User talk:Brante81

Re Miracle Mineral Supplement
Please read WP:MEDRS. Our articles are based on published reliable sources. We are not interested in your unsourced assertions regarding this toxic swindle. Your edits will be reverted, and if you persist in adding them, you will be blocked from editing. This is not a platform for snake-oil salesmen.

And BTW, why do you describe industrial bleach as a 'natural' product? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not that familiar with Wikipedia editing to properly do so, I apologize. However my points remain...what is a reliable source??? I know people who live in my town, who take MMS every day, who have come back from near-death after only taking it, who have had their doctors shake their heads and say well its an anomalous spontaneous cancer growth reversal. That is a fact, where I live, people I know...period. That is much more factual then citing some article, written by who knows who, somewhere else in the world which neither of us have ANY EVIDENCE is actually true. This is the downfall of Wikipedia.

I have successfully been healthy and encouraged other peoples health for many decades, using everything imaginable which has NEVER been considered viable by the local doctors here. I never described anything as natural, that is other people's words, however...do you consider Chemotherapy, and Radiation treatment to be natural? Or are they toxic substances used to attempt to cure Cancer? How are they so broadly considered as the first and automatically acceptable treatments?


 * I suggest you read WP:MEDRS. We quite rightly insist on high-quality sourcing for any medical claims. We do not rely on anecdotal evidence, end of story. And if you are giving medical advice to other people without appropriate training, I suggest you seek legal advice - see the 'Judgements' section of the article for examples of what may happen to you if you engage in such behaviour. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I will read that and thank you. #2 - I do respect the need for articles and statements to be cited. However, basic common-sense, and generally not claiming a fact, but suggesting a question (which was what I wrote) should be considered for what it is - that it is what a people's society and dictionary should be based on, like the government "For the People, By the People". I'm sure there were plenty of authorized and cited opinions in Nazi Germany, which were acceptable while common-sense opinions were not and many true scientific and philosophical books not "acceptable" were burned...be careful that this doesn't happen here under YOUR watchful gaze.

Medical advice? If you think that "encouragement" (as is what I stated), that people should eat well, think well and breath well should be certified...and you think threatening me with the results of my human rights and duty to help others is a good thing...because without a corporation paid piece of paper we are somehow lesser then others? Regardless of decades of work and life experience??...If you think that then I feel you are sadly out of touch with reality.

PS: I note that you completely ignored my reasonable question regarding chemo and radiation...which shows your not apparently willing to look at facts presented which challenge your world view. (talk) 20:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is a privately owned website. You have no rights here. (Neither do I.) No one is threatening you; you simply being told a factual statement: unsupported medical claims are not published on Wikipedia. If you try it will be reverted. Nobody Ent 20:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * This is not a forum for discussion on abstractions, or on personal experiences - as for your comments re. Nazi Germany see Godwin's law. Meanwhile, if you wish to contribute to Wikipedia, there are policies (arrived at, after much discussion, by consensus) regarding what is considered suitable for article content - and suggestions that drinking industrial bleach might be good for anyone's health are definitely contrary to such policies. This substance can kill you - it has already resulted in at least one fatality - if you want to promote it, you will have to find somewhere else to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinions, as I can cite multiple articles on exposing oneself to many toxic substances which industry DOES support and allow, such as smoking...etc. Which are not decried, not removed for harming the public etc. I will simply point out the hypocritical nature of your position, I will certainly continue to support Wikipedia and its ideals, its unfortunate that it has been allowed to be so manipulated...to the extent that even the ECAT technology, which is being produced by 6 companies and is supported by NASA...has continually been mis-represented here as a fraud.

Take care fellows, if not sooner, I'm sure in heaven we'll find out what is true ;-) Brante81

PS: My second sincere apologies, as I feel very foolish and disappointed in myself for not referring to the dark ages instead of Nazi Germany...my mistake since the then obvious mental connection with Godwin's Law, helped invalidate my point in your minds. I shall remember...


