The Debate between HealthWyze.org and Jim Humble about whether M.M.S. is a Fraud

Verses

Thomas and Sarahlcain,

In looking this site over I find quite a lot of useful information. Thus I wondered if you might be interested in opening a dialogue concerning what I am doing since there is a lot of inaccuracies in you information about my stuff, M.M.S., that is if you know who I am.

I have no animosity towards those of you who talk as you do. Possibly we could have an amiable dialogue.

up to you

Jim Humble

Mr. Humble,

Yes, we did plenty of research into M.M.S., so we are familiar with you. There are two possibilities that I see here: 1. You really believe in what you are doing or 2. you have real guts. It is possibly both.

We take our work very seriously. Seeking the truth is one of our highest objectives: just behind 'first do no harm'. We would never print anything that we were not absolutely certain was true. Not only are there moral issues at play; but moreover, our credibility is always on the line.

If you would like a chance to debate us, in order to demonstrate that we have been wrong, then I suggest we do it out in the open. Let's not debate privately in the shadows, because complete openness and honesty are principles that we value, and because this issue has the potential to have a massive impact on the lives of our readers. We normally would not make such an offer to someone who we so strongly feel is harming people, but I get the overwhelming impression that you sincerely believe in what you are doing. Your noble intentions have earned you some karma in my opinion.

If an open and public debate seems agreeable to you, then we will need to agree to some basic rules, like how long our debate should last, and how long the replies may be. I will do no editing on your replies, unless you want me to. Perhaps I could use a picture of us and a picture of you at the top, if that's okay. Readers really like that sort of personal touch, and it draws them into the story.

-- Thomas Corriher

The first mistake that you enter into your Criticism of M.M.S. is that you think that Chlorine Dioxide and Chlorine are the same thing and that they would thus have the same result in the human body. So let me address that point first.

The fact is, there is no available chlorine in chlorine dioxide. It’s sort of like table salt, there is no available chlorine in table salt, if there were, you would have been dead long ago. Do you see? Table salt is made of chlorine and sodium. Yet it doesn’t kill you. The same situation exists with chlorine dioxide.

Let me suggest a little bit of chemical technology reading. Lenntech a Corporation that sells many kinds of chlorine for various purification purposes has published a technical article on chlorine dioxide that is quoted in many Colleges and Universities around the world. The name of the article is "Disinfectants Chlorine Dioxide." Let me quote just a couple sentences in the paragraph labeled Chlorine Dioxide as an oxidizer: "As an oxidizer chlorine dioxide is very selective. It has this ability due to unique one-electron exchange mechanisms. Chlorine dioxide attacks the electron-rich centers of organic molecules. (I hope everyone understands that pathogens are made of organic molecules) "First, chlorine dioxide takes up a single electron and this causes it to reduce to chlorite: The chlorite ion is oxidized and becomes a chloride ion and that during this reaction it accepts 5 electrons. The chlorine atom remains, until stable chloride is formed from it." I hope you understand what that means. It means that no chlorite or chlorine is formed. It turns to chlorite first, but only for milliseconds and then to chloride (which is table salt.)

To explain those quotes a little bit if it is too technical, the "Chloride" that is mentioned that is formed is table salt (sodium chloride). The chlorine atom remains until chloride is formed. No free chlorine ever becomes available from the chlorine dioxide. The Lenntech.org article goes on to explain that chlorine dioxide has a very low oxidation potential (under .95 volts), much lower than chlorine which is (over 1.4 volts), or oxygen which is (about 1.3 volts), or hydrogen peroxide which is (1.8 volts) and thus cannot oxidize many of the microorganisms in water supplies and other plants where selective oxidizers are needed. And to then explain that in terms of M.M.S., chlorine dioxide in very low concentrates cannot kill some of the beneficial organisms located in the stomach and intestines that are required for digestion.

This data is available from many different educational sources in the world. Don’t take it from me. Look it up for yourself. You may not be aware of the fact that sodium chlorite has been sold in Health food stores for 80 years in the US and was brought to America from Germany about 1930. Only the name was different it is called stabilized oxygen. Hundreds of thousands... [Word count rule exceeded]

Thank you for not getting "too technical" for our feeble minds. We appreciate your concern for us.

