→Minerals?: c |
Necessary to be said. This talk page has done nothing to improve the MMS page for educational purposes and this needs to change. |
||
Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
== Objectivity of this article and criticism == |
== Objectivity of this article and criticism == |
||
This is a wonderful example of how NOT to have a constructive conversation. The rules clearly state that this is NOT a forum, and should NOT be used to discuss personal biases and sling mud at each other. Wikipedia is supposed to be an unbiased source of information and so far, none of you have shown that you can objectively consider both sides of the subject. In my opinion, none of those whom have contributed to this "Talk" page, should be allowed to edit or modify the actually MMS page. |
|||
In order to provide a truly informative, educational and objective page on MMS, all sides should be shown from a non-biased perspective. Which means that personal opinions and experiences hold no water unless they come from a verified expert in the subject of health and the use of homeopathic remedies, and that expert opinion is also followed up from an equal expert of an opposite opinion. |
|||
*********************** |
|||
I think we have to be very careful how to treat this article. This is an obvious snake oil, even linking to this guy's sites is "promotion" on the part of wikipedia, and giving specific information about the exact procedures of preparation and such is inappropriate. Just because no one has published scientific studies on THIS particular quack medicine, I don't think it means we can not include information pertaining to exactly the same claims, like the link I have added from quackwatch. [[User:Vespine|Vespine]] ([[User talk:Vespine|talk]]) 09:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC) |
I think we have to be very careful how to treat this article. This is an obvious snake oil, even linking to this guy's sites is "promotion" on the part of wikipedia, and giving specific information about the exact procedures of preparation and such is inappropriate. Just because no one has published scientific studies on THIS particular quack medicine, I don't think it means we can not include information pertaining to exactly the same claims, like the link I have added from quackwatch. [[User:Vespine|Vespine]] ([[User talk:Vespine|talk]]) 09:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 11:59, 8 February 2012
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Objectivity of this article and criticism
This is a wonderful example of how NOT to have a constructive conversation. The rules clearly state that this is NOT a forum, and should NOT be used to discuss personal biases and sling mud at each other. Wikipedia is supposed to be an unbiased source of information and so far, none of you have shown that you can objectively consider both sides of the subject. In my opinion, none of those whom have contributed to this "Talk" page, should be allowed to edit or modify the actually MMS page.
In order to provide a truly informative, educational and objective page on MMS, all sides should be shown from a non-biased perspective. Which means that personal opinions and experiences hold no water unless they come from a verified expert in the subject of health and the use of homeopathic remedies, and that expert opinion is also followed up from an equal expert of an opposite opinion.
I think we have to be very careful how to treat this article. This is an obvious snake oil, even linking to this guy's sites is "promotion" on the part of wikipedia, and giving specific information about the exact procedures of preparation and such is inappropriate. Just because no one has published scientific studies on THIS particular quack medicine, I don't think it means we can not include information pertaining to exactly the same claims, like the link I have added from quackwatch. Vespine (talk) 09:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- If care is to be used, perhaps colloquialisms like snake oil should be more properly (and sensitively) rendered as quackery as done later in the above paragraph. Traditional Chinese medicine has long used the oil from the Chinese water snake as relief for arthritis and joint pain, with the claimed active ingredient being eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), an omega-3 fatty acid. The western counterpart is the New Zealand green-lipped mussel, whose oil serves essentially the same purpose and which you will find being aggressively promoted at some US pharmacies (for example right under the customer's gaze at the counter of the well-run Palo Alto pharmacy I've been using for many years). Is it fair to ridicule the Chinese animal while accepting without protest the curative benefits of its New Zealand counterpart? (Disclaimers: I haven't tried either for my own arthritis, have no vested interests in either, and have no opinions either way on how much of the benefit of either is from the placebo effect.)
- While the literature promoting MMS seems based largely (entirely?) on anecdotal evidence, this article spans the gamut from careful studies to drive-by hit jobs like the alleged fatal renal failure in the first paragraph. The article sourcing this claim describes someone who attempted suicide by ingesting 10 g of sodium chlorite, precipitating an acute hemolytic crisis leading to acute renal failure. Recovery can be on the order of weeks but in the case of this suicide attempt renal function reportedly took three months to normalize. The concluding sentence of the article's abstract reads, "To our knowledge, there has been no clinical report of human intoxication with sodium chlorite," which I don't know how to interpret in light of this incident (no prior report perhaps?), though it certainly was not fatal, contrary to the claim in the article.
