TOPIC:

Hello!
Confusion about what is the best thing for me. AmandaMary's PP is attractive bc of the simplicity, but having spent considerable time with Andreas in March 2013, hearing him present the science behind his material, as well as private conversations with him, I came away convinced that he has really done the research. He knows the science. Not saying AM has not the know-how, but AM as far as I can tell, is also doing her best to keep her clinic open. This means money, of course. I am inspired by what Amanda Mary shares in this forum that helps many people restore health to themselves and their loved ones. Thanks Mary! You are a gold mine of information based on your experience treating people.

But, (that interesting word!) Andreas stressed over and over that herbs alone are not enough to destroy the life cycles of most parasites found in people these days. He talked about the difference between the parasites in the African people he has seen. How they are generally smaller than in the developed countries (where we have the money for supplements that feed parasites). He even says that his PP does not destroy the life cycles of all parasites. So- a simple, quick, and easy PP may indeed not be all it's cracked up to be?!

I have a friend from my March 2013 MMS/CDS seminar, who I've stayed in contact with, who recently embarked on an herbal PP. He's in his 70's and he said that he had a bad reaction to one of the herbs and had to stop the PP. Herbs can also be quite disruptive and even harmful. I know AM will question this gentleman's know-how, and maybe rightfully so, but I cannot help but come back to what I learned from Andreas. It may boil down to my having to try both for myself.

Many people in this forum have a service or product they could sell. I am not sure how AM's offering her services and products is acceptable and others not? I know we have to draw the line somewhere - help me out here Jim... Kerri... Andreas... Kashambra... moderators...

Like I said, I am extremely grateful for what AM offers through her experience. She is one of the far too rare people courageous enough to be out there in the trenches moving us all forward with these health restorative treatments.

So, I'll no doubt be starting the K-PP in September as planned, but I"ll have my ears and eyes open to what other's are experiencing in the way of parasite protocols. I'm open to anything that might be as effective, yet more simple (and affordable!) than the K-PP.

joyce

Dear Joyce,

thank you for your very kind words. I have been working with scietists on this protocol for over 2 years now, we have been so close before but the eggs and lava of some of the parasites were tricky little buggers that did not all come out, hence the reason this protocol has taken so long. The center is not dependant on the sales and we do tithe 10% of all sales to Jim and Mark to help them, we have now found an alternate way of keeping the center open.

Over the past 7 years i have personally tried over 40 parasite cleanses and none have come even close to this one.

It is important that you do the parasite cleanse that you have confidence in. At the end of the day it is the results that will speak the loudest not any words. I will be sending Kerry some of the no parasite capsules for her to test etc.

We are allowed to talk about our products simply because we are the genesis2church of health and restoration center.

DrHuldaClark tested parasites and cleanses for over twenty years. She found a lot of stuff....there are some parasites..like the hydatid sand of tapeworm, that even ozonated olive oil couldn't remove...this is one of the strongest treatments. She developed a combination of nine oils that could kill these. She found even high dose cysteine could kill many parasites. She also found parasites establish themselves with particular toxins and fed off particular foodstuffs....thatif one knew which parasites one had then one could just starve that particular parasite. E.g. Fasciolopsis buskii requires the onion family sulphides to survive....this includes garlic, chives etc. it uses solvents to establish itself in certain organs like the thymus and dven bone marrow. Now, how can any drug or herb remove a parasite established in the bone marrow? She developed zapping to kill parasites, then found the blood wasnt conductive enough if there were solvents...so she developed plate zapping, which is very very powerful. I build several hundred zappers myself..then had to lower the frequencies and up the voltage to twelve volts....to kill parasites. Still some were evasive! Dr Clark also found nowadays new parasites were establishing in people due to new toxins....its getting worse and worse. Also, you can reinfect yourself within a day after even the best anti parasite protocol.!!
Recently I have found parasites love certain energies....they are a decay product, they love geopathic stress, elevated EMF. If you have a geostress line crossing your tummy in your bed....there will be parasites there even if you put radiation to kill them. The story is very very complex. Each researcher finds out valuable stuff, then doesnt linkup with other researchers, so the progress is generally slow as people keep rediscovering what others have already found years ago. If someone added onto the work of previous people we would be far.
I go with AMs parasite protocol anyday compared to the drugs. The drugs are toxic and only kill a narrow band of parasite species.

