The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Does sodium chlorite have healing powers?  (Read 137997 times)

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8655
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Does sodium chlorite have healing powers?
« Reply #25 on: 17/03/2009 20:54:41 »
Meanwhile, back on the planet earth.
It's been a while since I went to school.

Animal models used for testing are generally not exactly the same species as the human forms of the diseases- that's why they are models.
The particular parasite that infects humans doesn't generally infect other animals (whoever wrote the wiki page on malaria might be guilty of sloppy writing, but I don't think many people would have interpreted it the way you did) and the forms that infect other animals don't generally infect us. So what? The animal forms can still be used as a model, and they are.
Here's an example.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=347712
Now, from that article about malaria in mice it's pretty clear that mice get malaria.
From that it's pretty clear that your assertion that "malaria only affects humans" suffer somewhat from being totally at odds with reallity or, to put it bluntly, it's not true.

BTW, why did you bother to introduce the matter of carcinogenicity? Were you hoping that nobody would spot the blatant strawman or did you somehow think it would bolster your credibility?

« Last Edit: 17/03/2009 21:03:31 by Bored chemist »
 

Offline jeremiyah

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Does sodium chlorite have healing powers?
« Reply #26 on: 23/03/2009 08:55:19 »



   "If it worked then malaria would be extinct because this stuff is cheap and easy to get."
When was the last time you priced it? And successfully purchased some? NOT? NOT!



   "To put it bluntly, my own feeling about this sodium chlorite business is that it is a load of crap."  Where do "my own feeling" and "load of crap" enter into a "scientific" discussion? Your presupposition  that it is a  "load of crap" is based, not an educated hypothesis, followed by a series of double blind tests during which you compiled "empirical evidence" (ever heard the phrase before?) and proved or disproved your hypothesis, but rather on "my own feeling." Question; why do you write on this forum? You should be on a religion or psychology based forum- something where emotion,  and "touchy-feely" attitudes mean something. "Did you wake up feeling like this...what did you feel when you read about MMS?"
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
Does sodium chlorite have healing powers?
« Reply #27 on: 23/03/2009 09:21:59 »
   "To put it bluntly, my own feeling about this sodium chlorite business is that it is a load of crap."  Where do "my own feeling" and "load of crap" enter into a "scientific" discussion? Your presupposition  that it is a  "load of crap" is based, not an educated hypothesis, followed by a series of double blind tests during which you compiled "empirical evidence" (ever heard the phrase before?) and proved or disproved your hypothesis, but rather on "my own feeling." Question; why do you write on this forum? You should be on a religion or psychology based forum- something where emotion,  and "touchy-feely" attitudes mean something. "Did you wake up feeling like this...what did you feel when you read about MMS?"

Chris not mentioning the backing to his idea of this being "a load of crap" does not mean that he does not have good reason to think so.  Might I suggest that before you attack members of this forum in that way that you read their other posts so you will have a better idea of the attitudes of those you're attacking?

You could have asked Chris why he feels this way, and then he could have supplied the evidence or argument that led to his opinion.  Instead, you attacked him. This fosters bad feeling and will not encourage healthy discussion.

With my moderators hat on, I'd like to tell you that this is not how this forum works, and please refrain from personal attacks in the future.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8655
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Does sodium chlorite have healing powers?
« Reply #28 on: 23/03/2009 20:04:28 »



   "If it worked then malaria would be extinct because this stuff is cheap and easy to get."
When was the last time you priced it? And successfully purchased some? NOT? NOT!

  
Jeremiyah
What could that possibly have to do with the question?
I don't have a dog and I never have had.
Accordingly I have never priced dog food or successfully purchased any.
That state of affairs says nothing about the cost of dog food.

On the other hand I have made chlorite and, had you read this thread fully and understood it, you would have known that.

Turning up on the forum as a new member, insulting one of the people there and failing to even read what another had said is not a good start.
Incidentally, it's possible that Chris had read and understood what I had written and that might have led him to think that the idea o using the stuff is "a load of crap". Lets face it the evidence shows that it is "a load of crap" and you have done absolutely nothing to show otherwise.
 

