TOPIC:

This post has been moved to this more appropriate category

Hi Jean-Claude,

Why are you interested in the answers to Tom's questions below? Can you do the math to verify the assertions made in this post? Many of them seem to be highly erroneous. BTW, is this the same Tom that posts in CureZone.com, repeatedly attacking MMS with what generally strikes me as pseudoscience? Do you know Tom?

What tests for oxidative stress are you talking about? Do you have evidence of people on MMS protocols having oxidative stress? (I'm assuming that FDA has tested for this extensively, where is their evidence?)

If you don't have some evidence to back the assertions in this post, and an explanation of why you're posting it, we will consider deleting it.

Thanks,
Bruce

---
The below is from Jean-Claude (jcseeksyou):

I would be very grateful to receive an answer to what Tom has writen below?

/JC

"
Hello Jim,

Once again you demonstrate that you have limited knowledge of how these chemicals work.

Chlorine dioxide, when compared to chlorine, is selective in that it doesn't chlorinate. When purifying water hypochlorous acid (chlorine) is added to the water to eliminate pathogens. The problem is that hypochlorous acid attaches chlorine to the various organic materials in the water, and some of those resulting compounds have been found to cause cancer. In an effort to eliminate this problem, chlorine dioxide is being used for water treatment. Chlorine dioxide is selective in that it does not attach chlorine to organic materials.

At the concentrations used for water treatment (2 - 4 PPM) it does not react with RNA, but does react with amino acids. The last time I checked, amino acids are important to the human body.

The Lubbers study was done for 12 weeks. I don't believe 12 weeks is the same as 6 months.

The Lubbers study involved using chlorine dioxide in water. MMS involves adding an acid to sodium chlorite forming chlorous acid. Check the PH of the MMS dose. It has a PH of about 3. It is an acid. The Lubbers participants did not observe an objectionable taste. People taking the MMS chlorous acid complain about the taste and odor all the time.

The Lubbers study that ran for 12 weeks involved a concentration of 5 PPM. A 3 drop dose of MMS involves a concentration of about 200 PPM.

The Lubbers study exposed people to about 0.5 mg of chlorite per kg of body weight. MMS exposes people to about 3.2 mg of chlorite per kg of body weight.

Are we suppose to accept that if 0.5 mg/kg was found to be safe then 3.2 mg/kg must also be safe?

During the Lubbers study the people were subjected to a wide variety of testing to check for any signs of oxidative stress. They found that the 0.5 mg/kg of chlorite ingested daily for 12 weeks had no adverse effects on the human body.

MMS involves no testing for oxidative stress, and the general idea is that if it didn't kill you, the much higher dose involved must not harm you in any way. It would be interesting to use the testing done by Lubbers to see if the higher concentrations of chemicals used in the MMS protocol give the same results as the 5 PPM used in the Lubbers study.

Chlorine dioxide breaks down into chlorite (not sodium chlorite), chlorate (not sodium chlorate), and chloride (not sodium chloride). After the break down there may be some additional reactions that add sodium back into the mix, but that is not the way chlorine dioxide breaks down. About 70% of the chlorine dioxide concentration breaks down to chlorite. In animals, chlorite has a half life in the body of a little over 40 hours, then is eliminated via the urine.

No studies have been done on what happens with chlorous acid. The reaction will be somewhat similar, but you would expect some differences. There is a difference between chlorous acid (which contains some chlorine dioxide) and chlorine dioxide.

If you want to leap frog on the safety aspect of the Lubbers study, do the tests for oxidative stress and show that the MMS protocol, in spite of being a concentration that is 40 times stronger than what was used in the Lubbers study still does not cause any oxidative stress on the body. These tests are simple to do, and are not expensive.

Chlorine dioxide is a great pathogen killer on hard surfaces and in the air. Unfortunately, the body is not a "hard surface." Chlorous acid does a good job of removing pathogens during food processing. When using chlorous acid for food processing, meats don't require rinsing after treatment, but fruits and vegetables do. Why do they rinse after exposing the food to chlorous acid? Could it have something to do with chlorite exposure? Chlorite is a free radical that adds to the oxidative stress on the body.

There is a lot of information on chlorine dioxide, but not too much on chlorous acid. All of the safety concerns when these chemicals revolved around chlorite and its effect on the body.

The Lubbers study gives a great example of the testing done to look for adverse effects. Even though the Lubbers study involved chlorine dioxide and MMS involves chlorous acid, the same tests should be able to reveal if there is oxidative damage involved with the concentrations used in the MMS protocol.

It is unfortunate that you spend so much effort building your church when you should spend a little effort in doing some testing on your protocols.

While looking at the prospect of testing, we know that chlorine dioxide doesn't chlorinate, but how do you deal with the fact that hypochlorous acid does chlorinate and is not selective at all?

Tom
"

Hi Bruce,

I am neither an expert in chemistry or biochemistry, but I understand enough what Tom and Jim write. I do not know Tom personally and I get his comments from other forum.
However, I think this forum, which is for us consumers of MMS, is also for to receive relevant information that may be important to us. I do not think the forum should be one-sided and just accept whatever Jim says. Sure, Jim comes out with a fantastic product, but still I think you should listen to the views of others and it is up then to each individual to receive/accept or not receive/accept the information. What Tom writes about that Jim is bad in math/counting, I wish that Jim at all events respond to the criticism. The two are biochemists and I think Tom is really not against MMS, but he wishes to Jim at least write what MMS can cause of bad in the human body. As I understood Tom, he is himself a defender of Chlorine Dioxide and he is pretending that MMS is good but we have to take easy with the protocols and the eventually oxidative stress MMS is causing? Or maybe Jim is not aware about the eventually side effect that he got an oxidative stress? If so, it’s not his fault but he has to be aware that it can be so. Personally I did read from other from another MMS forum that they seem have been much older after to have taken MMS. Of course, I wonder over why those people are writing such of information?
I do not see Tom's letter as a direct criticism but more as a frustration on his part that the MMS can eventually cause damage into the cell level and that you can age more quickly after a treatment and that we eventually have to take easier with the protocols. Of course if you should to choose to remain sick or grow old a little faster so you choose to age faster at the charge of MMS cure.
I think it’s good for Jim to try to listen to what Tom has to say and try to arguments with Tom, instead of just waving it away.
Or what do you think you who is reading this forum?
To get a debate between two experts in biochemistry about MMS can be a very great thing for us consumers of MMS.
/Jean-Claude
PS. Myself I have great experiences of MMS but still we all of us have to see the eventually side effects MMS eventually can cause.

