TOPIC:

Response to MMS Critic Gabriela Segura, MD, by Jim Humble

Gabriela Segura, MD is the author of the article:
" MMS: Miracle Mineral Solution or Trojan Horse? Your Body and DNA Decide ",
written August 2010, first published in issue #10 of The Dot Connector Magazine.



Reposted on the Genesis II Forum of Health & Healing.


Jim Humble writes:
I have been noticing a few people for one reason or another have been attempting to debunk MMS. The one overriding characteristics of all these people even this doctor, Gabriela, is the fact that they know very little about chemistry and especially about the chemistry of Chlorine Dioxide. They are extremely interested in proving MMS wrong without any proof, and they seldom will talk to me. THEY HAVE ALL REFUSED TO CHECK OUT MY ACTUAL OPERATIONS. Gabriela has refused to answer direct emails. But the damaging part for them is that they, none of them, have bothered to look up the chemistry of chlorine dioxide, and they certainly have not tried to understand the chemistry.

I begin to wonder if anyone understands this. Gabriela and others who try to debunk MMS have not taken the time to check out one single person who claims to be cured. Nor have they bothered to check the actual chemistry of chlorine dioxide.

I have not listed a great number of references (there are a few) in my following comments as i do not feel that it is necessary. Just plain old everday logic and high school chemistry that most of us had proves my point. However i reference Andreas Kalcker's article giving my same opinions but he has given dozens of references proving Gabriela false.


Gabriela Segura, MD:
The Miracle Mineral Solution (MMS) is marketed feverishly as a miraculous alternative treatment for AIDS, hepatitis, malaria, herpes, tuberculosis, cancer and many more of mankind’s most feared diseases. The truth is that MMS is a dangerous poison, and as such it has no business whatsoever in the alternative health arena.

Jim Humble responds:
She makes the statement that MMS is a dangerous poison. She might have also stated that the FDA has approved of the use of sodium chlorite (same chemical as MMS) for use in foods, on vegetables (and may be used without washing it off), and may be used on meats of all kinds including fish and may be used without washing it off. Does that sound like a dangerous poison? She is trying to make MMS and the chemical chlorine dioxide look bad and I guess she might be successful at that, but it is basically not true. It is a poison like any other non-poisonous chemical in our civilization -- only when used in large quantities. It is one of the most useful chemicals known and is used throughout our civilization. Her statements will scare people from trying it and thus they will continue much suffering when it is not necessary.


Gabriela Segura, MD:
Many people do not know that MMS is essentially bleach. It’s very effective for killing bacteria in toilets,

Jim Humble responds:
It is not used in household toilets or as household bleach anywhere in the world. It is only used as an industrial bleach but at more than 1200 times the strength of MMS.


Gabriela Segura, MD:
but you certainly shouldn’t be swallowing it. The active ingredient in MMS is not a mineral,

Jim Humble responds:
She should have learned in high school chemistry that anything that is not animal or vegetable has got to be mineral. The fact is that the active ingredient in MMS is a mineral. But of course Gabriela insists that it is not a mineral. However (sodium chlorite which is MMS in water) is found in various deposits of rock in various parts of the world. The fact is the active ingredient in MMS is a mineral. However the fact is that sometimes it is more convenient to manufacture it, but that doesn’t make it any less a mineral. Check it out on the internet.


Gabriela Segura, MD:
but chlorine dioxide (oxygenated chlorine) which is formed from the chemical combination of sodium chlorite and acetic acid (vinegar) or citric acid.

Jim Humble responds:
Chlorine dioxide is not considered oxygenated chlorine in the chemical world. Gabriela doesn’t even know how to refer to this chemical), and it is not true that sodium chlorite and acetic or citric acid make any kind of a chemical combination. It would only be right that Gabriela at least learn the chemistry before she begins her criticism.


Gabriela Segura, MD:
MMS as a poison does kill intrusive germs in your body, but it would be naive to believe it to be carefully selective in what it kills and destroys,

Jim Humble responds:
See my references at the end of this article. I have listed 6 companies that use chlorine dioxide because it is selective and their comments on the selectivity. I have shown where the EPA has written a paragraph about the selectivity of chlorine dioxide in their specifications sheet.


Gabriela Segura, MD:
or to think that the damage done has only limited consequences. It is shocking that MMS is recommended so widely, that it is recommended to already weakened individuals AND that it is recommended for long-term use. In truth, the potential long-term and dangerous side effects of regular MMS use should give anyone the shivers.

Jim Humble responds:
Does anyone see anything wrong with this last statement? Well, when trying to ruin someone’s reputation you don’t just get to make one unsubstantiated statement after the other. Not only is it unfair but most people can see right through it. You need to back up your statements with logical data or actual facts. Do i need to point it out? There are no facts or substantiation in this statement above ending with, “should give anyone the shivers.”


Gabriela Segura, MD:
Before we continue, an important lesson on oxidation and free radicals is needed to help us understand the long-term consequences of the use of MMS1 and its successor MMS2. This information is crucial to see why MMS is NOT an alternative health solution.

Oxygen is an essential element that supports life, but in the wrong place or at the wrong time, oxygen can wreak much havoc on our cells, causing cancer, contributing to cardiovascular disease, degenerative diseases, and aging through a process called oxidation. You have seen the effects of oxidation whenever you have observed an apple turn brown and go bad after being exposed to air, or when you see the flame of a candle.

