Bad news for MMS users, er um, consumers

Topics with information and discussion about unconventional diagnostic and treatment methods, and unconventional views.
cave76
Posts: 3182
Joined: Sun 12 Aug 2007 2:27

Re: Bad news for MMS users, er um, consumers

Post by cave76 » Wed 30 Apr 2008 23:17

Mr Humble said:
FOR 100 YEARS CHLORINE DIOXIDE HAS BEEN USED TO STERILIZE HOSPITAL FLOORS, AND BENCHES, STERILIZE MEAT IN SLAUGHTER YARDS, AND CHICKEN SLAUGHTER HOUSES, AND KILL PATHOGENS IN THOUSANDS OF WATER PURIFICATION PLANTS.
He seems to not find that statement a bit er, um, ahem "curious" and thinks THAT is proof that people should drink it? :bonk: :bonk:

Thank you, Mr. User #96341 :), for fighting the valiant fight. But how does one fight with a person who can't even see the flaw in that statement?

Oh, My! :bonk: :bonk:

Martian
Posts: 1944
Joined: Thu 26 Jul 2007 18:29
Location: Friesland, the Netherlands

Re: Bad news for MMS users, er um, consumers

Post by Martian » Thu 1 May 2008 0:32

cave76 wrote:Mr Humble said:
FOR 100 YEARS CHLORINE DIOXIDE HAS BEEN USED TO STERILIZE HOSPITAL FLOORS, AND BENCHES, STERILIZE MEAT IN SLAUGHTER YARDS, AND CHICKEN SLAUGHTER HOUSES, AND KILL PATHOGENS IN THOUSANDS OF WATER PURIFICATION PLANTS.
He seems to not find that statement a bit er, um, ahem "curious" and thinks THAT is proof that people should drink it?
That does not seem to be the case, his point came in the sentence directly following the quote:
allegedly Mr. Humble wrote:DURING THE 100 YEARS NO KNOWN PATHOGEN HAS EVER DEVELOPED A RESISTANCE TO CHLORINE DIOXIDE.
Alleged Mr. Humble may be right here, just as alleged Mr. Humble is right that Mr. 96341 is wrong with his statement that the stomach does not absorb nutritions.

cave76
Posts: 3182
Joined: Sun 12 Aug 2007 2:27

Re: Bad news for MMS users, er um, consumers

Post by cave76 » Thu 1 May 2008 0:57

DURING THE 100 YEARS NO KNOWN PATHOGEN HAS EVER DEVELOPED A RESISTANCE TO CHLORINE DIOXIDE.
I don't know if that's in vitro or in vivo. Can a pathogen develop resistance to something in vitro?

Fin24
Posts: 1699
Joined: Sat 8 Mar 2008 20:14

Re: Bad news for MMS users, er um, consumers

Post by Fin24 » Thu 1 May 2008 4:32

wow that Mr 96341 was on the mark!!!

imagine Humble feeling so threatened that he graced that poster with a personal response...MAYBE

some of the other threads allege that it wasnt Humble at all but a follower doing his bidding hmmmm


as for the Humble explanations, the same poster reposted back with ample evidence backing everything ( including that except for a very rare occurrence of small lipid soluble molecules crossing the gastric mucosa and alcohols, no "nutrients" are absorbed thru stomach, and not until the intestines)--and that poster even thanked Jimmy for admitting the acid/alkaline thing was BUNK and then asked where was the explanation of "herx" vs gastric irritation caused by the chemical itself??

and btw IF CLO2 can work under the wide range of PH as Humble stated then why all the worries about Ph of solution and what;s used to mix it with???

and I still want to know why all the talk from those selling it, about acid/alkaline and aerobic vs anearobic if that has nothing to do with MMS?
MMS IS VERY ACIDIC WHEN IT ENTERS THE BODY
MMS IS ACIDIC WHEN IT ENTERS THE BODY, BUT THE CHLORINE DIOXIDE THAT DOES THE WORK IS NOT ACIDIC

Jims MMS website states
When Miracle Mineral Solution is activated such as detailed in Jim Humble's protocol (1:5 drop solution using vinegar with 5% acetic acid or greater, lemon or lime juice, or a 10% solution of citric acid), the chemical compound chlorine dioxide is produced.
then youre supposed to drink after waiting some time pd.


ok so WHAT exactly is entering the body now??? the acidic MMS OR the non acidic CLO2??? they want you to activate the MMS and wait so it forms CLO2 and then drink, right??

what am I missing with this double talk??? any help??

and from a pro MMS site selling it
The chlorine dioxide equipped
cells do not oxidize beneficial bacteria, or healthy cells, as their pH levels
are 7 or above, and hold a negative ion charge.
so tell me again how no one is using PH and acid/alkaline to explain the product??

anyway I am sooo impressed with that poster!!!

