THROW AWAY YOUR MMS! Link....

Discussion in 'Fibromyalgia Main Forum' started by skeptik2, Jul 30, 2010.

  1. skeptik2

    skeptik2 Member

    http://www.medpagetoday.com/ProductAlert/OTC/tb/21466

    skeptik2
  2. TigerLilea

    TigerLilea Active Member

    It might help to let people know that this product is actually an industrial strength bleach.
  3. bakeman

    bakeman New Member

    Who the heII in their right minds would have had it to begin with?


    Bake
  4. skeptik2

    skeptik2 Member

    First I did a search here to see if it popped up...it did, and I didn't
    look at any of the posts, just decided to give the link.

    Who the hell would market such a thing to the public? Greedy
    sob.s, that's who!

    There's a sucker born every minute, and we all need to really,
    really watch out what we put into our fragile bodies!

    skeptik2
  5. victoria

    victoria New Member

    Many have used it before rifing as a last resort for Lyme and other infections. A lot depends on how much one used at one time - did these people start very low and work up slowly on dosage? Many other questions too. I haven't used it but my DH, son and daughter's BF did. Daughter's BF and my son feel it helped in various ways. Only the BF worked up to about 15 drops.

    I'm not promoting it, just saying regardless of what FDA think, I'm not so sure. We've had several 'learned people" (pharmacist & MD) read the following articles about it, and said they didn't see anything wrong with trying it:
    bioredox.mysite.com/CLOXhtml/CLOXhome.htm

    If anyone's a biochemist who can point out and explain what's wrong witht he above doctors' reasoning, please enlighten us, I'm no biochemist for sure.

    Also, fwiw -
    "Chlorine dioxide is approved by the Environmental Protection Agency in safely removing pathogens and contaminates like anthrax. However, the concentrations used in such applications can vary from 500 to over 6,000 parts per million (ppm), which would clearly be deadly to an individual. Using the MMS protocol you will produce chlorine dioxide in the range of 1 ppm."

    No debate, as I'm NOT a biochemist as I said... just know that people who have degrees that we've had read this material didn't see a problem with it as long one took it slowly. Nothing is for everyone. Look how many of us cannot take abx because of horrible side effects or outright anaphylaxsis.... the quinolones come to mind....

    buenos noches
  6. victoria

    victoria New Member

    But I have observed MMS (1) - no diarrhea or vomiting. If the ppm are indeed much less than what is used in making water safe for drinking or anything else, I don't see why the amount is allowed in public drinking water. Again, I'm not a biochemist. & I haven't done the math. If someone else can and come up with something different fine. I just haven't seen anyone personally have those reactions unless they were crazy and took too much, so I know it's not a general reaction unless that's what they did.

    I will say that with those that I've observed, generally about 1/2 the drops- about 7- is what has given benefits. In one of the threads waynesrhythm started, where I gave the above link to the doctor's explanation, you might want to also read Rich VanK's response... if I remember right it was neutral fwiw.

    I'm not for it or against it. Just reporting what I've read and observed.



  7. u&iraok

    u&iraok New Member

    Sodium Chlorite is not the bleach you buy in the store. And it is changed into chlorine dioxide, a safe bactericide, when DILUTED in water.

    A quote from the article:

    "According to the FDA, the mixture produces chlorine dioxide, a potent bleach used for stripping textiles and industrial water treatment."

    That's a funny statement. What are they trying to say, technically? Are they trying to scare you by putting the word 'potent' before the word, 'bleach'? And isn't water treatment good? Chlorine is also a water treatment but Chlorine Dioxide is safer because it doesn't create the harmful compounds Chlorine does when it enters the body, such as trihalomethanes. There's no evidence of Chlorine Dioxide producing harmful compounds. MMS is a safer water treatment than Chlorine.

    As for this statement:

    "At the doses consumers would ingest under these directions, this agent is known to cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and symptoms of severe dehydration, the FDA said."

