”

        You take a lot on faith while presenting yourself as being evidence based.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) March 19, 2015 at 21:00 #

        “I made a ClO2 solution as pure as possible.”

        Again you use the term “pure” incorrectly. You assume it is pure. What impurities are present? You don’t know.

        I am reminded of a supplement manufacturer who was shipping product contaminated with heavy metals. No one knew until a bunch of disabled kids, whose alternative doctors were doing heavy metal testing, started showing heavy metals in their urine.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) March 19, 2015 at 18:38 #

        “The lady of the article used mms in its traditional way,”

        There is no “tradition” of using “Miracle Mineral Solution”.

      • Paul Saenen March 19, 2015 at 18:59 #

        With traditional I mean chlorite + citric acid.
        chlorite + hydrochloric acid is more difficult to make but has the least impurities.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) March 19, 2015 at 19:04 #

        And I pointed out that this is a bad term. To clarify, it suggests there is a long history of this and it was actually accepted.

        “chlorite + hydrochloric acid is more difficult to make but has the least impurities.”

        By what measure? To clarify, how do you define impurities, and how do you measure them? I’ll answer the latter for you: you don’t. You are doing kitchen sink medicine and using scientific terminology to make it appear to be more legitimate than it is.

        Where did you source your starter materials from? Did they supply you with a list of measured impurities?

      • Paul Saenen March 19, 2015 at 20:26 #

        True but irrelevant.
        Here is the reaction I used: 5 NaClO2 + 4 HCl → 5 NaCl + 4 ClO2 + 2 H2O
        The main impurity is NaCl which is neutral of course.
        There are impurities in the components. Those would tend to have a bleaching effect and not a protective effect.
        Wikipedia mentions that ClO2 becomes a bleach in an acidic environment. That is a possible explanation of my result.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) March 19, 2015 at 20:58 #

        You keep dodging. You did no measurements. An equation does not tell you about impurities.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) March 19, 2015 at 18:39 #

        “No, that’s not how it works.”

        Really? Ever publish a paper in a scientific journal? Or read one? Figures, including photos, are common

      • Paul Saenen March 19, 2015 at 19:09 #

        Sure, pictures are useful for illustration and understanding.
        Pictures by themselves have no truth value and that was so even before photoshop.

      • Gray Falcon March 19, 2015 at 19:30 #

        Are you saying you would willingly manipulate the photos? So why should I simply take your word for it if photos are no good? I’m not shelling out money to test it out myself.

      • Paul Saenen March 19, 2015 at 20:45 #

        I would not manipulate photos. It does not matter. If the theoretical possibility exists photos have no universal value.
        You should not take anybody’s word if there is possible doubt. Anybody can make mistakes. Replication is an important part of finding truth. There are enough people who can do it.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) March 19, 2015 at 20:57 #

        “If the theoretical possibility exists photos have no universal value.”

        Old saying in science: when your theory doesn’t match my data, it’s time for you to come up with a new theory.

        A photo is physical evidence.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) March 19, 2015 at 21:06 #

        “Pictures by themselves have no truth value and that was so even before photoshop.”

        Data can be falsified. There is no difference between a descriptive report (as you gave) vs. physical evidence in this regard. Actually, there is a difference. One can test physical evidence (here a photo) for tampering. You are assuming that your photoshop skills are so good that no one would be able to detect fraud.

        Results which are valid are replicated. The more information one gives, the more one can test validity by replication.

      • Gray Falcon March 18, 2015 at 20:45 #

        So, how do you respond to the article I posted here titled: “Chemistry of Chlorine Dioxide Pulp Bleaching”?

      • Paul Saenen March 18, 2015 at 21:56 #

        The study looks thorough.
        Note that the bleaching effect of ClO2 was not investigated.
        The study was about dissolution of tooth pulp which was described as fragile.
        Clearly ClO2 is not inert and will damage tooth pulp at 5% concentration in 30 minutes when shaken like James Bond’s Martini. Other tissues would probably also be damaged. There is that risk.
        The study is surprisingly positive about the benefits of ClO2 in root canal treatment.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) March 19, 2015 at 18:38 #

        “The study is surprisingly positive about the benefits of ClO2 in root canal treatment.”

        Yep. When you want to remove tissue (pulp in this case) ClO2 can work. Funny how those selling MMS say it doesn’t affect tissue, isn’t it?

      • Paul Saenen March 19, 2015 at 18:51 #

        No not funny, more like embarrassing. Not the fact that they are wrong but that they make no effort to find out more.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) March 19, 2015 at 18:43 #

        Here’s the procedure discussed. http://www.thinkingautismguide.com/2013/01/mms-yes-it-is-bleach.html

        It’s a bleach. Why are we still discussing this point? It’s a bleach. Both the precursor material and the final product are used to bleach paper.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) March 17, 2015 at 22:19 #

        “Crazy” doesn’t come into play here. And, frankly, my colleagues in the mental health community would cringe at the word.

        Very bright people can make very bad decisions. Happens all the time. In fact, many bright people are more prone to bad decisions since they believe that their intelligence protects them from making such mistakes.

      • Tower of Babel March 17, 2015 at 19:44 #

        It would be better not to respond to a troll, but let me say this. I hope Gray Falcon will be infected by worms like ascaris and tape worm untill they come out of his nose. Plus some nice Lyme and cancer on top of that. Oh and of course CFS. He might beg me to help him in that position.

        Car crash statistics have nothing to do with this topic. Much less than the harms of allopathic/conventional medicine, that has also it’s place in some cases. I don’t cathegorically look upon those either. But it has been “conventional” only about 100 years by the way.

        Human cells regenerate themselves completely in 7 years, besides ordinary cut healing and other organs and such that take much less time. If you cut the whole feet or hand away they won’t regenerate of course. But ongoing stem cell research may make it possible in the future to grow full limb back as some animals do. Such a moronic context to pull those crash statistics here.

        http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/02/science/02cell.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

        Even nerve cells do that, which used to be considered no no in former times.. http://www.news-medical.net/news/20130325/Researchers-study-how-nerve-cells-repair-themselves-after-injury.aspx

        So let’s assume I’d manage to damage my stomach linings with CD, it takes few days to have new linings, and completely new stomach in three months. And in addition to that with great remission being free of serious pathogens. And it takes four months to renew all red blood cells etc. etc.

        And ozone therapy for instance can make cells biological age(fuctionality) 20 years younger.

      • Gray Falcon March 17, 2015 at 19:56 #

        First of all, wishing harm on me does not help you in any way, shape, or manner. It only makes you look like an even bigger monster.

        Yes, conventional medicine’s only been around for 100 years. The Internet’s been around for even less, are you going to send letter instead?

        “Human cells regenerate themselves completely in 7 years” is an urban legend. If it were true, tattoos wouldn’t last, and arms and legs would grow back.

        Given that ozone is a known pollutant, I find it hard to believe it will do me any good.

        I also noticed you said absolutely nothing about ClO2 this time. No doubt you realize that you have no evidence, so you have to rely on trickery.

      • Paul Saenen March 17, 2015 at 21:24 #

        While my knowledge of biochemistry is at amateur level I would nevertheless point out that ClO2 works by destroying thiol enzymes which are replaced by normal biochemical processes. Only if the ClO2 concentration is too high cells will die. There is a large margin of safety though.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) March 17, 2015 at 22:10 #

        You have a citation for this assertion?

        “Only if the ClO2 concentration is too high cells will die.”

        I believe it has already been discussed that animal tissues do not include cell walls. Cell walls are for plants.

      • Paul Saenen March 18, 2015 at 10:54 #

        Sorry, I mean membranes.
        “Only if the ClO2 concentration is too high cells will die.” This is a semantic error. It should read “if ClO2 volume and concentration persists beyond the ability of the cell to undo the damage”. No citation is needed as it is evident.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) March 17, 2015 at 22:18 #

        Well, it would be better for you to not defend the abuse of disabled children. This before we note your rather

        You can completely regenerate your stomach? I’ll leave out the three months claim, but, seriously, you have stated that you can have a new stomach. That is an amazing claim. As in “amazing someone would make such a completely false claim”.

        Here’s a rule for this site: use “moronic” or a similar term again and be banned.

      • Lawrence March 17, 2015 at 20:54 #

        At the levels at which it is said to be ingested (or injected up the rectum), it is a bleach….stop lying.

      • Paul Saenen March 17, 2015 at 21:43 #

        Your claim is spurious.
        You are making at least 1 liter of stomach acid per day, which is a bleach.
        When you have an infection your lymphocytes will use HOCl and H2O2 against invading bacteria: bleaches.
        You probably use large doses of salicylic acid in the form of aspirin, another bleach.
        ClO2 is specific against the thiol enzyme and does not oxidize tissues. So it does not correspond to the definition of a bleach.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) March 17, 2015 at 22:08 #

        “You are making at least 1 liter of stomach acid per day, which is a bleach.”

        No. It’s an acid.

        “You probably use large doses of salicylic acid in the form of aspirin, another bleach.”

        Acide bleach. Do you have evidence that asprin will bleach the color from fabric? It may but how about evidence rather than assertion. And, how about the point–people deny that MMS is a bleach. It is. Demonstrably so. See the image of the fabric which was bleached, above.

        “ClO2 is specific against the thiol enzyme and does not oxidize tissues. So it does not correspond to the definition of a bleach.”

        A bleach is not defined by it’s interaction with tissue. But, what happens when you apply ClO2 to, say, raw meat? Does the color change?

        How about the fact that ClO2 solutions can dissolve tissue? As demonstrated in the paper above? While people make up all sorts of reasons why ClO2 does not interact with tissues (except, amazingly, tissues of parasitic worms) the fact remains that it does, in fact, interact with tissue.

      • Paul Saenen March 18, 2015 at 11:20 #

        I tried the bleaching experiment with a 28% solution and a 1% solution of ClO2. One drop of each on fabric and I waited one hour. I did not observe any discoloration. Maybe I’m doing it wrong. I used HCl as an activator, not citric acid.
        HCl bleaching is difficult to test as it will burn a hole in fabric.
        Observing a tiny piece of bacon in a 5% ClO2 solution now…

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) March 17, 2015 at 23:39 #

        “ClO2 is specific against the thiol enzyme and does not oxidize tissues. ”

        I don’t think you understand the term “specific”. You likely read the linked paper and saw that ClO2 reacts with thiols. Doesn’t mean this is the only thing it reacts with.

      • Paul Saenen March 18, 2015 at 09:15 #

        Good point. If ClO2 only reacted with thiols it might not be effective against virusses. I think thiols are the most important as they are essential to all living cells.
        By the way I tried and failed to replicate Emily Willingham’e bleaching experiment on fabric. I used a 28% activated solution and a 1% solution, one drop each and waiting one hour. I may be doing it wrong. More people should try this.
        I did not try to dissolve the inside of cow’s teeth. It is a strange choice too. I’ll use bacon.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) March 17, 2015 at 22:12 #

        The protocols specifically state that the ClO2 should be dosed to the point that the patient gets sick. And then increased. A rather poor explanation is given for why this is “good” but in the end we are left with the fact that ClO2 does, in fact, make people sickened.

        And, yes, it is a bleach. Funny how hard these guys try to skip around that fact.

        Removes color from fabrics (yes)
        Used in industry to remove color from fabrics (yes)

        Is a bleach? Yes.

      • Narad March 18, 2015 at 03:41 #

        As you requested here is a peer-reviewed report on the method of action of ClO2 explaining why bacteria are more vulnerable than mammal cells.

        Could you please point out the specific part where this has anything whatever to do with ingestion?

      • Paul Saenen March 18, 2015 at 08:28 #

        The report is about lethality of ClO2 against germs and cells. It is not about the way it can be used. That would require a specific study. I have no doubt this will be done in due course. We have the choice to wait for that or rely on empirical evidence.

    • Sullivan (Matt Carey) March 17, 2015 at 22:29 #

      “I did not even bother reading all replies. As if the allopathic drugs would not do harm? ”

      Clearly you didn’t read the replies. Nor the article. Or you did and you just decided to throw in a straw man diversion with the “As if the allopathic drugs would not do harm?”

      People claim that MMS does no harm. It does.

      “So what if CD would damage, say, 0,1% human tissue when used properly, but at the same time clean out 99,9% of the bad stuff the way no other medicine does. ”

      What if? What if CD could turn lead into gold? What if CD could be an infinite power source? We aren’t here to argue your “what if”.

      “In comparison try to use any anti-parasitic/anthelmintic drug for more than 3 days. ”

      If needed, I would use such a drug as prescribed by an actual physician per evidence gained on benefit. Not dose myself with a chemical bought off the internet and bottled who knows where (e.g. someone’s garage in one example) with no proven (or even actually suspected) benefit.

      • Narad March 18, 2015 at 03:53 #

        So what if CD would damage, say, 0,1% human tissue when used properly, but at the same time clean out 99,9% of the bad stuff the way no other medicine does.

        OK, so, wait… the paper is about topical disinfection. Now, this implies that chlorine dioxide immediately scavenges whatever it can get a hold of.

        I’m missing the part where it somehow knows how to hide itself from doing what it has just been documented to do until, somehow, it secrets itself into general circulation and magically goes all cruise missile on the basis of this paper,* which suggests precisely the opposite.

        * Should you start yammering about “charged tissue” as a distraction, you have immediately conceded everything.

      • Narad March 18, 2015 at 04:21 #

        I think that I may need to simplify my previous comment for the sake of Paul Saenen:

        1. Chlorine dioxide does whatever it does by virtue of a chemical reaction. This means that it gets used up.

        2. Paul has cited a paper that avers that “the rate law of the reaction-diffusion model predicts that the killing time is proportional to the square of the characteristic size (e.g. diameter) of a body, thus, small ones will be killed extremely fast.”

        [Paul himself strangely states that “ClO2 does more damage to bacteria than mammal cells and that mammal cells will recover” when the relevant passage from Noszticzius et al. is “[[I]nflicting irreversible changes to higher order protein structures] would certainly happen with the bacteria on the surface of an infected tissue as their GSH supply can be rapidly exhausted by ClO2. Mammalian cells below the surface, however, might survive being supported by the circulation which transports protective sulfhydryl and other reductive compounds to the cells, continuously repairing or even revitalizing them.” ]

        3. If one were to throw chemistry to the wind… oh, wait:

        While my knowledge of biochemistry is at amateur level I would nevertheless point out that ClO2 works by destroying thiol enzymes which are replaced by normal biochemical processes.