 * This is an online encyclopaedia. It is run according to policies arrived at by discussion. If you don't like the policies, you can of course argue (in the appropriate place) that they should be changed. Frankly though, Id suggest that you would be wasting your time trying. We are rarely convinced by POV-pushing loons who think that dark forces are suppressing 'the truth'. As for the E-CAT, if you still believe that there is anything more to that particular magic teapot than Rossi's ridiculous circus act, you are in a rapidly-diminishing minority. And no, NASA isn't supporting it. They never did, and they never will. Even Rossi only ever dropped vague hints about 'someone beginning with N' and never claimed outright that they did. You've been had... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There are very good reasons to not trust testimonials based on anecdotal evidence, including your own. For example, read our article Anecdotal_evidence. Human beings are extremely susceptible to cognitive bias which is responsible for many of the world's strange beliefs and superstitions. To think you are "too smart" to be mistaken about something, including your own personal experience, is a major barrier against learning the real truth, which is why there are still people on earth who think it is flat. Do you think they are less convinced of their belief then you are? It's easy to dismiss those people as idiots or crazy, but by what objective measure do you ensure you aren't possibly falling for a similar false assumption? Conviction and belief is not enough. Science is the best and most reliable method to objectivley distinguish between what is true in reality and what is false. After 14 years, neither Jim Humble nor ANY of his supporters have been able to produce a single shred of credible evidence that MMS has actually cured anyone of anything, except maybe athelete's foot or a minor topical infection. What you think you've seen does not count, there could be other explanations which you are failing to take into account. Consider how easy it would be to prove someone has been cured of HIV, Jim already claims to have cured almost 400 people of that disease, so what's stopping him gathering those case reports and having them published?   A lot of phase 1 trials are precisely that, a collection of case reports, he ALREADY has the results, just SHOW THEM, but no, all we get are Jim Humble's excuses. Have you ever seen anyone online with test results showing they've been cured of HIV? Have you seen Oprah interview someone cured of HIV? How about some of the biggest proponents of "anti pharma" health, like Jo Mercola or Mike Adams, you think they wouldn't have noticed a "suppressed" medicine like MMS by now if there was proof it worked? Compare that to Dichloroacetic_acid, a drug which shows promise as a cancer therapy. It is also a small, cheap, "unpatantable" chlorine compound, the "pharma" industry is not interested in it. But a researcher at Albera university conducted a small phase I trial with almost no funding, the trial showed some promising results and in only 6 months the team had raised $800,000 from donations and charity organizations, enough to run a phase 2 trial. All this has happened in about 5 years, they're in the middle of a phase 3 trial already! Search natural news and mercola dot com for DCA, you'll find a few articles, I personally think those articles are misrepresentative rubbish but they still prove my point, MMS doesn't even get a mention on those websites and Jim claims it is far more effective then any claims made about DCA.  According to Jim Humble, MMS has been around 14 years and it's "already cured" hundreds of thousands of people, it's complete fantasy nonsense, no such thing has happened.. If this is not enough to convince you it is a scam, google mms debunked and watch the testimonial videos. Vespine (talk) 00:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I understand, and you have good points...I only wish that along with the impartial and factual statements on Wikipedia, that the negative and unfounded statements could be erased, unless there is documented evidence...then it shouldn't be posted by any opinion. Secondly, the sad truth is, that money dominates almost every aspect of our society. I personally know inventors and scientists who have taken their findings to the EPA and the Patents Office and been turned away and refused to have their documented information published or even patents given, despite the unbelievable silly patents given to other people. I also have friends and family who have first-hand witnessed and used alternative energy and alternative health products successfully. I have an inventor of a fantastic Magnet-based generator living 45 minutes from me, who has been unable to get manufacturing for 20 years. These products and inventions are not allowed to be released. Another Inventor who is very well known, died a few hours after my father met him and within days of his releasing a new form of automobile engine to the market...the list goes on and on. When you are close and a personal witness to these things over decades, I have realized that there is far more going on then the average person realizes. Without you actually coming to visit me and meeting the people and seeing the history of whats happened to them...I know you have no reason to believe anything I have just said and that is fine, I'm not going to argue or blame you all for that. I am just saying, that Wiki should not be dominated by what money says, and most every university and science department is directed by the source of its money funding...so why should that be the end-all, be-all of facts?