Mr. Humble, it has been you who has been intentionally blurring and confusing the lines between the different compounds that chlorine can form. On one hand, you claim M.M.S. is as harmless as salt, while on the other hand, you speak of how powerfully reactive the chlorine is, which supposedly enables it to "kill everything". By the way, we actually agree on that last part. So which is it? Is the chlorine neutralized, so your customers are buying glorified table salt, or is it the powerful reactive chlorine that is well known for its toxicity? Either way, it's called "fraud". You cannot have it both ways, but nice try.

Just so you know, table salt is not harmless either, as I'm sure a great world-changing engineer like yourself knows. The only salt that is almost harmless is sea salt, because it contains minerals that counteract the toxic effects of the chloride. Table salt is well known for its toxic effects, so even if your safety claims were true, you would still be arguing from an eroded position. You also recommend M.M.S. for people with heart disease and high blood pressure, so if your product is safe "like salt", then you are part of their health problems.

As far as its safety, first let us state that your chlorine dioxide is identical to that used for pool decontaminations, and the effects of intentionally consuming it are well known. For one thing, it is an E.P.A. registered pesticide. According to the E.P.A., "Chlorine dioxide is an antimicrobial pesticide recognized for its disinfectant properties since the early 1900s. Chlorine dioxide kills microorganisms by disrupting transport of nutrients across the cell wall."

We already looked it up, and that's why we wrote the original article. The burden of proof is upon you to prove us wrong, if you can.

There is no chlorine dioxide in stabilized oxygen. There is a small amount of table salt inside it. Nice try, but we're well-versed in your slight-of-hand tricks.

I'm standing here with Thomas' electronics multimeter, with its probes inside some hydrogen peroxide, and frankly, I'm just not getting any voltage reading from it. Should we recalibrate the meter? We are a little slow, after all. Seriously, we can talk about your atomic theories all you want, and go into as many circles with those as you want, but the fact that matters is that the effects of your product upon the human body are already well known, and the electrons really don't care. Let's stick with the real issues here, and you can impress us with your fancy-smancy nuclear knowledge later.

In the criticism of M.M.S. the writer continues to confuse the technologies of chlorine and chlorine dioxide not realizing that there is a life and death difference in the two technologies. So let me use the same heading on my article as is used in a section of the Critical article on M.M.S..

The effects of Chlorine on the Body.

In reading the Healthwyze write up concerning this subject I notice that the problems concerning ingestion of chlorine seemed to be pretty much according to the research of the literature that I also found. Chlorine is an oxidizer and in order to destroy most any compound found in the body, it must in the process of oxidation combine with that compound forming a totally new compound and these new compounds are often carcinogenic in nature. This kind of oxidation is known as chlorination. This is one of the main reasons that most new water purification plants employ chlorine dioxide. It does not combine with the item being oxidized, but rather it steals the electrons that hold the item being oxidized together. With the electrons being removed the item, pathogen or heavy metal or other poison, flies apart into its compounds which can be neutral or a poison. The electrons then change the chlorine dioxide components into a chloride which is the basis of table salt, sodium chloride. There is no chlorine dioxide in Clorox or any of the chlorine bleaches, only chlorine.

You may remember in my last article I mentioned that chlorine dioxide actually has no chlorine available at any time during the chemical oxidation cycle and that includes the degeneration cycle into chloride. The chemical oxidation cycle with any pathogen and chlorine dioxide consists of the chlorine dioxide stealing 5 electrons from the cell walls of the pathogen. The sequence goes like this. First a single electron is drawn off of the cell wall and onto the chlorine dioxide ion changing it to a sodium chlorite ion, but that only lasts for a millisecond or two. Then the newly formed sodium chlorite ion exerts a much heavier attraction and thus 4 more electrons are instantly drawn off. No other ion in pathogen chemistry has this unique sequence. The chlorine dioxide doesn’t have the power until it converts to a chlorite and then it blows a hole in the side of the pathogen and thus killing it.

