Talk:Miracle Mineral Supplement

Objectivity of this article and criticism

I think we have to be very careful how to treat this article. This is an obvious snake oil, even linking to this guy's sites is "promotion" on the part of wikipedia, and giving specific information about the exact procedures of preparation and such is inappropriate. Just because no one has published scientific studies on THIS particular quack medicine, I don't think it means we can not include information pertaining to exactly the same claims, like the link I have added from quackwatch. Vespine (talk) 09:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

If care is to be used, perhaps colloquialisms like snake oil should be more properly (and sensitively) rendered as quackery as done later in the above paragraph. Traditional Chinese medicine has long used the oil from the Chinese water snake as relief for arthritis and joint pain, with the claimed active ingredient being eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), an omega-3 fatty acid. The western counterpart is the New Zealand green-lipped mussel, whose oil serves essentially the same purpose and which you will find being aggressively promoted at some US pharmacies (for example right under the customer's gaze at the counter of the well-run Palo Alto pharmacy I've been using for many years). Is it fair to ridicule the Chinese animal while accepting without protest the curative benefits of its New Zealand counterpart? (Disclaimers: I haven't tried either for my own arthritis, have no vested interests in either, and have no opinions either way on how much of the benefit of either is from the placebo effect.)

While the literature promoting MMS seems based largely (entirely?) on anecdotal evidence, this article spans the gamut from careful studies to drive-by hit jobs like the alleged fatal renal failure in the first paragraph. The article sourcing this claim describes someone who attempted suicide by ingesting 10 g of sodium chlorite, precipitating an acute hemolytic crisis leading to acute renal failure. Recovery can be on the order of weeks but in the case of this suicide attempt renal function reportedly took three months to normalize. The concluding sentence of the article's abstract reads, "To our knowledge, there has been no clinical report of human intoxication with sodium chlorite," which I don't know how to interpret in light of this incident (no prior report perhaps?), though it certainly was not fatal, contrary to the claim in the article.

Conclusion: If care is to be used, the first step might be to weed out the more egregious instances of poorly documented hit jobs like that one, and focus on properly conducted studies and sourced assessments of the quality of the MMS literature and research. A more neutral tone would also be appreciated. (Disclaimer: my own interest in promoted cures like MMS is with a close relative younger than me given only a short time to live, a situation greatly sensitizing one to the gamut of efficacious alternative medicine, wishful thinking, and willful fraud. A promoted cure that is more likely to be fatal than the disease should clearly not be taken, but suggestions to that effect are irresponsible when based on inaccurate reporting.) --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 15:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

If you didn't notice, you are replying to a post over a year old. Regarding me calling it snake oil, this is a talk page, the term is not used in the article so your first paragraph is completely unwarranted. As for the rest, my conclusion is that MMS is dangerous nonsense that deserves absolutely NO leniency. I've been actively investigating MMS for about 18 months now and NOTHING has changed: The BS excuses are exactly the same, the LACK of any studies or reviews and the complete lack of even a SINGLE corroborated account of MMS actually CURING ANYONE OF ANYTHING; there is absolutely NO reason or excuse to NOT treat this crap like the potentially dangerous quack scam that it is. In fact, if it wasn't for the positive public caution message, this kind of nonsense wouldn't even deserves its own article. I dare anyone to approach an actual printed encyclopedia and see if they would even consider if MMS warrants its own article. Vespine (talk) 05:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

If Wikipedia has a statute of limitations on replies to comments then my apologies for being unaware of it.

The problem I see with angry-toned defenses of either side of any disagreement is that they tend to undermine the credibility of that side. My point was to strengthen the article by suggesting a more professional sounding ("encyclopedic") tone.

I was also under the impression that Wikipedia tries to maintain a civil tone not only in the articles but in the talk pages, which is why I felt my first paragraph was warranted, contrary to your claim. Language like "absolutely NO reason or excuse to NOT treat this crap like the potentially dangerous quack scam that it is" comes across as unprofessional zealotry rather than a considered opinion to be taken seriously.

It's hard to take either an article or its talk page seriously when its authors are unable to stick to the facts and have to rely on misleading and arguably false information to make their point, for example the unsupported claim that sodium chlorite can cause fatal renal failure, which the source for the statement explicitly contradicts. The article should focus on real problems and not make up imaginary ones, otherwise readers are no more likely to believe your account of the real problems than the imaginary ones, which undermines the purpose you hope this article will serve. Any medical professional that wrote like that would have no chance of getting their article accepted for publication. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 01:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

