[testtest]

The following bits of info should satisfy you that it does make its way into the blood when taken orally.

From http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0496.htm [nofollow]

"Chlorine dioxide (ClO2) in drinking water rapidly degrades to chlorite (ClO2-), chlorate (ClO3-), and chloride ion (Cl-). In an epidemiology study by Michael et al. (1981), chlorine dioxide rapidly disappeared from the stored water (within 2-4 hours) and water chlorite concentrations concomitantly increased. Once absorbed, chlorine dioxide and chlorite are cleared from the blood at similar rates and are similarly distributed throughout the body (Abdel-Rahman et al., 1979, 1982). Additionally, chloride is the major in vivo degradation product for chlorine dioxide, chlorite, and chlorate. The available data suggest that chlorine dioxide and chlorite have similar targets of toxicity and potencies. Therefore, the toxicity information for chlorite is relevant to deriving an RfD for chlorine dioxide. See also the oral RfD entry in the IRIS Summary for chlorite."

Also from http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a784744404~db=all [nofollow]

"Chlorine dioxide (CIO2) is under consideration as an alternative to chlorination as a disinfectant for public water supplies. The primary products resulting from CIO2 disinfection of surface waters are chlorite (CIO2-) and chlorates (CIO3-). The kinetics of 36CIO2- and 36CIO3- was studied in rats. Radioactivity was rapidly absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract following the administration of (0.17 μ Ci)36CIO2- or (0.85 μ Ci)36CIO3- orally, and 36CI in plasma reached a peak at 2 hours and 1 hour, respectively. After 72 hours, radioactivity was highest in whole blood, followed by packed cells, plasma, stomach, testes, skin, lung, kidney, duodenum, carcass, spleen, ileum, brain, bone marrow, and liver in 36CIO2- treatment. 36CI excretion was greatest at 24 hours after the administration of 36CIO3-, but in the 36CIO2-, the excretion most likely represented saturation of the biotransformation and excretion pathways. About 40% of the total initial dose was excreted at 72 hours in the urine and feces in both treatments. No 36CI was detected in expired air throughtout the 72 hours studied. "

From http://www.intox.org/databank/documents/chemical/sodrite/cie114.htm [nofollow]

" If ingested, corrosive materials can cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, cramps and pain. Sodium chlorite can also cause temporary damage to the red blood cells* based on limited animal and human information. A man intentionally consumed 10 g sodium chlorite in 100 mL of water."

*This shows that it is reaching the red blood cells and hence the malaria parasite. Makes me laugh that this nutjob actually drank 10grams of the stuff, about 2 heaped teaspoons full.

From http://www.lenntech.com/chlorine_dioxide.htm [nofollow]

"Of the oxidizing biocides, chlorine dioxide is the most selective oxidant. Both ozone and chlorine are much more reactive than chlorine dioxide, and they will be consumed by most organic compounds. Chlorine dioxide however, reacts only with reduced sulphur compounds, secondary and tertiary amines, and some other highly reduced and reactive organics. This allows much lower dosages of chlorine dioxide to achieve a more stable residual than either chlorine or ozone. Chlorine dioxide, generated properly (all chlorine dioxide is not created equal), can be effectively used in much higher organic loading than either ozone or chlorine because of its selectivity."

From http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118790074/abstract [nofollow]

"The malaria parasite Plasmodium falciparum is highly adapted to cope with the oxidative stress to which it is exposed during the erythrocytic stages of its life cycle. This includes the defence against oxidative insults arising from the parasite's metabolism of haemoglobin which results in the formation of reactive oxygen species and the release of toxic ferriprotoporphyrin IX. Central to the parasite's defences are superoxide dismutases and thioredoxin-dependent peroxidases; however, they lack catalase and glutathione peroxidases. The vital importance of the thioredoxin redox cycle (comprising NADPH, thioredoxin reductase and thioredoxin) is emphasized by the confirmation that thioredoxin reductase is essential for the survival of intraerythrocytic P. falciparum[/u]. The parasites also contain a fully functional glutathione redox system and the low-molecular-weight thiol glutathione is not only an important intracellular thiol redox buffer but also a cofactor for several redox active enzymes such as glutathione S-transferase and glutaredoxin. Recent findings have shown that in addition to these cytosolic redox systems the parasite also has an important mitochondrial antioxidant defence system and it is suggested that lipoic acid plays a pivotal part in defending the organelle from oxidative damage."

Thomas Lee Hesselinks article[1] was to propose further research into its potential use in malaria. I have now read it three times and I fail to see how it does not deserve further research as it will burn up the parasites thioredoxin(see above and Hesselinks article) leaving it completely vunerable to more chlorite ions and H2O2 being produced from neutrophils. The American Chemical Society, Analytical Chemistry Division stated in 1999 that chlorine dioxide is the most powerful killer of pathogens known to man so I'm betting if chlorite ions come into contact with an infected red blood cell the process will be antipathogenic. Medically oriented references for its use as a potential medicine do not exist(as yet). Obviously there are financial issues with this happening in the west so I wont be holding my breath for GlaxoSmithkline to do a study. 