Personally I am not keen on Mebendazole as it contains (synthetic) broad-spectrum anthelmintic available as chewable tablets, each containing 100 mg of mebendazole. Inactive ingredients are: colloidal silicon dioxide, corn starch, hydrogenated vegetable oil, magnesium stearate, microcrystalline cellulose, sodium lauryl sulfate, sodium saccharin, sodium starch glycolate, talc, tetrarome orange, and FD&C yellow No. 6.

please find below my reasoning for no longer using this Phara product known as Mobendazole. I like to understand what i am recommending to others and get to the nuts and bolts and any dangers.

1 (synthetic) broad-spectrum anthelmintic: Common side effects may include: nausea, drowsiness, dizziness and hallucinations.

2 corn starch most probibly GMO

3 microcrystalline cellulose There are a number of side effects attributable to the use of microcrystalline cellulose, and they can be itemized as follows:
When cellulose is consumed in large amounts an individual is bound to experience severe bowel movements, although the situation is salvaged by the presence of microcrystalline. This is because cellulose alone is hardly absorbed in the intestines.
An increase in its dosage has been found to promote weight loss owing to the fact that it brings about the feeling of fullness to an individual, or reduces the absorption of other dietary nutrients. However, it is critical to note that the said high dosage is not commonly found in many pharmaceuticals.
Due to its limited absorption in the body, it has been found to cause allergies in patients, although the reported cases are few. The particular reactions have been noted to be diarrhoea or gas problems.
Its lack of absorption in the bloodstream means that it cannot facilitate the entry of toxins in the body when orally consumed.

4. The Problems with Sodium Lauryl Sulphate
The exact chemical compounds or combinations that trigger ovarian damage leading to ovarian cancer seems unknown. There are so many chemicals in our environment that the 'toxic combination' may never be found for certain.

I do not believe it is scaremongering to say that you should avoid as many unnecessary chemicals as possible. it is just logical and application of the precautionary principle:
•Absence of Proof of Damage is not the same as Proof of Safety; and
•If there is a known safer alternative (that is practical and affordable) use it

Studies^1 have shown that SLS causes actual damage on a number of levels:
•SLS in shampoos could retard healing and prevent children's eyes developing properly (especially for the under 6's)
•SLS can cause cateracts in adults and delay healing of corneal abrasions
•Highly absorbable, the build up of SLS in heart, liver, lungs and brain can cause problems in these areas
•SLS causes skin to flake and separate, leaving substantial skin roughness
•SLS disrupts the skin's biological functions
•SLS corrodes hair follicles and impedes hair growth
•SLS is routinely used to irritate the skin for testing the effects of other substances^2

So, far from there being an 'absence of proof of damage', the damage is well documented and yet Sodium Lauryl Sulphate is still the major constitutent in most soaps, shampoos, dish washing up liquid and laundry detergents.

A short study and description of SLS published by Bristol University^3 commented:

"There are many health dangers associated with SLS, which is surprising considering it's in the majority of most personal care products:

1.Organ system toxicity, in animal studies.
2.It's highly irritant to skin, eyes, respiratory system if inhaled.
3.Very toxic if swallowed probable oral lethal dose 0.5-5 g/kg.

Sodium Laureth Sulphate (SLES)

SLS continues to be used because it is cheap. To make it less harsh industry uses a process called ethoxylation to make it less abrasive. This gives sodium laureth sulphate

The problem is that ethoxylation process can create 1,4-dioxane. This is very harmful - it is a hormonal disrupter and is implicated in a number of cancers.

Additionally 1,4-dioxane is an oestrogen (estrogen) mimic, the presence of which is thought to increase the risks of breast and endometial cancers (as well as lower sperm counts).

5.sodium saccharin If someone dared you to eat coal tar, would you? Would you happily sip it down or gleefully sprinkle it on your morning cereal?

Probably not. After all, you’d have to be crazy to knowingly consume something as awful sounding as coal tar.

But what if I told you it was sweet? Really sweet. As in 700 times sweeter than sugar. Would that matter?

Before you answer an emphatic “no,” consider this. Not only have you likely eaten or drank this mysterious coal-derived sweetener, it graces virtually every table in restaurants across the country.