        I can’t believe I just spent 20 minutes trying to specifically reply to this level of disregard for the grounding conception of the difference between Man vs. Dumb Beast.

    • Narad March 19, 2015 at 20:41 #

      So what if CD would damage, say, 0,1% human tissue when used properly, but at the same time clean out 99,9% of the bad stuff the way no other medicine does.

      The simple fact of the matter remains that whatever might manage to make it to the circulatory system (much less the interstitial space) is simply going to opportunistically denature every protein it can before it has the chance to magically “clean out” 99.9% of “the bad stuff.”

      The entire proposition, along with the preposterous chemical explanations (e.g., “charged tissue”), is comically stupid.

  22. Tower of Babel March 17, 2015 at 20:24 #

    Sometimes suffering can make one grow and humble person to seek truth that were beyond comprehension before. Acting like paid troll who turns everything upside down and spams snappy replies without taking a look the evidence provided is like selling out ones soul, if one ever had one.

    CD also utilizes this which makes it selective:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltage-gated_ion_channel

    I provided links to scientific studies on cell regeneration and I am not going to post anything more here. Thank you others, like Paul for supporting my comment. All the best.

    • Gray Falcon March 17, 2015 at 20:33 #

      I need evidence for that. Specific. Claim. Nothing else will suffice. Ever.

    • Sullivan (Matt Carey) March 17, 2015 at 22:26 #

      “Acting like paid troll who turns everything upside down and spams snappy replies without taking a look the evidence provided is like selling out ones soul, if one ever had one.”

      Ironic, that. I’m not the one trolling a disability focused website defending an industry selling a fake cure. I don’t know if you’ve looked at the evidence, but you clearly don’t understand it.

    • brian March 18, 2015 at 00:51 #

      @Tower of Babel: Let’s see if I’ve got this: you say that chlorine dioxide is selective because it affects voltage-gated ion channels in neurons and some other cell types, but Paul Saenen says that chlorine dioxide is selective because it doesn’t affect larger (mammalian) cells or penetrate tissues (where it could affect voltage-gated ion channels.) OK.

      • Gray Falcon March 18, 2015 at 00:55 #

        And also, acids and bleaches are the same thing. Seriously, for saying that, Mr. Saenen should have to retake high school chemistry.

        Is the word “fool” acceptable?

      • Paul Saenen March 18, 2015 at 08:39 #

        wikipedia:
        Bleach refers to a number of chemicals which remove colour, whiten or disinfect, often by oxidation.
        I hope this clears up your misconception.
        You may use the word “fool” if I may use the word “fremdschaemen”

      • Gray Falcon March 18, 2015 at 13:31 #

        I noticed that nowhere does the Wikipedia article refer to stomach acid or aspirin as a bleach. On the other hand, here’s something titled: “Chemistry of Chlorine Dioxide Pulp Bleaching”.

        http://ipst.gatech.edu/faculty/ragauskas_art/technical_reviews/clo2.pdf

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) March 18, 2015 at 16:41 #

        And, from the “archbishop” himself, Jim Humble

        “Legally, ethically, morally, and logically, if any item does not have the characteristics of a particular item, it cannot be said to be that kind of an item. This means that a chemical that does not have the characteristics of bleach cannot be called bleach. So a chlorine dioxide solution being 4000 times weaker than that of bleach cannot be called bleach. This is a fact accepted in courts of law of the world.”

        His claim is that the concentration is too low. Which, as Dr. Willingham demonstrated with her experiment with the black washcloth (picture shown above), is untrue. MMS, CD whatever you call it, bleaches fabric. It has the “characteristics” of a bleach and is, thus, a bleach.

    • Narad March 18, 2015 at 04:33 #

      CD also utilizes [voltage-gated ion channels] which makes it selective

      Hey, if “Babel” gets to rely on W—pedia, I suppose everybody else might as well get in on the painfully obvious show.

      • Narad March 18, 2015 at 04:41 #

        Once again, though, there was little reason to bother:

        2. …velocities. These energies are sort of like spark traveling across a spark plug’s gap, from anode to cathode, but are actually from the Element to the attracting Amino Acid.

        The critical part of this is the PURITY OF THE CELL’S WATER. That includes ALL of the body’s water that will EVER be used during normal cell respiration.

        The Chlorite Matrix makes that water pure again, causing the Elemental decay/field potential/amino acid target/voltage gated ion channel relationship to repair.

  23. Tower of Babel March 18, 2015 at 09:30 #

    I broke my promise not to reply anymore. Maybe it will inflate my credibility, but already Otto Warburg in 30’s got Nobel prize about his findings how for instance cancer cells do not survive in oxygen rich environment. Living cells have their own antioxidant capabilities that protects them form oxidation to certain degree, unlike pathogenic cells. I don’t know why and how come it’s like that, I am not God or the power behind evolution, but that is fact, and does not matter what ever you believe is behind the life on earth. CD is it’s own kind of oxidant too, so the same mechanism is behind that as with other oxygen based therapies like ozone therapy.

    And someone got funny point, yes, I should not refer to Wikipedia:-) But the same can be found on other sources too.

    I have “been there and done that” so to say what comes to worms that surely do not get eradicated just by ordinary 3 days of Albendazole cure what most doctors will give you especially if it’s older infection. And Balstocystis hominis can be even more difficult to eradicate. Conventional drugs can help (like some protocols combine mebendazole with MMS for instance) but conventional doctors rarely know how to prescribe them in the efficient manner for parasites.

    In fact I coincidentally found this website when I was searching statements whether CD will eradicate Blastocystis hominis or not. So I am not all knowing expert myself either but I am learning all the time with open mind. (Blasto is one of the most hardest to get rid of)

    Apologies for using terms such as “moronic”..

    • Tower of Babel March 18, 2015 at 09:40 #

      …sorry I used the word “living” in a misleading way. The pathogenic cells are also “living”..but in destructive way, however..

    • Gray Falcon March 18, 2015 at 13:33 #

      You can say all you want, but without evidence, you have nothing. You can’t even keep your story straight. You post articles claiming that MMS can’t affect things bigger than bacteria, then recommend it against parasites, which are bigger than bacteria.

      • Tower of Babel March 18, 2015 at 15:25 #

        I never said it won’t affect things “bigger than bacteria”. It is all about the qualities of the matter in question. It is a matter of the antioxidant properties of the organism. Even big ones can be affected if they lack the qualities, like dead meat which enzymatic processes have stopped. From living ones, anaerobic pathogen types have low antioxidant properties in comparison to aerobic organisms. Parasites mostly belong to the anaerobic ones despite their size. Some may have some antioxidant response that makes them harder to kill by oxidation, such as Blasto.

        By the way, even Coca Cola will disintegrate dead meat (“dissolve tissue”) if you put a piece in it and let it stay a while. So I can claim Coca Cola is “bleach” by that premise. Watch out!

      • Gray Falcon March 18, 2015 at 15:43 #

        That line about Coke dissolving meat is another well-known falsehood:
        http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/acid.asp

        I’ve seen them try on Mythbusters. All they got was a bad marinade. Why should I trust what you have to say, when you cannot tell urban legend from truth?

      • elearah March 18, 2015 at 16:15 #

        Wasn´t the egg experiment related to this? Interesting how things come full circle.:D

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) March 18, 2015 at 16:39 #

        “By the way, even Coca Cola will disintegrate dead meat”

        Can you show me where the people who sell Coca Cola tell their customers something different? Because those who sell MMS say it doesn’t interact with tissue.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) March 18, 2015 at 16:45 #

        Not only do they claim it won’t affect things larger than bacteria, somehow it only affects harmful bacteria.

        “The chlorine dioxide molecule is the weakest of all oxidizers used in the human body and thus has very little effect on human cells. This molecule has the unique ability to recognize and oxidize (kill) harmful bacteria. Hans Christian Gram, a scientist of the 19th century, discovered that most harmful bacteria have a negative charge. He was able to dye positive and negative bacteria two different colors. His techniques are still used in laboratories and universities. All oxidizers, including chlorine dioxide, have a positive charge that will attract and kill negatively charged bacteria while repelling positively charged bacteria. Chlorine dioxide is thusly able to kill bad bacteria without destroying the good bacteria. This is simple high school science; like charges repel and unlike charges attract.”

        Very little effect on human cells. I guess true if you consider people passing intestinal linings (redefined as “rope worms” http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/rope-worms-cest-la-merde/) as “very little effect”.

        And, gee, I have a gut full of positively charged bacteria? If so I should feel a lot more pressure as all those bacteria would also repel each other.

    • Narad March 20, 2015 at 21:30 #

      Otto Warburg in 30’s got Nobel prize about his findings how for instance cancer cells do not survive in oxygen rich environment

      This is yet another example of the random free association that is a hallmark of cancer cranks in general and elevated to the level of outsider art by MMS automata.

      No, that is not the Warburg effect at all – the idea is that malignant cells often rely on glycolysis for energy even in the presence of adequate oxygen.

      • Gray Falcon March 21, 2015 at 00:46 #

        My guess it, they think science consists of saying a whole bunch of fancy words and calling it a day. The concept of evidence never even seems to occur to them.

  24. Tower of Babel March 18, 2015 at 15:54 #

    Well, afterall, it is a matter of many variables I think, probably the size of cells might be one factor too like some of those documents pointed out that Paul linked, but it’s not black and white scenario. I am not a chemist myself, but I am well alive after using it few times with results and that is all that matters to me.

    • Gray Falcon March 18, 2015 at 15:59 #

      There were also a large number of people who believed bloodletting was effective medicine. Several people attributed their survival to a proper bleeding. It was only after careful examination showed that it was, in fact, killing people that the practice abated:

      http://www.bcmj.org/premise/history-bloodletting

      The reason why I’m saying this: Medicine built entirely on personal testimonies does not work!

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) March 18, 2015 at 16:55 #

        It’s interesting how people who promote alternatives to medicine ignore the fact that they are the descendants of the bloodletters, the “purge with fire”, and all the other nonscientific non-medical approaches to healing of the past.

      • Paul Saenen March 18, 2015 at 20:10 #

        Before drawing conclusions consider this:
        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9392943 “Bloodletting was an established medical treatment for more than two millennia”
        So traditional medicine was doing the bloodletting. In fact medicine is still obsessed with blood, improving it by injecting magic substances.
        Alternative medicine was probably using herbs and such.
        What we have now is completely different. People take charge of their own health for the first time in history. It is not traditional nor alternative medicine. No surprise everybody is against it.

      • Gray Falcon March 18, 2015 at 20:20 #

        Paul, to conflate bloodletting and modern medicine is equivalent to declaring a clay tablet an iPad.

      • Paul Saenen March 18, 2015 at 20:53 #

        Exactly. Great improvements have been made in medicine.
        It is quite normal for science to do an about-turn and prove itself wrong, based on evidence. Only science can do that.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) March 19, 2015 at 18:47 #

        “In fact medicine is still obsessed with blood, improving it by injecting magic substances”

        Really? What substances are you talking about as “magic”?

        “People take charge of their own health for the first time in history.”

        People took charge of their own health for, well, ever. That’s how we got bloodletting. People taking charge of their own health, people who didn’t understand what was going on.

        The sad thing here is that MMS is part of the modern equivalent of bloodletting. Faux medicine.

      • Paul Saenen March 19, 2015 at 19:46 #

        “Magic” means that the people receiving injection do not know how they work.
        Doctors think they know but their knowledge is limited.
        Bloodletting was done by the primitive equivalent of doctors. If the patient survived they could claim the cure worked. Doctors still work like that. Chemotherapy is probably more lethal than bloodletting
        When people got sick they did not take charge of their health, They waited for nature to take it’s course like any animal.
        Now a sick person has the option of making his own medicine with a high probability of getting well in 2 hours at almost zero cost. It is a paradigm shift.

      • Gray Falcon March 19, 2015 at 19:49 #

        Do you know how your computer works? About all the programming languages and protocols that go into making this weblog?

        Again, a high number of traffic accidents do not mean that flying carpets work. Making nasty comments about evidence-based medicine does not help your case. If anything, it weakens your case, as it becomes apparent that if you had evidence, you would be focusing on the evidence.

      • Paul Saenen March 19, 2015 at 21:21 #

        As it happens I design computer based systems and I know a lot about the languages and protocols and hardware.
        With all due respect for doctors and the medical science they are far from perfect.
        If I mentioned something nasty about evidence based medicine I am not aware of it. Maybe it was somebody else?
        I have sufficient evidence of the benefits of ClO2 to recommend it to friends an family.
        I have read that ClO2 is being used in Sierra Leone to cure Ebola. Let’s see what evidence comes from there.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) March 19, 2015 at 22:00 #

        “I have sufficient evidence of the benefits of ClO2 to recommend it to friends an family.”

        What is sufficient for you is far from sufficient for me.

        “I have read that ClO2 is being used in Sierra Leone to cure Ebola. Let’s see what evidence comes from there.”

        I have read many claims. I’ve read about how this cures autism, cures malaria, cures cancer. And I’m still waiting for evidence. I’ve read that homeopaths have decided to try their luck (actually, their patients’ luck) with ebola. If there’s anything that has less chance than MMS, it’s homeopathy. Well, at least with true homeopathy, there’s no risk of harm, so I take that back.

      • elearah March 19, 2015 at 22:46 #

        Yes, many claims. The malaria ones are interesting:

        Anecdotal, but, as this guy says: “it merits further investigation”.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) March 19, 2015 at 22:56 #

        Malaria was the first sales message for Humble, if memory serves. It doesn’t work. But, hey, someone in a YouTube video says “it merits further investigation” as part of the same “LEAKED MMS Malaria Cure Documented by Red Cross Titled Because We Can) Dec 2012” video that was debunked above.

        So, people promoting MMS and doing so dishonestly think it merits further investigation.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) March 19, 2015 at 21:03 #

        ““Magic” means that the people receiving injection do not know how they work.”

        Heavily ironic coming from someone promoting MMS. If you understood how it is claimed to work and what it actually does, you wouldn’t be here defending it.

        “Doctors think they know but their knowledge is limited.”

        Your’s is even more limited. The phrase “arrogance of ignorance” comes to mind.