While the desire to give WP:FRINGE theories a neutral pseudobalance, they remain fringe: no demonstrated benefit, demonstrated potential for harm. In general, it is bad form to accuse other editors of sounding unprofessional when you are misinterpreting the abstract of an article you have not read.Novangelis (talk) 14:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Apologies if my tone sounds "unprofessional" but understand that it is purely based on my lack of patience, not lack of objectivity. If you look at my posts here from OVER 18 months ago, you'll see that they were a lot more calm and collected. I did the research then and I have done a lot more research since then, I have been active on MMS support websites and other "health" forums, on MMS videos on YouTube, and I've read pretty much all the MMS information I've been able to find, but the MMS supporters position has NOT changed one bit. There are NO new case reports, studies, trials, NOTHING, even the claim about how there are thousands of "testimonials" is a load of rubbish, do yourself a favour try to find ONE testimonial on YouTube. It's a complete joke. Jim and his supporters just tirelessly regurgitate the same tired old claims and every few months, someone obviously fairly new to the subject like you comes along and cries foul. I have actually stopped editing the MMS article a long time ago because I agree I find it very hard to be unemotional about the topic, but I won't refrain from giving my opinion on the talk page as I don't believe I am breaking any guidelines doing so. Vespine (talk) 04:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Vespine, the miracle mineral is not snake oil; it is not quackery. I had a tooth root infection, that spread across the nerve into my brain, which was quite alarming, and an 8 drop dose of the miracle mineral in a pint of water cured the infection in four hours. I would recommend that you acquire the miracle mineral, as it could save your life.

If you notice, the ratings of the miracle mineral article are rather low. If you stop treating the miracle mineral as snake oil, and include the pros and cons from Jim Humble's book (I think this is a valid point of research), perhaps the ratings for the article would eventually increase. Right now they are rather abysmal, with a 1.3 for trustworthiness, and a 1.2 for objectivity. Again, if you treat this as a pro-miracle mineral article, and try to find supporting data for this miracle cure, perhaps the ratings would increase, and the article would no longer be listed as C-class. MoogleONE (talk) 05:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

You are wasting your time posting garbage like this here. We don't give a rat's arse what you think drinking overpriced bleach did to cure your toothache, and we don't care what the 'trustworthiness' rating of this article is either. Unlike quacks like Jim Humble, we don't lie to people to increase our credibility. Drinking bleach is dangerous, MMS is a con, and you are either a dupe, or more likely one of Humble's many cronies (if you aren't Humble himself). Go away... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Positive Studies of the Miracle Mineral on Cancer Patients

"3 of the 24 study participants (12.5%) reported a positive result from using MMS, as outlined below:" http://www.alternative-cancer-care.com/MMS_Cancer_Study.html

There are probably more of these. Your quack article is completely biased, and has severely lowered my respect for wikipedia.

Have a nice day. 69.143.187.109 (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

You delete my messages when I'm winning the argument. What a looser, andy. 69.143.187.109 (talk) 22:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

See WP:MEDRS and WP:NOTFORUM - and I suggest you read the article you linked: "MMS may slow the progression of cancer, however this has not been established on this study". "may": even quackery-promoting websites don't seem to support claims that it demonstrably does anything other than relieve people of the contents of their bank account. Though from anecdotal evidence (i.e. the nonsense that its promoters spout), I suspect that as well as the nausea and diarrhoea side effects reported, significant brain-rotting may be occurring. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

There is some secret technique you wikipedia users are using, to ban and oust out non-wikipedia users opinions. I did not vandalize this webpage Drmies; Andythegrump vandalized it by removing my text from the talk page. You say there is no evidence to support that the MMS works, but my own successes with the miracle mineral should point to SOME wiki-friendly PRO-EVIDENCE existing SOMEWHERE! Someone needs to find these 75,000 trials conducted in africa by Jim Humble. 1) The MMS is not quackery. 2) "I suspect that as well as the nausea and diarrhoea side effects reported, significant brain-rotting may be occurring." is a personal attack, and should be deleted. Let's play by the rules, huh? Stop making personal attacks.

I don't know how to change the edit summary, so if someone could help me here.. 69.143.187.109 (talk) 22:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a talk page for discussing article content. We base article content on published reliable sources - which for topics like this means peer-reviewed mainstream medical journals. We do not use material from unknown websites making 'scientific' claims (not that the site you linked claimed that MMS worked anyway). And neither do we base article content on anecdotal evidence. Jim Humble may well claim to have conducted 75,000 trials. We don't care. They aren't evidence of anything whatsoever, beyond the fact that Jim Humble makes claims and then fails to provide anything to back them up. Per policy, material not directly related to article content may be deleted from talk pages (seeWP:NOTFORUM). Soapboxing about Wikipedia 'bias', and suggesting that some random pro-quackery website is in any way relevant to this article is a waste of your time, and ours. If you consider my comments about 'brain-rotting' to be a personal attack, I have to ask whether your combative initial post was anything else? Unless you have suggestions for changes to the article which conform to Wikipedia policy, and are based on reliable sources (see WP:MEDRS for what is required), I suggest you stop posting - this isn't a forum for debate on anything else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

"A primary source in medicine is one in which the authors directly participated in the research or documented their personal experiences." (from WP:MEDRS) I documented my personal experience of the miracle mineral curing my tooth root infection, in my lower-jaw, that had spread to my brain, travelling across the nerve, in UNDER 4 HOURS, and you DELETED MY POST FROM THIS TALK THREAD, WHICH IS VANDALISM, AND then you said that this was my "point of view", while you adopt the "point of view" that the miracle mineral is evil quackery. I cannot recall my previous post from the history, due to conflicts in intermediate edits, and I DEMAND that an admin place a warning on you, for VANDALISM by DELETING MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE from the talk thread.

