Re: 3rd letter from Jim Humble to Tom

[Guest guest]

Thanks Alvin, Jim Humble and for your encouragement, and support.

> >

> > Jim,

> >

> >

> > Here is a forward from this person

> >

> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------

> > From: Alvin Rose <ajroseca@>

> > Date: Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 3:17 PM

> > Subject: Silver fox Reply for Jim Humble

> > To:

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Well, I guess I will address this to Jim Humble.

> >

> > Hello Jim, HELLO THANKS FOR YOUR LETTER,

> >

> > First of all I am surprised that you resort to name calling. I would think

that someone in your position would behave themselves in a more dignified

fashion...

> >

> > Finally, you shed the truth on the matter. In your book, on page 27 you

said

> >

> > " ...I did more than 1,000 different tests over a period of one year... " I

THOUGHT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT TESTING AS TESTING IN A CLINIC WITH DOCTORS AND

NURSES AND RECORDING DEVICES AND 100 MILLION DOLLARS TO GET ALL THE TESTING

DONE. I INDEED DID MORE THAN A THOUSAND CHEMICAL TESTS BEFORE STARTING A LARGE

SCALE TREATMENT OF PEOLE AND WHILE I WAS SENDING SAMPLES TO AFRICA TO BE TESTED.

> >

> > On page 28 you went on to say

> >

> > " I set up tests for A-bombs and that sort of thing. So I did have some

experience at doing tests. I tried a dozen or more acids and a hundred

combinations. " YES, I IN FACT DID THAT.

> >

> > And now finally you are giving us the truth...

> >

> > " WOW, DIDN'T REALIZE I EVER SAID THAT OR EVER CLAIMED THAT I RUN THOUSANDS

OF TESTS. I CERTAINLY DON'T REMEMBER THAT. LET ME TELL YOU THE TRUTH. I NEVER

RAN THOUSANDS OF TESTS. I RAN VERY FEW TESTS. "

> >

> > It is all becoming clear now. You haven't run the tests, and you don't

know how chlorine dioxide works. WELL I WOULDN'T SAY THAT.

> >

> > It may come as a surprise to you, but there are people who have run the

tests. They have found and measured results different from what you think should

happen, and have reported what actually happens. MAYBE, BUT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING

IS NOT TOTALLY TRUE. SO WE WILL GO OVER IT AND SEE IF YOU REALY ARE INTERESTED

IN SEEING PEOPLE GET BETTER.

> >

> > Here is a rather complete study done on various ways to disinfect water,

including using chlorine dioxide.

> >

> > http://www.epa.gov/safewater/mdbp/alternative_disinfectants_guidance.pdf

> >

> >

> > YES YES, SOME GOOD DATA HERE, I'VE USED IT FROM TIME TO TIME

> >

> >

> > You actually reference chapter 4 of this in your book. Let's take a look

at what it says.

> >

> > Let's look at chapter 4.1.1 Oxidation Potential

> >

> > " Chlorine dioxide functions as a highly selective oxidant due to its

unique, one-electron transfer mechanism where it is reduced to chlorite (ClO2- )

(Hoehn et al., 1996). "

> >

> > " ...and indicates the chlorite ion will exist as the dominant species in

drinking water. "

> >

> > The paper goes on to show that the 1 electron reaction that changes

chlorine dioxide to chlorite has a ORP of 0.954 V. They go on to show the other

reactions along with their ORP values.

> >

> >

> > THAT'S INTERESTING TOM, BUT THE DATA HAS TO DO WITH DRINKING WATER. THE

DON'T BOTHER TO STATE WHAT WAS IN THE DRINKING WATER, BUT WHAT YOU ARE FAILING

TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION IS THAT THE BODY AND THE CONDITIONS IN THE BODY ARE

NOTHING LIKE DRINKING WATER. YES THE ONE-ELECTRON TRANSFER MECHANISM MAKES THE

CHLORINE DIOXIDE A HIGHLY SELECTIVE OXIDANT AND THAT IS TRUE IN THE BODY, BUT

WITH THOUSANDS OF PPM MORE THAN IS IN DRINKING WATER A DIFFERENT RESULTS

HAPPENS. SORRY, YOU CAN'T APPLY THE DATA HERE TO WHAT HAPPENS IN THE BODY.

> >

> >

> > They go on to state

> >

> > " In drinking water, chlorite (ClO2-) is the predominant reaction

endproduct, with approximately 50 to 70 percent of the chlorine dioxide

converted to chlorite and 30 percent to chlorate (ClO3-) and chloride (Cl-)

(Werdehoff and Singer, 1987). "

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > YOU CAN GO TO www.lenntech.com AND READ ABOUT CHLORINE DIOXIDE FROMA

MULTIMILLION DOLLAR COMPANY THAT SELL THE CHLORINE DIOXIDE TECHNOLOGY.

> >

> > Scientific testing has revealed that 70% of the chlorine dioxide is

converted to chlorite, and the remaining 30% to chlorate and chloride. Since you

have done no testing to show otherwise, this kind of blows a hole in your

speculation that all of the chlorine dioxide goes to salt. Since you have no

data to support your 98% conversion to chloride, and since I did go to a

university chemistry laboratory and duplicated the tests showing the 70%

formation of chlorite, I think the chemistry fits very well, and it can be

documented and reproduced outside of the original study. Your speculation

doesn't fit the actual chemical test results and can not be duplicated. SORRY,

BUT THAT IS NOT THE SCIENTIFIC TESTING EXCEPT MAYBE IN A SINGLE LOCATION. YOUR

UNIVERSITY TESTING DOESN'T HOLD UP. WHAT OTHER CHEMICALS WERE IN THE WATER WITH

YOUR CHLORINE DIOXIDE. WHAT WAS CAUSING THE CONVERSION TO CHLORITE. IN THE BODY,

SOME OF THE CHLORINE DIOXIDE WILL BE CONVERTED BY THE PATHOGENS. SINCE CHLORINE

DIOXIDE IS EXTREMELY SELECTIVE, WHAT WERE THOSE SELECTIVE ITEMS THAT YOU USED TO

PROVE YOUR POINT. CERTAINLY NOTHING YOU WILL FIND IN THE BODY. FINALLY I DON'T

BELIEVE YOU WENT TO A UNIVERSITY AND DID THAT TESTING AT ALL. WHAT YOU SAY DON'T

FIT. HAVE A PROFESSOR WRITE ME A LETTER THAT YOU DID THE TESTING. AND OF COURSE

I'LL CHECK WITH HIM AND CHECK HIS CREDENTIALS.

> >

> > Chemistry is a science, not an opinion. You are the one spreading

misinformation. You claim one thing, then provide a reference that proves

something entirely different. If chlorite does not exist beyond a few

miliseconds, why do water treatment plants measure it and control the amount of

chlorite present after disinfection? Why do they even worry about it? I'VE

ANSWERED THIS BELOW. I DON'T KNOW WHY THEY WORRY ABOUT IT. MUST BE SOME OTHER

IMPORTANT TECHNICAL REASON, BUT PEOPLE HAVE BEEN TAKING CHLORITE IN MUCH

STRONGER DOSES THAN ONE COULD POSSIBLE GET FROM A WATER PURIFICATION SYSTEM FOR,

80 YEARS. IT IS STILL IN HEALTH FOOD STORES TODAY. NO ONE HAS NOTICE ANY DAMAGE

YET.

> >

> > In section 4.2.1 we find this

> >

> > " ...chlorine dioxide in water does not hydrolyze to any appreciable extent

but remains in solution as a dissolved gas (Aieta and Berg, 1986). "

> >

> > As a gas that has been tested to be effective across a PH range of 2 - 14,

how does it only oxidize acidic and anaerobic materials? Oops, I guess that

since you haven't done any tests on that, you don't know how that works

either... I CHANGED THAT IN THE BOOK AND IN MY REMARKS MORE THAN TWO YEARS AGO.

SO FAR AS I KNOW IN SOLUTIONS THE GASSIOUS CHLORINE DIOXIDE IS ONLY EFFECTIVE

FROM PH 5 TO PH 10. AT LEAST THAT IS WHAT SEVERAL SOURCES STATE. BUT I HAVE LONG

AGO REVERSED THE STATEMENT THAT CHLORINE DIOXIDE ONLY ATTACKS ACIDIC MATERIALS.