You stated it doesn't work - personally I think the correct answer is that it may work and thus deserves more attention. I personally do not doubt it. One thing to remember is because of the ease of administration of MMS is that results for treating any type of infection should be easy to test.

The only illness I have had which I had the chance to use this(unactivated sodium chlorite) on was the dreaded winter vomiting bug the symptoms of which were much less severe and shorter than the rest of my household. Because of this I will always keep hold of the stuff.

As far as HIV goes below is a link where the British Medical Journal generously hosted an internet debate concerning the nature and causes of AIDS beginning with David Rasnick's February 2003 response to a paper entitled The Politics of AIDS in South Africa, and continuing until April 2005. Not one mainstream HIV expert could provide evidence of a long term controlled trial showing drugs prolonged lives so until the evidence is provided the jury is still out. You quite correctly stated people are living longer and there are people who take meds and have lived for 20+ years but there are also lots of people who have been alive the same length of time completely drug free. Both sides of this argument will tell you that gays in the 80's were partying every night, taking drugs and having multiple unprotected sexual contacts per week and taking antibiotics like they were going out of fashion for other STD's, combine this with a poor understanding at the time of HIV nutrition and it is no wonder that they died quicker than they do today.

http://healtoronto.com/survivors.html#wells [nofollow]

http://www.rethinking.org/bmj/index.html [nofollow]

[1]On The Mechanisms Of Toxicity Of Chlorine Oxides Against Malarial Parasites - An Overview By Thomas Lee Hesselink,MD http://nodiseaseinfo.com/mechanisms.htm [nofollow]

[Bored chemist]

OK, so
"Once absorbed, chlorine dioxide and chlorite are cleared from the blood at similar rates and are similarly distributed throughout the body (Abdel-Rahman et al., 1979, 1982)."
Shows that the stuff isn't stable in blood, but gives no idea of how long the stuff survives.
"Radioactivity was rapidly absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract following the administration of (0.17 μ Ci)36CIO2- or (0.85 μ Ci)36CIO3- orally, "
That shows that the Cl is absorbed, but it doesn't say in what oxidation state. It's possible that the bulk of the stuff is reduced to chloride before crossing the gut wall.

"Sodium chlorite can also cause temporary damage to the red blood cells*"
That proves that the stuff reacts with red blood cells. Having done so it is no longer in a position to damage the parasites.

" Chlorine dioxide, generated properly (all chlorine dioxide is not created equal), "
Ridiculous- this requires ClO2 to have a memory of how it was made. Clearly nonsense, but just the sort of thing you have to say to explain why your "miracle cure" didn't work this time.

"Chlorine dioxide however, reacts only with reduced sulphur compounds, secondary and tertiary amines, and some other highly reduced and reactive organics"
The body is full of thiols and amines so there's plenty to destroy the stuff before it could do any good.

Incidentally, those same thiols are a large part of the reason why mercury and arsenic are toxic.


Why no animal studies of this stuff against malaria?
That would be pretty convincing and less of an ethical dilema than human studies (in my view anyway- if someone wants to talk about the ethics of animal experimentation please set up your own thread)

Also that "Humble" bloke doesn't seem to know what he's talking about.
Here are a couple of quotes
"resultant solution is always mixed into a glass of water or apple juice and taken orally"
"Significant amounts of vitamin C (ascorbic acid) must not be present at any point in the mixtures or else this will quench the chlorine dioxide (ClO2).

Now, since there's vitamin C in apple juice...

While we are at it,
"For the same reason antioxidant supplements should not be taken on the day of treatment. "
Now, in the real world it's not just suplements that contain anti oxidants. Food does too.
How come the people taking this stuff are not advised to avioid foods with antioxidants in them? (and BTW, that's a lot of foods you would need to "restrict".
Unless the people involved in the trial happened not to eat any fresh fruit or veg they would kill this "medicine".
Were they all living on meat pies?

[testtest]

You said "That proves that the stuff reacts with red blood cells. Having done so it is no longer in a position to damage the parasites."

Why does that mean it can no longer damage the parasites? Please bear in mind the parasite lives in red blood cells and the supply of chlorine dioxide is not finite.

You said "this requires ClO2 to have a memory of how it was made. Clearly nonsense, but just the sort of thing you have to say to explain why your "miracle cure" didn't work this time."

I didn't really know where you were coming from with this as it was evident to me that this was written in the context of talking about the quality of output of chlorine dioxide generators. I placed that bit of info in there to show that it doesn't react immediately with organic compounds like other oxidisers.

You said "The body is full of thiols and amines so there's plenty to destroy the stuff before it could do any good."

Yes correct - of course some of it will react with components other than red blood cells. But it is still going to react with red blood cells.

You said "Incidentally, those same thiols are a large part of the reason why mercury and arsenic are toxic."