Who is Consuming Coal Tar…

This sweet mess is saccharin (think Sweet and Low). It was first produced in 1878 by a chemist working on coal tar derivatives at Johns Hopkins University. After working with his compounds all day, he discovered that his hand tasted “sweet.”1 Not really sure how it came about that he tasted his hand, but there it is.

Today, saccharin is commonly manufactured by combining anthranilic acid (used among other things as a corrosive agent for metal) with nitrous acid, sulfur dioxide, chlorine, and ammonia. Yes, that’s right. Chlorine and ammonia.

In fact, that particular group of chemicals sounds more like a recipe for a household cleaner than a sweetener. And yet, millions upon millions of people consume saccharin every year.

But what most people don’t realize is that saccharin has had a rather bumpy road ever since its discovery.

As far back as 1907, the USDA began taking a closer look at saccharin through the Pure Food and Drug Act (a precursor of sorts to the FDA). Mr. Harvey Wiley, the director of the bureau of chemistry for the USDA during that time, felt saccharin should not be used in foods. In fact, he is quoted as saying, “[Saccharin is] a coal tar product totally devoid of food value and extremely injurious to health.”2

And the USDA and FDA have flip-flopped virtually ever since. In 1911, they stated that foods with saccharin were “adulterated,” then in 1912, said that saccharin wasn’t harmful.

In 1948-49, there was much discussion about the dangers of saccharin, but in 1969, an investigation into those claims found little scientific proof to warrant the concerns. Yet, there must have been something because three years later, in 1972, the FDA tried to ban saccharin.3 They failed, of course, which is why saccharin is still available and being consumed by thousands of people every day.

One of the key reasons for the FDA’s concerns was that in 1970, researchers learned that saccharin caused bladder cancer in lab rats.4 I’ll discuss this a bit more in a moment, but suffice it to say that this created quite a problem for saccharin and the FDA.

See, back in 1958, Congress added a little clause to the Food, Drugs, and Cosmetic Act, mandating that the FDA “prohibits the use of compounds found to induce cancer when ingested by man or animal, or if it is found after tests which are appropriated for the evaluation of the safety of the food additive, to induce cancer in man or animal.”5

But, instead of taking it off the market, the FDA simply added a warning to the label of foods containing saccharin stating that it caused bladder cancer in rats.

And the Controversy Continues…

You’d think that would be the end of it, wouldn’t you? Cancer causing, necessary warning label, etc. Well, you’d be wrong. Really wrong.

In late 2000, the FDA removed the warning labels after studies showed that the rats have a completely different chemical make up to their urine. And it is this particular combination of high pH, high calcium phosphate, and high protein that interacts with saccharin and damages the bladder walls. And this damage is what leads to increased cancer risk, not the saccharin itself.6,7

And the FDA bought it. In fact, by 2010, saccharin was been taken off nearly every carcinogenic list, from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ National Toxicology Program to the EPA’s list of hazardous products.

But should it have been?

Big Problems…

Let’s start with cancer.

A 1997 report from the Center for the Science in Public Interest felt that it would be “highly imprudent for the National Toxicology Program to delist saccharin.” They believed that doing so “would give the public a false sense of security, remove any incentive for further testing, and result in greater exposure to this probable carcinogen in tens of millions of people, including children (indeed, fetuses).”

And with good reason.

As I discussed, there are the rodent studies showing that saccharin caused bladder cancer, not to mention vascular and lung cancer. It also increased the risk of uterine cancer in female mice.8

This was based on several studies, including one from 1978, which found that rats given saccharin developed bladder cancer that was quite aggressive.9 Additionally, rats exposed while in the womb were even more likely to develop cancer than those exposed immediately after birth.

Researchers in that study concluded, “Saccharin is carcinogenic for the urinary bladder in rats and mice, and most likely is carcinogenic in human beings.”

But the pro-saccharin people argued that rats and people aren’t the same. Agreed.

There in lies the issue. No one is willing to do a double blind, placebo-controlled study with saccharin, as it would be imprudent to knowingly place someone at risk. But there are several case-controlled studies showing a definitive link between saccharin consumption and increased risk of cancer.

First of all, the National Cancer Institute noted a 10 percent increase in the incidence of bladder cancer 1973 and 1994.8 (Remember, the FDA tried to ban saccharin in 1972.)

