Talk:Miracle Mineral Supplement

The MMS Guy is pushing Calcium hypochlorite as the mark 2 version of his miracle cure.

[1] It looks like he will keep moving up the reactivity scale until it really starts killing people.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.65.191.122 (talk • contribs)

Cleanup Request

This comment: (producing so-called "rope worms") should be removed fom the article, as it is unnecessary in the paragraph it's in.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HelixxUnderscore (talk • contribs) 17:43, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

@HelixxUnderscore: I don't understand why it's unnecessary. Can you please elaborate? SmartSE (talk) 17:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Citation needed for "falsely promoted" Extended-confirmed-protected edit request

Add after the word 'falsely' in the first sentence. Also add Autism , Eczema after cancer

Hamsterson 06:02, June 11, 2022‎ (UTC)

 Not done as the lead does not need references as it is based on referenced content in the body of article. This is standard practice. There the false nature of the claims is mentioned several times. I also added a signature for you. Always add a signature and timestamp to every comment by adding four tildes. This is a fringe topic as it lacks any scientific evidence, and the claims made are pseudoscientific quackery. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:20, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the tilde, Val. Advertising that this topic is technically 'fringe' is superfluous and betrays a personal animus. I ask you, is a 'fringe topic' considered by the 'confirmed editors' community to be one which people should be discouraged from editing or attending to?

"Standard practice" on subjects deemed "pseudoscientific quackery" in your case would seem to be deniaL of pLain evidence of which there is manifold in the present case. What I surmise you intend by "scientific evidence" is a double-blind trial with thousands of participants funded by hundreds of millions of dollars in drug profits by rapacious serial felons like Pfizer, or the government agencies that protect them. We can be sure this will never happen for a drug that costs .10

You are right of course, the claims of 'miraculous' recoveries are made by pseudo-scientific pseudo-people, and Quacks helping each other find answers to problems that we must studiously insist have no solution.

Hamsterson (talk) 05:55, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Did this have a point? I could not find it in all that empty rhetorics and hyperbole. I think you should read WP:TALK. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:53, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling@Valjean does this clearly need a DS talk notice? Doug Weller talk 11:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes @Hob Gadling, a reader might easily see that "this" has several:

Point 1) a question regarding the tone of the response which seems to contain a hostile bias

Point 2) a rebuttal seeking to refute the stated basis for rejecting the suggested edit; the hope being perhaps another 'confirmed editor' not sharing this bias (clearly not yourself) might come to aid.

Point 3) Rhetorical defense of myself and those who feel similarly that this is an important topic, pointing to the gentleman's own angry hyperbolic mockery by turning it against him.

Does this need a talk notice @Doug Weller?

Hamsterson (talk) 16:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

For what? Doug Weller talk 17:42, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

the lead does not need references as it is based on referenced content in the body of article. This is standard practice. answered your question. The matter is resolved, and you are trying to "win" by blowing hot air, e.g. your "points" 1 and 3. I could not find anything resembling a "rebuttal", so your point 2 does not exist. Please consult WP:TALK to find out why you are not using this Talk page for its intended purpose. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:52, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Calling something false and fake, which is false and fake is not in any way a "hostile bias". It is the very definition of being neutral. A hostile bias would be referring to this as "bullshit" or mocking people who believe in it, neither of which we do. Your complaints, in fact, show many signs of a hostile bias to the truth on this issue. Ironic, but that's generally the case with editors who complain of bias in articles such as these. Happy (Slap me) 13:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

o KewoL!! it's like a barroom brawL wher no-one leaves his barstooL lol Hamsterson (talk) 21:25, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Readability suggestion for opening sentence

The opening sentence is structured as a compound sentence and borders being run-on. I suggest the following minor edit,

Miracle Mineral Supplement, often referred to as Miracle Mineral Solution, Master Mineral Solution, MMS or the CD protocol,[1] is a branded name for an aqueous solution of chlorine dioxide, an industrial bleaching agent, and it that has been falsely promoted as a cure for illnesses including HIV, cancer and the common cold. Techguy95 (talk) 17:57, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Yup, a definite improvement. Done. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

15 killed or poisoned in Bolivia?

I have amended the article to say that 15 were “poisoned” rather than “killed”, as that is all the cited Guardian article says. Unfortunately, “to poison” is ambiguous;; although Wiktionary only gives “kill or paralyse with poison”, Chambers agrees with my feeling that it can also mean “administer poison to”, “injure with poison”, “pollute with poison” etc. If they were killed, or if longer-term statistics were available, a better citation would be very welcome! PJTraill (talk) 19:32, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

"former clairvoyant"?

Under the heading "Uganda", the final paragraph begins "British former clairvoyant Sam Little..." "Clairvoyance is not a real thing, so there can be no such thing as a "former clairvoyant". This should be changed to reflect this reality; perhaps to "Former self-described British clairvoyant Sam Little..." Bricology (talk) 17:37, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Agreed and revised. Zefr (talk) 18:42, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

There are also no such things as Psychics and Mediums, yet many of the bios for such people persist in defining those claiming to be such as exactly that. Just one example: Thomas John (medium). Rp2006 (talk) 22:42, 21 January 2023 (UTC)