- Conclusion: If care is to be used, the first step might be to weed out the more egregious instances of poorly documented hit jobs like that one, and focus on properly conducted studies and sourced assessments of the quality of the MMS literature and research. A more neutral tone would also be appreciated. (Disclaimer: my own interest in promoted cures like MMS is with a close relative younger than me given only a short time to live, a situation greatly sensitizing one to the gamut of efficacious alternative medicine, wishful thinking, and willful fraud. A promoted cure that is more likely to be fatal than the disease should clearly not be taken, but suggestions to that effect are irresponsible when based on inaccurate reporting.) --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 15:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- If you didn't notice, you are replying to a post over a year old. Regarding me calling it snake oil, this is a talk page, the term is not used in the article so your first paragraph is completely unwarranted. As for the rest, my conclusion is that MMS is dangerous nonsense that deserves absolutely NO leniency. I've been actively investigating MMS for about 18 months now and NOTHING has changed: The BS excuses are exactly the same, the LACK of any studies or reviews and the complete lack of even a SINGLE corroborated account of MMS actually CURING ANYONE OF ANYTHING; there is absolutely NO reason or excuse to NOT treat this crap like the potentially dangerous quack scam that it is. In fact, if it wasn't for the positive public caution message, this kind of nonsense wouldn't even deserves its own article. I dare anyone to approach an actual printed encyclopedia and see if they would even consider if MMS warrants its own article. Vespine (talk) 05:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- If Wikipedia has a statute of limitations on replies to comments then my apologies for being unaware of it.
- The problem I see with angry-toned defenses of either side of any disagreement is that they tend to undermine the credibility of that side. My point was to strengthen the article by suggesting a more professional sounding ("encyclopedic") tone.
- I was also under the impression that Wikipedia tries to maintain a civil tone not only in the articles but in the talk pages, which is why I felt my first paragraph was warranted, contrary to your claim. Language like "absolutely NO reason or excuse to NOT treat this crap like the potentially dangerous quack scam that it is" comes across as unprofessional zealotry rather than a considered opinion to be taken seriously.
- It's hard to take either an article or its talk page seriously when its authors are unable to stick to the facts and have to rely on misleading and arguably false information to make their point, for example the unsupported claim that sodium chlorite can cause fatal renal failure, which the source for the statement explicitly contradicts. The article should focus on real problems and not make up imaginary ones, otherwise readers are no more likely to believe your account of the real problems than the imaginary ones, which undermines the purpose you hope this article will serve. Any medical professional that wrote like that would have no chance of getting their article accepted for publication. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 01:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
- While the desire to give WP:FRINGE theories a neutral pseudobalance, they remain fringe: no demonstrated benefit, demonstrated potential for harm. In general, it is bad form to accuse other editors of sounding unprofessional when you are misinterpreting the abstract of an article you have not read.Novangelis (talk) 14:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
- Apologies if my tone sounds "unprofessional" but understand that it is purely based on my lack of patience, not lack of objectivity. If you look at my posts here from OVER 18 months ago, you'll see that they were a lot more calm and collected. I did the research then and I have done a lot more research since then, I have been active on MMS support websites and other "health" forums, on MMS videos on YouTube, and I've read pretty much all the MMS information I've been able to find, but the MMS supporters position has NOT changed one bit. There are NO new case reports, studies, trials, NOTHING, even the claim about how there are thousands of "testimonials" is a load of rubbish, do yourself a favour try to find ONE testimonial on YouTube. It's a complete joke. Jim and his supporters just tirelessly regurgitate the same tired old claims and every few months, someone obviously fairly new to the subject like you comes along and cries foul. I have actually stopped editing the MMS article a long time ago because I agree I find it very hard to be unemotional about the topic, but I won't refrain from giving my opinion on the talk page as I don't believe I am breaking any guidelines doing so. Vespine (talk) 04:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- While the desire to give WP:FRINGE theories a neutral pseudobalance, they remain fringe: no demonstrated benefit, demonstrated potential for harm. In general, it is bad form to accuse other editors of sounding unprofessional when you are misinterpreting the abstract of an article you have not read.Novangelis (talk) 14:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
- If you didn't notice, you are replying to a post over a year old. Regarding me calling it snake oil, this is a talk page, the term is not used in the article so your first paragraph is completely unwarranted. As for the rest, my conclusion is that MMS is dangerous nonsense that deserves absolutely NO leniency. I've been actively investigating MMS for about 18 months now and NOTHING has changed: The BS excuses are exactly the same, the LACK of any studies or reviews and the complete lack of even a SINGLE corroborated account of MMS actually CURING ANYONE OF ANYTHING; there is absolutely NO reason or excuse to NOT treat this crap like the potentially dangerous quack scam that it is. In fact, if it wasn't for the positive public caution message, this kind of nonsense wouldn't even deserves its own article. I dare anyone to approach an actual printed encyclopedia and see if they would even consider if MMS warrants its own article. Vespine (talk) 05:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- Vespine, the miracle mineral is not snake oil; it is not quackery. I had a tooth root infection, that spread across the nerve into my brain, which was quite alarming, and an 8 drop dose of the miracle mineral in a pint of water cured the infection in four hours. I would recommend that you acquire the miracle mineral, as it could save your life.