        “Chemotherapy is probably more lethal than bloodletting”

        Depends on the level of bloodletting. If I prick my skin and let out a little blood and compare that to the most aggressive chemotherapy, sure. If I take examples of people bled to death and compare to relatively benign chemotherapy, no.

        “When people got sick they did not take charge of their health, They waited for nature to take it’s course like any animal.”

        In what history? Since when and in what cultures have there been no one to take on the role of medical practitioner?

      • Paul Saenen March 19, 2015 at 22:02 #

        Many questions…here goes.
        MMS works mainly by destroying the thiol enzyme.
        I agree I know less about medicine than a doctor nor is it the direction I am specialized in.
        Bloodletting/chemotherapy: it is about the principle. Both do damage. One was mainstream medicine. Now the other one is.
        Medical practice was nonexistent for most of the past million years or so. Hippocrates started some serious healing a couple of thousand years ago. When there were epidemics there was no medical help.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) March 19, 2015 at 22:18 #

        “MMS works mainly by destroying the thiol enzyme”

        Really? Sounds like you know your stuff. Actually, you sound like you want people to think you know your stuff. Except for the fact that there is no one “thiol enzyme”.

        Tell me, how does destroying the thiol enzyme, as you put it, cure ebola? Since you just said that people are trying this to cure ebola, you should know that. Does the ebola virus have a thiol enzyme (answer: no).

        Chemotherapy is mainstream medicine. How can you not know that?

        Bloodletting was an alternative form of medical practice in the days before evidence based medicine. Well, it should be,but some in the alternative-to-medicine community (to which you apparently belong) are still doing it.
        http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/acupuncture-and-modern-bloodletting/

        “Medical practice was nonexistent for most of the past million years or so”

        Again, a sophomoric statement. Modern humans were nonexistent for most of the past million years or so.
        http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/homo-sapiens

      • louveha March 19, 2015 at 21:20 #

        Er… Paul Saenen, do you realize why we chose to cite bloodletting as an example ?
        In the past, bloodletting was widely used because people thought satisfied patients and clinical experience was sufficient to estimate a therapy’s efficacy.
        There was a big step in medical science once someone decided to do one of the first clinical trial and found out bloodletting was lethal.
        It taught us that patients testimonies AND doctors clinical experience were not sufficient evidence.
        So medical researchers are very aware of the importance of checking a therapy’s efficacy, even if the therapy’s theory looks sound.
        So saying that chemotherapy is probably more lethal than bloodletting is completely ignoring the numerous clinical trials surrounding this therapy. I’m not saying that these trials are perfect and error-proof ; researchers are well aware of that, this is why they constantly look for new ways to eliminate bias in study.

        This is one of the main problem I have with MMS ; even if the theory was plausible, it doesn’t mean you don’t have to rigorously check if it is really working. And compiling testimonies is far too weak evidence.

        More here :
        http://skeptvet.com/Blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/2011-Equine-Guelph-Bloodletting-to-EBM-May19.pdf

    • Sullivan (Matt Carey) March 18, 2015 at 16:51 #

      I could be a lot of factors. But all the hand waving in the world doesn’t change the facts. Chlorine dioxide, MMS, CD, call it whatever you want, makes people sick and provides no benefit.

      I’m quite glad that this substance didn’t kill you. Sincerely. You, whom I assume are an adult, can do whatever you want in terms of purchasing and using non-medical chemicals. However, when people apply this nonsense to children, disabled children especially, that is another matter entirely. People selling this and promoting it with lies are not doing anyone a service.

      Lies:

      MMS, Chlorine dioxide is not a bleach. It is.
      MMS, chlorine dioxide does not interact with human cells, or does so minimally. People are told to take the substance until they are sickened. They pass tissue which has human DNA, not parasite DNA.
      MMS, chlorine dioxide can remove heavy metals. Besides this being false on it’s own, autism is not caused by heavy metals in vaccines (another lie used to promote its use).
      Autism is caused by parasites. Not true. Even those promoting MMS acknowledge that parasite specialists don’t see parasites in the samples that are passed after MMS.

      Shall I go on?

      • Tower of Babel March 18, 2015 at 18:55 #

        ” People are told to take the substance until they are sickened. ”

        Where in the world you have picked this nonsense? It is the opposite. It has been told to step back with dosing if sickening effect comes along. Nowadays frequent-low-dose protocol is favoured over the progressive 1 -> 15 drops x3 per day increasing one drop a day. Low dose protocol is for instance 1-3 drops every 1-2 hours during the day. And I have been using it the last two weeks, and I felt it alleviated the Blasto, but I had to slow down for a little today as I got nausea. But I know it works. Tomorrow blasting the Blasto again. One negative side effect is that it pulls some iodine out of the body too, so one must be carefull to compensate it somehow.

        Only in the beginning when MMS started to surface about 10 years ago there was still notion that the side effects like nausea, diarrhea and vomiting are positive herxheimer reactions, but they are not always. Those are most probably signs of temporarily overdosing, but it can be simply corrected by lowering the dose to the optimal level. That much I agree with critics as many users nowadays do.

        However, I prefer ozone in other cases. Rectal insufflation is very good way to improve your immunity and cure mold allergy, or any viral infection etc I don’t know about it’s effect on autism though. Probably it has not much effect on that.

        There are thousands of scientific publications made of ozone therapy for instance and it was used already during WW1 in Germany to heal wounds. It is partly covered by even public insurance in Germany. Ronald Reagan’s cancer was cured by German doctor in the 80’s and the FDA officials are flying over to Germany to cure themselves while they ban it in most parts of USA.

        Some links from one Finnish site:

        http://otsoniterapia.net/tutkimusviitteita-en/

        Myself I am from Finland(although I am not there atm) where it’s not recognized as public mainstrem treatment unfortunately, but is available in private clinics anyway. Buying your own oxygen concentrator and ozone generator and tubes and catether is one time investment and after that it’s virtually free treatment against almost anything. And no bad taste like with MMS or H202.

        I repeat again, it’s the anaerobic vs aerobic division line that makes the difference of which organisms are subject to oxidation. “Good” bacteria are mostly aerobic, and “bad” bacteria mostly anaerobic. And this is hard science since the times of Otto Warburg.

        So thanks for the concern, but I know what I’m doing, Finns have survived pretty well throughout the history;-)

        http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289614000920

        https://edwarddutton.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/intell-928.pdf

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) March 18, 2015 at 19:12 #

        So, you accept that people can be sickened by this.

        I’ll find the pages that have recommended increasing the dose to push through a supposed “Herxheimer reaction”, but let’s stay on this point for the moment: MMS, CD, whatever name it is using now to avoid people doing research and finding all the complaints, can make people sick.

        So, the idea that sickness is a Herxheimer reaction is old and has been abandoned? How about Kerri Rivera’s recent book, which states
        “No side effects except a possible Herxheimer reaction; which is not a side effect of chlorine dioxide itself, but can happen with any detoxification protocol. ”

        Chapter 1. Page 10.

        Note–there is no “optimal level” for a substance with no benefit and possible downsides.

        Do you have any business on a disability focused website?

      • Gray Falcon March 18, 2015 at 18:57 #

        Babel, ozone is not some super-oxygen, it is pollution:

        http://www.epa.gov/groundlevelozone/

        That isn’t regenerating, it’s poisoning you. Simple as that. Once again, you prove yourself to be a rube who simply believes everything he hears without questioning.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) March 18, 2015 at 19:18 #

        Yeah, someone who has not only bought into MMS but ozone “therapy”.

        As an adult (an assumption), Tower of Babel you are welcome to believe and practice non-medical alternative “therapies” that make no sense. Go somewhere and discuss how wonderful you believe this to be. I’m sure you can find a forum where people will tell you what a horrible person I am and how open minded and thoughtful you are. But you are defending unproven therapies that sicken people and have no business being applied to disabled children. And you admit to know nothing about autism.

        You’ve been convinced an you are spending your money and health on nonsense. Go and be happy about that if you want, but go.

      • elearah March 18, 2015 at 19:37 #

        Well, one of the proponents of ozone therapy is Dr. Rowen. He is certified by the American Board of Clinical Medical Toxicology, so he might know if what he applies to his patients is poisonous(?)

        Ref: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/10/14/dr-rowen-oxidative-medicine.aspx

        They seem to be approved treatments. He didn´t lose the license for using them.

      • Gray Falcon March 18, 2015 at 19:51 #

        And yet ozone is still a pollutant.

      • elearah March 18, 2015 at 20:12 #

        *shrugs* the wonders of modern voodoo medicine… Life would be so much easier if we could trust our doctors and didn´t have to learn our way in this polluted soup of contradictions…

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) March 19, 2015 at 18:45 #

        “*shrugs* the wonders of modern voodoo medicine… Life would be so much easier if we could trust our doctors and didn´t have to learn our way in this polluted soup of contradictions…”

        Ah such irony. If we could trust, say, Jim Humble, Terri Rivera and others. If we could trust the people with actual M.D.’s who push alternatives to medicine. If we could do that, much of what is on this blog wouldn’t have been written. Sadly, not everyone is honest. Some people are honest and just wrong. I don’t care about motivations. I do care about disabled children being abused by this nonsense.

      • Gray Falcon March 18, 2015 at 19:57 #

        Also, Consumer Reports did a test of air filters, they gave ozone generators a “Not Acceptable” rating. That is a rating usually reserved for cars that do not steer correctly.

        http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/indoor/cr-12-2007.pdf

  25. Tower of Babel March 18, 2015 at 19:29 #

    Ok, please, moderator, could you erase my last comment.(as this one too) Or if you wish you can erase all my comments.Sorry for disturbance and upset. I wish you all the best.

    • Gray Falcon March 18, 2015 at 19:49 #

      Please don’t delete Tower’s comments. They need to stand as evidence of the monumental bile and ignorance of the advocates of MMS.

  26. Tower of Babel March 18, 2015 at 20:28 #

    I want them to be erased right now and I have right to request that. Please Matt, or who ever is moderating, take them down. I don’t want them to stay in this forum which is obviously a wrong place to post such.

    • Thomas March 18, 2015 at 22:30 #

      Surely you don’t want your cogent, factual supported, polite and unemotional posts deleted? I would think you’d like them preserved forever so that all the world can see where you stand. How are people to learn about the forthright courage of MMS supporters if your words are deleted?

  27. Roger Kulp March 18, 2015 at 23:40 #

    Tower of Babel March 18, 2015 at 09:30 #

    I have “been there and done that” so to say what comes to worms that surely do not get eradicated just by ordinary 3 days of Albendazole cure what most doctors will give you especially if it’s older infection. And Balstocystis hominis can be even more difficult to eradicate. Conventional drugs can help (like some protocols combine mebendazole with MMS for instance) but conventional doctors rarely know how to prescribe them in the efficient manner for parasites.

    Let us stick to “rope worms” the reason most parents of autistic children subject their children to the CD “protocol”.Unlike “rope worms”.

    Balocystis Hominis,is a recognized organism,with a recognized body structure.

    http://www.provlab.ab.ca/webbug/parasite/artifact/bhominis.htm

    Rope worms,on the other hand are not.I would suggest you go to the YouTube channel of one Professor Alex Volinsky,and watch his three videos on rope worms.They are very informative,in that they let the men who claim to have “discovered” rope worms hang themselves with their own rope,so to speak.Volinsky also has a lecture with Russian doctor Nikolai Gubarev,and acts as interpreter.Professor Volinsky ridicules the scientific journals who rejected his papers on rope worms,because these papers asked him to prove these were actual parasites with a real body structure,and life cycle.Dr. Gubarev claims these “parasites” can exist as just hollow shells,with nothing inside them.Yet the reason these kids pass blood along with the “worms”,is because the “worms” are somehow capable of blood sucking,like leeches perhaps?

    Tower of Babel March 18, 2015 at 18:55 #

    ” People are told to take the substance until they are sickened. ”

    Where in the world you have picked this nonsense?

    I don’t know.Maybe from reading the many reports from parents at CD-autism groups that have been reposted at various blogs and Facebook pages.There are some very gruesome stories of parents who have done just this,and then attribute the kid’s getting sick to “Herxheimer Reactions”.Parents are often told this is a sign the “treatment” is working,and to keep the treatment up.

  28. Tower of Babel March 19, 2015 at 03:53 #

    The moderator himself was about to ban me anyway and asked me to go. So I did “go” and I request at the latest posts to be deleted because he said this is not the place for them. I don’t know anything about autism, and like I said I came here coincidentally for totally different reason. Where did he suddenly disappeared? No response. btw. I never had any fake “rope worms” anyway. They have nothing to do with my experiences or postings here. Never said a word about them.

    • Gray Falcon March 19, 2015 at 12:18 #

      He only threatened to ban you for use of offensive words. That’s it. Unlike alternative medicine sites, we do not go around deleting posts simply because they disagree with us.

      While you didn’t say anything about rope worms, several other MMS advocates did. I suggest you start learning about your own side before defending it.

    • Sullivan (Matt Carey) March 19, 2015 at 18:53 #

      I do this as a hobby. Where did I go? Away from my computer. I’ll take a look at your last couple comments soon.

  29. Mike Skinner March 22, 2015 at 04:14 #

    I have aspergers. I use CD occasionally. It hasn’t changed my personality – I still feel that I am on the wrong planet. It has cured fungal problems and also living in the tropics it has helped with parasites. I think that it is a useful chemical to keep in my medicine cabinet. It also helps with toothaches.

    • Sullivan (Matt Carey) March 22, 2015 at 05:29 #

      I wish you well with it. But don’t expect me to believe it is actual medicine.

  30. Beth A. Hambridge March 24, 2015 at 11:29 #

    Greetings Matt an others!! I have been following some of your posting and the ensuing comments and greatly appreciate the time and effort y’all have put into debunking the MMS crap.

    I do have a question for those more knowledgeable than I and it concerns dealing with this type of statement “,,,IN CASE YOU WANT TO LOOK IT UP ON THE INTERNET, CHLORINE DIOXIDE HAS AN OXIDATION POTENTIAL OF .95 VOLTS, MUCH LESS THAT WHAT IS REQURED TO OXIDIZE BODY CELLS.” [sic]

    I know a few of you have touched on this but either I am being a bit dense in my understanding, or I just do not understand exactly what Humble’s point is in citing this so-called “factoid.” It would seem to me that the fact that CLO2 will denature pretty much any protein it comes in contact with (good or bad) that this “oxidation potential” is a moot point.