We use oxygen in order to take electrons from the sugar and fat molecules that we use for fuel. The molecules we wish to keep intact, however, are subject to oxygen’s burning influence and they are at risk of losing electrons as well. The fire from a candle flame aptly illustrates oxidation in which the electrons of the candle wax are ripped off by oxygen in the atmosphere with the resulting, self-perpetuating release of light and heat. As oxygen makes its way through the body, many of its molecules lose an electron. This means that they become chemically unstable and highly reactive ions as free radicals are formed. These unstable metabolic by-products of energy production in cells strive to stabilize by ‘stealing’ a replacement electron from any neighboring molecule, leaving even more damaged molecules in their wake. This is how free radicals in our bodies are produced and cause inflammation, a process that is best known as oxidative stress or oxidative damage. Oxidation can even cause debilitating changes to your DNA.

Jim Humble responds:
Although chlorine dioxide is an oxidizer, it does not use oxygen in any way, thus Gabriela once again shows her ignorance of the process. Oxidative stress has to do with oxygen. Chlorine dioxide (MMS) has an oxidation potential (voltage) of .95 volts which is much less than oxygen. Oxygen has an oxidation potential of 1.28 volts. There is nothing in the human body that chlorine dioxide can oxidize given the low concentration that is used by MMS (concentration used in MMS is .016%).

If oxygen was doing the damage that she says, then it would be killing the beneficial bacteria that resides in the stomach and the intestines. But guess what, there are no clinical trials proving that oxygen does damage in the body. It is all conjecture by people like Gabriela. Oxygen travels throughout the body killing pathogens and overcoming inflamation. MMS has an oxidation potential that is the lowest oxidation potential of all the oxidants that are ever in the body. If oxygen doesn't do damage then MMS is much less likely to do damage.


Gabriela Segura, MD:
Depending on where this oxidative damage takes place, it can lead to any number of the following diseases: atherosclerosis (plaque in blood vessels), cancer, arthritis, cataracts, neurodegenerative disorders such as Alzheimer’s disease, autoimmune diseases, and many other health problems generally related to aging. Any free radical involving oxygen can be referred to as a Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS). A perfect example of a ROS is hypochlorous acid, which is now also known as Miracle Mineral Solution 2 (MMS2). Keep in mind that the loss of electrons from molecules whose integrity is vital to the structure of our cell membranes, DNA, skin or eyes results in damage and disease. Oxidation is the most toxic force affecting all the molecules of the body; it’s the enemy of youth, the ally of all diseases, and the fundamental mechanism of all injury, all aging, and eventually, of death

Jim Humble responds:
[1]. First let me mention that the human body has been generating hypochlorous acid to fight disease and infections for hundreds of thousands of years. It has proven that helping the body with a little extra of this acid is in many cases extremely helpful. Without oxidation you would be dead within minutes. In fact, when you take the poison cyanide that is what happens, cyanide prevents oxidation in your body and it kills you faster than any other poison known. This lady is trying to scare you concerning oxidation but the fact is that it is an absolute necessity in your body. That is what generates your body heat and helps with digestion and every time you move a muscle, oxidation happens to make the muscle work. You would die within minutes if oxygen was not oxidizing the poisons that the operation of you body generates.


Gabriela Segura, MD:
By now, you should understand why anti-oxidants are so important. Antioxidants help to counteract or neutralize the free radicals before they can damage our healthy cells by lending a hand (actually, an electron) when stabilization is needed. This is the reason why we are fond of so many antioxidants such as vitamin C, E, carotenoids, resveratrol, taurine, coenzyme Q10, and melatonin, to name but a few.

Jim Humble responds:
Any nutrient or chemical can be over done and thus become a poison. All critics go on and on about MMS being a poison, but the fact remains that at .016% strength, MMS doses are not a poison to the body. The fact is many new things continue to be learned and unlearned. Taking antioxidants has been proclaimed as great by many nutritionists. But the amazing fact is, 95% of mankind does not take antioxidants and even more amazing is the fact that there are no official clinical trials using placebos to prove that taking antioxidants is beneficial. Do you take antioxidants? Nutritionists like to sell pills and make a living and perhaps they are correct, but there is no collaborating scientific evidence that they are correct. Again, Gabriela is just giving us her opinion.


Gabriela Segura, MD:
Each person is exposed to oxidants and each one of us has a variety of antioxidant defenses and DNA repair ability. These factors together determine the extent of oxidant-induced DNA damage in each of us, and the levels of such damage may well contribute to cancer risk, especially in tissues where other changes may have already occurred. But keep in mind that DNA protection is essential not only to guard us from cancer, but also because in all of our cells, DNA carries our ancestral identity and the instructions and information that maintain our bodies. We might also wonder what other special properties could be lying dormant in our DNA.

But for now, let’s get back to MMS1, which is basically the combination of sodium chlorite and acetic acid (vinegar) or citric acid which together form chlorine dioxide (oxygenated chlorine)

Jim Humble responds:
Wrong again! That isn’t what makes chlorine dioxide. When acid is added to sodium chlorite, the pH is brought downwards to an acidic condition (to about 4.8 ) which then causes the sodium chlorite to become unstable and the sodium atoms begin to come losoe from their attraction to the chlorine dioxide, leaving fully functional chlorine dioxide molecules. Any acid will do this, but the fact is just plain water will do it as well, so an acid is not necessary to form chlorine dioxide.