- If you notice, the ratings of the miracle mineral article are rather low. If you stop treating the miracle mineral as snake oil, and include the pros and cons from Jim Humble's book (I think this is a valid point of research), perhaps the ratings for the article would eventually increase. Right now they are rather abysmal, with a 1.3 for trustworthiness, and a 1.2 for objectivity. Again, if you treat this as a pro-miracle mineral article, and try to find supporting data for this miracle cure, perhaps the ratings would increase, and the article would no longer be listed as C-class. MoogleONE (talk) 05:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- You are wasting your time posting garbage like this here. We don't give a rat's arse what you think drinking overpriced bleach did to cure your toothache, and we don't care what the 'trustworthiness' rating of this article is either. Unlike quacks like Jim Humble, we don't lie to people to increase our credibility. Drinking bleach is dangerous, MMS is a con, and you are either a dupe, or more likely one of Humble's many cronies (if you aren't Humble himself). Go away... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
See also suggestions
I suggest we add a see also section with links to Liquid Oxygen (supplement) and Vitamin O (are there others?) Does this seem reasonable? SmartSE (talk) 00:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Response from Jim Humble
Response from Jim Humble If you haven’t used Wikipedia (an online encyclopedia) lately, you might not know that anyone can write data into the information found there. Unfortunately that encourages many people to promote their own favorite phobias and hatreds that they have developed without evidence. In the case of MMS, it has always been without evidence because there is nothing that backs up the lies. There is no evidence anywhere showing that MMS does damage. Another bad part about Wikipedia is that anyone can also erase anything that someone else writes. In this way Wikipedia encourages certain heavily indoctrinated people to push their ideas and beliefs on the rest of us. They work in groups of at least 4 individuals. They watch and guard their writings and the minute anyone comes by and tries to write the facts, a group member immediately erases them and restores his or her own lies. This is done on Wikipedia so that the lies remain in place and any posting of facts is erased within 10 minutes. We can’t compete with them as they seem to be willing to stay on the job 24 hours a day. Thus, for almost two years, Wikipedia has erased all facts concerning MMS and added lies each time someone tried to tell the truth. Worse than that, everywhere in Wikipedia where there is a mention of chlorine dioxide or sodium chlorite, or even sodium chlorate, they have included an additional lie about MMS. Do you realize the implication of this? It means that probably thousands of people have continued to suffer and even die when MMS could have helped them, because these few indoctrinated individuals who do not wish people to have the facts (so that everyone can make up their own minds) have continued to lie and to force their superstition on the rest of humanity. They do it without knowing the chemistry of MMS or even trying to learn it, and without being willing to look at what MMS is doing. They also do this same thing to many other non-medical disease treatments. They have decided that they know best for humanity and that you and everyone else don’t deserve to know what is out there. Or they can afford to do it because the pharmaceutical companies pay their salary and of course that is the most likely scenario. So let me explain what they have done concerning MMS. There isn’t room to repeat what they have written word for word, but I’ll give you an idea. If you want to read it, and I hope you will, you can go to Wikipedia and search the site for "Miracle Mineral Supplement". With that title for their article, they start off on the wrong foot -- that is not the correct name of MMS. It should say, "Master Mineral Solution". Two Blatant Mistakes Because they don't understand chemistry, those Wikipedia writers make 2 big mistakes. Mistake #1 In the very first sentence, they say sodium chlorite is a toxic chemical. But the EPA does not consider sodium chlorite to be a toxic chemical. Further, the FDA has long approved it for use on food and in water purification and why would they authorize a toxic chemical to be used on food? Here is the reference: 21 C.F.R. 173.325 Acidified Sodium Chlorite solutions You can put this into Google or any search engine. Most of the food you eat is treated with sodium chlorite before it arrives at your supermarket. Mistake #2 They do not realize that people who use MMS do not ingest sodium chlorite. When sodium chlorite is mixed with citric acid, the citric acid destroys the sodium chlorite before it is taken into the body. This destruction of the chlorite is visible. You cannot mistake what you are taking. No one ingests sodium chlorite from taking MMS I call this a "mistake" but when a person knows his writing is wrong it is really a lie. The Wikipedia References are Smoke and Mirrors The Wikipedia writers list 21 references to prove their points. But their references either prove my point or they prove nothing.
