Re: Studies Uses Chlorine Dioxide

[Guest guest]

Laboratory Results

The study conducted by Drake, M.S., Ph.D., professor of microbiology and

director of research in the Department of Endodontics at the University of Iowa,

compared bactericidal activity of the CloSYS® rinse to that of CHX (Peridex®).

Each oral rinse was tested against a select group of bacteria known to be

associated with periodontal disease and dental caries. In carefully standardized

conditions, the rinses were introduced to the individual bacterial strains and

the effectiveness in combating these periodontal pathogens was measured.

Interestingly, the kill rate for CloSYS® surpassed that of CHX in the first

minute for Actinomyces naeslundii (involved in periodontal disease and

endodontic infections) and Peptostreptococcus micros (found in periodontal

disease). The kill rate for Streptococcus mutans (causes caries) and Actinomyces

viscosus (involved with oral infections) were higher for CHX in a first minute

sample but, by five minutes, CloSYS® and CHX samples proved identical at 100

percent kill rates. With Porphyromonas gingivalis (culpable in the progression

of chronic periodontitis), Actinobacillus actinomycetemcomitans (causes

localized aggressive periodontitis), Actinomyces odontolyticus (responsible for

deep dental caries and chronic periodontitis) and Prevotella nigrescens (found

in endodontic infections), both CloSYS® and CHX achieved a 100 percent kill rate

in the first minute.

CloSYS® was also observed to exceed bactericidal properties against

Staphylococcus aureus, which is not necessarily an oral pathogen, but is the

causative agent of staph infections. CloSYS® exhibited 100 percent kill rate

within the first minute of exposure.

http://www.rowpar.com/research.html

--- In , " healinghope " <mfrreman@...>

wrote:

>

> A Novel Therapeutic Approach for the Treatment of White Line Disease Using a

Two-Part Chlorine Dioxide Gel

> Dr. Walter L. Kreeger

>

> At the 2005 American Farriers Association annual convention, the research

committee concluded its first research competition. The aim of the competition

was to increase the knowledge base about the equine hoof, and demonstrate that

farriers are part of the group of veterinarians and animal scientists that

research the hoof. Nine research abstracts were submitted, and the topics ranged

from therapy for laminitis to equine behavior. The quality of the abstracts was

high, and there is no doubt that farriers can contribute objective, systematic

information to the knowledge base of the equine hoof. The winner of this year's

competition was Dr. Walter Kreeger, a farrier, educator and researcher from

Arkansas. His abstract contained the elements of good research: an important and

interesting problem, with quantitative data obtained in an objective way. Walter

agreed to have his research published in Professional Farrier, and his work is

presented below.

> http://www.grandcircuitinc.com/walter_kreeger_white_line_disease.html

> http://www.grandcircuitinc.com/white_intro.html

>

[Guest guest]

On 2010-07-11 1:55 PM, healinghope wrote:

> A Novel Therapeutic Approach for the Treatment of White Line Disease

> Using a Two-Part Chlorine Dioxide Gel

> Dr. Walter L. Kreeger

Ok, let me get this straight...

Tom made this claim:

> When I review those studies, I find that they are based upon

> chlorine dioxide technology. They added chlorine dioxide to

> water and fed the water to the animals and people involved in the

> test.

>

> I am unable to find a single study where they used citric acid added

> to sodium chlorite and then fed that solution to either animals or

> humans.

Apparently in an attempt to refute this claim/statement, you then post

links to 3 different tests (simple tests are *not* 'studies' you know,

but I'll let that slide for now), wherein Chlorine dioxide is used, one

topically, and one as a mouth wash.

So, I'm confused... what, exactly was your intent in posting these

links? All you did was back up what Tom stated.

[Guest guest]

Presumably MMS gel is able to be made at home? If so, can someone tell me

how it's made and used?

Carole in Oz

Eideann & Fionn (Tristania GSDs)

carole@...

www.berigorafarm.com.au

>A Novel Therapeutic Approach for the Treatment of White Line Disease Using

>a Two-Part Chlorine Dioxide Gel

> Dr. Walter L. Kreeger

>

> At the 2005 American Farriers Association annual convention, the research

> committee concluded its first research competition. The aim of the

> competition was to increase the knowledge base about the equine hoof, and

> demonstrate that farriers are part of the group of veterinarians and

> animal scientists that research the hoof. Nine research abstracts were

> submitted, and the topics ranged from therapy for laminitis to equine

> behavior. The quality of the abstracts was high, and there is no doubt

> that farriers can contribute objective, systematic information to the

> knowledge base of the equine hoof. The winner of this year's competition

> was Dr. Walter Kreeger, a farrier, educator and researcher from Arkansas.

> His abstract contained the elements of good research: an important and

> interesting problem, with quantitative data obtained in an objective way.

> Walter agreed to have his research published in Professional Farrier, and

> his work is presented below.

> http://www.grandcircuitinc.com/walter_kreeger_white_line_disease.html

> http://www.grandcircuitinc.com/white_intro.html

>

>

>

> ------------------------------------

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Tanstaafl (),

Maybe this will be helpful. Posted below is a poultry study Tom spoke highly of when he pointed it out to us earlier. Part of the study used sodium chlorite acidified with citric acid and placed in the drinking water of chickens. They concluded this DID RESULT in a reduction in pathogens in the GI tract of the chickens. In the results section they make this statement: Acidified SC [sodium chlorite] is a potent antimicrobial, and its use in the drinking water may be a significant preslaughter intervention tool.

