Standing up to junk science in New Zealand

Last week we saw several local victories for science over pseudoscience. And the US mid-term elections also gave electoral victories supporting community water fluoridation in 5 out of 6 communities where it was voted on.*

Peter Griffin from New Zealand’s Science Media Centre reported on the New Zealand victories in his post Experts shine in fight against junk science.

“It was a week when climate change denial, a “miracle” ebola cure and homeopathy grabbed headlines.

But by and large it was also a week where the media laid out the evidence and featured expert commentary putting the science behind the claims in perspective.”

So, the media seemed to be “on-side” this time and scientific experts were fronting up to counter the pseudoscience.

“The pending arrival in New Zealand of Genesis II Church of Health and Healing leader James Humble to push his Miracle Mineral Solution (MMS) was front page news. Medsafe warned that the treatment acts like an industrial bleach and could cause serious harm to those who took it. Australia’s Nine News reported that four Victorians had been hospitalised after taking the MMS treatment.

Shaun Holt

Dr Shaun Holt

Natural remedies expert Dr Shaun Holt and University of Auckland microbiologist Dr. Siouxsie Wiles made numerous media appearances to explain the pseudoscience Humble has been spreading about MMS, including that it can cure Ebola, HIV and malaria.The Herald reported today that an Auckland man who attempted to attend one of the “non-religious” Church’s seminars in the Hauraki Plains, was removed when it emerged he had not paid the US$500 registration fee, a hint perhaps at the real reason behind Humble’s Australasian tour.”

ebola

NZ Herald’s front page piece on MMS

The latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change renewed the media interest in climate change.

“False balance in climate coverage

Professor Tim Naish and Dr James Renwick, who have both contributed to IPCC reports put the latest update in context for New Zealand on One News and 3 News.

However TVNZ undermined its own climate change coverage by featuring noted climate sceptic and energy sector consultant Bryan Leyland on the Breakfast show, including presenting a graph featuring data supplied by Leyland himself.

By the end of the day the item had been pulled from TVNZ’s website after the broadcaster received numerous complaints from the public, scientists, as well as journalists.”

Then there was the response to the Green Party’s natural products spokesman Steffan Browning’s folly in signing a petition calling for homeopathic treatments to be used in the fight against Ebola. This lead to his demotion within the party and removal of his spokesman role.

“The embarrassing endorsement attracted attention in the UK and the condemnation of Browning’s own caucus.

Writing on Sciblogs, Dr Grant Jacobs applauded Browning’s demotion, but pointed out that he retained other science-related shadow portfolios.

“I’m aware of a number of people who have said they didn’t vote for the Greens because of Steffan Browning’s stance on genetic engineering and others who have said that while they voted for the Greens they don’t approve of Browning’s approach to GMOs and GE.”

Peter Griffin finishes by thanking “all the scientists who stepped up to make sense of the dubious claims journalists and the public were faced with this week.”

I think this also shows what can be achieved when good science journalism is actively promoted by groups like the Science Media Centre, and when scientists and other experts  participate in the social communication media and make themselves available to journalists.


*Support for community water fluoridation in these 5 communities was pretty overwhelming:

Boyne City, Michigan – 68% support for fluoridation: http://goo.gl/BUQVev
Bronson, Michigan – 63% support for fluoridation: http://goo.gl/KogVkP
Kalama, Washington – 73% support for fluoridation: http://goo.gl/wP6xAY
Saline County, Kansas – 67% support for fluoridation: http://goo.gl/Q2IGWL
Healdsburg, California – 68% support for fluoridation: http://goo.gl/KsOCgn

These victories were probably because fluoridation supporters, families and dentists organised public campaigns. See Group wants fluoride vote to keep its teeth.

Similar articles

281 responses to “Standing up to junk science in New Zealand

  1. Something might be evidence-based and marvellous scientific technology like fracking, but wider science is needed to decide upon its use.
    You may be called a Luddite if you oppose genetic modification. Then are you really dealing with science or with salespeople selling the outdated genetic modification of our food which means it contains antibiiotic resistance genes? Insertion of antibiotic resistance is outmoded by science now but a huge number of crops still contain that old technology. I find articles weak unless they cover that sort of point.

    Like

  2. Jeez Ken . . . haven’t you had a gratifying week . . . but as for ‘Junk Science’ what is it about ‘evidence-based science’ that can ever be relied upon when it ignores the most basic fact about life that is the difference between a live body and a dead body?

    Liked by 1 person

  3. @greenbuzzer yes some of the GMO “safety” testing has done on a just a chemical. Then the gene for the chemical was put into a plant and it was assumed that the result would consequenly be safe. But a gene inserted in a living plant really has more consequences than just producing the intended chemical.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. This author wants more experiments to test if his work is good or junk.

    and his abstract
    http://www.waterconf.org/upload/Konovalov%20Abstract%20WC2012.pdf

    Like

  5. Very interesting doco about Goat Island Marine Reserve on tonight 9th November, which reminded me of you and the events of the past week Ken, and how real scientists actually have humility and keep an open mind realising that ‘facts change’ and new things are revealed and ‘discovered’ every day – like the fact that the noise they thought was being made by the crayfish was actually coming from the very small fish called ‘Big eyes’. Under your regime and that of the likes of Souxsie Wiles, et al, you would keep denying this to the bitter end if this was one of your core dearly held beliefs – such as fluoride is safe, no matter what the evidence to the contrary, and homoeopathy is whacko even though very smart people, such as the Queen, claim enormous benefits from using it . . . would be sad really if it was just you and your cohorts who were left suffering in your ignorance, but unfortunately you would have the rest of us bound by your lack of knowledge as well . . . look at all the people who could have benefitted from an RDI of vitamin C well above that set to prevent scurvy and even now who’s going to stump up the cash to do the clinical trials when there’s nothing in it for them – we have long since been deserted by our ‘health officials’ to do any such research and the ‘public interest’ is now squarely at the mercy of Big Pharma, and your ‘colleagues’ livelihoods no doubt depend upon them toeing the party line . . . so do forgive me if I take a very jaundiced view of most of what you’ve written.
    The shame of all of you is that because your beliefs do not allow you to partake of any of the benefits of megadoses of IV vitamin C or even homoeopathy you would deny everyone else the opportunity by ensuring that any tax money spent on their health care was not of their choice but rather your narrow, ignorant and limited ‘evidence-based’ Big Pharma poisons because they have set it up that they are the only ones that can afford to buy the ‘scientists’ to jack up the studies in favour of their products and come up with any number of counter studies should anyone dare to suggest they may not only be ineffective but downright dangerous.
    Isn’t it something like 40% of deaths & / or hospital admissions are from iatrogenic illnesses – it would be good if Souxsie keep a running commentary of those alongside her obvious witch hunt against homoeopathy don’t you think?
    Don’t need to wish you Good night or anything because as they say Ignorance is Bliss – you must be very blissful . . . :}

    Like

  6. You seem upset about something, greenbuzzer? Wonder what it is.

    >

    Like

  7. @greenbuzzer
    I saw that doco. I wonder how many people are aware of the EPA hearing going on about mining the Chatham Rise for phosphorite. Quite a bit of science has been discussed. One point has been the sound of the vacuum dredge. I was firstly thinking in terms of hearing damage, But watching the doco I thought of how the 24/7 dredging sound could mask sounds that creatures use as signals. I think the doco said the little crayfish hear the spiny sea urchin munching on kelp and that is a way they know where to swim back to after their initial time in the more open ocean.
    Evidence of how creatures have burrowed into phosphorite nodules: http://docs.niwa.co.nz/library/public/NZOIm77.pdf, science needs to take a wide view. What part have those creatures played in long our food chain?
    (And will there be enough moisture and low enough pH to make the rock phosphate of use in a sufficient portion of NZ?)

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Yes Soundhill1 – to see the crayfish return after 2 years at sea by following the sound of the sea urchins munching on kelp makes one realise just how much we don’t know about the big picture . . . and as far as China goes, they also fined Glaxo Smith Kline the $488M they spent on bribes to doctors etc to use their products . . . just the tip of a very big iceberg I suspect . . . funny Ken didn’t see fit to comment on that as well . . . :}

    Like

  9. I don’t know, Shaun. The Red Cross seemed to have pretty good results with this “bleach” when they cured 154 cases of Malaria in Uganda 2012, documented on video by two different producers. The videos are on the frontpage of the (non-religious) Genesis II Church of Health & Healing website as we speak. Looks convincing to me.

    Keep in mind that Oxygen is also a bleach if you want to get scientific about it, and we have lungs to use that as much as possible — in moderate amounts, of course. Chlorine dioxide is the same principle and the oxidation potential is actually weaker than that of Oxygen, so it’s safer than Oxygen, in moderate amounts.

    Like

  10. Here are the Red Cross Cured 154 Cases of Malaria with MMS links, for safety sakes. http://mmswiki.org/index.php?title=Red_Cross

    LEAKED: Proof the Red Cross Cured 154 Malaria Cases with MMS

    Red Cross World Sensation! Malaria finally defeated!

    Like

  11. IMG_0671.JPG

    Perhaps a little humility is required.

    Like

  12. @6.22am I don’t know, Shaun.

    Shaun?
    It seems the kooks are all on a first name basis.

    Like

  13. Ken I feel your Galileo picture may have been made quite a few years ago when Google was not so encompassing. Just because something is on Google does not mean it isn’t science. Nowadays Google is rather good at giving which scientific papers have cited another. The scientist can not usually put that in their paper because it has not happened yet at the time they published.
    And some “research” is actually just a review of many papers on a subject. The scientist does not have to be in a lab to do that.
    There is even a whole branch of physics working with mathematical models, they don’t work with equipment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoretical_physics

    Like

  14. Thanks, Heh. Charity can be big business. This seems a fairly academic artice: http://www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/ethics_and_nonprofits
    It is hard to know what sort of review of articles are true as opposed to advocacy. Beware of emotive writing and writing which brings about confusion over doses and danger &c. A lot of the criticism of that chlorite work alludes to the danger of doses way beyond what is used. So far that is the only sort of criticism of the study that I have been able to find. People without much knowledge of science can thus be carried along if there is an agenda to keep up profits by avoiding a cheap treatment.
    Perhaps we could rank writers on this group by the amount of emotive terms they use.

    Like

  15. Scientist Changes Sides

    Grant Cameron, as quoted: “I’m aware of a number of people who have said they didn’t vote for the Greens because of Steffan Browning’s stance on genetic engineering and others who have said that while they voted for the Greens they don’t approve of Browning’s approach to GMOs and GE.”

    Here is more recounting of points I have been making, and a story of a scientist changing sides:
    http://earthweareone.com/former-pro-gmo-scientist-speaks-out-on-the-real-dangers-of-genetically-engineered-food/

    Like

  16. Ken, it seems like some of your commenters believe that the definition of scientist is someone who can point a web browser towards Google.

    It’s the equivalent of calling yourself a mechanic because you can drive a car to a garage / service station.

    They certainly don’t understand that science defines a way of thinking; maybe their way of thinking precludes that understanding?

    Like

  17. @Stuartg
    I am wondering who your target audience you think you can swing is, who will buy your aspersions here.
    How about taking several of the points and commenting?
    Science has a way of thinking, politics has a way of thinking, business has a way of thinking. Some of them try to bend the public perception of the others for their own ends.

    Like

  18. This on GMO from a scientist – There is a growing body of scientific research – done mostly in Europe, Russia, and other countries – showing that diets containing engineered corn or soya cause serious health problems in laboratory mice and rats.I don’t know if I was passionate about it but I was knowledgeable. I defended the side of technological advance, of science and progress.
    I have in the last 10 years changed my position. I started paying attention to the flow of published studies coming from Europe, some from prestigious labs and published in prestigious scientific journals, that questioned the impact and safety of engineered food.
    I refute the claims of the biotechnology companies that their engineered crops yield more, that they require less pesticide applications, that they have no impact on the environment and of course that they are safe to eat.
    There are a number of scientific studies that have been done for Monsanto by universities in the U.S., Canada, and abroad. Most of these studies are concerned with the field performance of the engineered crops, and of course they find GMOs safe for the environment and therefore safe to eat.
    Individuals should be encouraged to make their decisions on food safety based on scientific evidence and personal choice, not on emotion or the personal opinions of others.
    We should all take these studies seriously and demand that government agencies replicate them rather than rely on studies paid for by the biotech companies. (end)
    I respectfully suggest the same applies to the scientific studies done to ‘prove’ the safety, benefits and effectiveness of fluoridation.

    Like

  19. Well, Trev, at least you a “respectful” about your “suggestion” regarding fluoridation but you provide absolutely no evidence for it.

    >

    Like

  20. @Ken,
    I pointed out that the Royal Society review did not mention a paper about IQ and fluoridation that had controlled controlled for other trace elements. Indeed in your blog you claimed a possible different explanantion.

    When I asked you about the matter you said I should contact the authors of the RS study.

    So in relation to your reply to Trev, this must be evidence pending. Sorry must action it.

    Like

  21. soundhill1:

    “Just because something is on Google does not mean it isn’t science.”

    We agree on that. The trouble is that some of the comments here (and other of Ken’s blogs) imply that the commentor equates the double negative with a positive.

    In other words, it seems they think that (“does not mean it isn’t” = “means it is”).

    There is a tiny fraction of Google that includes science. Most of Google is neither science nor scientific. The tiny minority of science available on Google means that Google is not a good place from which to perform scientific “research.”

    Some comments here suggest that the person has used nothing but Google for their “research.”

    Science starts with the basics. It slowly builds from there. Scientists check each other’s results, contribute to each other’s thinking, they suggest areas to be followed, point out relevant areas which may have been investigated before, and then they eventually reach a consensus from which further research can be done. Google is not required at any stage of this process.

    Someone using Google gets many thousands, even millions of hits from a query. If they have not done the scientific basics then they have no idea which of those hits, if any, may be relevant to a scientific query.

    The ability to point a web browser to Google does not enable a non-scientist to do scientific research.

    Like

  22. @ Trevor Crosbie

    This on GMO from a scientist – ….blah blah blah

    More unattributed and therefore utterly worthless anecdotes from Trevor Crosbie.

    He’s repeatedly been asked to lift his game in this respect but seems incapable of doing so.

    Like

  23. @Richard
    Trevor was highlighting the bit of my link whose method he wishes to be applied to fluoride, too.

    I think he is also pointing out that going by what people are saying they had not been reading that link.

    Like

  24. @stuartg so-called research is not always honest either. Are you trying to cast doubt on this link I gave on this thread because it was on Internet? Note it is a link to the journal Nature which has some scientific standing. Or what specific examples can you use from this thread to back up your argument? http://www.nature.com/news/china-sacks-officials-over-golden-rice-controversy-1.11998

    Like

  25. soundhill1:

    Where did I mention honesty of research? What argument did I make?

    I made some observations.

    I will comment on generalities (scientific method, junk science…), but otherwise I’m just not able to contribute to arguments outside of my fields of expertise. I would suggest that’s a good principle for anyone to follow.

    Like

  26. @Stuartg | November 11, 2014 at 6:27 am |

    “Ken, it seems like some of your commenters believe that the definition of scientist is someone who can point a web browser towards Google.”

    Ken had offered a picture saying “sometimes scientists are proven wrong but it’s always by smarter scientists and never by google researchers whose entire argument boills down to, “NUH-UH.”” and then he said, “Perhaps a little humility is required.”

    Well thunder is about and I’ve read that lightning can cause surges that destroy computers. Though I have not read research about it I’ll write this quickly and turn off for a bit.

    So Stuartg, that comment to Ken is perhaps, by saying, “seems like,” asking Ken to back it up and make it into, “is.”

    There needs to be a distinction between “reporting research, or researchers’ battles” and “being a scientist.”

    OK I am humble, not a GMO researcher. Does that stop me from pointing to scientific controversy?

    Stuartg, when you saw the website ref “nature.com” with that word, “nature” did you not click on it thinking it was some sort of alternative site?

    Like

  27. soundhill1:

    Did I not click on it..? Did I think it was an alternative site..? Did I not think it was an alternative site..? Please structure your sentences so that your meaning is clear.

    Why should I have made a comment about that website reference? It’s about people breaking laws in China. There’s nothing in it that is remotely near my fields of expertise.

    Like

  28. I agree, Stuart. Soundhill’s link did not warrant a comment. It was unexplained and therefore seemingly irrelevant. I still can’t fathom his thinking on it.

    Is he trying to suggest via such links that there is something wrong with the scientific method, with testing ideas against reality, and therefore fluoridation is bad? Or that anti-science and pseudoscience activists should be believed because someone broke the law in China or the US?

    There seems no rational purpose for his promotion of the link.

    Like

  29. I take it from Richard’s ramble (11 Nov) that every bit of science conducted and peer reviewed is absolutely true and not subject to any bias or untoward influence. If that is true why are we not all smoking Chesterfield cigarettes, which were promoted by the AMA journal in the 1950s and backed by scientific research(funded by US tobacco interests) as safe and beneficial?
    I might not be a scientist but I can recognise manipulation and bullshit when I see and smell it!

    Like

  30. Sorry Richard – the scientist I quoted is Thierry Vrain, a former research scientist for Agriculture Canada.

    Like

  31. @Ken
    greenbuzzer made a serious accusation: ” buy the ‘scientists’ to jack up the studies in favour of their products”.
    So I gave that reference about a study on golden rice 2 and USA and Chinese scientists being severely reprimanded for false reporting. Why would scientists be doing that? What would they gain?

    In your article you reported Grant Cameron saying that people turned away from voting Green because of the Greens’ anti-GM policy. Golden Rice has been a platform for pro-GMOers to try to attack anti-GMOers. GR1 produced about 2001 had little carotene. GR2 came in some years later about 2008 with several different genes inserted and not tested on animals before being tried on children without consent. Even then it was not given daily to children as reported but only once. (As well as the dishonesty in the paper it arouses suspicion as to whether side effects were noticed.)

    Were the scientists being employed by the industry to give the GR2 a good look? 6 years later it is still not released.

    Brian

    Like

  32. Trev, I can appreciate you have no trouble recognising “manipulation and bullshit.”

    You and your mates indulge in these all the time.

    You however, don’t understand the most basic concepts in science. No one ever claims that “every bit of science conducted and peer reviewed is absolutely true . . ” in fact it is easy to explain that most ideas in science are wrong. That is inevitable because we can never get an absolutely exact depiction of reality.

    However, it is certainly not up to you to make the declarations about what is correct or not. That involves interaction with reality – something you probably do very rarely.

    >

    Like

  33. So sound hill you are attempting to justify junk science ( because that is what the Science Centre article was about) by randomly selecting some event around the otherwise of the world.

    Why not discuss the junk science that has been successfully debunked in NZ in the last week? Why get so defensive about that fact? And why not discuss the details of their claims if you really want to justify it?

    You Re just diverting.

    >

    Like

  34. @Ken wrote: “Why not discuss the junk science that has been successfully debunked in NZ in the last week?”
    As you have pointed out Ken maybe I do not spell things out enough.

    One of the “junk science” things being dealt with in the article is the MMS/activated chlorite cure. Quickly looking I have not been able to find evidence that it does not work. The attack on it appears to based on risk, as I said:
    “A lot of the criticism of that chlorite work alludes to the danger of doses way beyond what is used. So far that is the only sort of criticism of the study that I have been able to find. People without much knowledge of science can thus be carried along if there is an agenda to keep up profits by avoiding a cheap treatment.” And the risk was based on taking doses other than the recommended doses. That may be risky for many medicines.
    Quoting from your article: “Medsafe warned that the treatment acts like an industrial bleach and could cause serious harm to those who took it.”
    A few drops in water are used. I searched for more of what Shaun was saying and found him saying:
    “Victoria University professor Shaun Holt said that MMS should in no way be consumed by humans. “It’s highly concentrated and I wouldn’t let one drop near my lips.” “http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/10627103/Miracle-church-on-way-here
    Of course a drop of it could burn your lips. He owes it to peoples’ intelligence to reaffirm whether it is the diluted or concentrated product that he would not put near his lips.

    Say 5 drops per 100ml. If I remember correctly 50 drops are roughly a ml. So 5 drops is 0.1ml. put that in 100 ml of water and the dilution is 1 part per 1000. The drops were some 25% chlorite so it may be 250mg per litre that you drink, or 25mg in your 100ml dose.

    For malaria it is one dose. But here is a study in which people who may be susceptible to the substance because they are glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase-deficient were given the substance in their water at 5mg/l for
    12 weeks and did not suffer.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1569027/

    OK it is a lesser concentration. But if they consumed 2l of water in a day they would be getting 10mg per day.

    If your doctor intends to prescribe penicillin to you he should ask if you are allergic to it. If it is your first time you cannot know yet. It can be life threatening. It would be nice to have a way of knowing in advance. Same with bleach if the 25mg dose puts you into shock.

    Note also in the video people were given a bottle of water to drink so the concentration in their stomach would be much reduced.

    So where are studies that debunk its effect on malaria? I don’t see where it has been successfully debunked.

    This has been a bit complex. I hope you ask for clarification if needed.

    Brian

    Like

  35. This comment is just so typical of those who want to believe without evidence. And yet the same people attempt to discredit the evidence -based science:

    “Quickly looking I have not been able to find evidence that it does not work.”

    I had a quick look tonight and could not find any evidence that there wasn’t a unicorn at the bottom of my garden. So there you are scientists – you either don’t know what you are talking about or you are in the pay of companies who want to hide these unicorns from us.

    >

    Like

  36. @Ken the videos appeared to demonstrate that it worked. Your people set out to debunk it with statements about its danger, not its efficacy.. I don’t see any evidence against its efficacy so far. Perhaps you could point me to it.

    Like

  37. Sound hill – you are just naive to take these videos at face value. The advantage of science is that things can be rested properly and transparently, and then results can be peer reviewed to reduce the chances of ideological motives or simple bias. Has the miracle mineral solution been tested in this way? If not, why not?

    One should be very sceptical when something like this is advanced as a miracle cure for problems as diverse as AIDS, Ebola and malaria – especially with no proper objective evidence and testing. Especially when it is advanced by a church and untrained people are being enlisted for $650 each to attend a seminar on it with the enticement they can make money out of it.

    Now about those unicorns at the end of my garden. Do you accept my assurances they exist because I have not been a able to find anything to show they don’t? Or would you be happier if I can get someone to make a video of me and my mates making this claim?

    Obviously I won’t subject my claim to the normal scientific evaluation because we know that scientists are biased and paid by companies who wish to hide the fact of unicorn existence from us.

