Sunday, October 28, 2007
A New Treatment for Cancer and HIV/Malaria Infections
This essay is republished from our subscription blog in the public interest.
One of the members passed this information along to me. Read the free ebook. It is fascinating reading, especially if you suffer from malaria, HIV, hepatitis C/B or cancer. It sounds to good to be true, but the science is sound. In brief, sodium chlorite is treated with common white vinegar to produce chlorine dioxide, a powerful oxidant that is used in the purification of water, the bleaching of wood and cotton and other industrial uses. When generated, chlorine dioxide has a lifespan of only 30 minutes in the body, but this is enough to kill a host of different pathogens, especially malaria. Within 48 hours, this simple inexpensive compound killed 99% of all malaria pathogens in the body. In his ebook, the author tells a fascinating story of how this simple compound successfully treated 37,000 people in Africa with malaria. Yet no mention of this dramatic data is mentioned in the scientific literature. The author further maintains that this product effectively kills HIV pathogens and many cancers, including pancreatic cancer.
I believe him. If this guy is lying, it is the most scientifically convincing lie ever perpetrated.
Chlorine dioxide is a powerful oxidant. It kills the hell out of HIV viral particles, but there is little evidence in the literature that it induces apoptosis in cancer cells.
For years, I have bemoaned the fact that natural products cannot induce enough oxidative stress in cancer cells to kill them. Sodium chlorite, activated by vinegar to produce clhoride dioxide, could be the oxidative agent that we have been looking for.
I was amused by the authors attempt to contact the Gates Foundation for help in conducting large scale clinical trials on the use of this product on malaria, one of the worst diseases worldwide. They refused to help him because the product was not FDA approved. This has reinfornced my convinction that the Gates Foundation, for all their bravado, is not worth a bucket of warm spit. They will never accomplish a damn thing. Who is going to pay for clinical trials on a product that cost almost nothing and is in the public domain.
If anyone wishes to use this product to treat their HIV, hepatitis B/C or cancer, please let me know. As I have said repeatedly, not everything in life needs to be complicated.
It is good to hear that Jim�s book is being picked up at other places.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iggy Dalrymple
I was amused by the authors attempt to contact the Gates Foundation for help in conducting large scale clinical trials on the use of this product on malaria, one of the worst diseases worldwide. They refused to help him because the product was not FDA approved. This has reinfornced my convinction that the Gates Foundation, for all their bravado, is not worth a bucket of warm spit. They will never accomplish a damn thing. Who is going to pay for clinical trials on a product that cost almost nothing and is in the public domain.
Really! you have love these folks where else can one see the �catch 22 principle� demonstrated with such clarity?
Mararia, yes. But has anyone said that they have been cured of cancer, HIV or hepatitis or is this just speculation that it might be true?
As Jim Humble emphasizes in his books, MMS does not cure. It's the immune system that cures. And the way I see it, MMS is just ammo that the immune system uses. Otherwise, the immune system would have to work harder to produce hypochlorite. By providing hypochlorite just one chemical reaction away, our immune system has the ammo on hand.
As such, anything the immune system is supposed to handle (and this includes cancer!), MMS should help.
Mari, while you're waiting for your book, why not download part 1 and start reading?
well, I'm catching up on what MMS is about, but one thing confuses me here, because I thought that MMS was supposed to be similar to ozone in the way it worked.. but in this article, it doesn't seem that oxygen is the deciding factor. but maybe I'm reading it wrong?
this is the article that Iggy Linked to: Feeding Sodium Chlorate to Livestock To Kill Salmonella and E. coli
Quote:
When fed in low doses, sodium chlorate kills Salmonella typhimurium and Escherichia coli O157:H7 in pigs and cows. Agricultural Research Service scientists in College Station, Texas, have shown that levels of these harmful bacteria can be reduced in the intestinal tract of pigs and cows if they're given sodium chlorate before slaughter.
"Because the gut and lymph tissue of meat animals and chickens are major reservoirs for Salmonella and E. coli O157:H7, this research offers a practical approach for reducing on-farm concentrations of these pathogens," says David J. Nisbet, an ARS microbiologist and research leader for the Food and Feed Safety Research Unit in College Station. Fewer bacterial pathogens in the gut can significantly reduce the chance of carcass contamination during food processing.