THERE ARE A NUMBER OF PATHOGENS THAT ARE ALKALINE IN NATURE. THE ACIDIC IDEA

DOESN'T WORK OUT. ACTUALLY, AND I HAVE ALREADY STATED THIS A NUMBER OF PLACES,

NO BIOLOGIST HAS BEEN ABLE TO TELL ME WHY CHLORINE DIOXIDE ONLY ATTACKS

PATHOGENS AND NOT THE FRIENDLY BACTERIA. BUT FOR 10 YEARS HUNDREDS OR THOUSANDS

(I HAVE 60,000 EMAILS FROM PEOPLE TAKING MMS) OF PEOPLE HAVE MENTIONED THAT THE

FRIENDLY BACTERIA IN THEIR STOMACH WAS NOT HURT BY THE MMS. AND OTHER PROBLEMS

THAT MIGHT ARRISE FROM KILLING FRIENDLY BACTERIA HAS NOT BEEN REPORTED.

> >

> > Many people, including yourself, have has positive experiences using

sodium chlorite in water. You claimed 70% of the people you treated for malaria

had their symptoms go away. The key here is the low concentration of sodium

chlorite (3.5%), and the fact that you used 1 or 2 doses. Do you remember that

3.5% sodium chlorite has 35000 PPM available chlorine dioxide? In addition, if

you only take 1 or 2 doses, there is no build up of chlorite in the body. Also,

the maintenance dose of " stabilized oxygen " is 3 drops a day. That isn't a lot

of chlorite for the body to deal with, but it is enough to actually be effective

in many cases. HERE IS WHERE YOU CHEMISTRY STARTS TO FALL DOWN, AND I DO NOT

MEAN TO BE INSULTING. I INFACT APPRECIATE YOUR REMARKS. YOU SEE 3.5 % SODIUM

CHLORITE MEANS 3.5% PPM SODIUM CHLORITE AND THAT IS 35,000 PPM SODIUM CHLORITE

NOT CLORINE DIOXIDE. I HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO FIND THE EXACT FIGURES ON THE

AMOUNT OF CHLORINE DIOXIDE IN NaCLO2, BUT IT IS DEFINITELY LESS THAN 100%. A

GOOD CHEMIST CAN FIGURE IT OUT. SO THAT COUPLED WITH THE FACT THAT PROBABLY ONLY

10 TO 25% OF THE CHLORINE DIOXIDE HAS BEEN RELEASED FROM THE CHLORITE, THE

FIGURES ARE QUIT A BIT DIFFERENT THAN YOU STATE. BUT LET ME POINT OUT A FEW

FACTS. YOU SEE, I'VE ACTUALLY BEEN OUT THERE IN THE FIELD WORKING. IN KENYA AND

IN UGANDA I TREATED MORE THAN 2000 CASES OF MALARIA. TIME AGAIN I FOUND THAT

DIFFERENT TREATMENT WAS REQUIRED IN DIFFERENT AREAS ONLY A COUPLE OF HUNDRED

MILES APART, BUT THE MOST EFFECTIVE TREATMENT WAS TO GIVE AN ADULT A 15 DROP

DOSE AND WAIT 1 HOUR AND THEN GIVE THEM ANOTHER 15 DROPS DOSE. MORE THAN 90% OF

THE TIME THEY WERE OVER ALL SYMPTOMS IN 4 HOURS FROM THE FIRST DOSE. THERE WERE

SOME PLACES WHERE MY FRIENDS WENT THAT THEY WERE TREATING MALARIA WITH TWO 6

DROP DOSES. BUT I FOUND THAT DIDN'T WORK IN MOST PLACES. SO TO RECAP, SODIUM

CHLORITE IS NOT 100% CHLORINE DIOXIDE, AND 100% OF THE CHLORINE DIOXIDE IS NOT

ALWAYS RELEASED FROM THE CHLORITE. OK? THE BLOOD OF MANY OF THE CASES I'VE

TREATED WAS EXAMINED BY TECHNICIANS TO SHOW ALL MALARIA PARASITES GONE. YOU ARE

TRYING TO USE FALTY CHEMISTRY TO TELL ME HOW I SHOULD TREAT MALARIA. I DIDN'T

NEED CHEMISTRY AT THE TIME, I JUST KEPT INCREASING THE DOSE UNTIL THE PATIENTS

RESPONDED.

> >

> > Since you haven't actually done any testing, I will offer you a lesson in

chemistry...I EXPLAINED THIS ABOVE. I HAVEN'T DONE ANY CHINICAL MULTI MILLION

DOLLAR TESTING.

> >

> > With water a standard drop measurement is 1/20 of a ml. There are 20

standard drops to a ml. Water has a specific gravity of 1.0. 22.4% sodium

chlorite has a specific gravity of 1.2. This means that there will be less drops

per ml than water. You end up with 17 drops per ml. You already know this

because you stated exactly the same thing in your book.

> >

> > This means that 6 drops of 22.4% sodium chlorite is about 0.353 ml. Now

22.4% sodium chlorite has 224000 PPM available chlorine dioxide. This gives us

0.353 times 224000 = 79072 PPM chlorine dioxide. Now we are going to dilute that

with 125 ml of water, so we end up with a 6 drop dose that has 79072 divided by

125 = 632.576 PPM available chlorine dioxide. YOU SEE, I THINK I EXPLAINED IT

JUST ABOVE. YOU SIMPLY CANNOT CHANGE SODIUM CHLORITE 100% INTO CHLORINE DIOXIDE.

IT IS A CHEMICAL IMPOSSIBILITY. SODIUM CHLORITE HAS SODIUM IN IT. IF YOU WERE

GOING TO CHANGE IT ALL INTO CHLORINE DIOXIDE THE SODIUM WOULD HAVE TO CHANGE

INTO CHLORINE DIOXIDE, TOO.

> >

> > How did you come up with your figure of 300 PPM? IT WAS AN ESTIMATE WITH

MY BEST GUESS. IT IS CERTAINLY GOING TO HAVE TO BE A FIGURE OF LESS THAN 632.576

PPM. AS I HAVE ALREADY STATED, SODIUM CHLORITE IS NOT 100% CHLORINE DIOXIDE AND

YOU NEVER GET ALL OF THE CHLORINE DIOXIDE IN THE CHLORITE TO BE RELEASED. SO

THOSE TWO FACTORS PROBABLY GET YOU CLOSE TO 300 PPM.

> >

> > Activation with 10% citric acid will release about 10% of the available

chlorine dioxide as free chlorine dioxide so the dose ends up with 633 times 10%

= 63.3 PPM of the 633 PPM of available chlorine dioxide as free chlorine

dioxide. YOU ARE NOT LISTENING TO WHAT I SAID IN THE BOOK. AT THE TIME YOU HAVE

300 PPM IN THE 6 DROPS, YOU ADD 1/2 GLASS OF WATER OR JUICE TO THAT 6 DROPS AND

THAT DILUES IT ABOUT 300 TIMES. SO THAT IS ABOUT 1 PPM.

> >

> > Perhaps it is good that you didn't do any testing. Your math isn't very

good either. The 6 drop dose has a lot more chlorine dioxide than 5 PPM. And,

why are you using 5 PPM when in your book you stated that 1 PPM was all that was

needed? YOU HAVE COMPLETELY MISSED THE POINT. NOBODY TAKES THE 6 DROP DOSE

STRAIGHT. THEY ADD 1/2 GLASS OR WATER OR JUICE. WHEN YOU DILUTE, YOU DILUTE THE

PPM. YOU SHOULDN'T REALLY BE TALKING ABOUT PPM, BUT RATHER MILLIGRAMS. PPM

CHANGES AS YOU ADD WATER OR JUICE OR ANYTHING ELSE. THE NUMBER OF MILLIGRAMS OF

CHLORINE DIOXIDE DOSE NOT CHANGE BECAUSE YOU ADD SOME WATER OR JUICE.

> >

> > In chapter 4.4.1 we find

> >

> > " In the first disinfection mechanism, chlorine dioxide reacts readily with

amino acids cysteine, tryptophan, and tyrosine, but not with viral ribonucleic

acid (RNA) (Noss et al., 1983; Olivier et al., 1985). "

> >

> > Does the human body have cysteine, tryptophan, and tyrosine in it? Are

those amino acids important to bodily function? How can you say that chlorine

dioxide does not impact the body when it readily reacts with those amino acids?

TELL YOU THE TRUTH, I DON'T KNOW.

> >

> > You say

> >

> > " CHLORINE DIOXIDE HAS BEEN USED FOR 80 YEARS TO PURIFY WATER IN MANY

INDUSTRIAL APPLICATIONS AND IN SPECIAL WATER PURIFICATION PLANTS BECAUSE ORGANIC

MATERIALS MOSTLY HAVE LITTLE EFFECT ON CHLORINE DIOXIDE. "

> >

> > Yet in chapter 4.4.2.3 I read this

> >

> > " Suspended matter and pathogen aggregation affect the disinfection

efficiency of chlorine dioxide. " THIS DOESN'T MEAN THAT THIS SUSPENDED MATTER

REACTS WITH CHLORINE DIOXIDE, IT CHANGES THE EFFICIENCY, PROBABLY TO LIMIT THE

CONTACT.