Gabriela Segura, MD:
The toxic effects of chlorine dioxide are associated with those of sodium chlorite – a very strong oxidant that at a dose of 10-15 grams is considered to be lethal. Even small amounts of about 1 gram can be expected to cause nausea and vomiting. Now get this: the MMS protocol suggests that taking up to 60 drops per day is within reason. There are 20 drops in one gram, which means that the protocol may call for the ingestion of 3 grams or more of what amounts to household bleach. This is three times the amount required to produce nausea and vomiting and 20% of the amount required to kill you [2]. Even though we are told that nausea and diarrhea are positive signs of detoxification when following the MMS protocol, you can be sure that they are actually the way our body tells us that we’ve just been poisoned. If you happen to vomit, then be reassured that it might have saved your life by way of avoiding a lethal overdose of MMS! There are in fact several testimonials of negative side effects and at least one death related to MMS which you can easily find on the internet

Jim Humble responds:
[2]. Well, let’s see what she got wrong this time. A drop of MMS is only 22.4% sodium chlorite so 60 drops which is supposed to be 3 grams of sodium chlorite according to Gabriela is actually 22.4% times 3 grams which equals only .67 grams. So it’s not really 3 grams after all. But I said that years ago. It’’s been more than 2 years since I suggested that a 60 drops dose was possible and even then I didn’t recommend it. Normally we only take 3 drop doses nowadays. The death that Gabriela would like to report as related to MMS was never related except in minds like Gabriela. They will do anything to substantiate that thing that proves their contention, be it true or not. But let me mention this: more than 900,000 people died last year after taking a standard medical drug. They didn’t die from the disease; they died after taking the drug from reactions caused by the drug. Out of 10 million users of MMS, there are no reported deaths that were substantiated in any way.


Gabriela Segura, MD:
The popularity of MMS and its fervent, almost religious marketing involved the claim of curing malaria in tens if not hundreds of thousands of people. Sounds very noble indeed, but this is only natural as MMS’ sodium chlorite is well known to cause hemolysis in red blood cells – meaning that red blood cells are ruptured and destroyed. It is actually by killing red blood cells that the malaria parasite is killed since it invades red blood cells. MMS probably kills the parasite and the red blood cells. In fact, MMS consumers may develop anemia.

Jim Humble responds:
Do you see? She has substantiated nothing here. She has just made a bunch of claims. She at least says “probably” and “may,” most of my critics don’t bother to say probably, they just state it as a fact. MMS is not known to cause hemolysis in red blood cells. There is no such evidence. MMS consumers do not develop anemia, as out of millions of people who have used it, none have reported anemia. Patents issued in 1982 and in 1990 and in 1992 prove that MMS (chlorine dioxide) does not cause hemolysis in red blood cells as the chlorine dioxide is used to clean the red blood cells of various impurities in these patents. The fact is, hemolysis in red blood cells and anemia caused by MMS (chlorine dioxide) is an invention of this lady, Dr. Gabriela, as this data is not found anywhere in the literature. Chlorine dioxide (MMS) has been used to clean red blood cells of pathogens and other poisons for more than 28 years in special hospitals and trial cases. The following patents you can read proving this fact and there are about 12 more patents based on Chlorine dioxide cleaning the blood without any biological damage. Patent numbers 5,185,371 and 5,211,912 and 4,971,760 and 4,944,920 .

But wait a minute, now Gabriela says yes to MMS killling malaria. So I'll tell you this, anyone who has ever had malaria would 1000 times rather have anemia than malaria. So if we were to listen to her, we could at least use it for killing malaria. And anemia is easy to overcome.


Gabriela Segura, MD:
MMS really does sound like a dangerous allopathic drug, similar to antibiotics or chemotherapy. Why is it that we don’t see many efforts to remove this poison from the market when in recent times there has been a push to remove healthy vitamins and antioxidants by agencies like the FDA and Codex? MMS is more of a killer than antibiotics and has the potential to kill all kinds of microbes including viruses. Such a killer weapon has other consequences for your body, and killer therapies should never be the first course of action when dealing with disease. They should never be an option when we are able to take control of our health through diet and appropriate, real alternative health therapies.

Jim Humble responds:
Well, i agree with her about health therapies, but of the other things she says, are again, unsubstantiated. Do you see, when a critic such as Gabriela makes many dumb and unsubstantiated accusations, I shouldn't have to prove they are false, it is her job to prove they are correct and she has never done that.


Gabriela Segura, MD:
Let us review some safety data sheets of MMS ingredients: Chlorine dioxide is a strong oxidant, and as such it reacts violently with combustible materials, mercury, ammonia, sulphur and many organic compounds [3]. Sodium chlorite is a strong irritant of the skin, eyes, and respiratory tract; a strong oxidizer that promotes combustion; concentrated solutions may be corrosive to the skin and eyes; mild hemolytic anemia and increased methemoglobin in males was observed in animal feeding studies [4]. Acute health effects of chlorine dioxide: ingestion is not a normal route of exposure (except thanks to MMS!), harmful if swallowed, can cause irritation to mouth, esophagus, stomach, and mucous membranes (hence, the diarrhea, nausea and vomiting!). Eye contact: contact causes redness, irritation, pain, blurred vision, tearing, corneal injury and burns. Inhalation: harmful if inhaled, coughing, headaches, labored breathing, nausea, shortness of breath, pulmonary edema. Chronic health effects: may have effects on lungs, resulting in chronic bronchitis and permanent lung damage [5]. In short, MMS should NEVER be a health treatment, alternative or otherwise!

Jim Humble responds:
There she goes again. All these studies were with chlorine dioxide that was thousands of times stronger than that used in MMS. Consider that MMS is never used even as strong as sprinkling table salt on you food. Low level chlorine dioxide is so effective that last month a case of very bad bronchitis was overcome while the person affected continued to smoke cigarettes. Consider, all chemicals are dangerous in large quantities, and all medical drugs are based on using small quantities of very dangerous chemicals, and you will use about 2 mg of salt on your salad tonight, and one pound of salt taken at one time will kill you. The exactly same thing is true of MMS. So what! We have to use each chemical within its limits.

