TOPIC:

I want to share some information on CDS with others here with reference to the following quote:

We have proven that CDS cannot be go into the blood when taking it by mouth, BUT MMS DOES GET INTO THE BLOOD WHEN TAKEN BY MOUTH. We also learned that we must test and prove all our theories before we try to demonstrate them to a bunch of people with guns.

Before I begin, I want to state for the record that my sources(husband and wife) have been actively involved in testing MMS for nearly 4 years. Of which the husband has been taking MMS three times per day everyday for the duration of their research in an effort to control a long term bone infection. And in case, some of you may or may not know, bone infection never go away on their own. And more importantly... when left untreated, result in death.

Now that we've gotten that out of the way, here's what I've been told regarding CDS as a substitude for MMS in this particular case.

The first and foremost information is that CDS has proven to be more effective than MMS1 in this particular case. This being that a 7ml of 3000ppm oral intake of CDS three times daily, has proven to be more effective than 18drops of MMS1 taken three times per day. With that in mind, given the nature of a bone infection, the only way the CDS can r3each the infection is through the bloodstream. Therefore, it is inconceivable that the CDS does not deliver chlorine dioxide into the bloodstream

Having said that, after reading the latest newsletter, I immediately called my contact in Canada to find-out how their research was going with CDS. And I was assured that their results were conclusive regarding the effectiveness of CDS to propagate through the bloodstream. Likewise, I was also told that my contact wife was able to treat bronchial pneumonia using CDS orally also. And so, I really don't know what to make of the above statement claiming that CDS cannot make its way into the bloodstream. However, my contacts would have no problems providing blood reports showing sepsis both prior too and following oral CDS intakes, to which I'd add, the results show quite clearly that CDS does indeed enter the bloodstream when taken orally.

PS. I've received permission from my contacts in Canada to forward any information that they have to Jim Humble in an effort to share valuable data on this issue. And so you are welcome to PM me for that information to establish contact with them.

Hope this helps.

Thank you for your information and we would all like to know about any more info you have as you recieve it. Hopefully through there investigations and research the light of truth will enable all of us to gain, thank you Orv

I wrote this a few weeks ago -

I have made CDS.
I used 20ml of MMS to make 200ml of CDS.
I checked the PPM with test strips which was 6000.

Now for some calculations -

1ml MMS = 25 drops MMS, I used 20ml MMS = 500 drops (20x25)

As I read here 1ml of CDS at 6000 PPM = 6 drops of MMS

I made 200ml of CDS at 6000 PPM = 1200 drops MMS (200x6)

Now, who is it that from 500 drops of MMS i have made CDS that is equal to 1200 drops of MMS ?
and don't forget that some of the gas is lost in the air from the bubbles, some remained in the reaction bottle and still from 500 it turned to 1200.

It looks like we have a problem with our calculations in comparing MMS to CDS


STLittle say those people from Canada are taking 7ml of 3000ppm CDS which is a lot if you take ut as MMS1 (21 drops).

The way I see it is that 1ml CDS can not be the same as 3 drops MMS1 it is more likely that 1ml of CDS (3000ppm) is equal to 1 drop and 1ml of CDS 6000ppm = 2 drops MMS1 (or less).


And there are probably some more factors of why it work/doesn't work on some things more then others... just like MMS1.

Thank you very much for posting this excellent info STLittle!

It seems very credible to me, and consistent with my own experience with CDS. It is a proven fact to me that the CDS helped my lung congestion much more than MMS1 or 2, or any other drug I ever took for this life long problem.

It does appear CDS does not work on malaria. I was speaking today with Dr. Ron who just returned from a few days seeing Jim in the Dominican Republic. Dr. Ron said that there were other attempts to treat malaria and the CDS did not work on it.

I think the conclusion to be drawn from this is that CDS does not work on the malaria parasite, at least not like they have been trying to use it. I do not think it is possible to conclude CDS does not make it into the blood. There are too many examples of CDS helping cancer and lung congestion, especially my own lung congestion, and now this bone infection.

When I was taking high doses of 1 tsp every hour for my lung congestion, often within seconds of swallowing a dose, I could feel loosening of the phlegm and I could cough it up. For me, this is miraculous and some thing MMS1&2 could not do for me. Also, I had no nausea or diarrhea with the CDS, which I always get with the other two. So if it is not getting into the blood, then how is it getting to my lungs? And how is it helping people with multiple tumors, or with leukemia?

Michael

.

Thank you STLittle for sharing your very personal history with CDS with us. I hope everyone that CDS has helped will come forward now - now is when we need to hear those testimonials!

I've said all along that CDS is a "moving target" - in some respects we ARE the beta testers - although Jim and his crew have been working with it - but how many of us here have malaria? And there is still so much to learn. At the very worst, it's not going to be as effective as MMS1 for some problems - or maybe it needs to be taken in a higher concentration - or a higher dose - I don't know.

But, if you think that the medicines that the pharmaceutical companies put out are all tested to every last variable, you might think again - Nope, plus they pay for the testing, get to pick and choose the results to submit to the FDA, FUND the FDA, and wait for docs to report back in (or not) about problems with patients on the drugs.

If it concerns you that all the details are not known yet, then I suggest falling back on MMS1 - where we do have the (much longer) history, knowing where it does and does not work. -

Meanwhile - YEA for STLittle <G> And for Michael, and for others who have come forward. We (and Jim Humble) need(s) all the data.

Michael, what you said about near instant results with CDS (regarding your lungs) made me wonder about permeability. Perhaps the CDS just passes through tissue much more easily? What you described is nearly as fast as dmso.

MWeather,

I do think the CDS permeates tissues well. It is chlorine dioxide gas in solution and can come out of solution pretty quickly. I think gases do permeate tissues readily.

I would often feel a benefit within 5-10 seconds of swallowing a dose. That seems to be too fast for blood stream delivery.

Michael

Very interesting - the idea that delivery might be nearly instant, straight through tissue, no need to be picked up by the bloodstream - well, perhaps we could dispense with dmso as a carrier agent if it has that ability, huh?