Reference 2 is a scientific journal in French, but it only refers to chlorate, which is not a part of MMS, so this reference proves nothing. Reference 4 is a clinical report of testing animal tolerance for sodium chlorite, chlorine dioxide, and sodium chlorate. All data given proves my contention that MMS is OK to take by mouth. Read the report for yourself. Here it is: www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en/document_library/maximum_residue_limits_-_report/2009/11/wc5000 It didn’t hurt any of those rats used in the tests to ingest amounts even stronger than those used by people in real life. Reference #5 is a Health Canada report where they repeat everything said by the FDA. Neither the FDA nor Health Canada cited any evidence or tests. When I called to ask if they had followed up on the phone calls complaining about a stomach ache and low blood pressure, they said that no, they had not investigated those complaints. Then they mislead you by stating that MMS is a 28% sodium chlorite solution and that it is a dangerous solution that can cause all kinds of terrible damage. Well, yes, didn't we learn that in freshman high school chemistry: “Any chemical in the world is poisonous in large amounts”? The lie is that you take a 28% solution of chlorine dioxide when in fact you take a 0.00004% solution. That is 700,000 time less than what they are trying to confuse you into believing. They want you to believe that MMS is 28% when ingested when it is actually 0.00004%. Why would they try to spread such a lie? Well, for every cancer patient they can scare into not taking MMS, the cancer industry gains $800,000. To learn about the MMS 0.00004% strength doses, please look at the instructions for MMS on my Web Site jimhumble.biz, under MMS protocols. Stomach Ache and Low Blood Pressure? The Wikipedia writers talk about reduced blood pressure, nausea and diarrhea mentioned by the FDA and Health Canada. But these two agencies didn’t investigate the complaints of low blood pressure or stomach ache and they have never given any other evidence against MMS. Fake References Again The Wikipedia writers' references again prove nothing. Reference #14 merely cites an article written by a 15-year-old boy who does not believe in a ‘cure all’. So that reference doesn’t apply to MMS in any way. Reference #15 is just another announcement by the Food Standard Agency in Canada against using MMS, but they offer no evidence. Reference #16 again alerts us to the terrible danger, but they offer no tests or chemical theory or any other kind of data to back up their announcement. It’s just “Warning: don’t take MMS.” Reference #7 is even dumber. It says MMS is a 28% mixture (it is not); then it says the mixture of sodium chlorite and an acid produces chlorine dioxide (this is true); and then it cleverly says, “Which is an industrial bleach.” Well, vinegar is an industrial acid, and salt has hundreds of industrial uses. In doing their best to make MMS sound bad, they fail to mention that MMS, like salt and vinegar, is used in mixtures thousands of times weaker than the industrial applications.My reference again is my website jimhumble.biz. The instructions prove the doses are very weak. Moving Along in their Fakery The Wikipedia writers then make the statement that: “reliable scientific evidence” supports only dangers from use of MMS. They say that any claims of benefit come only from anecdotal reports and from Jim Humble’s book. They don’t mention that those anecdotal reports are in the hundreds of thousands. Any real scientist would know that this many anecdotal reports constitute valuable evidence. And of course they offer no examples of their “reliable scientific evidence.” There is, in fact, no “reliable scientific evidence” proving that MMS is dangerous. MMS is only dangerous in large quantities and so is table salt and every other chemical on Earth. The rest of the Wikipedia article seeks to mislead you in every line. They like to throw in a few statements from some impressive-sounding authorities; e.g., that according to the EPA, neuro-development and reproductive damage could result from small doses of chlorine dioxide. They say “could” but offer no evidence that MMS could cause such damage. That's because there isn't any evidence of such damage ever happening. Reference # 6 tells of renal failure from extreme overdose, but fails to mention that there was no death, and in the last 100 years, no death has ever been recorded that shows renal failure from an overdose of chlorine dioxide. That particular overdose was not due to MMS. It was due to someone trying to commit suicide by taking 10 grams of sodium chlorite, but the suicide was a failure. Reference #9 is an FDA letter sent to Jenine M. Cohoon of Provo, UT, warning her that she must stop selling MMS and other herbs. No evidence is