    Ever hear of herxing? The Herxheimer reaction? This is a good thing because it means you are killing toxins and expelling them from your body. If you are taking too much of something that causes herxing to this degree you need to back off. Vomiting is a good sign that you're taking too much. You always start slow and work up with MMS but I'm sure there's people who decided to start off taking too much. You start with 1 drop in water. 1 drop.

    People with Lyme usually have a lot of herxing on MMS. Personally, I never experienced vomiting or diarrhea, just a little nausea but after taking it for two months I experienced great benefits.

    No science in this article, just bandying words like 'bleach' about.

    Here's the real gist of the article:

    "The FDA has threatened civil or criminal enforcement actions against businesses and individuals selling MMS."

    They want to be able to put a stop to MMS. You can decide whether you trust the FDA and whether or not they're in the pharmaceutical companies' pockets of which MMS is a threat or whether their purpose is just to keep us safe from MMS.

  8. u&iraok

    u&iraok New Member

    No explanation so I'll post again about what I posted on the other topic (with more information :) ):

    Sodium Chlorite is used for water treatment and as a disinfectant. It's used on food preparation surfaces, as a spray on meat, farmers use it on their cow's udders. It's approved for multiple uses including use against anthrax.

    Sodium Chlorite is changed to chlorine dioxide in water with an activator of vinegar, lemon juice or citric acid. Chlorine dioxide is an oxidant and relative to chlorine dioxide all pathogens are electron donors. It's well known that many pathogens are sensitive to oxidants. Cl02 is grabbing electrons from pathogens but that doesn't mean it randomly grabbing electrons everywhere.

    Some medically useful oxidants: peroxide, quinones, gloxals, hyperbaric oxygen, ultraviolet light, ARTEMISININ, allicin (in garlic), iodine, permaganate.

    The body produces it's own oxidizers to combat pathogens.(Even plants produce oxidants to deal with pathogens.) The immune system produces superoxide, hydrogen peroxide, ozone, hypochloric acid, etc, to combat infection or cancer or parasites.

    **CHEMOTHERAPY uses oxidizers that DO NOT distinguish malignant cells from healthy ones. **

    People are wiling to use chemotherapy to destroy malignant cells at the risk of healthy cells (some people die from the chemo because of what it does to their bodies) but MMS is safe to healthy cells and used in the protocol at only 1 ppm.

    Cl02 does not destroy healthy cells because it only targets acidic cells with positive ions. Healthy cells have a ph 7 or above and hold a negative ion charge.

    (incidentally, this is also why emphasis is given to balancing the ph of the body and making it less acidic because an acidic terrain encourages pathogen growth.)

    If Cl02 doesn't encounter a pathogen it will begin to deteriorate, lose an electron or two. This will allow it to combine with a substance the immune system uses to make hypochlorus acid (referenced above.) So either way it is beneficial--killing pathogens or increasing your stores of hypochlorous acid. Cl02 otherwise deteriorates into salt.

    Compare that to other methods which uses substances which are toxic to the body and store in the liver.

    Any sickness is a result of toxins being released when Cl02 kills the pathogens.
  9. u&iraok

    u&iraok New Member

    Cl02 is known to be highly selective. Here's one source regarding selectivity:

    "According to Walter Hardy, chlorine dioxide is often confused with chlorine or hypochlorite (bleach). However, chlorine dioxide uses chemical processes that are quite distinct against microbial organisms. Because of hyperactivity with sulfur compounds, chlorine dioxide or ClO2, has a very selective attack against the full range of microbes, from viruses to fungi. This selectivity of attack involves the oxidation of disulfide bonds occurring when sulfur-containing amino acids are used to crosslink two or more polypeptide strands within a structural or enzymatic protein. Enzymes must have a specific three-dimensional structure to catalyze their biochemical reactions. The destruction of the disulfide bonds causes the enzymes to "denature" or lose their shape and thus become dysfunctional. This prevents metabolism and breaks the structural integrity of the microbe."

    Walter O. Hardy, An Introduction to Chlorine Dioxide (North Kingstown, RI: Engelhard Corp., 1997).

