Talk:Miracle Mineral Supplement

MMS

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

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

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

Fist and foremost the dosage makes something beneficial or toxic.

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

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

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

If you read about malaria and the global effort that goes into fighting this horrible disease, you would quickly realise that doctors without borders and the countless other volunteer and charity organizations would IMMEDIATELY seize on any cheap malaria treatment if it was indeed effective. Their activity in Africa has no ties to any big pharma companies. If 75000 people were really cured by this, 5 years would not go by without someone taking a serious look at it. Bill Gates through his foundation has donated over 180 million dollars to malaria treatment research. There ARE real treatments of malaria, one of the most effective has been artemisinin a derivative of a common plant. When it was discovered by modern medicine, they pounced on it because they recognised its efficacy in treating malaria. China has used it as a herbal medicine for a thousand years but when the west heard about it the chinese were not keen to share it with the rest of the world, fearing they would be "exploited". Well exploited it has been!! No thanks to China in this case, when the west worked out for them selves what the plant was they exploited it to the fullest possible extent! There was no "Big Pharma" conspiracy to cover it up, millions of dollars were been spent to grow as much of the stuff as possible, and when they couldn't grow any more but they still had a shortage they spent even more money and discovered how to synthesize it!! Now it is an integral part of the treatment of malaria and it is making substantial progress.

In may last year it was reported in Rwanda that malaria was down 60% over the last two years, http://www.rwandagateway.org/article.php3?id_article=11259 . Note there is NO mention of MMS or Jim Humble. If he really had this cure, do you REALLY believe there are NO native doctors in those African countries that care more for their people then for the American drug companies? I don't believe it. The global effort to fight malaria is REAL, Jim Humble's involvement in it is a work of fiction.

Exactly the same story goes for AIDS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry i'm going to rant on now, you asked for it;

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

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

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

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

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

MMS is not Sodium Chlorite but Chlorine Dioxide

Smartse - The information you have put int this page is simply misleading. I have changed it and added supporting links to all the claims I have made, and yet you're determined to put the wrong info back. What is your purpose? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.69.25.72 (talk) 21:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Here are two links that are not sponsored by Jim Humble: http://bioredox.mysite.com/CLOXhtml/CLOXilus.htm http://www.epa.gov/ogwdw000/mdbp/alternative_disinfectants_guidance.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.69.25.72 (talk) 17:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

MMS is sodium chlorite, when it is mixed with the food acid during preparation it becomes acidified sodium chlorite which either is or it releases chlorine dioxide. Quote from Jim's site

"We now know that the chlorine dioxide chemical generated by MMS does not remain in the body more than one or two hours at most."

Operative word there being generated BY MMS.. In Either case, i don't think it's really THAT relevant to the article. We have to be a bit careful how we treat this article, after investigating MMS and Jim Humble for a few months now I actually agree that the safety section is a bit over the top, but I would also more blatantly point out that it is a scam, even in the opening paragraph. Problem is finding reliable sources as references. Pity scientists don't get paid to debunk all the quacks that come along. Vespine (talk) 06:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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)

Integrate CDC Study of Chlorine Dioxide please

Somebody please integrate this?

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

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

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

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

Then just remove ALL references to chlorine dioxide. DOH! Article has everything to do with MMS. MMS is used to PRODUCE chlorine dioxide. The study is about the safety of chlorine dioxide in man AS WELL AS CHLORITE AND CHLORATE (read title of study), which INCLUDES sodium chlorite (MMS). This level of blatant opinion pushing (to the point of ignoring the basic title of the study) is incredible. Amazing how the editors of this subject would like to include every negative article they can find and omit a perfectly valid controlled clinical study. Do we see an emerging agenda anyone? User:Shuzammy (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen the emerging agenda from the very start: A small group of people are perpetrating a disgusting fraud and selling snake oil. They're making money off people of who many are poor, desperate and most tragically: sick! Even though they CLAIM the science is really very simple, after well over 5 years there is still NOT ONE SINGLE SCRAP of verified scientific evidence to directly support MMS! Even though they claim to have cured over 100,000 people of malaria just in Africa! Where's a scrap of evidence of that by the way? They claim they can't spare the effort and resources to conducting a proper study, but they have the resources to cure 100,000 people in Africa. Can't you smell the bullshit? If they had the records of those people cured, there's your scientific study right there! Where is it? What happened to the people involved in curing 100,000 human beings? They vanished? Wiped out by big pharma? Come on, surely if you think about it for a while you have to see how ridiculous the story is. Instead they try to piggy back their claims onto real research just because it uses some of the same words. (even though one of their claims is that "real research is being suppressed", go figure that out! lol..) Here, I'll spell it out for you: One claims that you can drink MMS with some lomon juice and it will cure you of aids, malaria, cancer and whatever else ails you, the other is a study to examine the safety of water purified with various chlorines. In what way does the study support MMS again? if you still don't agree, read the above sentence again a few more times. The people who conducted the study obviously didn't jump to the conclusion that their findings in some way support MMS, just because YOU jump to that conclusion it doesn't mean you can start pushing your theories in an encyclopedia. Publish your theories in a peer reviewed journal and then cite that in this article, I'll happily concede. Vespine (talk) 02:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Portable Water Purification

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

Poor article all around...