    What am I missing?

    • Sullivan (Matt Carey) March 24, 2015 at 17:59 #

      I keep meaning to talk to someone who could speak well to the oxidation potential question. When I’ve looked up redox potentials for, say, blood or tissues I see values in the 0.1-0.2 Volt range. The argument Kerri Rivera makes just comes across as “sciencey” terminology that is in the end gibberish or just flat out wrong.

      • Beth A. Hambridge March 24, 2015 at 19:27 #

        Thank you Matt, that seems to be my understanding as well,,,“sciencey” terminology that is in the end gibberish or just flat out wrong,,, the oxidation potential seems moot considering. Guess I will be doing a bit more knowledge gathering on this point

        I think I may borrow that phraseology in my write up 🙂

      • Beth A. Hambridge March 26, 2015 at 21:20 #

        Oh and Matt I did find the answer and you statement rings very very true. I am hoping to post the answer in the next day or 2 and is is very convoluted to say the least 🙂

    • J2 July 12, 2015 at 23:32 #

      Hi Beth, you asked “what am I missing? In short, many things. Scientific studies and factual information from someone educated in chemistry, microbiology, immunology and virology to start. If you have the time to read my posts at the bottom of this blog I think you will find some useful information pertinent to your inquiry. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask.

  31. Jim Humble April 5, 2015 at 10:11 #

    Most any chemical on tissues that are not alive will dissolve the tissue. Coca Cola and pepsi cola both dissolve tissues of all kinds once they are dead.

    • Gray Falcon April 5, 2015 at 19:58 #

      Urban legend. Soaking a steak in cola for days on end did nothng but provide a bad marinade.

    • Sullivan (Matt Carey) April 6, 2015 at 20:53 #

      From Kerri Rivera’s Autism One talk

      “Chlorine dioxide’s oxidation potential is 0.95 volts. Therefore it leaves healthy tissue intact, and is selective to oxidizing pathogens. ”

      Leaves healthy tissue intact. Which is false.

      And this is the whole point. Your team is selling this fake medicine using fake facts.

      • Beth A. Hambridge April 8, 2015 at 22:20 #

        Those fancy-dancy numbers they so like to cite in reality don’t mean jack. H & R can flaunt them all they want but what it comes down to is the false premise that their so-called pathogens are anaerobic micro-organism. In essence, the notion that since O2 (with a higher oxidation state) only kills the bad stuff (anaerobes) then CLO2 with lesser state will do the same but with less damage.

        What Humble seems to forget, besides the fact that these pathogens are made up of the same stuff as our cells, is that a large majority of the beneficial gut flora (or as he but it , “the good bacteria”) are also anaerobic.

        Regardless of what Humble may think, bacteria is bacteria, whether it is good for you or not. A chemical compound has no means to differentiate between the two (just like an anti-biotic). So does MMS kill it or not?

        As to the selectivity, also flawed, as CLO2 targets in on specific amino acids that makes up the structural proteins of cells (including ours). These two amino acids contain disulphide bonds which is one portion of what CLO2 attacks as stated by the oft cited Lenntech material sheet, “,,,it only reacts with sulphuric substances, amines and some other reactive organic substances.”

        So as you said Matt, “fake medicine using fake facts.”

    • lilady April 6, 2015 at 21:24 #

      The tissue in the digestive tract is live, not dead, Mr. Humble.

    • Science Mom April 7, 2015 at 02:15 #

      You’ve got special needs children, many who are non-verbal vomiting, burns around their mouths and shitting out their own intestinal mucosa because their parents are convinced they can bleach their autism away”Archbishop” Humble. If only a parasitic scumbag like you could feel shame I’d tell you you should.

      • truluv4u April 17, 2015 at 20:37 #

        This must be from over-dosing. Even OTC drugs can cause sickness and even death when taken in excess! CD works – I am living proof!

  32. Lori May 21, 2015 at 15:10 #

    I have read as many of the above comments as I can, and I’m just struck by the intensity but also caring and concern coming from both sides. It may sound and feel like a hostile debate, but since there haven’t been true studies done by the FDA or others, it is left to parents and other folks to try to discern fact from fiction for themselves… and hope. Not many of us have training in biochemistry, so it’s a steep learning curve. So, it would seem that everyone who weighs in is helping get to the bottom line. I don’t know what I would do if I had an autistic kid who desperately needed a cure. (Having known several autistic kids who are teenagers still in diapers and unable to function… they are NOT just “different” or “indigo kids”… they are really ill and they do need a cure.) Fortunately, I’m interested in this protocol for ME… not a dependent child. I was pointed in this direction (toward Kerri Rivera’s book) by another adult who has also suffered from some similar illnesses as I have, and she was sold. I may cautiously and gently go into this protocol, but be willing to stop at the first sign of trouble. However, for a young child… I’m not so sure. Tough, tough choices to make!

    • Sullivan (Matt Carey) May 25, 2015 at 20:12 #

      There is no hostility from the side that is trying to protect disabled children. Outrage, yes. Hostility, no.

      The fact that many autistics are signficantly disabled doesn’t excuse those who promote fake “cures” like MMS. Not a tough choice at all. MMS is not a cure, it is not a treatment, it does have a downside. Risk/reward ratio is zero.

      There is no “cautious” way to enter into a protocol that has no benefit and does have risks–risks which those promoting it hide.

  33. AMS June 20, 2015 at 02:08 #

    I used it in my baths twice daily for 7 months to remove very resistant skin parasites which 8 years of doctors and medicines couldn’t treat successfully. It’s by far the safest treatment I had tried and I tried quite a lot. I took many, many bleach baths over the years out of desperation for relief from my parasites without much luck. It would just destroy my skin and make me feel very sick of course. I couldn’t take bleach baths for more than 3 days straight. Although, I could take two MMS baths a day with 50 activated drops and they never made me feel ill and my skin just improved greatly. It killed the parasites and made my skin feel super soft. I took it internally as well. My only regret is that I didn’t try it sooner, I was afraid because of all the negative claims I had read. MMS saved my life.

    I’m a mom of three and wouldn’t hesitate giving it to my children now that I have tried it. In fact recently my 6 year old son was found with a deer tick burrowed in his skin behind his ear and I gave him doses for a few days and sprayed his skin with MMS too. He had no problem with it at all and I have the piece of mind knowing that he’s not going to pick up anything from the tick.

    I suggest that all parents try it themselves if they have questions about it. You can start very slow if that makes you feel better and work the doses up. It might just be what your family has been looking for.

    • Gray Falcon June 20, 2015 at 02:16 #

      Let me remind you that bloodletting and alcoholic patent medicines were both supported strongly by personal testimonials. We have scientific processes for a reason.

      • AMS June 20, 2015 at 06:17 #

        Well the scientific process failed me when 6 different doctors gave me multiple medications which they all said were foolproof and will cure me. Well none did and many medications left me sick. With nothing else to try I reluctantly tried MMS. It worked. And if my testimonial gives someone else the courage to try MMS and if it pulls them out of the darkness like it did me than I have done a good job.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) June 21, 2015 at 08:33 #

        I’ve never had a doctor claim that anything was “foolproof” much less 6 doctors. Given liability issues, I would go so far as to say I’d be amazed if 6 of 6 doctors took this stance.

        If you think I’m saying I don’t believe you, you’d be correct.

    • Lawrence June 20, 2015 at 12:20 #

      Where have you been that you would be constantly picking up parasites?

    • Sullivan (Matt Carey) June 21, 2015 at 08:39 #

      So, we all should try it? All? No matter whether we are healthy? No matter what illness we have?

      One size fits all, I guess, with this supposed miracle cure.

      I’ve seen so many things touted as cure-alls. With just as amazing claims. I’ve seen “magnetic” clay baths, chelation (including transdermal which has been shown to not even be absorbed), soil additives which can be bought by the ton sold for prices higher than gold, “energy therapy” which is just wishful thinking, homeopathy (which is wishful thinking with drops of water added), and more–

      all had testimonials and all failed.

      • AMS June 30, 2015 at 03:24 #

        Listen…I’m not looking to have a negative conversation with you or anyone else on this site. I was diagnosed with an easy to treat parasite but because of my immune system I was not able to recover. Doctors thought everything that gave me was going to be an easy fix. It wasn’t and I suffered. MMS saved my life when nothing else worked.

        Personally I have found that if taken as recommended it seems quite safe. Please understand that we are talking very small doses here.

        And no, I didn’t have Morgellon’s disease.

        This is just my testimonial and I don’t understand why some feel threatened by it that they need to attack me. Obviously something’s going on here with MMS because a bunch of people out there are claiming it’s helping them. And I am one of them.

        Critical thinking is not one-sided.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) June 30, 2015 at 14:41 #

        You aren’t being attacked. You are being treated with respect, especially considering you are promoting a useless and harmful fake therapy that is being used in an abiusive manner in disabled children.

      • AMS June 30, 2015 at 03:38 #

        Failed who??? Have you tried all these healing methods? Please…….you are generalizing. Every person’s body is different,
        People respond differently to different treatments. Not everything that heals has to be prescribed by a doctor. Please open your mind to other possibilities.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) June 30, 2015 at 14:45 #

        Do I need to try every therapy before commenting on it?

        Have you tried bloodletting? Scourging by fire? Exorcism?

        I haven’t. Yet I feel confident in saying these are not autism cures and are abusive.

        People who promote fake cures frequently try to hide behind the “you never tried it” claim.

        Charlatans love that logic because it means that some people will try anything they sell.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) June 30, 2015 at 14:49 #

        Every person’s body is the same in most ways. Not different.

        What you are effectively saying is
        “here’s a therapy that is biologically unsound for any mammal but you should try it because everyone’s body is different”

      • novalox June 30, 2015 at 07:11 #

        @ams

        So, where is your evidence to support your assertions? Because I don’t see any at all to support your viewpoints, which, by the way, flies in the face of basic biology and chemistry.

      • louveha June 30, 2015 at 08:18 #

        *sigh* Please read this before accumulating more alt med clichés.
        https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/answering-our-critics-part-1-of-2
        People answering you don’t feel “threatened” by MMS. It is natural in medicine to have a high level of requirement, far beyond simple testimonials.
        And as Sullivan said, the people who were enthusiastic about other cure-alls failed to bring anything beyond simple testimonials.
        Claiming something is a cure-all while at the same time saying “every person’s body is different” does not help credibility.

      • AMS June 30, 2015 at 17:50 #

        I never said MMS is a “cure all” or that everyone should try it. If someone has a condition where MMS might be useful and has researched it and knows how to apply the protocols then I say, Yes try it. Although, in the case of all the negative posters, I do believe if you are going spend all this time and energy trying to debunk something at some point you might want to give it a try.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) June 30, 2015 at 18:24 #

        ” If someone has a condition where MMS might be useful…”

        There are no conditions where MMS is useful.

        We did not try to debunk MMS. It is debunked. I am sorry that you got caught in this, but it is a scam. The biological logic behind its use is nonsense. Did you notice where the person most responsible for pushing this on the autism community was asked by the state of Illinois to back up her claims? She couldn’t and has instead entered into an agreement to not promote MMS in that state again.

        It’s one thing to make wild claims, and there will always be people who listen to them. That’s not “researching” anything. That’s accepting a sales pitch. And that’s all MMS has: sales pitches.

        Yep, the “Archbishop” Humble invented this and can tell you all about how it cures everything from malaria to cancer. He can also tell you about how he can make gold and is a billion year old god from another galaxy.

        ” Although, in the case of all the negative posters…”

        You are the negative poster here. Get that straight. You are the one promoting nonsense, false hope and junk fake medicine. You are the negative poster. Because of people like you giving unsubstantiated claims and ignoring your own ignorance disabled children are being subjected to bleach enemas, twice daily. The linings of their intestines are being dislodged and when these show up in the feces, they are called “worms” and touted as proof that this nonsense works.

        It’s abuse. You are on the wrong side.

        Why are you trolling a disability focused website if you have nothing to say about autism?

      • Narad July 1, 2015 at 02:32 #

        I was diagnosed with an easy to treat parasite

        Which one?

        but because of my immune system I was not able to recover.

        Could you be more specific?

    • brian June 22, 2015 at 00:38 #

      There is help available to those who suffer from delusional parasitosis, and it doesn’t involve industrial bleach.

      • AMS June 30, 2015 at 02:41 #

        As I already said…I tried industrial bleach and it made me sick and didn’t work. However, MMS did work so I won’t be needing your advice.

      • Gray Falcon June 30, 2015 at 02:56 #

        There were plenty of people who said “I tried bloodletting and it worked” during the Middle Ages.

    • Sullivan (Matt Carey) June 22, 2015 at 01:29 #

      Are you by chance stating that you had Morgellon’s disease?
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgellons

  34. Gray Falcon June 20, 2015 at 11:44 #

    Look up the phrase “placebo effect” and get back to me.

    • Winnie June 21, 2015 at 03:51 #

      Interesting (and perhaps even a little surprising) statement on the ARI site by practitioners who treat children whose parents are known to subject them to this abuse. I do wonder what they did to observe their obligation as mandatory reporters of child abuse, however:

      http://www.autism.com/statement_mms

      From the statement:

      “While many families spend years trying to detoxify their children, MMS introduces a known toxin into their bodies. MMS has properties similar to Clorox® bleach, which can burn the upper digestive tract. The mucous threads that children expel during MMS treatment, which have been touted as worms (though laboratory analysis does not support this claim), are the body’s method of protecting itself from induced oxidative stress in the lower digestive tract equivalent to the mid-day sun in its ability to produce severe sunburn.

      We simply cannot know what, if any, damage may occur in the long term. We have seen severe mineral deficiencies, malabsorption, loss of beneficial flora, and anemia in our patients who have undergone this treatment. The disruption of children’s gut epithelium and flora could have unforeseen consequences to their immune systems. At some point later in life, they may be also at higher risk for esophageal or stomach cancers, among other issues.”

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) June 21, 2015 at 08:31 #

        Thanks for that–it’s good to see ARI make this statement. Especially given the way that Rivera claims that she’s got Rimland’s approval for her bleach “therapy”.

