Talk:Miracle Mineral Supplement/Archive 1

Neutrality
The medical reveiws may be the only source you can obtain, but it hasn't been banned, and it hasn't been made illegal. People who are claiming health benefits should not be isolated or shunned out. As long as this product is not proven to be toxic, then we cannot assume it is. Anyone can tell that the article is biased at its current point. PLus, the article disambig. page shows "industrial" MMS was proposed as an alternative health product.

Despite all of your feelings towards this, can we make this a non- "us v.s. them" article, please?Tornado1555 (talk) 17:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * People who 'claim health benefits' for substances they sell, without proper approval, tend to find themselves in legal trouble rather rapidly in most parts of the world - in case you hadn't noticed, Jim Humble and his cronies are using all sorts of smokescreens to pretend they aren't selling it as such. And yes, MMS (or at least, the same substance, when sold for 1/50th the price) is toxic, and has been shown to be. As for the 'article disambig page', I'm unclear what you are referring to.


 * And, to clear up any possible doubt after the hogwash we got from the IP, can you let us know whether you are in any way connected with MMS, or with Jim Humble. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It is actually illegal to sell MMS as medicine and it is a toxic chemical, that's not in dispute here. As for the smoke screens, I proposed the addition of one example right here Talk:Miracle_Mineral_Supplement before it was completely hijacked by that IP editor. Now that the IP is gone I might suggest the edit again. I agree that the article READS a bit biased, but in this case, I strongly support erring on the side of caution rather then leniency. The people involved don't deserve leniency. Vespine (talk) 21:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

 From MMS. Actually I have decided to not write any more concerning MMS in Wikipedia after this. So I wanted to take the time to thank you all (Yobol, Vespine, AndyTheGump, and Novangelis) for you totally biased attitudes and your lies. Maybe the lies were caused by your bias and you don't even notice them, but then of course, you you obviously don't want to notice. One example would be that you reference a Newspaper that is still mentioning the sudden death of an Australian woman when that death has now been completely disproved at this time.

But you don't understand, I appreciate the lies and partial truths that you continue to spout. I noticed you again erased everything I said about how the references on the Article page does not apply, but again I appreciate that as well. Please be my guest and continue with those references and lies, and by all means keep those stupid references. You see, the public don't appreciate such writings. They love to check such lies out for themselves. You see, around the world when the FDA spouts it lies we get and increase in interest in MMS and more people to our Seminars and Sales of our DVD's. And amazing, when the Government New Zealand put up their lies, same thing happened, more public interest, and that was true both in Canada and England. Then in the Netherlands the Government really created a big rush to MMS.

You must realize, of course, that the reason such negative attention helps us so much is that we can dispel the lies so easily as you guys write data against the standard chemistry. I am not going to point it out to you. I appreciate you as you are. Although you will still cause the death of a few who have cancer who believe you, you will still be the impetus behind thousands learning about MMS. The reason is I can refudiate all your lies easily and with the standard references that Wikipedia is always talking about. You see, Chemistry is chemistry and it works whether you guys like it or not. My sites will put up Wikibedia as a Web Site that lies with bias. My site on the Internet will always come up right next to Wikipedia and with my notice many more people will want to ready your article on MMS and then my rebuttal. I only tell you this because you guys don't have enough sense to know the damage you have been doing. And now you can't help it. If you stop and allow a good article, you will do good, and if you don't stop and keep on as you are not doing, you will still do good. You can't loose and I can't loose. So thanks for being you. Keep up the good work.DataBishop (talk) 16:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

MMS
I read the book written by Jim Humble .. (first part) mms-articles.com/MMSbook1.pdf

This artile doesn't mention him btw yet -- gonna correct that one when I am done reading the second part. To me it just seems to be a perfect example as of now of a wikipedia article that just takes the critical standpoint without giving any of the reported (they are not just claims anymore if you get results even if the clinical study is made in Africa) benefits. -- some NPOV would be nice

I personally do have some medical education so I would have to say that he does have a (for me strong) point and it is worth a look at least.

Fist and foremost the dosage makes something beneficial or toxic.

btw i saw mutiple articles on wikipedia which use language which for me sounds not at all like a NPOV especially in the area of disputed fields where just one side is mentioned and the other one if mentioned is ridiculed. --Ebricca (talk) 13:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I have also been trying to research this issue because a close relative of mine has started purchasing MMS, even though they claim "Jim Humble" makes no money from it (?!?!) . The problem is it "sounds POV" to someone who assigns "equal weight" to both arguments, but just because there are two arguments, does not mean both have equal weight. This is in itself not unreasonable. If one person claimed the world was flat and another that the world was round, if you didn't know you would say Wikipedia is not NPOV because it does not present the argument for a flat earth. The fact is that there is overwhelming evidence that the world is round. Does that mean everything in science is set in stone and can't be challenged? Definitely not! But if someone comes along and claims that the world is a square, they better have some damn good evidence!!


 * The main problem I've found with MMS is that none of the claims made by Jim are corroborated ANYWHERE else in the media or medical literature, except for sites promoting MMS as a miracle cure. There is no documented record of 75000 people being cured of malaria in Africa using MMS treatment outside of his own claims. 75000 people is not insignificant, that would take a substantial effort, where is all the evidence? Jim's followers would claim it's part of a global "cover up" by big pharma. Countless people would have been involved, this would have been documented and reported, who funded it? Who's taking credit for it? Where are the records? This is the biggest hurdle for me, regardless of whether MMS has ANY health benefit, i simply do not believe it cures malaria let alone aids and cancer but there are no real doctors with real dying patients willing to try this stuff? Every doctor on the whole planet has been "baught out" by big pharma? I would just about believe it if we were in stalin soviet russia, but not globally in the information age. This is enough for me to call BUNK to the whole affair.


 * If you read about malaria and the global effort that goes into fighting this horrible disease, you would quickly realise that doctors without borders and the countless other volunteer and charity organizations would IMMEDIATELY seize on any cheap malaria treatment if it was indeed effective. Their activity in Africa has no ties to any big pharma companies. If 75000 people were really cured by this, 5 years would not go by without someone taking a serious look at it. Bill Gates through his foundation has donated over 180 million dollars to malaria treatment research. There ARE real treatments of malaria, one of the most effective has been artemisinin a derivative of a common plant. When it was discovered by modern medicine, they pounced on it because they recognised its efficacy in treating malaria. China has used it as a herbal medicine for a thousand years but when the west heard about it the chinese were not keen to share it with the rest of the world, fearing they would be "exploited". Well exploited it has been!! No thanks to China in this case, when the west worked out for them selves what the plant was they exploited it to the fullest possible extent! There was no "Big Pharma" conspiracy to cover it up, millions of dollars were been spent to grow as much of the stuff as possible, and when they couldn't grow any more but they still had a shortage they spent even more money and discovered how to synthesize it!! Now it is an integral part of the treatment of malaria and it is making substantial progress.
 * In may last year it was reported in Rwanda that malaria was down 60% over the last two years, http://www.rwandagateway.org/article.php3?id_article=11259 . Note there is NO mention of MMS or Jim Humble. If he really had this cure, do you REALLY believe there are NO native doctors in those African countries that care more for their people then for the American drug companies? I don't believe it. The global effort to fight malaria is REAL, Jim Humble's involvement in it is a work of fiction.


 * Exactly the same story goes for AIDS.


 * I've only recently learned how to use pubmed and http://clinicaltrials.gov/, do yourself a favour and do a search for some papers published about real medicine like artemisenin, you will get hundreds if not thousands of studies, then search "Sodium dichlorite" and you will plainly see, the research isn't there simply because it does not work, except as a water purifier and a mouthwash. When you are done with that, read up about the discoveries which people are winning noble prizes for, then read Nature or Science magazine and open your eyes to the REAL science and discoveries that are around us and it quickly becomes obvious there is no global cover up, there are REAL scientists all over the world making real discoveries trying to help humanity. People like Humble are peddlers of snake oil and fraudsters of the worst kind. Vespine (talk) 04:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I couldn't have put it better myself. Smartse (talk) 21:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Vespine so you did read the humble book and made some checkups on the data offered? Or it is just what you read from other sources? Did you see effects on your close relative, did he already take it and what is the problem / reason for the intake? It's clear you are concerned ..


 * I don't disagree that one has to first take a look at evidence / start your own checkups of validity .. The thing is if anybody would find something of high importance that would put big business at risk the business would certainly try to squash the finding -- this is just common sense to me. Same goes for whistle blowing. Many things come to mind if you go into this area. (For me there is no doubt that there exist gag orders for public media -- so things won't be published - see wikileaks.org)


 * My own opinion is that nobody should trust sources not with taking a look at the dispute / and the dispute should also be mentioned in a good article without pov -- to put it to flat vs round earth is simplistic / though flat was "believed"/known to the public for a much longer time -- clinicaltrials.gov might be good for some info but it seems to me to be from the FDA or at least from plain US sources - I don't think all trials get "accepted".


 * In the field of medicine take a look at trials made -- the researchers/doctors who find disturbing facts are ridiculed and silenced. ex. Genetically modified food -> Monsanto/Roundup - Vaccinations -> questionable ingredients like Thiosulfate etc questioned efficacy / even danger -- often they opt for not publishing results (accept the loss of work / no money) or even changing statistics to get to a more desirable outcome and be rewarded the money for the trial / a good work position.


 * To my knowledge much medical research is inhibited as there is no money in it heard this in medical lectures -- there doesn't exist an independent fund to my knowledge. To really think that the so called "benefit funds" are without implied interests (like the Bill Gates Fund) is short sighted for me. My opinion is that they are used to enter closed markets and open them up -- ex HIV medication in India a big market and I read criticism about it.


 * About MMS/Humble - what I read in his book: -It seems that it got written quite recently 2006 / publishing getting on track in 2008 / more known in 2009, -the other "trials" made by WHO etc being made not following protocol (seem like designed for discredit). (additionally animal testing is a tool, it explicitly doesn't show all aspects of the human immune system)


 * Ebricca (talk) 12:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The fact is that Jim Humble's book is not a reliable source for information regarding the effectiveness of MMS. There are reliable sources demonstrating that it appears to be a quack prodcut and until there is evidence to suggest otherwise published in a reliable source the article should stay as it is. I've looked for sources myself before but couldn't find any information except from people selling the stuff. Would you really trust what I said about a magic cure-all elixir if I was trying to sell it to you? Smartse (talk) 13:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry i'm going to rant on now, you asked for it;
 * Ebricca. Re your 1st question, no I have not read the book as that would require me to pay for it! Most of the information I have gathered is from his websites and the websites of his proponents. Notice how one of his big claims is that he is SO altruistic, he's doing this only for the benefit of humanity, you can read his book for free (in small print: well the 1st part is free, the REAL useful 2nd part you have to pay for) and he makes no money from it because it's so easy to make it yourself (in small print: but the majority of people are paying $20 a bottle for it). Isn't that enough to set off alarm bells? I'm not going to contribute to his scam by buying the book. Even the person I know completely fell for it! They proclaimed to me oh it's so cheap you can make it yourself! While holding up the bottle they paid $20 for! When the bottle probably costs 20 cents to produce.