Finette

biosafe
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat 26 Apr 2008 8:25

Re: Bad news for MMS users, er um, consumers

Post by biosafe » Thu 1 May 2008 15:55

Hi Martin, I'm Bruce refered to in curezone post's, #96341 did reply to what you cut and pasted, debunking Humbles rubbish again.
Here, like everywhere else I openly chalange Humble or his brainless group to a public debate on MMS protocol. I will prove it is wrong and dangerous.
FACT:
Now some are confused with ppm mentioned, so I will explain.

Humbles protocol states you will be taking 1ppm of chlorine dioxide.

Example using MMS and 250ml glass.
Each drop of MMS will produce approx 45ppm of chlorine dioxide
2 drops will produce 90ppm of chlorine dioxide
6 '' '' '' 270ppm '' '' ''
15 '' '' '' 675ppm '' '' ''

How do any of you believe what is being told when this is a fact.


These amounts of 0.03ppm long term and 0.1 are set down for peoples safety!

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has established recommended exposure limits (Rules) for chlorine dioxide of ppm (0.3 mg/m(3) as a TWA for up to a 10-hour workday and a hour workweek and a short-term exposure limit (STEL) of 0.3 ppm (0.9 mg/m(3)) [NIOSH 1992].

The American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) has assigned chlorine dioxide threshold limit values (TLVs) of 0.1 ppm mg/m(3)) as a TWA for a normal 8-hour workday and a 40-hour workweek and a short-term exposure limit (STEL) of 0.3 ppm (0.83 mg/m(3)) for periods not to exceed 15 minutes. Exposures at the STEL concentration should not be repeated more than four times a day and should be separated by intervals of at least 60 minutes [ACGIH 1994, p. 15]. Rationale for Limits


Chlorine dioxide is a severe respiratory and eye irritant in humans. Inhalation can produce coughing, wheezing, respiratory distress, and congestion in the lungs [Patnaik 1992]. Irritating effects in humans was intense at concentration levels of 5 ppm. Accidental exposure at 19 ppm of the gas inside a bleach tank resulted in the death of one worker (time of exposure is not specified) [ACGIH 1991]. Workers exposed for 5 years to average chlorine dioxide concentrations below 0.1 ppm but with excursions to higher concentrations had symptoms of eye and throat irritation, nasal discharge, cough, and wheezing; on bronchoscopy, bronchitis was observed in seven of the 12 workers [Clayton and Clayton 1982]. Concentrations of 0.25 ppm and less have been reported to worsen mild respiratory ailments [ACGIH 1991]. Two adults who ingested 250 ml of a 40 mg/l solution of chlorine dioxide experienced headache, nausea, abdominal discomfort, and lightheadedness within 5 minutes of ingestion. The symptoms disappeared within another 5 minutes.

Regards Bruce.

cave76
Posts: 3182
Joined: Sun 12 Aug 2007 2:27

Re: Bad news for MMS users, er um, consumers

Post by cave76 » Sat 3 May 2008 4:48

I'm still confused as to how one can compare all the industrial uses for chlorine dioxide, the ppm's the percentages etc---- with that of what our Not So Humble Humble says' is 'safe' for ingestion.

I personally don't believe that MMS is safe. But, obviously it doesn't kill every person that sips a little bit. I wouldn't do it, though.

But in order to disprove the MMS scam, just repeating what the industrial standards are (usually inhalation or skin contact) doesn't discredit Mr Humble. [Who would have thought that somebody would ever seriously consider selling it to drink----- and to SICK people no less! :bonk: ]

Just reading about Mr Humble Humble is enough to make one realize that his 'cure' isn't based on anything that can be believed by a thinking person.

minitails2
Posts: 1001
Joined: Sat 3 Nov 2007 10:27

Re: Bad news for MMS users, er um, consumers

Post by minitails2 » Sun 4 May 2008 14:46

I would guess that the poster on curezone was addressing the many different aspects of the ph issue because whether or not Mr. Humble agrees with the current baseless fad of blaming an acidic environment in our bodies for creating ill health, many of his supporters and sellers are very vocal about it in their support.

As described by the poster, one of the reasons often given to explain how ClO2 improves health, is because it works best in an ill, acidic environment. Mr. Humble generally says very little about MMS directly, and instead relies upon various "charitable" organizations as well as sellers, and operators of supportive websites to spread the word. If you read what he wrote in his reply carefully, in addition to numerous denials, he provided very few verifiable facts, and instead pointed to vaguely referenced "studies," claims of successes which are impossible to verify, and a number of personal attacks.