These two bacteria--culprits in most cases of human food poisoning--can live both aerobically and anaerobically, that is, with or without air.That makes them different from most gut bacteria, which are anaerobes.
Salmonella and E. coli O157:H7 contain an enzyme known as a respiratory nitrate reductase. This enzyme coincidentally converts the chlorate to chlorite, which kills the harmful bacteria.Beneficial bacteria in the intestinal tract lack respiratory nitrate reductase, so they are not affected by the addition of chlorate. The cost of using sodium chlorate at a meat processing facility could be less than 10 cents per pig, estimates ARS microbiologist Robin C. Anderson.
this seems to imply that the beneficial bacteria in the intestinal tract WOULD BE affected by sodium chlorite. That they only reason they aren't in this case, is because they don't have the enzyme needed to convert the chlorate to chlorite.
but.. when we ingest MMS (like Gerry is suggesting), aren't we ingesting sodium chlorite? so.. wouldn't this do a number on the beneficial bacteria? Or is it the process of converting sodium chlorate to sodium chlorite that kills the salmonella?
Gerry, maybe this is why you got more nauseated when you didn't acidify the sodium chlorite first?
Last edited by scorpiotiger; 10-31-2007 at 11:15 PM.
well, I'm catching up on what MMS is about, but one thing confuses me here, because I thought that MMS was supposed to be similar to ozone in the way it worked.. but in this article, it doesn't seem that oxygen is the deciding factor. but maybe I'm reading it wrong?
Initially, Jim Humble used a "stabilized oxygen" product and also thought that oxygen played a role. He later discovered what the active ingredient was (sodium chlorite) and found the oxygen released to be insignificant to the effects of the product. So I think Humble would also say that the action of chlorite and ozone are different. However, in a way, they're similar because they're oxidizing agents.
Quote:
this seems to imply that the beneficial bacteria in the intestinal tract WOULD BE affected by sodium chlorite. That they only reason they aren't in this case, is because they don't have the enzyme needed to convert the chlorate to chlorite.
but.. when we ingest MMS (like Gerry is suggesting), aren't we ingesting sodium chlorite? so.. wouldn't this do a number on the beneficial bacteria? Or is it the process of converting sodium chlorate to sodium chlorite that kills the salmonella?
I would think that any bacteria will be affected by hypochlorite/hypochlorous acid, the killing chemical that comes from chlorite/chlorine dioxide. It's a matter of whether the chlorite becomes hypochlorite. However, I think that a lot of the chlorite is absorbed before it reaches our intestines.
Quote:
Gerry, maybe this is why you got more nauseated when you didn't acidify the sodium chlorite first?
I really would not know. I felt nausea with both acidification and without it. It was just stronger and more definite when I didn't acidify it, though I suspect that my own stomach acids served that purpose.
As for the article cited, I think it was based on this:
In fact, one only showed monitoring from chlorate to chloride without bothering to test for chlorite.
As you noted, the studies deal with sodium chlorate (3 oxygen atoms), not sodium chlorite (2 oxygen atoms, MMS). So this is a different product, though possibly going by the same mechanism. In addition, these products were not being tested to treat animals, but to reduce bacteria in the meats. Thus, administration was done sometime before slaughter. It's more like disinfecting the meat for marketing (while the animal is still alive).
Funny that the researchers are even applying a patent for it. Maybe sodium chlorate is less available that sodium chlorite.
Iggy, I think you have to have a membership to see it.
Usually true, Scorpiotiger, but here is a public interest piece.
I suspect this post is a duplicate of another - I will delete, if so. Sunday, October 28, 2007
A New Treatment for Cancer and HIV/Malaria Infections
This essay is republished from our subscription blog in the public interest.