Offline Raghavendra

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 835
  • Quantum
    • View Profile
    • Raghavendra
Does sodium chlorite have healing powers?
« Reply #29 on: 26/03/2009 07:47:45 »
It is used by village people [O8)] for small wounds !!!
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8655
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Does sodium chlorite have healing powers?
« Reply #30 on: 26/03/2009 21:02:19 »
 

Offline I

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Does sodium chlorite have healing powers?
« Reply #31 on: 12/05/2009 04:52:58 »
Hey,

someone already posted a link to the original Document of "The Great Humble", but as scripd-flashbook, so here's the link to the download of the pdf:
newbielink:http://www.miraclemineral.org/part1.php [nonactive]

although the last post is > a month back, I couldn't help but toss in my 2 cents.

a) Humble is indeed a Quack and for a big part has no clue what he's talking about, some of this is just rubbish, some could be, but is unsupported claim

b) I also think he's dangerous and unethical - if his claims are true that he gave that stuff to ten thousands of people, often causing vomiting and other rather drastic side-effects - I wonder how many people actually died of that treatment after he left (or perhaps while he was there, but of course those deaths weren't related to this medicine).

c) if you read his book, you see that he tells us he actually got the WHO to test his miracle medicine (page 80-82 in the document above) and it failed - now I'd love to see a detailed protocol on what he did). As a true believer, Humble of course totally ignores this result.

d) oh and the man is also an idiot (sorry for my clear language) - it's a good read, he claims to have paid some guys $14000 for writing... well, something like an internet-worm that "spreads the truth" by email... (page 31) oh well, read this if you need a good laugh.


on the other hand, I find this really has the potential to be an antibiotic, I'd say.
I think testtest quoted some reasonably decent sources that show that the stuff at least passes into the bloodstream, although  we don't know what tissues it penetrates (or doesn't). A 2-4 hours lifetime isn't so great either, but considering that it's a fairly reactive (and volatile) molecule, that's neither surprising, nor does it mean it doesn't have enough time to kill bugs.

If you look at toxicity ... well, it's a bit weird - Chloride dioxide is EU-classified as T+ "very toxic" ( newbielink:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorine_dioxide [nonactive] ), but if you look a bit further:

LD50    292 mg/kg (oral, rat)
German Wikipedia:
    * 1.550 mg/kg (rat, oral, 5%-ige Lsg)(5)
    * 292 mg/kg (rat, oral)(6)(7)
    * 260 ppm/2h (LCLo, rat, inh)(8)

1.5 g/kg rat if you feed it a 5% solution!! (I wonder what the  300mg/kg are... other than the values from the German Wikipedia, this value is unsourced - go to de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlordioxid for references 5,6,7 and 8)

German Wikipeida also writes how amazingly resistant vertebrae are against chlorine dioxide and claims that their tolerance is about twentyfold of what is used for water-disinfection - which is a concentration that is deemed high enough to leave you with pathogen-free water... (also look at
  • Abdel-Rahman 1982, as cited by testest - rats were fed 1000mg/l in their drinking water for 90 days and more - hard to say what absolute value that would be... how much does a rat drink? How did they insure that the concentration stays so high with a volatile molecule?)


Of course, the argument that other than in water, there are lots and lots more reactive chemicals within the human body  which might just inactivate it very rapidly holds. That it can damage red blood cells shows that it *can* pass into the bloodstream, although from what I've seen it's not clear if that happens at insane concentrations fed to rats, where it just oxidizes everything in the stomach/gut inside and lining (that can be oxidized by it), and this way passes to the blood.

And apropos reacting to blood cells - it cannot be reacting preferentially and fast with blood cells, else how could the mice have survived for 90 days with 1g/l in their drinking water (note that according to (0) their levels of red blood cells went down within 30 days, but then went up to normal again)?

Destruction of the molecule definitely happens at concentrations 60 ppm (1) ...
Water disinfection uses up to 0.2mg/l that would be ...

newbielink:http://www.google.com/#q=((0.2g)%2F(67.45+g%2Fmol))+%2F+(1kg%2F(18g%2Fmol))+*+1+million [nonactive]

would be 53 ppm, if I didn't make a typo there.

Well, seems if you want it to enter the bloodstream, you need lots more... (lets see what amounts that Humble chappie claims to have given people - I'll post when I find out).

Not so surprisingly, it _is_ effective as a mouth-wash, though... (and I think someone patented it for that application, but I can't come up with a reference right now).


I

-------------------------------------------------------

(0) Abdel-Rahman 1982: newbielink:http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1569035 [nonactive]

(1) newbielink:http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1474311 [nonactive]
 

Offline Observer

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 20
    • View Profile
Does sodium chlorite have healing powers?
« Reply #32 on: 21/05/2009 20:56:35 »
Bored chemist wrote "It doesn't work. Pity."