Harrah

http://japr.fass.org/cgi/content/full/16/1/45

J APPL POULT RES 2007. 16:45-51© 2007 Poultry Science Association

Research Reports

Application of Acidified Sodium Chlorite in the Drinking Water to Control Salmonella serotype Typhimurium and Campylobacter jejuni in Commercial Broilers1

P. Mohyla*, S. F. Bilgili*,2, O. A. Oyarzabal*, C. C. Warf and G. K. Kemp

* Department of Poultry Science, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 32242; and Ecolab, Redmond, WA 98052

1 Corresponding author: sbilgili@...

SUMMARY

The effect of acidified sodium chlorite (ASC), produced by the combination of sodium chlorite (SC) with citric acid (CA) or sodium acid sulfate (SAS), on Salmonella and Campylobacter reduction in market age broilers was investigated. In the first experiment, the tolerance to increasing concentrations of SC (0, 100, 300, 600, 1,200, 3,000, and 6,000 ppm) and CA (0, 0.003, 0.01, 0.02, 0.04, 0.08, 0.18, and 0.40%) in the drinking water was assessed. In the second experiment, broilers were fasted for 2 h and orally gavaged with 105 cfu of Salmonella enterica serotype Typhimurium 1 h before the initiation of drinking water treatments involving 5 concentrations of SC (0, 150, 300, 600, and 1,200 ppm), acidified to pH of 2.6, either with CA or SAS. In the third experiment, 8-d-old chicks were orally challenged with 105 cfu of Salmonella and 105 cfu of Campylobacter jejuni. On d 29, birds were provided 3 concentrations of SC (0, 300, and 600 ppm) acidified to pH 2.6 ± 0.1 with only water, CA, or SAS for 5 d. In experiment 2 and 3, the challenge organisms were enumerated in the upper, middle, and lower segments of the digestive tract. Water consumption was depressed significantly at levels of SC above 600 ppm and levels of CA above 0.18%. In experiment 2, SC levels above 600 ppm negatively affected water consumption regardless of the acid used. A level of 600 ppm of ASC was adequate to reduce the transient crop Salmonella, whereas 1,200 ppm was required for a significant reduction in the lower digestive tract. In experiment 3, six hundred parts per million of ASC reduced Salmonella only in the upper digestive tract. Campylobacter counts were not affected by SC treatments in experiment 3 (P > 0.05). Preslaughter use of acidified SC in the drinking water may be an effective way to reduce Salmonella in the crop, including those that may be picked up through litter consumption and caprophagy.

Key Words: broiler • acidified sodium chlorite • Campylobacter • Salmonella

DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM

Foodborne diseases due to Salmonella and Campylobacter continue to account for a significant portion of human enteritis cases in the United States [1, 2]. Poultry products are important sources of human salmonellosis and campylobacteriosis [3, 4, 5]. Intestinal carriage of foodborne pathogens by food animals is the most important factor contributing to carcass contamination during processing [6]. The best site for Salmonella colonization is the ceca [6, 7], although some studies have also reported a high number of Salmonella spp. present in the crop [8]. Different intervention strategies have been recently investigated as possible hurdles to control Salmonella and Campylobacter in broiler chickens. The addition of fermented liquid feed has been shown to hinder the introduction of Salmonella in broiler chickens [4]. In addition, organic acids and their salts have been studied for their antimicrobial properties to control foodborne pathogens in red meat and poultry carcasses. The undissociated portion of the organic acid molecule is believed to be responsible for the antimicrobial effect [9], especially in the upper part of the gastrointestinal tract [10]. However, a recent study described a significant reduction in Salmonella counts in the ceca of chickens treated with sodium chlorate in drinking water for 24 to 48 h during feed withdrawal [11]. Reducing or limiting pathogen load in the digestive tract before slaughter will reduce the likelihood of broiler carcass contamination during processing and will result in safer food products [12].

Acidified sodium chlorite (ASC; SANOVA) [13] is an antimicrobial agent generated by mixing sodium chlorite (SC) at concentrations from 500 to 1,200 ppm with a generally recognized as safe acid, such as citric acid (CA). When used in a spray or dip solution, ASC can be used in combination with any generally recognized as safe acid at a level sufficient to achieve a solution pH of 2.3 to 2.9 [14]. Acidified SC has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for use in poultry, red meat, comminuted meat products, seafood, and processed fruits and vegetables to reduce bacterial contamination [15, 16]. Acidified SC is currently used in poultry-processing operations to decrease microbial load on carcasses [16].

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of providing ASC in the drinking water, before slaughter, to control Salmonella and Campylobacter in the digestive tract of broiler chickens.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Experimental DesignExperiment 1.All experiments were performed at the Auburn University Poultry Research Unit. Three hundred, 35-d-old broilers were individually weighed and randomly placed in 60 floor pens (5 birds per pen), which were equipped with 1-gal drinkers. The birds were allowed to acclimate to the new environment for 1 wk before the initiation of the study. The experiment involved 15 randomized treatments (4 replicate pens per treatment) consisting of 7 concentrations (0, 100, 300, 600, 1,200, 3,000, and 6,000 ppm) of SC [17] and 8 concentrations (0, 0.003, 0.01, 0.02, 0.04, 0.08, 0.18, and 0.40%) of CA [18]. The pens were 1.70 x 2.30 m in dimension and were lined with new pine shavings litter. All solutions were prepared with fresh tap water and replaced twice a day. Water intake, feed consumption, weight gain, and mortality were monitored on a pen basis for the 7-d experimental period [19].