    From EPA paper:

    "Chlorine dioxide functions as a highly selective oxidant due to its
    unique, one-electron transfer mechanism where it is reduced to chlorite (ClO2
    -) (Hoehn et al., 1996)."

    www.epa.gov/ogwdw/mdbp/pdf/alter/chapt_4.pdf

    (I just have to include this quote from the EPA paper, too: "However, chlorine dioxide reacts with poliovirus RNA and impairs RNA
    synthesis (Alvarez and O’Brien, 1982).")

    Another:

    "Because ClO2 has lower oxidation strength, it is more selective in its reactions. Typically, ClO2 will only react with compounds that have activated carbon bonds such as phenols, or with other active compounds like sulfides, cyanides, and reduced iron and manganese compounds. Chlorine is a more powerful oxidizer that ClO2, and will react with a wider variety of chemicals, including ammonia. This property limits its overall effectiveness as a biocide. Conversely, because ClO2 has more oxidative capacity compared to ozone or chlorine, less ClO2 is required to obtain an active residual concentration of the material when used as a disinfectant."

    www.lenntech.com

    "ClO2 is a selective oxidant reacting primarily with organics that are
    highly reduced (e.g., alcohols, aldehydes, ketones, tertiary
    amines and sulfur-containing amino acids) and thus is
    generally not as adversely affected by typical organic
    loads, as are other oxidants, such as hydrogen peroxide
    (Knapp & Battisti, 2001). Its deleterious effect on bacterial
    endospores is believed to be directed primarily toward
    the cell membrane rather than DNA (Young & Setlow,
    2003). Unlike bleach or chlorine gas, ClO2 is known not
    to form chlorinated by-products (Knapp & Battisti,
    2001)"

    www.absa.org/abj/abj/061103luftman.pdf


    Where you say 'From a Source' this was taken from an article written by Gabriela Segura, M.D. I'm just going to post Jim Humble's rebuttle to her.

    FROM: Jim Humble
    I have been noticing a few people for one reason or another have been attempting to debunk my work with MMS. The one overriding characteristics of all these people even this doctor, Gabriela is the fact that they know very little about chemistry and especially about the chemistry of Chlorine Dioxide. They are extremely interested in proving me wrong without any proof, and they seldom will talk to me. THEY HAVE ALL REFUSED TO CHECK OUT MY ACTUAL OPERATIONS. *Gabriel has refused to answer direct emails. **But the damaging part for them is that they, none of them, have bothered to look up the chemistry of chlorine dioxide, and they certainly have not tried to understand the chemistry. *And, of course, that is understandable, because as long as you believe you already know something you won’t try to learn about it.
    I begin to wonder if anyone understands this. Gabriela and others who try to debunk my work with MMS have not taken the time to check out one single person who claims to be cured. NOR HAVE THEY BOTHERED TO CHECK THE ACTUAL CHEMISTRY OF CHLORINE DIOXIDE. They do not seem to understand that first year high school chemistry probably doesn’t go deep enough into chemistry to explain the function of chlorine dioxide. From their writing I am sure that they have not been educated in chemistry beyond that level.
    LET ME GIVE MY ANSWERS BELOW NEXT TO GABRIELS COMMENTS IN CAPITAL LETTERS ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEPARATING MY COMENTS FROM HER WRITING.