Actually it really is somewhat irritating when a person claiming to be a doctor just starts talking, telling people she is a doctor, when she says nothing logical that a real doctor would say. Looking immediately above, the safety data sheet that Gabriela is talking about referes to a 10% gas of chlorine dioxide. Please look at that figure of 10%. That is because the MMS strength is .016% instead of the 10% that Gabriela is talking about. Can you see the difference in the strength? MMS is 1250 times weaker in strength than the Chlorine dioxide that Gabriela is talking about.


Gabriela Segura, MD:
Now here is where things get even more interesting. Enter MMS2, which works more subtly and therefore more dangerously than its predecessor.

MMS2 is basically calcium hypochlorite, which is a chemical compound widely used for water treatment and as a bleaching and disinfecting agent (bleaching powder). This one is indeed a mineral, (YES BUT NO MORE OF A MINERAL THAN MMS1) but a mineral that reacts to produce hypochlorous acid when ingested. Hypochlorous acid (HOCl), which is a combination of hydrogen, oxygen, and chlorine, is what some of our white blood cells produce in order to kill bacteria through the well-known process called oxidation. HOCl is a powerful oxidant indeed, and as I mentioned before, it is the perfect example of a hazardous reactive oxygen species (ROS). Just as with MMS1, pathogens can’t develop a resistance to MMS2 and this is related to the powerful free radicals that it liberates. Sound good? Well, not really. MMS2 is meant to create high concentrations of this dangerous oxidative hypochlorous acid in our bodies in order to kill ‘powerful and incurable’ diseases, or so it is claimed. Unfortunately, the amount of HOCl that our body is already capable of producing on its own is dangerous enough. In fact, some of our white blood cells have toxic and damaging effects on our DNA through the formation of hypochlorous acid. What is more, antioxidants are being studied and used successfully to block hypochlorous acid from creating DNA damage Yes, DNA damage! This is dangerous to the extreme!

Jim Humble responds:
Again, i hope you recognize opinions. These are Gabriela’s opinions. Do you see references to her data? She makes it sound like data, but there is no such proof on the internet. DNA damage is again Gabriela's opinion. There are no clinical trial proofs of that anywhere on the web.


Gabriela Segura, MD:
Another way in which MMS2 can cause damage is through activation of ‘evil’ transcription factors. Free radicals such as hypochlorous acid and other toxins may cause transcription factors to initiate a series of genetic reactions that result in cancer. Transcription factors are proteins that facilitate gene expression – that is, they cause genetic material to do something. A particular transcription factor, NF kappa B, is influenced by free radicals or toxins which usually activate it. Once activated, this transcription factor goes into the nucleus of our cells where our DNA resides and may activate genes that might change a potentially malignant cell into an absolutely malignant cell [8]. Hypochlorous acid (MMS2) activates this infamous NF-kappa B transcription factor, especially in the absence of antioxidants like taurine [11,12]. NF-kappa B has also a crucial role in inflammation, and thus ultimately it induces illness. That MMS2 is promoted as a cure for cancer and many other illnesses is just plain baffling.

Jim Humble responds:
This is baffling to Gabriela, but it just happens we have thousands of letters from people who say that they have been what she suggests: Cured. You will note in this paragraph she uses the words may cause, and may activate genes. I am sure you recognize that “may’s” and “might’s” are opinions. And there is no evidence of this data on the internet. May and might simply does not get it, especially in an article where you can hurt hundreds of people by getting the data wrong. Again she copies words and phrases well, but her data does not show up on the internet.


Gabriela Segura, MD:
But that’s not all, folks. It gets worse! In fact, hypochlorous acid (MMS2) has the power to chlorinate the building blocks of DNA, breaking the DNA double helix apart and thus interfering with its vital biological functions [13]. By the way, the new airport security scanners can break apart our DNA’s double helix as well [14]. Do we see a pattern here?

Jim Humble responds:
Sorry, Gabriela, but hypochlorous acid never clorinates, it is an oxidizer, not a chlorinator. She knows a lot of fancy words, but she does not know the technology science that goes with those words. Chlorination happens when chlorine combines with the item to be chlorinated. Oxidation is what hypochlorous acid does. Oxidation is when the chemical destroys the chemical it oxidizes. Chlorination is combination, and oxidation is destruction. Hypochlorous acid oxidizes (destroys) and cannot chlorinate. Thus, of course, her explanation is totally off base. She has lots of complex explanations but none of it is right. This is just plain chemistry that she doesn’t know. I know how that works. I write this whole paper teaching her chemistry, and then she takes what I write and works at it until she thinks she has proven me wrong, and then i am expected to write again and show her how she is again wrong. After a few times at this I have wound up teaching her the chemistry, but she will never admit being wrong. It wastes my time. This is the only time I will write showing her mistakes. All critics want to continue writing against what I say and I wouldn’t mind if they would use logic and truth, but they never do, they just continue in the same vein, putting lies in at any point that they wish. I won’t carry it further than this letter.


Gabriela Segura, MD:
Some claim that hypochlorous acid is hazardous only to intrusive germs, but there are actually studies that have determined that the properties of hypochlorous acid that make it such a potent bug killer agent can damage our bodies by the same mechanism used to destroy the invading pathogenic bugs [15]. One such study could not have a more appropriate name: “Living with a killer: the effects of hypochlorous acid on mammalian cells [15].

Jim Humble responds:
Again, the studies didn't prove anything. I hope it is obvious that when you say “may” and “might” you are only saying opinions. If i say that your car might get a flat tire on the way home, i am only giving an opinion.