Also, Jim Humble has directly participated in a research on 75,000 malaria patients in africa, so he is a primary source for the miracle mineral as well. We have to go by the rules here.

Also, the mms church must have had lots of personal experiences of the curative effects of the miracle mineral, and you guys decry these people as "lackeys" of Jim Humble, and cry "point of view", while YOU HOLD a "point of view" as well! What is this nonsense??? I demand an administrator come here, and allow the primary sources of Jim Humble and his "lackeys" into the main wikipedia article for the miracle mineral. Your bias here is unbelievable! The miracle mineral WORKS! This is undisputable.

You also engage in personal attacks, by referring to the mms church as the "church of bleach-chuggers". Well, that they are, a church of bleach chuggers, except the bleach DOES NOT HARM THE HEALTHY CELLS IN THE BODY, MAKING THIS A MIRACLE CURE. This ****IS***** a miracle cure, and I *****DEMAND***** that the wikipedia article reflect the non-bogus, curative nature of the miracle mineral. 69.143.187.109 (talk) 04:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, now the wikipedia-elite are now bashing and shoving aside the un-skilled wikipedia users, using some ridiculous jargon. The sources are NOT unreliable. They are VERY reliable, and I demand that an administrator punish you Yobol for VANDALISING the article. Then you claim the wikipedia is not a forum, THEN WHY AM I BEING PERSONALLY ATTACKED, by Andythegrump whenever I try to make a constructive message? Please undo the hide you did of this discussion, or I will do it for you. Stop hiding all of the positive primary sources of the miracle mineral, while promoting only the erroneous, negative sources. Governments can be incorrect you know. I don't know what they're thinking, the FDA telling people to dispose of the miracle cure for cancer and aids. 69.143.187.109 (talk) 05:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I just sent a report to the FDA, concerning my tooth root infection that travelled to the brain, and hopefully we will find some "reliable, positive sources" soon for the miracle mineral. 69.143.187.109 (talk) 05:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I just removed your hide of my text, and I also registered my account, so you won't see my IP 69.143.187.109 anymore. Let's see if you have the balls to continue this edit war with me, deleting and hiding my constructive attempts to rectify the horrible mangling you're doing to the miracle mineral with your insanely-biased article. I went ahead and requested dispute resolution. Let's see you guys hoist yourselves on your own petard, by deleting/hiding my comments. MoogleONE (talk) 07:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I looked at the beginning of the history of the miracle mineral supplement article, and it's very obviously a well-calculated smear attempt against Jim Humble. I have lost all of my interest with this article, and probably won't be making anymore edits. I leave it to someone else to clean out the trash. MoogleONE (talk) 09:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I will clean out all trash I can find. You can focus your attention elsewhere. Von Restorff (talk) 08:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Minerals?

It strikes me odd that something called Miracle Mineral Supplement does not contain any minerals. Is anyone aware of a source that has commented on this fact? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't contain any miracles, that's for sure... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I had another look for sources ~10 days ago and didn't come across anything about that. There's not really any coverage beyond the fact that it's quackery. SmartSE (talk) 23:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Their website itself comments on it. Or one of them anyway. I'll see if I can dig it up for you. I think the ultimate answer is Humble's knowledge of geology is rivaled only by his knowledge of biochemistry and his penchant for honesty. In other words, he pulled the name out of his ***.

Upholding Unbiased and Objective Information

This is a wonderful example of how NOT to have a constructive conversation. The rules clearly state that this is NOT a forum, and should NOT be used to discuss personal biases and sling mud at each other. Wikipedia is supposed to be an unbiased source of information and so far, none of you have shown that you can objectively consider both sides of the subject. In my opinion, none of those whom have contributed to this "Talk" page, should be allowed to edit or modify the actually MMS page.

In order to provide a truly informative, educational and objective page on MMS, all sides should be shown from a non-biased perspective. Which means that personal opinions and experiences hold no water unless they come from a verified expert in the subject of health and the use of homeopathic remedies, and that expert opinion is also followed up from an equal expert of an opposite opinion. --Bema Self (talk) 11:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bema Self (talk • contribs) 11:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I've moved this to a new section. The problem is, is that there are no reliable sources which explain the other side of MMS. Whilst I guess it can be said that the article is biased against MMS, that is because all the sources warn against using MMS, and so this is naturally reflected in the article - we only publish what has already been published. If you've got any ideas on how it can be improved, please go ahead. SmartSE (talk) 12:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Bema Self, I have reverted your edits. Blogs are not reliable sources. NPOV does not mean that we give equal weight to all sides of an argument; per WP:VALID, we give greater weight to reliable academic scholarship than fringe theories. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Bema Self, Wikipedia policy is pretty clear on what we see as an objective article: WP:NPOV (especially WP:WEIGHT and WP:BALANCE). Everything on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable via reliable sources (see Smartse's link), and medical claims are subject to even higher standards. I wonder why someone who's an expert in “the use of homeopathic remedies” would have any more credibility here than my grandmother - the relevant fields here are Toxicology, Epidemiology, Oncology and perhaps (since it's claimed to be a supplement) Dietetics. --Six words (talk) 15:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the info, I have read all the wiki policies I should have read in the first place and have once more attempted to provide an unbiased page on this subject.