given that is relevant to the data about MMS in Wikipedia. It is just a warning letter tossed in by the Wikipedia writers to impress you, and as long as you don’t read it, it looks like a legitimate reference. Reference #21 links to a study at Osha.gov. concerning chlorine dioxide and mostly rats. If you want to take the time to read it, you will see that is shows MMS is very safe to take. Keep in mind that the intensive MMS Protocol 1000 recommends 2 mg/kg per day for a 70 kg (154 lbs.) man. That’s less than was given to the rats (per their weight) and the rats were unaffected by it. So as I have already said, these references all either prove nothing or they prove my contention that MMS is safe to take. Just remember, as with table salt, you can take too much of it. But it is plenty safe in its recommended doses. Note: Just 2 gallons of water can kill a person. Dosage is the key. If you want governmental proof that MMS is safe to take, go to: http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/healthguidelines/chlorinedioxide/recognition.html. Of course the government won’t refer to it, but there it is. I suppose they will be removing it from the internet soon. It’s only used as a reference here because the Wikipedia writers didn’t realize it proves my statement that MMS is safe. They didn’t take time to read it, or they thought you would be confused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZZorro (talk • contribs) 16:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC) |
- Hi Jim, I see your PR people have been busy writing this article up for you and posting it around a few websites; thanks for the heads up, but this is not the place to post your ignorant rants. Vespine (talk) 22:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Just for the sake of completeness, in case someone comes and reads this complete BS I want to show the conclusions of the "proof" that MMS is safe that Jim linked to. It looks like the page is down now but I saved a copy from the cache, not sure how long the cache will be up so here it is:
- Effects on Humans: Chlorine dioxide is a severe respiratory and eye irritant in humans. Inhalation can produce coughing, wheezing, respiratory distress, and congestion in the lungs [Patnaik 1992]. Irritating effects in humans was intense at concentration levels of 5 ppm. Accidental exposure at 19 ppm of the gas inside a bleach tank resulted in the death of one worker (time of exposure is not specified) [ACGIH 1991]. Workers exposed for 5 years to average chlorine dioxide concentrations below 0.1 ppm but with excursions to higher concentrations had symptoms of eye and throat irritation, nasal discharge, cough, and wheezing; on bronchoscopy, bronchitis was observed in seven of the 12 workers [Clayton and Clayton 1982]. Concentrations of 0.25 ppm and less have been reported to worsen mild respiratory ailments [ACGIH 1991]. Two adults who ingested 250 ml of a 40 mg/l solution of chlorine dioxide experienced headache, nausea, abdominal discomfort, and lightheadedness within 5 minutes of ingestion.
- According to Jim Humble himself, MMS is a concentration of 0.00004%, this is eight times the dose (5ppm 0.000005%) that can cause intense respiratory distress, it is TWICE the concentration of 19ppm (0.000019%) which caused the death of a worker, and 400 times the dose 0.1ppm (0.0000001%) that caused 7 out of 12 workers to develop bronchitis after exposure for 5 years. So yeah, it clearly shows exactly how safe MMS is. Vespine (talk) 00:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
AH, yes, Vespine, Wasn't there something said about being neutral and sort of being nice. Well, anyway like you said you wanted to show me up and thus you wrote up all those paragraphs above. But when you are calling me those names you should tell the truth and get your facts right, don't you think. FIRST -- In copying an article and leaving out an important part while putting a period there like that important part is not missing one lies by leaving out the important part. You forgot to mention that the persons who drank the 200 ppm solution not only got sick in five minutes, but they also GOT BACK WELL AGAIN IN ANOTHER 5 MINUTES. Normally you can't really call that a problem.
HOWEVER, you main mistake is in your calculations as always to make me wrong. (I should call them ignorant rantings as that is what you said I was doing.) You see, 5ppm is not.000005% it is .0005% (that's 3 zeros instead of 5). Big difference huh. And the .1 ppm is actually .00001% four zeros not six. So that throws your contention off, and like all amateurs you state that the chlorine dioxide caused the workers to develop bronchitis, but the fact that 5 did not develop bronchitis simple means you cannot say for sure what caused the bronchitis. That's the scientific way that you wish to push.
