TOPIC:

I don't know if this is the appropriate way to broach this topic. I will let you decide. I have been arguing with a man who posted on Youtube and called MMS laundry bleach. He and I wrote the following. What I want to ask here, is how the church has responded to this case. Thank you in advance.


DIMentiaMinecraft4:48 AM




+Charles Turner
But, Cupcake... A lie is a statement that you can't support with testable evidence... Like the claims you're making for MMS.
Any of my statements can be looked up and verified from reliable sources and peer reviewed citations.
You are the one lying.
Show less

DIMentiaMinecraft4:50 AM


1
Reply

+Charles Turner
You can't show any reason to believe that Sylvia Fink didn't follow the directions, and worse.
MMS makes the claim that it isn't toxic.
and does NOT make any qualifications on that claim so it shouldn't matter.

MMS is just a poison. In small doses arsenic won't kill you right away either.
.. usually
Read more

Charles Turner11:31 AM




There is no proof MMS did kill her and she is the only person anybody I know of has tried to tie to MMS. We don't even know, according to the reading of the link that she followed directions. The moneyed interests of course want to use this case to stop people from healing themselves cheaply, instead of paying huge profits to them.

In my personal opinion, don't bother with DI. That guy is a complete troll and an obvious pharmaceutical agent. Sodium Hypochlorite is the main ingredient in laundry bleach, not Sodium chlorite. It's just that for DI it's not about right or wrong, it's about getting the last negative word in the reply fields for propaganda purposes. A majority of neutral- or viewers new to MMS, will usually just glance at the comment section, they usually won't bother reading all the comments. Currently, the visible comments are the top comment plus the two latest replies. You can choose if you want to view the rest in between.

To DI and other troll agent pharmaceutical propagandists on YouTube, it's about getting the last word/reply with one or more provocotive statements and questions which is aimed to put MMS in a bad light, in an attempt to steer as many new readers as he can into a negative judgemental conclusion.

DIMentiaMinecraft keeps harping "conman", "lie", "snake oil", "toxic", "preying on the poor", oftenly making statements completely outrageous or statements made so that the receiver feels he needs to defend him- or herself, such as what is going on here. That is all just rhetoric and debate tactics, because he really has nothing to say.

There is a saying: You know a shill based on how much time they spend on something they don't believe in.

DIMentiaMinecraft actually admitted in one of his replies to one of the more astute debaters, Union5, that he was an Aspie. Being an Aspie means you are on the Autism spectrum, diagnosed with Aspergers. Therefor it could be argued that DI is irritated with MMS because it is used to cure Autism.

There is a group of Aspies ((bancdmms) whom are very angry with CD Autism, which is an organization that have so far recovered 159 children to an ATEC score of 10 or below, using a protocol where MMS is central. This means they no longer have Autism. The Aspie group however insist and demand, with anger, hatred and fake skepticism, that Aspergers and really Autism in general, is something that is just "different" and something that the world must accept, not something that can "be fixed" or let alone cured. So you see, they are biased in that they basically hate MMS for being the main component used in curing Autism. It's not that they have science behind them backing up any notions that MMS is harmful or ineffective, it's just that they take offence to anyone spreading the idea that Autism is curable, which it is. Kerri Rivera makes that very clear:

Long story short, DI's comments should not be taken seriously. I've seen him make the most outrageous of statements.

Edit by ix: as requested by micK.

CharlesMT wrote:

DIMentiaMinecraft 4:50 AM
1
Reply

+Charles Turner
You can't show any reason to believe that Sylvia Fink didn't follow the directions, and worse.
MMS makes the claim that it isn't toxic.
and does NOT make any qualifications on that claim so it shouldn't matter.

Lopez writes the following at g2cforum.org/index.php/list/attacks-on-or-criticism-of-genesis-ii-sacraments-and-responses/19939-clo2-mms-is-safe-and-it-is-real-just-do-a-little-research-for-yourself#19939, a post with links to plenty of studies on Chlorine dioxide.

"Let's address the "LD50" or the "lethal dose of CLO2" it is 292 mg/kg.

Before I explain, let me repeat this one more time. No one has ever died from proper use of CLO2 this statement does not come from Jim, this statement comes from the EPA of the United States, actually the statement reads there has been only one case of death reported in correlation to CLO2.

Do you have an idea how many people have died from Water Intoxication or Sugar over Dose, a lot more than one person.

If actual death counts were used to equate how safe a product was, CLO2 is safer than water and sugar.

But death counts is not used, LD50 is the measurement of lethality. CLO2 has a LD50 of 292 mg/kg. What does this mean well what it means for you to overdose and cause death in a human that weighs 150 pounds or 68 kilograms, you would need to ingest orally 19,856 milligrams.

That is 19.8 grams CLO2, to put it into perspective one drop of MMS is 5 milligrams you would have to take 3971 drops of MMS all in one shot to cause a lethal reaction. When considering that an aggressive dose is 15 drops/hour and even if we counted all the hours of that dose per day, say 10 hours of use. It would equal 150 drops per day, nowhere near being unsafe.

Actual at 150 drops per day for an aggressive treatment is only 3% of the LD50 so you can see mathematically MMS is super safe."

DIMentiaMinecraft is clearly full of it.

Thank you very much. I understand the guy better, now. I can deal with it.