Experiment 2.Two hundred forty 35-d-old broilers were individually weighed and placed in sime batteries [20] (5 birds per drawer, 12 drawers per battery). Birds were allowed to acclimate to the battery cages for 48 h before the initiation of the experiment. After this acclimation period, all birds were fasted for 2 h, individually weighed, and inoculated (oral gavage) with 1 mL of buffered peptone water [21] containing 105 cfu/mL of nalidixic acid-resistant Salmonella enterica serotype Typhimurium, provided by N. A. , USDA, Athens, GA. Clean pans were placed under each drawer for the collection of fecal droppings and for visual examination of the excreta. The experiment consisted of 12 drinking water treatments assigned randomly, with 4 replicate battery drawers per treatment. Five concentrations of ASC (0, 150, 300, 600, and 1,200 ppm) were prepared in tap water by the addition of either CA or sodium acid sulfate (SAS) as an acidifier [22] to lower the pH of the solution to 2.6 ± 0.1. Two additional treatments of uninoculated (no challenge; plain water) and inoculated (challenged; plain water) groups served as negative and positive controls, respectively. Because ASC solutions are sensitive to light and chemical reactions, treatment solutions were prepared and replaced every 6 h. Birds were provided the drinking water treatments and a nonmedicated feed ad libitum during the experiment. A water trough was filled with a known amount of water and placed on the floor of the battery room to quantify evaporative losses for each measurement period. Water consumption was measured and corrected for evaporation. At the end of the 24-h experimental period, all birds were euthanized, individually weighed, and the digestive tract aseptically removed. Samples were placed in sterile Whirl-Pak bags [23]. The digestive tract was split into 3 segments, consisting of upper (crop to gizzard), middle (duodenum to ileocecal junction), and lower digestive tract (ceca to cloaca), for the enumeration of Salmonella. The excreta from each treatment were visually examined.

Experiment 3.Two hundred 1-d-old chicks were placed in floor pens, as described above, and provided a nonmedicated feed and water ad libitum. Starting on d 8, chicks were provided with drinking water containing 105 cfu/mL of Salmonella Typhimurium and 106 cfu/mL of Campylobacter jejuni isolated from broiler carcasses at the Microbiology Laboratory, Department of Poultry Science, Auburn University [24], for a 3-d period. On d 13, cloacal swabs were taken from 20 randomly selected birds to confirm Salmonella and Campylobacter shedding. On d 29, birds were individually weighed, wing-banded, and assigned to 1 of 9 water treatments in sime battery cages (n = 180), with 5 drawers per treatment and 4 birds per pen (Table 1). Treatments consisted of a 3 x 3 factorial arrangement of 3 concentrations of SC (0, 300, and 600 ppm) and 3 levels of acidification: either no acidification (mixed directly with water) or acidified to a pH of 2.6 ± 0.1 with CA or SAS. After 48 h of acclimation in the batteries, birds were provided treatment solutions for a 5-d experimental period. During this period, a nonmedicated feed was provided ad libitum, and the lighting program was set at 12 h of light per day. Treatment solutions were prepared fresh and replaced every 6 h during the light period. Daily water consumption was calculated by taking into account the amount lost to evaporation. At the end of the experimental period, feed was withheld for 12 h, with water available, to simulate preslaughter feed withdrawal. All birds were then euthanized, individually weighed, and the 3 segments of the digestive tract were aseptically removed as described in experiment 2.

View this table:[in this window][in a new window]

Table 1. Concentrations of citric acid and sodium chlorite in the drinking water (experiment 1)

Microbiological AnalysisThe digestive tract segments of the birds sampled were pooled in Whirl-Pak stomacher bags [25] on a pen basis. Pooled segments were then weighed, diluted (10x) with buffered peptone water, and then stomached for 1 min to homogenize the tissues. Salmonella Typhimurium was semiquantified in homogenates of each digestive tract segment by using a modification of a swab-plate method [26, 27]. Campylobacter spp. were enumerated by serial dilution of homogenates in phosphate buffer solution and by transferring 0.1 mL of the dilutions onto Campylobacter blood-free agar base plates [21] in duplicates. Plates were then incubated at 42°C under microaerophilic conditions for 24 h. For enrichment, 30 mL of the homogenized sample was mixed in a bag with 30 mL (2x) of Preston broth [28] and then incubated for 24 h at 42°C under microaerophilic conditions. Enumeration was done by direct counting of the presumptive positive colonies and by observation of the colonies under phase-contrast microscopy for confirmation. The countable colonies were transformed into base-10 logarithm colony forming units per gram of cecal content. Negative samples for direct plating that became positive after enrichment were assigned a value of 10 cfu/mL [24].

Statistical AnalysisBacterial counts (cfu/g of digestive tract material) were transformed to base-10 logarithm colony-forming units per gram before analysis. All data were subjected to ANOVA using the GLM procedure of SAS [29] to test the main effects and their interactions. Means were separated, when significant (P 0.05), using Tukey’s Studentized Range test. Orthogonal polynomials were used to analyze the concentration effects.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In experiment 1, significant (P < 0.05) linear and quadratic responses to increasing concentrations of SC and CA, respectively, were observed for water consumption. Sodium chlorite levels above 1,200 ppm reduced water consumption and weight gain significantly (P < 0.05) during the experimental period (Table 1). Birds provided 3,000 and 6,000 ppm SC actually lost weight during the experiment. Water consumption was significantly reduced with 0.40% CA, but no significant effect on weight gain was detected. There was no mortality encountered during the experiment.

In experiment 2, all negative control birds were negative for Salmonella. Positive control birds showed 2.84, 2.31, and 2.56 log cfu/g of Salmonella Typhimurium in the upper, middle, and lower digestive tract segments, respectively. There was no effect of acidifier (CA or SAS) detected (P > 0.05); therefore, the data for the 2 acids were combined. The water consumption decreased linearly (P < 0.05) with increasing concentrations of ASC, but was significantly reduced only when the ASC concentration exceeded 600 ppm (Table 2). Salmonella Typhimurium counts (log cfu/g) in the upper, middle, and lower digestive tract are presented in Table 2. A significant reduction (P < 0.05) of about 1 log cfu/g in Salmonella Typhimurium counts in the upper digestive tract segment was observed in the chickens that received ASC at a level of 600 ppm. The same level of ASC also reduced the Salmonella Typhimurium counts in the middle digestive tract. An ASC concentration of 1,200 ppm produced a significant reduction in the lower digestive tract. No observable differences in the excreta appearance and color were detected among the treatments.

