We have many brands of bleach where I stay -- Chlorox, Zonrox, Purex, etc.
Just look for the ingredient: sodium hypochlorite. And see that it's the only ingredient. Some might have added ingredients to mask smell and/or add scent. Even Chlorox has scented versions in our place. Obviously, we can doubt the suitability for oral ingestion of products with those additives. So if you intend to purify water you are to drink, get plain bleach with no scents added.
Actually, sodium hypochlorite is MMS (sodium chlorite) minus one oxygen. 8)
Actually, sodium hypochlorite is MMS (sodium chlorite) minus one oxygen
One atom can make a big difference in the quality of purification offered.
This is why MMS is an oxidative therapy and it kills germs better than chlorox and is less toxic to humans. Chlorine can produce a lot of nasty residuals.
Those of you who know me here also know that I never sell anything. I am making an exception to this rule today. I am willing to provide MMS at below regular retail cost. Please pm me if you are interested. I can ship out tomorrow (tuesday) but not again likely till next monday (unless I get real motivated and figure the shipping thing out in detail perhaps I can do better and ship on other days of the week also.) and yes, $1 will still go to Jim's Malaria project.
PM me. I would prefer all the necessary conversaton be done by pm.
E-mail fron GLN today tells me that my kit has been shipped. Ordered on September 9th. Shipped on September 17th!! That is unusual, so I am still waiting. It must be right, that Iggy reported delays in supplies.
I plan to order a kit in a couple of days and would like to know if yours already arrived. I'll be having mine shipped to the Philippines.
Thanks, Arrowwind and Xania, for the info on your orders. I'll be ordering a kit tonight. I emailed GLN last weekend because the Philippines was not in their dropdown list of countries for delivery. They replied in a day saying that they have now added it to the list so I could order.
Xania, I have no idea about dosing cats. I see this from part 2 of Humble's book (thanks for sending it) in page 96:
8. Animals, use with any sick animal: For smaller animals use three drops per 25 pounds of body weight. For horses and other larger animals, use one drop for each 25 pounds of body weight. Use an appropriate amount of vinegar, wait, and normally use water added instead of juice. Most animals will go ahead and drink, but you may have to force feed the animal. In that case a turkey baser with a large squeeze bulb bought at most grocery stores works fine. If there is a question use smaller doses at first.
On another note, I find that I should be embarrassed about this topic.
Again, I find that veterinary medicine scooped human medicine about this since way back 2001 (as in the article cited by Iggy) and I'm one of the last to know. I have since dug up on this topic and find that they're already using it in poultry as well. And they're already talking about acidified sodium chlorite. I wonder if they got this from Humble? Humble's 2nd edition book has a 2006 copyright, while the article using acidified sodium chlorite cited by Arrowwind is dated 2000. However, Humble's story starts in the mid '90s and his acidification process developed later. Another story of a non-medical practitioner teaching medical practitioners? I really don't mind. 8)
Well, it really is unfortunate that canine practice (where I'm involved) is one branch of veterinary medicine that likes to mimic human medicine closely.
I should keep my eye out on what's going on in food animal practice. That's where prevention shines, as well as where the cheapest and most effective remedies exist. Which is as it should be because the alternative is slaughter. 8)
(One other "embarrassment" I had was getting so excited when I learned about glyconutrients for the immune response, only to find out later that when I learned about this, it was already a decade old story in food animal practice. Then there's also chromium for insulin resistance and pig backfat control, copper for aneurysm in turkeys, and who knows what else I've missed? )
Gerry, I have always been impressed by the knowledge displayed by our vets. It seems that their training is far superior to the medics who diagnose human ills. D and I would much prefer to take our health problems to our local vet, but he's not allowed to deal with humans!
So, your professional knowledge base has included these things for a long time - great.
I suppose I should inform donna-someone over on healthiertalk, who is attacking our own Arrowwind, but she is not worth the trouble!
And thanks for pointing out the paragraph about animal dosing. When my kit gets here (still waiting) I shall read Book 2 again.
It seems that their training is far superior to the medics who diagnose human ills.
It might seem that way. And it's nice for us vets to think of it that way. But maybe, a lot is also out of necessity.
When faced with a farmer who's telling us that our remedy must work and be affordable or else we might as well kill the animal, then we had better come up with something really effective and cheap. (And somehow, the really effective cures are also the cheap ones!) Otherwise, our patients just end up dead, intentionally or otherwise.
And by effective, we have to mean cure and not just palliative alleviation of symptoms or effects with drugs to be taken for life. (Unfortunately, this trend of just using palliatives is starting in canine practice. )
Imagine the scenario in humans:
"Hey, doc, here's this patient I'm bringing to you, but if you can't give a real cure in a couple of weeks, we should just shoot him."
That would cause real cures to be accepted quickly and all the other fake remedies to disappear!
Haha - I love that picture! That kind of veterinary practice is closer to what is real, in life, than medical practice in the west. We have moved away from "real" - perhaps I should use another word - natural truth, if that's the idea I am trying to express. All is image here, it seems. Image, for profit.
Another hoax. Sensational story, how stupid do they think we are??!
Do you have anything to offer to show that it's a hoax?
On the other hand, all the known mechanisms of action of the substance support its effectivity. To me, if the mechanism of action is sound, then we can just go ahead and use it or try it. It would be more stupid to simply reject an idea outright.
The fact is, the substance is already being used for pathogenic E. coli and Salmonella in pigs, cattle and poultry, and very effectively and safely at that, without any microbial resistance developing. It's long been accepted as a water purification and food cleansing substance. The mechanism of action is no different from hypochlorite bleach and our neutrophil respiratory burst. So how can it be a hoax?
If it's too good to be true, it must not be.
I don't think this rule applies to health and medical principles. It's only applicable to money making scams.
Penicillin was too good to be true when it came out. So were sulfonamides, and other antibiotics. Vitamin C against scurvy also sounded too good (and simple) to be true when it came out, as well as niacin against pellagra. Washing hands before going on to the next obstetrical patient to prevent infections was also too good to be true that its original proponent, Ignaz Semmelweiss, was fired from his hospital post.