 * The point of showing you pubmed is to show you how many REAL discoveries are being made by real scientists, that you can read and reproduce really for FREE. A lot of them working for universities still studying their field. Do you really think "big pharma" can keep up with ALL of them and suppress the ones it "doesn't like" ? When a paper is submitted for anonymous peer review do you really think "big pharma" has a hand in ultimately deciding in what gets published and what doesn't? In all the thousands of scientific journals in every country in the entire world? Can't you see how credulous that belief is? Do you really believe that NOT one single ambitious medical student would prove the efficacy of MMS and try to save the world with it? Do you really believe MSF would not be interested in a cheap and effective cure for malaria and aids? That their "real" goal is to "open up markets" for drug companies? How would big pharma even KNOW where a lot of research is heading? Most research when it starts doesn't really know what it might lead to. Case in point: when the 1st couple of papers came in about MMS as a mouth wash and a disinfectant, why weren't those papers suppressed? Was it only when they started submitting studies that it was effective against diseases that they decided to suppress it? The research scientists involved were murdered or intimidated or paid off and all their evidence was destroyed? No one else ever followed it up? No one wanted to "leak" the information? All you have to do is begin to grasp the process of peer review and it becomes immediately obvious that the magnitude of the conspiracy required to actually undertake that kind of endeavour is just so enormous that it would not be possible. 10% of the population would need to be secret agents working for the pharma companies with NO defectors or people ever leaking information or anything! Or the alternative is that one guy is a fraud and a liar, and he's suckered a bunch of people with his hog wash. Now which is more believable? To see a REAL example of a big company trying to suppress opinion, read about the case of Simon Singh, he spoke his mind and a big association of chiropractors is trying to sue him for it. This is A REAL case of a big organization trying to push its weight around against a single person representing SCIENCE. I agree, there is a lot of "Jim's" evidence on the net and there does not seem to be enough contrary evidence really debunking his claims, but that just means that no one has had the time or the money to seriously investigate him, if I had the money I would fly to Africa and check out his clinic my self but then if I reported that it was all a hoax I would no doubt get labelled as just a "big pharma" agent or whatever. Vespine (talk) 03:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Theories of conspiracy and lack of evidence providing positive health effects in vitro aside, the safety concerns listed in the article are misleading. At a 28% solution there are 28 grams of NaClO2 per 100mL of water. The maximum recommended dosage I have seen is 15 drops. The main proponent of MMS (Jim Humble) suggests a 10 drop maximum in his "fundamentals" page. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drop_(volume) the "medical" drop size is 1/12mL, which, from a cursory glance, seems to be the largest measurement for a drop. With this in mind, users of MMS are suggested to consume at max 1.25mL (fifteen 1/12mL drops) of 28% solution, which is roughly equivalent to 0.35g of sodium chlorite. From my research, it is rarely suggested to drink "activated" MMS without further diluting it with at least half a cup to a cup of water, because the taste can be unpleasant. The chemical reaction that takes place further reduces the amount of available sodium chlorite and further invalidates the relevance of the claims about its potential safety hazards as they are currently displayed. To conclude, the current safety warning should be replaced with more scientifically sound evidence. The safety warning should also include information about Chlorine Dioxide. Whether you like it or not, people are taking this substance and are completely disregarding obviously bias information as the work of conspirators. Knoweqpow (talk) 03:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I may not be a medical "expert" or the like, I may not be a chemist, I may be just 13 years old, but I know that this article is at the least bias. The directions for taking MMS dont say that you take the product directly, but rather, it says that you should take the product with plently of citric acid (lemon) and not taking it plain. How about asking Humble about the formula? No? He could lie? You cant logically think that just because someone has a medical lisense, that they are "masters of their field"... For instance... take meteorologists with PhDs in severe storms. They know alot about the severe weather thunderstorms, hail, and the like, but yet they only know so much about a tornado, or how those frogs landed out of the sky alive... If you can't get my drift, how about taking the formula to a chemist (preferably a non-medical one) for a breakdown or analysis? How about giving equal attention to other drugs that are made up of questionable chemicals with names that you cant even pronounce (they can, and do kill, too), give me a reference to someone who followed the directions for taking MMS and got some serious health ailment. Don't just denounce this just because it sounds too good to be true, look into it a bit more then snatching headlines and referencing other's findings. Tornado1555 (talk) 20:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Until its possible that you can integrate claims and balance the positive with the negative (unbias POV), I believe that this article can't correctly exist with out just giving out the issued--- and sometimes bias information. Until I can go out and say that after taking MMS my heavy flu went out the window in 1 day, which I can't because wikipedia requires references... I personally believe this article should be temporarily deleted. Tornado1555 (talk) 21:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

'''Well, let's see, the guidlines say that these discussions should be on how to improve the Article. So let me suggest some improvements.''' I suggest that the listed references actually attempt to in some way prove the contentions of the author. Just to quote some reference that are not revelent to the authors contention that MMS is a fraud does not seem to me to be fair, and way less than truthful. FOR EXAMPLE: Reference #4. This link goes to a .pdf file which is a summary of testing done on sodium chlorite (MMS), ClO2 and sodium chlorate. High doses were found to cause some harm but low doses similar to those recommended and instructed for MMS were harmless. So this is a reference, but it was given after declaring MMS to be a toxic chemical. It does not in any way give evidence that MMS is toxic or harmful. If there is any proof given here it proves that MMS is not harmful.

ANOTHER EXAMMPLE: Reference #5. This link (http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/media/advisories-avis/_2010/2010_74-eng.php) goes to Health Canada – A page warning consumers not to take MMS. Describing it as being at 28% sodium chlorite. Health Canada has been attacking http://mmssupplier.com/ but the site is still selling it. (HEALTH CANADA GOT THERE INFORMATION FROM THE US FDA I FOUND BY A TELEPHONE CALL AT THAT TIME. THE US FDA RECEIVED SEVERAL PHONE CALLS WHICH WERE NO MORE THAN SOMEONE WITH A STOMACH ACHE. ONE CALL STATED THAT THEY EXPERIENCED LOW BLOOD PRESSURE.  I LEARNED BY A PHONE CALL TO THE FDA AT THAT TIME THAT THE FDA DID NOT INVESTIGATE ANY OF THE CALLS. SO THESE AGENCIES MAKE STATEMENTS, THAT DON'T THEN MAKE THE STATEMENTS PROOF OF ANYTHING.  I'M SORRY, BUT IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE IT, PLEASE CALL THEM UP.  ASK WHERE THEIR REFERENCE IS TO THE DATA THAT THEY GAVE AT THE TIME.

ANOTHER EXAMPLE: Reference #6 “Acute sodium chlorite poisoning associated with renal failure” There was no link to this article. A google search found it at an NIH site (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8290712) The abstract says it’s about a man who tried to commit suicide by taking 10 g of NaCl. (THIS MAN MAY HAVE EXPERIENCE RENAL FAILURE.) BUT THERE WAS NO DEATH RPORTED AND THERE ARE NO RECORDS OF ANY DEATHS RESULTING FROM RENAL FAILURE FROM SODIUM CHLORITE AND NO DEATH WAS REPORTED FOR THIS SUICIDE ATTEMPT. HOWEVER, SINCE SODIUM CHLORITE IS NOT INCLUDED IN ANY MMS DOSES THIS EXAMPLE IS A MOOT POINT.

ANOTHER EXAMPLE: Reference #7. This citation is an FDA news release dated July 30, 2010. MMS is said to contain “industrial strength bleach”. It says, “High oral doses of this bleach, such as those recommended in the labeling, can cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and symptoms of severe dehydration.” (PAPER LIES STILL AND YOU CAN WRITE ANYTHING ON IT AND EVIDENTLY COMPUTERS TOO, AS THE FDA HAS NO EVIDENCE OF THIS AND THERE IS NONE. THE "HIGH ORAL DOSES" THAT THEY SUGGEST HERE WERE 7000 TIMES LESS THAN WHAT THE FDA CLAIMS IN ITS 28% MMS CLAIM. The reference is my Web Site where I tell the world to take 7000 times less than what the FDA is talking about.  This web site has been up for 4 years. HIGH ORAL DOES ARE NOT RECOMMENDED IN THE LABELING OF MMS.

EXAMPLE 8. This is a link to the www.miraclemineral.org sit for downloading Part 1 to the MMS book.

EXAMPLE 9. This link goes to an FDA site tha tpost a copy of a warning letter they sent to Jenne M. Cohoon in Provo, UT. telling her that MMS (along with 4 other items for sale)are drugs and she is violating an Act by selling them with the text on her site. It then quotes some of her site's claims for each of the items. She has 15 days to correct her violations. This letter contains nothing that is revelent to MMS and no tests or other links to data of any kind.

EXAMPLE 10 THIS LINK GOES NOWHERE.

EXAMPLE 11: Link goes to www.quackwatch.org. The above quote is #8 in his list of “Ten Ways to Avoid Being Quacked”. (DO YOU SEE, QUACKWATCH IS DOING EXACTLY WHAT HE ACUSES OTHERS OF DOING. HE DOESN'T KNOW THAT THERE IS NO SUCH THINGS AS A PANACEA, THE FACT IS THAT THERE IS. THIS MAN STATES HIS OPINION, BUT IT DOES NOT LEND ANY TRUTH TO THE AUTHOR'S STATEMENTS THAT MMS IS FALSE. iT'S JUST A PERSONAL OPINION.

EXAMPLE 12: Link goes to a news report of BBC online (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-11540146) that quotes the same FDA text about “"MMS is a 28% sodium chlorite solution which is equivalent to industrial-strength bleach…” A teenager with Crohn’s disease reported some websites selling MMS and is quoted at the end as saying, “"I was just warning about the Miracle Mineral Solution. I think it is worrying that it is effectively industrial-strength bleach. The people who are taking it are told the vomiting, diarrhea and nausea are signs that it is working." THE FACT IS IT IS NOT INDUSTRIAL STRENGTH BLEACH. IT IS THOUSANDS OF TIMES WEAKER THAN INDUSTRIAL STRENGTH (DO YOU SEE? THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC REFERENCES IN ANY OF THESE REFERENCES. THE WRITER HAS WRITTEN A COMPLETE ARTICLE DEBUNKING MMS WHILE GIVING NO REFERENCES THAT HAVE ANY COLLABORATING EVIDENCE, BUT INSTEAD SHOWING 10 REFERENCES THAT ARE FALSE AS FAR AS VERIFYING HIS DATA IS CONCERNED.