I followed this thread Bored chemist and I must say I was quite amused with the emotion with which you reacted. Throughout the thread you never really gave us any credible basis for your blunt put down. Even from a scientific perspective you offer no more evidence that mms doens't work than the so called quacks that claim that it does. Having said that it would make sense to me that the body would require a balance of both oxidents and anti-oxidents. Also from a non scientific standpoint but more a statistical one there sure are a lot of people out there in hundreds of different forums which have nothing to do with one another who are reporting positive results, some including very sound references. It is sad that medical cures must be "approved" by government organisations or administered by medical doctors in order to earn their credibility. I am new here and do not wish to offend anyone with my views. I am also presently using mms for hep c and from what I have read about Interferon I don't think I have made a bad choice. I will post my experience, be it good or bad, based on lab results before and after therapy.
Peace...
« Last Edit: 22/05/2009 10:32:36 by Observer »
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8655
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Does sodium chlorite have healing powers?
« Reply #33 on: 21/05/2009 22:14:36 »
Good luck.
 

Offline tris

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Does sodium chlorite have healing powers?
« Reply #34 on: 15/06/2009 04:22:49 »
Bored chemist wrote "It doesn't work. Pity."

I followed this thread Bored chemist and I must say I was quite amused with the emotion with which you reacted. Throughout the thread you never really gave us any credible basis for your blunt put down. Even from a scientific perspective you offer no more evidence that mms doens't work than the so called quacks that claim that it does. Having said that it would make sense to me that the body would require a balance of both oxidents and anti-oxidents. Also from a non scientific standpoint but more a statistical one there sure are a lot of people out there in hundreds of different forums which have nothing to do with one another who are reporting positive results, some including very sound references. It is sad that medical cures must be "approved" by government organisations or administered by medical doctors in order to earn their credibility. I am new here and do not wish to offend anyone with my views. I am also presently using mms for hep c and from what I have read about Interferon I don't think I have made a bad choice. I will post my experience, be it good or bad, based on lab results before and after therapy.
Peace...

Observer debate:

Observer: I Claim x
Adversary: Show evidence supporting your claim
Observer: No, you show evidence disproving my claim

That's not how it works, sport.

"Testimonials" are not evidence.
 

Offline Observer

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 20
    • View Profile
Does sodium chlorite have healing powers?
« Reply #35 on: 15/06/2009 11:11:01 »
Wrong: I claim nothing at all. My "claim" as I mentioned remains open until I have reported my own experience. On the other hand a blatant claim was made that mms does not work. I merely asked on what evidence this claim was made. Maybe you ought to read the complete thread before you attempt to analyse with false deduction "sport" :D
« Last Edit: 15/06/2009 11:23:25 by Observer »
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8655
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Does sodium chlorite have healing powers?
« Reply #36 on: 15/06/2009 19:00:38 »
Would all the people who keep telling me to provide evidence please read the thread.
In particular could they address the bit where I pointed out that "If it worked then malaria would be extinct because this stuff is cheap and easy to get."


Also I'd prefer if they answered without asking silly questions about whether or not I have personally purchased the stuff.

If this stuff killed malaria, then malaria would be extinct. Malaria isn't extinct therefore the stuff doesn't work.

Incidentally claiming that some gloop kills a disease is actualy the extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence.
 

Offline Observer

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 20
    • View Profile
Does sodium chlorite have healing powers?
« Reply #37 on: 16/06/2009 10:53:07 »
Bored Chemist wrote: "If this stuff killed malaria, then malaria would be extinct. Malaria isn't extinct therefore the stuff doesn't work." ???


I will have to disagree with your deduction too.
It could be acceptable something like this:

If this stuff killed malaria AND it was administered in all areas where malaria existed, then malaria would be extinct. Malaria isn't extinct therefore this stuff is not administered in all areas where malaria exists OR the stuff doesn't kill malaria.

Bored Chemist wrote:
"Incidentally claiming that some gloop kills a disease is actually the extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence."

I will have to agree 100% on this one but as I have already stated I claim absolutely nothing about the success mms has on killing disease. In all fairness though, one can make no claims that it does not work based on false or illogical deductions. 
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8655
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Does sodium chlorite have healing powers?
« Reply #38 on: 16/06/2009 19:32:32 »
OK, now explain why, given that the stuff is cheap and readilly available, it isn't "administered in all areas where malaria existed".
It can't be that it's too expensive.
It has nothing to do with "big pharma" or patents.
It's not a matter of "because it's not in the big fancy journals, nobody dares use it".