That being said, has anyone considered simply deleting the entire subject of MMS on wikipedia? Clearly, whether you leave it as it, or change it back, it will still violate the NPOV. Not to mention, if it's not academic, and it's not verifiable or deniable from either reputable sources (since no reputable groups have done studies on the medicinal uses of MMS in the terms that humble describes), then it will always be a useless page that is not objective, educational or informative.

Couldn't we just link the search for MMS to the page for Chlorine Dioxide? That page already holds basic information about MSS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bema Self (talk • contribs) 09:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC) --Bema Self (talk) 09:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources show harm. Reliable sources do not show any benefit or even preliminary medical safety testing of the preparation. That's the unbiased information.Novangelis (talk) 13:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I partly agree: what you've added under the section “experimental uses” could at most be added to Chlorine dioxide, if there are better sources (used as mouth wash - a study with N=15? That's not good enough! A case report? No way!). This article is about “the supplement” sodium chlorite, and (medical) trials are only relevant for the MMS article if they study one of the purported uses as “alternative” treatment (you know, AIDS, Hepatitis, ...). Since a lot has been written about this product, it is notable as a stand-alone article, so I doubt there'll be a consensus to delete or merge it it; you can try to get it deleted/merged anyway, instructions are here. I'm going to revert your latest rewrite and - again - suggest to discuss any change to the article first, and to gain consensus before editing the article. --Six words (talk) 13:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem with trying to write this page only about MMS (sodium chlorite) in it's unactivated form, is that in order to use it according to the way suggested, it says to activate it with citric acid, which then turns it into Chlorine Dioxide, which is what the "miracle" (not much of a miracle, but w/e) part is. Now, if you want to remove all the information about MMS on it's own, without being activated, then rewrite the page to talk about it just that way. Take out anything that talks about MMS when it's activated, like the parts about it becoming a bleach or about anyone drinking it. And remove any parts about "experts" from poison control centers, because they are only talking about when people drink the activated version of MMS, which is CHLORINE DIOXIDE. You can't have it both ways. Either we are talking only about MMS unactivated as Sodium Chloride, or we are talking about the chemical that people use MMS to make (chlorine dioxide). So which is it?

Also, dental problems, cavities, gingivitis and oral sores are some of the things that MMS supposedly works on, that's how I found out about it originally. Which is why I put it in for being relevant to this wiki. I'm not going to suggest it does or doesn't work in the way that humble suggests, but I find that the verifiable experiments preformed by notable organizations, are relevant to this page, as they show that there is some potential weight to the boat that MMS users are all trying to float on. And seriously, it isn't a lot of ground to stand on, and far from enough to show any sort of support of the product, but I feel that it's enough to give some balance to page and allow the representation of both views, because it talks about how recognized science has used Chlorine Dioxide to heal some otherwise incurable issues.

Thank you for your suggestions and information Six words, I appreciate your consensus. I am normally the type of person who would prefer to get group consensus before editing anything. Though it's clear through the history of this page and talk page, that there are very few "watching" this page, who actually want to have the page here for information, and not just to show a large distaste for MMS. And believe me, the stuff seems crazy to anyone on the outside looking in, and I think that side is already fairly represented in the page now. Though there's just no point in having a page up that doesn't represent the information in the traditional fashion of wikipedia - and while the NPOV may not "require" a completely unbiased page, it does say that we should give our best efforts to be unbiased, balanced and written in a fashion of disinterest or detachment. The current page doesn't do any of that. If it did, you wouldn't have all these newbies coming on here trying to fix the page.

It makes me wonder if this page isn't left up, not for it's value, but simply as a fish hook to lure in unsuspecting people who have no idea the kind of nonsense they're going to have to deal with in order to try and help out. I mean, I thought that wikipedia was a group project that anyone could edit? So far, you've all refused to allow me to make any tiny edits, big edits or even to just reorganize the information so that the page doesn't look so dreadful, because as a writer, I can tell you the formatting looks horrible. You've even refused to incorporate any of the information I supplied into the article in other ways. It is relevant, though I could see it being worded differently. Yet NONE of you want to do the work. So while I did the work, and am continuing to do it, the only thing you do is sit there behind the mask of your computer screens and click the "revert" button. If you're going to be so hypercritical of the changes I've made, then at very least get into the page and make some serious changes yourself, without just reverting back to the original page. That's redundant, childish, and only going to result in the continuation of problems with this page.