> >

> > 25% seems significant to me. Also, the turbidity of blood is much higher

than the turbidity allowed for water purification. Water purification goes

through great measures to reduce the turbidity of water before chlorination. The

reason for this is that chlorine attaches itself to the particles in the water

and forms disinfection by products. Some of these have been found to cause

cancer. The fluid in the colon is very turbid, and yet you advise people to

chlorinate their colon (by taking calcium hypochlorite) without even a cautious

mention of the possibility of forming cancer causing disinfection by products.

THE ACTUAL FACT IS THAT CALCIUM HYPOCHLORITE HAS NO AVAILABLE CHLORINE. YOU NEED

TO DIG A LITTLE DEEPER ON THIS. DON'T LISTEN THE THE LABELS ON THE SWIMMING POOL

PRODUCT, THAT'S JUST FOR SALES. CALCIUM HYPOCHLORITE IMMEDIATELY CHANGES TO

HYPOCHLOROUS ACID (HOCL) ON CONTACT WITH WATER. HYPOCHLOROUS ACID NEVER GIVES UP

CHLORINE. SORRY. IT GIVES UP HYDROGEN, NACENT OXYGEN, AND CHLORIDE. OF COURSE,

NACENT OXYGEN IS WHAT KILLS THE PATHOGENS. IT CANNOT MAKE CANCER CAUSING

MIXTURES AS, AGAIN, IT DOES NOT GIVE UP CHLORINE. THE SAME IS NOT TRUE OF SODIUM

HYPOCHLORITE OR THE OTHER CHEMICALS THAT PRODUCE CHLORINE.

> >

> > Dr. Hesselink understands a little about turbidity. He advises people not

to mix juice with their dose, and not to eat anything before or immediately

after taking a dose. You should sit down and have a chat with him. You may find

out a little about chlorine dioxide and also may begin to understand how this

chemical reacts within the body. WHILE I HAVE A LOT OF RESPECT FOR DR.

HESSELINK, I HAVE NEVER BEEN IMPRESSED BY TITLES, ESPECIALLY FROM THE MEDICAL

GROUP. SORRY I HAVE TAKEN MANY JUICES AND ADDED THE CHLORINE DIOXIDE TO THEM AND

MEASURE THEM IN ONE HOUR AND IN TWO HOURS AND UP TO 24 HOURS. I HAVE PUT MMS IN

ALL KINDS OF FOOD AND MEASURED THE PPM OF CHLORINE DIOXIDE AFTER AN HOUR. THAT'S

ALL YOU NEED IS AN HOUR. VITAMIN C ALWAYS KILLS THE CHLORINE DIOXIDE, I MEAN THE

ADDED VITAMIC C OR ADDED ASCORBIC ACID, AND THERE ARE LOTS OF CONCENTRATED

JUICES THAT KILL CHLORINE DIOXIDE AS THEY HAVE A LOT OF ANTIOXIDANTS IN THEM.

BUT I PERSONALLY HAVE TREATED MORE THAN A TOTAL OF 10,000 CASES. 5000 IN PERSON

WHERE I HANDED THE DRINK TO THE PERSON AND ANOTHER 5000 BY TELEPHONE OR EMAIL.

THE FOOD THING SIMPLY IS NOT THE PROBLEM DR. HESSELINK THINKS IT IS AND I HAVE

COMMUNICATED WITH HIM.

> >

> > Sorry Jim. When I mix up a dose, swish it in my mouth for 20 seconds and

spit it out, It MEASURES 0 PPM chlorine dioxide, and after letting it sit,

tightly covered for 12 hours, it still MEASURES 0 PPM chlorine dioxide. I was

offering the color change and odor as indicators for those who don't have the

ability to test for chlorine dioxide concentrations. I am not actually

interested in what happens a week later because I don't believe liquids stay in

your system beyond a couple of hours. IF YOU HAVE ACTUALLY DONE THIS, AND GOT

THE 0 PPM, WHY COULD YOU POSSIBLY BE WORRIED THAT MMS IS GOING TO DO DAMAGE IN

THE SYSTEM. OBVIOUSLY, ACCORDING TO YOUR TESTS THE MMS IS ZERO IN 20 SECONDS.

HOW MUCH DAMAGE CAN IT DO IN 20 SECONDS?

> >

> > Thinking that my results may be unique, I have had several others

duplicate the test. The results are always the same. 0 PPM measured chlorine

dioxide along with no odor or yellow color. I'LL TELL YOU THE ANSWER TO THIS AT

A LATER DATE.

> >

> > Here is what is evil... You promote chlorine dioxide and its safety and

cite the many uses of chlorine dioxide in purifying water. They you invent a

protocol that is over 300 times stronger than what is used in water

purification, say that it is not really that strong, and tell people that it is

totally safe to use. Even worse is telling people it is totally safe for

children and pregnant women to use. WHILE YOU ARE BEING CRITICAL, I HAVE BEEN

OUT RUNNING AROUND THE WORLD HELPING PEOPLE IN SOUTH AFTICA, IN MALAWI, IN

UGANDA, KEYNA, IN MEXICO, IN THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC, IN THE USA, IN EUROPE AND

OTHER PLACES. IF YOU WANT TO HELP, I WILL WORK WITH YOU, BUT DON'T KILL PEOPLE'S

CHANCES TO LIVE AND GET OVER THEIR SUFFERING. WHY DO YOU THINK IT IS WORTH IT.

190,000 DEATHS FROM MEDICAL DRUGS EACH YEAR. DOCTORS ARE THE BIGGEST CAUSE OF

DEATH IN THE US BY USING DRUGS WRONG. NO ONE DEAD FROM MMS EVEN THOUGH SOME OF

YOU LIKE TO SITE DEATHS, THE PROOF EVAPORATES WHEN YOU ATTEMPT TO PROVE IT.

> >

> > Fortunately, these elevated amounts of chlorine dioxide are not lethal,

and the stuff tastes awful. Eventually people listen to their bodies and stop

taking it before long term damage sets in. WELL 5 MILLION PEPLE HAVE DOWNLOADED

MY FREE BOOK AROUND THE WORLD PLUS 50,000 BOOK SALES AND ALL THE DVD'S AND WEB

SITES. NEVER A DAY GOES BY THAT I DON'T GET TWO OR THREE PHONE CALLS OR EMAILS

THANKING ME. THEY ARE ALWAYS FROM PEOPLE THAT ARE WELL

> >

> > Two years ago you sent me a private message stating that you would be

happy to share your testing methods with me, and that I could then pass them on.

You should have told me then that you had not done any testing. Instead, when I

replied with a question, you replied saying that I should just read your book.

Now I understand your reply. YOU ARE JUST TRYING TO INSULT ME.

> >

> > Does MMS work? Yes, at least some of the time. Is MMS safe? We really

don't know. Your speculation that MMS is the same as water treatment is false,

and I have shown you that the concentrations are much higher than that used for

water purification. The main issue is chlorite. Chlorite may be beneficial, but

it can also do damage. YOU SEE I SHOWED YOU WERE YOUR CACULATIONS WERE WAY OFF

AND THE CONCENTRATION IS NOT WHAT YOU THINK.

> >

> > I really liked your initial ideas on chlorine dioxide. However, when I dug

deeper, I discovered that it doesn't work like you think it does. You don't seem

to be able to accept scientific fact and prefer to harbor your incorrect ideas.

That is too bad. I think that if you ever took the time to actually figure out

what is going on, you may end up with a more effective protocol than you

currently have. ACTUALLY, YOU SEE HERE MY IDEAS ARE PRETTY GOOD. HOWEVER, I'D BE

HAPPY TO WORK WITH YOU ON THE FACTS IF YOU WANT AND WE CAN SEE WHAT ELSE NEEDS

TO BE HANDLED.