Now, I apologise for not adding this point explicitly to my argument earlier, but I thought it was too obvious to bother.
 

Offline Observer

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 20
    • View Profile
Does sodium chlorite have healing powers?
« Reply #39 on: 17/06/2009 08:01:12 »
Bingo!

OK- Now I think we’re getting somewhere. This is a viable explanation as to why mms is not administered everywhere malaria exists. One would at this point (especially a bored scientist) would have to raise the question why nobody dare use it. There could be several reasons for this (I am sure we could think of many more):

1.) It is not known in certain regions of the globe (especially regions where malaria is prevalent).
2.) It is not offered by the pharmaceutical industry.
3.) It is not approved by the FDA, etc.
4.) Death or serious illness result as a consequence of using sodium chlorite  [xx(]

I do not have the answers. I ran across this forum because I am searching for answers. I am neither defending nor rejecting “mms” at this point. I can, like you, and everybody else who is exchanging information just speculate:

1.) Not all regions of the globe have ready access to pertinent information, especially the internet. This would make it extremely difficult to “spread the word.”

2.) For whatever reason this may be. I don’t even want to speculate on this one.

3.) Ditto

4.) Could be, but if that was the case, I would assume we would be seeing a whole lot of negative reports slipping into the media. If this was the case I would be endangered myself as I have been taking mms for 3 weeks now and feel great. A comparison of my lab results before and after my self-administered therapy will reveal if there are healing powers (for me).
« Last Edit: 17/06/2009 08:03:37 by Observer »
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8655
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Does sodium chlorite have healing powers?
« Reply #40 on: 17/06/2009 19:38:25 »
Re "This is a viable explanation as to why mms is not administered everywhere malaria exists. "
No explanation was offered in that post.

An explanation was offered earlier (i.e. that it doesn't work) but you have rejected that.

Lets have a look at those 4 points again.
1 India has a significant malaria problem, a reasonably effetive government and enough links to the 'net (as well as other sources of information). Yet they too don't use this stuff.
One region of the world would do to prove the point.

2
You have proved that this is a red herring. Who cares what the pharmaceutical industry thinks? You take the stuff; so could others.

3
There might be a simple reason why it's not aproved, either it hasn't been tested or it has been tested and found to fail.

Most potential treatments don't get tested.
As far as I know nobody has ever tested rectally administered fishpaste, for example, as a cure for malaria. Nor has a double blind trial been done on blood letting by a leather clad virgin at the full moon.

There's a good reason why these sort of things don't get tried. It's because there's no reason to supose that they work.
You can't test everything.

Since the "evidence" for this stuff working is some quack saying that the stuff still works after you dissolve it in apple juice (which, in the real world, would destroy it) most people are not going to take that suggestion seriously. You can hardly blame the FDA and it's equivalents for doing so.

However
(here's the biggie) Doctors are permited to prescribe things that are not aproved by the FDA.

So, if they thought this stuff worked they would be duty bound to prescribe it.

4
It doesn't need to be very toxic to be not prescribed; a really good reason for not using it would be that it simply doesn't work.

Plenty of drugs (legal or otherwise) are responsible for lots of deaths; they still get used.

In order for chlorite to be used it would have to be effective and to offer benefits beyond the normal treatments.

And if you really believe that  "A comparison of my lab results before and after my self-administered therapy will reveal if there are healing powers (for me)." then you don't know a lot about drug testing.
 Spontaneous remission is not unheard of with hep c.
 

Offline Observer

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 20
    • View Profile
Does sodium chlorite have healing powers?
« Reply #41 on: 18/06/2009 07:24:56 »
Sorry for the typo. It should have read: "There is a viable explanation..."

But getting to the real point:

As I have stated time and again, I am looking for answers not silly assumptions and wannabe deductions. You don't have to feel obligated to give the answers if you can't provide them. You are of course like me and everybody else, entitled to your opinion though. Nothing wrong with that. I personally don't care for the way you attempt to dismiss the subject based solely on your opinions and I personally do not accept them. You may also put down conclusive lab results as not acceptable because of the fact that Hep C is known to be remissive. I would think that this should at least warrant a closer look as to why, just by sheer coincidence, it becomes spontaneously remissive after a sodium chlorite therapy. In the end, you may really be guessing right and there may be many many coincidences that would lead one to assume there is a benefit in chlorite effectively treating certain diseases. Nevertheless, should there be a positive development in my own lab results I will of course not put it down as coincidence. I will continue to search until I, for myself, have conclusive results. For all the others out there searching for answers maybe that would be just one little baby step in gaining momentum towards finding truth and not emotional mud slinging about something that, at this point and as far as I can tell, can neither be proved or dismissed. I will show results  based on facts. Others may decide for themselves. Maybe, if need be, we could construct a phrase like "persistant spontaneous remission" if things don't happen to turn out the way you would like to see them.
« Last Edit: 18/06/2009 11:32:47 by Observer »
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8655
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Does sodium chlorite have healing powers?
« Reply #42 on: 18/06/2009 19:45:20 »
"As I have stated time and again, I am looking for answers not silly assumptions and wannabe deductions."
Then start answering things and stop making them.