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

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

This is a great shame

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

See also WP:SOAP. Dougweller (talk) 08:17, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Use of word "fraudulent" in first paragraph unverifiable and opinion

The use of a legal term such as "fraudulent" to describe something - without citation from a legal authority - is opinion. The FDA article on MMS does not declare MMS to be "fraudulent". It merely declares its opinion that MMS should not be used as suggested. Citation of the FDA for the use of the word "fraudulent" is therefore not valid. The FDA is an agency tasked with certain activities by congress. The FDA must still allow a court to rule on legal matters, in particular fraud. The word fraud has very specific legal meaning, in particular, "obtained, done by, or involving deception, esp. criminal deception". Whatever your opinion on the subject, this is moot, for to insist upon using this word without citation suggests a clear intent to taint the article with opinion from its first sentence. Provide a VALID citation, meaning a legal court ruling as it relates to MMS and fraud, and NOT the opinion of yourself, agency, blogger or otherwise, and I will concede to its use here. 98.247.58.102 (talk) 00:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

No. I'm not interested in debating semantics with people who sell bleach as a cure for AIDS. And you have no right to insist on, or 'concede' anything. Are you claiming to represent this bunch of toxic swindlers? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

See here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:98.247.58.102_reported_by_User:AndyTheGrump_.28Result:_.29 AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

AndyTheGrump, I am not arguing that drinking bleach cures AIDS. I am not advocating that this article make any such claim. By attempting to skirt the real issue of this edit, and by continually putting words or arguments in my mouth, you are illustrating incompetence as an editor. Your continued unwillingness to adhere to Wiki policy illustrates an opinionated and emotional attachment to this topic. Let us be relentless in neutrality and see where it leads us. Again, see Wikipedia:CHALLENGE and WP:BOP. "This policy requires that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate." AND "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed." Cite a single reliable authoritative source that MMS is, in fact, as you say "fraudulent", and I will, as an editor, concede. If all you can find is an opinion, but the source is reliable, and the word "fraudulent" is present, then edit the article to state "it is the opinion of so and so.... that MMS is fraudulent" and include the citation. This is perfectly acceptable. 98.247.58.102 (talk) 05:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Quack. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Basically what it comes down to is Jim can sprout any old BS and it gets "cited" here as if it is official, but to call him out on it, WE are the ones who have to jump through hoops. So lay people who come to the site for information will see HIS claims, but won't see that he's a fraud; they will see the FDA "reply" and conclude that's just another "opinion" with as much weight as Jim's claims. It's just one word against another. They don't care that the FDA is vetted through the scientific process and Jim's information might as well be printed on toilet paper because they don't really understand what a reliable source is or what verifiable evidence is. Even though this is the case, I have to agree with 98.247.58.102. All we can do is present the information as it currently stands and hope one day the law will catch up with humble Jim. Vespine (talk) 23:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

I would like to add a sourced claim about MMS Suppliers .

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

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

I'm not sure I see a need for this. There is no real hurry to revise the article as it stands, and a little more research may enable us to make the situation clearer. I'm going to do a bit of scouting around, and see what I can find. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of fairly recent reporting on this. I'm not sure if this Guardian article has been linked anywhere yet: [2]. This includes a rather revealing quote from Humble, illustrating the thinking behind his 'religion': "Look at the Catholics. Their priests have been molesting women and children for centuries and the governments have not been able to stop it. If handled properly a church can protect us from vaccinations that we don't want, from forced insurance, and from many things that a government might want to use to oppress us." An interesting analogy. The Guardian article gives a couple of useful links, and Google will find a lot more with a search for 'bleachgate'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Coming back to the point, I think my suggested addition is quite relevant since the article at the moment only states "MMS is being promoted as a remedy..." When the majority, if not all, of suppliers are NOT promoting it this way, most are promoting it only as "water purifier". The addition of this line would explain this. Vespine (talk) 02:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps you are right, though I'd change it to read "... circumvent regulations against advertising it as a medicine". I think this probably represents the legal issues better. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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