    >

    Like

  38. @ trevor crosbie.

    why are we not all smoking Chesterfield cigarettes, which were promoted by the AMA journal in the 1950s

    What the hell do you mean by “promoted by the AMA journal ”

    -that a paid advertisement for Chesterfield cigarettes appeared in the journal?
    or
    -that the editor promoted a cigarette brand as official smokes of the journal, deliberately endorsing them over Phillip Morris and Camel?
    or
    – Chesterfields were the official cigarettes of the AMA?

    and

    and backed by scientific research(funded by US tobacco interests) as safe and beneficial?

    more confusion

    Are you claiming the AMA published a study funded by the tobacco lobby? Did it represented AMA’s position on the health effects of smoking?

    I tell you what, Trevor, how about doing something novel and provide link to the original source,

    it’s not that people have learned not to trust you or anything.

    Like

  39. Ken your story about unicorns has some connection to type 1 and type 2 errors which are involved in statistical analysis. Debunkers don’t always understand that procedure either, or they hope their audience won’t.

    This essay relates to the Seralini GMO study which was severely though falsely junked.

    http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Excess_cancers_and_deaths_from_GM_feed_stats_stand_up.php

    Like

  40. Ken studies may be done or not and published or not. The truth table has 4 categories.

    For each category commerce regards outcome, scientific quest, politics, religion, commerce regards funding, personal goals and maybe others will have varying inputs.

    Since there is a lot of feeling against MMS it is surprising that studies trying to disprove it have not been published.

    There was a doctor in attendance in the second MMS video. It didn’t look like actors to me.

    I have pointed to material which says teh Red Cross have been censured for collecting donations for the 9/11 event then spending them elsewhere. So I am not quite sure I can trust them.

    Like

  41. soundhill

    MMS contains chlorine atoms. Chlorine is a halogen, just like fluorine. According to your maths (and I will just note that drop size is not standard and depends on the dropper used), the concentration of chlorine after dilution is many times the concentration of fluorine in community water supplies.

    Since atoms in the same group of the periodic table tend to have similar properties and actions, where is your evidence that MMS will not cause the same problems that you have previously attributed to CWF?

    Have you tried Google? Or maybe looked at some science instead?

    Ken,

    I know, I know. I just thought it would be fun to throw junk science and junk scientific reasoning back at those who use it routinely. Maybe someone else reading it would get an insight into how junk science differs from science.

    Like

  42. soundhill

    It’s up to the people promoting MMS to prove what it can and can not do.

    If you say your car can drive to the moon, it’s up to you to drive your car to the moon and prove it. It’s not the job of scientists to prove your car can’t drive to the moon.

    Liked by 1 person

  43. @Stuartg | November 13, 2014 at 6:48 am |
    “soundhill
    It’s up to the people promoting MMS to prove what it can and can not do.”
    It is a sad day if public good is sidelined for a promotional environment.

    Perhaps I am being harsh.

    Businesses have always done R&D. Unfortunately these days sometimes that means promoting the same old remedy in a new package for commercial purposes and not for public good.

    Universities and DSIR used to do more pure research and public good research but the commercial environment imposed since the 1980s means they are now have to look to business for funding, too.

    Science has people keen on it without pay, like people watching for comets.

    And the guy offering the knowledge of the MMS treatment could hardly have been into it for profit, (though some are now trying to make money from teaching about it,) I think he an amateur keen to help alleviate suffering.

    With the constraints operating which I have just related, it must be acknowledged it can be hard to get scientists to work on a project. But the well-meaning people have done an experiment, and offered the results they got.

    They have used the video format to report rather than going to the expense of journal publishing possibly also in the knowledge that many people learn faster from video. They have put their results out in the world and now it is up to people to respond. What we have seen from Shaun and Medsafe appears to be saying it is dangerous to use undiluted bleach in your mouth. That would be correct, of course, but saying pretty much nothing, and a discredit to them. At least they could have said people whose bodies do not produce a particular enzyme may be more at risk.

    The junkers would look more credible if they stopped focusing on the medium and got on with examining the message.

    Like

  44. 1: Anecdotal videos is not “putting the results out in the world.” It is what you do when you don’t have good results but want to sell or promote something.

    2: Sure there is an attempt to get NZ business to front up with what they should see as their moral responsibility for research. But the fact is that there is still a lot of public good and public funded research in NZ. In the end, of course, if scientists want to attract corporate funding for their research the best way to do that is produce good science. Both corporate and public good funding have roles to play in research.

    3: The MMS people would look more credible if they commissioned honest scientists to research their product. This of course means that they, not the public purse, have to pay for the research. But that is in fact what responsible companies do all the time. It is the snake oil salesmen and crooked companies who rely instead on propagandist videos instead of honest commissioned research. My experience has always been that honest companies do not object to commissioning research – but the small, opportunist ideologically driven and plainly dishonest companies always object to paying for research.

    4: If the MSS people already have proper research results (the video reports are not proper research) then put them out there to be considered. It is understandable that extreme miracle claims like theirs do not win sympathy without evidence. And as Christopher Hitchens famously said – “that which is asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence.” It is the responsibility of the manufacturer and promoters of this snake oil, not anyone else’s, to produce evidence – to do or commission the research.

    >

    Like

  45. @Ken
    Just because it is a video does not imply it is anecdotal.

    Like

  46. “But the fact is that there is still a lot of public good and public funded research in NZ. In the end, of course, if scientists want to attract corporate funding for their research the best way to do that is produce good science.”

    At the time of doing pure maths research it may not have been known whether it would be publicly or commercially useful, thouight quite often is some years along. Are your saying if your pure research is good science then commerce will make up for the reduced amount of pure research funded publicly?

    Like

  47. “The MMS people would look more credible if they commissioned honest scientists to research their product. This of course means that they, not the public purse, have to pay for the research. But that is in fact what responsible companies do all the time.”

    There are two parts to the MMS scenario: the profit part and the public good part. Can we deal with them separately?

    Like

  48. “If the MSS people already have proper research results (the video reports are not proper research)”
    They may or may not be reports of proper research, but the fact that they are in video format does not make them improper.

    Like

  49. No, I am not saying commercial companies fund pure research – that would be highly unusual. In NZ we have the Marsden Fund for that.

    >

    Like

  50. Here is a patent application for use of chlorite with 5FU to improve quality of life in advanced cancer. Anecdotes I suppose. What research method would you prescribe? I suppose they checked chlorite by itself. http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20080292729.pdf

    Like

  51. soundhill

    In other words, you are saying that the promoters of MMS haven’t done any research. They haven’t got any proof that it works. They haven’t any proof it doesn’t work. They haven’t done any research into any side effects. They have no idea of the dose (that drop size again). They don’t know of any interactions with medications or drugs a person may be on.

    What they have done is make a TV advert about it, although they haven’t paid for the advert to go on TV.

    NZ, unfortunately, has joined the USA in allowing direct to consumer marketing of medications. All the advert has to do to be legal is mention indications, doses, warnings, contraindications, interactions, and side effects. Oh, that’s why it’s not advertised on TV – they haven’t done any of that research yet.

    Here was me thinking it was all about maximisation of profits by not paying for advertising!

    Liked by 1 person

  52. In other words, you are saying that the promoters of MMS haven’t done any research.

    saying and fabricating excuses for it.

    Like

  53. Stuartg, sometimes it is regarded as unethical to continue with a double blind study because the effect of the actual treatment is so much better.

    The way you and Ken are going on about the video is like you are trying to think up reasons to suppress the research when you can’t really argue with it.

    Some 500 came to the clinic. Some 150 tested positive for malaria with test strips. They were given the dose and their water. They came back and most tested negative. A few were given another dose and became negative, too. The doctor in attendance was satisfied.

    Now a church is travelling to charge people for more training about the process for other afflictions. They may involve more doses and more care to get it correct.

    Why is it legal to sell bottled water in NZ for such a price when the same thing is free out of the tap?

    Brian

    Like

  54. Oh and if the test strip said positive their blood was examined under microscope for verification. What is lacking in the study? Do you say half at random should have been given only water for double blind purposes and left with the disease?

    Like

  55. It is of course unethical to continue a double blind study in some situations – but that comment is completely irrelevant. There was no double-blind study in this case.

    To make an intelligent comment on the poor quality of the “study” does not indicate a desire to suppress it – simply to point out the problems.

    Whatever the misgivings of a genuine researcher, if they are commissioned to research a product they are quite capable of designing appropriate experimental procedures and producing objective results. In this case no attempt appears to have been made to commission proper research.

    I have been approached several times by companies wanting their product tested. In some cases I thought they were away with the birds but put appropriate costed proposals to them. The more honest companies accepted the proposals, the less hones preferred to stick with their weird ideas rather than put them to the test.

    the point is that research costs money. If a company wishes to validate their product they should be prepared to invest in that research. If they don’t then we are entitled to treat them as charlatans.

    Like

  56. Sorry about the drop size. It seems it can vary from 18 to 40 drops per ml, although a standard dropper seems to give 18-26. So the doses may be a bit over double what I said.

    Note also that the patent application whose ref I posted says that for the best results with cancer the dose should be adjusted to the patient’s weight. In the malaria video babies were given less.

    You may not know that aspirin relates to body weight. It annoys me that the 75mg dose costs more than the 100mg low dose enteric coated aspirin for heart care.

    Side effects were talked of weren’t they? Most medicines, vaccines &c have varying side effects, and cost vs benefit ratios. It will be nice when tests become available and checked before vaccines &c are administered.

    Like

  57. Ken this did not appear to be the usual situation for a double blind test where you are looking for some advantage of treatment over placebo. I do not think placebo can cure malaria, verified by testing.

    I have been part of a controlled trial of administering potassium in heart attack care. There I was in a confused state trying to understand if I wanted to be part of the test in which I would not know if I got the treatment or not, and they were telling me to get on with deciding so as they could start the treatment. I was presuming it is normal to check and administer potassium if levels are low and here they were wanting to withhold it for a test.

    Like

  58. Drop size: equipment I have personally used has varied from 5 drops per ml to 60 drops per ml.

    That difference can give a 12x variation in the dose of MMS.

    So, what is the recommended dose of MMS? Per kg, please, just the way you say it should be done with aspirin.

    Like

  59. soundhill,

    Aspirin in NZ is available in 75, 100, 150, 300 and 650 mg tablets. The dose depends on which of its indications it is being used for.

    Like

  60. @Stuart, in the supermarket the stomach safer 75mg tabs cost 30% more than the stomach-safer 100mg.
    “The indications” normally means what condition to treat, but the weight of the patient should also be taken into account. I think it should be about 1mg per kg body weight for thinning the blood. So a 75kg person taking 100mg is more unnecessarily susceptible to common or uncommon side effects: http://www.webmd.com/drugs/2/drug-1082-3/aspirin-oral/aspirin-oral/details/list-sideeffects

    Like

  61. Medicine droppers

    4a. Standards are described for medicine droppers in USP Chapter 〈1176〉 and Chapter 〈1101〉 Medicine Dropper.
    b. Graduated medicine droppers are described in Chapter 〈1101〉; when held vertically, they deliver drops of water each of which weighs between 45 mg and 55 mg. Chapter 〈1101〉 states that the volume error for these droppers should not exceed 15% (11).
    d. Notice that for both types of droppers, the calibration is given in terms of water. Other liquids have different surface tensions and viscosities, which give different drop volumes[…]

    https://www.inkling.com/read/contemporary-guide-pharmacy-practice-thompson-3rd/chapter-14/v–volumetric-devices

    Like

  62. soundhill,

    The equipment I used was medical equipment manufactured and calibrated to worldwide standards. There’s still a 12x variation in drop size.

    Ask your supermarket why the difference in price between different doses and brands of aspirin, not bloggers or the general public.

    Rather than just “think” that aspirin should be 1 mg/kg, why not look up the research? Whilst you do that, look up genetic variation in cyclooxygenase and relate it to both response to aspirin and potential for side effects. You may learn something interesting.

    Now, you’ve done your best to dodge questions so far, but here’s some direct questions that should be answered by someone as supportive of MMS as you are.

    What is the dose of MMS per kg?

    How does the dose vary for different indications?

    What actually are the indications for MMS?

    What are its contraindications?

    What interactions are there with different medications?

    What are its side effects?

    Those questions have been answered for aspirin by the manufacturer and distributor, and the answers have been made public. There is no reason for the manufacturer and distributor of MMS not to do the same.

    …unless it doesn’t work and they’re after a quick buck, just like other snake oil sellers.

    Like

  63. Away from home with only a phone…

    That had to be tapped out four times before it posted! Three times it just deleted instead.

    Like

  64. May be something wrong with Openparachute. My post has disappeared, too.

    Like

  65. Don’t see anything by you in spam or awaiting moderation.

    Like

  66. In case someone saw my post before it disappeared, I feel a caution is needed about putting drops of MMS into the nasal passages as shown by Humble in his 2014 video. Would the smell sense organ be at risk? I am not expecting a reply, just giving my wonderings, as for the aspirin.

    Humble is still working on doses, with his ones in his 2014 video still quite heavy single dose for malaria but hourly small doses for some other things.
    Stuartg, medical droppers drop size do vary depending on whether it is for a very slow saline drip into a vein &c. And standard medicine droppers should be as I said, isn’t it?

    Humble talks of contraindications. He speaks of starting with small doses. If you are going to use DMSO to get it through your skin, test with a little DMSO first to see if your liver can cope, which it may not do for a small number of people.

    The earlier films posted on this thread say it is a pilot test being described. I bet it was a while before the doses/troubles with aspirin were well known.

    My doctors have not been able to prescribe less than 100mg enteric coated aspirin. A lot of the indications for aspirin on apparently authoritative websites do not take body weight into account. So in a way I believe aspirin is still in a sort of pilot stage. When I was started on it there was no attempt to measure that enzyme you write of. I think Humble is doing quite well with his cautions in comparison to what often happens in medical practice where a patient may be lucky to read the small print.

    I wish there would be tests to determine whether particular vaccines may be harmful to particular patients.

    A claim has been made that the pilot MMS test in Uganda was done without proper ethical permission. Note that the Golden Rice 2 experiment was likewise done.

    Like

  67. soundhill,

    “I believe aspirin is still in a sort of pilot stage.”

    Aspirin is one of only four current prescription medications that were available when Queen Victoria was on the throne. It has over a century of research backing its use. More than five generations have successfully used it for various indications. Just when do you think it will be ready to leave the “pilot stage”?

    That’s a rhetorical question. We already know that you think MMS has left the “pilot stage”, even though the manufacturer/distributor has done no research into its indications, contraindications, dosage, interactions or side effects. All they have done is made a TV advert, which is apparently sufficient proof for you.

    You have obviously asked questions about aspirin, yet when I ask you the same questions about MMS you avoid answering those questions and then shift the goalposts.

    Aspirin has over a century of research backing it, with millions (billions?) of people using it effectively for more than a century. MMS, an industrial bleach, hasn’t even got any safety data for human ingestion, but its manufacturer/distributor has made a TV advert!

    If you can’t see the discrepancies between your approaches to the two, then there is no point in discussing it further, but it is a good comparison between science (aspirin) and junk science (MMS).

    Ken,

    The problem was me and my phone. I was deleting the typed (tapped?) contribution rather than posting. I think I’ve solved the problem now.

    Like

  68. Stuartg wrote:
    >Aspirin is one of only four current prescription medications
    >that were available when Queen Victoria was on the throne.
    > It has over a century of research backing its use. More than
    > five generations have successfully used it for various indications.
    > Just when do you think it will be ready to leave the “pilot stage”?

    I am not satisfied that 100mg is the only dose available on prescription for heart care.

    >That’s a rhetorical question. We already know that you think MMS
    > has left the “pilot stage”,

    No I said that one of the films above reported it is only a pilot experiment.

    > even though the manufacturer/distributor
    > has done no research into its indications, contraindications, >dosage,
    > interactions or side effects.

    No the 2014 film I pointed to which was showing then disappeared was a talk by Humble about his dose adjustments.

    >All they have done is made a TV advert,
    > which is apparently sufficient proof for you.

    It’s not a TV advert. It’s a pilot study.
    Jim wants to be helpful. The materials are very cheap. Some people are packaging them but he is not pushing a particular brand, “There’s a lot of bottles on Internet, but we believe on them all.”

    >You have obviously asked questions about aspirin, yet when I ask
    >you the same questions about MMS you avoid answering those
    >questions and then shift the goalposts.

    The 2014 film gives you some answers.

    >Aspirin has over a century of research backing it, with millions
    > (billions?) of people using it effectively for more than a century.

    It should have it’s doses related to body weight, not just the very rough difference from child to adult.

    >MMS, an industrial bleach, hasn’t even got any safety data for
    >human ingestion,

    Not true. It is the substance used in water treatment.

    >but its manufacturer/distributor has made a TV advert!

    Sometimes research articles are intended as publicity for a product or service. A lot of scientific journal articles have to be retracted.

    I would like to see a bit more detail about the pilot test.

    >If you can’t see the discrepancies between your approaches to >the two,

    Please explain.

    > then there is no point in discussing it further, but it is a good
    >comparison between science (aspirin) and junk science (MMS).

    Like

  69. soundhill,

    “Please explain”

    I’ve asked you to tell us the indications, contraindications, doses, interactions and side effects of MMS. Please explain why you don’t.

    Like

  70. I am learning about it. I only know what is in the videos, and a few points some people have discussed in various groups.

    Ken’s current discussion related to fluorosis/IQ is also a pilot study. Being a pilot study not everything is known so far.

    As with GMOs some people may be wrongly selling it without proper testing. I agree caution there. China thinks GMOs/glyphosate are hurting their people. The companies have made it hard to get material to test, so often there is no science in the public domain.

    Harmful science is not necessarily junk science, either.

    Here we have Humble wanting to help, and doing his best. If he is harming we should start to see reports of that. I don’t think we should be any less lax on him than on normal medicine which causes huge amounts of iatrogenic disease.

    Like

  71. soundhill,

    “Please explain” my (soundhill1s’) difference in attitude between aspirin and MMS.

    Very well, a single example, paraphrased.

    Aspirin: “I want a dose of 1mg/kg, exactly.”

    MMS: “I’m not going to tell you the dose in mg/kg. Use a few drops of unknown size, using a dropper that hasn’t been specified by the manufacturer/distributor, from a base solution of an unknown concentration, diluted in water. That’s close enough.”

    As I said, if you can’t see the discrepancies between your attitudes towards aspirin and MMS, then there is no point in debating.

    Others will see the discrepancies, then they will make their own informed judgments about whether they should be placing untested industrial bleach into the various orifices of the human body.

    Like

  72. The base solution of chlorite if I remember is around 25%. The drops can be seen in the 2014 video. At a rough guess they were around 20 per ml I figure by the amount they filled up the containers.

    Humble explained his doses, 18 drops for malaria in one dose, or 2 drops for some other afflictions every hour. It is mixed with the same volume of citric acid and agitated for some 10-20 seconds till it goes yellow then 100ml of water is put in, or ordinary fruit juice, which must not have vitamin C added.

    As I said for a standard medicine dropper, (not some of the other medical equipment which you won’t say what it is you talked about,) the drops should be fairly well specified.

    I have not tried it. I worry that it might kill some of my beneficial intestinal flora. But I have it in mind as an option.

    I don’t know too much about malaria. The people in the videos did not look terribly sick, except for maybe the baby. My uncle got malaria in WWII. I think he said he got cold shivers. I was very young. It seemed to get better, I don’t know how. But I believe malaria is a major killer, killing far more than AIDS, and of course ebola.

    With many serious diseases conventional treatments may be very disabling. Search for “iatrogenic”. Maybe this bleach will hurt a few. But that is acceptable with conventional medicines/vaccines. Quite a lot of children have died from HPV vaccination, I think.

    Our bodies work on oxygen. This beach supplies a bit more. Some doctors try to treat people by making them breath higher pressure oxygen.

    This thread is about junk science and I believe to junk this treatment there needs to be more talk than about the danger of bleach.

    Like

  73. soundhill,

    Wow, what a load of junk, both science and medicine.

    Lets see. Your dose for MMS is “around”, “a rough guess”, “mixed with”. Hardly an exact mg/kg dose, is it? Like you ask for with aspirin? There aren’t any standard medicine droppers, at least in NZ, even though you supplied a USA standard. In NZ, if a medication requires a dropper then the manufacturer supplies one for that medication alone (example: nystatin). Unless the dropper for MMS is specified by the manufacturer/distributor, then you have no idea of the drop size or the dose.

    I wouldn’t worry too much that bleach “might kill some of my beneficial intestinal flora.” I would worry that it would kill off my oral and oesophageal mucosa. I’ve seen it happen, and I wouldn’t wish it on anybody.

    Wikipedia informs us “The EPA has set a maximum contaminant level of 1 milligram of chlorite per liter (1 mg/L) in drinking water.” Now, what was the concentration of chlorite in your made up solution? You have absolutely no idea.

    You “believe” that malaria is a major killer. You got that right. That’s why there are well investigated, scientifically based medications that can be used to treat it. Any new medication would be have to be compared with existing medications since comparing it with an ineffectual placebo would not be ethical. The earliest antimalarial was quinine, originally from the bark of the cinchona tree. That’s where G&T originated – the gin helped disguise the bitter taste of quinine in the tonic water. If you “don’t know too much about malaria”, then why are you commenting on it?

    “Maybe this bleach will hurt a few.” No, it will kill a lot. Medications may have side effects, but they don’t carry warnings about poisoning on the outside of the container like sodium chlorite does. Even Wikipedia details some of the toxic effects and clinical symptoms that can be expected in someone who ingests it. ToxiNZ gives a lot more information, and also tells how to treat someone who has ingested the stuff.

    “Search for “iatrogenic.”” No, I won’t. Are you trying to switch the goalposts here? I deal with iatrogenic illness (aka “side effects”) every day of my working life. Is that good enough?

    Ebola has killed around 5,000 during this epidemic. The WHO estimates that influenza kills 250,000 to 500,000 every year. Ebola is much harder to catch than influenza, as is HIV. Both HIV and influenza are routinely dealt with by medical personnel in NZ, and the ebola training is being rolled out. Why bring it up, unless you were switching the goalposts?