Why has the Indian government not chosen to use this "miracle cure" to rid its people of malaria?

"You may also put down conclusive lab results as not acceptable "
I work in a lab; I know what lab results can show and I also know what they cannot show. They cannot (on their own) show cause and effect.
"I would think that this should at least warrant a closer look as to why, just by sheer coincidence, it becomes spontaneously remissive after a sodium chlorite therapy. "
All cases of remission of any disease always happen shortly after something. It doesn't make sense to ascribe the remission to that thing.
That's the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
That's before you look at the placebo effect (which is a lot more powerful than most people realise).

" Nevertheless, should there be a positive development in my own lab results I will of course not put it down as coincidence."
OK, but you ought to realise that that statement is an act of faith, not science.
You have no evidence (bar a known logical fallacy) that it isn't a coincidence.
"I will continue to search until I, for myself, have conclusive results."
How?
"For all the others out there searching for answers maybe that would be just one little baby step in gaining momentum towards finding truth "
Or it could be a small step towards superstition, and ignorance. You simply cannot tell which on the basis of one person's result.

"Maybe, if need be, we could construct a phrase like "persistant spontaneous remission" if things don't happen to turn out the way you would like to see them. "
The way I would like to see things turn out is that someone comes up with a real malaria cure and that, in the same way as was done with smallpox, we eradicate this disease.
I don't see why you think we would need to make up some odd name for that.
What I don't want to see is scarce resources being used on a wild goosechase. I also don't want sick people exploited by snake oil salesmen. I also don't want to see these people's hopes raised by a false prophet, then dashed on the rocks of reallity. I was angry to see it done in South Africa where the government was trotting out some nonsense about AIDS being cured with the industrial solvent DMF.
Have you noticed, BTW, that it seems to be some of the same people who are claiming the wonders of chlorite?

Still that's enough about "the way" I "would like to see them"
What, exactly, do you want?
 

Offline Observer

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 20
    • View Profile
Does sodium chlorite have healing powers?
« Reply #43 on: 19/06/2009 12:29:19 »
"Then start answering things and stop making them."

Now that tops just about everything you have fabricated up until now… How can I answer if I am myself looking for answers. If and when I have some answers, I assure you, I will post them.

"Why has the Indian government not chosen to use this "miracle cure" to rid its people of malaria?"
I certainly do not know this nor do I claim to.

"I work in a lab; I know what lab results can show and I also know what they cannot show. They cannot (on their own) show cause and effect."

If lab results are not reliable then if I were you I think I might start looking for a more rewarding job. Maybe that is why you are bored.


"All cases of remission of any disease always happen shortly after something. It doesn't make sense to ascribe the remission to that thing. That's the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. That's before you look at the placebo effect (which is a lot more powerful than most people realise)."

So you are saying that all drugs that are being marketed owe their success in either the placebo effect or are just the so called post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy? Mmmm.  ::)

"OK, but you ought to realise that that statement is an act of faith, not science.
You have no evidence (bar a known logical fallacy) that it isn't a coincidence."

It is enough for me to know that either I can influence the viral load positively (meaning lowering the count) or eliminate the virus altogether.


"How?"

By continuous positive results up to eliminating the virus. Even if it is sustained spontaneous instantaneous persistent repetitive remission.


"Or it could be a small step towards superstition, and ignorance. You simply cannot tell which on the basis of one person's result."

Correct but if others brave to try based on facts it may eventually be more that one persons results.

"The way I would like to see things turn out is that someone comes up with a real malaria cure and that, in the same way as was done with smallpox, we eradicate this disease.
I don't see why you think we would need to make up some odd name for that.
What I don't want to see is scarce resources being used on a wild goosechase. I also don't want sick people exploited by snake oil salesmen. I also don't want to see these people's hopes raised by a false prophet, then dashed on the rocks of reallity. I was angry to see it done in South Africa where the government was trotting out some nonsense about AIDS being cured with the industrial solvent DMF.
Have you noticed, BTW, that it seems to be some of the same people who are claiming the wonders of chlorite?