> >

> > Oops, I forgot. You always have 100% success every time you treat someone

with MMS, so there is no need for improvement. However, what about those who

have less than 100% success... NO I DON'T THINK I HAVE SAID THAT EXACTLY. THE

CLOSEST I EVER CAME TO SAYING THAT AS I REMEMBER WAS THE 800 CASES OF HIV

RECENTLY TREATED IN MALAWI. ON THE FIRST PASS THROUGH SOMEWHERE NEAR 95% SUCCESS

WAS RECORDED AND THEN THE OTHER 5% WAS INVITED IN AND STARTED OVER ON THE

PROTOCOL AND WE WERE SUCCESSFUL ON 90% OF THEM. NOT QUITE 100%, BUT CLOSE. AND

COULD THEY BE PROVED FREE OF HIV. NO THAT CANNOT BE PROVED, BUT 40 CASES OF

CANCER WERE GONE, 50 CASES OF NUMB LEGS AND FEET WERE GONE, 5 CASES OF HEART

DISEASE WAS CHECKED OK BY THE LOCAL HOSPITA, MALARIA THAT WOULDN'T GO AWAY WAS

GONE, HEP C WAS GONE AND ABOUT 20 OTHER DISEASES WERE GONE. THE PERSON WAS BACK

TO WORK, HAD LOTS OF ENERGY, BACK TO THEIR FAMILIES, AND BASICALLY HAPPY AND

STATED SO. SO WE WERE HAPPY TOO.

> >

> > I applaud your efforts. In spite of the fact that you don't know what is

going on, you are out there trying to help people. Fortunately there are people

like Dr. Hesselink that understand chemistry of the body and are also gaining an

understanding to the chemistry behind chlorine dioxide. MAYBE, BUT HE HASN'T

BEEN TESTING FOOD AND JUICES BECAUSE I HAVE AND I KNOW THAT WHAT HE IS TALKING

ABOUT IS INCORRECT. AND I HAVE HAD MANY PEOPLE TAKE ANTIOXIDANTS WHILE TAKING

MMS AND THEY RECOVERED OR OVERCAME THEIR PROBLEMS.

> >

> > Jim, your ideas about chlorine dioxide are as wrong as your ideas about

vitamin C. I told you that vitamin C is used all the time in the food industry

to activate sodium chlorite. You called me a bunch of names and told me that

there was no way that vitamin C could ever produce a solution that contains

chlorine dioxide. I then provided you with step by step instructions on how to

activate sodium chlorite with vitamin C. You responded by saying that it only

produced a " weak " solution. Well, when you are starting with 224000 PPM, and

only need 5 PPM, you can afford a little loss. The " weak " solution actually came

in at around 3 PPM free chlorine dioxide. About half of the available chlorine

dioxide was used up by the anti oxidation properties of vitamin C, but once

again when you are starting with 224000 PPM that loss is not significant.

SOMEHOW THIS COMPLETELY EXCAPES ME. WHEN YOU START WITH 224,000 YOU ARE GOING TO

HAVE TO WASTE A GREAT DEAL OF VITAMIN C TO FINALLY GET TO 3 PPM. TELL ME OF ONE

COMPANY THAT ACTUALLY USES VITAMIN C TO ACTIVATE SODIUM CHLORITE AND I WILL TALK

WITH THEM. MEANWHILE THE FACT REMAINS THAT IF VITAMIN C IS ADDED TO A DOSE OF

MMS, OR IF IT IS IN THE JUICE ADDED TO MMS IT WILL KILL THE CHLORINE DIOXIDE IN

THE DOSE. THAT IS A FACT THAT I HAVE TESTED DOZENS OF TIMES. I WOULD AT THIS

POINT SUSPECT THAT SOMEONE WHO SUGGESTED THIS IS TRYING TO MAKE A FAILUTE. BUT

LET ME TALK TO ONE OF THESE FOOD COMPANIES THAT USES VITAMIN C TO ACTIVATE

SODIUM CHLORITE. DO YOU SEE. VITAMIN C IS A STRONG ANTIOXIDANT. ANTIOXIDANTS

INSTANTLY DESTROY CHLORINE DIOXIDE. I SUSPECT THAT YOU HAVE MIXED UP ASCORBIC

ACID (VITAMIN C) WITH CITRIC, OR ACETIC, OR MALEIC, OR OXALIC, OR LACTIC, OR

TARTRIC ACIDS.

> >

> > Do you realize that there are people with chemical sensitivities, that

have adverse reactions to citric acid, and those with auto immune problems like

MS that are very sensitive and experience adverse reactions to a wide variety of

things. All of these people have found that using vitamin C as an activator

makes taking an activated sodium chlorite solution much easier. Rather than

flooding their bodies with excess citric acid, they tolerate vitamin C much

better. OK, LET ME TALK TO SEVERAL OF THESE PEOPLE. I'M GAME. IF WE CAN HELP

THEM I WANT TO ADD THEM TO THE FOLD. MY PRIORITIES CHANGE ACCORDING TO HOW

THINGS ARE GOING. I CAN AFFORD TO BE MORE OPEN TO IDEAS AS MILLIONS MORE ARE

USNG MMS.

> >

> > You invented the MMS protocol. It is flawed, but it is getting better. I

suggest you find a chemist that understands these chemicals and have that person

duplicate the tests that have been done to see if they get similar results to

what is published. Next, find a medical professional that understand body

chemistry and oxidation and discuss what safe levels of chlorite may be.

Finally, arrange a visit to a water treatment plant that is using chlorine

dioxide to purify water. Ask questions like why they try to limit the

concentration of chlorine dioxide to 1.4 PPM or lower. If you bring a sample of

your dose, they may even test it for you and tell you what the concentration of

chlorine dioxide actually is. I'VE DONE ALL THIS. CAN'T FIND ANY CHEMISTS WHO

UNDERSTAND IT ANY BETTER THAN YOU. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE LISTENED TO ME HERE

OR NOT, BUT THE FACT IS, I STILL DO UNDERSTAND THE CHEMISTRY. BUT AS FAR AS

MEDICAL DOCTORS AND RESEARCH CLINICS ARE CONCERNED, I AM SURPRISED THAT YOU HAVE

NOT FOUND OUT BY NOW THAT MEDICINE MANAGES DISEASES, NOT CURES DISEASES. THE

LONGER YOU MANAGE A DISEASE THE LONGER YOU HAVE INCOME FROM THAT DISEASE. SORRY

BUT I CAN'T USE THEIR UNDERSTANDING. IF YOU HAVEN'T NOTICED THAT I AM WORRIED.

THANK'S FOR THE SUGGESTIONS BUT I ALREADY KNOW THEIR ANSWERS AND I HAVE ALREADY

VISITED SEVERAL PLANTS.

> >

> > This will give you the information you need to adjust your claims, address

safety, and adjust your protocol to something that is even more effective and

safer to use. SOUNDS GREAT TOM, THEN WHY DO YOU WRITE AND TALK SO THAT DYING

PEOPLE WON'T TRY MMS?

> >

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> --

> As always with love

> Jim Humble

>

[Guest guest]

Hello Jim,

I keep bringing up the fact that you don't understand the chemistry, and that

you have indicated that chlorine dioxide is safely used to purify water and is

used in hospitals and so on. To you this seems to imply that activated sodium

chlorite is safe to ingest.

The fact is that chlorine dioxide technology is used to purify water. Acidified

sodium chlorite technology is not.

As the leader of this effort, I think you should take the time to understand the

differences, and explore what is actually going on.

You keep saying that you have no money for testing, then you turn around and

talk about all the results you are getting that seem to be verified by blood

tests. If you already have the blood, and are testing it, there should be very

little additional cost to screen for signs of oxidative stress. A study was

done by Lubbers et all where people drank water with chlorine dioxide in it.

There is an excellent list of tests that can be run on people to check for

oxidative damage. Ask the people doing your testing if they would be able to

add any of these other tests. I think you will find that they can and the cost

is much less than the 100 million you keep throwing around.

If you approached Dr. Hesselink with information like this, you could find

yourself on common ground. I think that Dr. Hesselink has done these tests, and

that is why his protocol is much different.

I find this comment of yours puzzling...

" I DON'T KNOW OF ANY QUALIFIED PEOPLE WHO WOULD BE WILLING TO CONDUCT THESE

TESTS AND YOUR IDEA OF IT BEING CHEAP IS STILL, BY THE TIME YOU FINISH, OVER 100

THOUSAND DOLLARS. YOU OBVIOUSLY HAVE NEVER CONDUCTED ANY SUCH TESTS. "

If you don't know anyone who will run the tests, how can you speculate on the

cost? Besides, in your book you mentioned that you could do some clinical

trials with humans for under $2000. I would " speculate " that testing with

animals would be less expensive than clinical trials with humans...

Now we get down to the crux of the matter...