View this table:[in this window][in a new window]

Table 2. Salmonella Typhimurium counts (log10 cfu/g) in 3 segments of the digestive tract of broilers (experiment 2)

The main effects of SC and acidifiers in experiment 3 are presented in Table 3. There was no interaction of the main effects (P > 0.05). Sodium chlorite, at a level of 600 ppm, significantly suppressed water intake, regardless of the acidifier used. No significant differences were detected (P > 0.05) in total water consumption as affected by the acids, although water consumption was numerically depressed in birds receiving SAS (Table 3).

View this table:[in this window][in a new window]

Table 3. Salmonella Typhimurium and Campylobacter jejuni counts (log cfu/g) in the 3 segments of the digestive tract of broilers (experiment 3)

A significant reduction (P < 0.05) in Salmonella was only detected with 600 ppm of SC in the upper digestive tract. No significant differences in Salmonella were observed for the middle and lower digestive tract. Water administration of ASC at levels up to 600 ppm for a 5-d period did not affect C. jejuni levels in the digestive tract. This lack of effect may be attributed to the large numbers of C. jejuni that usually colonize the lower gastrointestinal tract of chickens (Table 3).

Effect of ASC was assessed against Salmonella that were transient in the digestive tract (experiment 2) or against digestive tract colonized with Salmonella and Campylobacter (experiment 3). Acidified SC was administered in the drinking water either for short (24 h in experiment 2) or extended (5 d in experiment 3) periods of time to market age broilers in this study. Efficacy of ASC was also evaluated in 3 distinct regions of the digestive tract. Acidified SC concentrations of above 600 ppm consistently resulted in the depression of water intake by the birds. However, at a 600-ppm level, ASC was effective against the transient and colonized Salmonella in the upper digestive tract. It is unlikely that lack of water could have played a role in this effect. Withholding feed and water from market age broilers typically increases colonization and shedding of Salmonella [30] and Campylobacter [31] in market age broilers. Lack of feed and water alters the normal protective microflora and increases the pH of crop through a reduction in lactic acid produced by Lactobacilli [32]. Crop has been shown to be a critical source of Salmonella before slaughter and during evisceration [8, 11, 12]. Acidified SC is a potent antimicrobial, and its use in the drinking water may be a significant preslaughter intervention tool. The failure to consume high concentrations of ASC and potential neutralization by the microflora may have contributed to a lack of antimicrobial effect against Salmonella in the middle and lower digestive tract. Microencapsulation in a lipid shell may increase efficacy by providing high concentration of the ASC through the digestive tract [33]. Acidified SC was not effective as a preslaughter treatment of controlling C. jejuni in this study.

CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS

When ASC (SANOVA) was added in the drinking water at levels beyond 600 ppm, water consumption was significantly reduced.

Acidified SC, when provided for 24 h or 5 d at a level of 600 ppm in the drinking water, significantly reduced Salmonella load in the upper digestive tract.

Acidified SC did not have an effect on C. jejuni in the digestive tract of market age broilers.

Preslaughter inclusion of ASC in the drinking water may be an effective way to reduce Salmonella contamination during evisceration.

FOOTNOTES

1 The mention of trade names in this publication does not imply endorsement of the products mentioned or exclusion of the products not mentioned.

REFERENCES AND NOTES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2003. Disease information: Campylobacter infections. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/diseaseinfo/campylobacter_t.htm Accessed Feb. 2006.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2003. Disease information: Salmonellosis. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/diseaseinfo/salmonellosis_t.htm Accessed Feb. 2006.

Blankenship, L. C., J. S. , N. A. , N. J. Stern, R. Brewer, and O. . 1993. Two-step mucosal competitive exclusion flora treatment to diminish salmonellae in commercial broiler chickens. Poult. Sci. 72:1667–1672.[Web of Science][Medline]

Heres, L., B. Engel, F. van Knapen, M. C. de Jong, J. A. Wagenaar, and H. A. Urlings. 2003. Fermented liquid feed reduces susceptibility of broilers for Salmonella enteritidis. Poult. Sci. 82:603–611.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Ziprin, R. L., D. E. Corrier, and J. R. DeLoach. 1993. Control of established Salmonella Typhimurium intestinal colonization with in vivo-passage anaerobes. Avian Dis. 37:183–188.[Web of Science][Medline]

Stern, N. J., J. S. , J. Meinersmann, N. A. , and L. C. Blankenship. 1991. Simultaneous colonization of Campylobacter jejuni and Salmonella Typhimurium in day-old chicks. Poult. Sci. 70:790–795.[Web of Science][Medline]

Achen, M., T. Y. Morishita, and E. C. Ley. 1998. Shedding and colonization of Campylobacter jejuni in broilers from day-of-hatch to slaughter age. Avian Dis. 42:732–737.[Web of Science][Medline]

, G. A., L. L. Sarlin, D. J. Caldwell, C. R. Yezak, M. E. Hume, D. E. Corrier, J. R. Deloach, and B. M. Hargis. 1997. Effect of feed withdrawal on the incidence of Salmonella in the crops and ceca of market age broiler chickens. Poult. Sci. 76:654–656.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Cherrington, C. A., M. Hinton, G. C. Chopra, and I. Mead. 1991. Organic acids: Chemistry, antibacterial activity and practical applications. Adv. Microb. Physiol. 32:87–107.[Web of Science][Medline]

Canibe, N., R. M. Engberg, and B. Jensen. 2001. An overview of the effect of organic acids on gut flora and gut health. http://www-afac.slu.se/Workshop%20Norge/organic_acids_canibe_et_al.pdf Accessed Feb. 2006.