Hi Jean Claude,

The problem is Tom (silverfox_science) is not acting in good faith. If he was acting in good faith and really wanted to get to the truth, then you could have a helpful debate with him. But every time Jim or someone in his camp tries in good faith to respond to Tom, it quickly becomes obvious Tom cares nothing for the truth and seeks only to deceive.

Jim Humble did engage in a debate with Tom on the other group where you got this posting, and after 4-5 exchanges, I believe it was, Jim said he would not take any more time of his time answering Tom’s endless criticisms. Tom calls Jim a “liar” and treats him like one, how can you have a helpful dialogue with someone like that?

In addition, not long ago Dr. Ron carried out several exchanges with Tom, in which I posted Dr. Ron’s answers. Then it wasn’t long and Dr. Ron decided it was nothing but a waste of time because Tom is a deliberate deceiver and cares nothing for the truth.

Tom has been accused many times of being a paid troll for pharma, HE HAS NEVER ONCE DENIED THE ACCUSATIONS! Tom has also been questioned about what credentials he has to back up his statements, HE HAS NEVER GIVEN ANY OF HIS CREDENTIALS! He simply poses as an expert and unsuspecting people believe him.

I did some research on Tom a while back. Tom is a structural engineer and from what I can tell has no degrees in chemistry and no work experience in the sodium chlorite industry, until he became their troll.

Do a google search for “silverfox_science” and you will find him all over the internet and 8 years ago he was using the same ID to sell electronic parts on the net. Then about 3 years ago he starts showing up in any internet forum that discusses MMS and always tries to discredit Jim Humble and scare people away from his protocols. Tom is getting paid big money to do his lying, but Jim and the rest of us are donating our time to help people in need. How can honest volunteers have time to answer Tom’s endless lies?

One of Tom’s objectives is obviously to take up everyone’s time with his lies. This is why Jim and Dr. Ron decided nothing could be accomplished answering Tom’s criticisms, he just comes up with more. Tom obviously has unlimited time and energy available to discredit and nullify the use of MMS for serious diseases, the kind of uses that pose the biggest threat to Big Pharma’s income.

Tom will never give up because this is his JOB; he does it 24/7 and you know other people have noted that as well. Answering his criticisms accomplishes nothing, he soon has many more and never admits the truth or that he was wrong. He does not accept any of Jim’s testimony about his experiences. Tom has given us no reason to accept his testimony about anything. Jim, on the other hand, has credentials because he tells the world his story and doesn’t try to profit from the truth. I believe Jim; I do not believe ANYTHING Tom says. People who choose to believe Tom might as well give up using MMS to cure their diseases. Tom’s protocols won’t cure anything, just ask someone who has cured a serious disease with MMS.

As far as I am concerned, no one has time to answer Tom’s endless lies, it is only a waste and it accomplishes one of his purposes. For these reasons, I do not waste my time answering him. Anyone who chooses to believe him is free to do so. I choose to believe Jim Humble.

Michael

Hi Michael,

Very interesting what you wrote. I really didn't know about your info of Tom. I did see him as a serious person and when I'm thinking after, maybe you have right that he's payed by FDA or similar organisation?

But....still, why could I receive emails in yahoo-forum that some people get older after to have taken MMS cure? Is that normal or are they only believe something which is not real?

Thanks for your answers
/JC

From my view... i support Jim more than anyone...

Getting older or not may also be classified as coincidence or is on natural process of human body when one reach a certain age... who knows maybe a healthy person body should display this kind of progress to live older.

I do get very few white hair recently but am feeling more healthier than before... so can this be said as bad side effect? I do not know... but one thing am sure that even people said i am aging faster than them but i believed they could not live longer than me.. time will tell that and Jim is a perfect person to tell us cos he is now reaching 90s and is still going great....

Some reader here may not have time for this answer or have chance to see the outcome... so do we act fairly for them by not giving them a hope to heal their diseases? To me is not right.....

What i am sure is that, MMS will improved health... aging have not proved a person to be short live yet using MMS... so this is not our concern here... we all concern of living older and healthier and not about our looks.... do anyone want to look younger and die earlier.. this is our concern here... THE MAIN CONCERN IS LIVE HEALTHIER AND LONGER!

I am not trying to answer the question of skin aging, but I would like to give my thoughts on my experience.

I have used MMS about every weekday since Sept 15, 2010 and after a few months I started thinking about how nice my skin texture and tone looked.
At least to myself.
It seemed perfectly natural to me, since MMS is supposed to remove the bad stuff.
I don't think I had bad skin to start with, but it just seemed to be a bit better to me, and still does.

This was my opinion before I ever saw this thread and since the question came up, I thought I would share it with you all.

Joe

I use mms1 for Rheumatoid Arthritis. orally 1-2 drops per hour , also bath and bag method sometimes. I've noticed that my skin becomes silky soft & smooth especially after the mms baths.

Marlene