Gabriela Segura, MD:
It has been well documented that there are a variety of disorders tied to the deleterious effects of hypochlorous acid in our bodies including diabetes, obesity, depression, hypertension, gout, kidney failure, and autism, among other conditions [12]. This makes sense in view of our brief review of oxidation: wherever there is oxidative damage, there is disease. What is more, our brains have a high oxygen demand, and thus are particularly sensitive to oxidative damage. So it doesn’t come as a surprise that our mind is often the canary in the coal mine. We often notice our body’s first inflammatory effects through brain fog, memory problems, and insomnia. Hypochlorous acid has the potential to be extremely neurotoxic to our brains, where it literally oxidizes certain lipids and proteins, preventing them from performing their functions and contributing to neurodegenerative disorders like Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease and Multiple Sclerosis

Jim Humble responds:
Sorry, but that is all opinion and no collaborating evidence is available and I do not believe it. So I get to give my opinion once in a while where opinion seems to be the order of the day. This is all conjecture and obviously a desire to destroy a successful chemical that has already saved thousands of lives around the world. That could only be coming from the drug companies through Gabriela. Gabriela offers no proof or even references. She goes on and on with no collaborating evidence.


Gabriela Segura, MD:
In addition, hypochlorous acid can be very dangerous in certain settings. Its strong oxidative power makes the chemical very dangerous, because it can become explosive when combined with certain substances. Adding acids to a hypochlorous acid solution will precipitate this process, making the mixture unstable, releasing chlorine gas, and potentially causing an explosive chemical reaction. The compound needs to be handled carefully because it can release dangerous chlorine gas if mixed with seemingly safe household products. Chlorine gas can cause considerable health problems or death, especially in poorly ventilated spaces, which is one reason why it is inadvisable to mix household chemicals like bleach at random.

Jim Humble responds:
Yes, that’s true, but so what? Houses burn down every day which is oxidation. Shall we quit building houses or just quit living in them? This chemical is used in millions of swimming pools throughout the world. It is dumped in full strength. No one has been reported killed by it in dozens of years. Gabriela is using what she thinks is superior knowledge to make a chemical that is used throughout this world even by children dangerous.


Gabriela Segura, MD:
Further complicating this tragedy, MMS is now being promoted with the use of DMSO. DMSO (Dimethylsulphoxide) is a solvent which enhances the availability and effectiveness of many drugs throughout our bodies, thus potentiating their effects. It has the capacity to distribute a drug deep into our bodies. The worrying thing is that DMSO also very easily crosses the blood-brain barrier. This property is exactly why DMSO is widely used as an effective transporter of certain substances into our brains that may not otherwise cross the mentioned barrier. Even though DMSO by itself is a powerful antioxidant, keep in mind that it has the ability to potentiate and carry a dangerous poison such as MMS1 and MMS2 into the brain. By now, I hope that it is clear why this is a very, very bad idea.

Jim Humble responds:
Just the opposite, Gabriela. We have many letters saying their tumor of the brain is gone. So if you are going to give this article out, please include my comments. As she says, they have the right to know.

I have treated thousands of people total in Uganda, Kenya, Malawi, South Africa, Mexico, the Dominican Republic, and other places, and thousands more by sending people out or over the phone or by email. Many people, like Gabriela, claim that I am somehow egoistic and really want to hurt people. I am now in the city of Puerto Vallarta, Mexico, training people who come here from all over the world to use MMS. As this was written we have 425 ministers of health healing people free of charge in more than 70 different countries.

It is beyond me why these people who attempt to debunk MMS don’t just check out my claims. But none of them have. They go on and on spouting lies that they believe and are never willing to check a single thing I am doing. One would think, that if one is going to write an article that hurts a person’s reputation that he would take the time to check things out, but none have done it so far. They say, we did the research, but I don’t know what that is as their write up proves they don’t know the chemistry, and they have never checked a single claim of someone being cured by MMS.


Gabriela Segura, MD:
Please give this article to any MMS consumer. They have the right to know what is going on within their bodies – and DNA – when they take this Trojan Horse!

Jim Humble responds:
So let me give the reader one last chance to use their own logic in looking at MMS. MMS is chlorine dioxide. Instead of the approximate 22% strength of chlorine dioxide in the bottle, only three drops are used for the normal MMS standard dose. That three drops is then diluted 675 times making a solution of .016% instead of the 28% that Gabriela wants to talk about. No one in the world has ever taken a 28% dose of MMS that we know about, except one man who tried to commit suicide by taking 10 grams of sodium chlorite . However, he failed to die and completely recovered. There are plenty of medicines that allow the user to use an eye dropper to measure out their dose.

So now we know that the MMS user will be usng a very small weak solution. The strongest solution that anyone ever uses at this time is .018% and that is only for malaria. Now come on, look at some simple logic that Gabriela, an educated doctor, should be able to find out if she doesn’t already know. And that is this: The oxidative voltage of chlorine dioxide is plus .95 volts. And the oxidation voltage of most of the human body (official name is ORP or Oxidation Reduction Potential is plus .090 volts approximately. This is data that is only well known to chlorine dioxide chemists, but they know the data well. It must be used by chemical engineers using chlorine dioxide. Now listen carefully as Gabriela doesn’t seem to be able to comprehend the logic. I, however, am sure you will. Remember your high school science classes? You learned that like charges repel one another and unlike charges attract one another. So, here you have chlorine dioxide with plus .95 volts and the body chemistry with plus .090 volts. Do you see that? They are both positive. What that means is that they will repel one another and that means that they won’t touch one another and thus they will have no effect on one another. Do you see? Chlorine dioxide will run through the body for as long as it is in the body, but it will continue to repel body parts never touching them and thus it will never contact the body and thus will never do damage to the body. In the low concentration of MMS, it simply cannot affect the human body in any way. The only effect is the destruction of pathogens, heavy metal compounds, and poisons in the body that have negative charges. Gabriela cares nothing about truth or lies as she has continuously lied throughout this entire article.