Byrd, J. A., R. C. , T. R. Callaway, R. W. , K. D. Knape, L. F. Kubena, R. L. Ziprin, and D. J. Nisbet. 2003. Effect of experimental chlorate product administration in the drinking water on Salmonella Typhimurium contamination of broilers. Poult. Sci. 82:1403–1406.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Byrd, J. A., B. M. Hargis, D. J. Caldwell, R. H. , K. L. Herron, J. L. McReynolds, R. L. Brewer, R. C. , K. L. Bischoff, T. R. Callaway, and L. F. Kubena. 2001. Effect of lactic acid administration in the drinking water during preslaughter feed withdrawal on Salmonella and Campylobacter contamination of broilers. Poult. Sci. 80:278–283.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Alcide Co., Redmond, WA.

Su, Y., and T. sey. 2003. Reducing levels of Listeria monocytogenes contamination on raw salmon with acidified sodium chlorite. J. Food Prot. 66:812–818.[Web of Science][Medline]

Anonymous. 2002. Acidified sodium chlorite solutions. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 21. Sec.173.325. US Gov. Print. Off., Washington, DC.

Kemp, G. K., M. L. Aldrich, and A. L. Waldroup. 2000. Acidified sodium chlorite antimicrobial treatment of broiler carcasses. J. Food Prot. 63:1087–1092.[Web of Science][Medline]

Sodium chlorite, 25% solution, Vulcan Chemicals, Birmingham, AL.

Citric acid, 50% solution, Tate & Lyle, London, UK. Citric acid concentrations of 0.003, 0.01, 0.02, 0.04, 0.08, 0.18, and 0.4% corresponded to pH ranges of 3.45 to 3.55, 3.25 to 3.35, 3.05 to 3.15, 2.85 to 2.95, 2.65 to 2.75, 2.45 to 2.55, and 2.25 to 2.35, respectively.

During the 7-d trial period, an open drinker with plain water was used to estimate and account for the amount of water lost by evaporation.

sime Incubator Co., Gettysburg, OH.

Acumedia, Baltimore, MD.

Sodium acid sulfate, 10% solution, -Hamilton Co., Newark, CA.

Nasco, Fort Atkinson, WI.

Oyarzabal, O. A., K. S. Macklin, and J. M. Barbaree. 2005. Evaluation of agar plates for direct enumeration of Campylobacter spp. from poultry carcass rinses. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 71:3351–3354.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Nasco, Modesto, CA.

Blanchfield, B., S. Stavric, T. M. Gleenson, and H. Pivnick. 1984. Minimum intestinal inoculum for Nurmi cultures and a new method for determining competitive exclusion of Salmonella from chicks. J. Food Prot. 47:542–545.[Web of Science]

, J. S., L. C. Blankenship, N. J. Stern, N. A. , and F. McHan. 1988. Effect of anticoccidial and antimicrobial feed additives on prevention of Salmonella colonization of chicks treated with aerobic cultures of chicken feces. Avian Dis. 32:324–329.[Web of Science][Medline]

Oxoid Inc., New York.

SAS Institute. 1990. User’s Guide. SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC.

, G. A., L. L. Sarlin, D. J. Caldwell, C. R. Yezak, M. E. Hume, D. E. Corrier, J. R. Deloach, and B. M. Hargis. 1997. Effect of feed withdrawal on the incidence of Salmonella in the crops and ceca of market age broiler chickens. Poult. Sci. 76:654–656.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Byrd, J. A., D. E. Corrier, M. E. Hume, R. H. , L. H. Stanker, and B. M. Hargis. 1998. Incidence of Campylobacter in the crops of preharvest market-aged broiler chickens. Poult. Sci. 77:1303–1305.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Humphrey, T. J., A. Baskerville, A. Whitehead, B. Rowe, and A. Henley. 1993. Influence of feeding patterns on the artificial infection of laying hens with Salmonella enteritidis phage type 4. Vet. Rec. 132:407–409.[Abstract]

Barnhart, E. T., L. L. Sarlin, D. J. Caldwell, J. A. Byrd, D. E. Corrier, and B. M. Hargis. 1999. Evaluation of potential disinfectants for preslaughter broiler crop decontamination. Poult. Sci. 78:32–37.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Re: [ ] Studies Uses Chlorine Dioxide

On 2010-07-11 1:55 PM, healinghope wrote:> A Novel Therapeutic Approach for the Treatment of White Line Disease> Using a Two-Part Chlorine Dioxide Gel> Dr. Walter L. KreegerOk, let me get this straight...Tom made this claim:> When I review those studies, I find that they are based upon> chlorine dioxide technology. They added chlorine dioxide to> water and fed the water to the animals and people involved in the> test.> > I am unable to find a single study where they used citric acid added> to sodium chlorite and then fed that solution to either animals or > humans.Apparently in an attempt to refute this claim/statement, you then postlinks to 3 different tests (simple tests are *not* 'studies' you know,but I'll let that slide for now), wherein Chlorine dioxide is used, onetopically, and one as a mouth wash.So, I'm confused... what, exactly was your intent in posting theselinks? All you did was back up what Tom stated.

[Guest guest]

This had nothing to do with you or Tom, just some new links of interest.

WOW Claws back in!

> > A Novel Therapeutic Approach for the Treatment of White Line Disease

> > Using a Two-Part Chlorine Dioxide Gel

> > Dr. Walter L. Kreeger

>

> Ok, let me get this straight...

>

> Tom made this claim:

>

> > When I review those studies, I find that they are based upon

> > chlorine dioxide technology. They added chlorine dioxide to

> > water and fed the water to the animals and people involved in the

> > test.

> >

> > I am unable to find a single study where they used citric acid added

> > to sodium chlorite and then fed that solution to either animals or

> > humans.