One of the members passed this information along to me. Read the free ebook. It is fascinating reading, especially if you suffer from malaria, HIV, hepatitis C/B or cancer. It sounds to good to be true, but the science is sound. In brief, sodium chlorite is treated with common white vinegar to produce chlorine dioxide, a powerful oxidant that is used in the purification of water, the bleaching of wood and cotton and other industrial uses. When generated, chlorine dioxide has a lifespan of only 30 minutes in the body, but this is enough to kill a host of different pathogens, especially malaria. Within 48 hours, this simple inexpensive compound killed 99% of all malaria pathogens in the body. In his ebook, the author tells a fascinating story of how this simple compound successfully treated 37,000 people in Africa with malaria. Yet no mention of this dramatic data is mentioned in the scientific literature. The author further maintains that this product effectively kills HIV pathogens and many cancers, including pancreatic cancer.
I believe him. If this guy is lying, it is the most scientifically convincing lie ever perpetrated.
Chlorine dioxide is a powerful oxidant. It kills the hell out of HIV viral particles, but there is little evidence in the literature that it induces apoptosis in cancer cells.
For years, I have bemoaned the fact that natural products cannot induce enough oxidative stress in cancer cells to kill them. Sodium chlorite, activated by vinegar to produce clhoride dioxide, could be the oxidative agent that we have been looking for.
I was amused by the authors attempt to contact the Gates Foundation for help in conducting large scale clinical trials on the use of this product on malaria, one of the worst diseases worldwide. They refused to help him because the product was not FDA approved. This has reinfornced my convinction that the Gates Foundation, for all their bravado, is not worth a bucket of warm spit. They will never accomplish a damn thing. Who is going to pay for clinical trials on a product that cost almost nothing and is in the public domain.
If anyone wishes to use this product to treat their HIV, hepatitis B/C or cancer, please let me know. As I have said repeatedly, not everything in life needs to be complicated.
I guess what I find confusing is by what mechanism is the bacteria killed? is it by oxidation? if this is so, then only the anaerobic bacteria are affected, right? and the aerobic bacteria (which is supposed to be "good" bacteria) are ok. but 99% of the bacteria in the gut, good and bad is anaerobic. so.. won't this affect all the bacteria in your stomach? shouldn't you be taking a probiotic if you take MMS?
and if it kills by another mechanism, such as the one that Gerry talked about.. then which bacteria are killed and which bacteria are not killed?
I am confused as to the mechanism which kills the bacteria. I would think that it would be the mechanism that does the killing that defines which bacteria are affected by MMS.
or are they just trying it on different types of infections and seeing which infections are cleared (or helped) by MMS?
I guess what I find confusing is by what mechanism is the bacteria killed? is it by oxidation? if this is so, then only the anaerobic bacteria are affected, right?
Microbes (viruses, bacteria, fungi, molds, even some parasites) are killed by hypochlorite by the process of oxidation. But "oxidation" is a chemical term meaning to remove electrons. While commonly associated with oxygen, there are many oxidation reactions that do not need oxygen. Hypochlorite is an example, and even sunlight. While the hypochlorite ion has an oxygen, this oxygen is not free, and therefore, whether a microbe is anaerobic or not is of no consequence.
Killing with oxygen by oxidation can be seen in hydrogen peroxide use. A single oxygen (oxygen lacking an electron) is released and this can kill microbes. I think the same mechanism will be involved with using ozone.
Quote:
and the aerobic bacteria (which is supposed to be "good" bacteria) are ok. but 99% of the bacteria in the gut, good and bad is anaerobic. so.. won't this affect all the bacteria in your stomach? shouldn't you be taking a probiotic if you take MMS?
Well, as far as hypochlorite goes (which I think is the killing action of MMS) any microbe can be killed. However, I don't think chlorine dioxide, as is, kills. It should be converted into an oxidizing agent like hypochlorite.
As for intestinal bacteria (the stomach is virtually sterile, unless infected with Helicobacter in ulcer cases), I think they are spared because MMS is absorbed in the stomach or in the upper small intestines, just like table salt. Intestinal pathogens are probably killed by the immune system, not MMS directly. Of course, it's always a good idea to take live probiotics whether taking MMS or not.
Quote:
I am confused as to the mechanism which kills the bacteria. I would think that it would be the mechanism that does the killing that defines which bacteria are affected by MMS.
or are they just trying it on different types of infections and seeing which infections are cleared (or helped) by MMS?