Sorry but instead of you proving I am the stupid jerk that you wish I was, you just go on proving yourself to be what you want me to be. And my church just goes on saving lives and overcome suffering in thousands of people world wide. We have 230 ministers of health curing people in 58 countries free of charge. While you can only stop a few people from being healed with your ranting. I only say ranting because you already used the term in referring to me. JIM HUMBLE DataBishop (talk) 03:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- So what? We don't base articles on pharmaceutical products on the belief systems of purveyors of quack religions, any more than we base them on the purveyors of quack medicines. Take your evangelism for the Church of the Holy Bleach-Chuggers elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Jim, it's been a while, did you learn how to turn off caps lock or is this another one of your lackeys posting on your behalf? I will admit I mixed up the percentage with the concentration, 0.1ppm is 0.0000001 which is 0.00001%, not 0.0000001%, as you corrected me. This means that a dose of MMS is 50 times less then a fatal dose, fair enough. You recommend a MMS dose every hour for eight hours every day, which makes 8 doses a day, so 50 doses is received six and a bit days, that is still a LONG SHOT from what I would call safe! It's still four times the dose that caused the workers to develop bronchitis. It still doesn't change the fact that MMS is not "HARMLESS" as you claim.
- but the fact that 5 did not develop bronchitis simple means you cannot say for sure what caused the bronchitis.
- I'm not saying ANYTHING for sure, I'm quoting the conclusion of the study YOU posted, I'm not surprised YOU don't agree with the conclusion of the study once your mistake was pointed out to you, but then you freely admit you aren't a scientist, so why should we think you are in any way qualified to critique its validity? YOU posted the study, now YOU tell us the conclusions are invalid?? Lol.. The conclusions are not based on just one observation and they ALL fit a similar pattern, so I see no reason to think their methodology was flawed and even less reason to think your interpretation is valid.
- Besides, and this is where the real meat is, you don't actually want to prove that MMS is "safe", your real motive is to convince people MMS can cure cancer and AIDS and malaria and herpes and just about everything else you can think of, for which there is absolutely NO evidence what so ever, to the contrary. You have zero chance of doing that here, but you figure if you can at least get us to say to say it isn't so "harmful", then the majority of people who see this will be more likely to at least think they have "nothing to lose" by trying it. This is obviously your motive and we are NOT going to fall for it, so you might as well give up.
- Rational people like many of the editors of wikipedia realize it would be TRIVIALLY easy for you to really prove you have cured people of AIDS if you really have; just a few "before and after" verified lab tests is ALL it would take, if you went to the media and they verified and published the results, I for one would believe it. You've had 14 years, but so far nothing comes from you except excuses.. And don't give us the "media is controlled" bullshit, you can't use that excuse since wikileaks which proves undeniably that there ARE many media sources not controlled by the governments. The US military tried to stop Julian Assange from publishing their documents (US Army by the way is many times larger in money and power then ALL the big pharma companies of the WORLD combined!), but the media still couldn't scramble fast enough to print all the documents he leaked. Yes maybe there are stories you won't see on Fox or CNN, mainstream local or regional news publishers, but there are MORE then enough indapendant and underground sources that make up for it. There is no global information conspiracy in the age of the internet, welcome to the 21st century. Even the very fact that you are able to come here and post to defend yourself proves that point beyond any doubt. Vespine (talk) 06:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Reading this discussion page has been very interesting, I had not heard of MMS before a few hours ago so was reasonably unbiased to start with. Obviously if everyone stopped repeating themselves and took special care with their facts and figures the first time there would be a lot less for me to read, less entertainment for sure, but also a possibility of getting to the facts faster. I do a bit of reading, some in science and chemistry but this is not my focus so I am not a specialist, however I do take a bit of delight in scoffing at mistakes in literature that are obviously not sound research that are promoted as such, this discussion page is full of it. I have done a bit of editing on WP and have had my errors corrected and sometimes thrown in my face so understand the merits of the discussion page and keeping WP well referenced and on topic, I also understand the benefits of having fresh eyes looking at an article and seeing errors or omissions that should be corrected. Now the THING that does bother me is how the Sodium Chlorite and Chlorine Dioxide concentrations and 'protocols' keep getting mixed up in this article, from both sides of the fence from what I can see. Traditionally concentrations of gas are oft quoted in ppm and probably are more suited to