I AM NOT ADVERTISING MMS. I AM JUST TRYING TO LEAD YOU IN LOOKING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. I DO NOT FEEL THAT IT IS MY JOB TO PROVE MMS TO YOU. I DISCOVERED IT, I SPENT YEARS AND THOUSANDS OF HOURS BRINGING IT TO THE PUBLIC, I TRAVELED TO AFRICA AND OTHER COUNTRIES SHOWING THAT IT WORKS. I DO NOT THEN FEEL THAT IT IS ALSO MY JOB TO SPOON FEED IT TO YOU. I MENTION WHAT IT DOES. IF YOU ARE NOT INTERESTED THAT'S YOUR LOSS. THERE ARE THOUSANDS THAT ARE INTERESTED AND THOUSANDS WHO HAVE BECOME WELL.DataBishop (talk) 04:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * DataBishop, you have told us on your talk page that you are Jim Humble, the promoter of this ridiculous quackery. Do you really expect anyone to take you seriously? Take your garbage elsewhere. Wikipedia isn't a forum for snake-oil salesmen, nut-cases, and other promoters of delusion. I suspect you may actually believe your own lunatic theories, but that is no reason to expect anyone else to. So no, we "ARE NOT INTERESTED" in your opinions. We are however interested in showing how harmful bogus medical claims are, particularly when involving the ingestion of toxic substances (sold, incidentally at 50 times the normal price). Though Wikipedia has its flaws, it does at least have a method for detecting obvious hogwash - I can give you plenty of evidence from 'satisfied customers' on this - and we aren't doing it for personal gain, either. Personally, I contribute to Wikipedia mainly out of satisfaction for improving a freely-available resource a little, rather than out of any greater motivation, but if I can prevent just one poor sucker from swilling overpriced bleach, Id say I've made a positive contribution to the good of humankind. I doubt very much that the same will ever be said of you... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

How much is 100 mg/l. Is that alot compared to 5 drops per serving. Anyone out there no this answer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.24.23.61 (talk) 23:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In asking how much is contained in 'a serving', you seem to be implying that you are going to drink it. Don't, it is toxic - read the article, and then use any you have to clean your drains, as the chemical was manufactured for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

MMS is not Sodium Chlorite but Chlorine Dioxide
Smartse - The information you have put int this page is simply misleading. I have changed it and added supporting links to all the claims I have made, and yet you're determined to put the wrong info back. What is your purpose? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.69.25.72 (talk) 21:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Please read the threads above, I think they cover most things. There is an independent, reliable source saying it is sodium chlorite. Unless you have a different source from an independent source (not Jim Humble) then please add it to the article. Smartse (talk) 11:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I have read the threads. you are constantly promoting it to be Sodium chlorite despite Knoweqpow comment to correct you. The substance used for disinfection of municipal water is Chlorine Dioxide and not Sodium chlorite - exectly the same as MMS.The only relationship between these two is that in some conditions Chlorine Dioxide breakes into Sodium Chlorit (see chapter 4 in EPA Guidance Manual - Alternative Disinfectants and Oxidants - second link below).

Here are two links that are not sponsored by Jim Humble: http://bioredox.mysite.com/CLOXhtml/CLOXilus.htm http://www.epa.gov/ogwdw000/mdbp/alternative_disinfectants_guidance.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.69.25.72 (talk) 17:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * MMS is sodium chlorite, when it is mixed with the food acid during preparation it becomes acidified sodium chlorite which either is or it releases chlorine dioxide. Quote from Jim's site
 * "We now know that the chlorine dioxide chemical generated by MMS does not remain in the body more than one or two hours at most."
 * Operative word there being generated BY MMS.. In Either case, i don't think it's really THAT relevant to the article. We have to be a bit careful how we treat this article, after investigating MMS and Jim Humble for a few months now I actually agree that the safety section is a bit over the top, but I would also more blatantly point out that it is a scam, even in the opening paragraph. Problem is finding reliable sources as references. Pity scientists don't get paid to debunk all the quacks that come along. Vespine (talk) 06:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, sodium chlorite requires a strong acid to produce chlorine dioxide. Citric acid is a weak, not a strong acid. Therefore, any ClO2 it produces is exceedingly small. 84.92.73.137 (talk) 16:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Integrate CDC Study of Chlorine Dioxide please
Somebody please integrate this?

http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/content/1/4/334.short

Controlled Clinical Evaluations of Chlorine Dioxide, Chlorite and Chlorate in Man. Lubbers, J.R., Chauhan, S. and Bianchine, J.R. (1981). Fundam. Appl. Toxicol. 1:334–338. To assess the relative safety of chronically administered chlorine water disinfectants in man, a controlled study was undertaken. The clinical evaluation was conducted in the three phases common to investigational drug studies. Phase I, a rising dose tolerance investigation, examined the acute effects of progressively increasing single doses of chlorine disinfectants to normal healthy adult male volunteers. Phase II considered the impact on normal subjects of daily ingestion of the disinfectants at a concentration of 5 mg/L for twelve consecutive weeks. Persons with a low level of glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase may be expected to be especially susceptible to oxidative stress (Moore, 1980b); therefore, in Phase III, chlorite at a concentration of 5 mg/L, was administered daily for twelve consecutive weeks to a small group of potentially at-risk glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficient subjects. Physiological impact was assessed by evaluation of a battery of qualitative and quantitative tests. The three phases of this controlled double-blind clinical evaluation of chlorine dioxide and its potential metabolites in human male volunteer subjects were completed uneventfully. There were no obvious undesirable clinical sequellae noted by any of the participating subjects or by the observing medical team. In several cases, statistically significant trends in certain biochemical or physiological parameters were associated with treatment; however, none of these trends was judged to have physiological consequence. One cannot rule out the possibility that, over a longer treatment period, these trends might indeed achieve proportions of clinical importance. However, by the absence of detrimental physiological responses within the limits of the study, the relative safety of oral ingestion of chlorine dioxide and its metabolites, chlorite and chlorate, was demonstrated.

173.186.209.145 (talk) 03:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC) (Jay)


 * No because this study has nothing to do with MMS. Vespine (talk) 06:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Then just remove ALL references to chlorine dioxide. DOH!  Article has everything to do with MMS.  MMS is used to PRODUCE chlorine dioxide.  The study is about the safety of chlorine dioxide in man AS WELL AS CHLORITE AND CHLORATE (read title of study), which INCLUDES sodium chlorite (MMS).  This level of blatant opinion pushing (to the point of ignoring the basic title of the study) is incredible.  Amazing how the editors of this subject would like to include every negative article they can find and omit a perfectly valid controlled clinical study.  Do we see an emerging agenda anyone? User:Shuzammy (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've seen the emerging agenda from the very start: A small group of people are perpetrating a disgusting fraud and selling snake oil. They're making money off people of who many are poor, desperate and most tragically: sick! Even though they CLAIM the science is really very simple, after well over 5 years there is still NOT ONE SINGLE SCRAP of verified scientific evidence to directly support MMS! Even though they claim to have cured over 100,000 people of malaria just in Africa! Where's a scrap of evidence of that by the way? They claim they can't spare the effort and resources to conducting a proper study, but they have the resources to cure 100,000 people in Africa. Can't you smell the bullshit? If they had the records of those people cured, there's your scientific study right there! Where is it? What happened to the people involved in curing 100,000 human beings? They vanished? Wiped out by big pharma? Come on, surely if you think about it for a while you have to see how ridiculous the story is. Instead they try to piggy back their claims onto real research just because it uses some of the same words. (even though one of their claims is that "real research is being suppressed", go figure that out! lol..) Here, I'll spell it out for you: One claims that you can drink MMS with some lomon juice and it will cure you of aids, malaria, cancer and whatever else ails you, the other is a study to examine the safety of water purified with various chlorines. In what way does the study support MMS again? if you still don't agree, read the above sentence again a few more times. The people who conducted the study obviously didn't jump to the conclusion that their findings in some way support MMS, just because YOU jump to that conclusion it doesn't mean you can start pushing your theories in an encyclopedia. Publish your theories in a peer reviewed journal and then cite that in this article, I'll happily concede.  Vespine (talk) 02:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