I give you one other point of logic. The skin in the body is about 1/32 of an inch thick and so are the walls of the digestive tract. The skin in a pathogen is about 10,000 times thinner with about 10,000 times less strength than the skin in the body. The pathogen has a negtive charge. That means it will be attracted to the chlorine dioxide instead of repelled. And with a skin that is 10,000 times thinner than the wall of the intestines the chlorine dioxide can blow a hole in it literally in 1/10 second. The thicker walls of the intestines never even feel the chlorine dioxide, as the chlorine dioxide molecules are repelled from it. Well, I hope by now you have seen the poor logic and the harm that Gabriela is causing. She prevents those who believe her from being cured and thus they go on suffering. The paper that Gabriela has written has been passed around the internet by well meaning people also causing harm because one doctor is jealous. However a little jealousy never hurts in most cases, but when it prevents people from becoming well it is done by extremely irresponsible persons caring nothing about who they hurt but just wanting to stop someone they are jealous of. It is actually jealousy to the point of being criminal and I am actually sorry for Gabriela, but more sorry for those she hurts.

When one starts criticising something that can help people they should be very careful of their data. Gabriela is a doctor, or so she claims, and thus she should be very careful of her data because things she say can hurt people.


Letter to Gabriela from Jim Humble:
Gabriela, I am just going to test your logic capabilities since your article keeps getting passed around on the internet. That's me, the guy that discovered MMS.

In your article you made some absolute statements so I decided to test your logic. The body uses oxygen to destroy pathogens in the body. I'm sure you have heard that. logic point number 1. Oxygen has a higher oxidation potential than MMS (chlorine dioxide). Logic 2. Oxygen does not destroy most of the useful bacteria in the body even though it is carried to areas where the useful bacteria lives. Logic 3. With a lower oxidation potential than oxygen, MMS cannot destroy more things than oxygen, it can only destroy less things. Logic 4. If oxygen cannot destroy the beneficial bacteria and since MMS has less oxidation strength than oxygen, plus .95 volts as opposed to oxygen's 1.3 volts (approximately), it is only logical that MMS will not be able to destroy the beneficial bacteria either.

Next point of logic: The outer surface of a bacteria is 10,000 times thinner than the walls of the intestines and other walls of other organs of the body. You don't need a lot of clinical trials to determine these points of logic, all you need is the ability to think. I must assume that your knowledge of solutions would tell you that a solution running through the body that is .016% chlorine dioxide when it enters the body is a fairly dilute solution. I must then assume that your logic would tell you that it might be possible for such a dilute solution to destroy part of the outer wall of a bacteria, which is less than 1/10,000 of an inch thick. And at the same time this dilute solution would have no effect on a, for instance, intestinal wall that is 10,000 times thicker than the outer wall of the bacteria. In addition, the scientific fact is that the pathogen has a negative ORP (I assume you know what that is, being a doctor and all) and that the negative ORP of the pathogen will cause it to be attracted to the MMS which is positive.

Final point: Gabriela, I am sure, if you will remember, that your high school science class showed you that like charges repel and unlike charges attract. So chlorine dioxide has a positive .95 volt charge. And most of the cells of all the various tissues and organs of the body also have a positive charge of about .050 volts or so. As a doctor you would know that. So remember the science class. Like charges repel and thus the body parts are going to repel the chlorine dioxide and thus the chlorine dioxide in theory will not touch the body parts as it will be repelled and thus there will be no damage to the body. And guess what, out of 10 million users, no damage reports so far.

Now Gabriela, your article, with very little logical data and no understanding of chemistry, has done much damage. Hundreds if not thousands of people who could have gotten well have not done so as they have believed you. I make no money from the sale of MMS. People like you hate to see someone who is working for mankind and is not receiving and does not expect money for his work. But I will tell you this Gabriela, I am compensated ten thousand times as much as you, a person who operates on people for money, when you already know that with MMS those operations are not necessary.

Jim Humble


The following list of references were listed by Gabriela as proof of her article against MMS that is given above.
Most of them prove my contentions so far as I can see.