Chlorine Dioxide and solution concentrations would be quoted in mg/l suitable for the Sodium Chlorite, now until someone actually lists the actual concentrations in common units for each separate chemical (bleach, Soduim Chlorite, Chlorine Dioxide, etc) for the toxicology reports, research trials and MMS 'protocols', why are you guys doing the apples and oranges bit over and over again. Also cumulative doses and single exposures should not be compared too casually, and it seems the generation of the Chlorine Dioxide with the Citric Acid may not be a sure thing but might (my suspicion) only happen in the stomach on mixing with the Hydrochloric Acid found there, unfortunately so much harder to measure or estimate. What would the other gas concentrations (Cl2, O2, CO2 etc.) be in a bleach tank, I wonder. Without being a medical specialist, from personal hearsay I would be cautious of calling Sodium Chlorite, this freely available common industrial salt, 'toxic' when compared to some of the FDA approved medicines I've heard about that require full face masks for the administering staff to prevent blindness that are administered intraveneously by the cc (ml) and not diluted by the drop and drunk with lemon juice, perhaps 'toxic in certain doses' would be fair play and does the word 'potent' actually occur in the cited reference? Perspective and accuracy are what WP demands, I think in this (and similar contentious articles) all reasonable sources should be summarized and referenced, also add in any credible snake oil warnings too and then leave it to the reader to make their own conclusions, editorial bias in a WP article will pretty much play into the wrong hands, the vehemence against alternative view points smacks of cover up where none might exist and certainly has me convinced that there may be some merit to this. Regrettably mainstream drug industry does have a history of suppressing non-profitable research, as they are expected to, but they should also be proud of looking after their share holders instead or pretending some incredible altruism. Idyllic press (talk) 23:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Be assured that "potent" is in the source. The quotations are a dead giveaway, and the source can easily be checked. The term protocol is a red herring, since there has been no proper testing to demonstrate that an effective dosage exists. Ignore the Wikipedia apples and oranges as numerous agencies that routinely deal with these toxicity issues have come to the conclusion that it exceeds safe levels. Every reliable source finds that there is no evidence to support any benefit, but risk is established. That is what Wikipedia articles are based upon. There is no false balance of reliable sources and pseudoscience. While some chemotherapy agents do require extreme caution in handling, there is an important difference: they have been shown to work. If chlorine dioxide worked, it would have been used before nitrogen mustards. It's not like there was no knowledge of chlorine chemistry (which was necessary to generate the mustards).Novangelis (talk) 00:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Conflict of Interest (Jim Humble)
Aren't there rules on Wikipedia against conflict of interest? If so, then why is Jim Humble allowed to edit this article? He is selling a book to promote the use of this so-called supplement, so I think he's too close to the subject. Bialy Goethe (talk) 03:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- See WP:COIN#Miracle Mineral Supplement. Dougweller (talk) 06:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Positive Studies of the Miracle Mineral on Cancer Patients
"3 of the 24 study participants (12.5%) reported a positive result from using MMS, as outlined below:" http://www.alternative-cancer-care.com/MMS_Cancer_Study.html
There are probably more of these. Your quack article is completely biased, and has severely lowered my respect for wikipedia.
Have a nice day. 69.143.187.109 (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
You delete my messages when I'm winning the argument. What a looser, andy. 69.143.187.109 (talk) 22:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- See WP:MEDRS and WP:NOTFORUM - and I suggest you read the article you linked: "MMS may slow the progression of cancer, however this has not been established on this study". "may": even quackery-promoting websites don't seem to support claims that it demonstrably does anything other than relieve people of the contents of their bank account. Though from anecdotal evidence (i.e. the nonsense that its promoters spout), I suspect that as well as the nausea and diarrhoea side effects reported, significant brain-rotting may be occurring. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- There is some secret technique you wikipedia users are using, to ban and oust out non-wikipedia users opinions. I did not vandalize this webpage Drmies; Andythegrump vandalized it by removing my text from the talk page. You say there is no evidence to support that the MMS works, but my own successes with the miracle mineral should point to SOME wiki-friendly PRO-EVIDENCE existing SOMEWHERE! Someone needs to find these 75,000 trials conducted in africa by Jim Humble. 1) The MMS is not quackery. 2) "I suspect that as well as the nausea and diarrhoea side effects reported, significant brain-rotting may be occurring." is a personal attack, and should be deleted. Let's play by the rules, huh? Stop making personal attacks.
