[Bored chemist]

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.

[Observer]

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.

[Bored chemist]

"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?

[Observer]

"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.

[BenV]

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/

[Observer]

I would be happy to delve into the information this weekend. Shall I post my opinions on this thread?

[Observer]

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.

[Bored chemist]

"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.

[Observer]

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.

[Bored chemist]

"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.

[Observer]

"And then you said that, in that post, you had said something else; but you hadn't.
Why did you do that?"

Sorry dude, you lost me here...

"Why did you make up the strawman?"

Do you mean this strawman?

"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)."

That, I'm afraid, was your clever deduction.


"Why the ad hom attacks?"

These are no attacks. You mustn't take things personally if someone tells you that they don't think you have all the answers. You don't have to feel attacked if some people are not willing to swallow some of those ridiculous comparisons and illogical pathetic deductions.

I don't understand why you feel so obligated to have all the answers. Let us leave it at that though because I also stated (in my first post) that I didn't want to offend anybody with my views and above all Peace...

So to sum things up:


- Nothing personal - just strong disagreement with your arguments.

- I would like to post my own experience. Hey who knows maybe I will fall flat on my face and you can in the end say I told you so...

- I don't have the answers I am still searching

If this thread is the wrong platform for what I am doing then someone other than the Bored chemist (again not personal but I think you may be biased) please tell me so and I will quietly and peacefully leave the scene. []

[Bored chemist]

"Sorry dude, you lost me here..."
Then you should be paying attention.
You said this "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."
and it isn't true because you didn't say, in your first post anything of the sort.




I already pointed out what the strawman was.
It was this.
"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."

As I pointed out, I didn't say that so, to put this forward as my opinion and then atack it is a strawman argument.

I already asked you not to do it again. Why did you?


As for the ad homs
"These are no attacks. You mustn't take things personally if someone tells you that they don't think you have all the answers."
The issues I raised that is "You may be a lab assistant " and "It would seem though that you are not capable of taking in information " were personal.
Since I made it perfectly clear that those were the issues I was refering to it's yet another strawman for you to say "You mustn't take things personally if someone tells you that they don't think you have all the answers".
Even if you don't think that's personal surely you must understand that describing my obervations as "illogical pathetic deductions" is a personal attack.

I keep asking why you say things that are not true and you simply don't answer.
What does that say about your claim to be objective?

[Observer]

Bored chemist wrote:

“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.”


I am sorry but in my book this is just ridiculous and not relevant at all to the topic of discussion.

Bored chemist wrote:

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

In my opinion this is an illogical incorrect deduction period.

Bored chemist wrote:

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.

This might lead one to believe that you may be a lab assistant. I recall also seeing a picture of you with a lab coat. If this is not the case I apologize for my implication although I did say “you may be a lab assistant”.


This is a quote from my first post:
"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..."

In that post I clearly state:
I am new here and do not wish to offend anyone with my views
I will post my experience, be it good or bad, based on lab results before and after therapy.
Peace...

Just for you Bored chemist so that you finally understand what I want:
I am new here and do not wish want to offend anyone with my views
I will want to post my experience, be it good or bad, based on lab results before and after therapy.
[I want] Peace...

[stereologist]

The issue of MMS has been discussed in many forums. The issue boils down to claims being made by the sellers that are not substantiated. Instead the sellers make claims and point to poorly or unrelated information to sell their wares. This matter could be simplified if the proponents of MMS would simply point to a study in which MMS is tested. This would be a properly run study, i.e. statistically valid sample size, double blinded, etc.

[Observer]

I want to make it perfectly clear at this point that I am no seller nor am I pushing mms. I will also not try to defend treatment with mms or recommend it to anyone as I  have no basis to do so. On the other hand, I am open for alternative methods of treating hep c and all I can offer is results that may or may not turn out to be very disappointing. But, my experiment is not over yet...