" THIS IS WHAT YOU HAVE THOUGHT. THIS IS YOUR OPINION BUT IT DOESN'T STAND UP

TO ANY KIND OF LOGIC. FOR EXAMPLE 800 PEOPLE TAKING 3 DROPS AN HOUR FOR THREE

WEEKS. THEY WERE ALL TESTED BY BLOOD TO HAVE HIV. IN THAT GROUP THERE WERE THE

STANDARD OPT IN DISEASES AS A RESULT OF THE HIV. THERE WERE 40 CASES OF CANCER,

50 CASES OF NUMB FEET AND LEGS, 5 PEOPLE WITH HEART CONDITION, SEVERL HEP C,

MALARIA THAT WOULDN'T GO AWAY, AND ABOUT 20 OTHER DISEASES, THAT WERE ALL GONE.

THREE DROPS WOULD NEVER MAKE IT DOWN THE THROAT AND INTO THE STOMACH, SO HOW DO

YOU SUPPOSE THAT 90% OF THAT 800 WERE ALL FEELING GOOD, ALL 40 CASES OF CANCER

WERE GONE AND MOST OF THEM WERE BACK TO WORK, AND THEY HAD THEIR ENERGY BACK.

WE CALLED THE 80 THAT DIDN'T RESPOND BACK IN, HAD THEM DO THE PROTOCOL AGAIN AND

MORE THAN 90% OF THOSE RESPONDED. YOU CAN'T PROVE THAT THE HIV WAS GONE, BUT

YOU CAN SHOW HAPPY PEOPLE, AND BACK WORKING. AND THE OTHER OPT IN DISEASES WERE

PROVED TO BE GONE BY ACTUAL TESTING IN THE LOCAL HOSPITAL. SO IF MMS NEVER GETS

TO THE STOMACH IN SMALL DOSES, WHAT DO YOU SUSPECT IS THE REASON FOR 800 PEOPLE

BEING HAPPY AND HEALTHY AGAIN? "

The idea that chlorine dioxide doesn't exist in the body is not my idea. It has

been well proven by science several times in several different tests. In

addition, I have given you a method to test and verify this for yourself. You

are gradually becoming aware of this, but still don't fully understand it. You

initially thought that chlorine dioxide lasted 12 hours in the body, then you

backed that off to 2 hours, now you are down to 1 hour. Actual testing shows

less than 20 seconds.

You have seen results, and others have reported results as well. Since chlorine

dioxide doesn't exist in the body long enough to produce these results, what is

doing the work? Is it chlorite? Is it chlorate? Is it chloride? Probably not

chloride. Or is it chlorous acid? Or since the MMS protocol calls for using

excess citric acid, perhaps it has something to do with citric acid?

This is where testing comes in.

In an earlier response you stated that you have never been able to find a

biologist that could tell you how much of the chlorine dioxide is released from

sodium chlorite. Through testing I informed you that it was about 60%. I think

you should have figured that out with your initial testing. I went on to inform

you of the actual chlorine dioxide concentrations in available as well as free

chlorine dioxide and it is a lot higher than the 1 - 5 PPM you think you have.

I see you have no comment on that, and you can use that information when you

write the next edition of your book...

You keep bringing up the 190 thousand people that die from drug interactions

each year. It is unfortunate that this happens, and a lot of those deaths are

caused by incompatibilities between drugs. The physician is supposed to be up

on all of the interactions, but they aren't. I always advise people to bring an

advocate to their doctor visit, and to do as much research as possible before

considering taking a drug. This research should include other drugs, diet, life

style, and supplements that can possibly interact with the drug.

You are promoting acidified sodium chlorite. Do you realize that there are

about 1.5 BILLION episodes of diarrhea in the world every year? Are you also

aware that about 70% of those episodes are caused by food contamination? That's

a little over 1 BILLION. Also, that over 5 MILLION children under the age of 5

die as a result of those episodes.

There isn't much you can do for the 190 thousand that die from drug

interactions, but you do have the opportunity to help the 5 MILLION children

under the age of 5 that die from food born pathogens.

Activated sodium chlorite is very effective at eliminated food borne pathogens.

It is even approved for this use by, I think, every nation in the world.

Perhaps you can learn how acidified sodium chlorite is used to stop food

pathogens and expand your efforts to help people live healthier lives. You may

also learn a bit about this chemistry.

I find it very interesting to hear you state the benefits of science when it

fits your thinking, and then to call science total crap when it goes contrary to

your thinking. You think science is off. It could be that your thinking is

off.

In addition to not understanding the chemistry of sodium chlorite, it appears

that you also don't understand the scientific method.

Jim, settle down. Your paranoia is acting up again. I am not " into the medical

profession pretty heavy. " I do not " back a group that sells drugs to Africa " ,

or anywhere else. I do understand and utilize science.

I was hoping that I could help you better understand the chemistry involved with

acidified sodium chlorite, but since you have no interest in science, I guess

that will not be possible. Perhaps you will pay attention to the next person

that has an understanding of how these chemicals work and brings these

inconsistencies to your attention.

Tom

> Thanks Jim will transfer your reply to MMS list

> Please forward to Jim Humble

> 3rd letter from Tom (Silver-Fox-Science)

>

> Hello Jim,

>

> Thanks for joining the discussion. I believe I always have had a positive

attitude, but let's let bygones go by and get down to the bottom of these

issues.

>

> The reason I keep bringing up testing, is that I really don't think you

understand sodium chlorite. You have gone through the studies on using chlorine

dioxide to purify water, and made statements that MMS is safe to use based upon

those studies. NOT TRUE. I'D BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO HAVE YOU DO THE STUDIES

WITH SODIUM CHLORITE. OR FIND SOMEONE WHO WILL. THE COSTS ARE STILL GOING TO

BE MORE THAN I CAN AFFORD AT THIS TIME. I HAVE TAKEN MMS FOR 10 YEARS AND I AM

ONE OF THE HEALTIEST 77 YEAR OLD PEOPLE YOU KNOW. I HAVE STOOD IN THE VARIOUS

AFFRICAN COUNTRIES AND LIVED WITH THE PEOPLE TAKING ACTIVATED SODIUM CHLORITE

AND THEY ALL WERE BETTER OFF THAN IF THEY DIDN'T HAVE MMS. SO IF YOU CAN AFFORD

THE TESTING AND WANT TO DO IT, I WILL ASSIST THE BEST I CAN FROM HERE.

>

> 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.

>

> Your response to this is to point out that a lot of people have purchased

your book, your DVD, and to point out that there are a lot of bottles of MMS

being sold. That is very interesting, but it doesn't prove anything. BEATING

THAT PARTICULAR DRUM IS SORT OF WASTING TIME. IT IS 1000% SAFER TO BE ALIVE

WHEN YOU HAVE HAD HIV THAN IT IS TO BE DEAD WITHOUT USING MMS.

>

> To prove that it is safe, you set up a test that duplicates the testing done

using chlorine dioxide. Instead of using chlorine dioxide you use activated MMS.

They have set up all the parameters to look for. You simply follow their test

procedures and report the results. SORRY, BUT YOU SOUND TO ME LIKE A MEDICAL

PROFESSIONAL TRYING TO PROTECT HIS INCOME. IF EVERYONE OF YOUR RATS DIE, YOU

WON'T CHANGE THE FACT THAT HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF LIVES SAVE SO FAR AND PEOLE

ARE NOT GOING TO ASK THE RATS ANY QUESTIONS. PEOPLE ASK OTHER PEOPLE WHO HAVE

RECOVERED FROM A DISEASES.

>

> You keep bringing up 100 million to run the tests. That may be what is

required to bring a new drug to market to satisfy the FDA approval process, but

that is not what needs to be done. All you have to do is demonstrate that

chlorite levels involved with taking MMS do no harm to animals or humans.

>

> I would suggest you have a chat with Carole on this list. She may be

interested enough to actually conduct the test. I would be happy to help with

the purchase the rats for testing (they run around $25 each so we would have to

decide how may would be used in the study), and you could send her some MMS to

use. If Carole can't do it, I am sure there is another qualified person that

could be found to watch over the test and check on the health of the rats during

and after the test. The studies done on chlorine dioxide have very specific

things to look for, so all that needs to be done is to find someone that is

qualified to recognize problems in rats, and then you would have to pick a

protocol that you wanted to use. I DON'T KNOW WHO CAROLE IS OR WHAT " THIS LIST "

IS. I DON'T KNOW OF ANY QUALIFIED PEOPLE WHO WOULD BE WILLING TO CONDUCT THESE

TESTS AND YOUR IDEA OF IT BEING CHEAP IS STILL, BY THE TIME YOU FINISH, OVER 100

THOUSAND DOLLARS. YOU OBVIOUSLY HAVE NEVER CONDUCTED ANY SUCH TESTS.