Still that's enough about "the way" I "would like to see them"
What, exactly, do you want?"

I already told you several times that I am searching for answers not trying to proliferate myself on shaky claims and false deductions which btw is not exactly what you might call scientific. I am also looking to rid myself of the Hep C virus. I am neither trying to create false hope nor put something down before I myself am convinced. You may be a lab assistant but you have not succeeded in convincing me of anything at all other than the strong negative emotion on this subject which maybe you have good reason for. It would seem though that you are not capable of taking in information otherwise you wouldn’t continuously ask me for the answers (that I like you don’t yet have) or what I want which I stated in my very first post.
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
Does sodium chlorite have healing powers?
« Reply #44 on: 19/06/2009 12:33:06 »
To totally change the subject and threadjack this conversation for a minute - I've recently made a special edition podcast based on the events at Birmingham University as part of World Hepatitis Day.  As a Hep C sufferer, I'd be very interested in your opinion.

You can find the podcast and transcript here:

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/podcasts/specials/show/2009.06.10/
 

Offline Observer

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 20
    • View Profile
Does sodium chlorite have healing powers?
« Reply #45 on: 19/06/2009 15:10:26 »
I would be happy to delve into the information this weekend. Shall I post my opinions on this thread?
 

Offline Observer

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 20
    • View Profile
Does sodium chlorite have healing powers?
« Reply #46 on: 22/06/2009 11:29:42 »
Thanks for the link to the podcast. You touch on all the relevant subjects and offer concise “must have” information, especially for someone who is new to the subject. This would save a whole lot of time investigating various sources.

The information is also straightforward and easy to understand without getting lost in the details and complexities of the topic.

What I personally got out of the podcast was the reassurance that quantum leaps in the research of the furtive disease are being made and as a result smarter drugs are being developed with better response rates and less side effects than interferon/ribavirin.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8655
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Does sodium chlorite have healing powers?
« Reply #47 on: 22/06/2009 22:05:03 »
"Now that tops just about everything you have fabricated up until now… How can I answer if I am myself looking for answers."
You can answer the point I raised.
Perhaps better than this which seems to be a cop out.
""Why has the Indian government not chosen to use this "miracle cure" to rid its people of malaria?"
I certainly do not know this nor do I claim to. "


"If lab results are not reliable then ..."
The results are reliable, but they can't do miracles. An important point of understanding science is understanding what its limits are.

"So you are saying that all drugs that are being marketed owe their success in either the placebo effect or are just the so called post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy? Mmmm."
Since I didn't say that it's a strawman. Please don't bother to do that again.

"It is enough for me to know that either I can influence the viral load positively (meaning lowering the count) or eliminate the virus altogether."

You can almost certainly do that, at least temporarily, via the placebo effect.

"
"How?"

By continuous positive results up to eliminating the virus. Even if it is sustained spontaneous instantaneous persistent repetitive remission.
"
That won't distinguish between spontaneous remission and a cure.

"Correct but if others brave to try based on facts it may eventually be more that one persons results."
I refer you back to the comment I made about fish paste.

"It would seem though that you are not capable of taking in information otherwise you wouldn't continuously ask me for the answers (that I like you don’t yet have) or what I want which I stated in my very first post.
"
I must be missing something here. This is your first post on the matter.



"I followed this thread Bored chemist and I must say I was quite amused with the emotion with which you reacted. Throughout the thread you never really gave us any credible basis for your blunt put down. Even from a scientific perspective you offer no more evidence that mms doens't work than the so called quacks that claim that it does. Having said that it would make sense to me that the body would require a balance of both oxidents and anti-oxidents. Also from a non scientific standpoint but more a statistical one there sure are a lot of people out there in hundreds of different forums which have nothing to do with one another who are reporting positive results, some including very sound references. It is sad that medical cures must be "approved" by government organisations or administered by medical doctors in order to earn their credibility. I am new here and do not wish to offend anyone with my views. I am also presently using mms for hep c and from what I have read about Interferon I don't think I have made a bad choice. I will post my experience, be it good or bad, based on lab results before and after therapy.
"

And, apart from the tacit implication that you are hoping for a cure (and I wish you luck BTW) there isn't any statement about what you actually want.