    The Miracle Mineral Solution (MMS) is marketed feverishly as a miraculous alternative treatment for AIDS, hepatitis, malaria, herpes, tuberculosis, cancer and many more of mankind’s most feared diseases. The truth is that MMS is a dangerous poison, and as such it has no business whatsoever in the alternative health arena. *
    SHE MAKES THE STATEMENT “THE TRUTH IS MMS IS A DANGEROUS POISON.” SHE MIGHT HAVE ALSO STATED THAT THE FDA HAS APPROVED OF THE USE OF SODIUM CHLORITE (SAME CHEMICAL AS MMS) FOR USE IN FOODS, ON VEGETABLES (AND MAY BE USED WITHOUT WASHING IT OFF), AND MAY BE USED ON MEATS OF ALL KINDS INCLUDING FISH AND MAY BE USED WITHOUT WASHING IT OFF. DOES THAT SOUND LIKE A DANGEROUS POISON? SHE IS TRYING TO MAKE MMS AND THE CHEMICAL CHLORINE DIOXIDE LOOK BAD AND I GUESS SHE IS DOING THAT, BUT IT IS BASICALLY A LIE. IT IS POISON LIKE ANY OTHER NON POISONOUS CHEMICAL IN OUR CIVILIZATION ONLY WHEN USED IN LARGE QUANTITIES. IT IS ONE OF THE MOST USEFUL CHEMICALS KNOWN AND IS USED THROUGHOUT OUR CIVILIZATION. *HER STATEMENTS WILL SCARE PEOPLE FROM TRYING IT AND THUS THEY WILL CONTINUE MUCH SUFFERING WHEN IT IS NOT NECESSARY.

    Many people do not know that MMS is essentially bleach. It’s very effective for killing bacteria in toilets,
    IT IS NOT USED IN HOUSEHOLD TOILETS ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD NOR AS HOUSEHOLD BLEACH.

    but you certainly shouldn’t be swallowing it. The active ingredient in MMS is not a mineral, *
    SHE SHOULD HAVE LEARNED IN HIGH SCHOOL THAT ANYTHING THAT IS NOT ANIMAL OR VEGETABLE HAS GOT TO BE MINERAL. THE FACT IS THAT THE ACTIVE INGREDIENT IN MMS IS A MINERAL. *BUT OF COURSE GABRIELA INSISTS THAT IT IS NOT A MINERAL. HOWEVER IT IS FOUND IN VARIOUS DEPOSITS OF ROCK IN VARIOUS PARTS OF THE WORLD. THE FACT IS THE ACTIVE INGREDIENT IN MMS IS A MINERAL. *HOWEVER SOMETIMES IT IS MORE CONVENIENT TO MANUFACTURE IT, BUT THAT DOESN’T MAKE IT ANY LESS A MINERAL. CHECK IT OUT ON THE INTERNET.

    but chlorine dioxide (oxygenated chlorine
    IS *NOT CONSIDERED OXYGENATED CHLORINE IN THE CHEMICAL WORLD),

    which is formed from the chemical combination of sodium chlorite and acetic acid (vinegar) or citric acid.
    THIS IS NOT TRUE AS SODIUM CHLORITE AND ACETIC OR CITRIC ACID DO NOT MAKE ANY KIND OF A CHEMICAL COMBINATION.

    MMS as a poison does kill intrusive germs in your body, but it would be naïve to believe it to be carefully selective in what it kills and destroys,
    SEE MY REFERENCES AT THE END OF THIS ARTICLE. I HAVE LISTED 6 COMPANIES THAT USE CHLORINE DIOXIDE BECAUSE IT IS SELECTIVE AND EVEN THE EPA HAS WRITTEN A PARAGRAPH ABOUT THE SELECTIVITY OF CHLORINE DIOXIDE IN THEIR SPECIFICATIONS SHEET.

    or to think that the damage done has only limited consequences. It is shocking that MMS is recommended so widely, that it is recommended to already weaken individuals AND that it is recommended for long-term use. In truth, the potential long-term and dangerous side effects of regular MMS use should give anyone the shivers.
    DOES ANYONE SEE ANYTHING WRONG WITH THIS STATEMENT. WELL, WHEN TRYING TO RUIN SOMEONE’S REPUTATION YOU DON’T JUST GET TO MAKE ONE UNSUBSTANCIATED STATEMENT AFTER THE OTHER. NOT ONLY IS IT UNFAIR BUT MOST PEOPLE CAN SEE RIGHT THROUGH IT. YOU NEED TO BACK UP YOUR STATEMENTS WITH LOGICAL DATA OR ACTUAL FACTS. *DO I NEED TO POINT IT OUT? THERE ARE NO FACTS OR SUBSTANCIATION IN THIS STATEMENT ENDING WITH, “SHOULD GIVE ANYONE THE SHIVERS.” IT’S JUST HER OPINION.