>

> Dr. Hesselink is documenting clinical trials with people, so if you can

amend your relationship with him, that would be another set of test data. DOCTOR

HESSELINK DOES NOT USE MY PROTOCOLS, EVEN CLOSE AND THUS DOESN'T COME CLOSE TO

THE RESULTS I GET. HE IS NOT INTERESTED IN TALKING TO SOMEONE WITHOUT A MEDICAL

DEGREE.

>

> I should have mentioned that I was going on what you had written in the 3rd

edition of your book. What is the current edition? THE PRESENT EDITION IS 4TH

EDITION.

>

> You say

>

> " ACTUALLY, AND I HAVE ALREADY STATED THIS A NUMBER OF PLACES, NO BIOLOGIST

HAS BEEN ABLE TO TELL ME WHY CHLORINE DIOXIDE ONLY ATTACKS PATHOGENS AND NOT THE

FRIENDLY BACTERIA. BUT FOR 10 YEARS HUNDREDS OR THOUSANDS (I HAVE 60,000 EMAILS

FROM PEOPLE TAKING MMS) OF PEOPLE HAVE MENTIONED THAT THE FRIENDLY BACTERIA IN

THEIR STOMACH WAS NOT HURT BY THE MMS. AND OTHER PROBLEMS THAT MIGHT ARRISE FROM

KILLING FRIENDLY BACTERIA HAS NOT BEEN REPORTED. "

>

> Chlorine dioxide actually kills friendly bacteria along with pathogens. The

reason you have no reports of this is because chlorine dioxide doesn't exist

long enough inside the body to reach the friendly bacteria. You will notice that

under the old protocol, people would keep increasing the amounts until they

experienced vomiting, nausea, and diarrhea. While you consider that a herxheimer

reaction, it is actually the point where there is enough free chlorine dioxide

to make it through the mouth and down the throat. When it comes into contact

with the friendly bacteria in the colon, it kills it and triggers diarrhea. In

industry, we call this poisoning. I guess in alternative health it is called a

herxheimer effect. THIS IS WHAT YOU HAVE THOUGHT. THIS IS YOUR OPINION BUT IT

DOESN'T STAND UP TO ANY KIND OF LOGIC. FOR EXAMPLE 800 PEOPLE TAKING 3 DROPS

AN HOUR FOR THREE WEEKS. THEY WERE ALL TESTED BY BLOOD TO HAVE HIV. IN THAT

GROUP THERE WERE THE STANDARD OPT IN DISEASES AS A RESULT OF THE HIV. THERE

WERE 40 CASES OF CANCER, 50 CASES OF NUMB FEET AND LEGS, 5 PEOPLE WITH HEART

CONDITION, SEVERL HEP C, MALARIA THAT WOULDN'T GO AWAY, AND ABOUT 20 OTHER

DISEASES, THAT WERE ALL GONE. THREE DROPS WOULD NEVER MAKE IT DOWN THE THROAT

AND INTO THE STOMACH, SO HOW DO YOU SUPPOSE THAT 90% OF THAT 800 WERE ALL

FEELING GOOD, ALL 40 CASES OF CANCER WERE GONE AND MOST OF THEM WERE BACK TO

WORK, AND THEY HAD THEIR ENERGY BACK. WE CALLED THE 80 THAT DIDN'T RESPOND BACK

IN, HAD THEM DO THE PROTOCOL AGAIN AND MORE THAN 90% OF THOSE RESPONDED. YOU

CAN'T PROVE THAT THE HIV WAS GONE, BUT YOU CAN SHOW HAPPY PEOPLE, AND BACK

WORKING. AND THE OTHER OPT IN DISEASES WERE PROVED TO BE GONE BY ACTUAL TESTING

IN THE LOCAL HOSPITAL. SO IF MMS NEVER GETS TO THE STOMACH IN SMALL DOSES, WHAT

DO YOU SUSPECT IS THE REASON FOR 800 PEOPLE BEING HAPPY AND HEALTHY AGAIN?

>

> OK, let's look at this comment.

>

> " HERE IS WHERE YOU CHEMISTRY STARTS TO FALL DOWN, AND I DO NOT MEAN TO BE

INSULTING. I INFACT APPRECIATE YOUR REMARKS. YOU SEE 3.5 % SODIUM CHLORITE MEANS

3.5% PPM SODIUM CHLORITE AND THAT IS 35,000 PPM SODIUM CHLORITE NOT CLORINE

DIOXIDE. I HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO FIND THE EXACT FIGURES ON THE AMOUNT OF

CHLORINE DIOXIDE IN NaCLO2, BUT IT IS DEFINITELY LESS THAN 100%. A GOOD CHEMIST

CAN FIGURE IT OUT. SO THAT COUPLED WITH THE FACT THAT PROBABLY ONLY 10 TO 25% OF

THE CHLORINE DIOXIDE HAS BEEN RELEASED FROM THE CHLORITE, THE FIGURES ARE QUIT A

BIT DIFFERENT THAN YOU STATE. "

>

> I come from an industrial background. In industry it is understood that

sodium chlorite is stabilized chlorine dioxide. The percentage concentration of

the sodium chlorite is directly related to the available chlorine dioxide in the

solution. You can give a call to the people at Lenntech to verify this. I AM

SORRY, BUT I HAVE READ EVERYTHING THAT LENNTECH AS EVER WRITTEN. AND THAT IS

RIGHT, IT IS DIRECTLY RELATED, JUST AS YOU SAY BELOW. SODIUM CHLORITE

CONVERSION IS ABOUT 60% EFFICIENT.

>

>

> You are correct in that the conversion from sodium chlorite to chlorine

dioxide is not totally efficient.

>

> The terminology suffers a little bit in the same way that you call MMS 28%

sodium chlorite when it actually is only 22.4%. I'VE BEEN TELLING PEOPLE THIS

FOR YEARS. I CERTAINLY SAID IT IN THE 3RD EDITION. NO YOU CAN'T CALL ME ON

THAT ONE.

>

> Let's look at 3.5% sodium chlorite. To make 3.5% sodium chlorite from 80%

sodium chlorite powder, you need to use 4.375% by weight. Because of the 80%

purity of sodium chlorite powder, if you measure 4.375% by weight you end up

with 3.5% sodium chlorite. OK, I'LL BUY THAT.

>

> 3.5% sodium chlorite has 35000 PPM available chlorine dioxide, however, as

you have indicated, the conversion is not 100%. Testing actually shows that the

conversion from sodium chlorite to chlorine dioxide is about 60% efficient. This

means that the 35000 PPM theoretical available chlorine dioxide only works out

to 21000 PPM usuable available chlorine dioxide. THIS SOUNDS OK TO ME.

>

> If we apply this to MMS, we have 22.4% sodium chlorite with a theoretical

224000 PPM available chlorine dioxide. Since only 60% of that can be readily

used, that drops it down to 134400 PPM actual available chlorine dioxide.

Looking at the 6 drop dose, we have 0.353 ml times 134400 = 47443.2 PPM and we

are diluting that with 125 ml of water so we take the 47443.2 and divide that by

125 to give us 379.5 PPM available chlorine dioxide. The activation with 10%

citric acid releases about 10% of the available chlorine dioxide as free

chlorine dioxide, so that ends up with a 6 drop dose of MMS having 380 PPM

available chlorine dioxide with about 38 PPM of that as free chlorine dioxide.

This is still a long way from your idea of 1 PPM.

> You have already indicated that you don't believe my figures, so here is a

test that you, and others, can do to verify this.

>

> Since we have been discussing 3.5% sodium chlorite, let's use that for the

test. If you are making it from sodium chlorite powder, be sure to use 4.375% by

weight figure for mixing. Next you will need a way to determine the free

chlorine dioxide concentration. I use chlorine dioxide test strips from Cole

Parmer. They have a range of 0 - 10 PPM. Also, distilled water should be used to

mix up the sodium chlorite solution, and also in the test solution.

>

> In order to release all of the available chlorine dioxide as free chlorine

dioxide, HCl must be used as the acid for activation. The proper strength of HCl

to activate 3.5% sodium chlorite is 4.2%. Using distilled water, dilute the

stock solution of HCl (which is usually around 32%) down to 4.2%.

>

> To make the test solution place 0.15 ml of 3.5% sodium chlorite in a jar,

add 0.15 ml of 4.2% HCl, swirl to mix, let the activation continue for 30 - 60

seconds, and add enough water to make 1 liter. Test the solution with the test

strips. It will show 3 PPM free chlorine dioxide. A 1 ml syringe is more precise

than using drops, so use the syringe to measure the amounts.

>

> Actually, it would be better to use 10 times the amount of the chemicals and

put it in 10 liters of water. The margin of error is great on very small

measurements, but larger amounts are more forgiving.