    “Our bodies work on oxygen. This beach supplies a bit more.” Wrong. Bleach supplies chlorine, not oxygen. Chlorine is used for sterilisation of surfaces – because it kills living things. Concentrations that will kill a malarial parasite (which, in the human, usually lives inside erythrocytes and hepatocytes) will also kill the cells that it lives in. Those concentrations will result in toxic effects and clinical symptoms, maybe even death. What was that dose for MMS again? is it above or below the concentration that will kill malaria, erythrocytes and hepatocytes?

    “Quite a lot of children have died from HPV vaccination, I think.” No, you think wrong. The exact figure is zero. It’s one of the safest vaccines ever produced. Continuing research since its release has repeatedly shown its safety. Don’t take my word for it, try Orac: http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/?s=hpv+vaccine .

    “Some doctors try to treat people by making them breath (sic) higher pressure oxygen.” True… Off the top of my head, nitrogen narcosis and Cl. perfringens infection are a couple of reasons. It’s used so infrequently that there are only two places in NZ that can supply the therapy.

    “This thread is about junk science…” It is, and you are supplying a lot of examples.

    Like

  74. soundhiil,

    By the way, I missed something (as well as spelling mistakes).

    “With many serious diseases conventional treatments may be very disabling.” The word “may” does not mean “are”. It’s all about risk versus benefit.

    Have you ever considered how disabling the alternative of death would be, if those “serious” diseases were not treated?

    Like

  75. >Wow, what a load of junk, both
    >science and medicine.

    I’ve not got it all right, nor you.
    Some quick replies:

    >Lets see. Your dose for MMS is
    >“around”, “a rough guess”,
    >“mixed with”. Hardly an exact
    >mg/kg dose, is it?
    >Like you ask
    >for with aspirin?

    I want a better dose for aspirin.
    I feel there needs to be a wider understanding that a 60kg adult could do with a different dose from a 120kg adult. Such is a factor of two.

    There aren’t any
    >standard medicine droppers, at
    >least in NZ, even though you
    >supplied a USA standard.

    Which looks to be another NZ thing that ought to be fixed. The USA standard droppers would not give a factor of 2.
    In NZ.
    >if a medication requires a dropper
    >then the manufacturer supplies
    >one for that medication alone
    >(example: nystatin). Unless the
    >dropper for MMS is specified by
    >the manufacturer/distributor, then
    >you have no idea of the drop size
    >or the dose.

    That’s rather poor.

    >I wouldn’t worry too much that
    >bleach “might kill some of my
    >beneficial intestinal flora.” I
    >would worry that it would kill off
    >my oral and oesophageal mucosa.
    >I’ve seen it happen, and I
    >wouldn’t wish it on anybody.

    You need to give more data. I agree with Shaun not to put one drop of undiluted bleach near my lips. How many drops per 100ml are you talking about? Even if they are big or small?

    >Wikipedia informs us “The EPA
    >has set a maximum contaminant
    >level of 1 milligram of chlorite
    >per liter (1 mg/L) in drinking
    >water.”

    That is when sports people are drinking 5 litres every day the whole year.

    Now, what was the
    >concentration of chlorite in your
    >made up solution? You have
    >absolutely no idea.

    I got the drop a bit small in my calculations which I gave.before For malaria I see now it’s about 18 drops at .05ml each which gives about 1ml. And that is what it looked like in Humble’s 2014 video. The drops were about 25% chlorite so it’s about 0.25 ml with 100ml of water put in on top.
    Then you drink quite a lot of water.
    It’s quite strong, but you’re dealing with a serious disease.

    The other protocols are weaker and have several ways to find the best you can tolerate.

    >You “believe” that malaria is a
    >major killer. You got that right.
    >That’s why there are well
    >investigated, scientifically based
    >medications that can be used to
    >treat it.

    But often unaffordable.

    Any new medication
    >would be have to be compared
    >with existing medications since
    >comparing it with an ineffectual
    >placebo would not be ethical. The
    >earliest antimalarial was quinine,
    >originally from the bark of the
    >cinchona tree. That’s where G&T
    >originated – the gin helped
    >disguise the bitter taste of quinine
    >in the tonic water. If you “don’t
    >know too much about malaria”,
    >then why are you commenting on
    >it?

    I know it’s a big killer and is not being treated. Here is a treatment being offered and being called junk science without proper argument.

    >“Maybe this bleach will hurt a
    >few.” No, it will kill a lot.
    >Medications may have side
    >effects, but they don’t carry
    >warnings about poisoning on the
    >outside of the container like
    >sodium chlorite does.

    They ought to.

    Even
    >Wikipedia details some of the
    >toxic effects and clinical
    >symptoms that can be expected in
    >someone who ingests it. ToxiNZ
    >gives a lot more information, and
    >also tells how to treat someone
    >who has ingested the stuff.

    Like a kid drinking out of the neat bleach bottle?

    >“Search for “iatrogenic.”” No, I
    >won’t. Are you trying to switch
    >the goalposts here? I deal with
    >iatrogenic illness (aka “side
    >effects”) every day of my
    >working life. Is that good
    >enough?

    Interesting.

    I don’t think the goalposts for one treatment should be different from another.

    >Ebola has killed around 5,000
    >during this epidemic. The WHO
    >estimates that influenza kills
    >250,000 to 500,000 every year.
    >Ebola is much harder to catch
    >than influenza, as is HIV. Both
    >HIV and influenza are routinely
    >dealt with by medical personnel
    >in NZ, and the ebola training is
    >being rolled out. Why bring it up,
    >unless you were switching the
    >goalposts?

    Just to say that however bad we are made to feel about ebola a whole lot worse problem is not being got at by conventional medicine partly because of cost.

    >“Our bodies work on oxygen.
    >This beach supplies a bit more.”
    >Wrong. Bleach supplies chlorine,
    >not oxygen.

    Sorry a bit more oxidation. Not as strong an oxidising agent as chlorine.

    Chlorine is used for
    >sterilisation of surfaces – because
    >it kills living things.
    It’s not chlorine produced.
    Take a look here:
    http://www.thesabrecompanies.com/science/chemistry.aspx

    >Concentrations that will kill a
    >malarial parasite (which, in the
    >human, usually lives inside
    >erythrocytes and hepatocytes)
    >will also kill the cells that it lives
    >in. Those concentrations will
    >result in toxic effects and clinical
    >symptoms, maybe even death.

    “The mechanism of action by which chlorine dioxide inactivates microorganisms is not entirely well understood. As a general matter, however, it is known that chlorine dioxide destroys microbes by attacking their cell walls (or viral envelopes) and interfering with essential protein formation. It is also known that chlorine dioxide is more effective against viruses than either chlorine or ozone. Furthermore, chlorine dioxide is known to be effective against hearty waterborne protozoans such as Giardia Lambia and Cryptosporidium, the causative agents of giardiasis and cryptosporidiosis, respectively. Since chlorine dioxide is an oxidative biocide, microorganisms cannot build up a resistance to it.’

    >What was that dose for MMS
    >again? is it above or below the
    >concentration that will kill
    >malaria, erythrocytes and
    >hepatocytes?

    >“Quite a lot of children have died
    >from HPV vaccination, I think.”
    >No, you think wrong. The exact
    >figure is zero. It’s one of the
    >safest vaccines ever produced.
    >Continuing research since its
    >release has repeatedly shown its
    >safety. Don’t take my word for it,
    >try Orac:
    >http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/?s=hpv+vaccine .

    Seems to be controversy language rather than science.

    Try this, I.m not sure if it’s the newest:
    http://therefusers.com/refusers-newsroom/us-vaccine-court-pays-6-million-to-gardasil-victims-most-claims-not-yet-settled/#.VGsb2ckzDEs

    >“Some doctors try to treat people
    >by making them breath (sic)
    >higher pressure oxygen.” True…
    >Off the top of my head, nitrogen
    >narcosis and Cl. perfringens
    >infection are a couple of reasons.
    >It’s used so infrequently that
    >there are only two places in NZ
    >that can supply the therapy.

    >“This thread is about junk
    >science…” It is, and you are
    >supplying a lot of examples.

    >By the way, I missed something
    >(as well as spelling mistakes).

    >“With many serious diseases
    >conventional treatments may be
    >very disabling.” The word “may”
    >does not mean “are”. It’s all
    >about risk versus benefit.

    Yes and I’m asking for genetic testing before vaccination.

    >Have you ever considered how
    >disabling the alternative of death
    >would be, if those “serious”
    >diseases were not treated?

    That’s what I am considering.

    Like

  76. @Stuartg
    >Concentrations that will kill a
    >malarial parasite (which, in the
    >human, usually lives inside
    >erythrocytes and hepatocytes)
    >will also kill the cells that it lives
    >in. Those concentrations will
    >result in toxic effects and clinical
    >symptoms, maybe even death.

    “Because chlorine dioxide has lower oxidation strength, it is more selective in its reactions. Typically, chlorine dioxide 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 than chlorine dioxide, and will react with a wider variety of chemicals, including ammonia. This property limits its overall effectiveness as a biocide. Conversely, because chlorine dioxide has more oxidative capacity compared to ozone or chlorine, less chlorine dioxide is required to obtain an active residual concentration of the material when used as a disinfectant.”

    http://www.thesabrecompanies.com/science/chemistry.aspx

    Like

  77. soundhill,

    Some of these are repeated and reworded because you do not seem to have understood them previously.

    You “want a better dose for aspirin.” In NZ it is available in 75, 100, 150, 300 and 650 mg tablets. That’s sufficient for most people and easily accommodates that factor of two you want. If more accuracy is needed, it can be prescribed in individual doses, prepared by a compounding pharmacy. I’ve seen 40 mg capsules prescribed in the past. You can even get 71.5 mg capsules (for example) prepared, if you want, but you’d have to pay for them.

    (A colleague suggested that a big meal, or a big poo and wee, would change your kg. Would you then change the mg of aspirin? If not, why not? That’s science for you!)

    “I don’t think the goalposts for one treatment should be different from another.” Oh, but you do. You don’t look for the same science for MMS that you insist on for aspirin.

    The manufacturer/distributor of aspirin supplies indications, contraindications, doses, side effects and interactions. The manufacturer/distributor of MMS doesn’t do the same. Why not? Why don’t you ask for those details? You said: “I don’t think… one treatment should be different from another.” Then let’s not treat them differently and apply the same approach to both substances. Let’s get that information from the manufacturer/supplier of MMS, just like we got it from the manufacturer/supplier of aspirin.

    You are the one who says aspirin should be an exact mg/kg dose. So, making sure again that you don’t treat MMS differently from aspirin, what is the dose of MMS in mg/kg? “Around” and “a rough guess” is the only answer you have given me. Science says mg/kg; junk science says “around” or “a rough guess.”

    “How many drops per 100ml are you talking about? Even if they are big or small?” It’s not me that is talking drops per 100mL, it’s you.

    Drug companies in NZ supply droppers that are calibrated for the individual medication in order to reduce errors and enhance patient safety. Why doesn’t the manufacturer/distributor of MMS do the same? Relying on the purchaser to source an unspecified dropper is hardly a scientific (or safe) approach.

    Malaria: “I know it’s a big killer and is not being treated.” It is being treated. I mentioned it before, but maybe you didn’t read it. Some drugs are very cheap (quinine), others are more expensive. There is a cost to manufacture them all, so none of them are free. You get what you pay for. If you wish to pay for something that is dirt cheap, for which the manufacturer/distributor won’t give indications, contraindications, interactions, dosages or side effects (like MMS), and try to use it for malaria, then that’s your own lookout.

    It’s up to the manufacturer/distributor of any compound to use science to prove an effect on any disease, not wait for others to show it hasn’t got an effect. Why don’t you insist on seeing the science behind MMS rather than just accepting junk science?

    MMS (aka bleach): We need to know the concentrations at which chlorine kills living things, not necessarily how. Malaria is not a protozoan and it doesn’t have a cell wall or a viral envelope (you mentioned all three; they have no bearing on malaria). The malarial parasite is a eukaryote. That means that it dies at about the same concentration of chlorine as other eukaryotes – including humans. A high enough concentration of chlorine in the blood WILL kill intracellular malarial parasites, but unfortunately it will kill the human as well. All the manufacturer/distributor of MMS has to do, to make it a valid antimalarial treatment, is to demonstrate that the existing scientific knowledge on chlorine (chloride, chlorite, hypochloride, etc) is wrong.

    “Like a kid drinking out of the neat bleach bottle?” No, like adults drinking out of unmarked bottles of diluted bleach that did not have poison warnings.

    HPV vaccination: “Try this.” Yes, it’s a news report. No science in it. No mention of a single death after HPV vaccination, just implication. The VICP pays out for 50% and a hair; proof of a direct relationship between a vaccine and a complaint is not needed. Science requires the proof; junk science doesn’t. Your “I think” is accepting junk science without question.

    “Seems to be controversy language rather than science.” Controversy? No, there is no scientific controversy over HPV vaccine. Orac, or one of his “minions”, has backed up every argument with references to the peer reviewed science. All of those references are available to you by reading through and clicking on the links. You can do that easily. By dismissing the reference out of hand, you are ignoring the science. You have the opportunity to learn and correct your thinking, but you won’t do it? That’s the attitude of junk science rather than science.

    “Yes and I’m asking for genetic testing before vaccination.” Shifting goalposts again? And exactly what do you mean by “genetic testing”? The human Genome Project was only completed 11 years ago. It’s going to be decades before we understand how our genome contributes to infection or disease. Gene analysis is still in its infancy, and today is mainly used in testing for some specific genetic diseases. Some SCAM artists offer “genetic testing”, but their results are both meaningless and very expensive. They have no science behind their “interpretation” of results. Their “genetic testing” is a good example of junk science.

    I’ve answered your questions where I can, in language that tries to avoid jargon. I have asked you questions, but all you have done is regurgitate junk science and avoid answering them.

    It would appear that, as well as not recognising that you have different attitudes depending on the subject, you also do not understand the difference between science and junk science.

    Like

  78. >Some of these are repeated and
    >reworded because you do not
    >seem to have understood them
    >previously.

    Likewise

    >You “want a better dose for
    >aspirin.” In NZ it is available in
    >75, 100, 150, 300 and 650 mg
    >tablets. That’s sufficient for most
    >people and easily accommodates
    >that factor of two you want.

    It is not sufficient for people who are concerned about bleeding stomachs unless they are also available enteric coated.

    When has 75mg enteric coated become available on prescription. It’s a year or two since I asked the doctor.

    > If
    >more accuracy is needed, it can
    >be prescribed in individual doses,
    >prepared by a compounding
    >pharmacy. I’ve seen 40 mg
    >capsules prescribed in the past.
    >You can even get 71.5 mg
    >capsules (for example) prepared,
    >if you want, but you’d have to
    >pay for them.

    How much will it cost for 75mg enteric capsules on prescription? They are about $4.95 per month at the supermarket.

    >(A colleague suggested that a big
    >meal, or a big poo and wee,
    >would change your kg.

    A big wee might be 0.5kg and a poo 1.5kg.

    Would
    >you then change the mg of
    >aspirin? If not, why not? That’s
    >science for you!)

    I think your friend is being a bit deprecating. “You’ve got to find a way around these fussy patients.”

    I am not asking for the same accuracy with aspirin theat might be required with warfarin. Even then your 3% poo-wee accuracy is probably not necessary. And you have a funny definition of science.

    >“I don’t think the goalposts for
    >one treatment should be different
    >from another.” Oh, but you do.
    >You don’t look for the same
    >science for MMS that you insist
    >on for aspirin.

    >The manufacturer/distributor of
    >aspirin supplies indications,
    >contraindications, doses,

    Normally just chld/adult dose, not by weight

    side
    >effects and interactions. The
    >manufacturer/distributor of MMS
    >doesn’t do the same. Why not?

    So you have looked at the bottles. I haven’t. But I have watched Humble talking about doses and effects of chlorite/citric acid.

    >Why don’t you ask for those
    >details? You said: “I don’t
    >think… one treatment should be
    >different from another.” Then
    >let’s not treat them differently
    >and apply the same approach to
    >both substances. Let’s get that
    >information from the
    >manufacturer/supplier of MMS,
    >just like we got it from the
    >manufacturer/supplier of aspirin.

    >You are the one who says aspirin
    >should be an exact mg/kg dose.

    Not exact. Just not out by 30% to 100% in mg/kg. This source gives mg/kg for children up to 11 years of age. Then no real explanation of where in the range of doses it offers to use for older people for each condition.

    >So, making sure again that you
    >don’t treat MMS differently from
    >aspirin, what is the dose of MMS
    >in mg/kg? “Around” and “a
    >rough guess” is the only answer
    >you have given me. Science says
    >mg/kg;

    Actually science knows how to specify the required accuracy. I note Ken does not bother with error bars on his graphs.

    junk science says
    >“around” or “a rough guess.”

    Somewhere in secondary school pupils learn how to deal with significant figures, orders of magnitude, and not spcifiying something to more significant figures than you know. That is science.

    >“How many drops per 100ml are
    >you talking about? Even if they
    >are big or small?” It’s not me that
    >is talking drops per 100mL, it’s
    >you.

    You were talking about a damaging concentration of chlorite. What concentration?

    >Drug companies in NZ supply
    >droppers that are calibrated for
    >the individual medication in order
    >to reduce errors and enhance
    >patient safety.

    That does not mean they should not have to specify the dose. Temperature may have an effect on drop size. https://www.scribd.com/doc/50062179/How-Temperature-Affects-the-Volume-of-a-Drop

    Also learn about specifying errors in that.

    Why doesn’t the
    >manufacturer/distributor of MMS
    >do the same?

    I don’t know they don’t. And I know they do better in Youtube videos than I can find for aspirin.

    Relying on the
    >purchaser to source an
    >unspecified dropper is hardly a
    >scientific (or safe) approach.

    People need a bit of teaching to buy a standard dropper just as they do for a standard teaspoon.

    >Malaria: “I know it’s a big killer
    >and is not being treated.” It is
    >being treated.

    If it were being treated sufficiently then the death statistics would show it.

    I mentioned it
    >before, but maybe you didn’t read
    >it. Some drugs are very cheap
    >(quinine), others are more
    >expensive. There is a cost to
    >manufacture them all, so none of
    >them are free. You get what you
    >pay for.

    You get what you CAN pay for.

    If you wish to pay for
    >something that is dirt cheap, for
    >which the
    >manufacturer/distributor won’t
    >give indications,
    >contraindications, interactions,
    >dosages or side effects (like
    >MMS), and try to use it for
    >malaria, then that’s your own
    >lookout.

    As I pointed out there is more easy-to-understand stuff about MMS than about aspirin.

    >It’s up to the
    >manufacturer/distributor of any
    >compound to use science to prove
    >an effect on any disease, not wait
    >for others to show it hasn’t got an
    >effect.

    The video appeared to show it.
    You can’t junk that just by saying it’s dangerous and not specifying the concentration you think is dangerous.

    Why don’t you insist on
    >seeing the science behind MMS
    >rather than just accepting junk
    >science?

    I gave a ref in which a water treatment company said it is not really known how ClO2 kills parasites. Several medical treatments have been done without proper scientific explanation, just because they are thought to work. Example ECT right up to the present though controlled studies now are showing no difference to placebo.

    >MMS (aka bleach): We need to
    >know the concentrations at which
    >chlorine kills living things, not
    >necessarily how.

    ClO2 does not produce chlorine. After reaction the chloride ion is left and that is naturally in blood.

    Malaria is not a
    >protozoan and it doesn’t have a
    >cell wall or a viral envelope (you
    >mentioned all three; they have no
    >bearing on malaria). The malarial
    >parasite is a eukaryote. That
    >means that it dies at about the
    >same concentration of chlorine as
    >other eukaryotes – including
    >humans. A high enough
    >concentration of chlorine in the
    >blood WILL kill intracellular
    >malarial parasites, but
    >unfortunately it will kill the
    >human as well.

    I say again which I said yesterday, also, it is not chlorine.
    This gives some indication of how the body is being helped to fight.
    http://bioredox.mysite.com/CLOXhtml/CLOXilus.htm

    The first thing I cam across, maybe NIH/NLM will come up with something.
    “MALARIA IS OXIDANT SENSITIVE
    From November 2006 through May of 2007 I spent hundreds of hours searching biochemical literature and medical literature pertaining to the biochemistry of Plasmodia. Four species are commonly pathogenic in humans namely: Plasmodium vivax, Plasmodium falciparum, Plasmodium ovale and Plasmodium malariae. What I found was an abundance of confirmation that, just like bacteria, Plasmodia are indeed quite sensitive to oxidants. “

    All the
    >manufacturer/distributor of MMS
    >has to do, to make it a valid
    >antimalarial treatment, is to
    >demonstrate that the existing
    >scientific knowledge on chlorine
    >(chloride, chlorite, hypochloride,
    >etc) is wrong.

    >“Like a kid drinking out of the
    >neat bleach bottle?” No, like
    >adults drinking out of unmarked
    >bottles of diluted bleach that did
    >not have poison warnings.

    Household bleach is diluted at about 3% to 8%. Is that the dilution you mean? Some supermarket bleach is stronger than other, and needs dilution. But the concentration to treat malaria, given the drop size &c data in the ref I have just given 25 drops per ml, … gives up to 0.15% before you even drink extra water on top of it.

    >HPV vaccination: “Try this.” Yes,
    >it’s a news report. No science in
    >it. No mention of a single death
    >after HPV vaccination, just
    >implication. The VICP pays out
    >for 50% and a hair; proof of a
    >direct relationship between a
    >vaccine and a complaint is not
    >needed. Science requires the
    >proof; junk science doesn’t.

    So they are paying out on junk.

    Your
    >“I think” is accepting junk
    >science without question.

    >“Seems to be controversy
    >language rather than science.”
    >Controversy? No, there is no
    >scientific controversy over HPV
    >vaccine. Orac, or one of his
    >“minions”, has backed up every
    >argument with references to the
    >peer reviewed science. All of
    >those references are available to
    >you by reading through and
    >clicking on the links. You can do
    >that easily. By dismissing the
    >reference out of hand, you are
    >ignoring the science. You have
    >the opportunity to learn and
    >correct your thinking, but you
    >won’t do it? That’s the attitude of
    >junk science rather than science.

    I am always suspicious of stuff filled with emotive language.

    >“Yes and I’m asking for genetic
    >testing before vaccination.”
    >Shifting goalposts again? And
    >exactly what do you mean by
    >“genetic testing”? The human
    >Genome Project was only
    >completed 11 years ago. It’s
    >going to be decades before we
    >understand how our genome
    >contributes to infection or
    >disease. Gene analysis is still in
    >its nfancy, and today is mainly
    >used in testing for some specific
    >genetic diseases. Some SCAM
    >artists offer “genetic testing”, but
    >their results are both meaningless
    >and very expensive. They have
    >no science behind their
    >“interpretation” of results. Their
    >“genetic testing” is a good
    >example of junk science.