  35. J2 July 11, 2015 at 05:43 #

    For Sullivan, Your utter lack of education in the fields of Chemistry, Cell Biology and Virology (the study of viruses – submicroscopic, parasitic particles of genetic material contained in a protein coat – and virus-like agents) is astounding! My education in the fields of Immunology, Microbiology and Virology is extensive to say the least, so please don’t embarrass yourself when talking or trying to debate me about things you clearly do not understand. Let me educate you on how Chlorine Dioxide works in our bodies and a few studies and links for your reference. Its not “magic” as you say, it’s science. I don’t have a lot of time or patience for the ignorant, so I will just lay out 4 simple points.
    1. Chlorine Dioxide 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.
    2. Chlorine dioxide does no damage to the human body: The next argument was that chlorine dioxide goes forth and kills everything in its path including good and bad bacteria, parasites, viruses, fungus and also damages human body parts. But that is not so. There are thousands of industrial corporations listed on the Internet that use chlorine dioxide for the very reason, because it can be very selective in what it destroys (oxidizes). When properly used at low levels of concentration it can select pathogens and not affect body parts. For a list of companies using chlorine dioxide because it is selective, Google “chlorine dioxide selective.” Here is a quote by the US Gov EPA http://www.epa.gov./ogwdw000/mdbp/pdf/alter/chapt_4.pdf 4.1 Chlorine Dioxide Chemistry: Chlorine dioxide functions as a highly selective oxidant due to its unique, one-electron transfer mechanism where it is reduced to chlorite (ClO2-) (Hoehn et al., 1996). 4.4 – Chlorine dioxide is a strong oxidant and disinfectant. Its disinfecting mechanisms are not well understood, but appear to vary by the type of microorganism. 4.4.1 – In the first disinfection mechanism, chlorine dioxide reacts readily with amino acids cysteine, tryptophan, and tyrosine, but not with viral ribonucleic acid (RNA) (Noss etal., 1983; Olivier et al., 1985) It was concluded that chlorine dioxide inactivated viruses by altering the viral capsid proteins. Do you See? These quotes and hundreds of other quotes I didn’t have room for prove conclusively that MMS can be selective and is indeed selective. Now one more thing: http://www.lenntech.com/index.htm#ixzz0wGcRVcfM This data written by Lenntech is often quoted around the world by universities and in scientific papers. This company, along with others, proves that chlorine dioxide does not harm the human body in low concentrations such as those used by MMS. This is the quote: “As an oxidizer chlorine dioxide is very selective. It has the ability due to unique one-electron exchange mechanism. Chlorine dioxide attacks the electron-rich center of organic molecules. One electron is transferred and chlorine dioxide is reduced to chlorite (ClO2).” Then the chlorite attracts four more electrons which rips a hole in the side of the pathogen, killing it. To understand why this happens you must know what Anaerobic and Aerobic mean and how oxygen effects them, harmful bacteria and viruses are almost all anaerobic. “Anaerobic” means these microbes cannot live in oxygen.
    3. There is no dangerous liability to ingesting chlorine dioxide over an extended period of time. The next argument was the concept that taking MMS might be dangerous when taking it for a few days. But that has also been proven not true. Back in 1982, the National Institutes of Health in Washington, DC conducted an extended double blind clinical trial to determine that very fact, whether there is a liability in taking chlorine dioxide over a period of time. They also tested the chemicals sodium chlorite, and sodium chlorate at the same time. The tests were conducted with humans and not with rats, thus one does not have to try to extrapolate to show that rats can equal humans. The tests conducted showed that no adverse conditions resulted in human bodies. Here is the link to the report. Read it for yourself and decide. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1569027/pdf/envhper00463-0059.pdf
    4. MMS leaves no dangerous chemicals behind to cause side effects: The final argument generally was, “MMS may leave dangerous chemicals behind when it deteriorates.” But that is not true either. The chemistry of chlorine dioxide proves that it cannot leave anything dangerous behind as it deteriorates into its component parts: sodium chlorite, sodium chlorate, and table salt (sodium chloride). They are all gone from your body within several hours.
    To sum it up, this information is just the tip of the spear that breaks down your arguments. I tried to keep things simple enough with references so that you might be able to comprehend basic Virology and how selective oxidation kills Anaerobic viruses and bacteria. If you would like to respond I will gladly reply as long as you do not make statements that have no scientific knowledge behind them, that’s just irritating.

    • Gray Falcon July 11, 2015 at 17:14 #

      “Chlorine Dioxide kills 95% of all diseases.” So does fire.

      • J2 July 11, 2015 at 18:19 #

        Every chemical that kills microbes and viruses are lethal at concentrated doses! Having had acute lymphocytic leukemia, I can tell you chemo therapy and drugs such as Vincristine will certainly kill you in concentration, the catch is they leave permanent damage to the body and nervous system. Yes chlorine dioxide is harmful in concentration, but so is every drug used to kill disease today. Aspirin is perfectly safe, but if you take a whole bottle it will be your last. Please read the study done on human exposure to chlorine dioxide by the United States Government. Note that there have been no findings of adverse effects. So to compare it to “fire”, well thats just comedy. Here is the link,
        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1569027/pdf/envhper00463-0059.pdf
        From what I can see, there is no one on this blog with any real scientific Knowledge? Just the fearful rantings of uneducated people comparing chlorine dioxide to things such as “fire”. I gave you real scientific facts. if anyone is going to respond, Please respond with data and not opinion peaces. Quotes like yours Gray Falcon just gives credence to your ignoramus and psychoanalysis finds little credence among laymen.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) July 13, 2015 at 19:46 #

        OK, you want to cite the US government on MMS/chlorine dioxide? So will I:

        http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm220747.htm

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

        The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is warning consumers not to take Miracle Mineral Solution, an oral liquid also known as “Miracle Mineral Supplement” or “MMS.” The product, when used as directed, produces an industrial bleach that can cause serious harm to health.

        The FDA has received several reports of health injuries from consumers using this product, including severe nausea, vomiting, and life-threatening low blood pressure from dehydration.

        Consumers who have MMS should stop using it immediately and throw it away.

        MMS is distributed on Internet sites and online auctions by multiple independent distributors. Although the products share the MMS name, the look of the labeling may vary.

        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.

        MMS claims to treat multiple unrelated diseases, including HIV, hepatitis, the H1N1 flu virus, common colds, acne, cancer, and other conditions. The FDA is not aware of any research that MMS is effective in treating any of these conditions. MMS also poses a significant health risk to consumers who may choose to use this product for self-treatment instead of seeking FDA-approved treatments for these conditions.

        The FDA continues to investigate and may pursue civil or criminal enforcement actions as appropriate to protect the public from this potentially dangerous product.

      • Gray Falcon July 12, 2015 at 11:36 #

        Once again, the subject is ClO2 as a medicine, not as a water purification ingredient, where it is used at a much lower concentration. The concentration used here was enough to bleach cloth. How can you possibly think that’s safe for human consumption?

    • Gray Falcon July 11, 2015 at 19:07 #

      J2, we have physical evidence of people’s intestinal being shredded by this “medicine”. No wall of text can beat that.

      • J2 July 11, 2015 at 19:53 #

        Who is we? At what concentration? Show me the study! Please leave scientific evidence to back up your claims. When I was given Vincristine for my cancer treatment they had to tape up the injection site so the acid based compound would not eat through the skin! Having a low PH in the body can corrode your entire gastrointestinal tract. The corrosive power of alcohol is 100 fold the recommended doses of chlorine dioxide. So when you say “we have physical evidence of people’s intestinal being shredded by this “medicine”. No wall of text can beat that” if the wall of text proves though scientific studies done by Government that there are no adverse side effects, then yes it can beat that! Please respond with the scientific studies you claim to have on this, otherwise it is just propaganda at best. Back it up Grey Falcon, I want real data with isolated control groups which any real scientific study will have. Words without data to back them up is like a house without a foundation, weak and bound to collapse.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) July 13, 2015 at 19:47 #

        Oh, now you want a study? You can make grandiose claims that it works without a study, but when someone says that it causes harm, you scream “show me the study!”

        I wish you well with treating your disease. Switching medicine for MMS is not the answer.

      • J2 July 11, 2015 at 20:10 #

        Please note that the government study I linked above are using amounts similar to that of MMS. I would like to add that I am not a pusher of the MMS products or have any association with them what so ever. I am only giving scientific knowledge in my fields of expertise, being: Chemistry, Immunology, Microbiology and Virology.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) July 13, 2015 at 19:47 #

        Please note that the government warning I posted is specifically about MMS.

      • J2 July 11, 2015 at 20:19 #

        Here is an excerpt from the government clinical study I have linked above.
        To assess the relative safety of chronically administered chlorine water disinfectants in man, a
        controlled study was undertaken. The clinical evaluation was conducted in the three phases
        common to investigational drug studies. Phase I, a rising does tolerance investigation, examined
        the acute effects of progressively increasing single doses of chlorine disinfectants to normal
        healthy adult male volunteers. Phase II considered the impact on normal subjects of daily
        ingestion of the disinfectants at a concentration of 5 mg/l. for twelve consecutive weeks. Persons
        with a low level of glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase may be expected to be especially
        susceptible to oxidative stress; therefore, in Phase III, chlorite at a concentration of 5 mg/l. was
        administered daily for twelve consecutive weeks to a small group of potentially at-risk
        glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase-deficient subjects. Physiological impact was assessed by
        evaluation of a battery of qualitative and quantitative tests. The three phases of this controlled
        double-blind clinical evaluation of chlorine dioxide and its potential metabolites in human male
        volunteer subjects were completed uneventfully. There were no obvious undesirable clinical
        sequellae noted by any of the participating subjects or by the observing medical team. In several
        cases, statistically significant trends in certain biochemical or physiological parameters were
        associated with treatment; however, none of these trends was judged to have physiological
        consequence. One cannot rule out the possibility that, over a longer treatment period, these
        trends might indeed achieve proportions of clinical importance. However, by the absence of
        detrimental physiological responses within the limits of the study, the relative safety of oral
        ingestion of chlorine dioxide and its metabolites, chlorite and chlorate, was demonstrated.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) July 13, 2015 at 19:48 #

        And, you keep ignoring the study linked to above that shows that Chlorine Dioxide can dissolve tissue.

        But you claim no adverse effects.

      • J2 July 11, 2015 at 20:36 #

        Please take note of the last sentence above of the this extensive Government Clinical study, and keep in mind the dosage! Its crucial to our conversation. “However, by the absence of detrimental physiological responses within the limits of the study, the relative safety of oral ingestion of chlorine dioxide and its metabolites, chlorite and chlorate, was demonstrated”. I have no doubt that concentrated amounts of chlorine dioxide can in fact be harmful, science proves this. I think you are failing to see the importance of amounts ingested. Like I said, Aspirin can eat away your digestive tract, liver and even kill you in high amounts, this doesn’t mean it cant be beneficial is the recommended doses.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) July 13, 2015 at 19:51 #

        There is no demonstrated benefit from Chlorine dioxide. Just wild claims by people profiting from it and nameless proponents on the web.

        So, you admit that there can be a dose at which this can be harmful, but all you have are assertions of benefit. Risk/reward ratio is zero.

      • J2 July 11, 2015 at 21:04 #

        By the way, the 5mg/l used as a does in the study is equal to 5ppm. MMS protocol 1000 recommends starting at 1 drop and working to 3 which is equal to 1 and 3 ppm. That amount is less than used in the study which showed no adverse side effects. Argue your propaganda all you want, but real scientific studies show a different story than the fear mongering your pushing without any data to back it up. And if your thinking about showing me some report on its toxicity, don’t bother unless it is relative to the amounts recommended by MMS. Pure oxygen ingested at 100 feet deep will kill you in a few hrs! Is oxygen bad for us in the 21% we all breath? No! Look at the amounts being recommended.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) July 13, 2015 at 19:53 #

        I am very, very sorry you got caught in this scam. Scam it is. People who use it, especially in place of actual medicine, are being harmed.

        Take a look at the pictures on the web of the “worms” that kids are passing after being treated with MMS. Then dig and find out that the people promoting this admit that these “worms” are (a) not found to have non human DNA and (b) are not recognized by actual parasite experts as being “worms”.

        But, hey, you are helping to promote this activity. How about those guarantees I asked you about?

      • J2 July 11, 2015 at 21:38 #

        If you don’t like the study by the US government, then maybe this one from the World Health Organization would help. Here is the link, http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/chemicals/chlorateandchlorite0505.pdf
        Section 5 is there results using up to 24 times more concentration than recommended in the MMS Protocol 1000. And I Quote “Six different doses of chlorine dioxide (0.1, 1, 5, 10, 18 or 24 mg/litre) in drinking water were administered to each of 10 male volunteers using a rising-dose protocol. Serum chemistry, blood count and urinalysis parameters were monitored. A treatment-related change in group mean values for serum uric acid was observed, which the authors concluded was not physiologically detrimental. The highest dose tested, 24 mg/litre (about 0.34 mg/kg of body weight per day), can be identified as a single-dose NOAEL. The same male volunteers drank 0.5 litres of water containing 5 mg of chlorine dioxide per litre each day for approximately 12 weeks and were then kept under observation for 8 weeks. Serum chemistry, blood counts and urinalysis revealed no abnormalities, except for a slight change in blood urea nitrogen, which the authors concluded was of doubtful physiological or toxicological significance. This exposure, equivalent to 36 µg/kg of body weight per day, can be considered a NOAEL”. If you don’t know NOAEL means: no-observed-adverse-effect-level. I can back up my words all day with studies from the most prestigious medical professionals on earth. Can you?

      • Gray Falcon July 12, 2015 at 03:54 #

        The discussion is not about chlorine dioxide as a water purifier. The discussion is about using it as an enema. That is the difference between warming someone by a fire, and setting them on fire.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) July 13, 2015 at 19:57 #

        How about this paragraph

        “Chlorine dioxide has been shown to impair neurobehavioural and neurological
        development in rats exposed perinatally. Experimental studies with rats and monkeys
        exposed to chlorine dioxide in drinking-water have shown some evidence of thyroid
        toxicity; however, because of the studies’ limitations, it is difficult to drawn firm
        conclusions.”