- I don't know how to change the edit summary, so if someone could help me here.. 69.143.187.109 (talk) 22:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- This is a talk page for discussing article content. We base article content on published reliable sources - which for topics like this means peer-reviewed mainstream medical journals. We do not use material from unknown websites making 'scientific' claims (not that the site you linked claimed that MMS worked anyway). And neither do we base article content on anecdotal evidence. Jim Humble may well claim to have conducted 75,000 trials. We don't care. They aren't evidence of anything whatsoever, beyond the fact that Jim Humble makes claims and then fails to provide anything to back them up. Per policy, material not directly related to article content may be deleted from talk pages (seeWP:NOTFORUM). Soapboxing about Wikipedia 'bias', and suggesting that some random pro-quackery website is in any way relevant to this article is a waste of your time, and ours. If you consider my comments about 'brain-rotting' to be a personal attack, I have to ask whether your combative initial post was anything else? Unless you have suggestions for changes to the article which conform to Wikipedia policy, and are based on reliable sources (see WP:MEDRS for what is required), I suggest you stop posting - this isn't a forum for debate on anything else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- "A primary source in medicine is one in which the authors directly participated in the research or documented their personal experiences." (from WP:MEDRS) I documented my personal experience of the miracle mineral curing my tooth root infection, in my lower-jaw, that had spread to my brain, travelling across the nerve, in UNDER 4 HOURS, and you DELETED MY POST FROM THIS TALK THREAD, WHICH IS VANDALISM, AND then you said that this was my "point of view", while you adopt the "point of view" that the miracle mineral is evil quackery. I cannot recall my previous post from the history, due to conflicts in intermediate edits, and I DEMAND that an admin place a warning on you, for VANDALISM by DELETING MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE from the talk thread.
- Also, Jim Humble has directly participated in a research on 75,000 malaria patients in africa, so he is a primary source for the miracle mineral as well. We have to go by the rules here.
- Also, the mms church must have had lots of personal experiences of the curative effects of the miracle mineral, and you guys decry these people as "lackeys" of Jim Humble, and cry "point of view", while YOU HOLD a "point of view" as well! What is this nonsense??? I demand an administrator come here, and allow the primary sources of Jim Humble and his "lackeys" into the main wikipedia article for the miracle mineral. Your bias here is unbelievable! The miracle mineral WORKS! This is undisputable.
- You also engage in personal attacks, by referring to the mms church as the "church of bleach-chuggers". Well, that they are, a church of bleach chuggers, except the bleach DOES NOT HARM THE HEALTHY CELLS IN THE BODY, MAKING THIS A MIRACLE CURE. This ****IS***** a miracle cure, and I *****DEMAND***** that the wikipedia article reflect the non-bogus, curative nature of the miracle mineral. 69.143.187.109 (talk) 04:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Ok, now the wikipedia-elite are now bashing and shoving aside the un-skilled wikipedia users, using some ridiculous jargon. The sources are NOT unreliable. They are VERY reliable, and I demand that an administrator punish you Yobol for VANDALISING the article. Then you claim the wikipedia is not a forum, THEN WHY AM I BEING PERSONALLY ATTACKED, by Andythegrump whenever I try to make a constructive message? Please undo the hide you did of this discussion, or I will do it for you. Stop hiding all of the positive primary sources of the miracle mineral, while promoting only the erroneous, negative sources. Governments can be incorrect you know. I don't know what they're thinking, the FDA telling people to dispose of the miracle cure for cancer and aids. 69.143.187.109 (talk) 05:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I just sent a report to the FDA, concerning my tooth root infection that travelled to the brain, and hopefully we will find some "reliable, positive sources" soon for the miracle mineral. 69.143.187.109 (talk) 05:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I just removed your hide of my text, and I also registered my account, so you won't see my IP 69.143.187.109 anymore. Let's see if you have the balls to continue this edit war with me, deleting and hiding my constructive attempts to rectify the horrible mangling you're doing to the miracle mineral with your insanely-biased article. I went ahead and requested dispute resolution. Let's see you guys hoist yourselves on your own petard, by deleting/hiding my comments. MoogleONE (talk) 07:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I looked at the beginning of the history of the miracle mineral supplement article, and it's very obviously a well-calculated smear attempt against Jim Humble. I have lost all of my interest with this article, and probably won't be making anymore edits. I leave it to someone else to clean out the trash. MoogleONE (talk) 09:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you, I will clean out all trash I can find. You can focus your attention elsewhere. Von Restorff (talk) 08:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Minerals?
It strikes me odd that something called Miracle Mineral Supplement does not contain any minerals. Is anyone aware of a source that has commented on this fact? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- It doesn't contain any miracles, that's for sure... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)