>

> Apparently in an attempt to refute this claim/statement, you then post

> links to 3 different tests (simple tests are *not* 'studies' you know,

> but I'll let that slide for now), wherein Chlorine dioxide is used, one

> topically, and one as a mouth wash.

>

> So, I'm confused... what, exactly was your intent in posting these

> links? All you did was back up what Tom stated.

>

[Guest guest]

Evidence of AR infections-urinary tract, intestinal, upper and lower

respiratory, ear, skin, even TB and STDs-is not hard to find in hospital and

community. In fact, MRSA was reported plentiful on Florida swimming beaches at

the American Association for the Advancement of Science annual meeting in 2009.

ABMs are also found in ground water, soil, and in crops and workers near manure

lagoons and industrial farms and are in many of the foods we eat. Consumer

Reports found over 60 percent of microbes detected in chickens from 22 states

were resistant and an FDA inspection found cephalosporin directly injected

directly into eggs at a US hatchery. Bon Appetit.

But don't look for many new ABs in the pharmaceutical pipeline. There's less

money in developing drugs taken for 10 days (unless you're an animal) than in

heart, arthritis, diabetes and psychoactive meds taken for life. And recent AB

development disasters- Ketek (black boxed for hepatotoxicity) Trovan (severely

restricted for hepatotoxicity) and Zyvox (part of the biggest fraud settlement

in US history)-don't raise hopes.

Of course there are other ways to attack bacteria. Scientists are looking at

algeliferin, isolated from sponge, which can break down bacteria's biofilm,

radiation, ultrasound, chlorine dioxide and ammonia (reported to produce E. coli

laced " pink slime " for the school lunch program by the New York Times last

month.)

http://newsblaze.com/story/20100217104720rose.nb/topstory.html

> > A Novel Therapeutic Approach for the Treatment of White Line Disease

> > Using a Two-Part Chlorine Dioxide Gel

> > Dr. Walter L. Kreeger

>

> Ok, let me get this straight...

>

> Tom made this claim:

>

> > When I review those studies, I find that they are based upon

> > chlorine dioxide technology. They added chlorine dioxide to

> > water and fed the water to the animals and people involved in the

> > test.

> >

> > I am unable to find a single study where they used citric acid added

> > to sodium chlorite and then fed that solution to either animals or

> > humans.

>

> Apparently in an attempt to refute this claim/statement, you then post

> links to 3 different tests (simple tests are *not* 'studies' you know,

> but I'll let that slide for now), wherein Chlorine dioxide is used, one

> topically, and one as a mouth wash.

>

> So, I'm confused... what, exactly was your intent in posting these

> links? All you did was back up what Tom stated.

>

[Guest guest]

Hello ,

My comment intent was that the safety of ingesting an acidified sodium chlorite

solution has not been studied.

In the poultry study, 24 hours after ingesting the solution all the birds were

dead...

I think the study proves that acidified sodium chlorite is partially effective

against pathogens in the upper GI tract, but I don't think we can apply any

indication of safety from the study.

Tom

> > A Novel Therapeutic Approach for the Treatment of White Line Disease

> > Using a Two-Part Chlorine Dioxide Gel

> > Dr. Walter L. Kreeger

>

> Ok, let me get this straight...

>

> Tom made this claim:

>

> > When I review those studies, I find that they are based upon

> > chlorine dioxide technology. They added chlorine dioxide to

> > water and fed the water to the animals and people involved in the

> > test.

> >

> > I am unable to find a single study where they used citric acid added

> > to sodium chlorite and then fed that solution to either animals or

> > humans.

>

> Apparently in an attempt to refute this claim/statement, you then post

> links to 3 different tests (simple tests are *not* 'studies' you know,

> but I'll let that slide for now), wherein Chlorine dioxide is used, one

> topically, and one as a mouth wash.

>

> So, I'm confused... what, exactly was your intent in posting these

> links? All you did was back up what Tom stated.

>

[Guest guest]

Tom In a hurry for work, were in the study is it stated, 24 hours after

ingesting the solution all the birds were dead... Do not have time to read in

detail. They slaughtered the chickens, but I must have missed were they died

from the activated sodium chlorite.

> > > A Novel Therapeutic Approach for the Treatment of White Line Disease

> > > Using a Two-Part Chlorine Dioxide Gel

> > > Dr. Walter L. Kreeger

> >

> > Ok, let me get this straight...

> >

> > Tom made this claim:

> >

> > > When I review those studies, I find that they are based upon

> > > chlorine dioxide technology. They added chlorine dioxide to

> > > water and fed the water to the animals and people involved in the

> > > test.

> > >

> > > I am unable to find a single study where they used citric acid added

> > > to sodium chlorite and then fed that solution to either animals or

> > > humans.

> >

> > Apparently in an attempt to refute this claim/statement, you then post

> > links to 3 different tests (simple tests are *not* 'studies' you know,

> > but I'll let that slide for now), wherein Chlorine dioxide is used, one

> > topically, and one as a mouth wash.

> >

> > So, I'm confused... what, exactly was your intent in posting these

> > links? All you did was back up what Tom stated.

> >

>

[Guest guest]

On 2010-07-11 7:49 PM, healinghope wrote:

> This had nothing to do with you or Tom, just some new links

> of interest. WOW Claws back in!

You specifically and deliberately responded to Tom's comment that there

have been no studies, and posted the first 2 links to studies that are

*not* studies, nor is the content of the anecdotal discussion even

remotely resembling what Tom was speaking to.

You then responded to a different post, but with more links to 'studies'

that aren't really studies, so I just ass-u-me-d that you were just

continuing your misinformation campaign.

My apologies...