      • J2 July 12, 2015 at 05:07 #

        Your right, it is not. It is a discussion on the effects of chlorine dioxide on the human body as recommended by MMS protocols. You keep using bad analogies like “That is the difference between warming someone by a fire, and setting them on fire”. Are you referring to the chlorine dioxide being more rapidly absorbed by the blood stream through enema verses oral ingestion? I guess I don’t actually expect to find anyone with any scientific background on here. I could walk you through a lesson in biology, but somehow I don’t think it’s going to make a difference. Whether chlorine dioxide is administered orally, intravenously, intramuscularly, or through enema makes no difference, the dosage does. Until you present any scientific data to the supposed damage being done to the gastrointestinal tract at the recommended doses. I consider this conversation mute. I asked for scientific data Grey Falcon and all your giving me is poor analogies.

      • Gray Falcon July 12, 2015 at 05:10 #

        I’m saying that chlorine dioxide has been observed to dissolve human tissue.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) July 13, 2015 at 20:01 #

        And this has been shown in multiple studies.

        But your arguments are “mute” per our guest.

      • Gray Falcon July 12, 2015 at 05:12 #

        And it dissolves human tissue at the doses given. This is an observed fact. Did you even bother to read the article?

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) July 13, 2015 at 19:59 #

        There are no “MMS protocols”. A protocol would suggest some level of research on safety and efficacy. There are none.

        You can consider any conversation which gives you evidence mute. You obviously do. (I believe you mean “moot”, by the way, but you are the one who claimed all sorts of education)

        You give assertions and ask for studies. OK, all your assertion arguments are “moot”. By your own reasoning. What do you have left? Oh, cherry picked studies on treating drinking water. Right. Here’s a hint, the human body is not a vat of drinking water.

      • J2 July 12, 2015 at 06:37 #

        Please enlighten me with this article, I’m being facetious if you can’t tell. I just browsed every post that you made on the subject looking for it. Didn’t find what you are referring to so please leave a link if you even respond after this. On the other hand I did find these quotes of yours: “Yes, you do need evidence. Without that, there is no science”, “I need evidence, not unfounded claims”, “No amount of claiming the Earth was flat made it flat. Likewise, nothing you say will make MMS anything more than a bleaching agent. Without evidence, there is no science”, “Why haven’t you tried to perform double-blind studies? If your miracle medicine is so great, why haven’t you put forth the effort to prove it to the world?”, “I need evidence for that. Specific. Claim. Nothing else will suffice. Ever.”. It’s easy to bury you when you’ve dug you own hole Grey Falcon, I have been asking you for just that since you first responded to my post! You still have sent nothing but poorly written analogies while I’ve given you nothing but solid science and linked scientific studies done by the US government and the World health Organization on human consumption at much higher levels than is recommended by MMS protocols and using double blind studies has proven to have NO adverse side effects! Not my words, theres. This “article” better be good and applicable to human studies at the correct amount. I read that you are an IT guy, stick to what you know Grey Falcon, and leave the real science to those who have dedicated our lives to it and just don’t go to google on there free time to key word search what they want to hear. Like you said “I need evidence for that. Specific. Claim. Nothing else will suffice. Ever.”. your words. Ive given you just that. Your turn, and no more analogies please!

      • Gray Falcon July 12, 2015 at 18:58 #

        Also, my analogy is a perfectly valid one. When ClO2 is used as a water purification method, it is at a much, much lower concentration than when it’s used as a medicine.

      • J2 July 12, 2015 at 22:43 #

        Grey Falcon, I’m Flabbergasted you are still defending your uneducated opinion without a single piece of scientific evidence to back it up when I have presented you with nothing but factual scientific studies that prove the contrary. So I took the time this morning to have a few of my assistants perform a experiment on the bleaching effects of chlorine dioxide at levels ranging from 1ppm to 30ppm using 2ppm intervals between test samples. We diluted 80% sodium chlorite in distilled water to 27.58%. Then added the corresponding mixtures of equal parts sodium chlorite and citric acid to 8oz of distilled water to get the desired ppm (roughly 1 drop of 27.58 sodium chlorite in 8oz water was equivalent to 1ppm). We used my technicians black 100% cotton Ralf Lauren undershirt and cut it into 15 pieces measuring 3″ square. We then soaked each piece in the corresponding solutions and dried them in my vacuum purge oven (to save time). Then compared to the shirts remnants. Absolutely No bleaching effect was observed! Then we soaked one piece in the undiluted 27.58% concentrate and observed minor bleaching effects that were obviously expected at that concentration. To say it politely, a complete waist of my laboratories time and resources, but it did give my assistants a much needed break and laugh (mostly at me for waisting my time on the likes of an scientifically uneducated IT guy that doesn’t know when he has lost the argument). Your bleaching theory: DEBUNKED. Now to address your comments, being “How can you possibly think that’s safe for human consumption?” Well because the studies that I have shown you from the US Government and The World Health Organization using amount that are 24 times the strength of MMS prove so. Again, “no adverse side effects were observed”. Period. and your comment “Once again, the subject is ClO2 as a medicine, not as a water purification ingredient”. I never once spoke of its use in water purification. The definition of a medicine is the science or practice of the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of disease. Diseases comes in many categories, one of which is viral diseases. If any substance can be found to reduce the viral load of a patient with few to no adverse side effects then that substance is considered by the very definition to be medicine. Chlorine dioxide in the low amounts recommended by MMS Protocols is in fact proven to have no adverse side effect and will certainly reduce the viral load significantly in the human body. So by the very definition of medicine, chlorine dioxide in the concentrations recommended by MMS Protocols is Medicine. You think some picture of a bleached rag and an elusive article that you can’t produce is scientific evidence of your claim? If this were a court case it would be thrown out on your lack of evidence alone. You haven’t a foot to stand on Grey Falcon, at least be man enough to admit your hypothesis was bases on misinformation on the effects of chlorine dioxide at the amounts recommended by MMS Protocols.

      • Gray Falcon July 13, 2015 at 00:06 #

        J2, where are your studies on MMS as a medicine? Not as a water purifier, a medicine?

      • J2 July 13, 2015 at 01:34 #

        Grey Falcon, you misunderstand. Please let me explain. As I realize you are just being protective of others, I to can sympathize with that. It has been my life’s mission to heal, so I apologize for any crass words as we are really on the same side. All the studies I have shown you are relative to chlorine dioxides safety for human consumption at levels that MMS Protocols recommend, 1 to 5 ppm. And that Sullivan and you are completely wrong about these amounts as you say eating human tissue. The article referred to in the beginning of this blog says “5% Chlorine dioxide is capable of dissolving human pulp tissue but sodium hypochlorite was more effective.” 5% is equal to 50,000ppm!!! That’s 50,000 times stronger than what the recommended dose is. And also understand when it says “is capable” In the study they were using 13.8% chlorine dioxide, thats’s 138,000 times the strength of recommended MMS. Sulfuric Acid which can melt steel like a hot knife through butter is used in many pharmaceuticals today. Its all about the dose. As to your question on medicine studies, the FDA prohibits us from doing medical studies specifically in the case of chlorine dioxide, while they do allow for toxicity studies which you have already seen. Now you next point or question may be to why that is. It saddens me to say that these days the FDA is in the back pocket of big pharmaceutical companies. They don’t want cures, because that takes there return customers away. It is deeply disturbing what I have seen in the medical community today. Drugs like Vioxx can be put back on the shelf after the FDA had verification they had falsified there study. Today Vioxx has killed more Americans than died in the entire Vietnam war! A study done by the FDA on vitamin E concluded that in fact vitamin E causes heart problems. What they are not telling you is this study used all subjects that where over 65 and had pre existing heart conditions, further more they used the synthetic version of vitamin E at 1/10 the does an average person would take. If you would like to know more about this subject, just ask. The simple fact is that no virus of cancer for that matter can live in an alkaline environment. Instead of treating disease, we need to treat the environment in which disease lives. Alkalinity in the human body and plants is essential for good health. Now I have not yet said anything on chlorine dioxide as medicine other than the facts. That chlorine dioxide does in fact kill viruses and pathogens and has been proven non toxic to the human body in doses higher than recommended by MMS Protocols. These are scientifically proven facts. That being said, by the definition of what a medicine is. The amounts of chlorine dioxide as used in MMS Protocols would be considered medicine. It reduces viral load and has no adverse side effect in the discussed doses as stated by the US government and the World Health Organization.

    • Chris Preston July 13, 2015 at 01:49 #

      Oh dear.

      Wall of Text

      But Oh. Dear. The dose does make the poison.

      MMS is sold as a 28% sodium chlorite. The concentration of chlorine dioxide from the mixture with a weak acid is orders of magnitude higher than the amount of chlorine dioxide people will be exposed from due to water purification.

      • J2 July 13, 2015 at 02:32 #

        Hi Chris, you are correct. The recommended doses in the MMS Protocol is 1 to 3 drops of 28% of sodium chlorite in 8oz of water once mixed with citric acid to make chlorine dioxide. The strength of this solution is 1 to 3 ppm. When used to control microbes in water treatment it dissipates very rapidly as it does in our bodies as well. This is a mute point because I am referring to the human studies done by the US government and The world Health Organization (which I have shared links to in previous posts) that show no adverse side effects observed in much higher doses that the 1 to 3ppm recommended by MMS Protocols. This has nothing to do with water treatment? It has to do with the effects of chlorine dioxide in the human body.

      • Gray Falcon July 13, 2015 at 02:49 #

        If this has nothing to do with water treatment, why are you citing articles about water treatment?

      • Chris Preston July 13, 2015 at 02:56 #

        You haven’t linked to human studies conducted by the US Government. The study was conducted by The Ohio State University conducted the study.

        In the WHO article you did link to, gives NOAEL values of up to 3 mg/kg/day. MMS 1000 protocol calls for 8 treatments per day of 3 drops. As we don’t know how much “a drop” is it is not really possible to compare the suggested ingestion with safe levels of use.

        However, I give you this http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm220747.htm which is from a US Government agency.

      • J2 July 13, 2015 at 03:05 #

        Water treatment has nothing to do with the points I am making, the effects of Chlorine Dioxide in the human body does. The study on chlorine dioxide from the WHO stemmed from the need to know it”s effects on humans. I am simply saying that chlorine dioxide at the 1 to 3ppm (MMS) has no adverse side effects on humans. These studies prove this. I have not spoken of its specific treatment of any disease nor would I.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) July 13, 2015 at 20:12 #

        Then why do you use water treatment as your main source of support?

        As noted, the studies you present show that chlorine dioxide can and does have harmful effects in the body. Doctors are noting these in their patients who have been subjected to MMS.

        note–edited to correct spelling mistake

      • J2 July 13, 2015 at 03:20 #

        Hi Chris, the study was ordered by the US National Library of Medicine and National Institutes of Health. But that is a mute point as well, it does not change there findings. as to you comment “As we don’t know how much “a drop” is it is not really possible to compare the suggested ingestion with safe levels of use.” The math is extremely simple to do, and if you don’t know than google it. 1 drop is equal to .05ml. Ive already shown the math in previous posts. Do it for yourself and tell me I’m wrong.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) July 13, 2015 at 20:10 #

        “moot”. Not “mute”.

        The math is, as you say, extremely simple

        No demonstrated benefit. Per your criterion: actual studies.

        A demonstrated possible risk. Per your criterion: actual studies.

        Math: risk/benefit ratio = 0

        note: edited to correct typo

      • J2 July 13, 2015 at 03:31 #

        And Chis, about your article from the FDA, having colleagues that currently work and in the past worked for and or with the FDA on many studies I am well aware of there ways a ties to big pharma. I gave my two cents on them in previous posts. Please read.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) July 13, 2015 at 20:09 #

        Ah, so the government is THE source for good information, when it’s not actually discussing MMS, but you attack the FDA and ignore their statements when they don’t go your way?

        Very, very typical. I could have, and did, predict that.

      • J2 July 13, 2015 at 03:49 #

        Thank you all who took the time to read my posts, whether you choose to accept it or not. Grey Falcon, although we don’t see eye to eye I wish you the best in your research. Chris, please do the math and look at the corresponding studies as it relates to ppm. My partner at our privately funded laboratory has asked me to stop this blog as he fears what I might say about the FDA and believes that “people without our background in science won’t understand it when its right in front of them.” He may be right, but I like to think someone might take something away from this. For those who disagree don’t worry, you wont be seeing my “wall of texts” anymore.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) July 13, 2015 at 20:08 #

        It’s not a matter of “accepting” your posts. It’s a matter of your arguments failing to convince.

        Nice–only people with your “background in science” can understand you. Sure.

        I hope people take away from this that anyone can fill a blog’s comments with smoke to try to cover up what is (a) a fake medicine with no known or suspected benefit and (b) actual downsides. You try to throw out assertion and unsupported claims to avoid (a) and you just skip over (b) by claiming that there’s no study showing the harm.

        How many disabled children need to be subjected to this harmful treatment to create a study to your liking? And what compensation do you offer for their pain and suffering?

      • Chris Preston July 13, 2015 at 04:00 #

        “Hi Chris, the study was ordered by the US National Library of Medicine and National Institutes of Health.”

        I can see no evidence that it was. Perhaps you can provide that evidence?

        “1 drop is equal to .05ml. Ive already shown the math in previous posts. Do it for yourself and tell me I’m wrong.”

        Well because I can, I have gone and measured it. I took two options that people might have available: pouring from bottles like those illustrated here http://www.thinkingautismguide.com/2013/01/mms-yes-it-is-bleach.html and using a children’s medicine dropper. The latter is slightly more accurate, but comes up with a value of 0.09 mL per drop. Pouring from the bottle was 0.12 mL per drop.

        “And Chis, about your article from the FDA, having colleagues that currently work and in the past worked for and or with the FDA on many studies I am well aware of there ways a ties to big pharma.”

        And we might just have the crank bingo here.

      • Max Redder July 13, 2015 at 05:07 #

        Wow:). Reading everyone’s posts here is like a novel. My brother used mms for his herpes and is now herpe free so I decided to do my own research and stuble here. I think more is mentioned on mms than any other site I’ve read:). A lot of good points. I don’t know a whole lot as I am still in HS, but j2 is the only one here that I can see has givin actual proven tests on the dosage… as he said he is gone? Can anyone show any studies that show different? I read your article Chris but it says they didn’t water to dilute it? That’s kinda the point right? So of course it would bleach it. Thanks

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) July 13, 2015 at 20:04 #

        My sister gave it to her dog and now he’s manning a mission to Mars.

        See how easy it is to write a testimonial?