    Missing enzymes can be checked for.

    >I’ve answered your questions
    >where I can, in language that tries
    >to avoid jargon. I have asked you
    >questions, but all you have done
    >is regurgitate junk science and
    >avoid answering them.

    >It would appear that, as well as
    >not recognising that you have
    >different attitudes depending on
    >the subject, you also do not
    >understand the difference
    >between science and junk
    >science.

    I have made comments about that.

    Like

  79. Actually, Soundhill, you don’t necessarily get what you pay for. People are, after all, expected to pay good money for this bleach product which, by all indications, is modern-day snake oil. In this case, you pay money and you get nothing. Or perhaps you develop all new health problems to go with the ones you already had.

    Capitalism in action, I’m afraid. You don’t actually need to demonstrate that something works in order to make money off it, all you need to do is convince your customers that it works. Whether that’s through actual evidence or simply through advertising (perhaps on youtube videos). If you doubt this, there are plenty of homeopaths in the world who make a decent living. Also psychics.

    Now, I’m not particularly inclined to watch half an hour’s worth of youtube video, but I did run across a short interview with one of the church’s founders ( http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/258889/watchdogs-investigate-miracle-claims ), which was quite sufficient to convince me that the man is a charlatan. After all, he is reporting a 100% success rate in treating people with ebola, malaria, herpes, cancer firbromyalgia, multiple sclerosis and AIDS.

    Now, these claims are extraordinary enough that I would be highly skeptical on an individual basis. Taken together, claims of 100% cure rates (in a single day, no less) for a diverse range of completely unrelated conditions are, well, quite literally unbelievable. That is, the man is lying through his teeth.

    Unfortunately, many of these conditions are sufficiently scary that desperate people will fork out money in hopes of a cure that actual medical professionals are simply not able to guarantee. Oh, did I mention that autism is also on the list, albeit the claim isn’t 100% in that case? A veritable grab-bag of scary conditions which you can cure if only you will give the church your money.

    Yes, bleach kills stuff. Very effectively. The problem is that in order to cure people without killing them in the process, you have to target a specific set of cells, whether invading bacteria or cancer cells or whatever. Quite how bleach is supposed to cure multiple sclerosis or autism I haven’t the faintest idea. Nor, I’m sure, do the Genesis Church people.

    They will simply trot out their unverifiable claims of x number of people they supposedly cured of this that and the other, spout some unscientific gibberish so they sound authoritative and rely on people’s gullibility or sheer desperation to bring in the money.

    Like

  80. >Actually, Soundhill, you don’t
    >necessarily get what you pay for.
    >People are, after all, expected to
    >pay good money for this bleach
    >product

    I checked on ebay and it’s not expensive.

    which, by all indications,
    >is modern-day snake oil.

    Indications from where, and wghat indications? Are people saying it did not work for them?

    In this
    >case, you pay money and you get
    >nothing. Or perhaps you develop
    >all new health problems to go
    >with the ones you already had.

    Some treatments do that.

    TV3 Campbell Live ran a program promoting prostate cancer screening. I tried to post on their Facebook a link to a recent report by our Parliamentary Health Committee. They did not recommend universal screening. Men are quite often left incontinent and or impotent by cancer treatment when more men die with prostate cancer than from it.

    Why would Campbell Live not leave my link up? CTV did leave it up. I fear I have to consider medbusiness pressure.

    >Capitalism in action, I’m afraid.
    >You don’t actually need to
    >demonstrate that something
    >works in order to make money
    >off it, all you need to do is
    >convince your customers that it
    >works.

    Or force ti though legislation.

    Whether that’s through
    >actual evidence or simply through
    >advertising (perhaps on youtube
    >videos).

    You can “advertise” your concerns on Youtube videos. Doesn’t mean you want to make money.

    If you doubt this, there
    >are plenty of homeopaths in the
    >world who make a decent living.
    >Also psychics.

    And purveyors of ECT machines.

    >Now, I’m not particularly
    >inclined to watch half an hour’s
    >worth of youtube video,

    So your comment is not worth so much.

    but I did
    >run across a short interview with
    >one of the church’s founders
    >http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/258889/watchdogs-investigate-miracle-claims ), which
    >was quite sufficient to convince
    >me that the man is a charlatan.
    >After all, he is reporting a 100%
    >success rate in treating people
    >with ebola, malaria, herpes,
    >cancer firbromyalgia, multiple
    >sclerosis and AIDS.

    >Now, these claims are
    >extraordinary enough that I
    >would be highly skeptical on an
    >individual basis. Taken together,
    >claims of 100% cure rates (in a
    >single day, no less) for a diverse
    >range of completely unrelated
    >conditions are, well, quite
    >literally unbelievable. That is, the
    >man is lying through his teeth.

    That’s your feeling. I think he agreed in the interview he may be using a bit of hyperbole.

    He is wrong about oxygen being harmless.
    Permit me the indulgence of a little brain storm. When I was young I suffered from severe asthma. It was before the days of steroids. I used to fight for breath till I no longer could. I do not have asthma now. I learnt not to fight for breath. In later years I read about hyperventilation. Panic attacks sometimes do it to people. It has been recommended to breath into a paper bag to treat the problem. A theory is that the hand-tingling that goes with hyperventilation is a result of oxygen starvation of the tissues. For respiration to occur the haemoglobin must let go of oxygen to the tissues. CO2 is part of that process and hyperventilation may render the CO2 lefvel too low for that to occur.
    It seems very contrary to breath less to stop fingers tingling.

    Now I have come across this today in the link I referenced:
    “Low dose oxidant exposure to living red blood cells induces an increase in 2,3-diphosphoglycerate levels inside these cells. This attaches to hemoglobin (Hb) in such a way that oxyhemoglobin (HbO2) more readily releases oxygen (O2) to the tissues throughout the body.” So I need to think about that.

    Asthma was expensive with the doctor having to come around with his adrenalin injections to brign me back. Since I cured myself I am not contributing in that way to GDP.

    >Unfortunately, many of these
    >conditions are sufficiently scary
    >that desperate people will fork
    >out money in hopes of a cure that
    >actual medical professionals are
    >simply not able to guarantee.

    It seems very cheap. Medical professionals are increasing the things they can cure, rather than just treating. And I see a patent applied for which uses chlorite in combination with 5Fluoro-Uracyl to reduce suffering in cancer sufferers.

    Oh,
    >did I mention that autism is also
    >on the list, albeit the claim isn’t
    >100% in that case?

    There must be differing reasons for autism. Pathogens may be one. Note the high level of prescribing of anti-depressants when patients may be suffering from an infection.

    A veritable
    >grab-bag of scary conditions
    >which you can cure if only you
    >will give the church your money.

    They want to help. They are not allowed to cure people, as Humble said if you had watched the video, it is only a church since they cannot be stopped from offering sacraments.

    >Yes, bleach kills stuff. Very
    >effectively. The problem is that in
    >order to cure people without
    >killing them in the process, you
    >have to target a specific set of
    >cells, whether invading bacteria
    >or cancer cells or whatever.

    Our bodies have natural killer cells and know how to be rid of wrongly proliferating cells. But sometimes they may need a bit or a lot of help.

    Quite
    >how bleach is supposed to cure
    >multiple sclerosis or autism I
    >haven’t the faintest idea. Nor, I’m
    >sure, do the Genesis Church
    >people.

    Closed mind.

    >They will simply trot out their
    >unverifiable claims of x number
    >of people they supposedly cured
    >of this that and the other, spout
    >some unscientific gibberish so
    >they sound authoritative and rely
    >on people’s gullibility or sheer
    >desperation to bring in the
    >money.

    Or they might be helping. Where is the database of complaints from patients? Any reported at all?

    It doesn’t look like genetically modified plants where you are not allowed to find out and report.

    Like

  81. “That’s your feeling. I think he agreed in the interview he may be using a bit of hyperbole.”

    You think? Plainly you didn’t listen to the interview all that well then. He said nothing about hyperbole. The message was clear and consistent: 100% success.

    Like

  82. “He is wrong about oxygen being harmless.”

    He is wrong about pretty much everything he says. Why single out oxygen?

    Like

  83. “Closed mind.”

    Skepticism, Soundhill. I’m perfectly okay with not understanding the details of how a particular treatment works. I’m actually okay with nobody fully understanding how it works. But I do expect evidence that it actually works. You know, records of the trials. There is a claim of 100% success, over a period of 17 years. Why, then, is the information on these trials not available for scrutiny?

    “Or they might be helping. Where is the database of complaints from patients? Any reported at all?”

    I’m sorry, Soundhill, you’re confused. I wanted evidence that they were helping. I wanted some record of their successes. Where is that database? Does it exist? No? Well then, if they’re not even maintaining that database, why on Earth would it be in their interests to maintain a database of complaints? “Oh, hey, we can’t demonstrate that our product works, but here’s a list of people who it didn’t work for or who were otherwise unhappy.”

    Like

  84. “They are not allowed to cure people,”

    Bollocks.

    They’re able to sell their product, aren’t they? Then there is no impediment to them being able to cure people if it works as they say it does. Hell, the snake-oil salesman insisted repeatedly that they’d cured 100% of patients in every supposed trial.

    What they’re not allowed to do is lie about their ability to cure people. If they want to make that claim, they have to put forward evidence.

    Like

  85. Chris Banks | November 19, 2014 at 7:21 pm |

    >“That’s your feeling. I think he agreed in the interview he may be >using a bit of hyperbole.”

    >You think? Plainly you didn’t listen to the interview all that well >then. He said nothing about hyperbole. The message was clear >and consistent: 100% success.

    No he agreed there are things he cannot control.

    Like

  86. >“They are not allowed to cure people,”

    >Bollocks.

    >They’re able to sell their product, aren’t they? Then there is no >impediment to them being able to cure people if it works as they >say it does. Hell, the snake-oil salesman insisted repeatedly that >they’d cured 100% of patients in every supposed trial.

    >What they’re not allowed to do is lie about their ability to cure >people. If they want to make that claim, they have to put forward >evidence.

    But there are huge hurdles to getting certification for a product. They have decided to put their energy into using it instead.

    To do much in this current capitalistic medical environment without the profit motive loud and clear is heresy of the first order and to be jumped on very quickly.

    Well it’s not only in medicine, water and everything has to be monetised.

    Why aren’t you jumping on the people who are applying for a patent with chlorite in combination with 5FU? Because that is on the big profit alter.

    Like

  87. “No he agreed there are things he cannot control.”

    Wow, Soundhill, that is some seriously impressive selective listening you’ve got going there. Let me break it down for you:

    First, the snake-oil salesman claims a 100% success rate in trials to date.

    Second, the interviewer challenges him, asking if this means people will live forever if they use his product (because, you know, 100% effective against everything under the sun).

    Third, snake-oil salesman, grasping that perhaps claiming his product will confer immortality is a step too far, notes that, yes, people might still die due to factors beyond his control.

    Now, Step 3 does not actually contradict step 1. Stating that your product might not be 100% effective in future (against death from any cause whatsoever) does not invalidate a claim that it has been 100% effective SO FAR.

    Like

  88. Search Google for patent cancer chlorite

    Like

  89. Why? Putting a patent on something doesn’t mean the thing actually works. It just means nobody else is allowed to steal the design and profit from it.

    I’m sure there are all manner of ridiculous patents out there.

    Like

  90. A chlorite-based drug in phase 2/3 trials hcv hiv http://www.metaphysical.ca/IIM/cuttingedge.html

    Like

  91. Somewhat better, Soundhill.

    Still not actually relevant to the Genesis Church product though. After all, they’re not claiming they have a particular chlorite-based drug undergoing testing for its efficacy and safety in treating certain autoimmune disorders (eg severe persistent allergic rhinitis).

    They’re claiming they have a wonder-drug which has been 100% effective against all manner of unrelated conditions.And they will not produce so much as a shred of evidence to this effect.

    Furthermore, various medical professionals and regulatory bodies are actively warning people not to consume the product for safety reasons. This is likely because there are very important differences between chlorite-based drugs and a product which is 28% sodium chlorite by volume.

    Like

  92. … Okay, how the hell did I miss this? It was, after all, one of the earlier links in Ken’s post. How did you miss it, for that matter, Soundhill? You’re the one who’s been demanding to know whether the stuff’s harmed anyone.

    http://www.9news.com.au/health/2014/11/03/09/15/four-victorians-sick-after-drinking-miracle-potion

    Like

  93. “But there are huge hurdles to getting certification for a product. They have decided to put their energy into using it instead.”

    Yes, huge hurdles. Like, for instance, demonstrating that it actually works. And is safe (or that side-effects are well understood and clearly laid out).

    “To do much in this current capitalistic medical environment without the profit motive loud and clear is heresy of the first order and to be jumped on very quickly.”

    Oh poor, naive Soundhill. Genesis Church screams profit motive. Without, unfortunately, the checks and balances on the profit motive which apply to actual medicine. It’s very much a product of capitalism. Let me lay this out for you:

    There are two approaches you can take to making money off a product. First, you can sell an expensive product in low volumes. Second, you can sell a cheap product in high volumes.

    Genesis Church’s MMS epitomises the second approach. Without any need to recoup regulatory or development costs, they can produce it at a dirt cheap price, and still make a very respectable profit margin on each unit sold (US $40 for a packet of 100 tablets, I see). Plus, they can charge people US $500 a head to attend a seminar on how to sell their products. My, what a lot of money one can make if they only discard any pretense of ethics.

    (Technically, there is a third approach to making money off a product – the holy grail of selling an expensive product in high volumes. See, for instance, Steve Jobs).

    Like

  94. That article if you search further reports Dr Tony Bartone saying the problems occurred when people used it undiluted to try to get greater effect.

    Like

  95. Yes, Soundhill, that makes perfect sense. Why, it’s as if nobody explained to them that the substance was hazardous if undiluted. Bottles of bleach, as a rule, come labeled with warnings not to ingest the stuff. Alas, the available images of MMS bottles are not legible enough to tell if they contain similar warnings.

    Definitely should have linked to the more in-depth article:
    http://bit.ly/1xCu5sa

    Like

  96. soundhill,

    Yet again, you have declined to answer my questions. Why is that? Can’t you answer them?

    I’m not going to go through them again, I’ve done it enough times without getting any answers from you.

    As to your comments, they’re as junk as ever. Let’s just say that aspirin EC 75 mg has been, and still is, available on prescription. You just have to pay extra because the manufacturer charges too much and Pharmac will not fully subsidise it.

    Like

  97. soundhill,

    “Missing enzymes can be checked for.”

    Only after a fashion, since you can’t actually measure something that’s not there. But that’s being pedantic.

    You were talking about “genetic testing.” Measuring enzymes has nothing to do with gene analysis, and clinical biochemistry has been measuring enzyme activity since before we knew about genes.

    Now, try again, what do you mean by “genetic testing?”

    Like

  98. @Chris Banks,
    Can read label on Ebay.com. “Don’t use full strength.” And Humble gives the instruction it won’t help to make it stronger.
    You wrote: “very important differences between chlorite-based drugs and a product which is 28% sodium chlorite by volume.”

    http://www.google.com/patents/US6086922

    It seems to be sodium chlorite, maybe calcium hypochlorite, with weak acid like citric or lactic. (Note the scare tactics “acid” in your warning.)

    This 2009 orthopaedic surgery article refers to it as a prototype of a somewhat more complex arrangement: http://www.morthoj.org/2009v3n1/Outcome_of_Tibial_Fractures.pdf

    The MMS is so cheap it is unlikely that drug companies will arrange conferences to encourage doctors to prescribe it like they do for Viagra &c. Humble is doing his best to educate about its proper use: cannot use ozonated distilled water. (The Pure Dew distilled water in Countdown Supermarkets then is ruled out.) He refers to many MMS brands on the Internet and does not specify any particular one. People are pleased he is doing this education and give him donations.

    Like

  99. Richard Christie

    As a reader of the attempts by Stuart and Chris to elicit answers from soundhill and of their efforts explain to soundhill how MMS falls well short of meeting standard ethical and efficacy requirements, I conclude that this discussion is becoming futile.

    I’m also inclined to question whether soundhill has some undeclared association or vested interest in the product. It is unlikely, given the anonymity afforded by the internet, that we will ever know.

    Like

  100. soundhill,

    Aspirin is one of the cheapest medications on the market. It should be, it’s been manufactured for over a century. It is still covered at medical conferences.

    MMS is also covered at medical conferences. It’s a useful industrial bleach that can be used to clean and sterilise work surfaces. It just doesn’t have any therapeutic effects.

    (By the way, where do you get the idea that drug companies arrange conferences? They are only allowed to sponsor conferences arranged by others. Or not, if that is their preference.)

    Like

  101. @Stuartg
    Treatments tailored to our genes are becoming more known.
    http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm372427.htm
    Modern technology is rapidly advancing for genetic testing.
    But until we are there it should still be possible to test children more widely for lack of enzymes which will endanger them if they take aspirin &c. Some sources say do not give aspirin to any children because of what it may do to some.
    And maybe a test for penicillin intolerance will be developed.

    “A Shot of Penicillin

    Many parents wonder why doctors don’t give as many penicillin shots as in the past. A shot of penicillin was once the treatment of choice for streptococcal pharyngitis (strep throat). Now it is rarely used, and for good reason.

    A course of oral penicillin, if taken properly, is as effective as a shot of the same drug. The main reason not to give a shot is the possibility of a life-threatening allergic reaction. The chances are one in 2,000 that a person will have a serious reaction after their first injection of penicillin, and one in 50,000 the reaction will be fatal. Every year there are 250-500 deaths from reactions to penicillin. There have been only eight reported fatal reactions ever reported to oral penicillin. If your child needs a penicillin shot, stay in the doctor’s office or hospital for at least 30 minutes, and preferably 60 minutes, to watch for any allergic reaction.”

    http://www.kiddocs.net/information-allergies.html

    The wait and see procedure will become obsolete. The arguments about DNA fragments in Gardasil will become more understood. Not a very good pay off at the moment when it only gives temporary immunity against 4 strains of HPV. (Cervarix only against 2 strains).

    Like

  102. soundhill,

    For the third time, what do YOU mean by “genetic testing?”

    I already know what other people mean, but have no idea what you mean.

    Like

  103. Richard,

    I agree, but maybe some others will realise soundhill is merely parroting junk science provided by others.

    S/he certainly has no insight into what science actually means.

    Like

  104. @Stuartg
    By “genetic testing” I meant looking at differences between people other than what other drugs or food they are taking which might cause a reaction.

    Like

  105. soundhill,

    In NZ, Amoxicillin is now the drug of choice for Strep throat. It has been for the past generation, since about 1990. It covers the same spectrum of organisms that penicillin does, including Streptococcus, and has less chance of anaphylaxis than the original penicillin.

    Your quote, on a NZ blog, is both out of date and from the USA. Why?

    The original penicillin preparation included clusters of imperfectly reproduced penicillin molecules. These were big enough for the human immune system to recognise as a foreign antigen. It was these clusters that triggered the majority of anaphylactic reactions to penicillin.

    Modification of the original penicillin molecule, as happens when amoxicillin is manufactured, removes the clusters of imperfectly reproduced penicillin molecules. Result: much less allergy and a safer treatment.

    That’s how science works.

    Like

  106. soundhill,

    The “temporary” immunity against the commonest carcinogenic strains of HPV as provided by the HPV vaccine has, so far, showed almost no diminution. The immunity is now known to last for much longer than was estimated before the vaccine went into production.

    But you would know that if you had read the reference I gave you earlier.

    Like

  107. soundhill,

    Just where does your meaning include genetics?

    Like

  108. “Aspirin is one of the cheapest medications on the market. It should be, it’s been manufactured for over a century. It is still covered at medical conferences.”

    Then why have my doctors not known they could prescribe 75mg enteric coated?

    “MMS is also covered at medical conferences. It’s a useful industrial bleach that can be used to clean and sterilise work surfaces. It just doesn’t have any therapeutic effects.”

    If you have ever had a root canal done on a tooth you would know chlorite is used in your tooth, from the smell. The smell is actually not the substance itself but its effect on organic material.

    And from the ref I posted it seems to be known about in Indonesia.
    for orthopaedic surgery.

    From your comments you are behind the times.

    (By the way, where do you get the idea that drug companies arrange conferences? They are only allowed to sponsor conferences arranged by others. Or not, if that is their preference.)

    An 85 year old friend on mine had his doctor grumble about giving him a test for homocysteine, and then offer him Viagra.

    Like

  109. soundhill,

    “By “genetic testing” I meant looking at differences between people other than what other drugs or food they are taking which might cause a reaction.”

    Gender, weight, muscle mass, activity levels, age (newborn, toddler, child, pubertal, adult, elderly), medication history, previous medical history, family medical history, haematology tests, biochemistry tests, biopsy results, microbiology results… All are “differences between people” that are taken into account in every part of the medical care of a person.

    What do you mean by “genetic testing?”

    Like

  110. soundhill,

    “Then why have my doctors not known they could prescribe 75mg enteric coated?” I don’t know, why don’t you ask them instead of me?

    “An 85 year old friend on mine had his doctor grumble about giving him a test for homocysteine, and then offer him Viagra.” As my father used to say… “and what has that to do with the price of fish in China?”

    Like

  111. Soundhill, I think you need to talk with your doctor more – and even consider changing doctors if your find her unsatisfactory.

    My doctor has no trouble prescribing this form of aspirin and has always been extremely helpful in explaining her prescription advice.

    Like

  112. “Can read label on Ebay.com. “Don’t use full strength.” ”

    What, that’s it? Does the label say why you shouldn’t use it at full strength, or tell you to contact poison control if you do? I mean, this is a product people are actually intended to swallow. Shouldn’t there be some kind of warning of the consequences of improper use?

    “(Note the scare tactics “acid” in your warning.)”

    I see you’re not complaining that “produces poisonous bleach” is a scare tactic, which I would have thought was the actual problem.

    “Humble is doing his best to educate about its proper use:”

    Yes, let’s look at the “proper use,” shall we? http://www.factssheetproject.com/MMSFactsSheet.pdf

    Apparently, “proper use” is to gradually up the number of drops until you feel nauseous, at which point you dial back a little.This is, of course, totally safe and nobody has ever had any damage caused by the symptoms of overuse. (Note: This has been withering sarcasm).