>

> If you dilute down to 1 PPM chlorine dioxide, you can take a sample down to

the water treatment plant and have them measure it. Their instruments are far

more exact than test strips, but they can't handle high concentrations.

>

> If you want to run the test using MMS, you have to take precautions. 22.4%

sodium chlorite can be dangerous to handle, and mixing it with 26.9% HCl can be

explosive. Using the same 0.15 ml of the chemicals, you will need to put those

in about 410 liters of water to get the 3 PPM free chlorine dioxide

concentration.

>

> You may think that milligrams of chlorine dioxide is important, but all of

the pathogen testing done with chlorine dioxide specifies a concentration of

chlorine dioxide in contact with the pathogen for a specific period of time.

This is referred to as the CT value. The concentration of chlorine dioxide is

given in milligrams per liter which equals PPM.

>

> Here is an example.

>

> To purify wilderness water you need 4 PPM free chlorine dioxide and should

use a CT of 1000. While this is a high CT value for " city " water, it has some

cushion built in for PH and temperature differences, and also factors in higher

turbidity that you encounter when collecting water from a stream or pond. With 4

PPM, you need to wait 250 minutes for the disinfection process to complete.

>

> If you take 4 milligrams of chlorine dioxide and put it in 4 liters of

water, the disinfection won't be complete. However, if you take your 4

milligrams of chlorine dioxide and put it in 1 liter of water, you only have to

wait for 250 minutes for pure water.

>

> You can look up CT values and get a better idea of how they are used in

disinfection. All oxidative disinfection uses CT values, including chlorine,

chlorine dioxide, hydrogen peroxide, and ozone.

>

> In researching various remedies I have run across two different sets of

data. One set involves results based data, and the other involves evidence based

data. This is a very important distinction, so let's see if we can explore it a

little.

>

> First of all, let me try to explain why this is important. When you

approached the WHO and the Gates foundation, you indicated that you were

worthwhile of their interest because you have seen results. I can only imagine

how differently things would have gone if you had also provided evidence that it

is effective and evidence that it is safe to use. That evidence would be in the

form of test results. You don't have to show every possibility, you just have to

show evidence that the idea is scientifically sound. At that point, the emphasis

changes to how much is needed, and a look is given to see if there is a better

way to do it.

>

> Let's look at the safety of taking MMS.

>

> Your " evidence " of safety appears to be that since a lot is being sold and

no one has died, it must be safe. In contrast, when Lubbers et all were looking

at the safety of drinking water with chlorine dioxide in it, they tested the

following THERE YOU GO IN YOUR HUNDRED MILLION DOLLAR TESTS. THAT MONEY WILL

NEVER BE AVAILABE FOR CHLORINE DIOXIDE TESTING AND SODIUM CHLORITE TESTING. AND

YOU WILL PROBABLE NEVER KNOW WHY NOT.

>

> Serum chemistry

> Plasma glucose, sodium, potassium, chloride, urea nitrogen, creatinine,

BUN/creatinine ratio, uric

> acid, calcium, phosphorus, alkaline phosphatase, gamma glutamyl transferase,

total bilirubin, serum

> glutamic-oxaloacetic transaminase, serum glutamic-pyruvic transaminase,

lactic dehydrogenase,

> cholesterol, triglycerides, total protein albumin, globulin,

albumin/globulin ratio, iron

>

> Blood count

> Platelet count, white blood cell count, red blood cell count, hemoglobin,

hematocrit, mean

> corpuscular volume, mean corpuscular volume, mean corpuscular hemoglobin,

mean corpuscular

> hemoglobin concentration, high peroxidase activity, neutrophils,

lymphocytes, monocytes, eosinophils,

> basophils, large unstained cells

>

> Urinalysis

> Color,a appearance,a specific gravity, pH, protein, sugar,a acetone, blood,a

white blood count, red

> blood count, casts,a crystals,a bacteria,a mucus*, amorphous cells,a

epithelial cells

>

> Special tests

> Serum haptoglobin, sickle cell,a methemoglobin, glucose-6-phosphate

dehydrogenase, Coombs

> test,a hemoglobin electrophoresis,a T-3 (uptake), T-4 (RIA), free thyroxine

index, electrocardiograma

>

> Physical exam

> Systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, respiration rate, pulse

rate, oral temperature

>

> a These parameters yielded qualitative data only; no statistical analysis

was performed.

>

> and based upon the evidence provided by these tests they concluded that no

damage was done.

>

> Do you see the difference? You are basing your conclusions upon results,

where Lubbers based her conclusions upon evidence.

>

> In a similar way, you claim that chlorine dioxide in the blood is what is

doing the work in the body. In order to provide evidence of this, you are going

to have to invent a method of determining levels of chlorine dioxide inside the

body. Science has tried this, and they can't do it. Since your premise is based

upon something that doesn't happen, you chances of providing evidence of your

results are slim to none.

>

> Another reason that evidence is so important is that there are a lot of ways

to get results. I was surprised to find out that when a new treatment is tried,

the medical people expect at least a 30% success rate simply due to the placebo

effect. This is why the famous double blind study is important.

>

> I found this comment of yours interesting...

>

> " IF YOU HAVE ACTUALLY DONE THIS, AND GOT THE 0 PPM, WHY COULD YOU POSSIBLY

BE WORRIED THAT MMS IS GOING TO DO DAMAGE IN THE SYSTEM. OBVIOUSLY, ACCORDING TO

YOUR TESTS THE MMS IS ZERO IN 20 SECONDS. HOW MUCH DAMAGE CAN IT DO IN 20

SECONDS? "

>

> The MMS isn't zero, the chlorine dioxide is zero. In addition, at the end of

20 seconds I spit it out. No concern about damage if you spit it out after 20

seconds. The concern comes when you swallow it and it runs through your system.

NOT THE SAME AS DRINKING A GLASS OR 1/2 GLASS.

>

> The point of the test was to demonstrate that chlorine dioxide reacts with

the organic material in your mouth and does not last for hours inside the body.

I HAVE BEEN SAYING FOR THE LAST YEAR, SINCE I PUBLISHED THE NEW PROTOCOL THAT

THE CHLORINE DIOXIDE LASTS FOR ABOUT ONE HOUR IN THE SYSTEM.

>

> I am sorry that you do not understand that ascorbic acid can act both as an

anti oxidant and as a reducer. However, that doesn't mean that chemistry doesn't

support that. Try this test. Put 0.5 grams of ascorbic acid powder (about 1/8

teaspoon) in 10 ml of distilled water. Mix to dissolve. In a glass put 0.4 ml of

MMS and add 1.0 ml of the ascorbic acid solution you just made up. Swirl to mix

and let the activation continue for 10 minutes. Add 125 ml of water and try it

out. Before drinking, you may want to check the concentration of chlorine

dioxide. OK, THAT MAY BE TRUE, AND MAYBE NOT. HOWEVER SO FAR, WHEN A JUICE HAS

ADDED ASCORBIC ACID TO IT, IT KILLS THE CHLORINE DIOXIDE IN MINUTES. SO IF I

GOT A POSITIVE INDICATION FROM SUCH A TEST, IT MIGHT BE WORTH DEVELOPING A

PROTOCOL FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE PROBLEM WITH CITRIC ACID. IN FACT, YOU MIGHT

DEVELOP SUCH A PROTOCOL AND LET ME TEST IT WITH SOME PEOLE WITH CITRIC ACID

PROBLEMS.

>

> While this is not obvious, if you really understood sodium chlorite, this

would make perfect sense to you.

>

> I am sorry that you have had such a poor experience with the medical

profession. You mentioned

>

> " BUT AS FAR AS MEDICAL DOCTORS AND RESEARCH CLINICS ARE CONCERNED, I AM

SURPRISED THAT YOU HAVE NOT FOUND OUT BY NOW THAT MEDICINE MANAGES DISEASES, NOT

CURES DISEASES. THE LONGER YOU MANAGE A DISEASE THE LONGER YOU HAVE INCOME FROM

THAT DISEASE. SORRY BUT I CAN'T USE THEIR UNDERSTANDING. IF YOU HAVEN'T NOTICED

THAT I AM WORRIED. THANK'S FOR THE SUGGESTIONS BUT I ALREADY KNOW THEIR ANSWERS

AND I HAVE ALREADY VISITED SEVERAL PLANTS.