In the case of chlorine dioxide there are a number of conditions that the pathogen must meet in order to be destroyed. The most important condition is the ORP (Oxidation Reduction Potential) voltage of the cell walls of the pathogen. It must match the voltage of the chlorine dioxide in the proper way to be destroyed. Chlorine kills (oxidizes) everything in its path, but as mentioned above, by chlorination, but chlorine dioxide is very selective. It does not combine; it destroys by disassembling the biological components of the cell walls of the pathogen by removing the electrons that hold it together.... [Word count rule exceeded]

Stealing electrons? That is some bad, bad, naughty chlorine.

Maybe we could get back on topic now. We answered most of this in our previous rebuttal. All of your irrelevant atomic theory smoke screens will continue to get ignored. You may discuss those at a physics or chemistry site. Perhaps they'll even be impressed. We're not. We're concerned only with the health implications of M.M.S., and your attempts to distract our readers away from that topic will fail.

We agree that chlorine kills everything in its path, and so does chlorine dioxide. There is nothing "selective" about either. When your product is used as an E.P.A. registered pesticide, for instance, it does not merely kill the bad pathogens inside termites. It kills them. All of them. A poison in small doses is still a poison, regardless of whatever the electrons are doing. It is also worth noting that we, as humans, have cell walls too, so chlorine is also bad for us. What's worse is those scientific studies, like the one below.

Meggs et al. (1996) examined 13 individuals (1 man and 12 women) 5 years after they were occupationally exposed to chlorine dioxide from a leak in a water purification system pipe. The long-term effects of the accident included development of sensitivity to respiratory irritants (13 subjects), disability with loss of employment (11 subjects), and chronic fatigue (11 subjects). Nasal abnormalities (including injection, telangectasia, paleness, cobblestoning, edema, and thick mucus) were found in all 13 individuals. Nasal biopsies taken from the subjects revealed chronic inflammation, with lymphocytes and plasma cells present within the lamina propria in 11 of the 13 subjects; the inflammation was graded as mild in 2 subjects, moderate in 8 subjects, and severe in 1 subject.

I really liked this statement, "The chlorine dioxide doesn’t have the power until it converts to a chlorite and then it blows a hole in the side of the pathogen and thus killing it." Wow, that must be impressive. Could you give us a peer-reviewed, 3rd party, independent study that proves this is exactly what your product does, while not harming human tissues and blood? I mean, I'm sure your contentions are backed with credible scientific evidence, after all. Otherwise, you would just be pulling this stuff out of your butt.

You actually state in one of your movies that your product kills only the weaker cancer cells, which would put your formula in the same category as chemotherapy; if this were indeed true. Didn't you also claim that your product would not harm human tissues (like chemotherapy does)? Aren't the cancer tumors made from human tissues? Oh, I forgot: it's "selective". I suppose the moral here is to never underestimate the intelligence of chlorine, at least not atomically, and always underestimate the intelligence of the Health Wyze Report staff.

It would seem only fair that someone being sarcastically critical of someone else's work should at least know their chemistry so that they can adequately explain the mistakes that persons is making. So let me correct their writing about how pathogens are killed so that later you the reader will be able to understand what really happens to diseases if you should take a drink of M.M.S..

My critic says, "Bleach kills the pathogens by poisoning them, and then corroding them." But you see that really isn't the chemical process at all. Actually the chlorine in the bleach actually attracts the electrons that hold the pathogen together and the pathogen and chlorine mix together to form a new compound and the pathogen is killed in the process of forming a compound with the chlorine. But although wrong, that really isn't important to us as M.M.S. uses chlorine dioxide and no chlorine is available. Chlorine dioxide kills in a different way. As I already explained the chlorine dioxide removes the electrons that hold it together and it flies apart or at least part of it does.

Then the critical writer asks for a list of bleach resistant good bacteria, and then he says we know that they do not exist and of course I have to agree. But then again I am not talking about bleach and chlorine. I am talking about chlorine dioxide a substance as different from chlorine as is table salt.