    Before we continue, an important lesson on oxidation and free radicals is needed to help us understand the long-term consequences of the use of MMS1 and its successor MMS2. This information is crucial to see why MMS is NOT an alternative health solution. Oxygen is an essential element that supports life, but in the wrong place or at the wrong time, oxygen can wreak much havoc on our cells, causing cancer, contributing to cardiovascular disease, degenerative diseases, and aging through a process called oxidation. You have seen the effects of oxidation whenever you have observed an apple turn brown and go bad after being exposed to air, or when you see the flame of a candle. We use oxygen in order to take electrons from the sugar and fat molecules that we use for fuel. The molecules we wish to keep intact, however, are subject to oxygen’s burning influence and they are at risk of losing electrons as well. The fire from a candle flame aptly illustrates oxidation in which the electrons of the candle wax are ripped off by oxygen in the atmosphere with the resulting, self-perpetuating release of light and heat. As oxygen makes its way through the body, many of its molecules lose an electron. This means that they become chemically unstable and highly reactive ions as free radicals are formed. These unstable metabolic by-products of energy production in cells strive to stabilize by ‘stealing’ a replacement electron from any neighboring molecule, leaving even more damaged molecules in their wake. This is how free radicals in our bodies are produced and cause inflammation, a process that is best known as oxidative stress or oxidative damage. Oxidation can even cause debilitating changes to your DNA.
    ALTHOUGH CHLORINE DIOXIDE IS AN OXIDIZER, IT DOES NOT USE OXYGEN IN ANY WAY, THUS GABRIELA ONCE AGAIN SHOWS HERE IGNORANCE OF THE PROCESS.

    Depending on where this oxidative damage takes place, it can lead to any number of the following diseases: atherosclerosis (plaque in blood vessels), cancer, arthritis, cataracts, neurodegenerative disorders such as Alzheimer’s disease, autoimmune diseases, and many other health problems generally related to aging. Any free radical involving oxygen can be referred to as a Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS). A perfect example of a ROS is hypochlorous acid, which is now also known as Miracle Mineral Solution 2 (MMS2). Keep in mind that the loss of electrons from molecules whose integrity is vital to the structure of our cell membranes, DNA, skin or eyes results in damage and disease. Oxidation is the most toxic force affecting all the molecules of the body; it’s the enemy of youth, the ally of all diseases, and the fundamental mechanism of all injury,
    I DO NOT WANT TO INSULT THE LADY, BUT YOU MUST SEE THE STATEMENT THAT “THE FUNDAMENTAL MECHANISM OF ALL INJURY” (IS OXIDATION?) IS JUST A RUN ON STATEMENT WITH NO THOUGHT AT ALL. IT IS NOT TRUE.

    all aging, and eventually, of death [1].
    SURE, AND WITHOUT OXIDATION YOU WOULD BE DEAD WITHIN MINUTES. IN FACT, WHEN YOU TAKE THE POISON CYANIDE THAT IS WHAT HAPPENS, CYANIDE PREVENTS OXIDATION IN YOUR BODY AND IT KILLS YOU FASTER THAN ANY OTHER POISON KNOWN. THIS LADY IS TRYING TO SCARE YOU CONCERNING OXIDATION BUT THE FACT IS THAT IT IS AN ABSOLUTELY NECESSITY IN YOUR BODY. THAT IS WHAT GENERATES YOUR BODY HEAT AND HELPS WITH DIGESTION AND EVERY TIME YOU MOVE A MUSCLE OXIDATION HAPPENS TO MAKE THE MUSCLE WORK. YOU WOULD DIE WITHIN MINUTES IF OXYGEN WAS NOT OXIDIZING THE POISONS THAT THE OPERATION OF YOU BODY GENERATES.