I am going to seek the help of an admin, while I search for relevant studies of the uses of "sodium chlorite". While I do that, it would be helpful if anyone who has reverted the page again and again, to not just complain, but to get out there and do some research to. You need a better argument then the WP:NPOV and relevancy excuses. They don't have any legs to stand on, because according to those same rules, the current page doesn't fit either. And as far as wikipedia keeping the page simply because a lot of people have written about, that sounds pretty darn silly, especially in the form the page is in now. --Bema Self (talk) 21:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

"Research?" You mean "Drink bleach, if it doesn't kill you, it might kill something else more useful"? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

This is what research looks like. I've changed the section from "Safety" to "Safety and legal issues". If the two can be untangled, they might be broken into separate sections.Novangelis (talk) 23:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Good, that does help increase the integrity of this article. Though I wonder, if we are going to include the experience of a woman who could have potentially misused the substance, should we include something from someone who has used it and found good results, even if they could have experienced a placebo effect or combined the substance with something else that made it work better than it should have? Last I read that article about the woman who died, they hadn't yet done an autopsy to confirm if it was the MMS that killed her or not. There are so many variables, that I wonder if the information should be included according the NPOV. What do you think? --Bema Self (talk) 01:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

All consumption of MMS is abuse, unless you have a medical or legal source that says otherwise.Novangelis (talk) 01:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it can be considered abuse, but it is not the job of wikipedia to decide what is or is not abuse of a substance. There are articles on the use of recreational and medicinal cannabis, which are both illegal by the federal government regardless of the safety of using them and not "officially" recognized as having medicinal value. That is abuse of the substance, isn't it? If it were the job of wikipedia to censor information because it's considered abuse of the substance, wouldn't all other articles of the same be left out? That would require changes to such articles on topics like hallucinogens, drugs, colloidal silver, bongs, homeopathy and a number of other subjects, wouldn't it? They all talk about how others have claimed benefits that have no medical verifiability, but don't promote those uses and are not completely biased --Bema Self (talk) 04:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Is that the best rebuttal you have andy? Really? lol— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bema Self (talk • contribs) 00:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I would like to apologize for this statement. It serves no purpose other than to add fuel to the fire, and I shouldn't have done it. I am not sure how to strike through this, so I am adding my apologizes here. --Bema Self (talk) 01:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Put <s> and </s> around your text like this Nobody Ent 17:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't Bite The Newcomers

I would like to cite WB:DBN, because I truly feel that those of you whom have been on this page long term, especially Andy and Novangelis, whom are not benefiting this conversation or the page with insults to the information and zero objectivity.

"Remember, our motto and our invitation to the newcomer is be bold. We have a set of rules, standards, and traditions, but they must not be applied in such a way as to thwart the efforts of newcomers who take that invitation at face value. A newcomer brings a wealth of ideas, creative energy, and experience from other areas that, current rules and standards aside, have the potential to better our community and Wikipedia as a whole. It may be that the rules and standards need revising or expanding; perhaps what the newcomer is doing "wrong" may ultimately improve Wikipedia. Observe for a while and, if necessary, ask what the newcomer is trying to achieve before concluding that their efforts are substandard or that they are simply "wrong"." From the WB:DNB page --Bema Self (talk) 22:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Then stop trying to sell toxic snake oil.

I would like to cite WP:NEWCOMERYEAHRIGHTJIMHUMBLESTOOGEMORELIKE. I'll choose biting 'newcomers' over allowing crackpots to push bleach as a cure for AIDS, any day of the week. I have morals, unlike you... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Another alternative would be to neither allow unreliable information to be added nor to be unnecessarily biting; the former is as you say and the latter both civil and more efficient (less drama) in the long run. Nobody Ent 17:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussing Deletion of this Page

Okay, first, I would like to apologize for my addition to the vulgar conversation that has been going on here. I find myself ever frustrated with the way in which I and others have been treated when attempting good faith changes on this page, which I have yet to have seen on other pages. Regardless, I should not have added fuel to the fire, and I am sorry that I have done so.

I will add, that even the most disparaging comments, reverts and warnings, have at very least driven me to learn as much as I can about the process of being a wikipedia contributor. In the past, I've only made little changes, and been more of a reader than an editor. Everyone of you has motivated me to be more active here on wikipedia, for many reasons.

That being said, I would like to redirect this conversation into one that is more constructive about the topic at hand and the situation the page is in. I have reviewed previous comments, from myself and others, presently and from past conversations, and I seriously feel we should delete this page on MMS. Now, before I try to do more things I am unfamiliar and inexperienced with that will likely result in me being Bitten (WB:DBN) again, I would like to try and resolve this issue and get a true consensus for the idea of deleting this page. If we can't agree on how it should be written/edited, or on deletion, I will continue to seek the involvement of administrators, which I would prefer to avoid, as we are all intelligent people, and I believe there has to be a way we can be reasonable about this.