So, why, exactly did you say "...what I want which I stated in my very first post."

If you claim to be seeking proper scientific discussion I think you should leave out the logical fallacies like the post hoc one. You should skip the strawmen. You might want to cut out things like "You may be a lab assistant " and "It would seem though that you are not capable of taking in information " which might be take as ad hom attacks , particularly when based on apparently false statements like "otherwise you wouldn’t continuously ask me for the answers (that I like you don’t yet have) or what I want which I stated in my very first post."
(Oh, and it's a good idea not to include the false statements too.)

Incidentally, if you say "the moon is made of cheese" and I ask "how come it didn't melt when they landed a rocket driven ship on it?" it isn't an adequate response to say "I don't know".
You can do that in theology, but not in science. It is reasonable for me to ask questions. If you can't answer them that';s not my fault. The problem lies with your understanding, not mine.
 

Offline Observer

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 20
    • View Profile
Does sodium chlorite have healing powers?
« Reply #48 on: 23/06/2009 19:15:29 »
I certainly didn't enter the forum to argue with you about your perception of things. I stated in my first post that I would post my own experience. No claims, no cheese moons and no false deductions.

The thread is named "does sodium chlorite have healing powers?".

What I wanted and stated in my first post was to answer the original question not with false claims and false deductions but with facts based on my own experience. I don't have to convince you or anybody else. This is also no testimonial! Let us just call it an experiment at my cost no strings attached.

Now for the facts:
                 
                 March 2009                  June 2009
Gamma-GT           180 U/l                    80 U/l
GOT (AST)           86 U/l                    97 U/l
GOP (ALT)          278 U/l                   249 U/l

No cure but I will continue my experiment and post my results.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8655
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Does sodium chlorite have healing powers?
« Reply #49 on: 23/06/2009 19:47:49 »
"I stated in my first post that I would post my own experience."
And then you said that, in that post, you had said something else; but you hadn't.
Why did you do that?
Why did you make up the strawman?
Why the ad hom attacks?

You also said "you never really gave us any credible basis for your blunt put down" which suggests that you missed this bit (posted 15/6/08), which is odd because there's quite a lot of it.

"OK, lets have a look at that web page. The first thing it says is
"Nothing in this article is intended as medical advice.
No claims, promises nor guarantees are made"
Interesting.

Then "This procedure rapidly eliminates malaria and other infectious agents in only one dose."
That's a claim, so one of the first things it says is a lie. So far, I'm not impressed.

Then it says "Chlorine dioxide (ClO2) is highly reactive with thiols, polyamines, purines, certain amino acids and iron, all of which are necessary for the growth and survival of pathogenic microbes."
Which is true enough. Of course, since all of those things are needed to grow microbes and there are microbes in the gut we have a problem. Any ClO2 in the gut would instantly react with one or more of those compounds- it would never get any further ( it would be destroyed in the mouth if it were there long enough).
Incidentally it also reacts with hydrochloric acid which is also present in the stomach.

Malaria is a relapsing disease- it comes and goes. If you have malaria and take snake oil it will sometimes look as if it has worked. Together with mankind's abillity to believe in what they want to happen, you can see how the section on "discovery" makes sense.

Then there are about 40 references that tell you that malaria is bad and what ClO2 is. Nice comprehesive background but of no real importance.
Looks impressive, buut doesn't actually tell you much, I mean what does "The Three-Electron Bond in Chlorine Dioxide. " have to do with malaria?.

Then there's a section headed "OXIDANTS AS PHYSIOLOGIC AGENTS"
It includes ther rather telling observation that "Some work has been done using dilute solutions of sodium chlorite internally to treat fungal infections, chronic fatigue, and cancer; however, little has been published in that regard". Well, positive results tend to get published so what does that say to you?
Then ther is another batch of only vaguely related references- things like "The Use Of Ozone In Medicine, " and "Decreased level of 2,3-diphosphoglycerate and
alteration of structural integrity in erythrocytes
infected with Plasmodium falciparum in vitro."
I'd love to see why someone thinks the first of those might be relevent to the use of chlorite- it's about an entirely different chemical.
At least the second is about themalaria parasite (Plasmodium falciparum ) but it's a report of someone having measured the effect (in a test tube ( in vitro)) on the levels some rather obscure chemical in red blood cells. That's worthy enough in its way, but it has nothing to do with using chlorite to treat malaria.