Mercury and arsenic as we all know are toxic. There is no data to show that sodium chlorite or chlorine dioxide act as carcinogens in any way.

http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0496.htm [nofollow]
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1474471 [nofollow]

You said "Why no animal studies of this stuff against malaria?
That would be pretty convincing and less of an ethical dilema than human studies (in my view anyway- if someone wants to talk about the ethics of animal experimentation please set up your own thread)"

That might be because malaria only affects humans.

You said "Also that "Humble" bloke doesn't seem to know what he's talking about.
Here are a couple of quotes
"resultant solution is always mixed into a glass of water or apple juice and taken orally"
"Significant amounts of vitamin C (ascorbic acid) must not be present at any point in the mixtures or else this will quench the chlorine dioxide (ClO2).

Now, since there's vitamin C in apple juice...

While we are at it,
"For the same reason antioxidant supplements should not be taken on the day of treatment. "
Now, in the real world it's not just suplements that contain anti oxidants. Food does too.
How come the people taking this stuff are not advised to avioid foods with antioxidants in them? (and BTW, that's a lot of foods you would need to "restrict".
Unless the people involved in the trial happened not to eat any fresh fruit or veg they would kill this "medicine".
Were they all living on meat pies?"

Well in a glass of apple juice(not fresh) most ascorbic acid is actually added as a preservative and were talking milligrams here even in food the amount of antioxidants would soon be burned up in the body by ingesting an oxidiser. I'm sure this information is aimed at people taking 10 grams of vit c or some selenium daily or some other such equivalent. But personally I wouldn't use anything with any vit c in just citric or acetic acid in credit to Humble he did say "Significant amounts of vitamin c".

[Bored chemist]

"the supply of chlorine dioxide is not finite."
Er? What?
"Yes correct - of course some of it will react with components other than red blood cells. But it is still going to react with red blood cells."
Which is a pity since red blood cells are important.
Of course, in order to get to the paprsite it needs to get through the wall of the red blood cell, not react with it.

"Mercury and arsenic as we all know are toxic. There is no data to show that sodium chlorite or chlorine dioxide act as carcinogens in any way."
Er, actually there's plenty of evidence to sugest that chlorine dioxide is toxic- not least the fact that it reacts with lots of important bits of the body. I know- I have inhaled some and I can assure you it buggers up your lungs. That it isn't a carcinogen is hardly the point- Mercury is, at most, a very poor carcinogen, but I wouldn't go sprinkling it on my breakfast.

"That might be because malaria only affects humans."
Or it might not, since malaria does affect other animals.
Have a look here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasmodium

Straightforward lies like that don't help your credibility you know.

Humble did say "Significant amounts of vitamin c"."
Those who do not ingest "significant" quantities of vitamin C get scurvy- if they carry on, they die.

[testtest]

You wrote:

"Straightforward lies like that don't help your credibility you know."

After I read your post and stopped laughing I started to wonder if you take any anti psychotic medication or maybe that's just my opinion, but hey what's my opinion worth as I've got no credibility anyway apparently!

Ok I wrote:

"the supply of chlorine dioxide is not finite." This simply means - are you ready for this, deep breath ok? - YOU JUST TAKE MORE OF IT.

You wrote:

"Which is a pity since red blood cells are important.
Of course, in order to get to the paprsite it needs to get through the wall of the red blood cell, not react with it."

Blood cells are important oh I never knew that thankyou for sharing that with us, yawn... Well if you look at

you will see that there is practically no RBC wall left in a maturing Plasmodium falciparum. Hmmm that's not a lot of protection. Oh and by the way it's an established fact that diseased cells (any cells that is) antioxidant capability is either not funtioning or at the very least hindered before apoptosis happens.

You wrote:

"Er, actually there's plenty of evidence to sugest that chlorine dioxide is toxic"

Well I never said 'toxic' I said 'carcinogenic' which should be taken in the context of the size of ORAL doses used by people. Seeing as you like to mention animal studies so much there is one that comes to mind = 'Studies of carcinogenicity of sodium chlorite in B6C3F1 mice.'

I said:

"That might be because malaria only affects humans."

And then you said:

"Or it might not, since malaria does affect other animals.
Have a look here."

Which linked to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasmodium [nofollow]

To quote from that page:

"Of the 200+ known species of Plasmodium, at least 10 species infect humans. Other species infect animals, including birds, reptiles and rodents. The parasite always has two hosts in its life cycle: a mosquito vector and a vertebrate host."

If you had even bothered to read wikipedias malaria page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaria [nofollow])NOT PLASMODIUM page you would find:

"The malaria parasites do not affect animal species and therefore eradication of the disease from the human population would be expected to be effective."


I really can't wait for your next answer hopefully you can give me one when you get back from school tomorrow, but then again I expect your really busy with maintaining all your credibility. []

[Bored chemist]

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?

[jeremiyah]

   "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?"

[BenV]

   "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.

[Bored chemist]

   "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.

[Raghavendra]

It is used by village people [O8)] for small wounds !!!

[Bored chemist]

That would explain a lot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Village_People

[I]

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)(

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

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]

[Observer]

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...

[Bored chemist]

Good luck.

[tris]

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.

[Observer]

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" []

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Observer]

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. 

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Observer]

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).