Re: [SPAM] MMS supporting studies question

[Guest guest]

Good summary, thought.

--G.

[sPAM][ ] MMS supporting studies question

I'm new to this list and, btw, am on day 5 at 10 drops with no ill effects except for one massive burb shortly after dosing.I've been in contact with a software developer who is struggling with a very rare form of blood cancer. I don't know him personally, but I got him interested to some degree. After sending him the miraclemineral.org website he sent me the short message below. I'm guessing it's fairly typical of those who are used to only looking at solutions from the medical establishment. He seems like a fairly straight shooting guy thus the somewhat blunt directness in my response. I don't think I need to be too diplomatic with him.The reason I'm sharing the draft of my proposed response to him before sending it is fourfold:1. Do you think I got the facts straight?2. Are any of the clinical trials (they seem more like field tests to me really) reported in any medical journals or anywhere else besides Jim's book?3. Is there any other significantly compelling documentation anywhere that lends third party credibility to the MMS protocol?4. Do you have any other suggestions?Thanks for your help. Jim===========================================> let me know when it is published in a medical journal.Steve, I used to be the marketing director for a medical device manufacturer, so I know from the inside how the medical publication game is played. No, you won't be seeing this in a journal in the near future. For starters, since this protocol involves substances that are available in the public domain at minuscule cost, there's no profit incentive for the drug companies (the typical sponsors of medical research) to fund traditional, broad based, double blind, clinical trials that are required for studies to get published in such journals and also are part of the FDA approval process. Then there's the hurdle of peer review which, when closely and honestly examined, is mostly a "good ol' boy" network that tends to protect a closed establishment that doesn't look favorably on radical new solutions that come from "out of network." I may be wrong, but I'm guessing you're fairly new to an "up close and personal" confrontation with the "political" side of the medical industry. Be aware, that it's not at all like your industry in which someone can develop a new elegant solution, secure a patent or copyright, offer the product to the scrutiny of and receive favorable evaluations from a few well-regarded reviewers, and you're pretty much out of the starting gate. New drugs coming to market can cost almost a billion dollars in R & D, clinical trials, marketing etc. before a dime is made. The FDA is part of this exclusive club (with the same faces flowing back and forth between government "regulatory" jobs and top industry positions), so the deck is pretty well stacked in favor of healthcare solutions that will carry that 20 year patent guarantee of making big profits to pay back such a large investment. And make big profits they do. Pharmaceuticals are our economy's shining star.They're not so great, however, if you have a disease (especially an obscure one with little profit potential) and need a cure that's currently not available. Ever see the film "Lorenzo's Oil?" It's the fact-based account of a bright person who discovers a solution for her own son's "untreatable" health problem and who runs head on into a system that's determined not to have an interloper challenge its control. Sadly and ironically, however, most prescription drugs make only a relatively small incremental difference in rates of morbidity over existing treatments, placebos or even NO treatment at all. That's because medical treatments in our culture rely on "magic bullets" like drugs and procedures as opposed to finding root causes and correcting them. Lifestyle and other long term environmental conditions that constitute the petri dishes in which chronic diseases incubate and grow are routinely ignored so the blame can be laid at the feet of things like invasive organisms that can be fought with antibiotics or our genetic inheritance as "causes" rather than the "tendencies" that they really are in all but a few very rare cases. So no, Steve, I won't be contacting you again to let you know about a study in a medical journal. The additional links below will just have to do. And it's not because something might not be published tomorrow in a foreign journal where things like this tend to come to light somewhat sooner. It's because you're obviously a bright guy and, more importantly, YOU are the one in a battle for your life. In case you've wondered, I'm 57, look and physically perform in all respects as if I were 37, don't need to take a single prescription drug or OTC remedy and never plan to. I'm too busy keeping my immune system in top shape and teaching others pro bono how to do the same and how simplify their lifestyle to become both healthier and happier. But if you care about turning over ever possible rock and discovering a solution...or the most efficacious one that won't further compromise your health in the process like chemo often does...you'll research the MMS protocol yourself, despite it's current very "unslick" packing, to find out if it does what its developer and those who've used in Africa and other Third World places say it does.But if you've been sold on the notion that only Western industrialized society's Pharmo-Medical Complex can restore your health, then that's the only place you'll be looking.Best of luck, Steve, whatever you decide to do. Jim Catanojimcatanogmail