Guest guest Posted July 14, 2010 Report Share Posted July 14, 2010 YOU can start to testing on SICK people,or YOU DO not know any one who is sick/Why You do NOT left alone Jim HUMBLE in Africa,whenn FDA said HE can do everithing in AFRicA .Anyways You did NOt answered to my questions,why sud Jim answer to Yours/ question;why 2 gas as H2 and O2 together become water/You unable to answer to this simple questions.How can you explain to the changes take in our bodies.In the kreb H2o become H+ and -OH. WHY? gb > > > > Hello Tom, > > > > Thanks for later correcting your post below. There is a huge difference between 24 hours and 7 days in the life of a commercial broiler. The study refers to these birds slaughtered at 6-7 weeks as " market age broilers. " See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broilers (8 week life). The first point to understand then is that 7 days or even 5 days in a life span of only 7-8 weeks is an " extended " period of time as described by the authors of this study. And these authors were clearly concerned about the health/safety affects on the birds in each of these experiments, including the one that lasted only 24 hours. > > > > Now that I have read through the study Tom, I can see you are being excessively narrow in your view. If we understand a few fundamentals about how poultry farmers gauge the health of their birds, then the safety implications of this study come alive. The study clearly is about the safety of using ASC over an extended period in the life of broiler chickens. > > > > I have been reading farming literature for a few years now while I have been keeping my own flock of muscovy ducks. Good animal farmers are always watching the food and water consumption of their animals, weight gain, and changes in their manure. The poultry scientists in this study are using these same parameters to gauge the health/safety effects of the ASC (acidified sodium chlorite, aka activated mms) on the birds. > > > > The first experiment in the study is devoted entirely to the safety issue, which is proved by the fact there is no reference to pathogens and measuring them. Feed-conversion ratio and weight gain are particularly important to poultry producers so the first experiment looks at the affect of various dosages of citric acid and sodium chlorite in the drinking water of the birds. Weight gain is probably correlated with health to some degree. Sodium chlorite at higher concentrations (3,000-6,000 ppm) in the drinking water did result in reduced water consumption and weight loss over the 7 day period of the study. I do not believe this creates problems for humans, unless all the liquid you drink has high concentrations of sodium chlorite. If chickens could be dosed like humans and you could get them to take a specified dose at certain times and let them drink clean water the rest of the time, then this problem would go away and there is no telling what you could accomplish healthwise. Poultry farmers are limited by the fact that the only efficient way to get mms into the chickens is to put it in the drinking water, which means they do not have clean water available. Judging from their further experiments, the authors appear to conclude from this experiment they should avoid further testing with sodium chlorite concentrations above 1,200 ppm in the drinking water. > > > > The second experiment in the study lasted only 24 hours, but the scientists were very careful to observe differences in excreta color and appearance. They tested various doses of ASC on birds that had been infected with salmonella. They noted no differences in the excreta even at high doses of ASC so this allowed them to infer that digestive functions were not being disrupted. Which is quite significant in view of the fact that at the highest concentration of ASC the salmonella was being significantly reduced in all 3 segments of the digestive tract. This squarely supports Jim's view that MMS only harms pathogens. > > > > The third experiment lasted 5 days and involved birds that had been subjected while young to salmonella and campylobacter. The results showed that ASC at 600 ppm reduced salmonella in the upper segment of the digestive tract, but no effect on the campy. It is unfortunate the authors did not test the ASC at the higher 1,200 ppm concentration that had been so successful in the second experiment. This experiment seems to be consistent with the second experiment and it shows the campy is more difficult to kill, which the authors speculate is because of the large numbers of campy colonizing the lower GI tract. It also showed there was no difference between using citric acid and sodium acid sulfate for the acid component. > > > > The lack of mortality in the study is significant. In any large group of birds such as those used in this study, there are always some borderline birds that are weak and susceptible to stresses. The fact that there was no mortality is another indication of the relative safety of ASC, sodium chlorite and citric acid. > > > > For these reasons it is quite reasonable in my opinion to draw inferences of relative safety based on this study. You are welcome to disagree Tom, you have a right to. We all have a right to look at the available evidence and draw our own conclusions. That is why it is important to place a study like this 'out there' for everyone to see, if it exists. > > > > This study directly addresses another one of your concerns. You have suggested more than once the placebo effect could be an explanation for Jim's results, but this study tends to disprove that hypothesis, unless you think chickens experience the placebo effect, right? This begs the question, if you are aware