        And you believe J2? I assume you aren’t planning on going into science in college.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) July 13, 2015 at 20:24 #

        Who here is surprised that “Max Redder” has the same IP address as J2?

        Which is to say, J2 has a sock puppet here pretending to be a high school student who believes J2. Should have checked that before responding to the sock.

        So, J2, which is real? Are you a person with a background in virology, or a high school student? Or neither?

      • Chris Preston July 13, 2015 at 06:49 #

        “…they didn’t water to dilute it? That’s kinda the point right?”

        The trouble is that some protocols don’t dilute it very much. This one from Kerri Rivera http://www.autismone.org/sites/default/files/rivera.pdf (warning large pdf file containing lots of derpitude) dilutes it into a shot glass, so only to a 0.28% solution. Not to mention using it as an enema.

        Actually, that PPT is worth looking at just to get a sense of the sheer nonsense that parades as explanations from these people.

        “Chlorine dioxide’s oxidation potential is .95 volts. Therefore it leaves healthy tissue intact, and is selective to oxidizing pathogens.”

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) July 13, 2015 at 20:03 #

        yeah, Kerri Rivera’s presentation is so much “science-y” sounding language that is in reality pure gibberish as to be amazing. But she sells it. People buy it. And believe that there’s science behind it.

    • Narad July 13, 2015 at 13:49 #

      I tried to keep things simple enough with references so that you might be able to comprehend basic Virology and how selective oxidation kills Anaerobic viruses

      I see that y’all had quite the lively poseur over the weekend.

    • Sullivan (Matt Carey) July 13, 2015 at 19:40 #

      In working on my 5 degrees in physics, with a focus on materials, I learned a fair amount of chemistry.

      Try arguing the facts rather than starting with an attack.

      Thing is, people can check my claims to education. They can’t check yours. And if you are educated as you claim and still support MMS, it just goes to show that people can suck all the way to a degree. Even an advanced degree.

      Even the Autism Research Institute, a group that is very, very pro alternative medicine, has come out against MMS.

      “Chlorine Dioxide kills 95% of all diseases”

      So does hydroflouric acid. People are not petri dishes. One doesn’t give people something just because it can “kill pathogens”. Also, one then has to explain the magic that MMS promoters put forth that Chlorine Dioxide somehow kills pathogens but doesn’t affect tissue at all. Especially given that it is expressly used for dissolving tissues (as the example above shows).

      “Chlorine dioxide does no damage to the human body”

      Oh, really? From the ARI link given above

      We simply cannot know what, if any, damage may occur in the long term. We have seen severe mineral deficiencies, malabsorption, loss of beneficial flora, and anemia in our patients who have undergone this treatment. The disruption of children’s gut epithelium and flora could have unforeseen consequences to their immune systems. At some point later in life, they may be also at higher risk for esophageal or stomach cancers, among other issues.

      ARI includes doctors who have recommended MMS to their patients. They’ve seen what it does. Hand wave all you want, but data trumps your assertions.

      “There is no dangerous liability to ingesting chlorine dioxide over an extended period of time.”

      Good. Come out from your pseudonym and guarantee that to all the people taking it because you are on the web making recommendations. You won’t.

      Let’s see, doctors are seeing mineral deficiencies (and these are doctors who monitor that sort of thing), anemia and more. Patients are passing the lining of their intestines. But somehow this doesn’t result in any long term effects according to you? OK, guarantee it.

      “MMS leaves no dangerous chemicals behind to cause side effects”

      Really? A material that can dissolve tissues leaves behind nothing. So, the broken down tissue doesn’t come into play in your equation, I take it.

      It is amazing that MMS supporters are so poorly informed, yet such cheerleaders.

      • Narad July 14, 2015 at 01:57 #

        It is amazing that MMS supporters are so poorly informed, yet such cheerleaders.

        I’ve pointed out before that if chlorine dioxide actually made it into the bloodstream, the first thing it would do is expend itself denaturing serum albumin. No imaginary “membrane potentials” required.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) July 14, 2015 at 20:20 #

        Yes, there is that “magic” that somehow MMS/Chlorine Dioxide will seek and destroy “pathogens” without ever interacting with the human body.

        J2/Max-Redder has shown us what the MMS proponents have: nothing. A lot of hand-waving and claims of expertise that don’t match their clear misunderstanding of the very “science” they claim supports their notions.

        The main point of the article above is simple–those who promote MMS lie. They claim that chlorine dioxide does not interact with tissue. Dose doesn’t come into play, MMS proponents claim no interaction. And they are wrong. No amount of B.S. about oxidation potentials changes that fact.

        There is zero support for the claim that MMS cures or treats anything. Unless you want to take the word of a “billion year old god” (which is what the inventor of MMS claims he is). That and testimonials by people like J2 who need to create sock puppets to support their arguments (hint to J2–high school students can spell better than your sock puppet. Your inserted misspellings just made that comment suspicious).

        So, what are they left with? Anecdotes (like the claim that a kid was recovered from autism that turned out to be a hoax). Countered by anecdotes from doctors who have found that kids “treated” with MMS end up with problems like anemia.

        But, wait! They can copy and paste entire pages of MMS support sites and then claim to be experts in virology, immunology and whatever else J2 laid claim to. Because that’s what it takes to make an expert in the MMS world: reading websites. Not understanding them, but reading them and copying them to other websites.

        The thing is, we’ve seen “J2” like people over and over on this article (now up to 550 comments). “Hey, I believe in MMS! Here are links to websites! Here’s a study that says people use it for water treatment. It’s a STUDY!!!!” And then ignore the side effects listed in the same studies they link to.

        The other thing that has been interesting in this discussion is how it has attracted people with no connection to the autism communities. Here we have an autism website, but MMS people seem to scour the web in order to beat down any criticism of their belief system. They are in the end defending an abusive treatment of disabled children by coming here. Of course they believe they are defending it for whatever other disease MMS is claimed to cure (and it doesn’t. It’s snake oil). But by coming here to an autism website, they are trying to create confusion and spread misinformation which will be read by parents of disabled children. It’s a shameful act.

        By the way, J2 would like you all to know that I am a bad person (a nut or something along those lines) and that we should all believe because he can link over and over to the same water treatment studies. And that his sock puppet is his kid, hence the same IP address. While I don’t really believe J2, it doesn’t really matter. We already know J2 is less than honest, posing as having expertise which s/he clearly lacks. Copying a wall of text from an MMS support website and claiming it’s his/her own explanation (for those of us too ignorant to understand) is pretty classic trolling.

        Anyone want to bet on how long before the next MMS proponent steps up fill the comments here some more?

    • Sullivan (Matt Carey) July 13, 2015 at 20:35 #

      J2 tells us about how he is very well educated and ” I don’t have a lot of time or patience for the ignorant, so I will just lay out 4 simple points.”

      It’s always interesting to see where “walls of text” are, in fact, copied from other places. J2 had so little time he just copied and pasted.

      http://realrawfood.com/fda-data-proves-mms-kills-diseases

      and elsewhere.

      One finds that MMS arguments are usually copied and pasted. One can find many of the supposed “scientific” claims word for word on dozens of sites.

      “To sum it up, this information is just the tip of the spear that breaks down your arguments. I tried to keep things simple enough with references so that you might be able to comprehend basic Virology and how selective oxidation kills Anaerobic viruses and bacteria. If you would like to respond I will gladly reply as long as you do not make statements that have no scientific knowledge behind them, that’s just irritating.”

      Perhaps if you demonstrated actual understanding rather than just the ability to use ^C and ^V, you could start disparaging others as being “irritating”.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) July 13, 2015 at 21:38 #

        In case it isn’t clear from my comment above: J2/”Max Redder” tolled us hard. S/He is likely a believer in MMS, but s/he just took blocks of text from the web and packaged them with phrases amounting to “I’m an expert” and “I’m talking down to you”. S/he followed this up with rapid fire responses, creating the sort of smoke screen diversion that MMS supporters (and others) like. The goal: leave the average reader thinking, “hey, there is an argument here. Perhaps this isn’t total nonsense”.

        Credit where credit is due: J2 did a great job trolling. And creating enough noise to confuse people.

        Sadly, MMS *is* total nonsense. Worse, it’s harmful total nonsense.

  36. Jed July 24, 2015 at 20:30 #

    I have personally researched and explored the use of CD – it does work to wipe out infections and is relatively safe when used in proper very low concentrations (the concentrations this article claims to be dangerous are way above the concentrations that are used therapeutically; it’s like comparing hydrogen peroxide from the drug store to extra-diluted food grade hydrogen peroxide – which is actually a less safe oxidative agent than CD). I personally find it to be safer and more effective than pharmaceutical antibiotics, yet I don’t see the fools running this website attacking antibiotics and telling people to never use them. As with any medicinal substance that has strong properties you wouldn’t find in regularly consumed foods or beverages, you need to use it wisely and with proper caution. That doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be used, and with people with particular medical conditions it is often necessary to use something with strong properties to reverse a state or condition that has developed.

    • Lawrence July 24, 2015 at 20:31 #

      And this has to do with treating Autism with MMS, how exactly?

    • Paul Monks July 24, 2015 at 23:01 #

      I agree with many of the ‘positive’ comments here regarding CDS (MMS). Having taken literally hundreds of anti-biotics for a bad recurring ecoli and bacterial infection in my kidney and urinary tract over the past 3 years, I stumbled across CDS (MMS). I thought “what the heck”…the doctors aren’t curing me by pumping me with anti-biotics and being hospitalised 3 times in the last 3 years, I was feeling pretty low.

      In March this year, I started off with 5 drops of CDS twice a day in a glass of water and quickly moved up to 15 drops twice a day in a glass of water.

      I have been taking 15 drops now for a few months and I have NOT had a recurrence of my kidney/uti infection. Also I was getting really bad thrush with taking all those anti-biotics and now NO THRUSH at all….HOOOORAYYY!

      I am not selling CDS (MMS) or promoting it, but all I know is that it has sorted out my debilitating/painful and recurring kidney/uti infection!!

      I am now taking a maintenance dose of 10 drops of CDS twice a day and I will do that for the next few months and then I will cut down to 5 drops twice a day thereafter.

      Thank you CDS (MMS)…I can get on with my life again!!

      • Gray Falcon July 25, 2015 at 02:11 #

        There were plenty of personal testimonials to the effectiveness of nineteenth century patent remedies. They were mostly alcohol. We need better than that.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) July 28, 2015 at 18:58 #

        Yes, another unsubstantiated testimonial for bleach as medicine. I’ve seen testimonials saying that just about anything is medicine. Anyone can write a testimonial.

        So, since you want to put your “HOORAY” in all caps:

        HOOORAY!!! PEOPLE ARE FORCING DISABLED CHILDREN TO DRINK BLEACH!!!! HOOORAY! TWICE DAILY BLEACH ENEMAS FOR AUTISTIC CHILDREN!

        Because that’s what you are doing here promoting this junk on a disability focused website. You are supporting the abuse of disabled children.

        Go ahead and convince yourself that this nonsense is medicine. But when you defend this junk on a disability website, you are part of a big problem.

    • Sullivan (Matt Carey) July 28, 2015 at 19:00 #

      “I have personally researched and explored the use of CD ”

      And where is this “research” published?

      I don’t think you understand the term “research” in the context of promoting medicine.

      Tell us how this supposedly cures autism, as this is an autism focused website. I’ll wait. Give us your “research” that substantiates the abuse of disabled children with twice daily bleach enemas. I’ll wait. And, please, do it without using fake testimonials.

  37. hnb July 29, 2015 at 17:32 #

    I was able to STOP my father’s Leukemia in 2 weeks and completely eliminate it in 2 months, using 2ml of 1200ppm CDS in 2 X 500ml bottles of water (1 ml each). I don’t know were some idiots like the poster get their data, but CDS kills the crap out of almost every non human (or non healthy human) cell. Caners, parasites, bacteria, viruses, etc. Its process is simple, it oxidizes anything with a PH value lower than the normal alkaline. The doctors gave my father 2 months to live, tops. Today, he has NOTHING and is alive and kicking at 71 for 3 years now, with more damage done by the crap he loves to eat, than the CDS or even the Chemo the dumb doctors gave him. I speak from experience. I don’t care about what others think. If your ass is on the line and have exhausted all the stupid “scientific” experiments of the medical “profession”, you’ll thank the universe that Jim Humble and Andreas Kalcker gave the recipe and method for free. And if you are THAT stupid to believe that people drink bleach that turns into salt in the body, then next time read the manual of RADIO ACTIVE “therapy” and good luck to you.

    • Thomas July 29, 2015 at 20:27 #

      Just the thing we were all wanting: an anonymous report of a miracle cure from a potty mouthed shill.

    • novalox July 30, 2015 at 09:26 #

      @hnb

      Hmm… who should I believe, the actual scientific evidence and science that shows that MMS is worthless, or an apparent troll and MMS shill with a penchant for ad hominems and nothing to prove his/her/its point….

      I think the answer is obvious.

    • Sullivan (Matt Carey) July 31, 2015 at 03:16 #

      I was able to bring peace to the middle east with MMS. 2 drops daily for each country and soon everyone was getting along. Compare that to fighting ISIS, will ya?

      See how easy it is to write a testimonial?

  38. Anastasia July 31, 2015 at 23:39 #

    (NaturalNews) The same organization that has been trying to shut down chiropractic since at least the 1960s is now going after medical professionals like Dr. Mehmet Oz who have the opportunity to speak on television about the latest advancements in medicine. The American Medical Association (AMA) used the words “actively defend” to describe the intent of its new guidelines for the medical profession that threaten to muzzle progressive doctors from exercising their freedom of speech on the national stage.

    For a group whose professional membership represents a mere 17 percent of all medical doctors, the AMA sure has a lot of gall trying to police the entire medical industry with its own opinions on science. The AMA apparently sees itself as the gatekeeper of all scientific knowledge even though the group maintains an ironic position of clinging to the most outmoded dinosaur science at the expense of medical progress.

    According to the Alliance for Natural Health USA (ANH-USA), the AMA, responding to a recent proposal by a handful of medical students, has decided to make some changes to its official policies on medical ethics. Clearly a reactionary move in response to Dr. Oz blowing the lid on glyphosate causing cancer in humans, the policy changes are directed at “celebrity” doctors who have a mass media platform to influence public opinion.