The next paragraph the critical writer mixes chlorine bleach and sterilization and chlorine dioxide sterilization so thoroughly together that I cannot explain what he is saying. They are not the same thing. They are not used in industry for the same thing except on occasion Yes chlorine is poisonous to most everything, but there is no chlorine in chlorine dioxide. This is confusing because it has that same word in it "Chlorine," but a chemist quickly comes to understand that they are not the same. If they were the same, then table salt would kill you.

So last year 975 thousand people in the US died after taking a dose of one drug or the other ALL OF WHICH WERE FDA APPROVED. During that same time more than one million people used M.M.S. and not a single one died and many reported getting better quickly. More than 5 million people have downloaded my free M.M.S. book. I have personally given more than 5000 sick people drinks of M.M.S.. Most of them became well in a few hours. I make no money from the sales of M.M.S.. I don't manufacture it, or sell it, or receive royalties from the sale of it. I am just trying to make Earth a better place to live.

We really don't care about your Chemistry 101 homework. Likewise, none of our readers care whether you believe that an electron moves this way, or that. Some people believe gremlins are under their beds, but that has nothing to do with the health effects of chlorine dioxide, or the price of eggs in China.

As far as nobody dying from M.M.S., perhaps you should review the news articles at: http://www.smh.com.au/national/death-in-paradise-20100108-lyxv.html and http://www.smh.com.au/national/deadly-chemical-being-sold-as-miracle-cure-20100108-lyvl.html.

You already knew about Silvia's death, because you publicly attacked her grieving husband for telling the press about the horrific details of her death.

Most people won't immediately die from M.M.S., but from long term secondary conditions such as cancers, which will be difficult to trace to their real causes. It usually takes a large amount to die quickly, so most M.M.S. deaths will be conveniently blamed elsewhere.

O.S.H.A. has this to report about chlorine dioxide:

"Chlorine dioxide is a very unstable material even at room temperatures and will explode on impact, when exposed to sparks or sunlight, or when heated rapidly to degrees C (212 degrees F). Airborne concentrations greater than 10 percent may explode... Chlorine dioxide reacts with water or steam to form toxic and corrosive fumes of hydrochloric acid... Chlorine dioxide is a severe respiratory and eye irritant in experimental animals... Chlorine dioxide dissolves in water to produce chlorate and chlorite ions. Chlorite has been shown to produce methemoglobin in rats and cats"

Methemoglobin, a particular type of hemoglobin is useless for carrying oxygen to tissues. Since hemoglobin is the key carrier of oxygen in the blood, its wholesale replacement by methemoglobin can cause cyanosis (a slate gray-blueness) due to suffocation.

The National Institutes of Health reported, "The results indicated that CIO2 may have central neurotoxic potential." (May?)

One of the material data sheets from a chlorine dioxide manufacturer states that chloride dioxide is:

"CORROSIVE to the eyes and skin. Can cause damage to vegetation. Inhalation: Severe respiratory irritant. May cause bronchospasm and pulmonary edema, which may be delayed in onset. May also cause severe headaches. All symptoms may be delayed and long lasting. Long term exposure may cause chronic bronchitis. An LC50 value of 500 ppm/15m3 (rat) is quoted in the literature. Skin Absorption: May be absorbed, causing tissue and blood cell damage. Ingestion: Not applicable except for solutions, in which case the symptoms would be expected to parallel those for inhalation. Hazardous Combustion Products: Chlorine, oxygen, and hydrochloric acid."

Pay attention to: "Ingestion: Not applicable except for solutions, in which case the symptoms would be expected to parallel those for inhalation." Thus, interested parties should investigate the identical inhalation results. (Your own work says its gas is released during product preparation.) We hope those electrons don't mind.

Instead of believing you guys are chemists and especially you Sarah, you should spend a little money with a professor of chemistry at a university. You guys are not chemists. You haven't a slightest clue as to the facts here. You are sailing along in la la land. You should have read that paper I suggested.