Jim Humble has emphasized that MMS does not cure and that it's the immune system that cures. MMS is just ammo that the immune system uses. Knowing that the hypochlorite mechanism is the strongest mechanism by which our neutrophils (a type of white blood cell that's in our first line of defense) kill microbes or destroy foreign matter (including toxins), I could imagine that neutrophils somehow take up chlorite and convert it to hypochlorite when needed. Otherwise, to produce its own hypochlorite, the neutrophils would have to take in a lot of oxygen, use an NADP requiring reaction to produce peroxide, which then releases oxygen to bind with chlorine. With chlorine dioxide available, the hypochlorite production is greatly speeded up.
Now an important (and wonderful) thing about our immune system is that it acts as a whole. We don't just have the first line of defense, our neutrophils, fighting solo. Once a neutrophil gets into battle, it immediately sends out signals (chemokines, cytokines) for the whole immune system to act up: calling for macrophage backup, presenting antigens to lymphocytes for antibody production for long-term (2 weeks) warfare, making the macrophage and liver produce acute phase proteins (universal antibodies) as well as complement proteins to destroy pathogens, and producing iron-binding proteins to deny supply to pathogens (which greatly rely on iron for life) -- just to name a few. So while at the moment, I only see the hypochlorite mechanism in neutrophils, it does not mean that the battle is confined to the neutrophils. Most likely, the whole immune system is activated in the process.
Have you read the downloads from miraclemineral.org yet? I trust both Bill Henderson of beating-cancer-gently.com as well as Jim Humble. They both have the sincerest desire to help others overcome their diseases and get well. I first heard of MMS on Bill's newsletter but did not pursue it. The next newsletter it was a conversation on a Webcast and I took notes. Not only did I like the method of killing pathogens but using it for teeth interested me greatly too. I've got pockets and loose teeth. I ordered the kit and received two CDs with it which I've listened to as well. My family and I are taking the drops for various reasons of health. I'm up to 10 as of this a.m. I've been letting survivors and diabetics know about this as well in the work place and in personal relationships. I'm convinced of its effectiveness.
has anyone actually had MMS work against a bacterial infection of some sort?
I had two bladder infections with my big 16 drop dose between the two infections and it obviously didn't prevent the 2nd one. Maybe if I had continued the heavy dosing daily, it would have helped.
Quote:
Originally Posted by scorpiotiger
this seems to imply that the beneficial bacteria in the intestinal tract WOULD BE affected by sodium chlorite. That they only reason they aren't in this case, is because they don't have the enzyme needed to convert the chlorate to chlorite.
but.. when we ingest MMS (like Gerry is suggesting), aren't we ingesting sodium chlorite? so.. wouldn't this do a number on the beneficial bacteria? Or is it the process of converting sodium chlorate to sodium chlorite that kills the salmonella?
Gerry, maybe this is why you got more nauseated when you didn't acidify the sodium chlorite first?
Good point Scorpio. Sounds like sodium chlorate is a safer bet.
__________________
For now we see through a glass, darkly.... 1st Corinthians 13:12
Last edited by Iggy Dalrymple; 11-01-2007 at 02:55 PM.
Reason: to agree with Scorpio
Gerry, thanks for your explanation. It helped as the oxygenation, and aerobic/anaerobic bacteria part did not make sense to me. so, your post helped to explain a lot.
I still am wondering how the salmonella gets killed, but the rest of the gut bacteria isn't affected.
It would be nice if the bacteria that you wanted to get rid of, could be targeted somehow. because our body has both good and bad bacteria.
in the case of the salmonella, the differentiating factor is the enzyme that the salmonella has, that the other bacteria doesn't have. I still don't undertstand the mechanism of how it works (perhaps the description is not detailed enough).
Otherwise, I kind of wonder what is getting blasted and what isn't, when you just ingest the acidified sodium chlorite or the straight sodium chlorite.
well, i will read the part I download, when I get a chance. and read the thread on HSI (haven't had the time to read the whole thing yet).
More chemistry
Linear Mode