[Guest guest]

Essential oils can attack bacteria, and the bacteria don't develop a resistance. It seems I read/heard lately that thyme oil and cinnamon oil were the two most powerful EO's to kill bacteria, and when used together were even more powerful. Of course we've all heard of the virtures of oregano oil as well. There's nothing more powerful than the feminine nature of Mother Nature!

[ ] Re: Studies Uses Chlorine Dioxide

Of course there are other ways to attack bacteria. Scientists are looking at algeliferin, isolated from sponge, which can break down bacteria's biofilm, radiation, ultrasound, chlorine dioxide and ammonia (reported to produce E. coli laced "pink slime" for the school lunch program by the New York Times last month.)http://newsblaze.com/story/20100217104720rose.nb/topstory.html

[Guest guest]

Hello Healinghope,

That study actually covered 3 different experiments. One ran 7 days, the other

24 hours, and the last one 5 days.

At the end of the experimental periods, all birds were euthanized...

The purpose of the test was to look at the bacteria counts in the GI tract. No

discussion was made concerning the safety of consuming ASC.

They did mention that at higher concentrations the birds stopped drinking. I

don't believe that is considered " healthy... "

Similar studies have been done with cows using sodium chlorate. The cows were

given the sodium chlorate water 24 hours before slaughter. The bacterial levels

were reduced in those studies too.

While these studies are promising, the industry practice is to only use ASC in

the chill water after slaughter. This allows the cattle and birds to be fully

hydrated prior to slaughter, and allows for concentrations of ASC that are high

enough to eliminate all the bacteria in about the 15 minutes it takes to chill.

I suppose I could have responded to differently by asking the question

How long did the chickens live after taking the ASC solution...? The point I

was making is that this was a short term study that does not address the safety

of ingesting sodium chlorite solutions.

Tom

--- In , " healinghope " <mfrreman@...>

wrote:

>

> Tom In a hurry for work, were in the study is it stated, 24 hours after

ingesting the solution all the birds were dead... Do not have time to read in

detail. They slaughtered the chickens, but I must have missed were they died

from the activated sodium chlorite.

>

[Guest guest]

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.

[ ] Re: Studies Uses Chlorine Dioxide

Hello ,My comment intent was that the safety of ingesting an acidified sodium chlorite solution has not been studied.In the poultry study, 24 hours after ingesting the solution all the birds were dead...I think the study proves that acidified sodium chlorite is partially effective against pathogens in the upper GI tract, but I don't think we can apply any indication of safety from the study.Tom> > A Novel Therapeutic Approach for the Treatment of White Line Disease> > Using a Two-Part Chlorine Dioxide Gel> > Dr. Walter L. Kreeger> > Ok, let me get this straight...> > Tom made this claim:> > > When I review those studies, I find that they are based upon> > chlorine dioxide technology. They added chlorine dioxide to> > water and fed the water to the animals and people involved in the> > test.> > > > I am unable to find a single study where they used citric acid added> > to sodium chlorite and then fed that solution to either animals or > > humans.> > Apparently in an attempt to refute this claim/statement, you then post> links to 3 different tests (simple tests are *not* 'studies' you know,> but I'll let that slide for now), wherein Chlorine dioxide is used, one> topically, and one as a mouth wash.> > So, I'm confused... what, exactly was your intent in posting these> links? All you did was back up what Tom stated.>

[Guest guest]

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.

Give it up

…there is no one here who is trying to limit anyone’s

choices. Might surprise you or come as a new idea but for many of us this

kind of discussion enables thinking adults to make more informed choices. It’s

the fantasy in your head bc you have some delusion of being a freedom fighter. We

have a discussion going on about the possible safely of ASC. Many of us

welcome this discussion, are into the science of it all which is a far cry from

following protocols of ‘it will never do harm’.

Transtaafl

seems to be serving your interests rather faithfully and aggressively.

I know you

think is Tom’s pharma whore tag team…you have your own

forum to discuss ‘evil doers’…NOT HERE

Look

at how healinghope is treated, and she is not specifically addressing her posts

to anyone, just presenting info.

And info is

presented back…which is what happens in a discussion.

And

Tom, you weighed in on Alvin to tell him his terminology or his chemistry was

off, when he never requested your help.

It’s

not about requesting help, it’s about discussing and if terminology or

chemistry is off then in a discussion this is um, discussed.

This

is the type of 'domination' I was referring to earlier.

Oh get real…

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?

Let’s

be clear …you have a fine time looking for evil doers…it’s

your ‘thing’. You fancy yourself as some kind of crusader for

‘truth’. Great, fine…that’s why you have your

forum. Members who want to give the conspiracy game a spin can go play in

your sandbox. Here we have an ongoing discussion about SC or ASC and all

the nuances pertaining too. Some of us are not of the mindset to blindly

follow one man’s protocols. When information is posted that some of

us find questionable you can be damn sure we are going to discuss it. Deal with

it.

You’re

the one with a hidden agenda and it gets old.

[Guest guest]

I ,Daddybob and others have known on this and other health groups too

long to ever consider him a pharma whore.LOL.

Pretty much the exact oposite. Hes caustic and abrasive at times... but

definately into alternative treatments.

IN NC

--- In , " palulukon " <palulukon@...>

wrote:

>

> 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.

>

> Give it up .there is no one here who is trying to limit anyone's

> choices. Might surprise you or come as a new idea but for many of us this

> kind of discussion enables thinking adults to make more informed choices.

> It's the fantasy in your head bc you have some delusion of being a freedom

> fighter. We have a discussion going on about the possible safely of ASC.

> Many of us welcome this discussion, are into the science of it all which is

> a far cry from following protocols of 'it will never do harm'.

>

>

>

> Transtaafl seems to be serving your interests rather faithfully and

> aggressively.