[1] Sydney Macdonald Baker, Detoxification and Healing. New York: McGraw Hill, 2004.
[2] Snake Oil Humbles Nexus Conference, Sott.net
[3] Safety data for chlorine dioxide, physchem.ox.ac.uk
[4] Sodium chlorite entry on Haz-Map.nlm.nih.gov
[5] Chlorine Dioxide Material Safety Data Sheet from Halox Technologies, Inc. (PDF)
[6] Güngör N, Knaapen AM, Munnia A, Peluso M, Haenen GR, Chiu RK, Godschalk RW, van Schooten FJ. Genotoxic effects of neutrophils and hypochlorous acid. Mutagenesis, Volume 25, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 149-154.
[7] Gomez-Mejiba SE, Zhai Z, Gimenez MS, Ashby MT, Chilakapati J, Kitchin K, Mason RP, Ramirez DC. Myeloperoxidase-induced genomic DNA-centered radicals. The Journal of Biological Chemistry, Volume 285, No. 26, 2010, Pages 20062 - 20071.
[8] Burt Berkson, M.D., PhD. The Alpha Lipoic Acid Breakthrough, New York: Three Rivers Press, 1998.
[9] Ximenes VF, Padovan CZ, Carvalho DA, Fernandes JR. Oxidation of melatonin by taurine chloramine. Journal of Pineal Research, 2010, May 27.
[10] Kawai Y, Matsui Y, Kondo H, Morinaga H, Uchida K, Miyoshi N, Nakamura Y, Osawa T. Galloylated catechins as potent inhibitors of hypochlorous acid-induced DNA damage. Chemical Research in Toxicology. Volume 21, Issue 7, 2008, Pages 1317-1495.
[11] Schoonbroodt S, Legrand-Poels S, Best-Belpomme M, Piette J. Activation of the NF-kappaB transcription factor in a T-lymphocytic cell line by hypochlorous acid. The Biochemical Journal. Volume 321, 1997 Pages 777-785.
[12] Pennathur S., Maitra D., Byun J., Sliskovic I., Abdulhamid I., Saed G. M., Diamond M.P. and Abu-Soud H. M. Potent antioxidative activity of lycopene: A potential role in scavenging hypochlorous acid, Free Radical Biology and Medicine, Volume 49, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 205-213.
[13] Prütz, W. A. Hypochlorous acid interactions with thiols, nucleotides, DNA and other biological substrates. Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics, Volume 332, No. 1, 1996, Pages 110-120.
[14] How Terahertz Waves Tear Apart DNA, Sott.net
[15] Pullar J.M., Vissers M.C., Winterbourn C.C. Living with a killer: the effects of hypochlorous acid on mammalian cells. IUBMB Life, Volume 50, 2000, Pages 259-266.
[16] Nusshold C., Kollroser M., Köfeler H., Rechberger G., Reicher H., Üllen A., Bernhart E., Waltl S., Kratzer I., Hermetter A., Hackl H., Trajanoski Z., Hrzenjak A., Malle E. and Sattler W. Hypochlorite modification of sphingomyelin generates chlorinated lipid species that induce apoptosis and proteome alterations in dopaminergic PC12 neurons in vitro, Free Radical Biology and Medicine, Volume 48, Issue 12, 2010, Pages 1588-1600.
[17] What is Hypochlorous Acid?, wiseGEEK.com
[18] A New Way to Administer MMS, mms-articles.com
[19] Dr. Morton Walker. DMSO Nature's Healer. New York: Avery, 1993.


The following articles show that MMS Chlorine Dioxide is selective in what it oxidizes:

Chlorine dioxide as an oxidizer
As an oxidizer chlorine dioxide is very selective. It has this ability due to unique one-electron exchange mechanisms. Chlorine dioxide attacks the electron-rich centers of organic molecules. One electron is transferred and chlorine dioxide is reduced to chlorite (ClO2- ).
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­http://www2.dupont.com/Chlorine_Dioxide/en_US/assets/downloads/TasteandOdorControl.pdf

Easy Solution
Chlorine dioxide’s selective chemistry allows it to instantaneously react with oxidizable material to kill algae and bacteria that produce bad taste and odors in water. Chlorine dioxide is also excellent at destroying odor-causing biofilms that are not removed by chlorine treatment, and attach to piping and basins.

Figure 2: chlorine dioxide is more selective as an oxidizer than chlorine. While dosing the same concentrations, the residual concentration of chlorine dioxide is much higher with heavy pollution than the residual concentration of chlorine.
By comparing the oxidation strength and oxidation capacity of different disinfectants, one can conclude that chlorine dioxide is effective at low concentrations. Chlorine dioxide is not as reactive as ozone or chlorine and it only reacts with sulphuric substances, amines and some other reactive organic substances. In comparison to chlorine and ozone, less chlorine dioxide is required to obtain an active residual disinfectant. It can also be used when a large amount of organic matter is present.

Read more: lenntech.com/processes/disinfection/chemical/disinfectants-chlorine-dioxide.htm#ixzz0wGZVWFWL

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
CDG Environmental:
cdgenvironmental.com/content/why-chlorine-dioxide



Chlorine dioxide is a powerful, selective biocide. First discovered in 1811, its anti-microbial properties have been known since about 1900.
Chlorine dioxide has been used in the United States to disinfect public drinking water for more than 60 years. It also is used for a variety of sterilization, disinfection and decontamination purposes in the food, beverage and medical device industries.

Chlorine dioxide has attractive human- and ecological-toxicity profiles. Exposure does not pose chronic adverse health effects (e.g., cancer) nor does chlorine dioxide persist in the environment.

Chlorine dioxide is a relatively small, volatile and highly energetic molecule. Chlorine dioxide is almost never used commercially as a gas at high concentrations because of its instability; rather, it is generated at the point of use.

Chlorine dioxide gas has an intense greenish yellow color with a distinctive odor similar to that of chlorine. Chlorine dioxide is highly soluble in water but, unlike chlorine, chlorine dioxide does not react with water. It exists in aqueous solution as a dissolved gas.

Chlorine dioxide functions as a highly selective oxidant owing to unique, one-electron transfer mechanisms, wherein it attacks electron-rich centers in organic molecules and, in the process, is reduced to chlorite ion.

Because chlorine dioxide oxidizes but does not chlorinate, chlorinated organic by-products (e.g., THM, HAA, dioxins, furans) typically are not produced. Neither does chlorine dioxide produce appreciable amounts of aldehydes, ketones, ketoacids nor other problematic compounds associated with oxidation of organic matter by other, less selective means.

High-purity chlorine dioxide is less destructive/corrosive than chlorine to most materials, including stainless steel. In the presence of UV light, chlorine dioxide rapidly decomposes to form chlorine, oxygen and a variety of transient intermediate oxychlorine compounds which may be highly corrosive.

Chlorine dioxide's unique properties permit it to be more effective than current oxidizing and non-oxidizing biocide technologies. Among its outstanding characteristics: (a) it remains a dissolved gas in water, thereby maintaining its biocidal activity under varied operating conditions, (b) it is effective over a wide pH range (4-10), remaining effective even where there are incoming stock pH swings, (c) it reacts selectively with organic compounds and does not form chlorinated organics (chloroform, bromoform, dioxins or trihalomethanes), all of which are coming under increasing regulatory pressure, (d) it reacts almost instantaneously to quickly provide effective biocidal control or remove undesirable contaminants, (e) at recommended use levels it does not create toxic by-products harmful to wildlife or the environment.