May I remind you that Pharm. makes a bunch of money off of excessive medicine while practically sanctioning and shunning potential other treatments- Come on, the treatment of this article is like saying that "We shouldn't take Valium because overdose can cause a coma". Its no different. Tornado1555 (talk) 20:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The doses of the chemicals used in this study are much weaker than MMS. 84.92.73.137 (talk) 16:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Portable Water Purification
I strongly disagree with the recent edit adding this sentence : "Chlorine Dioxide tablets are used frequently for portable water purification. " Chlorine dioxide as used in portable water purification is NOT MMS. The method of application and concentrations are completely different! Specifically, the way chlorine dioxide is used to purify water is considered SAFE and the way sodium chlorite is used in MMS is NOT SAFE! Comparing the two is how people get fooled into thinking MMS is safe. Vespine (talk) 06:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Poor article all around...
When reading this article it is obvious to me that the tone is angry and decidedly against this admittedly suspect alternative therapy. The article should be much shorter without all the cherry picked references to how detrimental this chemical is to our health. It needs to have an informational tone. The reference to animal studies is selective; specifically in the case of observed impaired thyroid function in monkeys. In the reference it states that "A statistically significant decrease of serum thyroxine occurred after the fourth week of exposure to 100 mg/l concentration. The extent of thyroid suppression was dose dependent in each individual monkey, and was reversible after cessation of exposure." Not a wining argument for this "cure" but the way the reference is used is downright scary. Statistically significant is quite often misunderstood, this effect is measurable but obviously not serious and reversible. The article states "MMS is not approved for the treatment of any disease and chronic exposure to small doses of chlorine dioxide could cause reproductive and neurodevelopmental damage, according to the EPA.[15]" Once again scary and inaccurate. I have a bottle of mouthwash (which I bought at a chain drug store) in my bathroom which contains chlorine dioxide as it's primary active ingredient so it must be safe enough for the FDA, at least in some form. And since when does the EPA determine the medical benefits of any substance? If you go to the wiki article for chlorine dioxide it says as much about the use in mouthwash. This article should state what the cure claims to do, the fact there are no studies to back it up and reference the other wiki articles that cover the chemicals involved in this purported cure. That would probably be enough to cover this topic. It is obvious that the main authors of this article are demonstrating bias. The writing is poor in the sense that it has redundant references to the negative effects of chlorine dioxide and the feeling that it has an agenda. Yes, a dubious "health" product to say the least. But this is a good example of what an article should not look like. Wikipedia is not here to protect people, and if one is desperate enough to try this product an article like this will not dissuade them. If you would like to be scared look up what Tylenol can do if taken improperly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.43.221.94 (talk) 00:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi there.. Using paragraph indents actually has a different formatting function in wikipedia so I've removed them from your post to make it more readable. Thanks for your input, while some of the points you raise do not seem unreasonable, the reasons you provide to support them are completely invalid. I would bet you that the usage instructions for your mouth wash advise to spit it out, not swallow it, so it really has nothing to do with MMS. Secondly, our Tylenol article does have a quite a thorough "dangers" section and also links to the article on Paracetamol so whatever point you are trying to make with your "If you would like to be scared look up what Tylenol can do if taken improperly."  comment really makes no sense. I would actually tend to agree with you that the safety section of this article isn't very well written, but I strongly believe that in a case like this it is more then justifiable to err on the side of caution rather then leniency. Vespine (talk) 22:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Part of me thinks there is no way to satisfy both sides on this article. When this lock until March 11 expires will propose a revision of the article we can choose to accept it or not. The research findings in the article are exaggerated to look bigger then they really are. Yes, this needs major fixing. Tornado1555 (talk) 20:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a great shame
I've deleted all of this. This page is definitely NOT an appropriate venue for arguments about whether MMS works, please go find a forum. I've added a talk page header at the top, click on the link that says this is not a forum. You can discuss the article, you can suggest/debate sources, article formatting/organisation, etc, but you can't debate MMS. Dougweller (talk) 06:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * See also WP:SOAP. Dougweller (talk) 08:17, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Use of word "fraudulent" in first paragraph unverifiable and opinion
The use of a legal term such as "fraudulent" to describe something - without citation from a legal authority - is opinion. The FDA article on MMS does not declare MMS to be "fraudulent". It merely declares its opinion that MMS should not be used as suggested. Citation of the FDA for the use of the word "fraudulent" is therefore not valid. The FDA is an agency tasked with certain activities by congress. The FDA must still allow a court to rule on legal matters, in particular fraud. The word fraud has very specific legal meaning, in particular, "obtained, done by, or involving deception, esp. criminal deception". Whatever your opinion on the subject, this is moot, for to insist upon using this word without citation suggests a clear intent to taint the article with opinion from its first sentence. Provide a VALID citation, meaning a legal court ruling as it relates to MMS and fraud, and NOT the opinion of yourself, agency, blogger or otherwise, and I will concede to its use here. 98.247.58.102 (talk) 00:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No. I'm not interested in debating semantics with people who sell bleach as a cure for AIDS. And you have no right to insist on, or 'concede' anything. Are you claiming to represent this bunch of toxic swindlers? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Interesting presumptions you have made AndyTheGrump. I encourage the administrators to evaluate AndyTheGrump's prior revisions to mine along with his comments that he is NOT willing to discuss the edit, as evidence that his insistence upon the inclusion of a negative connotative and legal term such as "fraudulent" to describe this heavily debated subject, and to do so without valid citation, is clear evidence of opinion pushing. I claim nothing and represent nothing. I merely request fellow editors and admins to honor Wiki policy. An encyclopedia is not a place to advance opinion. If AndyTheGrump wants to use the word "fraudulent" to describe MMS, he must cite a legal determination for this legal term. 98.247.58.102 (talk) 01:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you claiming to be a lawyer? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * See here: Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: "Are you claiming to be a lawyer?" Let's stick to the topic since I said nothing of the sort. See CHALLENGE and WP:BOP. "This policy requires that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate." AND "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed." Let us concede, Andy, you are heavily opinion pushing. Is your agenda to push a non-cited and well-debated claim based upon your opinion of the subject or to honor the Wiki policy of neutrality? 98.247.58.102 (talk) 03:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I've no interest in debating with quacks, or with the victims of quacks. 'Neutrality' is based around reliable sources, not toxin-flogging fraudsters. Show us the reliable sources that prove that drinking bleach cures AIDS, or go away... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, I am not arguing that drinking bleach cures AIDS. I am not advocating that this article make any such claim. By attempting to skirt the real issue of this edit, and by continually putting words or arguments in my mouth, you are illustrating incompetence as an editor. Your continued unwillingness to adhere to Wiki policy illustrates an opinionated and emotional attachment to this topic. Let us be relentless in neutrality and see where it leads us. Again, see CHALLENGE and WP:BOP. "This policy requires that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate." AND "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed." Cite a single reliable authoritative source that MMS is, in fact, as you say "fraudulent", and I will, as an editor, concede. If all you can find is an opinion, but the source is reliable, and the word "fraudulent" is present, then edit the article to state "it is the opinion of so and so.... that MMS is fraudulent" and include the citation. This is perfectly acceptable. 98.247.58.102 (talk) 05:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Quack. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Basically what it comes down to is Jim can sprout any old BS and it gets "cited" here as if it is official, but to call him out on it, WE are the ones who have to jump through hoops. So lay people who come to the site for information will see HIS claims, but won't see that he's a fraud; they will see the FDA "reply" and conclude that's just another "opinion" with as much weight as Jim's claims. It's just one word against another. They don't care that the FDA is vetted through the scientific process and Jim's information might as well be printed on toilet paper because they don't really understand what a reliable source is or what verifiable evidence is. Even though this is the case, I have to agree with 98.247.58.102. All we can do is present the information as it currently stands and hope one day the law will catch up with humble Jim. Vespine (talk) 23:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * In my last edit I removed the claim that it was "alternative medicine", as unreferenced. I doubt very much they are are marketing it as such now - the law in most places prevents this. I think it has been referred to as a 'food supplement' or similar, but that is probably illegal too. I suspect that if we strictly enforce WP:RS and WP:V we can keep all the bogus claims about this out of the article. And yes, I have a POV on this - I don't think Wikipedia should be use to advertise poisons. If this 'miracle' substance did 1% of what is claimed, Jim Humble would have won a Nobel Prize or something, instead of having to promote his snake-oil via a psuedo-religious front organisation: AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Note that any sources that make medical claims must meed WP:MEDRS, and that WP:FRINGE, and especially WP:PARITY apply here. While we can describe his claims, we do not have to give them credence.  Yobol (talk) 04:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Vespine, you write "So lay people who come to the site for information will see [Jim's] claims, but won't see that he's a fraud; they will see the FDA "reply" and conclude that's just another "opinion" with as much weight as Jim's claims." Let us not forget the point of a Wiki entry.  Our task as editors is to remain neutral, report ALL the fact, and let the reader decide (and this isn't Fox News).  It's not our job to determine what the reader should believe.  If Humble is a fraud, cite the reliable source.  It must be a proper citation, not a derivative opinion.  Where has Humble been declared a fraud other than by opinion?  The grave error being made here is declaring anyone, or anything, a fraud without judicial determination.  You may only say I have reason to believe, or it is my opinion that so and so - or such and such - is a fraud (and a Wiki entry is not place for opinion).  This goes also for the FDA.  Their opinion is not a judicial determination.  As for Humble, if one cannot prove he is a fraud it cannot be said as if factual that he is so.  It can only be said that it is believed by (whomever), that he is a fraud, and the source must be reliable and cited.  As for the FDA, do I understand you would rather trust an agency with known conflicts of interest and well documented malfeasance, an agency responsible for more deaths than all the world wars together (the bottom line being money) over the clinical evidence published by the parent agency that chlorine dioxide is safe for humans to ingest and is the most effective pathogen killer known to man?  That is all humble is saying.  Where then is the fraud?  The FDA's "reply" is, in fact, nothing more than opinion.  In fact, its propaganda because they cannot lawfully subdue the sale of MMS.  Consider giving BurzinskiTheMovie (documentary) a viewing.  You will find the US government, through the FDA, tormented this man and his patients relentlessly (14 years) while trying to put him in prison for life, all the while filing copy cat patents of his discovery of antineoplastons which they admitted cured many incurable cancers.  Its time we all get our heads out of the sand.  Anyone who is here to foster opinion without fact, proof or research has lost their compass. 98.247.58.102 (talk) 12:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:SOAP, i replied on your talk page. Vespine (talk) 22:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

While the word "fraudulent" could be used to describe the sale of a phony drug, because the word carries to connotation of a criminal charge or civil action that has not been made (at least yet, based upon reliable sources), an alternate adjective that does not carry such a connotation should be used. The description "phony drug" can be sourced.Novangelis (talk) 14:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * That would fine if the journalist can be regarded as authoritative in the subject of what is a phony drug (see WP:RS). Aside from that, neither the author nor the original publication are named.  Given its anonymous and unverifiable nature, it is not reliable. 98.247.58.102 (talk) 22:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The source is very clearly identified, both in the article, by the initials in the text in several places, and a large blue icon to the upper right: Agence France-Presse (AFP), just the world's oldest news agency and clearly a reliable source. If you need another site with the same story and the agency initials on the byline, you could try here or, if you prefer the agency initials at the bottom, here. Whichever version you choose, there is a reliable source backing up the description "phony drug".Novangelis (talk) 22:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, that would fine if the journalist can be regarded as authoritative in the subject of what is a phony drug (see WP:RS). Clearly there is a trend here to link to anything antagonistic and nothing protagonistic.  If we cannot appeal to your sense of honor and integrity, let us appeal strictly to the policies of Wikipedia. 98.247.58.102 (talk) 23:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I would like to add a sourced claim about MMS Suppliers.
Suppliers of MMS in most countries sell the substance only as a water purifier, since it is not on any list of approved medicines. At least one prominent supplier in Australia admitted they do not repeat any of Jim Humble's claims in writing to circumvent regulations against using it as a medicine. source

I think this sentence would fit in the introduction between Humble's book. (in here) Stephen Barrett M.D. Not sure about the process of editing a protected article, seems like the 1st step is to get consensus, so here I am asking. Vespine (talk) 23:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I see a need for this. There is no real hurry to revise the article as it stands, and a little more research may enable us to make the situation clearer. I'm going to do a bit of scouting around, and see what I can find. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a lot of fairly recent reporting on this. I'm not sure if this Guardian article has been linked anywhere yet: . This includes a rather revealing quote from Humble, illustrating the thinking behind his 'religion': "Look at the Catholics. Their priests have been molesting women and children for centuries and the governments have not been able to stop it. If handled properly a church can protect us from vaccinations that we don't want, from forced insurance, and from many things that a government might want to use to oppress us." An interesting analogy. The Guardian article gives a couple of useful links, and Google will find a lot more with a search for 'bleachgate'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Coming back to the point, I think my suggested addition is quite relevant since the article at the moment only states "MMS is being promoted as a remedy..." When the majority, if not all, of suppliers are NOT promoting it this way, most are promoting it only as "water purifier". The addition of this line would explain this. Vespine (talk) 02:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, perhaps you are right, though I'd change it to read "... circumvent regulations against advertising it as a medicine". I think this probably represents the legal issues better. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see anyone attempting to cite Jim Humble, yet if they were, it is appropriate to do so (given "MMS" is his creation) AS LONG AS neutrality is maintained. He should be allowed to contribute as well.  To deny him this right is, without question, is self-serving and lacking fair-play.  If he or anyone contributes in such a way that helps the article evolve into the purpose and intent of Wiki, namely, to describe the entry informatively in a non-biased and neutral way, this is proper.  But, as we have seen, Andy makes it clear his mission is non-neutrality because he has a self professed bias against the entry.  A few of you here (you know who you are) have no interest in neutrality.  You've hijacked the article as a tag team to force your bias and uneducated opinions of MMS on the world.  You take turns reverting and making every attempt to keep the article biased and non-neutral, up to and including making false claims (i.e puppetry).  I will venture to guess, however, not a single antagonistic editor here has spoken to Jim Humble, read his book in its entirety, neither are you trained expert chemists, nor have you spoken with an open and inquiring mind to verify anyone's testimony; and you probably haven't called any suppliers or manufacturers of MMS to get their experience with it.  In short, your research is limited to your bias.


 * Further to this, suggesting "the Guardian article" as a reliable source for the purpose of nay-saying MMS shows either lack of due diligence or blatant intent to mislead readers by citing material proven patently false by autopsy. The actual MedWatch report filed by Doug Nash states his wife took a SINGLE (1) drop of activated MMS but neglected to say she was taking exorbitant amounts of Panadol and unprescribed malaria medications, both of which are known to cause methemoglobin-induced acute renal failure.  Nor did he mention that witnesses described her as pale and short of breath as if not getting enough oxygen - a sign of methemoglobinemia - the night prior to using a single drop of activated MMS.  The truth is, a single drop of activated MMS could not harm a field mouse.  People give it to their pets every day.


 * Of course, Andy, you see no need in unblocking the topic. That would open it up for the potential to take its natural course BACK to neutrality and give you many sleepless nights of having to guard your darling.  Vespine is quite correct, MMS is predominantly labeled and sold as water purification.  What this article fails to explain is that no one is suggesting anyone ingest sodium chlorite, leaving the entry, as it stands, misleading.  Sodium chlorite is used predominantly for water purification and I know of many people who use it solely for this purpose.  Think not the entire world has clean water to drink any time they wish.  Regardless, what is suggested by the Jim Humble MMS protocol is that sodium chlorite be converted in its entirety to chlorine dioxide before using as a detoxing agent.  To say that MMS is labeled for water purification simply to "circumvent" is an agenda-driven opinion.  This opinion, albeit uneducated, is fine.  You can even put it in the Wiki entry if you cite a reliable source.  The fact is that sodium chlorite has been sold for 80 years in the US for this very purpose.  Sodium chlorite is used to disinfect and kill pathogens in water outside the body.  In order to safely disinfect and kill pathogens in water inside the body, it must be converted to a wholly different chemical substance.


 * As such, the debate should not be that sodium chlorite by itself is potentially harmful, this is not disputed. It is perfectly appropriate to cite references for this, but it is purposely misleading to make the entire opening sentence about the dangers of sodium chlorite.  No one is advocating its ingestion, though the article underhandedly implies such.