    [This Message was Edited on 08/20/2010]
  10. gapsych

    gapsych New Member


    Jim Humble may claim to know his chemistry but he really doesn't. He basically using pseudoscience, throwing a bit of science to make it seem like it just might be okay.

    Then he throws in the conspiracy theories, more junk science and makes outrageous claims.

    Many chemist as well as other scientist have scrutinized his work and proven that his claims are just not scientifically valid.

    Now he has formed a church and claims to be a descendant of Christ. Great tax deduction there.

    I am surprised the man is not in jail for fraud.

    gap

    Edit That should be descended from the apostles.[This Message was Edited on 08/20/2010]
  11. u&iraok

    u&iraok New Member

    Yeah, that's a little weird. And I'm sure it's going to offend some Christians. But I guess he feels desperate times call for desperate measures. He's doing it to provide protection for people who are forced to take vaccines, forced to have health insurance. If you belong to a religion that dictates you don't take vaccines, for example you are exempt from being forced to take them.

    My husband works for a hospital and did everything to try and avoid getting a flu vaccine. The last time he had a flu vaccine he got sick. He got the flu for the very first time in his life at age 40 after getting the shot. Ever since then he's gotten the flu easily and has other problems. And this time if he wanted to keep his job he had to get the shot, so he did. He got sick. Several doctors and nurses at the hospital confirmed he reacted to the flu shot. He was able to get a doctor to sign off on his not having to get a flu shot next year but the doctor quit right after that and he had to fight really hard to make sure the doctor's recommendation went into his file tand we don't know if they will honor it when it comes time for the shot. I had MAJOR problems from some flu shots I got. I will do almost anything to avoid that again, and though I won't join Jim Humble's church I can see why many people would if it would mean an exemption from a flu shot.

    But back to MMS. Of course you are just being sensible and cautious in assuming you must avoid what the FDA says is dangerous. It does come down to whether you trust the FDA's ruling on this. You see the words 'FDA' and you assume that it's trustworthy and the source you turn to to see what's safe. But unfortunately we live in a world where money is King and people and agencies can be bought with a price. The FDA unfortunately has a current track record of corruption. I could quote many sources to prove this but I'm not going to do that here. You can do your own research.

    MMS does work and it's so simple and inexpensive. Many people have been helped with serious diseases. No one has been hurt by it. It's a threat, pure and simple.
  12. u&iraok

    u&iraok New Member

    I guess it comes down to which sources you believe. But thank you for your concern. I appreciate that. :)

    I think it's a real bummer that there's such a divide between allopathic and alternative. I hate seeing the divide and I hate seeing the sarcasm and cutting attitudes and attacking. (not from me and you. :) )

    When you say "How is it possible..." ...that MMS does these things you've hit the crux of the matter. The whole idea behind alternative medicine is that modern science is young and isn't yet able to explain the mechanism behind many of the things that heal. Homeopathy, for example. It's laughed to death by science, the idea that an amount of a substance so small that it's almost the ghost of the substance that heals seems preposterous and impossible. Yet, it works. How is MMS selective? We don't know. Think of all the things we know now that were laughed at at one time. Each idea seemed preposterous when first presented.

    Sadly, we would be so much farther forward if it weren't for the fact that money is the bottom line in the mainstream health field. We are prevented from moving forward with so many treatments that are natural because they can't be patented. As they scramble to make the drug equivalent of a natural substance precious time is wasted and many people sicken. Then they sicken from the drug. (I am not against drugs just so many so much of the time and used as first or sole remedy and especially the newer ones which are approved too soon and have the unsuspecting public acting as guinea pigs)

    We also cannot use new knowledge, such as what we know about cholesterol, because statins are one of the biggest, if not the biggest moneymakers. We are using outdated information from the 1940's about cholesterol, and from which we now know results were cherry-picked and so were not accurate.

    Don't get me wrong. Science is awesome. We have so many wonderful advances and people are working hard at it. I am very appreciative. I love science myself and love to learn how things work. It so cool and interesting. And where would we be without it? But how can we completely trust science when scientists can be bought and not all research can be approved but has to have financial backing from entities that can pick what is special interest and the only entities that can afford to run studies are drug companies who falsify data in order to sell drugs?