I feel it should be deleted on [the following] grounds: --Bema Self (talk) 01:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Many of the following policies and guidelines are, if true, reasons for improving the article, not for deleting it. The basic rule is that if something is wrong with an article it should be fixed, not deleted. Only things that are unfixable (like the fact that an article about a garage band is not notable) are grounds for deletion. See Wikipedia:Deletion policy. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:ATTACK

although I understand the value of having the information provided on this page there in an attempt to prevent anyone from assuming that MMS is safe, that is not the purpose of wikipedia. Wikipedia is here for encyclopedic information. Unless the page is edited to reflect straight information that neither encourages or discourages the use of MMS, or more information is added, such as the claimed uses - and why those uses should or should not be avoided, relevant information about the use of Chlorine Dioxide and Sodium Chloride, then it is clear the page is simply an attack on the product. Personal feelings are one thing that we should try to avoid on wikipedia, and if we cannot do that, then the page is simply an attack and should not be included, as it serves no other purpose than to goad people into edit and talk warring. WB:ATTACK --Bema Self (talk) 01:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: "Unless the page is edited to reflect straight information that neither encourages or discourages the use of MMS..." That's not how Wikipedia works. The page should reflect what reliable sources say about using MMS. The Wikipedia page on Physical exercise is not written to "neither encourage or discourage" exercising. It simply reports what is in multiple reliable sources - that exercise is good for you. Likewise, the Wikipedia page on Cigarettes is not written to "neither encourage or discourage" smoking. It simply reports what is in multiple reliable sources - that smoking is bad for you. You need to switch your emphasis to what is in the sources, whether the sources are reliable, and whether important sources are missing. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:NPOV

Until some agreement can be made as to supporting the entire subject of MMS in this page, and probably even then, there is no way to avoid the NPOV with this page. In it's current position, it is written only for those who oppose MMS from a person opinion that it is bad. Although the FDA and EPA conduct their own tests on the potential medicinal value of Chlorine Dioxide in the ways suggested by it's creator, then there is no concrete way to prove that it is bad or good for a persons health. Events that have "supposedly" shown that MMS is harmful to your health through published experiences, are no better than the published experiences of those whom have stated the benefits. Both experiences are subjective and subject to random conditions that none of us can no about. Someone who had a bad experience, could have used the product incorrectly, or had a genetic predisposition to the chemical, and someone who used it correctly could have experienced a placebo effect or unknowingly combined the product with something else that actually brought about the success and couldn't only be attributed to the product. Clearly, this page violates the NPOV as it is, and from the perspective of opponents to the product, any attempt to create a NPOV, is only seen as the POV of a supporter. WP:NPOV --Bema Self (talk) 01:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand what NPOV is. Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. Do you have any reliable sources that should be included but aren't right now? If so, please post them here on this talkpage. Von Restorff (talk) 08:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOT - Not Censored

"some articles may include text, images, or links which some people may find objectionable, when these materials are relevant to the content. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal or inclusion of content." Although some might find it "offensive" that information is included that might in some way support MMS, that is not grounds for excluding that information. If we cannot include all information, regardless of our objections to it, the article should be deleted. Not Censored --Bema Self (talk) 01:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Please provide diffs where you believe that content was excluded on the grounds of being "objectionable". I am only seeing arguments that content be excluded because there are no reliable sources that support it.

At this point your list of Wikipedia policies that this page allegedly violates is beginning to look like a case of throwing everything against the wall and seeing what sticks. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOT - WP:BURO

Clearly, there are some instances that the rules should be ignored. I say that in the instance of not promoted unverified claims should be ignored, simply to document those claims, while you say that the NPOV should be violated as to not promoted a perceived scam. There is no way to say who is right, which stands for grounds for deletion, unless someone can propose a way to come to a compromise between all views. WP:BURO

Please show (with diffs) a specific edit that you believe violates Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines, along with the specific portion of the policy. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:BEANS

If you truly want to discourage others from using MMS, attacking it in a wiki page is not the way to do it. Even if you have the best intentions for preventing people from using or doing something, you are actually promoting them to do so. So if there is way more consensus that MMS is harmful and shouldn't be used, we should delete the page so that it doesn't encourage others to see wikipedia as an addition to any smear campaigns, which only further many peoples resolve to try it out. WP:BEANS --Bema Self (talk) 01:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Not a valid reason for deletion. See Wikipedia:Deletion policy --Guy Macon (talk) 14:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:WIN

Wikipedia is not here so that you can be right, win or control a subject, that includes me and everyone else contributing here. The whole consensus should be able to be reasonably proud of this page. With the ratings of this page being terrible, the huge disputes flooding the talk page and all the other problems in here, it is clear that many are taking this subject as a need to win and be right about it, which is not in the spirit of wikipedia at all. If we can't agree on what should be written, we should be able to agree that the content doesn't belong in wikipedia the way it is. WP:WIN --Bema Self (talk) 01:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

It may be clear to you, but I see no evidence that supports it. I see some WP:CIVIL problems, but no WP:WIN problems. As always, diffs documenting specific edits would be a big help. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:COMPREHENSIVE

"Wikipedia is, first and foremost, an encyclopedia, and as such, its primary goal is to be a fully comprehensive and informative reference work; that is, it does not purposefully omit (i.e. suppress or censor) non-trivial, verifiable, encyclopedically-formatted information on notable subjects.