Chlorine dioxide - EPA (US Enviromental Protection Agency):
www.epa.gov/ogwdw000/mdbp/pdf/alter/chapt_4.pdf

4.1 Chlorine Dioxide Chemistry
4.1.1 Oxidation Potential

The metabolism of microorganisms and consequently their ability to survive and propagate are
influenced by the oxidation reduction potential (ORP) of the medium in which it lives (USEPA,
1996).

Chlorine dioxide (ClO2) is a neutral compound of chlorine in the +IV oxidation state. It disinfects by oxidation; however, it does not chlorinate. It is a relatively small, volatile, and highly energetic molecule, and a free radical even while in dilute aqueous solutions. At high concentrations, it reacts violently with reducing agents. However, it is stable in dilute solution in a closed container in the absence of light (AWWA, 1990). Chlorine dioxide functions as a highly selective oxidant due to its unique, one-electron transfer mechanism where it is reduced to chlorite (ClO2-) (Hoehn et al., 1996).

The pKa for the chlorite ion, chlorous acid equilibrium, is extremely low at pH 1.8. This is remarkably different from the hypochlorous acid/hypochlorite base ion pair equilibrium found near neutrality, and indicates the chlorite ion will exist as the dominant species in drinking water. The oxidation reduction of some key reactions are (CRC, 1990):

ACS Publications pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ac00298a056

Selective chlorine dioxide determination using gas-diffusion flow injection analysis with chemiluminescent detection

David A. Hollowell, James R. Gord, Gilbert Gordon, Gilbert E. Pacey
Anal. Chem., 1986, 58 (7), pp 1524–1527
DOI: 10.1021/ac00298a056
Publication Date: June 1986

James R. Gord, Gilbert Gordon, Gilbert E. Pacey
Anal. Chem., 1986, 58 (7), pp 1524–1527
DOI: 10.1021/ac00298a056
Publication Date: June 1986



ABSTRACT:
An automated chemiluminescent technique has been developed utilizing the advantages of gas-diffusion flow injection analysis. A gas-diffusion membrane separate the donor (sampling) stream from the acceptor (detecting) stream and removes ionic interference. A novel chemiluminescence flow-through detector cell is used to measure the concentration of chlorine dioxide as a function of the intensity of the chemiluminescence produced from its reaction with luminol. The chemiluminescent regent merges with the analyte directly in from of the photomultiplier tube in order to maximize the sensitivity of the system. The detection limit for chlorine dioxide is approximately 5 ppb. The method is over 1500 times more selective for chlorine dioxide than for chlorine on a mole basis. This method eliminates interference from iron and manganese compounds, as well as the oxychlorinated compounds such as chlorite ion and chlorate ion.

Sabre Technical Services.con, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Because ClO2 has lower oxidation strength, it is more selective in its reactions. Typically, ClO2 will only react with
compounds that have activated carbon bonds such as phenols, or with other active compounds like sulfides, cyanides, and reduced iron and manganese compounds. Chlorine is a more powerful oxidizer that ClO2, and will react with a wider variety of chemicals, including ammonia. This property limits its overall effectiveness as a biocide. Conversely, because ClO2 has more oxidative capacity compared to ozone or chlorine, less ClO2 is required to obtain an active residual concentration of the material when used as a disinfectant.

The propensity of ClO2 to react by oxidation rather than substitution makes it a useful alternative to chlorine in drinking water disinfection applications where the formation of potentially carcinogenic halogenated disinfection byproducts, such as triholomethanes and halogenated acidic acids, is of concern. Additionally, ClO2 does not produce significant amounts of aldehydes, ketons, keton acids, or other disinfection byproducts that originate from ozonation of water containing organic substances.

The reaction of ClO2 with microorganisms or other oxidizable substances takes place in two steps. In the first stage of the reaction, the ClO2 molecule accepts an electron and chlorite ion is formed (ClO2-). In the second stage, ClO2 accepts 4 electrons and chloride ion (Cl-) is formed.

The mechanism of action by which ClO2 inactivates microorganisms is not entirely well understood. As a general matter, however, it is known that ClO2 destroys microbes by attacking their cell walls (or viral envelopes) and interfering with essential protein formation. It is also known that ClO2 is more effective against viruses than either chlorine or ozone.


As always with love,
Archbishop Jim Humble

In the search for valid criticism against MMS I have come across that Segura piece on Sott.net and initially took it more seriously than it turned out to deserve. Her fake opposition masquerading as vald criticism, and from a doctor at that, made me feel misled and quite annoyed once I realized what it really is. So I left my comment on that site that didn't hide how pissed off I was with her.

Segura should learn the basics firs[t] By: peri1224

I'm all for carefully checking out people who sell cures for anything on the net. The more thoroughly they are checked the better. But let that checking come from people who know something about the subject. Segura obviously knew nothing. She is totally unqualfied to give a valid critique of the topic she herself opened.
Everything she said is shredded in the MMS forum, and with good reason.
Let her study the subject and technical details first before she opens her mouth again about it.
Knowing practically nothing about it brings up the question why she came up with her ctiticism in the first place. It cannot be her disagreement with material questions, she doesn't even understand them. So what put her up to it? For what reason?
Anyway, not a good show.
I have been studying this material for some time now, still undecided, and I'm looking for valid criticism of MMS, but Segura's is not. If critics cannot come up with something better than her, I may yet become a user.