More than 5 million people have downloaded my basic free book. My total book is printed in 15 different languages. I have done lectures to hundreds of people all over Europe and other parts of the world with many actual chemists in the Audiences. Again you don't have a clue as to the chemistry. I have personally treated 5000 people and another 5000 over the internet all free of charge. More than a hundred thousand malaria victims were treated by people I trained and they were OK in less than 4 hours. Normally 400 out of that many would have died, but there were no deaths. I have seen more people cured of more diseases than any other person on Earth, you you guys are denying thousands of people the chance to overcome their suffering or to live a longer healthier life.

Please tell me why would I do this. I don't sell M.M.S.. I get no income from anyone who does sell M.M.S.. Why would I spend the time in the jungle. Can you possible believe that I just want to stand up in front of people and lie to them for no reason?

I am sorry. I was merely trying to help. All I have gotten out of you is sarcasm and hate. I am going to have to let you poor that out on someone else as I am not going to even bother reading the rest of your rebuttal. The last paragraph I have read is where you have laughingly tried to measure the oxidation voltage of hydrogen peroxide (Round 1). That is so dumb I can't believe you expert chemists could possible prepare the formula for an apple pie. You all have less knowledge of chemistry than a 6th grader and you then you call me names with sarcasm and hate. Frankly I don't see why you don't apply for a nice job at the FDA as you all have the same mentality. Here is a guy trying to help mankind so lets just see if we can make him look like shit. And you can, for a little while, then you will find that you were wrong about everything. I offered to help you and you just treated me worse that a cow.

I must not understand me. Maybe you can help. Why am I spending 18 hours a day doing all this for no income for the last 14 years. People didn't listen at all for the first 10 years, just the last 4 years. I spent all my retirement money and sold everything I own and gave my house trailer away to one of those homeless girls... [Word limit Reached]

Firstly, chemistry is not the solution to the diseases that plague our society. It's the cause.

Your success statistics are only available from you: an uncredible and self-serving source of information. We have given you chance after chance to provide real evidence that M.M.S. has some benefit, and that it is indeed safer than the bleach that it is. With thousands of purported 'miracle' cures worldwide, we would expect for at least one credible, independent, verifiable, 3rd party somewhere to actually document it.

If we ever decide to begin a business of poisoning already sick people (for instance with bleach) then we'll accept your advice about getting proper chemistry degrees. Until then, we'll suffice with our inferior educations.

Unlike yourself, real saints do not boast about their own greatness, stroke themselves publicly, or falsify information. You're far from the altruistic, selfless saint that you have consistently paraded yourself as being. It is unnecessary for truly righteous people to tell us of their greatness, and real saints have no desire to brag about themselves. You are hurting people, and you have willfully chosen to continue hurting people indefinitely. That is the opposite of saintly, as far as we are concerned.

Your allegation of not making money from your M.M.S. scam is cunning. You know that the one thing we cannot verify is your financial records, and therefore we cannot prove that you are lying about it. Be aware that this will quickly change if you are ever prosecuted in the U.S. for your crimes, because the incriminating evidence would become public records. When it happens, you can count on us to be one of the first to publish it. We noticed you moved to Mexico, which is a smart move. I likewise noticed that you said elsewhere, "I live in Mexico, just in case." Would a saint cowardly flee to another country, and would he even have a reason to?

Your personality closely matches a sociopathic boyfriend from when I was age 14. He was a convict and a pedophile in his middle thirties. This boyfriend followed the familiar sociopathic pattern of first reigning me in with fantastic fabrications about his history that made him appear heroic and saintly. Later, when he felt that his position and power had diminished somewhat, he began beating my spirit down by telling me about how inferior I was morally, and about how intellectually crippled I was. We know people like that, don't we, Mr. Humble? Finally, when all else failed, and he had become really desperate from his manipulation failures, he appealed to my conscience with guilt games about how I was hurting a modern day messiah. Sounds really familiar, doesn't it?

You are too arrogant to realize that you were beaten long ago, Mr. Humble, and you're too prideful to ever admit that we read you like a book from the very beginning. I hope this stands as a testament to your modus operandi, so that others will not be taken in by your slick games in the future.

Mr. Humble, you are in ours and many others' opinion, an inherently evil man.

May we call you "Jim"?