of solid evidence like this disproving the placebo effect, why do you keep advocating this argument? > > > > This study also illustrates how Jim's approach of focusing on results is not so unscientific as you say in your latest reply to him. These poultry scientists are focused exclusively on results, they devote no attention to speculating about mechanisms of action or 'understanding the chemistry' as you keep wanting Jim to do. These scientists are not interested in determining whether it is chlorine dioxide or chlorous acid that produces these results. Since we cannot really know this until we get plenty of funding for studies, why do you keep criticizing Jim about it and writing essays about your own speculations? I do not intend any disrespect, these are just legitimate questions. > > > > This study came to my mind because I remembered you had said it was " actually pretty exciting " and I did not want to see it overlooked in the rush to oppose healinghope. I agree, it would be great to have some long term studies, but that requires significant funding if you really want to be " scientific. " Then the problem is the people who control the funding influence the outcome, just ask any honest researcher. Studies prove what the funders want them to prove. That goes for this poultry study too. Who funded it and why?...are very relevant questions. > > > > We can wait around for a long time for testing that is not likely to happen, and probably won't be reliable if it does happen, or we can devote our lives to saving people the way Jim has. I have to admire the man. It is not at all unreasonable for him, Hesselink, the other doctors and humanitarians involved, to act on the basis of the best available evidence and their personal experiences. This is how science advances, inventions are discovered, scientific revolutions are accomplished. The old guard dies out and the trailblazers getting results operating on a shoestring are eventually proven right. After seeing your dialogue together, I must also admit I am impressed with Jim's expertise and experience. He has a great deal of experience with human disease that you do not have Tom. You can keep trying to discredit his reports and motives, but I have a right to believe him if I want to, right? > > > > Results count in my book Tom. You can ignore them and rely on " proven safe " drugs for your solutions if you choose, but let us give people the room to make their own choices, including the choice to make Jim their expert if they wish and to treat results as evidence. Transtaafl seems to be serving your interests rather faithfully and aggressively. Look at how healinghope is treated, and she is not specifically addressing her posts to anyone, just presenting info. And Tom, you weighed in on Alvin to tell him his terminology or his chemistry was off, when he never requested your help. This is the type of 'domination' I was referring to earlier. I nice dialogue with Jim has come out of it but people get the message: Tom is the only expert here. Could you and transtaafl be a little more considerate of competing views? > > > > I get the idea Jim and Hesselink are not aware of this study. Perhaps in the spirit of cooperation and scientific advancement you could let them know about it? > > > > Harrah > > > > PS: For anyone interested, your comments regarding this study on curezone are found here (http://curezone.com:80/forums/am.asp?i=1553981). I do not wish to endorse everything you said there. The positive aspects of what you say are true enough, but the negative aspects are overdone in my humble opinion. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 14, 2010 Report Share Posted July 14, 2010 Hello GB, What part of the explanation of how hydrogen and oxygen combine to form water did you not understand? Tom --- In , " go2y47or " <go2y47or@...> wrote: > > > YOU can start to testing on SICK people,or YOU DO not know any one who is sick/Why You do NOT left alone Jim HUMBLE in Africa,whenn FDA said HE can do everithing in AFRicA .Anyways You did NOt answered to my questions,why sud Jim answer to Yours/ > question;why 2 gas as H2 and O2 together become water/You unable to answer to this simple questions.How can you explain to the changes take in our bodies.In the kreb H2o become H+ and -OH. WHY? gb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 14, 2010 Report Share Posted July 14, 2010 why 2 gas combined we or the natura getting water,I do not understand at all! I know we have water but why? Ok see water ionizer the alkali and acid water maker who makes $5000.00I have the cheepest $1250.00,but I do know how to mKING ATHOME ,BUT NOT THE TITANIUM AND PLATINIUM PLATED AS MY HAS 7 plates. says the alkali side comes auth h2 the acid o2 but i think that is NOt correct.I think they messing the cationic and anionic side because if we speaking electric that differents then we speaking abouth PH of water. DR walter Russel the genius says the Hidrogen do have 10isotope.Some researcher using that. gyorgyi > > > Hello GB, > > What part of the explanation of how hydrogen and oxygen combine to form water did you not understand? > > Tom > > > --- In , " go2y47or " <go2y47or@> wrote: > > > > > > YOU can start to testing on SICK people,or YOU DO not know any one who is sick/Why You do NOT left alone Jim HUMBLE in Africa,whenn FDA said HE can do everithing in AFRicA .Anyways You did NOt answered to my questions,why sud Jim answer to Yours/ > > question;why 2 gas as H2 and O2 together become water/You unable to answer to this simple questions.How can you explain to the changes take in our bodies.In the kreb H2o become H+ and -OH. WHY? gb > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.