An analysis of nearly 1,900 cases found that heavy use of artificial sweeteners was associated with increased risk of bladder cancer.10

A second analysis of more than 600 cases also found an increased risk of cancer in Canadian men who consumed either more artificial sweeteners or consumed them for a longer period of time.11

Finally, a British study found that English women who consume more than 10 tablets of artificial sweeteners (mostly saccharin) also had a higher risk of cancer.12

Thanks, but no thanks.

Wait, There’s More…

As if cancer weren’t bad enough, saccharin has also been tied to a variety of allergic reactions, including headaches, breathing issues, skin rashes, and diarrhea.13 Worst yet, it is still being added to some infant formulas! Give me a break!

And then there’s the dieters’ and diabetic dilemma. Or perhaps irony is a better word.

A 2008 study from Appetite found “a significant increase of plasma insulin concentration was apparent after stimulation with saccharin.”14 And they didn’t even ingest the saccharin! They just rinsed their mouth out with it.

As we all know, increased insulin levels is a risk factor for both obesity and diabetes. Probably NOT the side effect dieters and diabetics are going for when they choose a sugar-free product.

Use Your Brain…

So, what do you do? You have a sweetener that is used in hundreds of products in the United States, and is deemed “safe” by the FDA.

But it clearly has documented health risks and concerns, ranging from allergies to cancer to increased insulin levels.

So what do you do? Blindly trust the government and consume away? I say no.

And the reason is pretty simple. Chemicals, chemicals, chemicals.

There is nothing natural about saccharin. Nothing. And there’s certainly nothing natural about the side effects it has been proven to cause.

I say, just say no and step away. Far away.

If you must have a bit of sweetness, opt instead for Raw honey or stevia. This herb comes in both powdered and liquid forms and is a great choice to sweeten coffee, oatmeal, or even give mineral water a flavor boost. Best of all, it’s chemical- and toxin-free.

And no coal tar in sight.

6.
Sodium starch glycolate, or SSG, is a common ingredient in many pharmaceutical pills, although it is not a medicine. SSG is the sodium salt of a carboxymethyl ether of starch. It is commonly used as a rapid disintegrant, a chemical that promotes the rapid distingetration and immediate release of orally administered drugs. It coats the pills keeping the medicine in, but releases the medicine rapidly upon contact with water.

Identification

Sodium starch glycolate is manufactured by carboxymethylation of starch. Starch is a polysaccharide of glucose, a long chain of glucose molecules linked together. The carboxymethylation process increases the ability of the starch to absorb water, making it a rapid distintegrant. Various factors influence the final disintegration properties of the sodium starch glycolate product, including the source of starch, the particle size, the amount of the reaction byproduct produced, viscosity, and the degree of substitution and cross-linking that occurs in the reaction process.

Sodium starch glycolate works by rapidly absorbing water. When medicines are contained within tablets or granules, they are coated with sodium starch glycolate. As soon as the glycolate comes in contact with water, it rapidly absorbs it. This results in a large amount of swelling, which leads to the rapid disintegration of the tablets or granules and subsequent release of the medication.

Physical Properties

Sodium starch glycolate exists as a very fine, white or off white, odorless powder. Tablets prepared with sodium starch glycolate are stable for up to 4 years, but should be stored in a well-sealed container to protect it from temperature and humidity variations that could cause caking.

Warning

Sodium starch glycolate can be derived from any starch source. For example, corn, rice, potatoes and wheat are all potential sources. Some of these sources, are not gluten-free; for example, wheat. Therefore, medications listing sodium starch glycolate as an ingredient may not be gluten-free. For people in need of a gluten-free diet, such as those suffering from celiac disease, or people with gluten allergies, it is important to determine the exact botanical source of the sodium starch glycolate in the medication before that mediation can be considered safe.

7. Talc surley i don't need to explain this one

8. OrangeTetrarome again not good see www.johndwalsh.com/MSDS/FLAVORS/OrangeTetrarome987431.pdf

9. last but by no means least FD&C yellow No. 6

Explosive

Air & Water Reactions

Azo dyes can be explosive when suspended in air at specific concentrations. Soluble in water.