In the pursuit of completeness, Wikipedia includes truthful (sometimes "sensitive") information which could itself be considered, or may have possible uses which could be considered, illegal, immoral, unethical, or potentially harmful. Wikipedia's place is to merely provide useful information; what people do with that information is entirely up to them and is either none of Wikipedia's concern or it is believed that the world is better overall for the information being available than if it were not. Wikipedia's ethos is to be informative. Also, trying to predict how people will use a given piece of information is nigh-impossible; thus, making decisions based on such predictions in order to "protect" an entity is questionable."

Not including the information from all sides of the coin, because you feel the idea is stupid, a scam or that you are protecting people, violates the basic nature of Wikipedia. It is not wikipedia's job to protect people. Only to inform. What people do with that information is their own business. If we can't agree on that, then the page should deleted. WP:COMPREHENSIVE --Bema Self (talk) 01:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

You are right. Not including information because you feel it is stupid or a scam does violates the basic nature of Wikipedia. However, if reliable sources report that it is stupid (see Tobacco smoking for an example) that should be reported. WP:COMPREHENSIVE does not apply in this case. WP:V and WP:RS do. You need to challenge the sources that support things the page says that you don't like. That's the only way to get them removed. You need to find reliable sources that support adding things you want added. That's the only way to get them on the page.

WP:EW

Clearly, there has been an edit war going on here for a very long time. This isn't likely to stop, due to the nature of the subject and the way in which everyone has handled the situation. Reverts should not be used every time, especially on good faith edits. We've all taken part in this, and in order to cease fire for us and in the future, we should delete this page. WP:EW --Bema Self (talk) 01:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Please provide evidence (with diffs) that anyone has been edit warring as defined in Wikipedia:Edit warring. This is clearly a content dispute, not an edit war. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

WB:MERGE

In it's current form, even with the bias, this article is short and not really worthy of having it's own page. Instead of deleting, we might consider merging it into the already covered content on the Chlorine Dioxide page, or add it to the page about Sodium Chlorite or the page about Jim Humble. WP:MERGE --Bema Self (talk) 01:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

We don't have an article on Jim Humble - entering this into our search function redirects here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone mind if I delete/hide this section? I think after the D.R. and some help from others, that most of these issues have been cleared up, and obviously the whole situation was mangled from the beginning. If anyone wants it to stay, that's cool. I just figured it was kind of wasting space now, aside from the helpful info from Guy and AndytheGrump. --Bema Self (talk) 18:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

It is generally best not to hide sections unless they are off-topic or otherwise inappropriate, and we normally only delete vandalism, spamming etc. I'd just leave it as is - it will get archived at some point anyway. 19:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the update. --Bema Self (talk) 20:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Consensus

See Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. If you want to propose the article for deletion, this describes the appropriate way to go about it. There is no point in discussing it here, as even if we were all to agree, such an agreement wouldn't be sufficient reason to ignore the proper procedure. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There is more than enough coverage of the harmful and deadly of MMS to maintain this this page—WP:Notability is easily established. Yes, numerous single purpose accounts have appeared in order to whitewash the sale of snake oil, but there is no reason to eliminate the article. The only challenge is how to better represent the diffuse, possibly non-centralized, network trying to stay under the legal radar by indirectly implying unsubstantiated medical benefits for a corrosive industrial bleach.Novangelis (talk) 01:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I apologize Andy. When I was reading the page about the deletion procedure, it suggested gaining a consensus first before adding any tags. Do you feel I should add the tag even with only three people on this conversation right now?

Novangelis, while I agree that MMS is a notable subject, both by supporters and opponents, and that notoriety is a very good reason to include a subject in wikipedia, that reason alone is not enough to keep it. It would be nice to see the subject represented better, though we have yet to figure out what that compromise is. I would be glad to be a part of a conversation that discusses would could be added or removed in order to prevent the promotion of the product, without violation WB:COMPREHENSIVE or WB:CENSORED. We aren't here to protect people or to control the page according to our personal morals or views. Yet that seems to be the very theme of this talk page and the continued reverting of any good faith attempts to make the article more comprehensive. Which why I really think we should delete this article, despite any notoriety. If it can't be comprehensive, then what's the point of having it here? By slamming it, you only encourage people to try it. By providing all information, you arm people with the information to decide for themselves what should be done. --Bema Self (talk) 02:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy. We do not delete articles on notable subjects because of expressed concerns over neutrality - though your understanding of what constitutes 'neutrality' is in any case contrary to that of Wikipedia policy. And neither do we consider attempts to evade our policy on appropriate sourcing regarding claimed medical products (see WP:MEDRS) to be a legitimate 'compromise'. MMS is a notable example of a bogus 'medicine' that has never been proven to do anything other than empty people's pockets - except when it makes them ill. This is what the sources say, so this is what our article is going to say. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That argument seems a bit bizarre; showing people the actual harm despite the total absence of support for the wild unsubstantiated medical claims is not likely to encourage people. More importantly, that is exactly where all the reliable sources (not "supporters and opponents") lead.Novangelis (talk) 02:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