>

>

>

>

> It sounds like you have a closed mind to all of this, but it may surprise

you that there is a movement among medical professionals toward something called

complementary medicine. These people are actually interested in maintaining and

restoring health. They are recommending acupuncture, herbs, spices, vitamins,

minerals, and other supplements in addition to traditional medicine. I was

talking with a physician a while back who's attitude was that the first line of

health is diet and exercise. Next is acupuncture, chiropractic manipulations,

and physical therapy. Next is vitamins, minerals, supplements, herbs, and

spices. Finally, if none of these other things work, he will drag out the book

of drugs. You would also be surprised that teaching hospitals are also leaning

this way. THAT'S NICE, BUT ONLY A FEW SUCH HOSPITALS EXIST. I'VE BEEN IN

HOSPITALS AROUND THE WORLD. LET ME ASK YOU THIS: MORE THAN 190 THOUSAND PEOPLE

DIE AFTER TAKING ONE OF THE APPROVED DRUGS ON THE MARKET. DOCTORS ARE THE

BIGGEST CAUSE OF DEATHS IN THE UNITED STATES AS A RESULT OF USING ONE DRUG OR

ANOTHER. YOU CAN FIND THOSE FACTS. WHAT I WANT TO KNOW, WHY DON'T YOU GO WRITE

ABOUT THOSE DRUGS THAT ARE KILLING PEOPLE. WHY BUG A CHEMICAL THAT HASN'T

KILLED ANYONE? YOU ARE STARTING TO GET A LITTLE MORE ACCURATE WITH WHAT YOU SAY

NOW, BUT IT HAS TAKEN A LONG TIME TO REACH THIS POINT. OR WHY NOT HELP BY

WRITING GOOD ARTICLES ON ONE OR A HUNDRED OF THE SUCCESS STORIES. THERE ARE

THOUSANDS OF THEM.

>

> The medical profession is not perfect. Drugs are not perfect. Vitamins and

minerals are not perfect. MMS is not perfect. I like bouncing ideas off of

medical professionals because they have a better understanding of how the body

works. They also know what to look for and how to test of oxidative stress. It

is unfortunate that you have closed yourself off from this asset.

>

> Now let's take a look at chlorination and hypochlorous acid. Once again the

leaders in this process explain it better than I can, but it does look like

chlorine is formed in the reactions. In industry calcium hypochlorite, sodium

chlorite, and chlorination are used interchangeably. All use differing starting

chemicals, but all produce hypochlorous acid and the hypochlorous acid is what

is used to disinfect water. THAT'S RIGHT HYPOCHLOROUS ACID IS WHAT IS USED TO

DISINFECT THE WATER. BUT THERE IS QUITE A BIT OF DIFFERENCE IN THESE CHEMICALS

AND CHLORINE DIOXIDE IS NOT THE SAME AS HYPOCHLOROUS ACID, I DON'T CARE WHAT IS

USED INTERCHANGEABLY IN INDUSTRY. BUY YOUR SAYING THAT DON'T MAKE IT SO. THE

FACT IS INDUSTRY DOES NOT USE THESE CHEMICALS AND THEIR DESIGNATIONS

INTERCHANGEABLY.

>

>

> TOM, YOU ARE INTO SCIENCE AND THE MEDICAL PROFESSION PRETTY HEAVY. THE DRUG

COMPANY HAS FINANCED DRUGS AND THE INVENT OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. THE FACT

IS, THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD IS MOSTLY CRAP. I'VE READ THE TESTING OF THE ARV

DRUGS THAT KILL THOUSANDS IN AFRICA EVERY WEEK. IN THE TOWN I STAYED FOR 6

MONTHS TREATING THE 800 HIV PATIENTS, PEOPLE DROPPED DEAD IN THE STREETS ON

OCCASIONS. THOSE DRUGS HAVE PASSED THE SCIENTIFIC TESTING WITH MANY DEAD

SUBJECTS. THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD WAS DEVELOPED TO IMPRESS PEOPLE WHO DON'T

KNOW, AND TO PREVENT ANYONE LIKE ME FROM EVER HAPPENING. THEY KNOW THAT I WILL

NEVER GET THE MONEY FOR TESTING. THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD HAS SAVED THEIR ASS FROM

DOZENS IF NOT HUNDREDS OF MEDICINES THAT ACTUALLY CURE THINGS. MANAGING THE

DISEASE HAS BEEN THE WAY THINGS HAVE GONE FOR OVER 100 YEARS. IF YOU DON'T KNOW

OF ALL THE MEN WHO ARE DEAD NOW WHO DEVELOPED CURES FOR VARIOUS DISEASES WHO

WERE SIMPLY STOPPED IF THEY COULD NOT BE STOPPED BY LEGAL MEANS. I'M NOT GOING

TO TELL YOU. THEY ARE ON THE INTERNET. YOU BACK A GROUP, I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT

YOU DO, THAT SELLS ARV DRUGS TO AFRICA. THE DRUG COMPANIES, GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS

IN VARIOUS COUNTRIES, DOCTORS WHO PRESCRIBE, SALES MEN AND MANY OTHERS WHO LIVE

OFF OF THE DYING AND SUFFERING PEOPLE IN AFRICA. I THINK EVEN YOU WOULD BE

APPALLED AT WHAT THOSE ARV DRUGS ARE DOING TO MILLIONS IN AFRICA IF YOU COULD

FACE THE FACTS. I WAS THERE A NUMBER OF TIMES. I HAVE ARV DRUGS RIGHT ON MY

DESK. READ THE TESTING THAT WAS DONE ON EACH DRUG. MANY PEOPLE DIED IN THE

TESTING. MORE THAN 70 DIFFERENT DISEASES WERE DEVELOPED BY TEST SUBJECTS. THEY

STARTED OUT BY SAYING THESE ARV WOULD MAKE YOU LIVE 5 YEARS LONGER THAN YOU

WOULD OTHERWISE IF YOU HAVE HIV, THEN IT WAS 10 YEARS LONGER, THEN 20 YEARS

LONGER. NO THEY CLAIM THAT YOU WIL LIVE 59 YEARS LONGER IF YOU TAKE THE ARV'S

BUT FUNNY, NO TESTS HAVE EVERY BEEN CONDUCTED ON THESE LONGEVITY CLAIMS. NOT

ONE BIT OF EVIDENCE BECAUSE I AND MANY OTHERS HAVE SEARCH THE LITERATURE. NO

TEST TO SHOW EVEN 5 YEARS OF LONGEVITY, MUCH LESS 59 YEARS.

>

> I WAS IN MALAWI, IN AN AREA OF 60% HIV POSITIVE. THOSE PEOPLE WERE DYING.

THE ARV'S ARE TREMENDOUSLY POISONOUS DRUGS. THEY KILLED MANY OF THE TEST

SUBJECTS AND ALL THE REST WERE SICK OF EVERY KIND OF DISEASE YOU CAN IMAGINE.

THEY DON'T HIDE IT. THEY HAVE A PAPER OR PAMPHLET SHOWING ALL THE RESULTS OF

THE TESTING. BUT THE PEOPLE OF AFRICA HAVE BEEN LEAD TO BELIEVE IN DOCTORS JUST

LIKE YOU. WHEN THE DOCTOR SAYS THIS DRUG WILL MAKE YOU LIVE LONGER, THEY

BELIEVE WITHOUT HESITATION. THE DRUGS ARE EXPENSIVE, BUT THE GOVERNMENT PAYS

FOR MOST OF THEM. THE GOVERNMENTS PUTS OUT BILLIONS FOR ARVS AND IT HAPPENS

BECAUSE GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL ARE PAID, AND THE AFRICANS BECAUSE OF IT. THERE IS

NO LOGIC THAT THEY OFFER EXCEPT TO SAY THAT 30% OF THOSE TAKING A PARTICULAR ARV

HAD AN INCREASE OF 100 IN WHITE BLOOD CELLS IN A YEAR. THIS PARTICULAR ARV,

LIKE ALL THE REST, HAD KILLED AT LEAST 9 PEOPLE IN THE TESTING PROCEDURE AND

GAVE ALL OF THEM VARIOUS DISEASES, BUT IT INCREASE THE WHITE BLOOD COUNT BY 100

IN A YEAR'S TIME IN 30% OF THOSE TESTED. NO OTHER LOGICAL REASON IS GIVEN FOR

PRESCRIBING IT. THE PATIENTS BELIEVE THAT THE DRUG IS HELPING THEM STAY ALIVE.

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OR TESTING TO PROVE THAT THIS DRUG HAS EVER MADE ANYONE

LIVE A SECOND LONGER. THAT'S THE DRUG COMPANIES IN AFRICA, BUT THEY DO THE

SAME THING IN THE US.

>

> WELL, HAVE A GOOD LIFE. I HOPE YOU DO GOOD. DO GOOD DEEDS AND ALWAYS DO

WHAT IS RIGHT AND YOU WILL BE OK.

>

> JIM HUMBLE