Re: Final email from Jim humble

[Guest guest]

On 2010-07-14 8:56 PM, Alvin Rose wrote:

> I appreciate your efforts. Unfortunately I have only 24 hours in each

> day. The need to save lives and overcome much suffering overshadows a

> situation of constant insulting that you started several years ago.

> There isn't any more of those 24 hours available to you any more. Three

> emails ago every paragraph you wrote was wrong, and now your

> evaluations are still wrong. I corrected you on every one. You are

> just looking for some attention, and you think you can get it through

> insults.

This is sad.

Jim, pointing out factual and logical errors is not 'insulting', and

that's all that I have seen tom do. You claim to have 'corrected' Tom on

every one, but I saw no evidence of any corrections.

Maybe in the past Tom has made less than cordial remarks out of

frustration, but I can understand why after watching your exchanges

here. Dealing with someone who is extremely, pig-headedly stubborn can

be very frustrating. It is really too bad that your ego won't let you

admit your shortcomings/limitations (and no, that is not meant as an

insult, everyone has them), because I do believe you are sincere and

doing a great service by promoting the use of MMS.

[Guest guest]

When I was taking MMS I felt full of energy and my issues improved. After about 3 or 4 weeks the "feeling high" disapeared and I felt tired. Also my stomach discomfort made me reduce the number of drops. Thereafter I had to stop and anti-oxidise.

I tried it again twice with 3 months intervals and the results where the same.

My skin looked younger and my hands which where yellow colored turned white.

But my health issues always returned.

It seems to me that the whole issue of MMS needs more studying. To combine biology, medicine and chemistry.

It is like a nuclear energy. With the right knowledge it can be beneficial. Wrongly used it could cause damage.

No doubt that MMS has a high potential for healing.

From: Alvin Rose <ajroseca@...> Sent: Thu, July 15, 2010 3:56:31 AMSubject: [ ] Final email from Jim humble

Tom,I appreciate your efforts. Unfortunately I have only 24 hours in each day. The need to save lives and overcome much suffering overshadows a situation of constant insulting that you started several years ago. There isn't any more of those 24 hours available to you any more. Three emails ago every paragraph you wrote was wrong, and now your evaluations are still wrong. I corrected you on every one. You are just looking for some attention, and you think you can get it through insults. You keep pushing I don't understand the chemistry, but you evaluation is faulty. And oh yes acidified sodium chlorite is use to purify water, and has been for years. And as leader of this effort I will make the decision of where I will spend my extremely limited time, certainly not you. But of course you have the liberty to thing

I should take the time. I hate to say this again as you seem to be totally oblivious, but 100's of thousands of people have been drinking sodium chlorite for 80 years, and yes it is acidified by the HCl in the stomach.You can write back if you wish, it' OK. But the emails will be canceled as they come in and thus not read by me.As always with love

Jim HumbleOn 7/15/2010 2:12 AM, Alvin Rose wrote:

Hello Jim

Here is a reply to your 3rd email to Tom (Silver-Fox- Science)

I think you are doing an excellent job with MMS..You have saved

many lives..Keep up the good work.

Here is the latest reply

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

[Guest guest]

Hi Tanstaafl

It was not Alvin Rose wrote...That email was from Jim Humble

I only transferred it from Jim Humble to the MMS list here.

Re: [ ] Final email from Jim humble

On 2010-07-14 8:56 PM, Alvin Rose wrote:> I appreciate your efforts. Unfortunately I have only 24 hours in each> day. The need to save lives and overcome much suffering overshadows a> situation of constant insulting that you started several years ago. > There isn't any more of those 24 hours available to you any more. Three> emails ago every paragraph you wrote was wrong, and now your> evaluations are still wrong. I corrected you on every one. You are> just looking for some attention, and you think you can get it through> insults.This is sad.Jim, pointing out factual and logical errors is not 'insulting', andthat's all that I have seen tom do. You claim to have 'corrected' Tom onevery one, but I saw no evidence of any corrections.Maybe in the past Tom has made less than cordial remarks out offrustration, but I can understand why after watching your exchangeshere. Dealing with someone who is extremely, pig-headedly stubborn canbe very frustrating. It is really too bad that your ego won't let youadmit your shortcomings/limitations (and no, that is not meant as aninsult, everyone has them), because I do believe you are sincere anddoing a great service by promoting the use of MMS.

[Guest guest]

On 2010-07-15 5:14 PM, Alvin Rose wrote:

> Hi Tanstaafl

> It was not Alvin Rose wrote...That email was from Jim Humble

> I only transferred it from Jim Humble to the MMS list here.

I knew that, as was made obvious by the 'Jim,' at the beginning of my

comment.

But, you should always put a disclaimer at the beginning of an email

that you are posting that was written by someone else.

When an email is quoted, the quote attribution is put there

automatically. You may not have typed the original text, but you did

indeed post the message exactly as quoted.