    Like

  113. Thanks Ken, that was an obvious reply!

    My own doctor thinks that the EC 100 mg formulation is appropriate for me. Even though I (probably) know more about aspirin and other antiplatelet therapy than he does, he has a more objective view of what is appropriate for me than I ever could have.

    Like

  114. “Look, a patent!”

    Pay attention, Soundhill. Patenting a product does not indicate that the product works. What it does is ensure that nobody else is allowed to produce and make money from your design.

    Like

  115. Stuartg wrote: “In NZ, Amoxicillin is now the drug of choice for Strep throat. It has been for the past generation, since about 1990. It covers the same spectrum of organisms that penicillin does, including Streptococcus, and has less chance of anaphylaxis than the original penicillin”

    Medsafe does not say it is safer.

    “`Amoxycillin should not be used for the treatment of
    bacterial infections in patients with viral infections, presenting with sore throat, pharyngitis or
    infectious mononucleosis, as a high incidence of amoxycillin induced erythematous (morbilliform)
    rashes have been associated with glandular fever in patients receiving amoxicillin”

    What did I mean by “genetic testing”? Well though I thought I might be encompassing modern genome printouts and what may begin to be done from them, I was also meaning the older ideas: http://www.ihavelynchsyndrome.com/10-reasons-genetic-testing-important/#.VG0i0MkzDEs

    Like

  116. ““Look, a patent!”

    Pay attention, Soundhill. Patenting a product does not indicate that the product works. What it does is ensure that nobody else is allowed to produce and make money from your design.”

    Maybe 10% of patents are not valid because the device does not do as claimed.

    Like

  117. “This 2009 orthopaedic surgery article…”

    Tetrachlorodecaoxygen =/= Sodium Chlorite.

    Waving medical journal articles at me about actual treatments which do not resemble MMS and are used for specific conditions or in specific circumstances (ie surgery), in no way provides evidence that MMS is anything more than snake oil. Dangerous snake oil, at that.

    Like

  118. “Maybe 10% of patents are not valid because the device does not do as claimed.”

    Yes, Soundhill, well done. You have successfully demonstrated my point. You cannot tell a product works just because it has a patent. Although I am curious where you get the 10% figure from.

    Like

  119. “The MMS is so cheap it is unlikely that drug companies will arrange conferences to encourage doctors to prescribe it like they do for Viagra &c.”

    Let me correct that for you.

    “There is no evidence whatsoever that MMS works, and people have been hospitalised by it, therefore it is unlikely that drug companies will arrange conferences to encourage doctors to prescribe it like they do for Viagra &c.”

    Plus, of course, it would be illegal for doctors to prescribe MMS, because it is not a medicine. It has not undergone testing, and has not gained regulatory approval.

    Like

  120. “People are pleased he is doing this education and give him donations.”

    Hey look, a third income stream – donations. So, that’s direct sales, charging people to attend conferences and bamboozling people to the extent that they will outright give you money.

    Life is clearly good if you’re a successful snake-oil salesman.

    Like

  121. Yes, I am intrigued by the 10% figure too. I have at times intensively searched patents and there is certainly an immense amount of rubbish or irrelevant stuff there. One that sticks in my mind is for underpants with an attachment providing penile stimulation while walking! Seriously!

    >

    Like

  122. Chris: I don’t have proof for here I am just suspicious. “Four Drug Makers Dominate Payments to Local Doctors

    The only reason Pro Publica was able to get financial records from 15 major drug companies is because those firms were charged with crimes by federal authorities. Drug and medical supply companies spend hundreds of millions per year to influence medical providers. They provide gifts to doctors, free samples, lavish meals and entertainment, speaking fees for speeches written by the drug companies, first class travel to exotic destinations, or sign up doctors as “consultants.” The reason they spend so much is because it works.”
    http://www.8newsnow.com/story/24001284/i-team-drug-companies-court-doctors-with-gifts-vacations

    The point being that if MMS is done for money that is not unusual.

    “Tetrachlorodecaoxygen =/= Sodium Chlorite.” They said the second (that would be after reaction with weak acid to produce ClO2 monochlorodioxygen) is the prototype of the first.

    Tetra means 4, deca means 10.

    Like

  123. Chris and Ken
    “US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) auditors believe that as many as 10% of all issued patents are invalid, a high percent of those due to the fact the invention does not work.”
    http://www.willitsell.com/patmyths.asp
    So I can’t say for sure, but it means that if it is patented there is a good chance it works.

    Like

  124. soundhill,

    I said “Gene analysis is still in its infancy, and today is mainly used in testing for some specific genetic diseases.”

    That’s exactly what your reference says.

    Now, unless you have one of a few rare genetically inherited diseases in other members of your family, then genetic analysis cannot predict your personal reaction to medications. Your reference says that as well.

    So, your request for “genetic testing” is currently useless unless you have to see a geneticist for other reasons.

    You said “I thought I might be encompassing modern genome printouts and what may begin to be done from them”.

    I covered that as well: “Some SCAM artists offer “genetic testing”, but their results are both meaningless and very expensive. They have no science behind their “interpretation” of results. Their “genetic testing” is a good example of junk science.”

    I’ll repeat myself again. The human Genome Project was only completed 11 years ago. It’s going to be decades before we understand how our genome contributes to infection or disease.

    This means that medicine does not do “modern genome printouts.” Only SCAM artists do. Pay for one if you want – but be aware that the only thing that you will get out of it is a lighter wallet.

    Like

  125. “So I can’t say for sure, but it means that if it is patented there is a good chance it works.”

    And there is a 10% chance, according to you, that it doesn’t work. How, exactly, are we meant to tell which patents make up that ten percent? Certainly we can’t tell a product works just because it has a patent. We need other evidence.

    Hence why I am unimpressed by you waving patents at me.

    Like

  126. soundhill,

    “US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) auditors believe that as many as 10% of all issued patents are invalid, a high percent of those due to the fact the invention does not work.”

    “Believe?” No analysis done? Some people would call that a guess.

    “the invention does not work?” So as well as being a guess, it’s not even talking about medications.

    Any relevance is decidedly small.

    Like

  127. Having been involved in one patent application I seriously question the 10% estimate. This is because many applications are made without the backup of peer reviewed science. In my own case business managers prevented scientific peer reviewed publication until after the patent process was completed and I am sure that must be a common procedure.

    I have found patent applications hopeless for actually getting details of procedures and formulations. Where scientific publications exist and are cited I always go to those,

    >

    Like

  128. @Ken I am on to my third doctor since my heart attack and bypass 13 years ago, plus several locums. None have been able to prescribe 75mg coated aspirin. Last time I asked would have been March 2013.

    Like

  129. Yes, Soundhill, I know what “tetra” and “deca” mean. I don’t think you understand the chemistry involved though.

    You think you get ClO2 from mixing sodium chlorite and citric acid in water? Great. Well done. Here’s the thing.

    ClO2 =/= Cl4O10

    Not even close. So. No connection whatsoever to the paper you cited. Which, I will note, does not advocate a “mix your own in water and swallow it to cure everything under the sun” approach to using tetrachlorodecaoxygen.

    Like

  130. Soundhill,

    Ken is correct. Aspirin EC 75 mg is available on prescription in NZ. I’ve seen the prescriptions done, the latest about two weeks ago.

    I have no idea why your doctor(s) would not prescribe it – that has to be between yourself and your doctor(s). Maybe you could ask him/her/them?

    In NZ, aspirin EC 100 mg is the only antiplatelet version of aspirin that is fully funded by Pharmac, specifically the Ethics brand. All others receive the same subsidy that Ethics aspirin EC 100 mg does, which means that there is an extra cost to the patient in addition to the prescription cost.

    (And I’ve just learned there is an enteric coated 300 mg aspirin available in NZ as well. It’s only partially subsidised, too.)

    Like

  131. @Chris “You think you get ClO2 from mixing sodium chlorite and citric acid in water? Great. Well done.”

    Just in case some people don’t know when you are being sarcastic perhaps you had better be clear.

    ” Here’s the thing.

    ClO2 =/= Cl4O10

    Not even close.
    So. No connection whatsoever to the paper you cited. Which, I will note, does not advocate a “mix your own in water and swallow it to cure everything under the sun” approach to using tetrachlorodecaoxygen.”

    When you dilute it in water? Seems to be curative. Not quite sure how the anti-inflammatory thing works. Don’t always want to do that.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4003552/
    3.6. Comparison of chlorite with chlorite-based drugs in interaction with MPO

    The drug substance OXO-K993 (NUVO Research Inc., Mississauga, Canada), also referred as tetrachlorodecaoxygen anionic complex [i.e. (Cl4O10)n with molar mass of 301.8 for n = 1] contains 4.25% chlorite, 1.9% chloride, 1.5% chlorate, 0.7% sulfate and sodium ions as cationic species in an aqueous solution [14]. A sterile, pyrogen-free, aqueous 10% (w/v) solution of OXO-K993 is applied under the name WF10 for intravenous infusion in patients with chronic-inflammatory diseases [39–41]. Another 55-fold diluted formulation derived from OXO-K993 is Oxoferin™ that is topically applied as a wound-healing agent [42,43].Here we applied Oxoferin to test the effects of this drug solution upon interaction with MPO. The chlorite content in Oxoferin is reported to be 12.3 mM [44]. To test if the additives lead to any differences in reactivity the direct reaction of human ferric MPO with this drug was investigated. The reaction of MPO with Oxoferin showed similar kinetics and finally resulted in heme bleaching (Supplemental Fig. 3). The reaction was biphasic with calculated rate constants of 3.9 × 105 M− 1 s− 1 and 2.3 × 104 M− 1 s− 1 (pH 5.0), respectively. Thus, with respect to reactivity towards MPO in terms of heme bleaching and kinetics, Oxoferin is indistinguishable from a pure chlorite solution.”

    And for interest:
    ClO2 has a very interesting structure:

    Like

  132. Well done, Soundhill. You have produced an entirely different paper which actually has something to do with ClO2. Very preliminary, by the looks, but a possible indicator that maybe, just maybe, it might one day function as a useful medication, properly used, in specific circumstances.

    Nothing, I repeat nothing in that paper remotely suggests that those circumstances are as a miracle cure-all 100% effective for ebola, AIDS, autism, malaria, you name it, which people should mix and drink for themselves, using whether they feel nauseous as a guide to whether they’ve taken too much.

    I mean, for zog’s sake, Soundhill, did you even read how the existing drug is used? Intravenous infusion, or application to wounds. No drinking involved.

    Like

  133. “I don’t have proof for here I am just suspicious. “Four Drug Makers Dominate Payments to Local Doctors””

    Which has to do with… what, exactly? I’m perfectly aware that pharmaceutical companies are not guaranteed to operate in an ethical manner. In fact, there are significant incentives for them not to. This is why we have checks and balances, imperfect as they may be. For instance, the media. Product trials, that kind of thing.

    But you seem incapable of applying any degree of suspicion at all to the Genesis Church people. Despite ridiculously transparent lying about their product, hospitalisation of people using the stuff, and a profit motive utterly untempered by any kinds of checks or balances.

    Like

  134. @Chris
    There is confusion since I have read elsewhere not to use it intravenously. This one is for chronic inflammation which may mean a person’s metabolism is functioning differently. It seemed a very heavy dose.

    Inflammation is associated with many conditions. Fish oil is an anti-inflammatory because of its omega 3. The counsellor on Maori TV’s Nutters’ Club was suggesting it for depression. It’s a chance that such could be the mechanism why it might help autism.

    Ice packs, Nurofen, aspirin, NSAIDs, steroids are ways of reducing inflammation.

    I have read that sometimes schizophrenic people do not get the same amount of physical illness as non-schizophrenic people. Their inflammatory response may be low.

    I have read also that it is used to suppress rejection for xenotransplants.

    So a lot of thought is necessary.

    But the approach on this thread has been to spank the child in case they may be naughty. Don’t worry if you cause a complex.

    Like

  135. “hospitalisation of people using the stuff,”
    Double standard. How many people have been hospitalised for overdosing on alcohol because they think more is better, and I don’t see scientists ganging up on it.

    Like

  136. Chris you complained about the dose titration approach. That approach is frequently used in medicine.

    Like

  137. “In NZ, aspirin EC 100 mg is the only antiplatelet version of aspirin that is fully funded by Pharmac, specifically the Ethics brand.”

    Which seems dumb since it would be great to get the amount which would reduce angina without causing tiredness or stroke risk.

    Like

  138. Soundhill, you are confused.

    I am very specifically dealing with claims made by the Genesis Church people.

    For instance, they claim to have cured 100% of the people they’ve treated for malaria, ebola, AIDS, whatever. This is a ludicrous claim, which you have done nothing whatsoever to support. Who are these people? Where were they treated? By whom? Why, if Genesis Church is so very determined to educate the world about the efficacy of their product, have they so thoroughly buried any evidence of these patients’ very existence?

    They also claim that nobody has ever complained about their product. Now, improper use or not, I think hospitalisation counts as a complaint. You do not see anybody claiming that alcohol is perfectly safe and nobody has ever complained about the product. Indeed, there are some quite specific laws in place about drink-driving. We could, incidentally, go on and on about issues with alcohol marketing. So I’m not seeing this double standard you seem to believe exists.

    Like

  139. “Chris you complained about the dose titration approach. That approach is frequently used in medicine”

    No, Soundhill. I have complained about the expectation that untrained consumers should mix up the solution for themselves in ridiculously vague doses, and stop adding more when they feel nauseous.

    This approach is never, EVER used in medicine.

    Like

  140. “No, Soundhill. I have complained about the expectation that untrained consumers should mix up the solution for themselves in ridiculously vague doses, and stop adding more when they feel nauseous.
    This approach is never, EVER used in medicine.”

    Spoonfuls are vague doses.

    We’ve spent a lot of time determining that the antiplatelet dose of aspirin on prescription is only available in 100mg enteric coated. That is a very vague amount. They do better if self medicating buying it at the supermarket where they have a choice of 75 or 100mg. Stuartg says the doctor prescribes 100mg for him. Maybe Stuartg weighs closer to 100kg than 75kg. If not I wonder about the doctors thoughts. Aspirin is quite a dangerous drug.

    I think when patients are given a morphine pump to activate as they need they actually use less than they get with CR and topup.

    Like

  141. You seem to have this ridiculous idea that because I have concluded that the Genesis Church people are money-grubbing charlatans, based on the utterly ludicrous claims they have made, without so much as a shred of supporting evidence, and because of their transparent profit motive, I am in some manner hostile to, well, everything you’re going on about.

    Rambling on about anti-inflammatories and omega-3 as a means of treating depression / autism (erm, what?) is not actually addressing the issues I have raised about Genesis Church. Indeed, you have scrupulously avoided in any way dealing with the reasons I set out right at the beginning of this conversation for why I had concluded they were charlatans.

    Like

  142. “Spoonfuls are vague doses.”

    Wow, Soundhill. Way to completely ignore the “until they feel nauseous” bit. Once again, you have managed to completely ignore the substance of my complaint.

    Incidentally, I am not aware that anybody uses “spoonfuls” as a dose for medicine. Either a specific size of measuring spoon (eg teaspoons) will be listed, or a spoon of the appropriate size will be provided with the medication. You can also be sure that a specific number of teaspoons will be listed for a particular time period, as opposed to “keep adding drops until you feel nauseous (or if not, a maximum of three per ill-defined time period).

    Like

  143. “Prior to 2005, colchicine dose instructions included the advice to continue dosing until the pain settled or gastrointestinal adverse effects occured. The standard dose instructions have now been changed to improve safety.” ” In a case series of nine patients presenting with colchicine overdose in the Auckland region over a 15 year period, eight died.6 Four of the patients had taken an accidental overdose of colchicine (ranging from 18 – 24 mg) due to lack of knowledge about the medicine” http://www.bpac.org.nz/BPJ/2014/September/safer-prescribing.aspx

    Were you getting up in arms about that before 2005?

    Like

  144. I suppose it is possible that there are medicines which use “spoonfuls” as a dose. Cough syrup is a possible example. In this case, it is incumbent on the manufacturer/ prescriber to be sure that nobody is going to come to harm if their spoons are a little larger than the average. Safety margins do exist. Taking extra spoonfuls, beyond what is specified (ie +100% or 50% or whatever to the recommended dosage range) is of course another matter.

    Like

  145. Wow, Soundhill.

    You have successfully identified an example of an unacceptable dosage regime, of which I was previously unaware. This has since been corrected for what I would hope are obvious reasons, and should never have been administered in that manner in the first place. So, we’ll chalk that up as evidence that this is not acceptable behaviour, shall we?

    There is something seriously wrong with your basic reasoning skills if you think that pointing out somebody else has been caught out doing this (with actual medicine) in some way excuses the behaviour of your favoured band of quacks.

    Like

  146. “There is something seriously wrong with your basic reasoning skills if you think that pointing out somebody else has been caught out doing this (with actual medicine) in some way excuses the behaviour of your favoured band of quacks.”

    My point is why are some serious things kept quiet, like you had not heard about the colchicine deaths, and things like the current chlorite made such a media issue, with words used like “acid” rather than “citric acid” and people reported as ill from the medication when it was from overdose and many medicines make you ill from overdose. If you don’t want to watch the 2014 dosing video for MMS maybe someone should transcribe bits of it for you.

    Like

  147. Soundhill, I am not some omniscient being with perfect knowledge of every specific case. I am, however, perfectly aware that things do go wrong in medicine. Given that the egregious issue you raised has, in fact, been corrected, I am unsure what the hell you are talking about in regards to cover-ups.

    But hey, you seem to think that because things go wrong in medicine, absolute quacks who have provided not a shred of evidence that their product does anybody any good whatsoever, should be able to market it in an untruthful manner, with unsafe directions on how to use the stuff and flowery assurances that nobody’s ever made any complaints.

    I will pass on the video, thank you. The fact sheet is much quicker to read, and I’m sure most consumers don’t bother to view half-hour youtube videos before using a product. But do let me know if the video somehow contradicts it; I’ll chalk that up as evidence of the Church disseminating misleading / dangerous information.

    Like

  148. soundhill,

    Complain to Pharmac, if you want, or just suck it up and pay the difference. Or talk it over with your doctor(s). There may be a reason they don’t want to prescribe the EC 75 mg dose of aspirin for you.

    Like

  149. Here’s the thing, Soundhill.

    Medical misadventure is well-recognised, recorded and hopefully learned from going forward. Whilst plainly not desirable, is an unfortunate price we pay for the good modern medicine does in society. It is expected that any given procedure or treatment will have a body of evidence supporting its use, that any risks or side-effects associated with it will be well understood. If further evidence indicates this is not correct, the product or procedure’s use can be amended accordingly, or it can be withdrawn / discontinued. Naturally, if it’s a prescription medicine, the prescribing doctor should make any risks clear, and packaging should spell out correct usage. The authorities do actually come down hard on fraud or malpractice.

    By contrast, alternative medicine or natural health remedies are tolerated on the basis that, although there is no evidence that they actually work, nor is there any evidence they do any harm (alas, as a general rule, nobody has checked, nor are they required to), and people should have the right to decide on their own treatment. That said, if it turns out there are serious risks or harms associated with a product (above and beyond being put forward as an alternative to actual effective treatment of a condition), there are no countervailing benefits which can be used to argue against the product being banned.

    If, of course, the Genesis Church people want MMS to be recognised as a medicine, they are more than welcome to engage in testing of the product. I’m highly dubious it would ever pass, and it’s surely much more profitable to lie to people about its ability to cure ebola/cancer/autism/whatever than it is to figure out what, if anything it actually does and sell it to treat that.

    Like

  150. Chris you are, to use an emotional word, pontificating about the MMS program while only acknowledging a fact sheet which says: “This paragraph is only a basic description and should NOT be used as a guide for treatment.)”

    Like

  151. (above and beyond being put forward as an alternative to actual effective AND ACCESSIBLE treatment of a condition),

    Like

  152. “Complain to Pharmac, if you want, or just suck it up and pay the difference. Or talk it over with your doctor(s). There may be a reason they don’t want to prescribe the EC 75 mg dose of aspirin for you.”
    Stuartg you are using your strongest language when it comes to the financial basis of the situation. That is as if the money flow were very much more important than the treatment/health of the patient which becomes only a service to make capital from.

    Give me a list of reasons they would not want to prescribe me the coated EC 75mg when I say the 100mg does not leave me feeling so well and 75mg works.

    Like

  153. Oh, so it includes instructions on how to take the stuff, but you shouldn’t actually follow those directions? Glad we’ve got that cleared up. (note: sarcasm). Any disclaimers on the video? Any material contradicting the “fact” sheet? Or is it basically the same load of dangerous rubbish?

    Like

  154. I mean seriously, Soundhill, the “basic description” of how treatment is supposed to work sounds pretty dreadful. Are you saying it’s not accurate? That it all works completely differently? If so, why would Genesis Church put out a misleading fact sheet?

    Like

  155. “I mean seriously, Soundhill, the “basic description” of how treatment is supposed to work sounds pretty dreadful. Are you saying it’s not accurate? That it all works completely differently? If so, why would Genesis Church put out a misleading fact sheet?”

    Note the fact sheet that you found also says: “Who is behind this
    MMS Facts Sheet and why?
    This facts sheet is produced and maintained by a group of private citizens from around the world who want the truth to come out.
    The intent of this facts sheet is to provide you with just enough basic information to do further research, while highlighting the brewing controversy, so as to make it easier for you to remain objective. The information provided here only scratches the surface. We encourage you to consider
    the possible motivations on all sides and draw your own conclusions”

    The Fact Sheet does not describe the mixing with citric acid and its strength, and the yellowing as ClO2 is formed, when to put the water in and how long it will last after mixing. It does not talk about taking extra water or maybe food to help or give other maybe more comfortable options to absorb the substance. &c.

    Like

  156. *Sigh*

    You know, Soundhill, I would have thought that, having finally decided to go down the “this isn’t official information” route, you might have checked to see whether the content of the fact sheet was included in the video or not, rather than finding a bunch of stuff in the video which wasn’t included on the fact sheet.

    Perhaps you’d like to look into that?

    Like

  157. “The intent of this facts sheet is to provide you with just enough basic information to do further research,”

    It’s a bit of the recipe in the 2014 video. It’s like you go into a restaurant and ask what the scones are made of. They tell you dates and yogurt and wholemeal, and maybe mention butter or what sort of fat. But they don’t tell about the various rising agents, how the baking powder in them works with moisture, and the baking soda in them works with heat to rise the scones, whether the butter was rubbed in with fingers or such and such.