if that is the way you two feel about it, then why don't we change the article into one about the Scam of MMS. At very least, it would then become an informative article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bema Self (talk • contribs) 03:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Thank you, I just realized I didn't sign and was going to fix that. --Bema Self (talk) 03:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Instead of worrying about the title, focus on building content with reliable sources. The title can always be changed. Whether we put "scam" in the title or not, there is no legitimate medical use for MMS. I see you are coming around to good collaborative behavior, even if your most courteous post has been directed to an automated bot. (In case tone does not transmit appropriately in text, that is intended as a compliment.)Novangelis (talk) 04:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The reason I am concerned about changing the title, is because unless the title is changed to show we are talking about a hoax or scam, then it needs to be a more comprehensive article. It's not an article about the dangers of MMS. It's an article about the subject of MMS, which should be more comprehensive. By providing complete information, we aren't promoting it. We are simply showing what the subject is about.

And yes, the substance is dangerous because there have been no confirmed studies of it being used in the way suggested. Yes there are no reliable materials specifically to support MMS. No one is saying it's not, nor am I suggesting that we should pretend it's not potentially dangerous. Yet, in order to cover the topic comprehensively as suggested by WB:COMPREHENSIVE and to not censor general information according to WB:CENSOR, simply for beliefs about the product. This isn't a forum for writing articles about the opinion that something is dangerous or not. It's not about promoting anything, or not promoting it. It's about clean and wholesome information. Take the article on circumcision - it cannot only be written that circumcision is a wrong, dangerous experience for babies, nor can it be written that it has any complete benefits. So instead of writing about either, the article covers what circumcision is, and why people do it. It's just about information on the subject, not views on the subject. Why can't this article on MMS be the same way?

And thank you for the comment. Despite our disagreements and frustrations with each other and this topic, I hope we can continue to become better collaborators. --Bema Self (talk) 04:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the article's title. It's about MMS and the sources deal with exactly that. Just to remind you: the sources you added were not about MMS, but about chlorine dioxide (either used by professionals who know how to handle chemicals - when used for fumigation, paper production, water sanitation - or pre-mixed solutions that are safe to use - like a mouth wash that was tested on, I need to repeat it, only eight subjects). The rest of what you added (all that “balance”) was without any reliable source! You're asking why this article is the way it is: that's because reliable sources describe MMS like that. We're not censoring information, there's just nothing in the sources saying it is not a dangerous misuse of industrial bleach. --Six words (talk) 09:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Photo/Pics?

I haven't seen anything in the archives or current convo that mentions any discussion on adding any photos to this article? I know the photo has to be royalty-free/creative-commons, though what are any other issues concerned with including a pic or two in this article?

What are the challenges to adding one, what are the hold ups we'd need to watch out for and are there any foreseeable legal issues with anything that might be considered usable? --Bema Self (talk) 09:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:IMAGE & Wikipedia:Image use policy. Von Restorff (talk) 09:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the link to WP's image use policies, lol, I've already read through them several times. Though being new, I am not sure how it all applies to this particular article, and I am also curious about any specific answers to my questions from the consensus in this talk page, not just a list of standards, if that makes sense? --Bema Self (talk) 11:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The main difficulty you would encounter is that the label on a bottle of MMS is copyrighted. You'd therefore need to make a claim of fair use claim to go along side any photograph of the bottle. Details can be found at WP:FUR, but if you upload something then I or someone else could help make sure it is suitable. SmartSE (talk) 11:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

P.S. what's the deal with Ygafi? (or should I ask that question elsewhere?) --Bema Self (talk) 09:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Questions about editors are best asked on that editors talkpage, User talk:Ygafl, but he is blocked indefinitely. Von Restorff (talk) 09:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed the ban, which is why I wasn't sure where to ask. I'll just ignore it next time. =) --Bema Self (talk) 11:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Just as a point of information, it was a block, not a ban - there is a big difference. No one has ever been banned from editing the MMS article. SmartSE (talk) 11:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Good to know, I didn't realize there was a difference between the two. So much more to learn... lol =) Any thoughts on adding a picture to this article SmartSE? --Bema Self (talk) 02:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Not especially - I don't feel strongly either way. SmartSE (talk) 15:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)