There are a few references like this one "Interferon-gamma activates the oxidative killing
of Candida albicans by human granulocytes. " that look like they might be relevent bu,t oxidative killing of freign cells by the body is one of its major defense mechanisms. It uses peroxy compounds- not ClO2.


Then there's a section headed "OXIDES OF CHLORINE AS DISINFECTANTS"
And a whole lot of references saying that chlorine and its oxides are useful disinfectants. There are two things to note here. Firstly none of these refers to malaria or plasmodium- which is a bit of a shame if you are trying to say this stuff killsthem. Secondly it's not news to anyone that strong oxidants kill bacteria etc. When Domestos advertised itself as "Kills all known germs. Dead." they were perfectly correct. (They didn't say that the same claim could be made by any bleach based product- but who can blame them).
Unfortunately you can't drink bleach and expect it to kill harmful bacteria. It's too reactive- all you will do is damage your stomach because the cells of the stomach are just as susceptible to bleach poisoning as the bacteria are.
The same is true of ClO2.

Then there's a section called "MALARIA IS OXIDANT SENSITIVE"
Which is true- so what? too high an oxygen concentration kills people.
Then there's lots of references, but none of them involves ClO2. There's a reason for that. The malaria parasite lives (at least some of the time) inside blood cells. If you add bleach or ClO2 you destroy the cells- so the malaria parasite is now "homeless".Its not a sensible test.

Trawling on there's a section about "TARGETING THIOLS"
Unfortunately,
1
that's what arsenic does- so it's not really a good start and
2
ClO2 dosn't really do it- it's a strong oxidant and atakcs pretty much the first thing it meets.

Again there's a whole lot of references that don't say much.


Then we have "HEME IS AN OXIDANT SENSITIZER"
Now that looks promising. The malaria parasite hangs out in red blood cells and there's a lot of heam in them. If the heam makes the oxidants more effective then it migh likk the bugs.
2 problems- if it makes the stuff more toxic in blood cells them most of what it kills will be blood cells. Not really what you want and also, remember way back at the begining I said that the stuff would be destroyed in the mouth and stomach. Well, just how much is going to get as far as the blood? How about none?
Then there's the usual run of references to make it look scientific.


We then come to "OVERCOMING ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANCE WITH OXIDATION"
Well, if this stuff kills malaria on its own we don't need to use the antibiotics. It seems they just admitted their claim was false.
Then they list a few pages more references to make it look good.


Then we come to the real killer (literally)
I will quote this in full
"SOME INCOMPATIBILITIES
Acidified sodium chlorite could provide a powerful new opportunity to improve or to restore sensitivity to quinolines by virtue of its oxidative power. However, quinolines contain secondary or tertiary amino groups which react with chlorine dioxide in such a way that both could destroy each other. Some possible strategies to resolve this incompatibility are suggested below.
Acidified sodium chlorite could be used as explained above only as a solo therapy.
Quinoline administration could be withheld until after the acidified sodium chorite has completed its action.
Patients already preloaded with a quinoline could stop this, wait a suitable period of time for this to wash out, then administer the acidified sodium chlorite.
The quinoline could remain in use and while the less active sodium chlorite is administered without acid. This should retain plenty of oxidant effectiveness without destroying any quinoline or wasting too much oxidant.
Switch from a quinoline to an endoperoxide (such as artemisinin) or to a quinone (such as atovaquone) before using acidified sodium chlorite, as these may be less sensitive toward destruction by chlorine dioxide.
Similar problems apply to methylene blue and many other drugs if they have an unoxidized sulfur atom, a phenol group, a secondary amine or a tertiary amine. Such are also very reactive with the chlorine dioxide component. [58a] "


Ok what that says is that the ClO2 reacts with some of the drugs used in (legitimate) treatment of malaria.
What they sugest doing about that is reckless if not criminal.
"Acidified sodium chlorite could be used as explained above only as a solo therapy.
Quinoline administration could be withheld until after the acidified sodium chorite has completed its action. "

They sugest using only this rubbish on its own and, if needs be, withdrawing treatment with an effective drug.

Yes, that's really what it measn
they are saying that you should stop taking drugs thatare known to work to treat malaria and take their impossible remedy instead.

Does anyone care what the particular problems with the rest of their page are?"

Which was it, didn't you read it, or didn't you understand it?

And, re. "This is also no testimonial! "
Actually, that's exactly what it is.
« Last Edit: 23/06/2009 19:49:50 by Bored chemist »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Does sodium chlorite have healing powers?
« Reply #49 on: 23/06/2009 19:47:49 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length