    The chlorite requires some sort of acid to turn it to ClO2. Maybe just stomach acid would do it a bit. But they seem to want the ClO2 there before you drink it or apply it in DMSO &c.

    Like

  158. soundhill:

    You said: “We’ve spent a lot of time determining that the antiplatelet dose of aspirin on prescription is only available in 100mg enteric coated. That is a very vague amount.”

    Wrong (repeatedly wrong).

    This is the third time I have told you: in New Zealand, aspirin is able to be prescribed in 75, 100, 150, 300 and 650 mg tablets. All of those tablets are available in enteric coated formulation. I don’t know how to put it any more simply. Check MIMS if you don’t believe me.

    Not all of those tablets are fully subsidised, so if tablet without a full subsidy is prescribed then the patient has to make up the difference between the subsidy and the amount charged by the manufacturer/distributor.

    What is so difficult to understand about that?

    Re-read your quote above. Can you tell me how a dose of “100mg” is a “very vague amount”? As opposed to MMS, the dose of which you have given as exactly “around” and “a rough guess”?

    By the way, where do you get your dose for aspirin in mg/kg (for prophylaxis in ischaemic heart disease) from? All my resources just give a dose range, usually 75-325 mg. You are the first (and so far only) person I know of that says the prophylaxis dose is 1mg/kg.

    I really want to know, because if that figure has any research data to back it then it is likely to change the practice of many doctors, cardiologists in particular.

    Like

  159. Right. Not really what I was asking, Soundhill, but what you’re telling me is that the information on the fact sheet is official but incomplete, yes? Which means that the dosage instructions are to just keep adding drops until you feel nauseous, and that diarrhoea /vomiting are nothing serious.

    For some reason, you seem incapable of grasping that there might be something wrong with that whole system. That it might, perhaps, be dangerous.

    Like

  160. “Right. Not really what I was asking, Soundhill, but what you’re telling me is that the information on the fact sheet is official but incomplete, yes?”

    I am nothing to do with it.
    You found that Fact Sheet, which I had not seen.
    My concern is for the attack on this anti-malaria measure, by people who are claiming themselves to be scientific, but appear to be more concerned to discredit new possibilities very strongly rather than assist inquiry.

    Society gets stuck in certain paths which may not be good for individuals. I got swayed by the idea of a very low saturated fat diet, stuck to it for many years till I got a heart attack.

    It was suggested I use statins. I felt terrible on them, and doubly terrible as I became a heretic and refused them. The procedure for them is to take them but watch out for muscle troubles. Many medicines you are supposed to watch out for side effects, and maybe cease taking it. Like penicillin. In the case of MMS as I see it, you may not get nauseous by the time you get to the recommended dose. But if you do then cut back. How much sunlight can a person tolerate for vitamin D? Depends on skin colour. Maybe someone will design a calculator. Maybe same for
    MMS. Maybe same for statins. Maybe same for warfarin so you don’t have to wait till a blood level before you know. It will depend on salicylates in your diet, and other blood thinners. It would be great to be able to vary your diet like you are not allowed at the moment when you are on warfarin.

    With morphine you try to titrate the dose so the pain just under the surface so you don’t get side effects.

    “Which means that the dosage instructions are to just keep adding drops until you feel nauseous, and that diarrhoea /vomiting are nothing serious.”

    Can get diarrhoea from eating figs, prunes, vitamin C megadose, beetroot some people, or boiled milk.

    Salt water can make you vomit, or tickling your throat inside.

    “For some reason, you seem incapable of grasping that there might be something wrong with that whole system. That it might, perhaps, be dangerous.”

    Which is acceptable for treatments whose sellers have had the money to get them accepted.

    Like

  161. soundhill:

    You said “You found that Fact Sheet, which I had not seen.”

    Right.

    You are prepared to give/take/recommend MMS, at an unknown dose, without seeing any fact sheet.

    Yet you study the fact sheet for aspirin, statins, penicillin, warfarin and possibly vitamin C, looking for exact doses, contraindications, interactions and side effects.

    And you say you can’t see any contradictions between your approach to prescription medicines and and your approach to MMS.

    I agree with Chris. There appears to be something seriously wrong with your basic reasoning skills.

    Like

  162. Stuartg I think maybe a cardiology nurse told me about 1mg/kg. But here, according to animal studies, a very low dose may be a risk and may be the reason why attacks occur a week or so after aspirin cessation. It says 1mh/kg has moderate effect without risk of bleeds. http://www.hindawi.com/journals/thrombosis/2012/247363/

    Like

  163. My concern is for the attack on this anti-malaria measure, by people who are claiming themselves to be scientific, but appear to be more concerned to discredit new possibilities very strongly rather than assist inquiry.

    Like

  164. “My concern is for the attack on this anti-malaria measure,”

    Soundhill, let me be perfectly clear.

    The “anti-malaria measure” does. Not. Work. It is snake oil, peddled by charlatans, in an apparently successful effort to make insane amounts of money off of gullible people.

    How do I know this? Because the snake-oil salesmen selling it claim to have a 100% success rate curing malaria, cancer, ebola and a whole bunch of other things…. But refuse to produce any evidence of a single one of their supposedly innumerable experiences. These are ridiculous, ludicrous claims, made in such a manner that they are impossible to verify. If the claims were true, they would be scrambling to produce the evidence and get it out into the world of medicine. They are not. Because, obviously, the evidence does not exist.

    I mean, seriously. Look at who it’s being marketed to. What, exactly, do you think are the odds that the comfortably well-off people of first-world nations such as Australia, New Zealand, America, Ireland and so forth will come into contact with malaria? Or ebola for that matter? If the goal is to help prevent malaria, why the hell are they marketing it here, rather than sending their people out to give away the product to those who would supposedly benefit from it?

    If, on the other hand, the claims about malaria are simply lies for the purposes of marketing, everything becomes clear. “Hey, this stuff will cure malaria. Just imagine how well the miracle cure-all will work for whatever niggling little complaints afflict you.”

    Like

  165. I am perfectly willing to consider new possibilities in the fight against disease. But the thing is that any ethical person is going to get evidence that their cure works first, setting things out in a transparent manner and ensuring that others are given the opportunity to replicate their results.

    If they skip that pesky little step of evidence and go straight to selling their product to gullible punters as a means of raking in money, well, that really tells us all we need to know about the efficacy of the product. The medical community isn’t going to buy into it, and it will in all likelihood do a great deal of harm, if for no other reason than convincing people they don’t need to seek actual treatment for serious conditions until it’s too late.

    Like

  166. Plainly, Soundhill, you and I have very different ideas of what constitutes “inquiry.” Shockingly enough, my approach aligns with the scientific method, which has had quite a bit of success down through the centuries, and is foundational to modern medicine.

    By all means, people should come out with outlandish ideas and outside-the-box thinking. This can result in great leaps forward in science, and even in medicine. But their ideas should be subjected to rigorous testing, both by themselves and a community of their peers. If the evidence is against an idea, it should be discarded, reworked, or shelved, depending.

    People should not expect us to simply take their word for all manner of grandiose claims.

    Like

  167. If someone claimed 100% success at curing tooth ache and the treatment was removal of the teeth then you might believe them. I think it is just that you cannot imagine a mechanism for ClO2. Let’s do a bit of decent brainstorming before rubbishing.

    Ken pointed out about the Marsden Fund. I searched a bit and found some pure maths research they are sponsoring involving a UOC worker, Maarten McKubre-Jordens. “Paraconsistent mathematics is a type of mathematics in which contradictions may be true. In such a system it is perfectly possible for a statement A and its negation not A to both be true. How can this be, and be coherent? What does it all mean?”
    http://plus.maths.org/content/not-carrot

    It looks like the Marsden Fund hopes that Maarten’s work may be useful in working with problems in computer networks.

    Our world is coming towards big problems. Malaria may come to NZ with global warming. Malaria is becoming resistant to some of the current drugs. One very risky approach is a type of genetically modified mosquitoes.

    I feel we need to come to grips with more than a monetised approach which I feel is limiting your ability to see. Maybe you are correct, but I hope for a moment you might be able to set aside the monetary arguments, just in case anything of value becomes faintly visible.

    Like

  168. Soundhill, you have not listened to a word I have said.

    I have pointed out to you, repeatedly, that MMS is ridiculously monetised. That selling the stuff without having to test whether it works or obey basic standards of safety, allows them to make large profits from each unit sold. There is no motivation, whatsoever, to actually have a working product.

    I do not have the faintest idea where you get the idea that I am somehow fixated on monetised approaches to medicine or research. What I have said, again repeatedly, is that we need to actually be collecting evidence that any given approach works before turning it loose on the general public. Whether or not money is involved is in some ways beside the point, though we should certainly have checks and balances to overcome the monetary incentives which may tempt people to somehow game the system.

    Like

  169. Incidentally, Soundhill, your toothache example is deeply flawed. An actual parallel would be if somebody claimed pulling a person’s teeth out would 100% cure them of toothache, earache, ulcers, clogged sinuses and whatever other condition took their fancy. Very separate conditions, with very different underlying causes, but a single miracle cure which purports to treat them all.

    I would have no hesitation calling anybody who made such claims a quack, despite the fairly obvious causal links between teeth and toothaches. Particularly considering that pulling a person’s teeth out does actually have downsides (I sincerely doubt nobody has ever complained after such dental procedures).

    Like

  170. Well you can see a mechanism in a heart bypass fixing chest pain, making it easier to do many things after some healing, and stop having several daily anticoagulant injections. It’s not 100% and you do get the occasional death, but no more than 1% I think.

    Things affect other things. Sometimes it is easier to see the mechanism.

    If a person is not breathing you can allow many of their organs to function by helping them to breathe again.

    If ClO2 were enabling some process in the body like breathing maybe it could help the body to heal itself better.

    Like

  171. I’ve caught up with a current MIMS at work, rather than the older one I have at home. The 650 mg aspirin I mentioned earlier is no longer available on prescription in NZ.

    The range of doses of aspirin tablets able to be prescribed (current edition of MIMS) is now 75, 100, 150, 300, 320, and 500 mg.

    250g of aspirin powder is also available on prescription, presumable for compounding pharmacists to make up other doses.

    Like

  172. Soundhill, I think at some point I have to take a step back. You are going on about things which are utterly irrelevant to the point which I am trying to get through your thick skull.

    Namely, that Genesis Church are a pack of charlatans, which we can tell on the basis of the ridiculous claims they themselves have made about the efficacy of their product, which, in the absense of so much as a shred of evidence to back them up, we must conclude are outright lies. Further, the instructions for the use of the product are outright dangerous.

    You have scrupulously avoided addressing these points in any way. Rather, you go off on rambling asides trying to convince me of who even knows what.

    So. Do you or do you not accept that these people are charlatans, preying upon gullible consumers in order to make money?

    Like

  173. soundhill,

    Thanks for replying.

    Unfortunately, that paper is about experimentation in rat models with acute myocardial infarction. In an acute myocardial infarction, different doses of aspirin are used in humans compared with those used for prophylaxis (160-325 mg/day versus 75-325 mg/day).

    Since we are both human beings, and neither of us are suffering an acute myocardial infarction (at least I hope you aren’t), that paper has no relevance to the aspirin used in both of us for prophylaxis.

    I’ll continue to follow my GP’s guidelines (which are the same as cardiologists). I’d further advise you to consider who’s advice you would rather follow: “I think maybe a cardiology nurse,” or a cardiologist.

    Like

  174. “Since we are both human beings, and neither of us are suffering an acute myocardial infarction (at least I hope you aren’t), that paper has no relevance to the aspirin used in both of us for prophylaxis.”

    The experiment was on rats to help with a hypothesis that might apply to humans.

    “Recently published surveys have warned against the increased risk of aspirin discontinuation, which includes acute coronary problems, stent stenosis, acute myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, and lower limb ischemia”

    Since I had been promoting lower dose aspirin I thought to pass this on, as a contraindication for very low dose. They are trying to find out whether there is a rebound effect after aspirin is stopped, and the blood level tails off, or whether a very low dose itself of aspirin itself may be dangerous.

    OK you claim very low dose might cause heart trouble in a rat, but no trouble for a human?

    Like

  175. Chris: very emotive language. You think that will work when you cannot scientifically back up what you are claiming? You only suggest it is obvious.

    How about you refer me to peer reviewed articles about charlatans and science.

    Like

  176. No, really, Soundhill, this isn’t hard.

    Do you believe, as claimed by the Genesis Church people, that they have cured 100% of the people they have treated for… Hang on, let me check the list…

    Ebola, malaria, herpes, cancer, firbromyalgia, multiple sclerosis and AIDS. Probably other conditions as, not referred to in the interview, but let’s stick with those.

    Yes or no question. Bearing in mind that they have produced no evidence whatsoever to back up these claims.

    If no, then this indicates you believe they are lying. Given that these are not minor claims, and are being used to sell the product, this would further indicate they are charlatans.

    I’m really not seeing an abrupt transition to emotive language; I’ve been calling them liars and charlatans for a fair while now. Further evidence that you haven’t really been paying attention to what I’ve been saying? Then again, perhaps it was the “thick skull” comment. I’d apologise, but rather than actually answering the question, you’re once again trying to divert the subject.

    Like

  177. soundhill,

    That reference was for a rat model investigating a different problem.

    It was a model for acute myocardial infarction, for the first few days after a heart attack.

    You are talking about prophylaxis in ischaemic heart disease, ie long term use with the aim of preventing heart attacks.

    The reference is irrelevant to your question.

    That means you base your 1mg/kg on something you may remember, and you aren’t even sure who it was. Great reasoning!

    Why not talk to your doctor(s), or even a cardiologist?

    Like

  178. soundhill,

    I don’t make any claims about very low dose aspirin in rats. You provided the reference and you are misinterpreting it.

    I follow the research based guidelines and recommendations for humans.

    You rely on something someone once said and research into a completely different problem.

    Sorry if it’s against your beliefs, but I’ll rely on the scientific approach to answering questions.

    Like

  179. soundhill,

    Earlier, in a reply to Chris, you said “A theory is that the hand-tingling that goes with hyperventilation is a result of oxygen starvation of the tissues.”

    Just to let you know that theory was disproven decades ago. Oxygen supply to the tissues is maintained. What happens is that changing (lowering) CO2 levels disrupts the acid/base balance across the cell membranes. Once the balance shifts enough, the nerve cells that rely on a particular acid/base balance can no longer function normally and the signals from the disfunctioning nerves are perceived as tingling.

    (There’s a lot more to it than that, of course, but that’s a very simplified explanation.)

    Like

  180. soundhill,

    You asked Chris “You think that will work when you cannot scientifically back up what you are claiming?”

    When are you going to ask yourself the same question?

    So far you have not managed to scientifically back up any of your claims. We have asked questions; you have evaded, fudged, prevaricated, changed the subject, and provided irrelevant data. What you haven’t done is to back up your claims.

    I will ask you again:

    What is the dose of MMS per kg?

    How does the dose vary for different indications?

    What actually are the indications for MMS?

    What are its contraindications?

    What interactions are there with different medications?

    What are its side effects?

    The purveyors of various snake oil treatments never bother to answer these questions. They just claim the snake oil will cure multiple diseases with no side effects. They just “spread the word” (ie advertise) and wait for the money to role in.

    Manufacturers/distributors of prescription medications answer all the above questions before the medications go to market; the scientific research then continues after the medication gets to market (for over a century in the case of aspirin!)

    Now, a further question. Read those last two paragraphs again. Which description does MMS fit – snake oil or medication?

    Like

  181. In Humble’s book he describes getting the dose right to cure malaria in Malawi. The description is a bit sketchy.
    http://www.mms-supplement.com/MMS_Part_1.pdf
    In this interview in Malawi he relates of though how he could not prove he was getting HIV negativity, he was making the people well. Comments after the video dispute some of his comments about HIV testing.

    Here is description of immune modulation by the related functioning Tetrachlorodecaoxygen (TCDO) and WF10 which might explain improvements in apparent health.
    http://www.google.com/patents/WO2013109949A1?cl=en

    Like

  182. Another posting of some of the same interview with the comment after it: “Totally Critical
    3 years ago
    How do people believe a word this guy says when he doesn’t even know there are AIDS tests which doesn’t rely on antibodies? Look up NAT or PCR tests.”

    Like

  183. soundhill,

    Yes, yes, yes. We’ve seen the TV adverts before.

    Now, where is the scientific data? You know, like the stuff you insist on reading for your prescribed medications?

    Like

  184. soundhill,

    Don’t worry how things might work.

    Worry about IF they work.

    We used aspirin for a century before anyone knew how it worked, but we knew it worked.

    No-one has shown that MMS works. They’ve just made some TV adds.

    What is the dose of MMS per kg?

    How does the dose vary for different indications?

    What actually are the indications for MMS?

    What are its contraindications?

    What interactions are there with different medications?

    What are its side effects?

    Like

  185. “What interactions are there with different medications?”
    Vitamin C nearly stops it from working.

    Like

  186. It’ interesting that my uncle who had had malaria said years later that vitamin C supplementation made him feel terrible.

    My approach is to learn what we can about this fairly recent ClO2 work.

    Like a new cat coming on to your garden the existing cats will fight it off. (Cats can even have transferred aggression. A cat looking out the window and seeing an intruder cat spray in the garden may turn on his accepted house mate.)

    To fight off this new form of immune modulation medication the plan is to say that because the educator is exaggerating claims he can be called a charlatan therefore everything 100% of what he says is discredited. Strangely that is applying the same form of exaggeration as what Humble is applying.

    Add a few bits like it’s a danger when it is probably less of a danger than many accepted medications and you have a better fight against it. You think, but I think people will see through you. They will want to learn and accept that many/most salespeople exaggerate.

    Like

  187. soundhill,

    ““What interactions are there with different medications?”
    Vitamin C nearly stops it from working.”

    is that all?

    What is the dose of MMS per kg?

    How does the dose vary for different indications?

    What actually are the indications for MMS?

    What are its contraindications?

    What interactions are there with different medications?

    What are its side effects?

    What is the SCIENCE behind your claims?

    Like

  188. @Stuartg wrote: “What is the dose of MMS per kg?

    How does the dose vary for different indications?”

    Info is gradually building for these related treatments:

    “Example 5: Determining the Clinical dose for TCDO

    [0161] HIV-positive patients received one cycle of intravenous infusions of WF10- defined as 5 consecutive daily doses followed by 16 days of no treatment-at a dose of 0.5L/kg body weight/day to 50 (0.5 mL)/kg body weight/day, without apparent adverse effect. Patients were then given 4 cycles of WF10 with the daily dose ranging from 0.5 mL/kg body weight to 1.5 mL/kg body weight. The maximal tolerated dose of WF10 was determined to lie between 0.5 mL/kg body weight to 0.75 mL/kg body weight per day. Doses of 0.75 mL/kg body weight and greater were associated with phlebitis and a pattern of decreased hemoglobin. However, in this and subsequent clinical studies, administration of 4 cycles of 0.5 mL TCDO/kg body weight per day showed no clinically relevant hemolysis”

    http://www.google.com/patents/WO2013109949A1?cl=en

    Like

  189. soundhiil,

    Somewhere above, you said you wanted MMS to be treated the same as other substances.

    Very well. That means that you also have to treat it the same as prescription medications. These questions have been asked, and answered, for prescription medications by their manufacturer/distributor. Now, we expect you to treat MMS exactly the same as prescription medications – and answer the questions.

    What are the indications?

    What is the dose?

    How does the dose vary for different indications?

    What are the contraindications?

    What are the side effects?

    I’ve asked you these multiple times but you haven’t answered.

    If you don’t answer them, we have to agree with Richard: “I’m also inclined to question whether soundhill has some undeclared association or vested interest in the product.” You do sound just like a snake oil salesman.

    Like

  190. soundhill,

    Hint: try looking for the answers in the public domain, like on a manufacturers information sheet. Answer them just like the manufacturer of aspirin would.

    Don’t just have a stab at Google and cherry pick something that sounds appropriate. Patents are not manufacturers information sheets; it is not expected that the general public has to search among patent applications to find the dosage of aspirin, is it?

    To treat it the same as prescription medications, all you have to do is give us the information that would be on a manufacturers information sheet. Simple.

    Like

  191. “Somewhere above, you said you wanted MMS to be treated the same as other substances.

    Very well. That means that you also have to treat it the same as prescription medications. These questions have been asked, and answered, for prescription medications by their manufacturer/distributor. Now, we expect you to treat MMS exactly the same as prescription medications – and answer the questions.”

    So give me the time other medication sellers have had. And expect that if the acceptance regulation is too lenient or new knowledge comes to light then it may be withdrawn again.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_withdrawn_drugs

    Also acknowledge that if the acceptance regulation is too tough a useful product may be denied to sufferers.

    Should the used of aspirin have been denied till what is known about it today was known?

    Like

  192. soundhill,

    Manufacturer/distributors of prescription medications have the information sheet available when the medication hits the market.

    MMS is already being marketed, so you’ve already had the time that prescription medications have had. Where is the information sheet?

    Treat MMS the same as prescription medications, or it’s just snake oil and should never enter the market.

    By the way, interesting list. What relevance does it have, other than if you expect MMS to make it onto the list? It won’t, because no-one has shown it has a useful therapeutic effect. You’ll find it in the list of poisons instead.

    Like

  193. soundhill,

    If you want MMS to be treated by others the same way they treat prescription medications, then there’s a few simple questions to answer first:

    What are the indications?

    What is the dose?

    How does the dose vary for different indications?

    What are the contraindications?

    What are the side effects?

    Like

  194. “It won’t, because no-one has shown it has a useful therapeutic effect. You’ll find it in the list of poisons instead.” Botox on both lists

    Like

  195. “What are the contraindications?” Take care with a person whose metabolism is struggling. Not all known yet. May be changed. Like ECT is no longer thought by many to be appropriate for schizophrenia, only depression perhaps. Some believe it is no better than placebo for that, but it is still used.

    Like

  196. soundhill,

    “Botox on both lists” Many things are on both lists. “…and what has that to do with the price of fish in china?”

    You say you want MMS treated the same as prescription medicines. That means that you have to treat it the same as prescription medicines as well.

    Prescription medicines have to have an information sheet before they are marketed. So do we. The manufacturer/distributor has to supply both the sheet and the information. Where is it for MMS?