 * This article should be about what MMS is... what it is chemically and what has become socially. Its history, dangers, claims and controversies should be aptly discussed in subsequents sections.  It should not make any health claims just as it should not hide or disparage the fact that claims are made and anecdotal stories are alleged to exist.  It should not uniformly dismiss any and all claims or anecdotal stories as false and it is appropriate to reference entities, agencies and even self-proclaimed experts who might disagree - so long as they are appropriately cited.  But it cannot be all one-sided.  There are medical doctors who employ the use of chlorine dioxide therapies in their practice and even those who have written about it (i.e. Dr Thomas L Hesselink.  I guarantee this doctor knows more about the topic than any of you, but if anyone tried to cite him you'd race to your computers to revert as quick as possible.  What gives?  We can only cite antagonistic references?  Wrong.).  Finally, you may even say that making claims that are - verifiably - untrue may, in fact, potentially be fraud, but whether or not it IS fraud must be determined by a court of law (sorry Andy, the jury is still out and you're not the whole jury).  It is also appropriate to have a section about the ongoing controversy - but ALL editors must refrain from trying to bend the reader to their personal belief or opinion.


 * Why I am actually wasting my time is beyond me. Biased editors can twist this article into whatever suits their agenda while the world sleeps, but it will never be a substitute for actual knowledge, experience, or good-faith research.  In the early 1900's, encyclopedia entries were written by the experts in each field or topic of the day.  Entries were not left to Google researchers who lived their lives in front of a notebook all day sporting opinions and agendas that make them feel important and heard.  I challenge the pirates of this Wiki topic to edit with integrity.  Are you able to remain neutral in your editing?  Do you have expert working knowledge, experience, and have you done personal good faith research - or are you just someone with an opinion?  Would you be you willing to find yourself wrong if that were the case?  If you've said yes to any of these questions, you're probably not being truthful with yourself, and you probably don't care what the truth is as long as you get to advance your opinion. But I challenge you nevertheless.  Find your way back to neutrality lest you deprive yourself and the world of all faces of the truth. 98.247.58.102 (talk) 12:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Given that your only contributions to Wikipedia appear from your edit history to be in relation to MMS, I have to again ask whether you have any connection with Jim Humble, and/or have any financial concern with/or employment by, any, any agency producing, selling, or advertising MMS. I would appreciate a straight yes or no answer. I would point out that editing articles in which you have a conflict of interest is a serious breach of Wikipedia policy. Under no circumstances would it be permissible for Jim Humble to contribute to this article, and the same will be true of anyone likely to profit from the sale of this 'substance' AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Once again, Andy, you intentionally redirect the casual reader so as to not have to engage in the actual issues. If I were any of the things you suggest and I were attempting to make and maintain bias and non-neutral edits, such as yourself (admittedly), there may, in fact, be a conflict of interest, but seeing my intentions for neutrality are made clear (as evidenced by my edits), your question is more likely intended to head-off the eventual conclusion that you are the one with a conflict of interest.  Apparently you have failed to read the first line of Wiki's entry on conflict of interest, which reads: "A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor."  Your self-professed aim is to see this entry remains non-neutral.  You therefore admit to having a conflict of interest with the aim of Wikipedia.


 * In addition, you are patently wrong in stating Jim Humble may not be permitted to contribute. Wiki's entry on conflict of interest clearly states "Editors with COIs who wish to edit responsibly are strongly encouraged to follow Wikipedia policies and best practices scrupulously. They are also encouraged to disclose their interest on their user pages and also on the talk page of the related article they are editing, and to request others' views, particularly if those edits may be contested. Most Wikipedians will appreciate your honesty."  Clearly you are mistaken, again.  I see one user stating he is Jim Humble and your tag team shut him down faster than hornets protecting their cherished nest.  In defense of Mr Humble, he makes no money off the sale of MMS.  He lives like a pauper owning no car, no home, only the clothes on his back.  He visits third world countries on his own dime where there is no fame or fortune to be had simply to help the unfortunate overcome health challenges that modern medical science admits to having no answers to.  This cuts to the core of your view that Jim Humble is a fraud.  For there to be a fraud, Jim would have to be found guilty of intentional deceit (he has not, this is your opinion) and he would have to have benefited as fraud is defined as "deceit or trickery perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage."  Nevertheless, let us return to the issue you have misdirected us all to.  I don't care if you work for a special interest group, government or otherwise, receiving black-ops money for impassioned piracy of this Wiki entry.  As long as your edits are neutral and non-biased; as long as you cite reliable sources and you allow contributions by others with a differing view, you're fine by me. 98.247.58.102 (talk) 21:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Given your straightforward refusal to state that you have no conflict of interest in this subject. combined with your ridiculous defence of Jim Humble (how exactly do you know this, if you have no connection with him?), I think any reasonable person would conclude that you do have some connection with Jim Humble, and/or with promoting MMS. If you do, please make clear exactly what this connection is. If you are not connected in any way, then please explain how you know so much about Jim Humble's financial affairs etc. If you do not do this, I shall be reporting you, with the objective of getting you blocked from contributing to any MMS-related article on Wikipedia, as per policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * here's a source that confirms vendors market it as a water purifier. SmartSE (talk) 13:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Can you stop hijacking threads and stick to the topic at hand please? Andy, you're becoming just as guilty of this as 98.247.58.102. I know I've done it before too, but i'm trying. This thread HAS a point and it's not to start another general debate. MMS the way humble prescribes it is NOT the same as municipal water purification! I already addressed this above. The ONLY relevant point made above is To say that MMS is labeled for water purification simply to "circumvent" is an agenda-driven opinion.  to which i say BUNK! When the main Australian supplier admits it in print, it's no longer an agenda driven opinion, it's plain fact! That's my whole point. Vespine (talk) 23:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Vespine, the article quotes an unverifiable source for this bit of fodder. That is called WP:Hearsay, "information gathered by one person from another concerning some even".  It is therefore not a reliable source.  It is more proper to state, with neutrality, that "at least one media outlet has reported a supplier as saying..." and cite the source, but it cannot be passed off as fact.  Let's be neutral editors boys. 98.247.58.102 (talk) 23:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * There is no WP:Hearsay policy (even when spelled correctly). The only entry on this is a very short and dubious essay: "Just because an article has a citation from a source, that doesn't make it reliable. If it is an oped page or a newspaper column, that makes it opinion and not fact. This is inherently unreliable." - essays are not policy, they are the opinions of the contributors who write them. This has nothing to do with your argument in any case. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I see, so this is a valid excuse to quote hearsay as reliable and verifiable fact? Challenged.  I will repeat myself.  It is more proper to state, with neutrality, that "at least one media outlet has reported a supplier as saying..." and cite the source, but it cannot be passed off as fact.  To do so is incongruent with Wiki policy. 98.247.58.102 (talk) 23:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * If this article was completely reduced to only what is said in "reliable" sources, then the only thing left would be letter from the FDA and the MSDS of sodium chlorite. It really depends on the KIND of information you are reporting and how "disputed" that information is! What would YOU call a reliable source for information regarding the distribution of MMS other then the quoted "opinion" of a distributor of MMS?? Seriously, do we need to publish a peer reviewed paper about it? Most importantly, what evidence can YOU present to dispute that this is in fact the tactic distributors of MMS use to circumvent it being sold as Medicine? Vespine (talk) 23:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why you are arguing. I have consented to the inclusion of the source with the caveat, it is more proper to state that "at least one media outlet has reported a supplier as saying..." and cite the source, but it cannot be passed off as fact.  The burden of proof is not on me to say MMS is not sold as water purification as a tactic, the burden is on you if you wish to claim it as  a fact.  It is a fact that "at least one media outlet has reported a supplier as saying...".  Until you find something better, that is all that can be said.


 * Since you bring it up, this entry should actually be deleted in its entirety and/or started again from scratch. If all you are going to allow as "reliable sources" are antagonistic views, including sensational reporting by non-expert journalists tasked with popularizing controversy, then it has no place on Wiki.  Most anyone is intelligent enough to understand the mechanisms at work in journalism.  You are employing them now to advance your opinion here.  Where is the Dr Thomas Hesselink material; bonafied medical doctor that has done more research on the matter than any editor here?  I venture to guess he's not here because his view is protagonistic in terms of chlorine dioxide therapies and the gate is well guarded.  "Editing from a neutral point of view means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views."   You see what I mean?  98.247.58.102 (talk) 00:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "I have consented to the inclusion of the source with the caveat...". So what? Your 'consent' is neither required, nor significant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Come on Andy, keep it civil. 98 has as much rights to an opinion as we do.
 * Moving along, 98: How is the quoted opinion of a distributor of MMS "the antagonistic view"? I think you have your burden of proofs mixed up: Until you find something better I asked you what would be better? A peer reviewed paper about the distribution practices of MMS suppliers? The quote of a MMS supplier IS evidence regarding the practices of MMS suppliers, I'm not claiming it is VERY reliable, but the quote is not VERY controversial, so that is my proof, i have met my burden. If you dispute this, then it is now YOUR burden to explain why you dispute it? Just saying you "don't like it", or "it doesn't fit your agenda" isn't a good enough reason. What information do YOU have that disputes this claim? I'm asking for ANY reason, even your own opinion, if you can prove this claim is controversial then a weak source might NOT be enough to support the claim, so why do you dispute it? If you have NO REAL REASON other then "you don't like it" which is pretty much all you have presented so far, then this claim is not in dispute. Full stop.
 * As for Hesselink: His research is as hypothetical as unicorns. It has not been experimentally verified, peer reviewed or tested in ANY way whatsoever, it is pure speculation, he in fact has a disclaimer at the start of the page stating exactly those facts,
 * '' Nothing herein may be construed as providing:
 * ''medical advice, manufacturing advice, business advice, nor any advice whatsoever, nor endorsement of any kind.
 * No claims, no guarantees nor promises of suitability or efficacy for any purpose are made. 
 * that's reason enough to STRONGLY dispute his claims. See the difference? Vespine (talk) 00:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I certainly did not mean to imply that quoting the distributor itself was the antagonistic point of view alone but rather your continued choice of sources all being antagonistic and none protagonistic is clearly unbalanced. To rail on about the inclusion of this source is pointless.  I have already agreed, but again, with the caveat, it is perfectly appropriate if properly cited, meaning not as fact itself (that MMS is sold as water purification to circumvent) but as a report that it has been alleged... "at least one media outlet has reported a supplier as saying...".  Both serve the same purpose, to suggest to the reader this idea, only one gives the reader the information to form their own belief and the other is kin to laying eggs in their brain.  You see what I mean?  Hell-bent on the most antagonistic edit.