He wrote:
MMS IS ACIDIC WHEN IT ENTERS THE BODY, BUT THE CHLORINE DIOXIDE THAT DOES THE WORK IS NOT ACIDIC. IN FACT, I CAN SAY THAT ACID OR ALKALINE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.
His response seems to make sense on this one, but if MMS is turned into ClO2 ("activated"), and the person taking it is instructed to wait two different times in the preperation period precisely to allow the chemical reaction to take place, then whatever people are taking, should not be acidic or else it isn't ClO2.

The ClO2 molecule, as I understand it, is, as Humble says in his response, a neutral molecule. Water soluble molecules, such as ClO2, tend to be neutral. (I believe this is why the poster mentions lipids or fats). However, he's trying to have it both ways. Humble states that stomach acid and an acidic environment in general have little if any effect on MMS, but also states that the MMS is acidic when ingested, but that could only be true if whatever is consumed is not ClO2 because, as I mentioned ClO2 is neutral. According to Humble, however, whatever is being ingested creates ClO2 in the body. Where is the acid coming from that is creating a continuing reaction? Or alternatively, where is the necessary NaClO2 coming from?

Also, Humble said:
...THE STOMACH WALLS DO INDEED ADSORB QUITE A FEW NUTRIENTS....
and it was mentioned in a subsequent post that was possibly true.

It does seem, prima facia, to be correct but also extremely vague. Just to clarify, here are some medical definitions:

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/gut
gut (gt) n.
1. The alimentary canal or a portion thereof, especially the intestine or
stomach.
2. The embryonic digestive tube, consisting of the foregut, the midgut, and the
hindgut.
3. guts The bowels; entrails; viscera.
Obviously, the stomach is part of a much larger disgestive system.

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictio ... absorbtion
absorption /ab·sorp·tion/ (-sorp´shun)
1. the uptake of substances INTO OR ACROSS TISSUES [my caps]
4. in chemistry, the penetration of a substance within the inner structure of
another.

intestinal absorption: the uptake from the intestinal lumen of fluids, solutes,
proteins, fats, and other nutrients into the intestinal epithelial cells, blood,
lymph, or interstitial fluids.
and

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictio ... metabolism
metabolism /me·tab·o·lism/ (me-tab´o-lizm)
1. the sum of all the physical and chemical processes by which living organized substance is produced and maintained (anabolism), and also the transformation by
which energy is made available for the uses of the organism (catabolism).
ClO2 is not a nutrient.

The reason I capitalized "into or across tissues" is because ClO2 is not absorbed INTO cell, but across it.
What that means is that ClO2 is NOT METABOLIZED into cells, as Humble himself alludes to when he says that ClO2 crashes into the cell wall. Nutrients, fats, etc are absorbed via metabolism and create what is needed by our bodies to live.

Finally:
1. Either people are causing a reaction that turns NaClO2 (and about 3% of who knows what) into ClO2 and are then creating a neutral molecule before ingestion.
2. The reaction creating ClO2 is incomplete for whatever reason (not enough time, not enough acid) and what they are ingesting is acidic but not all ClO2.
3. How does a supposedly neutral solution of ClO2 continue to be created in vivo, especially since Humble has taken special pains to point out that the stomach is not a very acidic place to be.
4. Vitimin C pairs with the extra electron or free radical, and even in the best of circumstances, that juice people are told to take to get this solution down, would change the reaction again.

None of this may have any effect on how a ClO2 molecule behaves in vitro, but there are simply no studies that demonstrate anything but the absorbtion of ClO2 can take place. There are none that describe what it does once it's been absorbed.

billboo
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri 22 Jan 2010 13:05

Re: Bad news for MMS users, er um, consumers

Post by billboo » Fri 22 Jan 2010 13:11

Watch out for MMS ....... it's working and it's basically profit free.

The big fellas ain't game enough to credit it, yet they can't discredit it either, for fear of actually crediting it and creating the monster they fear the most ..... A CHEAP ALTERNATIVE to the pharmaceutical companies that rape your pockets.

minitails2
Posts: 1001
Joined: Sat 3 Nov 2007 10:27

Re: Bad news for MMS users, er um, consumers

Post by minitails2 » Sat 23 Jan 2010 9:20

billboo,
Please provide proof of your claim. Repeating what Jim Humble has said is not proof. I'm looking for studies that show that mms has improved the health of those who use it.

Thank you.

Fin24
Posts: 1699
Joined: Sat 8 Mar 2008 20:14

Re: Bad news for MMS users, er um, consumers

Post by Fin24 » Sun 24 Jan 2010 2:59

and Id like to see proof that it is truly "profit free"--including the "acidifiers" sold with it
thank you

Post Reply