Fire Hazard

Flash point data for this chemical are not available; however, it is probably combustible. (NTP, 1992)

Health Hazard

SYMPTOMS: It can cause enlargement of the caecum and weight loss. (NTP, 1992)

Reactivity Profile

FD & C YELLOW NO. 6 is an azo compound. Azo, diazo, azido compounds can detonate. This applies in particular to organic azides that have been sensitized by the addition of metal salts or strong acids. Toxic gases are formed by mixing materials of this class with acids, aldehydes, amides, carbamates, cyanides, inorganic fluorides, halogenated organics, isocyanates, ketones, metals, nitrides, peroxides, phenols, epoxides, acyl halides, and strong oxidizing or reducing agents. Flammable gases are formed by mixing materials in this group with alkali metals. Explosive combination can occur with strong oxidizing agents, metal salts, peroxides, and sulfides.

Belongs to the Following Reactive Group(s)

•Azo, Diazo, Azido, Hydrazine, and Azide Compounds
•Phenols and Cresols
•Non-Redox-Active Inorganic Compounds

Potentially Incompatible Absorbents


Response Recommendations

SMALL SPILLS AND LEAKAGE: If you spill this chemical, you should dampen the solid spill material with water, then transfer the dampened material to a suitable container. Use absorbent paper dampened with water to pick up any remaining material. Seal your contaminated clothing and the absorbent paper in a vapor-tight plastic bag for eventual disposal. Wash all contaminated surfaces with a soap and water solution. Do not reenter the contaminated area until the Safety Officer (or other responsible person) has verified that the area has been properly cleaned.

STORAGE PRECAUTIONS: You should store this material under ambient temperatures. (NTP, 1992)

Protective Clothing

RECOMMENDED RESPIRATOR: Where the neat test chemical is weighed and diluted, wear a NIOSH-approved half face respirator equipped with an organic vapor/acid gas cartridge (specific for organic vapors, HCl, acid gas and SO2) with a dust/mist filter. (NTP, 1992)

First Aid

EYES: First check the victim for contact lenses and remove if present. Flush victim's eyes with water or normal saline solution for 20 to 30 minutes while simultaneously calling a hospital or poison control center. Do not put any ointments, oils, or medication in the victim's eyes without specific instructions from a physician. If symptoms (such as redness or irritation) develop, immediately transport the victim to a hospital.

SKIN: IMMEDIATELY flood affected skin with water while removing and isolating all contaminated clothing. Gently wash all affected skin areas thoroughly with soap and water. If symptoms such as redness or irritation develop, IMMEDIATELY call a physician and be prepared to transport the victim to a hospital for treatment.

INHALATION: IMMEDIATELY leave the contaminated area; take deep breaths of fresh air. If symptoms (such as wheezing, coughing, shortness of breath, or burning in the mouth, throat, or chest) develop, call a physician and be prepared to transport the victim to a hospital. Provide proper respiratory protection to rescuers entering an unknown atmosphere. Whenever possible, Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) should be used; if not available, use a level of protection greater than or equal to that advised under Protective Clothing.

INGESTION: DO NOT INDUCE VOMITING. If the victim is conscious and not convulsing, give 1 or 2 glasses of water to dilute the chemical and IMMEDIATELY call a hospital or poison control center. Be prepared to transport the victim to a hospital if advised by a physician. If the victim is convulsing or unconscious, do not give anything by mouth, ensure that the victim's airway is open and lay the victim on his/her side with the head lower than the body. DO NOT INDUCE VOMITING. IMMEDIATELY transport the victim to a hospital. (NTP, 1992)

Please understand that Kerry does amazing work with children and finds that the positives of using Mebendazole out way the negatives. At the end of the day we all have to weigh things up and sometimes have to revert to pharma products. The No More parasite protocol is simply another option that is natural. It is about personal opinion and choice. Kerry has wonderful success and continues the great work. Also Kerry specialises in Autism and has more hands on experience with this than I do.

Also please realize that a lot of the ingredients listed above are the binder and coating ingredients to make up the tablets (which are actually no longer made) or the liquid formulation - not the medication itself.

I have Lupimeb here, which is the Mebendazole that is made in India, uncoated, (so no color or artificial sweetener, etc.) My little box doesn't come with a sheet that lists all the inactive ingredients - but I have written and requested a list of inactive ingredients.

My theory, FWIW, is that it's good for us to all have choices. Some things work for some people but not for others - Just as MMS has several activators or formulations, because some work better for some people than for others.

Do your due diligence - and make the right choice for you.