    As explained by ANH-USA, the proposal targets “quack MDs” — which is really code for doctors who aren’t persuaded to toe the official line on pharmaceuticals and vaccines — using gag order tactics. The AMA plans to “…create ethical guidelines for physicians in the media, write a report on how doctors may be disciplined for violating medical ethics through their press involvement, and release a public statement denouncing the dissemination of dubious medical information through the radio, TV, newspapers, or websites.”

    In other words, the AMA wants to play nanny state by controlling what doctors say under threat of punishment. If a doctor citing the latest science decides to blow the lid on MMR vaccines causing autism, for example, he or she could face “discipline,” as the AMA puts it, for “violating medical ethics.”

    Write to the AMA and demand that they stop trying to suppress freedom of speech in medicine!
    It’s completely unreasonable for the AMA — which is the fifth largest lobbyist on Capitol Hill, by the way — to declare itself the pinnacle of all things related to medical truth. The AMA, in case you weren’t aware, is nothing more than a membership-based medical organization that represents just one segment of conventional medical thought.

    The vast majority of doctors aren’t even members of the AMA, and yet the AMA believes that it should have the special privilege of being able to tell all doctors what they can and cannot say in the public sphere. This is the textbook definition of censorship, with the AMA acting as a fascist dictator in controlling the flow of medical propaganda.

    ANH-USA puts it this way:

    “…we believe in a free and open market when it comes to healthcare choices. By doing what it can to gag doctors’ free speech in the media, the AMA is indeed attempting to ‘defend the profession’ — albeit from competition and change, not from those it dismisses as ‘quacks.'”

    ANH-USA is urging the natural health community to contact the AMA and demand that it stop trying to suppress free speech and forward-thinking medicine. The group has created an Action Alert that you can use to contact the AMA and speak your mind

    Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/050573_AMA_doctor_censorship_progressive_physicians.html#ixzz3hVldqoIV

    • Sullivan (Matt Carey) August 1, 2015 at 01:20 #

      Cutting and pasting articles is not discussion.

      I will delete them in the future

  39. Anastasia July 31, 2015 at 23:46 #

    Why is the FDA Targeting this Specific Supplement that has Killed Nobody?

    While the product has apparently killed nobody, the FDA is claiming the product is dangerous, and has issued a warning on their website advising people not to take the product. They do not link to any studies or cases showing the dangers of the product, but only cite “According to FDA experts….”

    This is a similar tactic the FDA used in late 2014 when they issued warnings regarding essential oils, and sent warning letters to the two largest network marketing essential oil distribution companies in the U.S. (See: FDA Targets Essentials Oils: Sees EOs as Threat to New Ebola Drugs?) While these essential oils companies have been around for many years now, it appears the timing of the FDA attack coincided with the current development of new Ebola drugs and vaccines, and health claims made by essential oils distributors for supposed effectiveness in treating Ebola.

    So what about MMS?

    According to the MMS Defense Fund site, several pharmaceutical companies have already started drug trials on similar products to MMS:

    It was no surprise then when, in June of 2013 (after the arrests), sodium chlorite suddenly received “orphaned drug status” in the EU for the treatment of ALS (Lou Gehrig’s Disease). See Sodium Chlorite (NP001) Receives Orphaned “Drug” Status in the European Union.

    It was also no surprise to find that clinical studies were already under way for the use of sodium chlorite (designated “NP001″) in the treatment ofAlzheimer’s, Multiple Sclerosis, and Parkinson’s.

    Neither was it a surprise to find numerous patents – many based on clinical studies – for the use of acidified sodium chlorite in the safe and effective treatment of HIV, dermatologic and inflammatory diseases, infectious diseases, cancers, and diabetic ulcers, to name a few. See also, Immunokine designated “WF10“.

    More recently, the U.S. military has turned to sodium chlorite to generate chlorine dioxide (ClO2) to fight the spread of dread Ebola.

    Ebola Vaccines and Drugs: The Next Big Market for Pharmaceutical Products?

    The deadly Ebola virus was headline news for many weeks towards the end of 2014, in spite of the fact that most of the deaths have occurred in Africa, and not in the U.S. Is Ebola a threat to the U.S.? For a very informative investigative piece of writing on this topic, see John P. Thomas’ article: Similarities Between 1976 Swine Flu Hoax and Ebola?

    Just last week, child protection services in Arkansas obtained a warrant to search the home of a family homeschooling their 7 children, and then removed all seven children from the custody of the parents.

    What was the crime of the parents? They had a bottle of MMS in the house. The father claims he was the only one using it, and none of the children ever used it (story here.)
    Health Freedom in America Under Attack

    police-authorities

    Should a peaceful homeschool family who has reportedly never had any problems with the law lose their children because the FDA has not approved a supplement found in their home that the children reportedly do not even use?

    Should Daniel Smith be facing 37 years in prison for selling a product that tens of thousands of people around the world have claimed has improved their health? Should he be under house arrest and required to wear a government monitoring device around his ankle as he has for the past two years??

    I’m attaching a photo of this clever device, which assures the government I am safe and sound in my home every night between 10:00 P.M. and 6:00 A.M. In the beginning, it insured that I never left home at all – not even to the grocery. Other than keeping me from going swimming with the kids, I hardly notice its there anymore. This device communicates with an alien-looking GPS-device that sits on top of our piano. (Source.)

    ankle-device-monitor

    Photo by Daniel Smith.

    Wake up America! Your freedoms are being eroded more and more every day while a compliant public stands by and does nothing.
    Read more about Daniel Smith and MMS.

    See Also:
    Arkansas Takes Away 7 Homeschool Children because Father had Unapproved Mineral Supplement

    Global Censorship of Health Information
    The Politics of Controlling Therapeutic Information to Protect State-Sponsored Drug Monopolies

    by Attorney Jonathan Emord
    – See more at: http://healthimpactnews.com/2015/fda-attacks-man-for-selling-supplement-that-has-healed-tens-of-thousands-facing-37-years-in-prison/#sthash.0uHwxcXe.dpuf

    • Narad August 1, 2015 at 01:00 #

      There’s no need to forfeit twice.

  40. sam Little September 19, 2015 at 20:25 #

    For your information, the exact same thing as mms is sold as water purification drops in large retail stores for hiking, and camping etc. You don’t see people attacking them or even the FDA or saying it is unsafe to use.

    • Sullivan (Matt Carey) September 19, 2015 at 20:30 #

      Really?

      So, do people go to camping stores, buy this and give it as repeated enemas to disabled children?

    • Sullivan (Matt Carey) September 19, 2015 at 20:39 #

      You mean like this?

      Which comes with this warning

      “This item contains hazardous or flammable materials and is restricted to surface shipping only. Cannot be sent to Alaska, Hawaii, APO, FPO or international addresses”

      And these comments

      Features the same proven technology used in municipal water supplies; effective against viruses, bacteria, Giardia and Cryptosporidium
      Requires a 4 hr. treatment time to kill contaminants
      Each tablet is individually wrapped and sealed
      Unopened Potable Aqua tablets that are stored at temperatures between 60 and 86°F should remain effective up to 4 years
      Exposure to heat, humidity, moisture and air will reduce the effectiveness of the tablets

      You see–you use the tablets, you *wait* for hours for it to disinfect the water and, this is important–the ClO2 dissipates, then you drink the water.

      So, with MMS, do you wait for the ClO2 to dissipate? Of course not.

      So, are they the same thing? NO.

  41. shay September 24, 2015 at 17:05 #

    Sam, as a Red Cross volunteer I can assure you that bleach can be used to purify drinking water after a disaster but the dilution is 2 drops of bleach per quart of water.

  42. Mama Fen September 28, 2015 at 18:48 #

    I manage a small company that sells chlorine dioxide as a disinfectant and oxidizing deodorizer to restoration companies. This hopefully allows me to present some facts on the stuff from an unbiased and strictly scientific standpoint.

    Like any other chemical, when used properly and according to scientific tested standards, it is beneficial in hazmat situations. And like any other chemical, if it is used improperly or in a way for which it is not labeled, it can be dangerous (indeed, fatal).

    Any strong oxidizing agent has the potential to cause harm to living things because of the simple chemistry of HOW OXIDATION WORKS.

    Chlorine dioxide’s unusual resonant pair structure (the shared electrons resonate between their parent atoms – thus it actually only exists in molecular pairs, not as single molecules) allows it to be used in both a gaseous state and a liquid state – it stays suspended in liquid as a gas. It also means that ClO2 decomposes very rapidly due to its instable structure.

    At concentrations above 10% gas phase, it becomes highly combustible (read: EXPLOSIVE). At lower concentrations, it is an effective deodorizer and pairing agent against biological malodors like putrefaction, mercaptans, mycotoxins, smoke/soot, and effluvium. (To us laymen, that means dead body, skunk, musty funk, cigarette, and poop/pee/vomit smells.)

    In liquid form, it acts as a strong antimicrobial agent. Since the human body carries oxygen through the blood, chances of chlorine dioxide causing energetic and catastrophic damage to blood-enriched tissues are very high when tissue is exposed at high concentrations – in other words, if it is taken internally. Furthermore, the presence of strong acids like stomach acid can speed up the oxidation reaction.

    It is considered a “good” chemical to use for bleaching pulp and for processing of fresh fruits because the reaction is very quick and the chemical is used up rapidly by atmospheric oxygen. Much like hydrogen peroxide, ClO2 off-gasses and is used up by atmospheric compounds so that it essentially becomes inert at background levels.

    Putting a concentrated form of chlorine dioxide in the body for an extended period of time, however, does not allow for this off-gassing and results in toxic chlorine buildup as well as oxidation damage. This is why the waiting period between water treatment and water use is crucial and is part of the EPA’s standard practice for ALL treatment plants that utilize ClO2 in their processing.

    ClO2 is a useful tool when used in its intended manner. It is a toxin, a poison, and a deadly substance when abused. Internal use of this chemical has been proven time and time again by independent laboratories to be harmful. Dilution and sale for said internal use by non-medical personnel is harmful, foolish, and will hopefully be illegal soon.

  43. Nathan Millicheap September 30, 2015 at 10:54 #

    enough about children… theres no hope for them, we wrecked the world for them with our adult rubbish. I have used mms 1000s of times and i run a chainsaw 10 hours a day… have never cut my self once.

    • Monica ileas FerrAn November 25, 2016 at 04:57 #

      Why is big pharma medicating little children with psychotic drugs? Young people , America has more open fire on kids in schools than any other country in the world, they never mention these children are medicated, so sad, so evil, why do psychiatrist not cure anyone? my best friend’s son . was medicated, was told he needed to be confined, she refused, researched with a good dr, he takes nianimamide b3, off medications! IT was awefull to watch how horrendous he became with everyday he took that medicine, they changed it, made him worse and worse!!!! Trouble is over, with B3,,,, now that is one very safe vitamin. Maybe there is some things I would definitely try before drugs and the truth more and more people are, no stopping now it seems, even some drs are turning to alternative. Here in south america they even make a lot more money too . This boyfinished high school, he has a nice girl, a nice family and a job, I know him since he is a baby, so I know what this family went thru. Most of all, they are quite strong in the faith, so tonight we, them sleep in peace, can you? Sleep with yourself tonight, if you can………happy thanksgiving. PS! My apologies for my second language . Night night,

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) November 28, 2016 at 20:13 #

        The question above is “why is little pharma selling abusive fake treatments like bleach enemas to be used on disabled children?”

        Perhaps you should address that, rather than trying to divert the discussion.

      • wzrd1 November 30, 2016 at 15:42 #

        “Big pharma” medicates nobody, physicians prescribe medications.

        America has more open fire on kids in schools than any other country in the world

        I’ll address that when you switch to any form of English that you choose to use, as that made absolutely no frigging sense whatsoever.
        Indeed, why should we take medical advice from someone who is obviously illiterate?

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. If MMS, CD, chlorine dioxide, “parasite protocol” is safe, why does ClO2 dissolve tissue? | fatheroftheaspiesmovement - January 15, 2015

    […] If MMS, CD, chlorine dioxide, “parasite protocol” is safe, why does ClO2 dissolve tissue…. […]

  2. All About Herpes Protocol – ABC-English | Herpes Survival Kit - February 19, 2015

    […] Mark L. Schiller Sells 7,000 Shares of Pinnacle Foods Stock (PF) – SleekmoneyAdvanced BioFuels USAIf MMS, CD, chlorine dioxide, “parasite protocol” is safe, why does ClO2 dissolve tissuebody { background: […]

  3. Vaccine Injury Stories | 61chrissterry - April 22, 2015

    […] resources that must be used convincing parents that vaccines are safe and proving that quack treatments don’t work and aren’t […]

  4. Kids are Getting Bleach Shoved Up Their Asses! | Nikki From Queens - May 22, 2015

    […] https://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2015/01/15/if-mms-cd-chlorine-dioxide-parasite-protocol-is-safe-why… […]

  5. Ozone Generator Kill Bed Bugs In Grand Park Fl | Pest Control Jacksonville FL - August 31, 2015

    […] If MMS, CD, chlorine dioxide, “parasite protocol” is safe, why does ClO2 dissolve tissue? – So, it would take about 4 times as much chlorine dioxide solution at this concentration to kill a rat as thimerosal. The thing is, people don’t drink thimerosal solutions. Or do so repeatedly. People are encouraged to drink MMS. Consider what happens if … […]

  6. MMS - Ei saa mitte vaikida - Liina's World - October 7, 2015

    […] Siit saab veel lugeda huvitavat artiklit antud teemal. Ka selle artikli kirjutaja mõtles kas tegemist ikkagi on kloordioksiidiga. Lihtne katse – valades MMSi tumedale riidetükile pleekub see ära nagu pesuvalgendiga. Asi paistab olevat ilmselge. Artiklis uurivad nad veel kas see ikka saab olla ohutu ning kirjutavad teemal – kloordioksiid lahustab orgaanilisi kudesid. Sellel teemal on ka tehtud mitmeid uuringuid ja kudesid ta tõesti lahustab, lausa imeväel. Sellest saab veel lugeda siit. […]

  7. Master Mineral Solution podvod a zdravotní rizika | Planetární Civilizace - October 13, 2015

    […] https://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2015/01/15/if-mms-cd-chlorine-dioxide-parasite-protocol-is-safe-why… […]

Comments are closed.