    What are the indications?

    What is the dose?

    How does the dose vary for different indications?

    What are the contraindications?

    What are the side effects?

    What is put on the market without any scientific research, claims it can cure many different diseases, is claimed to have no side effects, has no information sheet, and the knowledge of it is spread only by advertising? Answer: snake oil. Oh… …and MMS.

    Like

  197. oops,
    Strike out the “So do we.”

    Like

  198. I meant to say that the other commenters on the blog, and myself, want MMS treated the same way as prescription medicines. Somehow I managed to put the sentence in the wrong paragraph.

    Like

  199. Be interesting to know more about the progress of regulation of aspirin. http://www.aspirin-foundation.com/what/timeline.html
    Bayer’s patent ran out in the 1930s. Stomach trouble was acknowledged before that. The process of drug regulation changes. Do you think it is perfect now? I think the current fiscal considerations make it very difficult for new drugs to come to market. R&D may be just rehashing old, already consented stuff, in new packages for the market.

    Ken talked about the Marsden Fund. That only administers a small proportion of what the Public Good Science Fund does. PGSF is giving large amounts to people like Tony Conner who is also funded by genetic modification companies. There may be an agenda to support enterprises who are already doing well. And they won’t do well if another strong cat comes on the block. Commercial science is very tough. China has turned against genetically modified food. So the price of genetically modified corn and soy has dropped in USA. China say it will turn to Ukraine for food. Which may be why the Blackwater/Academi/Xe name changer mercenary security firm fighting in Ukraine is used by Monsanto, could be owned by Monsanto say some.

    Which is why I ask Chris to put a fade on the monetary mask. Traditional breeding is ahead of GMO breeding for adapting to needs. Sometimes a gene is inserted to then mark them for patenting. But is has been at great expense to the public good and great commercial benefit.

    Humble says he does not have great amounts of money, though others may disagree. Most patenting drug companies have lots of money. Socially motivated people do not always have much money. When companies like Gates/Monsanto donate they may do it with a financial/political agenda and do not actually being about social improvement. Dumping of unwanted soy on poor countries can suffocate local farms and people become poorer.

    From Humble’s words he feels compelled to spread the word that he thinks MMS can help against malaria. Other drugs against it are losing their effectiveness. If Marsden fund or PGSF won’t touch it and want to stick with para-consistent maths &c then maybe crowd funding might help with a proving or disproving research.

    If we get the TPPA and strict controls being put on nutritional supplements then I think we would see a reduction in the available range with more profit in fewer hands.

    Like

  200. soundhill,

    “…and what has that to with the price of fish in China.”

    You are trying to avoid answering questions.

    Do you want MMS treated the same as prescription medications or not?

    Is MMS snake oil or not?

    What are the indications?

    What is the dose?

    How does the dose vary for different indications?

    What are the contraindications?

    What are the side effects?

    Like

  201. Stuartg I would not want you in charge of public transport. It would all travel at about 15km/hr and anyone who wanted to get on would have to jump on it while it is still moving.

    Like

  202. Stuartg: “Don’t worry how things might work.
    Worry about IF they work.”

    You seem contrary to Chris who is more worried about how they can work than if they do. Chris won’t believe they work unless he or she is able to see how they can.

    This thread is about homeopathy, too and before we start to talk about that we ought to understand more about water.

    Like

  203. Oh, good. More evidence that Soundhill has serious reading comprehension problems. Quite some time ago, Soundhill, I made my position very clear.

    “I’m perfectly okay with not understanding the details of how a particular treatment works. I’m actually okay with nobody fully understanding how it works. But I do expect evidence that it actually works.”
    https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2014/11/09/standing-up-to-junk-science-in-new-zealand/#comment-64339

    Stuart raises a very good example in penicillin, which is precisely why I hold that attitude. History is littered with things we have made use of but only discovered the theoretical basis for later.

    Of course, ideally we would have evidence that something works AND we would understand why.

    Like

  204. soundhill,

    No-one particularly worries how things work. That can wait till later. They only want to know if things work.

    Now, about MMS:

    Do you want MMS treated the same as prescription medications or not?

    Is MMS snake oil or not?

    What are the indications?

    What is the dose?

    How does the dose vary for different indications?

    What are the contraindications?

    What are the side effects?

    Why don’t you answer these simple questions?

    Like

  205. Incidentally, trying to change the subject to homeopathy, despite barely a mention of it in a good 200 comments now, strikes me as a means of trying to evade Stuart’s questions. Again.

    One school of charlatanism at a time, please.

    Like

  206. soundhill,

    Aspirin worked for about a century, then we found out how it worked.

    I don’t worry how homeopathy works, because it doesn’t work.

    If you say homeopathy works, then prove it.

    Homeopathy has been around for over 200 years. Nobody has yet shown that it works.

    There is no point in asking how anything works until we know that it does work.

    If you say you can drive your car to the moon, then prove it by driving your car to the moon.

    If you say that homeopathy works, then prove that it works. Maybe by curing a cancer, or a gram negative sepsis, or even by re-growing an amputated leg (something that medicine can’t do – yet), by using only homeopathy and nothing else?

    Now, those questions about MMS:

    Do you want MMS treated the same as prescription medications or not?

    Is MMS snake oil or not?

    What are the indications?

    What is the dose?

    How does the dose vary for different indications?

    What are the contraindications?

    What are the side effects?

    Why don’t you answer these simple questions? Are you going to answer them, or not?

    How many times have I asked these questions and you haven’t answered any of them?

    Like

  207. For others apart from soundhill1:

    About 200 years ago a German by the surname of Hahnemann invented homeopathy. This was a system where he diluted substances in water or alcohol to a level less than one molecule in a volume of water (or alcohol) greater than the known universe. He claimed that this made the substances very powerful in their effects.

    Since medicine mainly used bleeding at the time, medicine was very harmful to patients.

    By using only water (or alcohol), homeopathy didn’t do much harm to patients. Medicine, by using bleeding, caused a lot of harm to patients, especially during a cholera epidemic. Homeopathy didn’t do any additional harm over the cholera.

    Since then there have been absolutely no advances in homeopathy. Nobody has ever shown any healing that has occurred by use of homeopathy alone.

    Medicine, however, has used scientific theory, and advanced more than a little bit in its ability to treat illnesses since those days.

    That’s why I say homeopathy doesn’t work.

    Now, soundhill, shut up about homeopathy and answer my questions.

    Like

  208. @Chris Banks: “claims of 100% cure rates (in a single day, no less) for a diverse range of completely unrelated conditions are, well, quite literally unbelievable.” “I’m perfectly okay with not understanding the details of how a particular treatment works. I’m actually okay with nobody fully understanding how it works. But I do expect evidence that it actually works.” But if it treated several conditions that appeared unrelated to you?
    “Depression isn’t the only mental health issue that may be related to infections and autoimmune condition. Writing last year in the Harvard Health blog, Dr. Jeff Szymanski described how some children with strep throat suddenly develop obsessive-compulsive disorder. It’s one manifestation of pediatric acute-onset neuropsychiatric syndrome. Quick treatment with antibiotics can reverse the problem.”
    http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/infection-autoimmune-disease-linked-to-depression-201306176397
    And I didn’t understand your words: “Rambling on about anti-inflammatories and omega-3 as a means of treating depression / autism (erm, what?)”

    Like

  209. Soundhill, Soundhill, Soundhill….

    You haven’t produced any evidence that Genesis Church has cured 100% of the patients they’ve claimed to have treated with MMS for ebola, cancer, malaria, etcetera.

    Heck, you haven’t produced any evidence it’s cured ANYBODY of ANY of these conditions.

    You don’t really think “The Genesis Church people say so” counts as evidence, do you? That’s the claim, not the evidence.

    Like

  210. “And I didn’t understand your words:”

    I see no particular evidence you understand anything I say, Soundhill. Why should a random sentence fragment from a couple of days ago be any different?

    Like

  211. Chris wrote: “we should certainly have checks and balances to overcome the monetary incentives which may tempt people to somehow game the system”

    One of the rules of the free market is that it is supposed to be contestable. I maintain that it is gaming the system to put up huge barriers to becoming a competitor. In this case that is barriers to considering whether a treatment works and can enter the system, because there is no proof yet that it works.

    I have made suggestion about crowd funding to help getting testing done. Then I could claim there is proof that it works for whatever, or could say it works for nothing at all.

    It may be simpler for ClO2 than for homeopathy, which many people buy, since to be an effective homeopathy practitioner may require an understanding of water greater than the common understanding.

    I think homeopathy is supposed to have some sort of innoculatory effect. I don’t know if it is to do with the phagocytes. But the patent material I posted about ClO2 says that is supposed to stimulate the phagocytes. I also note:
    “When bacteria enter some phagocytes, the phagocytes use oxidants and nitric oxide to kill the pathogen”
    http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phagocyte
    So maybe ClO2 is being used by the phagocytes for their oxidant needs.

    Like

  212. Stuartg asked: “What interactions are there with different medications?”
    http://bioredox.mysite.com/CLOXhtml/CLOXprnt+refs.htm

    “SOME INCOMPATIBILITIES
    Acidified sodium chlorite could provide a powerful new opportunity to improve or to restore sensitivity to quinolines by virtue of its oxidative power. However, quinolines contain secondary or tertiary amino groups which react with chlorine dioxide in such a way that both could destroy each other. Some possible strategies to resolve this incompatibility are suggested below.

    Acidified sodium chlorite could be used as explained above only as a solo therapy.
    Quinoline administration could be withheld until after the acidified sodium chorite has completed its action.
    Patients already preloaded with a quinoline could stop this, wait a suitable period of time for this to wash out, then administer the acidified sodium chlorite.
    The quinoline could remain in use and while the less active sodium chlorite is administered without acid. This should retain plenty of oxidant effectiveness without destroying any quinoline or wasting too much oxidant.
    Switch from a quinoline to an endoperoxide (such as artemisinin) or to a quinone (such as atovaquone) before using acidified sodium chlorite, as these may be less sensitive toward destruction by chlorine dioxide.

    Similar problems apply to methylene blue and many other drugs if they have an unoxidized sulfur atom, a phenol group, a secondary amine or a tertiary amine. Such are also very reactive with the chlorine dioxide component. [58a] ”

    ( On The Mechanisms Of Toxicity Of Chlorine Oxides Against Malarial Parasites – An Overview
    By Thomas Lee Hesselink, MD
    Copyright September 6, 2007

    The purpose of this article is to propose research.
    Nothing in this article is intended as medical advice.
    No claims, promises nor guarantees are made.)

    Like

  213. soundhill,

    Yeah, right. “The purpose of this article is to propose research.
    Nothing in this article is intended as medical advice.
    No claims, promises nor guarantees are made.” In other words, this is what Hesselink thinks, he’s proposing that someone else does the research (he hasn’t actually done any), and no-one should believe what he says anyway. And this is the BEST information you’ve got on MMS?

    Like

  214. soundhill,

    Actually, I asked more than one question about MMS. I’ve asked them numerous times and you still haven’t answered any of them.

    What are the indications?

    What is the dose?

    How does the dose vary for different indications?

    What are the contraindications?

    What are the side effects?

    For any prescription medication the answers to all of these questions can be found on the information sheet that comes with the medication.

    These are straightforward, standard questions that are asked of any prescription medication, and answered before the medication reaches the market. Why don’t you have the answers for MMS? After all, it’s already on the market and is being advertised.

    Do you want MMS treated the same as prescription medications or not?

    Is MMS snake oil or not?

    The way you comment on this blog suggests the answers to those last two questions are “No” and “Yes” respectively.

    Like

  215. Stuartg, I imagine the NZ government plan for global warming/malaria/drug resistance for NZ is so far non-existent. At some stage profits of selling increasing doses of existing drugs will be a factor and hospitalisation GDP. I find it awful that our world depends on war and disaster for stimulating GDP. Christchurch has been the improving economy in NZ since the quakes.

    So I am up against a very strong block when I talk about types of preparedness.

    Hesselink’s article cites over 50 articles in connection with OVERCOMING ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANCE WITH OXIDATION. Which won’t only apply to malaria. Also to many diseases, (and possibly those which are the result of horizontal gene transfer from antibiotic resistance genes inserted by genetic modification in our food we import, as well as use of antibiotics as growth stimulants in animals we eat.)

    In total Hesselink has cited getting on for 1000 papers. It would take a long time to count them, let alone read them.

    Indeed Dr Hesselink is asking for assistance with research.

    Like

  216. “Indeed Dr Hesselink is asking for assistance with research.”

    I can see why he needs help. That has to be one of the worst efforts at sounding scientific I have ever seen. He should probably start with a remedial research methodology course, then one on science writing. He could follow that up with experimental methodology… And that might just leave him prepared to conduct the research he says he wants to do. I’m sure his good friend Jim Humble would stump up the money if he asked nicely.

    As to the “look, a thousand papers” bit, I refer you here:
    https://sites.google.com/site/mmsdebunked/home/mms-scam

    “They cite an absolute mountain of articles, which looks impressive, but all this amounts to is the logical fallacy called Proof by Verbosity, or argumentum verbosium. There are so many articles that to sift through them all and refute them would be a mammoth task. The fact that no one has done so is used as a “proof” that the argument is valid when all it really proves is that no one has the time or patience to wade through it all. The fact is, it doesn’t matter how high you stack cow pats, in the end all you’ll have is still a pile of dung.

    If you look through the cited articles, it really doesn’t take long to see that they are pretty much all about how sodium chlorite is a disinfectant, and how oxygen can kill parasites and viruses etc. Which is all true, however there is NOT one single article which links the two, not one single article actually supports the claim that sodium chlorite has some health benefit in the human body . That “miracle cure” claim is ONLY ever made by Jim Humble and Hesselink.”

    Like

  217. The mms-scam page is using enotive language and not addressing the phagocyte issue, rather saying ClO2 is only a disinfectant.

    Like

  218. soundhill,

    Yet again, you do not answer my questions about MMS. They are the same questions asked of every prescription medication before marketing.

    Anyone would think that you either don’t have any answers, meaning MMS is not a medication, or that MMS is just snake oil.

    Yet again:

    What are the indications?

    What is the dose?

    How does the dose vary for different indications?

    What are the contraindications?

    What are the side effects?

    The lack of answers to these simple questions is merely confirming that MMS is snake oil.

    Like

  219. soundhill,

    “The mms-scam page is using enotive language and not addressing the phagocyte issue, rather saying ClO2 is only a disinfectant.”

    And you aren’t using emotive language?

    Emotive language makes no difference to the conclusions that good science reaches. Good science on that page concludes that MMS is a good disinfectant but has no therapeutic effects otherwise.

    It’s up to you to prove that MMS is any more than a disinfectant.

    Like

  220. Oh noes! Emotive language! How dare people describe quacks as, well, quacks? Why can’t we just naively believe whatever we’re told by some random guy who pasted a thousand references into an incoherent document which, according to the disclaimer, is not actually making any claims whatsoever?

    Seriously, Soundhill. The issue, which you are once again attempting to sidestep, is that no evidence whatsoever has been produced in support of the efficacy of MMS. I mean, if this person, who is supposedly intent on extolling the benefits of MMS to the world, managed to paste in a thousand references without a single one of them providing any such evidence, wouldn’t you think that’s a pretty good indication the evidence doesn’t actually exist?

    Like

  221. @Chris: “no evidence whatsoever has been produced in support of the efficacy of MMS.” Hesselink’s article is about the mechanism.

    The idea of oxidants and malaria has been around for a while. The parasite somewhat oxidises a red blood cell it inhabits. If the cell is further oxidised and dies the parasite dies with it. So the parasitise cells will be killed by extra oxidant more readily than non-parasitised cells.

    As resistance increases and combinations of existing drugs become less effective possible ClO2 could get more attention.

    Great that Humble found it out and wants to pass it on. I read he asked Bill Gates for help but Gates does not want to develop new stuff.
    http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jm00402a001

    Like

  222. soundhill,

    “Great that Humble found it out and wants to pass it on.”

    Not great. He hasn’t passed on any evidence that it works. The only evidence we have is that he’s selling snake oil to make a quick buck.

    Now, about MMS:

    What are the indications?

    What is the dose?

    How does the dose vary for different indications?

    What are the contraindications?

    What are the side effects?

    Show us that it isn’t just snake oil.

    Like

  223. Stuartg if you were the AllBlacks coach the team would lose because no new players would be taken on, because they had not yet proved themselves in an international AllBlack match.

    Like

  224. “What are the side effects?”
    A number of anti-malarial drugs works by destroying folic acid. If they are given early in pregnancy the neural tube defects are possible. Supplementing folic acid may stop the anti-malarial drug from working. It may be hard to balance if at all possible. So ClO2 needs to be checked if it has such a side effect. Does it destroy folic acid?

    Like

  225. “Hesselink’s article is about the mechanism.”

    Well then, I’ll chalk that up to problem’s with your reading comprehension. We have, after all, been very clear that we want evidence the stuff actually works.

    Why, given extremely clear statements to this effect, you are wasting our time with claims about the mechanism by which people claim it works (incoherent as those claims are), I haven’t the faintest idea.

    More efforts at diversion, I suppose.

    Like

  226. Oh wait, I ‘m sorry, The disclaimer says the document makes no claims. Therefore, it can’t possibly be about the mechanism by which MMS is supposed to work.

    Difficult to tell what the point of the document is, really, if it’s not making any claims. Perhaps the guy just wanted to spam readers with as many citation as he could as part of a desperate cry for help.

    Like

  227. soundhill,

    Again. All I am asking for MMS is the information sheet that comes with every prescription medicine from the first day a prescription medication hits the market.

    MMS is on the market. You say it’s a medicine. So give us its information sheet.

    You say you want MMS treated the same as prescription medications, but your actions in not giving us that information give the lie to that.

    Without that information, MMS is just snake oil.

    Now, are you going to give us that information, or by not giving it to us acknowledge that MMS is snake oil?

    Like

  228. soundhill,

    “Nothing in this article is intended as medical advice.
    No claims, promises nor guarantees are made.”

    Exactly.

    It’s snake oil.

    Like

  229. Stuartg: “evidence that it works” here’s some evidence of what may NOT WORK for malaria.
    “Antiparasitic resistance
    The prime example for MDR against antiparasitic drugs is malaria. Plasmodium vivax has become chloroquine and sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine resistant a few decades ago, and as of 2012 artemisinin-resistant Plasmodium falciparum has emerged in western Cambodia and western Thailand.” MDR=multidrug resistant.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_drug_resistance

    And it’s not only about malaria.

    Like

  230. Behold the desperation as Soundhill tries any tangent he can think of to divert attention from the fact that he can’t find any evidence that MMS works on anything at all.

    Like

  231. soundhill,

    The basics of medicine safety:
    1. Know why you are using a medicine; what therapeutic effect you are expecting.
    2. Know the dose to take, how much and how often, in order to get the therapeutic effect you want.
    3. Know what illnesses the medicine is likely to make worse.
    4. Know what other medications, drugs, foodstuffs the medicine will interact with.
    5. Know the problems that have been reported as possible side effects.

    You know all this. You have made comments about aspirin, warfarin, statins, and other prescription medications that show you have carefully read about all these things on the information sheets. You have even made comments that suggest that you think the information sheet doesn’t go far enough.

    You would not swallow something if you didn’t know what it did, how much you were taking, when the next lot was to be taken, had no idea whether it would make you worse, no idea of any side effect, or any effects on other substances you were taking.

    No-one has shown MMS has any therapeutic effects.
    No-one has given a specific dose, how much or how often.
    No-one has said what illnesses it must not be used in.
    No-one has made a list of interactions with medications, recreational drugs, or even foodstuffs.
    No-one has given a list of side effects.

    I want MMS to be treated exactly the same a prescription medications. You have said you want the same. I want the basics of medicine safety for MMS made public, just like they are made public for prescription medications. You don’t want that at all, as you have avoided answering those safety questions every single time that I have asked them. What you say is not what you do.

    The only possible reason I can think of for your behaviour is that you know that MMS is snake oil and that you have some financial interest in selling it. In science this is called a conflict of interest and has to be declared up front.

    Now, a single question that HAS to be answered if you want anyone to take you seriously:

    Do you have a conflict of interest over MMS? Yes or no.

    Like

  232. soundhill,
    You said: “What are NZ’s plans to deal with MDR malaria in immigrants?”

    Try the MoH website. It took me nearly 10 seconds to find what you are after.

    No need to make any more comments or ask about it further.

    Like

  233. soundhill,

    For the record.

    I have no conflict of interest.

    All of the patients with malaria in New Zealand that I have diagnosed, confirmed and then treated with prescription medications have been cleared of the parasite with never a mention of MMS.

    Like

  234. soundhill,

    If you avoid answering the question of whether you have a conflict of interest over MMS, or if you decline to answer the question, then the logical assumption is that you do have a conflict of interest.

    Like

  235. Malaria UK
    Year Deaths
    2013  7
    2012 2
    2011 8
    2010 7
    2009 6
    2008 6
    2007 5
    2006 8
    2005 11
    2004 5
    2003 16
    2002 9
    2001 9
    2000 16
    1999 14
    1998 7
    1997 13
    1996 11
    1995 4
    1994 11

    Like

  236. Ken: “Writing on Sciblogs, Dr Grant Jacobs ”
    I have checked Grant on Sciblogs and offered on Saturday the following on a June 26article, and he has not approved it so far.

    “Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    From the Seralini study: “Because of recent reviews on GM foods indicating no specific risk of cancer [2,16], but indicating signs of hepatorenal dysfunction within 3 months [1,7], we had no reason to adopt a carcinogenesis protocol using 50 rats per group.” (16 is the Snell review.) The 50 rats per group for the carcinogenesis protocol is a much larger number than required for the toxicology protocol. But I understand that requirement for a greater number is to make sure there is no cancer even at low frequency. So the fact that tumors showed up in the smaller number of rats required for a toxicology test was newsworthy, as well as something that protocol requires to be reported even though it was not part of the experiment. A lot of criticism has been aimed at this paper based on the straw man principle, saying there were too few rats for a cancer test when it was not a cancer test.”

    Like

  237. What has that to do with me, sound hill?

    >

    Like

  238. soundhill,

    What has the number of deaths from malaria in the UK got to do with a conflict of interest? Or even with you answering questions about the safety of MMS?

    Like

  239. Ken your article is quoting from sources who do not appear to give space to opposing reason. Another example the Science Media Centre has reported about transgenic mosquitoes to work against malaria. They mention risks of the process but contrast that with human lives saved, but skim over the risks.