>

> I know you think is Tom's pharma whore tag team.you have your own

> forum to discuss 'evil doers'.NOT HERE

>

>

>

> Look at how healinghope is treated, and she is not specifically addressing

> her posts to anyone, just presenting info.

>

> And info is presented back.which is what happens in a discussion.

>

>

>

> And Tom, you weighed in on Alvin to tell him his terminology or his

> chemistry was off, when he never requested your help.

>

> It's not about requesting help, it's about discussing and if terminology or

> chemistry is off then in a discussion this is um, discussed.

>

>

>

> This is the type of 'domination' I was referring to earlier.

>

> Oh get real.

>

>

>

> 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?

>

> Let's be clear .you have a fine time looking for evil doers.it's your

> 'thing'. You fancy yourself as some kind of crusader for 'truth'. Great,

> fine.that's why you have your forum. Members who want to give the

> conspiracy game a spin can go play in your sandbox. Here we have an ongoing

> discussion about SC or ASC and all the nuances pertaining too. Some of us

> are not of the mindset to blindly follow one man's protocols. When

> information is posted that some of us find questionable you can be damn sure

> we are going to discuss it. Deal with it.

>

> You're the one with a hidden agenda and it gets old.

>

[Guest guest]

On 2010-07-13 11:45 AM, Harrah wrote:

> Results count in my book Tom. You can ignore them and rely on " proven

> safe " drugs for your solutions if you choose,

When has Tom ever claimed that pharmaceutical drugs were the answer?

Please stop making demonstrably false insinuations before someone points

out the hypocrisy of attacking someone in the same breath where you're

complaining about someone else being attacked.

> 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.

Results... like people having extreme problems with the protocols Jim

initially pushed, claiming 100% cure rates and 0% negative side effects?

My Dad had pretty extreme negative results with the original protocols.

> Tanstaafl seems to be serving your interests rather faithfully and

> aggressively.

Rotflmao! I don't know Tom from Zed. The only interest I serve is that

of TRUTH.

> Look at how healinghope is treated, and she is not specifically

> addressing her posts to anyone, just presenting info.

Healinghope isn't treated any particular way as near as I can tell -

only her claims are addressed - like claiming that something is a study

that isn't a study.

> And Tom, you weighed in on Alvin to tell him his terminology or his

> chemistry was off, when he never requested your help.

If his chemistry is off, it is off, and I for one appreciate Tom taking

the time to correct it - and so should he. Oh - and why are you

defending Alvin when he never asked for your 'help'? Just curious...

> This is the type of 'domination' I was referring to earlier.

You are complaining about being dominated by the TRUTH?

> I nice dialogue with Jim has come out of it

A nice dialog? I appreciate what Jim has done as far as getting the word

out on MMS - I never would have learned about it otherwise.

BUT...

*Jim* is the one calling SilverFox names in his first reply, LYING about

what he himself said in his own books (thousands of tests), providing

DELIBERATE MISINFORMATION (Jims words about what Tom has said) about the

history of the use of sodium chlorite (yes, it has been in use for many

many years, but certainly NOT at the 22+% strength that Jim pushes), etc.

> but people get the message: Tom is the only expert here.

One of the few who can claim some level of technical expertise, yes, I

would tend to agree. But the day Tom starts making false claims and

providing deliberate misinformation is the day I call him on it too.

> Could you and tanstaafl be a little more considerate of competing

> views?

Competing views are meaningless when contradicted by truth/reality.

Do you also advocate giving 'consideration' to the views of criminals

and thugs (aka communists and socialists) when discussing politics?

[Guest guest]

On 2010-07-13 4:06 PM, laura wrote:

> Hes caustic and abrasive at times... but definately into alternative

treatments.

Hey! I resemble that remark (since it is true)!

[Guest guest]

Hello ,

It appears that your position is that Jim Humbles MMS protocol is effective

against all disease as he claims, and safe for all to use including infants,

children, and pregnant women, and this study is evidence of that.

Is this correct?

I happen to think the study is great. It shows some benefit and some of the

limitations of using acidified sodium chlorite internally.

SANOVA is widely used in food processing and it is very effective. However, you

must keep in mind that the protocol for activating SANOVA is much different than

the protocol for MMS. You have some ducks. You can demonstrate this to

yourself by mixing up some drinking water at the concentrations used in the

study according to the MMS protocol and then see if your ducks will drink it.

Most animals will avoid water that has concentrations of free chlorine dioxide

above 10 PPM, and a lot get fussy at 5 PPM. A solution mixed according to the

MMS protocol would have 600 PPM available chlorine dioxide and upwards of 90 PPM

of that as free chlorine dioxide.

You will also note that the water was changed out every 6 hours. The SANOVA

activation is designed for process use. If the free chlorine dioxide is not

used up by contact with organic material, the concentration of free chlorine

dioxide will build in the solution over time. Since the levels of free chlorine

dioxide in the workplace are a worker safety concern, the activation is done in

a way that keeps those levels as low as possible.

This study is important in that it demonstrates the age old problem associated

with treatment. You have to get enough of the chemical in contact with the

pathogen for a long enough period of time to kill off the pathogen. This is a

delivery issue. When chlorine dioxide is allowed to come into direct contact

with Salmonella, it results in a 5 log reduction in 1 minute at a concentration

of 100 PPM. As you will recall, this study resulted in only a 1 log reduction

at a higher concentration over a longer period of time. At 300 PPM it was

ineffective.

This is where testing and studies come in. If ASC can be effectively delivered

to the pathogen, it can be effective at reducing it.

On a side note, it would be interesting to understand what this test actually

cost. Jim Humble seems to think that all testing runs in the 100 million range,

but I don't think this test came anywhere near that in cost. If the test was

duplicated with the exception of treating the water throughout the life of the

birds, I wonder what the results would be...

Tom

>

> 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.

>