 * As for Hesselink, the very fact that you cannot hang with the inclusion of a medical doctor's experienced opinion about the therapeutic use of chlorine dioxide is evidence again you are not neutral. "Editing from a neutral point of view means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views".  To say Hesselink is not a significant point of view is outlandish.  To say your non-medical, non-clinically experienced point of view is more significant and takes precedence over his, is entirely improper. 98.247.58.102 (talk) 02:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * To say Hesselink is not a significant point of view is outlandish. :::OMG FFS WTF READ HIS OWN DISCLAIMER: " Nothing herein may be construed as providing: medical advice, manufacturing advice, business advice, nor any advice whatsoever, nor endorsement of any kind."
 * He admits this is not medical advice, or advice of any sort! Now tell me exactly WHAT you want to do with his "experienced opinion" ?? Vespine (talk) 03:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you denying Dr Hesselink has a significant point of view as it relates to chlorine dioxide use? To do so would not be genuine. A doctor dedicating their practice to the ongoing research of chlorine dioxide therapies to destroy pathogens, and one whom is willing to publish his research and comments to the web (disclaimer or not) certainly constitutes a significant and dissenting point of view compared to your own.  He certainly is more of an authority on the topic than you or I.  His disclaimer has nothing to do with my question on why his view was not welcome.  He is a medical doctor who openly supports the use of chlorine dioxide to kill malaria among other things.  All of this is moot really, because we are not referring to an edit that would bring context to the actual argument.  98.247.58.102 (talk) 06:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Kenya
This contains details of a church in Kenya that claims to have treated 10,000 people using MMS and how the Kenyan govt have now warned the public against using it. SmartSE (talk) 14:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * A sub section should be created to address the international controversy. As always, it should remain neutral.  "Editing from a neutral point of view means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views." 98.247.58.102 (talk) 02:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Any section relating to medical claims made for the efficacy of MMS needs to be done with reference to Identifying reliable sources (medicine) - in particular with regard to this paragraph:


 * Press releases, blogs, newsletters, advocacy and self-help publications, and other sources contain a wide range of biomedical information ranging from factual to fraudulent, with a high percentage being of low quality. Conference abstracts present incomplete and unpublished data and undergo varying levels of review: they are often unreviewed self-published sources, and these initial conclusions may have changed dramatically if and when the data are finally ready for publication. Consequently, they are usually poor sources and should always be used with caution, never used to support surprising claims, and carefully identified in the text as preliminary work. Peer-reviewed medical information resources such as WebMD and UpToDate can be useful guides about the relevant medical literature and how much weight to give different sources; however, as much as possible Wikipedia articles should cite the literature directly.


 * We cannot therefore use anything but the best sources (reputable peer-reviewed journals etc) to support claims (self-evidently "surprising") that MMS has any curative properties. This overrules any requirement for a bogus 'neutrality' that takes all accounts as equally valid (not that this has ever been Wikipedia policy anyway). AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Nothing overrules the primary directive of Wiki to remain neutral. Without it, Wiki is merely a playground to advance misguided opinions.  Your using the above as an excuse to be non-neutral is deplorable.  "Editing from a neutral point of view means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views."  What you cite above is perfectly acceptable but it is not a substitute for NPOV.  In addition, I have ZERO interest in making claims here so your point is moot. 98.247.58.102 (talk) 03:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * And with regard to medical questions, the opinions of mainstream science are significant, the opinions of snake-oil salesmen aren't. Actually, at least one thing overrules 'neutrality': the rule of law - we cannot give undue weight to claims that drinking bleach is good for you, and since it is total bullpoop, 'undue weight' would amount to any suggestion at all that it might be. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Do we know what the word "bleach" means? It means "to whiten".  This is done often through oxidization (some people just use paint).  Newsflash... oxygen is a bleach, ozone (O3) is a bleach, hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) is a bleach - which people have ingested for years.  Apparently you equate ClO2 to common household bleach which is sodium hypochlorite (NOT the same).  This continual referencing of ClO2 as a mere "bleach" in order to stun readers is blatant propaganda.  The FDA started the trend and everyone without a chemistry background parrots it just as they intended.  Here's another newsflash... H2O2 has an oxidative reduction potential of 1.49v while ClO2 only .95v.  Ozone is 2.07v.  Do you know that that means?  That means that ozone and hydrogen peroxide oxidize quicker and less arbitrarily than chlorine dioxide.  The fact that you refer to Humble as a snake oil salesmen, once again, illustrates an uneducated bias.  Humble doesn't sell MMS.  He educates people on the use of chlorine dixoide - and for no charge.  What we do on Wiki apparently is dumb people down to the level of our own misunderstanding.  Did you know chlorine dioxide may be used for dialysis of body fluids including human blood!  OH MY, BLEACH IN MY BLOOD.  I'M MELTING!  Check YouTube for the gentleman giving it to himself intravenously.  While chlorine is drunk every day, absorbed in showers, baths, swimming pools and hot tubs, the more savvy municipalities use chlorine dioxide because it does not leave carcinogenic by-products.  OH NO, I'M MELTING.  You mean my city may be pouring this dangerous "bleach" down my throat?  It's refreshing, Andy, to see you talking about the rule of law.  As for giving undo claims to drinking bleach, God forbid if it were sodium hypochlorite (clorox), but it's not and the general public should not sheepled into thinking it is.  Lots of love. 98.247.58.102 (talk) 04:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * NPOV means reflecting the reliable sources accurately, not constructing pseudobalance by finding something, no matter what, to offset the reliable sources. We do not give undue weight to fringe theories which lack the backing of reliable sources (or that reference them but reach beyond their scope). You clearly knew this because you replaced the end of the sentence, "that have been published by reliable sources", with a period.Novangelis (talk) 03:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Touché Nova! Yes, I have quoted the excerpt so many times now I accidentally inserted a period at the end of my point.  The reason I originally left off "that have been published by reliable sources" was because a separate discussion was unfurling on what a reliable source was and I didn't want to mix the discussions.  So we agree, NOPV means "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources".  It would seem half that battle is over and now all we need to do is determine what is a reliable source.  At the end of the day Nova, Andy and the rest of you editors included in this tag team of "we"... you have given undue weight to antagonistic sources for the expressed purpose of advancing your personal opinions.  History has, time and time again, shown that one man's theory (however fringe) becomes, eventually, another generation's text book.  It's sad to see so many editors emotionally interested in this topic yet unwilling to actually due any due diligence.  I venture to guess something is afoot. 98.247.58.102 (talk) 04:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "History has, time and time again, shown that one man's theory (however fringe) becomes, eventually, another generation's text book." No. History shows that very occasionally this happens, but most fringe theories are rejected - particularly so, those theories propounded by the purveyors of 'miracle cures' - and even less so where the purveyors are seeking financial gain from their theories. I'd say that what history tells us about the subject of fringe medicine is that by and large the public comes to recognise it for what it is, and by and large, they are right. And cut out the 'due diligence' crap, you are obviously pushing a pro-MMS POV, and are about as 'neutral' as concentrated hydrochloric acid (I can spout chemical gobbledygook too...)AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict)Let's be clear here. We have to describe the claims of people who sell it (i.e. it cures AIDS, cancer, etc.). In our discussion on whether it is safe or whether or not it actually works (i.e. making medical claims) the only things we take into account are those covered by the guideline of WP:MEDRS. In this case, the pronouncements of the FDA, WHO, FSA, etc. will take precedence. Any other peer-reviewed published research would likewise be available to make an objective evaluation on whether it is safe or whether it actually works...promotional websites and other such self-published sources are NOT reliable for such information. Yobol (talk) 03:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I am generally in agreement with this except the idea that mere "pronouncements" by agencies should take automatic precedence over say scientific data or clinical tests. If its merely opinion, it must be cited as such, regardless of the entity.  Any attempt to refer to MMS or Humble as a fraud will be challenged if not properly cited.  Take care what you think peer reviewed actually means.  Humble's work has been peer reviewed by its own rite and what's good for the goose is good for the gander. 98.247.58.102 (talk) 04:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "peer reviewed by its own rite"? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * If you are saying that Humble's claims about this chemical curing HIV has been independently peer reviewed, then I would be surprised, but would be more than happy to see which journal published it. Where was his work published? Yobol (talk) 04:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * No I am not referring to HIV. "Peer review is a generic term for a process of self-regulation by a profession - or a process of evaluation involving qualified individuals within the relevant field".  Claims surrounding MMS (chlorine dioxide use) have been independently peer reviewed by thousands of individuals qualified to speak about their own personal experience or the experiences of their patients.  Tell me, who is more qualified to say what chlorine dioxide did for me?  One of you?  The Guardian?  The FDA?  Someone who has never used it or researched it?  The subject of MMS has not been "peer-reviewed" by the AMA or published to "prestigious health journals" simply because these are not peers to natural and alternative health.  You won't find peer review where there are no peers.  Natural and alternative health is self governing.  The subject of MMS (chlorine dioxide use) has been reviewed by countless individuals qualified to speak of their own experience relevant to the field of natural health.  If any one of you were genuinely interested in this data, you could pick up the phone and learn the truth for yourself. 98.247.58.102 (talk) 06:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

In other words, no reliable sources. Since you have none, you are not contributing to a Wikipedia article but merely push a fringe POV. That is an improper use of this talk page.Novangelis (talk) 06:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Odd, the IP actually wikilinked the peer review article in your response, but does not seem to understand it. No matter, unless there are peer reviewed literature establishing any evidence for its safety or efficacy, no weight should be granted those views as to whether they actually work.  I agree with Novangelis that it is quite clear now the IP is merely pushing the WP:FRINGE view that MMS is efficacious, and further disruptive use of this talk page for said purposes will be removed per WP:TPG. Yobol (talk) 07:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