    “Simply considered as a genetic trick, it is ingenious. Shredding the X chromosome of the male will make all of its offspring males. That is because female mosquitoes (like female humans) have two X chromosomes, one from the male parent and the other from the female parent, so without the contribution of the X chromosome from the male parent, only male offspring will result. A completely sterile male mosquito is useless, as it just dies out without affecting the population. But a fully fertile one that breeds exclusively males and pass on the sex-distorter trait would be ideal, as it would indeed wipe out the natural population, provided the trait is stably inherited. It would have been the perfect solution to destroying the natural populations of mosquitoes that transmit malaria; except that the DNA-cutting enzyme is by not means “specific” to “ribosomal gene sequences located exclusively on the mosquito’s X-chromosome” as stated. On the contrary, it cuts at a target sequence in ribosomal RNA (rRNA) genes – numerous copies of which are present in all eukaryote genomes – plus other sites as well, and the transgenic mosquitoes have been created using a jumping gene (transposon) vector that promiscuously invades all genomes. It is the female mosquitoes that bite people and transmit disease; so any transgenic female mosquitoes among the offspring would inject GM DNA containing the vector and I-PpoI transgene for horizontal transfer into people’s cells to shred their genomes. ”

    http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Beware_the_New_Breakthrough_Transgenic_Mosquitoes.php

    Like

  240. Again sound hill, what has this to do with me?

    You are blatantly trolling my article here. If you cannot get comments on ancient articles in someone else’s blog you should either accept that as logical or take it up with the blogger.

    If you respond to this with another blatant trolling which has nothing to do with this blog I will put you in moderation.

    This is not an agony aunt column.

    >

    Like

  241. Stuartg my conflict of interest is with corporatocracy which controls media. Ken has been talking about MH17 and may understand.

    Like

  242. Stuartg you are suggesting I have a conflict of interest when I ask for investigation of MMS. That technique of accusation is very prominent in the Ukraine conflict with USA allies accusing Russia of things the USA are doing themselves.

    Like

  243. soundhill,

    That sounds very much like you are avoiding the question and do have a conflict of interest.

    Like

  244. soundhill,

    “Stuartg you are suggesting I have a conflict of interest when I ask for investigation of MMS.”

    To place a medication on the market, the manufacturer/distributor has to make public some basic safety information. If that information is not available, then the manufacturer/distributor should not place it on the market until they can supply it, ie have done the research themselves.

    Claiming a chemical can cure lots of things, without giving doses, dose intervals, interactions, avoidance criteria and side effects is what snake oil salesmen do.

    You are doing it for MMS.

    I have suggested that you have a conflict of interest over MMS and am really interested that you have not denied the conflict of interest and then immediately tried two major changes of subject in an attempt to avoid the question and hide that you have been asked it.

    Sounds very much like a snake oil salesman to me.

    Like

  245. soundhill,

    Do you have a conflict of interest over MMS, or not?

    Where is the manufacturer/distributor basic safety information for MMS?

    Like

  246. No, Stuartg. It’s quite common to point out opposing sources’ possible bias, so as to warn readers against everything else they contribute, and not to give space when others try to point out your similar failings. I am OK with your comments because I know others may be reading this without seeing everything I write: some of my concerns about MMS so far have been included. That it tries to oxidise blood cells you have said and I have acknowledged. I say again those cells harbouring a parasite are already under some oxidative stress and more likely to die, so destroy the parasite. You or Chris have said that explanation was not clear. A number of medical treatments, especially cancer treatments, work by destroying the body’s cells in addition to the cancer and hope for regeneration which does however not always occur. In the MMS case it is hoped a dose will not kill healthy cells, but not certain. The body may warn with vomiting. This has been a learning process for me.

    Like

  247. soundhill,

    “That it tries to oxidise blood cells you have said and I have acknowledged.” No, you said that.

    What I said was that to get concentrations of MMS in the blood that would kill the intracellular malarial parasite, you need to reach concentrations that also kill human cells. Concentrations of MMS that kill malarial parasites in the petrie dish will also kill human cells in the same petrie dish. Concentrations of MMS in blood that will kill malarial parasites within the human body will also kill cells of the human body. I don’t see the point in killing the malaria if you also kill the human as well.

    You even acknowledged the problem yourself: “In the MMS case it is hoped a dose will not kill healthy cells, but not certain.” “…hope for regeneration which does however not always occur.” You hope? It’s a bit too late when people start dropping dead. I keep telling you, it’s up to the manufacturer/distributor to provide basic safety information BEFORE anything is marketed.

    “The body may warn with vomiting.” Or may not… People may just drop dead… …or may not. Where is that basic safety information that you keep avoiding telling us about?

    Your professed concerns about MMS are a front for something else. If your concerns were real then you would be asking for exactly the same basic safety information that I am.

    You have no wish that MMS be treated like prescription medications, otherwise you would be asking exactly the same questions that I am.

    Both Chris and I have said that we don’t want, or even need to know how MMS works. We just need to know that it does work. So far, neither you nor anybody else has shown that MMS works.

    (Quick examples: that gunpowder worked was known for centuries before people knew how it worked. Not knowing how gunpowder worked didn’t stop people from using it. That boats floated may have been known for millennia before it was worked out why. Not knowing why they floated didn’t stop people from putting out to sea.) (btw, that’s not a change of topic. I could use many medications as examples, but you would only use them to continue to avoid answering questions.)

    You are trying to sell MMS (using the sense of advertise) without providing indications, contraindications, doses, interactions, or side effects. That is the action of a snake oil salesman.

    You keep avoiding the question of your own conflict of interest over MMS, just like a snake oil salesman would.

    Now, do you have that basic safety information or not?

    Do you have a conflict of interest or not?

    Failing to answer tells us “No” and “Yes” respectively.

    Like

  248. Stuartg: “Concentrations of MMS that kill malarial parasites in the petrie dish will also kill human cells in the same petrie dish. Concentrations of MMS in blood that will kill malarial parasites within the human body will also kill cells of the human body.”

    No, and yes. Yes cells, that is some cells (a fuzzy part of English where you may hope people think all cells in contact with the oxidant, when you say “cells”), of the human body will be killed but more likely the infected ones. The malarial parasites will die if they do not have the blood cell to live in. Al least at certain stages. So it is not necessary to apply enough oxidant that will kill the parasites directly. The infected cells will be killed more easily, being already under stress. And when they are dead the parasites die inside them.

    That is a mechanism, which you don’t want to know about, but you described a mechanism.

    Like

  249. Stuartg, I do not have a conflict of interest in the sense that I am trying to sell MMS or promote it so that others may make a financial gain from it. Now please declare that about what you are promoting.

    Like

  250. soundhill,

    What am I promoting? Nothing. You are the one promoting MMS.

    All I’m doing is asking you to give us the basic safety information behind MMS.

    I’m asking about the science. You are providing us with junk science.

    Along the way of you never giving us the basic safety information, you have tried to divert down many other avenues. It’s almost as though you don’t want people to know how, or even if, they can take MMS safely. As a mild diversion, I’ve actually corrected more than a few errors in your knowledge about prescription medications and the function of the human body.

    Let’s do that again with another correction. Maybe more than one.

    “Malarial parasites will die if they do not have the blood cell to live in.” (I presume that you mean inside the human body, not inside Anopheles mosquitoes.) Wrong, again. Inside the human, they routinely live in liver cells (hepatocytes) as well. They can transfer between hepatocytes and erythrocytes. One of the worst types of malaria is cerebral malaria, where the malarial parasites are living in brain cells as well. So, malarial parasites definitely don’t die if they are outside the blood cell.

    “…all cells in contact with the oxidant…” By oxidant, I take it you mean the industrial bleach called MMS. Check out “volume of distribution.” All cells of the body are in contact with the circulatory system. They get their oxygen and nourishment from the blood. If you poisoned someone with MMS, then the blood stream is how it would reach every cell in the body. If cells don’t have a blood supply, they die. (Hint: look up “gangrene”)

    The theoretical volume of distribution of simple ions such as Cl is such that every cell in the human body would be exposed to equal concentrations on the outside. I say “theoretical” because the practical measurement of the volume of distribution of Cl would be too risky for ethics committees to allow it to happen. It would be as ethical as measuring the same for CN.

    If you did put MMS into the blood, intracellular malarial parasites would be exposed to a lower concentration of MMS than the erythrocytes or hepatocytes they were inside (hint: it’s called the diffusion gradient). Once the cell died and burst open (killed by MMS) the parasite would then be exposed to the full concentration of MMS in the blood, a strength that had already killed its host cell. This is obviously entirely theoretical because the manufacturer/distributor has never run the test.

    “Hesselink’s article is about the mechanism (of action of MMS).” And you believe it? Even Hesselink says “Nothing in this article is intended as medical advice. No claims, promises nor guarantees are made.” – or don’t you believe what Hesselink has actually written?

    As I said. I don’t need to know the mechanism of action of MMS. Nobody needs to know the mechanism of action of MMS. They do need to know if MMS works or not. So far, all of the data says “not.”

    Now, what is the basic safety information about MMS? The stuff that tells you the dose, dosage interval, contraindications, interactions and side effects? You know, it’s the simple stuff that you insist on knowing about any prescription medication before you take it.

    Like

  251. Actually, I think I do have a point of interest, although it’s not a conflict.

    I don’t want to see anyone die of MMS poisoning.

    Like

  252. @Stuartg wrote including partially quoting me: ““Malarial parasites will die if they do not have the blood cell to live in.” (I presume that you mean inside the human body, not inside Anopheles mosquitoes.) Wrong, again. Inside the human, they routinely live in liver cells (hepatocytes) as well. They can transfer between hepatocytes and erythrocytes. One of the worst types of malaria is cerebral malaria, where the malarial parasites are living in brain cells as well. So, malarial parasites definitely don’t die if they are outside the blood cell.”

    But I had added an extra sentence:
    “The malarial parasites will die if they do not have the blood cell to live in. Al least at certain stages.”

    I am still learning, but I understand those “certain stages” are fundamental.

    I gave this ref on my post referring to Gates, and maybe you thought it was about him and did not click on it.

    So I’ll type out the first bit and hope you can click on the rest. Maybe you even have access to this journal and could see the whole 1988 article. I would be interested to know more about it.

    “Complex adaptations are necessary for the survival of malaria parasites. Not only must plasmodia survive temporarily as as free living organisms (sporozoites or merosoites) but they also must be able to recognise an appropriate host red cell, penetrate and replicate within it. In the intraerythrocytic phase, successful replication of the parasite entails having as little adverse effect upon the red cell as possible. In the event that the host cell is damaged so that it cannot survive the necessary 49-72 h, the parasite is doomed because immature blood-form plasmodia cannot survive.”
    http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/jm00402a001

    Like

  253. soundhill,

    First, thanks for acknowledging you were wrong with “Malarial parasites will die if they do not have the blood cell to live in.”

    Even though you have been wrong with many other things, I think this is the first time you have acknowledged it.

    Your quote then confirms that the erythrocyte is not “under oxidative stress”, as you have said before, but tells us that its parasite has “as little adverse effect upon the red cell as possible”. It also confirms that the erythrocyte has to be killed before its malarial parasite becomes doomed. Both are directly contradictory to your quotes from Hesselink (who, of course, warned that nothing his article should be believed or was guaranteed.) It’s what happens when you cherry pick.

    “I would be interested to know more about it.” If this is true then there are many general medicine texts more recent that that 1998 article, any of which will bring you more up to date about malaria.

    If you are “still learning,” then I always recommend going back to learning the basics. Just trying the University of Google results in the cherry picking of papers that you don’t understand and don’t even know enough of the basics to know that you don’t understand (reference: Dunning-Kruger effect). Nice try on attempting to divert away from MMS though.

    Now, before someone ingests MMS, where is the basic safety information that they need to know? (Indications, contraindications, dosages, interactions, side effects)?

    Like

  254. “First, thanks for acknowledging you were wrong with “Malarial parasites will die if they do not have the blood cell to live in.” ”

    Ever had flesh eating bacteria? It’s very scary, advancing visibly by the hour.

    The fucithalmic acid treatment, if it works, does not kill the bacteria.

    It is a similar thing, it gets at the reproductive stage.

    Like

  255. soundhill,

    Trying to divert again?

    Before someone ingests MMS, where is the basic safety information that they need to know? (Indications, contraindications, dosages, interactions, side effects)?

    Like

  256. soundhill,

    “Ever had flesh eating bacteria? It’s very scary, advancing visibly by the hour.”

    Are you are referring to necrotising fasciitis?

    Why you mention antibiotic eye drops (fucithalmic acid) for deep seated fascial and skin infections is beyond me. But then I can’t understand why you would want to use MMS without it being tested for effectiveness or safety either.

    What is the basic safety information for MMS?

    Like

  257. Stuartg wrote: “First, thanks for acknowledging you were wrong with “Malarial parasites will die if they do not have the blood cell to live in.” ”

    Once again you have partially quoted me, missing “At least at certain stages.”

    I could have written, they will DIE OFF if their reproductive habitat is lost. That is they themselves try not to kill the red blood cells their multiplication happens in. But they do weaken those cells, which become easier to kill by oxidation of ClO2, or thereabouts.

    Like

  258. soundhill,

    You’ve already said that you are still learning.

    Go back to the basics.

    Go to a textbook. I’ve suggested a textbook of general medicine.

    Read the chapter on malaria.

    If you can be bothered, then go and read the references, then their references.

    Then you will know the basics of malaria.

    The references you have given so far directly contradict each other. That alone demonstrates that you have not understood the basics.

    You are cherry picking from Google, but you don’t know enough about the basics to recognise what you don’t know and don’t understand. It’s called the Dunning-Kruger effect.

    I want to understand about MMS. Show me the basic safety information about MMS that would contradict all the screeds of information I have about it being poisonous industrial bleach.

    Show me the basics about MMS, whilst you go off and learn the basics about malaria.

    Like

  259. Stuartg wrote: “Why you mention antibiotic eye drops (fucithalmic acid) for deep seated fascial and skin infections is beyond me.”

    You are always just trying to get me out and not offer helpful knowledge that you ought to have if you are working in iatrogenics.

    Sorry I should have said fusidic acid or sodium fusidate which is the active component in Foban as it is in Fucithalmic eye drops.

    Like

  260. soundhill,

    This is a blog. We can only read what you write.

    You write something.

    Someone corrects you.

    You then say “what I meant was…”

    Someone corrects that.

    You then say “what I meant was…”

    What you are doing is shifting the goalposts.

    My goalpost has always been the basic safety information behind MMS. By that I mean the stuff that you can read about for any prescription medication by opening the information sheet.

    You have been kicking in all sorts of directions without coming anywhere near the goalposts. Some of the “kicks” have been pushes, throws or headers. I’ve effectively been saying “yes, nice kick, you can do a bit better – but the goalposts are not in that direction, they are over there.”

    Now, where is the basic safety information about MMS?

    Like

  261. Stuartg: “I want to understand about MMS. Show me the basic safety information about MMS that would contradict all the screeds of information I have about it being poisonous industrial bleach.”

    Do you remember our exchange: “”Botox on both lists” Many things are on both lists.”?

    Like

  262. “What you are doing is shifting the goalposts.”

    I am learning. At the beginning of this I did not know about the sensitive stage of certain malaria parasites. The goalpost did not shift. I gained an understanding of how the toxic ClO2 could work, being dosed so as not to be strong enough to kill red blood cells unless they are already under stress such as from a replicating malaria parasite.

    Like

  263. “This is a blog. We can only read what you write.”
    A blog is a discussion or informational site on the WWW.
    A helpful blogger ought to say, “:Don’t you mean?” if they know.

    Like

  264. soundhill,

    “Sorry I should have said fusidic acid or sodium fusidate which is the active component in Foban as it is in Fucithalmic eye drops.”

    The problem is not what you “should” have said, but what you did say. No-one can reply to what you “should” have said unless you said it.

    You said “fucithalmic acid” not something else. I can only reply to “fucithalmic acid.” I can’t reply to anything else – you could have “meant” to say “State Highway 1,’ or “Betelgeuse,” or indeed anything else at all – but what you did say was “fucithalmic acid.”.

    Like

  265. soundhill,

    Yet again, you are kicking the ball nowhere near the goalposts. You are trying to divert us away from the goalposts. I have pointed out the goalposts many times.

    Where is the basic safety information about MMS?

    Like

  266. soundhill,

    “Do you remember our exchange: “”Botox on both lists” Many things are on both lists.”?”

    Of course I do.

    I refrained from pointing out that MMS isn’t on both lists. It’s only on the list of poisons.

    Where is the basic safety information about MMS?

    Like

  267. Stuartg wrote: “My goalpost has always been the basic safety information behind MMS. By that I mean the stuff that you can read about for any prescription medication by opening the information sheet.”

    And I have tried to give various analogies, getting on a moving train, playing in an international All Blacks match when you have not yet shown yourself doing that.

    Information sheets evolve. Wiki says too frequent use of fusidic acid is causing bacteria to become resistant.

    The MSDS for ClO2 as a treatment needs to evolve.

    This is a blog about what is junk science, and ought to be able to encompass change. Climate change science is becoming less junked. Big names like Rockefeller are getting out of fossil investments quite recently announced.

    But you want a static position in which only things already regstered and thaterefore have a medical MSDS may be classed as non-junk science. Even though they vary between countries, as with fusidic acid guidelines. Fusidic acid was reintroduced as other antibiotics lost their potency in an environment of bacterial adaptation. Now it is losing its potency, though it was very good for the fast growing dark-brown-black infection of a paper-cut-like scratch on my finger.

    Like

  268. soundhill,

    “Information sheets evolve.”

    I’m happy to accept ANY information sheet on MMS, as long as it covers the basic safety information.

    Where is the basic safety information about MMS?

    Like

  269. “I’m happy to accept ANY information sheet on MMS, as long as it covers the basic safety information.”

    At the moment the evolution of the safety information needs to get it on to “sheet” form.

    The information has been evolving in countries in which literacy may not be optimum. There we have the problem that farmers may not be able to read the instructions on pesticides. (That impacts not only their health but the health of countries they export to.) The video format for MSDS and cellphone technology may be a boon in that regard.

    Maybe someone will write the data from the videos down on a sheet. It may or may not be able to be done satisfactorily.

    A heavy object dropping from a high tower does not land directly below where it was dropped from. It took science some time to explain it. So you want evidence as well as the info sheet. That is evolving, too. Humble has tried to involve Gates, but Gates only wants stuff already on the USA-literate train.

    Like

  270. ffs soundhill.

    You are full of total s*it.
    Put a plug in it.

    Like

  271. soundhill,

    “But you want a static position in which only things already regstered and thaterefore have a medical MSDS may be classed as non-junk science.(sic)” You said that, not me.

    I agree with the international community about a substance intended to be used as a medication:
    What illness(es) are we going to use it for?
    What illness(es) have we to avoid using it?
    What dose do we give?
    What interactions have been recorded so far?
    What side effects have been recorded so far?

    All of that is basic safety information.

    That basic safety information is publicly available for every prescription medication before it gets to the market.

    MMS is listed as a poison. It is sold in containers marked “poison.” The containers have advice about emergency measures to take when someone ingests it, and who to call to get emergency advice and treatment. All of the publicly available information for MMS says, in effect, “do not ingest this substance, it will do you a lot of harm.” MMS can, and does, kill people.

    You want MMS to be freely available on the market, with no restrictions about who buys it, or what they do with it. So what are you doing to make sure those people are not poisoned by MMS?

    Where is the basic safety information about MMS?

    Like

  272. “You want MMS to be freely available on the market, with no restrictions about who buys it, or what they do with it.”

    No. Where it has evolved, written instructions, labels may be of little use.

    This thread is supposed to be about science, but appears to be about conventions.

    Like

  273. Richard, give me your correction then.
    “Bill Gates told Jim Humble that he wouldn’t consider looking at sodium chlorite solution until it was tested and approved by the FDA.”
    http://g2cforum.org/index.php/list/general-discussion/1447-gates-foundation-invests-10-million-in-vaccines-developer

    Like

  274. soundhill.

    Final note.

    I agree with Richard.

    You don’t learn the basics, so the Dunning-Kruger effect is strong and the science of your arguments weak to non-existent.

    You keep using junk science to promote MMS, an industrial bleach which is also a listed poison, as a “medicine.”

    I have asked you tens of times for the basic safety information about MMS. The information I asked for is just the same as is freely available for every prescription medication.

    You have prevaricated, diverted and done many other things in order not to admit that there is no basic safety information about MMS.

    You are correct in that the thread has been about junk science. You have supplied a high percentage of the examples of junk science, for which I thank you.

    The amazing thing is that I do not believe that you have recognised what you have been doing.

    Now, put a plug in it.

    Like

  275. Stuartg I am not promoting MMS I am examining the limited logic by which it has been classed as junk science. Looking to the future it may have a place. I have reported examples of where it is used as an adjunct with other medications such as cancer chemotherapy.
    Wiki says fusidic acid should not be used by itself in some jurisdictions. So is that a problem of the fusidic acid or the jurisdictions or both?

    Possibly same with chlorite, maybe should not be used by itself..
    Hope for a science discussion which looks to the future and not for one which seeks to perpetuate the exisitng.

    Like

  276. I think I might be joining the Skeptics movement:
    The Government was considering guidelines to scientists on the difference between speaking about their areas of expertise, and advocacy.
    A total of 384 New Zealand scientists answered the Association of Scientists’ survey, half of whom work in Crown research institutes, or CRIs.
    Association president Nicola Gaston said of those who had not felt gagged, many said they had witnessed it happening to others.
    “There’s an issue around embarrassing the Government, but the funding issue is quite poor so the kinds of commercial funding that come into the CRIs, those contracts are one particular issue.
    “But there’s also the idea of Government funding being effected by speaking out, saying the wrong things, perhaps having a point of view which is not that of the expert reviewers on a particular funding proposal.”
    Dr Gaston said most scientists wanted to know what the new ethics code would be before saying whether they were for or against it.

    Like

  277. I am sure you would enjoy the NZ Skeptics Trev. I understand they have some great discussions on fluoridation.

    You might enjoy them.

    Like

  278. @T A Crosbie. Skeptic or not always need to be careful not to cherry pick research. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/26/opinion/the-problem-with-prostate-screening.html?_r=1

    Like

Leave a Reply: please be polite to other commenters & no ad hominems.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s