[Bored chemist]

Best of luck, but remember that a single observation, not even single blinded, isn't worth a lot in science.
A few tests on lab rats would carry a whole lot more weight.
Those tests would be cheap and easy.
As far as I can tell they have not been done.
There is clearly an enormous incentive to do this work. (There's more to life than patent rights the man who finds a cheap cure for malaria is going to be famous and there's also the amazing ability to be smug about it.)

Why hasn't someone made their name by doing this fairly simple test?
Do you accept that one reason- perhaps the simplest reason- is that they tried it, it didn't work and they didn't bother to publish their failure?

Incidentally,
Re. "I recall also seeing a picture of you with a lab coat. "
Where?

[Observer]

"Best of luck, but remember that a single observation, not even single blinded, isn't worth a lot in science."
Thank you and I realize this. I am really not trying to achieve anything scientific. It's more to the note of trying to find a cure for myself and logging my experience.

It can work both ways:

Either I am successfull and others may want to take the chance for themselves with all the risks involved.

or

I am not successfull and this fact can help those thinking about trying it to make the correct decision for themselves.

Where?
When I first entered this Forum right before I quoted you for the first time I recall looking at a profile and seeing a person with a white lab coat (For some reason I associated this person with you). I might very well have been looking at someone else as I was not familiar with the names here.

[werewolf]

In reading this discussion, I find it fraught with peculiarly non-scientific emotionalism for a website based upon science. Arguments here seem to be comprised of assumptions. For example, BoredChemist says that one proof that MMS does not work is that, if it did, malaria would have already been eradicated because it would be in widespread usage throughout the world. That presupposes that information flows unhindered by superstition, venal financial interests, political influences, etc., which is obviously not at all true. For example, two Australian doctors determined that ulcers were not caused by stress, but by the bacterium Helicopter Pylori. It took twelve years for that information to reach critical mass in the medical community. That means that for 11 3/4 years, there were doctors still performing surgery on people with ulcers, still handing out the old ulcer remedies from the 1920's, rather than giving an antibiotic to kill the H. Pylori bugs and cure the ulcers. That same effect could be at work regarding MMS.

It has been said here that anecdotal evidence in the form of testimonials should be rejected, and only evidence resulting from proper double-blind clinical studies accepted. In an ideal world that would be true but in this world, research of that caliber is expensive and is usually only initiated by pharmaceutical companies that can profit from the results. Thus there is no financial incentive for testing non-patentable materials. Since that is the case, people searching for answers must use whatever means they can in gleaning information from all of the varied sources --some good, some bad-- out there.

[Bored chemist]

"A few tests on lab rats would carry a whole lot more weight.
Those tests would be cheap and easy.
As far as I can tell they have not been done."
Political and financial interests can work both ways.
The experiments give the real annswer.

H pyloris took a long while to be accepted, but in the end it was (and the matter isn't as clear as you make it look.  The bacterium was found in people who didn't have ulcers so the evidence was that the bug did not (on its own) cause ulcers. The doctors may be conservative, but they are not stupid)

There is good, strong evidence which proves that this magic cure can't be real- it still works after you have destroyed it by reaction with apple juice (specifically with the vitamin C).

Do you understand that?
It's scientific proof that this stuff cannot work as described. The stuff is just a pinch of salt by the time people take it.

Once you add the fact that the purveyors of this quackery are the same ones who tried to fob off HIV/AIDS sufferers with  a toxic industrial solvent (DMF) as a cure I really don't think it would be ethical to sacrifice the rats.

OK, so I do get angry about this sort of thing- not with the people who have posted here, but with the snake oil salesmen- no, better yet, let's call them by the proper name, fraudsters- who try to con people, who are generally poorly placed to afford it, out of their hard earned cash. If that emotion comes through then all I can hope is that you are all reasonably understanding.

[Observer]

I just wanted to check back in and say that I am still alive and that I feel great. I am intentionally not mentioning the details of how much mms I am taking nor how often I take it though I am keeping notes. I hope to post the next lab results by mid August.