No, not "in other words", only in your words, which are not my words and not my intended meaning. I am not suggesting the use of non-verifiable or unreliable sources. READ AGAIN, I am not suggesting the use of non verifiable or unreliable sources. I am also not suggesting this entry make any fringe health claims. I am contribute in a non-bias and neutral manner and to keep editors from tainting the entry with the opposite. 98.247.58.102 (talk) 07:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Yobol, as you will find by my edits, I have pushed nothing, let along anything "fringe". I have merely tried to eliminate bias and non-neutrality. This is a forum to discuss the Wiki entry and we are discussing. Attempting to remove parts of the discussion will be viewed as intent to censor open and valid dialog. In response to your comment, "unless there are peer reviewed literature establishing any evidence for its safety or efficacy, no weight should be granted those views". I am happy to see you say this. As I pointed out to Vespine, MMS cannot be discussed without talking about chlorine dioxide. The safety of chlorine dioxide cannot be fairly discussed without the inclusion of the summary of Controlled Clinical Evaluations of Chlorine Dioxide, Chlorite and Chlorate in Man published in Environmental Health Perspectives Vol. 46, pp. 57-62, 1982 which reads "...by the absence of detrimental physiological responses within the limits of the study, the relative safety of oral ingestion of chlorine dioxide and its metabolites, chlorite and chlorate, was demonstrated." To bar its citation is not "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". 98.247.58.102 (talk) 07:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * As your source says, "within the limits of the study". Is there any reliable source that shows that MMS falls within the limits defined in the study? (The answer is no.) As I mentioned above, you don't cite a study to say something that isn't in the study. It's called synthesis, a form of original research. You have misquoted enough policies to make it fair to say that you have reached refusing to get the point. Enough.Novangelis (talk) 07:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Allow me to use your own logic. The opening line of the article states that sodium chlorite is a toxic chemical (more appropriately should read relative toxic chemical) which causes renal failure.  However, the citation is for a single case where the victim attempted suicide by ingesting 10 grams.  Firstly, no one suggests anyone use MMS internally without activating it (converting it to chlorine dioxide), let alone ten grams (which is ounces not drops).  Clearly the article works from the opening sentence to lay eggs in the reader's brain that MMS is a toxic chemical someone is suggesting they ingest which is bound to cause renal failure.  The value (10g) is completely irrelative.  Now, back to your rhetorical question.  I am not suggesting we cite a study to say something that is not in the study.  LUDICROUS!  Chlorine dioxide is ingested in the MMS protocol, is it not?  Chlorine dioxide is being billed out as a dangerous industrial bleach when the clinical study says it is safe to ingest at some level.  These values are actually FAR more relative than the values used in the opening statement which is actually irrelative because no one is suggesting anyone ingest sodium chlorite.  As such, the study should be included.  Clarity can certainly be made in terms of values.  Refusal for fair play and neutrality continues to suggest an agenda, which is making for a good record on Admin day.  In response to you diatribe on synthesis, original research, and refusing to get the point, let us not call the kettle black. The only reason you say ENOUGH is because you can't rebut the truth.  Fair, proportionate, significant views with non-bias neutrality.  Let's honor it. 98.247.58.102 (talk) 08:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Given how MMS is unlikely to produce chlorine dioxide, or much chlorine dioxide given that citric acid is a weak acid, "activating" it will simply produce acidified sodium chlorite. Pokeboi (talk) 18:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I told you the answer was no. I did the math (basic math is not original research) before I posted. The chlorite level in the paper are 5 times what Health Canada calls safe and chlorine dioxide was studied at the same concentration. MMS exceeds the acceptable concentration of chlorite 200 fold, thus no matter what proportion is converted the paper is exceeded 40-fold. Neutrality is present. It's time to get off the soapbox.Novangelis (talk) 14:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Let's just be clear here. There is no such thing as an MMS "protocol". A protocol is a result of a scientific investigation process - the only scientific investigations of MMS show that it's a toxic industrial cleaning agent. The article right now is well sourced and includes almost everything the Wikipedia reader needs to know about this subject; expansion to cover other countries will add depth and a (welcome) more global tone but we will not be changing the overall tone until there is reliable peer-reviewed evidence to support the incredible claims made in Humble's self-published book. This is absolutely in line with WP:NPOV - where we talk about representing all significant views we also talk about presenting them with the correct weight (in fact we are exhorted not to give undue weight to fringe views). In terms of significant opinions of "MMS", the significant views are well represented, with reference to reliable sources. If anyone has a reliable independent source to support the claims in Humble's book then I have yet to see any mention of it. Guy (Help!) 16:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If you didn't catch it on this user's talk page, they admitted to have "traveled around the world" with Jim Humble. As if more evidence of their bias was necessary.. Vespine (talk) 21:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile, the IP accuses everyone else of having a bias. How rich. Yobol (talk) 22:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Given the IPs insistence that was no conflict of interest in their editing the article, I think that this will be at minimum grounds for seeking a topic ban. Can anyone (other than the IP, I'm not interested in further debate with people who make false claims), suggest any reason why they should not be? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've already blocked the IP for disruptive and tendentious editing. I suspect they will have zero interest in any other topic and this will just be a game of whack-a-mole. Ping me if they crop up again. You can also find me on Twitter, contact details on my talk page. Guy (Help!) 11:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Many thanks! Yobol (talk) 16:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Sourced claim about MMS Suppliers. Take 2.
editprotected Now there is a chance this won't get completely hijacked again. I would like to propose the addition of this information:

'''MMS is often described as a water purifier so as to circumvent regulations prohibiting the sale of unregulated medicines. In January 2010, The Sydney Morning Herald reported that one vendor admitted that they do not repeat any of Jim Humble's claims in writing to circumvent regulations against using it as a medicine. ''' convenience link to first source. convenience link to second source

The only objection raised last time was that the source (Sydney morning herald), isn't extremely "reliable" but I argue the source needs only be as "strong" as the claim is "weak". Since this claim fits all the available evidence, I see no reason to dispute this claim (nor has any reason been suggested), therefore there's no reason to question the source. Vespine (talk) 21:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd say your reasoning is entirely sound. We can reasonaby state that the herald wrote what it did, given the complete lack of evidence to the contrary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I concur that this would be good information in the article. Clearly meets WP:RS. Yobol (talk) 22:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I've tweaked the text and added another ref. The "many countries" was weasely and the sources don't explicitly say it is "not on any list of approved medicines". I think the version I've changed it to has the same meaning, but is more faithful to the sources. Shall we pop editrequest on to get an uninvolved admin to add it? SmartSE (talk) 22:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * This is both accurate (check eBay) and acceptably sourced. Guy (Help!) 22:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I formatted the refs and added the template; I believe that the proposed location is in the second paragraph, between book and Stephen, until enough sources turn up that we can write a Marketing section or similar. It might also be worth considering moving this down to semi-protection. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It looked fine, and it appears people are in agreement, so I put it in for you. If you want to agree on semi-protection then ping me and I don't mind droping it --Errant (chat!) 16:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Errant, and congratulations on your new buttons. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

See also suggestions
I suggest we add a see also section with links to Liquid Oxygen (supplement) and Vitamin O (are there others?) Does this seem reasonable? SmartSE (talk) 00:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Response from Jim Humble
Response from Jim Humble If you haven’t used Wikipedia (an online encyclopedia) lately, you might not know that anyone can write data into the information found there. Unfortunately that encourages many people to promote their own favorite phobias and hatreds that they have developed without evidence. In the case of MMS, it has always been without evidence because there is nothing that backs up the lies. There is no evidence anywhere showing that MMS does damage.

Another bad part about Wikipedia is that anyone can also erase anything that someone else writes. In this way Wikipedia encourages certain heavily indoctrinated people to push their ideas and beliefs on the rest of us. They work in groups of at least 4 individuals.

They watch and guard their writings and the minute anyone comes by and tries to write the facts, a group member immediately erases them and restores his or her own lies. This is done on Wikipedia so that the lies remain in place and any posting of facts is erased within 10 minutes. We can’t compete with them as they seem to be willing to stay on the job 24 hours a day.

Thus, for almost two years, Wikipedia has erased all facts concerning MMS and added lies each time someone tried to tell the truth. Worse than that, everywhere in Wikipedia where there is a mention of chlorine dioxide or sodium chlorite, or even sodium chlorate, they have included an additional lie about MMS.

Do you realize the implication of this? It means that probably thousands of people have continued to suffer and even die when MMS could have helped them, because these few indoctrinated individuals who do not wish people to have the facts (so that everyone can make up their own minds) have continued to lie and to force their superstition on the rest of humanity. They do it without knowing the chemistry of MMS or even trying to learn it, and without being willing to look at what MMS is doing. They also do this same thing to many other non-medical disease treatments. They have decided that they know best for humanity and that you and everyone else don’t deserve to know what is out there. Or they can afford to do it because the pharmaceutical companies pay their salary and of course that is the most likely scenario.

So let me explain what they have done concerning MMS. There isn’t room to repeat what they have written word for word, but I’ll give you an idea. If you want to read it, and I hope you will, you can go to Wikipedia and search the site for "Miracle Mineral Supplement".

With that title for their article, they start off on the wrong foot -- that is not the correct name of MMS. It should say, "Master Mineral Solution".

Two Blatant Mistakes

Because they don't understand chemistry, those Wikipedia writers make 2 big mistakes.

Mistake #1

In the very first sentence, they say sodium chlorite is a toxic chemical. But the EPA does not consider sodium chlorite to be a toxic chemical. Further, the FDA has long approved it for use on food and in water purification and why would they authorize a toxic chemical to be used on food? Here is the reference:

21 C.F.R. 173.325 Acidified Sodium Chlorite solutions

You can put this into Google or any search engine. Most of the food you eat is treated with sodium chlorite before it arrives at your supermarket.

Mistake #2

They do not realize that people who use MMS do not ingest sodium chlorite. When sodium chlorite is mixed with citric acid, the citric acid destroys the sodium chlorite before it is taken into the body. This destruction of the chlorite is visible. You cannot mistake what you are taking.

No one ingests sodium chlorite from taking MMS

I call this a "mistake" but when a person knows his writing is wrong it is really a lie.

The Wikipedia References are Smoke and Mirrors 

The Wikipedia writers list 21 references to prove their points. But their references either prove my point or they prove nothing.

References 1 and 3 are not available and thus prove nothing.

Reference 2 is a scientific journal in French, but it only refers to chlorate, which is not a part of MMS, so this reference proves nothing.

Reference 4 is a clinical report of testing animal tolerance for sodium chlorite, chlorine dioxide, and sodium chlorate. All data given proves my contention that MMS is OK to take by mouth. Read the report for yourself. Here it is:

www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en/document_library/maximum_residue_limits_-_report/2009/11/wc5000

It didn’t hurt any of those rats used in the tests to ingest amounts even stronger than those used by people in real life.

Reference #5 is a Health Canada report where they repeat everything said by the FDA. Neither the FDA nor Health Canada cited any evidence or tests. When I called to ask if they had followed up on the phone calls complaining about a stomach ache and low blood pressure, they said that no, they had not investigated those complaints. Then they mislead you by stating that MMS is a 28% sodium chlorite solution and that it is a dangerous solution that can cause all kinds of terrible damage. Well, yes, didn't we learn that in freshman high school chemistry: “Any chemical in the world is poisonous in large amounts”?

The lie is that you take a 28% solution of chlorine dioxide when in fact you take a 0.00004% solution. That is 700,000 time less than what they are trying to confuse you into believing. They want you to believe that MMS is 28% when ingested when it is actually 0.00004%.

Why would they try to spread such a lie? Well, for every cancer patient they can scare into not taking MMS, the cancer industry gains $800,000.

To learn about the MMS 0.00004% strength doses, please look at the instructions for MMS on my Web Site jimhumble.biz, under MMS protocols.

Stomach Ache and Low Blood Pressure? The Wikipedia writers talk about reduced blood pressure, nausea and diarrhea mentioned by the FDA and Health Canada. But these two agencies didn’t investigate the complaints of low blood pressure or stomach ache and they have never given any other evidence against MMS.

Fake References Again

The Wikipedia writers' references again prove nothing.

Reference #14 merely cites an article written by a 15-year-old boy who does not believe in a ‘cure all’. So that reference doesn’t apply to MMS in any way.

Reference #15 is just another announcement by the Food Standard Agency in Canada against using MMS, but they offer no evidence.

Reference #16 again alerts us to the terrible danger, but they offer no tests or chemical theory or any other kind of data to back up their announcement. It’s just “Warning: don’t take MMS.”

Reference #7 is even dumber. It says MMS is a 28% mixture (it is not); then it says the mixture of sodium chlorite and an acid produces chlorine dioxide (this is true); and then it cleverly says, “Which is an industrial bleach.” Well, vinegar is an industrial acid, and salt has hundreds of industrial uses. In doing their best to make MMS sound bad, they fail to mention that MMS, like salt and vinegar, is used in mixtures thousands of times weaker than the industrial applications.My reference again is my website jimhumble.biz. The instructions prove the doses are very weak.

Moving Along in their Fakery

The Wikipedia writers then make the statement that: “reliable scientific evidence” supports only dangers from use of MMS. They say that any claims of benefit come only from anecdotal reports and from Jim Humble’s book.

They don’t mention that those anecdotal reports are in the hundreds of thousands. Any real scientist would know that this many anecdotal reports constitute valuable evidence. And of course they offer no examples of their “reliable scientific evidence.” There is, in fact, no “reliable scientific evidence” proving that MMS is dangerous. MMS is only dangerous in large quantities and so is table salt and every other chemical on Earth.

The rest of the Wikipedia article seeks to mislead you in every line. They like to throw in a few statements from some impressive-sounding authorities; e.g., that according to the EPA, neuro-development and reproductive damage could result from small doses of chlorine dioxide. They say “could” but offer no evidence that MMS could cause such damage. That's because there isn't any evidence of such damage ever happening.

Reference # 6 tells of renal failure from extreme overdose, but fails to mention that there was no death, and in the last 100 years, no death has ever been recorded that shows renal failure from an overdose of chlorine dioxide.