    I am so saddened and sickened when I think about all the genius that was prevented from bringing help to mankind and how far we'd be if all people were unselfish and caring.

    Finally, and most importantly, it's about helping the body heal itself, not suppressing symptoms. When a fire alarm goes off the firemen don't turn the alarm off because it's loud and annoying and go back to sleep and ignore the fire.

    The human body is amazing and so very very little is known about it at this time. It is arrogance and foolishness to believe that the science we have now is sufficient. It reminds me of a scene from a Star Trek movie where they go back in time to our present and Dr. McCoy sees a woman being wheeled to dialysis, I think, and he says, "Barbaric!" and heals her with his handheld device. When we're there then science will no longer be in a youthful stage and alternative medicine will no longer be alternative. (And we'll understand how MMS works and it will be no big deal. :) )
    [This Message was Edited on 08/24/2010]
  13. robco

    robco New Member

    I does work. I have HIV and went off my meds to take MMS it has been 3 years and my HIV is nonreactive and undetectable which means i will never need meds again. now the FDA has banned MMS now what?
    [This Message was Edited on 10/01/2010]
  14. robco

    robco New Member

    I does work. I have HIV and went of my meds to take MMS it has been 3 years and my HIV is nonreactive and undetectable which means i will never meed meds again. now the FDA has banned MMS now what?
  15. gapsych

    gapsych New Member



    Welcome to the board!!

    Do you have any scientific studies that show MMS prevents HIV turning into AIDS. I will keep an open mind.

    I guess people will have to go back to the conventional drugs that are scientifically shown to stop HIV from becoming AIDS.

    gap
  16. amomwithsickkids

    amomwithsickkids New Member

    I agree with what you've said.

    I don't know anything about MMS, good, bad or indifferent.

    What I do know is that bisphosphonates (fosamax, actonel, etc.) are FDA-approved and there have been some very serious side effects from their use. I wouldn't go near them for all the tea in China. There are better alternatives, for me at least. Like calcium, vit D3 supps bio-identical HRT. There are also things like forteo and strontium to help bones.

    Statins are also FDA-approved. My knowledge of those is somewhat limited, but I do recall reading about their negative effects. Personally, I'd rather rely on a better diet and if needed a supplement like cholestepure.

    And I am not uber-alternative. I've been on the allopathic team all my life. There are some health conditions that supplements, herbs, homeopathic just can't touch. But neither approach stands alone. Both modalities need to be used and appreciated.
  17. chbaba

    chbaba New Member

    I have been taking this and it is truely amazing. Yes, it does have a detox effect, and you need to watch to stay within the recommended protocol for dosage. Other than that, its been wonderful. I was pain free within one day, and subsequent days have been feeling more energy, more clear headed and more limber.

    The FDA claims really amount to nothing more than a detox warning. I was aghast when I saw how abruptly they tried to shut MMS down, especially when you consider the side effect of many of the pharmaceuticals that the FDA has APPROVED which include, but are not limited to: liver failure, depression, impotence, blindness, breast cancer....Listen to the disclaimers next time a drug commercial airs. So the hypocrisy can only be explained to me in that MMS is too threatening to the medical industrial complex.

    I consulted several prominent healers to get their experience with MMS before I tried it, and all of them raved about it.

    If you try it, just be sure to start slow and don't overdose.
  18. Billt1

    Billt1 New Member

    I tried MMS on an infected area on my skin (cellulitis) at full strength, and instead of curing the problem, it burnt my skin and made the cellulitis more inflamed. I also tried it at full strength on a patch of Psoriasis, and again it made my skin burn and the psoriasis got worse. I only used it a couple of times and experienced these results, so I discontinued using it. However, those who have used it longer, may have had different results, but I was too scared to use it after my initial experience. Also, when mixing the chemicals it released a very strong pungent chlorine gas smell that permeated both my kitchen and dining room, which is a fairly large area.