That particular overdose was not due to MMS. It was due to someone trying to commit suicide by taking 10 grams of sodium chlorite, but the suicide was a failure.

Reference #9 is an FDA letter sent to Jenine M. Cohoon of Provo, UT, warning her that she must stop selling MMS and other herbs. No evidence is given that is relevant to the data about MMS in Wikipedia. It is just a warning letter tossed in by the Wikipedia writers to impress you, and as long as you don’t read it, it looks like a legitimate reference.

Reference #21 links to a study at Osha.gov. concerning chlorine dioxide and mostly rats. If you want to take the time to read it, you will see that is shows MMS is very safe to take. Keep in mind that the intensive MMS Protocol 1000 recommends 2 mg/kg per day for a 70 kg (154 lbs.) man. That’s less than was given to the rats (per their weight) and the rats were unaffected by it. So as I have already said, these references all either prove nothing or they prove my contention that MMS is safe to take. Just remember, as with table salt, you can take too much of it. But it is plenty safe in its recommended doses.

Note: Just 2 gallons of water can kill a person. Dosage is the key.

If you want governmental proof that MMS is safe to take, go to: http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/healthguidelines/chlorinedioxide/recognition.html.

Of course the government won’t refer to it, but there it is. I suppose they will be removing it from the internet soon. It’s only used as a reference here because the Wikipedia writers didn’t realize it proves my statement that MMS is safe. They didn’t take time to read it, or they thought you would be confused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZZorro (talk • contribs) 16:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Jim, I see your PR people have been busy writing this article up for you and posting it around a few websites; thanks for the heads up, but this is not the place to post your ignorant rants. Vespine (talk) 22:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Just for the sake of completeness, in case someone comes and reads this complete BS I want to show the conclusions of the "proof" that MMS is safe that Jim linked to. It looks like the page is down now but I saved a copy from the cache, not sure how long the cache will be up so here it is:


 * Effects on Humans: Chlorine dioxide is a severe respiratory and eye irritant in humans. Inhalation can produce coughing, wheezing, respiratory distress, and congestion in the lungs [Patnaik 1992]. Irritating effects in humans was intense at concentration levels of 5 ppm. Accidental exposure at 19 ppm of the gas inside a bleach tank resulted in the death of one worker (time of exposure is not specified) [ACGIH 1991]. Workers exposed for 5 years to average chlorine dioxide concentrations below 0.1 ppm but with excursions to higher concentrations had symptoms of eye and throat irritation, nasal discharge, cough, and wheezing; on bronchoscopy, bronchitis was observed in seven of the 12 workers [Clayton and Clayton 1982]. Concentrations of 0.25 ppm and less have been reported to worsen mild respiratory ailments [ACGIH 1991]. Two adults who ingested 250 ml of a 40 mg/l solution of chlorine dioxide experienced headache, nausea, abdominal discomfort, and lightheadedness within 5 minutes of ingestion. 


 * According to Jim Humble himself, MMS is a concentration of 0.00004%, this is eight times the dose (5ppm 0.000005%) that can cause intense respiratory distress, it is TWICE the concentration of 19ppm (0.000019%) which caused the death of a worker, and 400 times the dose 0.1ppm (0.0000001%) that caused 7 out of 12 workers to develop bronchitis after exposure for 5 years. So yeah, it clearly shows exactly how safe MMS is. Vespine (talk) 00:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

AH, yes, Vespine, Wasn't there something said about being neutral and sort of being nice. Well, anyway like you said you wanted to show me up and thus you wrote up all those paragraphs above. But when you are calling me those names you should tell the truth and get your facts right, don't you think. FIRST -- In copying an article and leaving out an important part while putting a period there like that important part is not missing one lies by leaving out the important part. You forgot to mention that the persons who drank the 200 ppm solution not only got sick in five minutes, but they also GOT BACK WELL AGAIN IN ANOTHER 5 MINUTES. Normally you can't really call that a problem.

HOWEVER, you main mistake is in your calculations as always to make me wrong. (I should call them ignorant rantings as that is what you said I was doing.) You see, 5ppm is not.000005%  it is .0005% (that's 3 zeros instead of 5). Big difference huh. And the .1 ppm is actually .00001% four zeros not six. So that throws your contention off, and like all amateurs you state that the chlorine dioxide caused the workers to develop bronchitis, but the fact that 5 did not develop bronchitis simple means you cannot say for sure what caused the bronchitis. That's the scientific way that you wish to push.

Sorry but instead of you proving I am the stupid jerk that you wish I was, you just go on proving yourself to be what you want me to be. And my church just goes on saving lives and overcome suffering in thousands of people world wide. We have 230 ministers of health curing people in 58 countries free of charge. While you can only stop a few people from being healed with your ranting. I only say ranting because you already used the term in referring to me. JIM HUMBLE DataBishop (talk) 03:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * So what? We don't base articles on pharmaceutical products on the belief systems of purveyors of quack religions, any more than we base them on the purveyors of quack medicines. Take your evangelism for the Church of the Holy Bleach-Chuggers elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Jim, it's been a while, did you learn how to turn off caps lock or is this another one of your lackeys posting on your behalf? I will admit I mixed up the percentage with the concentration, 0.1ppm is 0.0000001 which is 0.00001%, not 0.0000001%, as you corrected me. This means that a dose of MMS is 50 times less then a fatal dose, fair enough. You recommend a MMS dose every hour for eight hours every day, which makes 8 doses a day, so 50 doses is received six and a bit days, that is still a LONG SHOT from what I would call safe! It's still four times the dose that caused the workers to develop bronchitis. It still doesn't change the fact that MMS is not "HARMLESS" as you claim.


 * but the fact that 5 did not develop bronchitis simple means you cannot say for sure what caused the bronchitis. 
 * I'm not saying ANYTHING for sure, I'm quoting the conclusion of the study YOU posted, I'm not surprised YOU don't agree with the conclusion of the study once your mistake was pointed out to you, but then you freely admit you aren't a scientist, so why should we think you are in any way qualified to critique its validity? YOU posted the study, now YOU tell us the conclusions are invalid?? Lol.. The conclusions are not based on just one observation and they ALL fit a similar pattern, so I see no reason to think their methodology was flawed and even less reason to think your interpretation is valid.


 * Besides, and this is where the real meat is, you don't actually want to prove that MMS is "safe", your real motive is to convince people MMS can cure cancer and AIDS and malaria and herpes and just about everything else you can think of, for which there is absolutely NO evidence what so ever, to the contrary. You have zero chance of doing that here, but you figure if you can at least get us to say to say it isn't so "harmful", then the majority of people who see this will be more likely to at least think they have "nothing to lose" by trying it. This is obviously your motive and we are NOT going to fall for it, so you might as well give up.


 * Rational people like many of the editors of wikipedia realize it would be TRIVIALLY easy for you to really prove you have cured people of AIDS if you really have; just a few "before and after" verified lab tests is ALL it would take, if you went to the media and they verified and published the results, I for one would believe it. You've had 14 years, but so far nothing comes from you except excuses.. And don't give us the "media is controlled" bullshit, you can't use that excuse since wikileaks which proves undeniably that there ARE many media sources not controlled by the governments. The US military tried to stop Julian Assange from publishing their documents (US Army by the way is many times larger in money and power then ALL the big pharma companies of the WORLD combined!), but the media still couldn't scramble fast enough to print all the documents he leaked. Yes maybe there are stories you won't see on Fox or CNN, mainstream local or regional news publishers, but there are MORE then enough indapendant and underground sources that make up for it. There is no global information conspiracy in the age of the internet, welcome to the 21st century. Even the very fact that you are able to come here and post to defend yourself proves that point beyond any doubt.  Vespine (talk) 06:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Reading this discussion page has been very interesting, I had not heard of MMS before a few hours ago so was reasonably unbiased to start with. Obviously if everyone stopped repeating themselves and took special care with their facts and figures the first time there would be a lot less for me to read, less entertainment for sure, but also a possibility of getting to the facts faster. I do a bit of reading, some in science and chemistry but this is not my focus so I am not a specialist, however I do take a bit of delight in scoffing at mistakes in literature that are obviously not sound research that are promoted as such, this discussion page is full of it. I have done a bit of editing on WP and have had my errors corrected and sometimes thrown in my face so understand the merits of the discussion page and keeping WP well referenced and on topic, I also understand the benefits of having fresh eyes looking at an article and seeing errors or omissions that should be corrected. Now the THING that does bother me is how the Sodium Chlorite and Chlorine Dioxide concentrations and 'protocols' keep getting mixed up in this article, from both sides of the fence from what I can see. Traditionally concentrations of gas are oft quoted in ppm and probably are more suited to Chlorine Dioxide and solution concentrations would be quoted in mg/l suitable for the Sodium Chlorite, now until someone actually lists the actual concentrations in common units for each separate chemical (bleach, Soduim Chlorite, Chlorine Dioxide, etc) for the toxicology reports, research trials and MMS 'protocols', why are you guys doing the apples and oranges bit over and over again. Also cumulative doses and single exposures should not be compared too casually, and it seems the generation of the Chlorine Dioxide with the Citric Acid may not be a sure thing but might (my suspicion) only happen in the stomach on mixing with the Hydrochloric Acid found there, unfortunately so much harder to measure or estimate. What would the other gas concentrations (Cl2, O2, CO2 etc.) be in a bleach tank, I wonder. Without being a medical specialist, from personal hearsay I would be cautious of calling Sodium Chlorite, this freely available common industrial salt, 'toxic' when compared to some of the FDA approved medicines I've heard about that require full face masks for the administering staff to prevent blindness that are administered intraveneously by the cc (ml) and not diluted by the drop and drunk with lemon juice, perhaps 'toxic in certain doses' would be fair play and does the word 'potent' actually occur in the cited reference? Perspective and accuracy are what WP demands, I think in this (and similar contentious articles) all reasonable sources should be summarized and referenced, also add in any credible snake oil warnings too and then leave it to the reader to make their own conclusions, editorial bias in a WP article will pretty much play into the wrong hands, the vehemence against alternative view points smacks of cover up where none might exist and certainly has me convinced that there may be some merit to this. Regrettably mainstream drug industry does have a history of suppressing non-profitable research, as they are expected to, but they should also be proud of looking after their share holders instead or pretending some incredible altruism. Idyllic press (talk) 23:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Be assured that "potent" is in the source. The quotations are a dead giveaway, and the source can easily be checked. The term protocol is a red herring, since there has been no proper testing to demonstrate that an effective dosage exists. Ignore the Wikipedia apples and oranges as numerous agencies that routinely deal with these toxicity issues have come to the conclusion that it exceeds safe levels. Every reliable source finds that there is no evidence to support any benefit, but risk is established. That is what Wikipedia articles are based upon. There is no false balance of reliable sources and pseudoscience. While some chemotherapy agents do require extreme caution in handling, there is an important difference: they have been shown to work. If chlorine dioxide worked, it would have been used before nitrogen mustards. It's not like there was no knowledge of chlorine chemistry (which was necessary to generate the mustards).Novangelis (talk) 00:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest (Jim Humble)
Aren't there rules on Wikipedia against conflict of interest? If so, then why is Jim Humble allowed to edit this article? He is selling a book to promote the use of this so-called supplement, so I think he's too close to the subject. Bialy Goethe (talk) 03:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * See WP:COIN. Dougweller (talk) 06:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * None of Jim's contributions, or those of his "lackeys" make it to the article. Vespine (talk) 00:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)