Talk:Miracle Mineral Supplement/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Objectivity of this article and criticism

I think we have to be very careful how to treat this article. This is an obvious snake oil, even linking to this guy's sites is "promotion" on the part of wikipedia, and giving specific information about the exact procedures of preparation and such is inappropriate. Just because no one has published scientific studies on THIS particular quack medicine, I don't think it means we can not include information pertaining to exactly the same claims, like the link I have added from quackwatch. Vespine (talk) 09:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

If care is to be used, perhaps colloquialisms like snake oil should be more properly (and sensitively) rendered as quackery as done later in the above paragraph. Traditional Chinese medicine has long used the oil from the Chinese water snake as relief for arthritis and joint pain, with the claimed active ingredient being eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), an omega-3 fatty acid. The western counterpart is the New Zealand green-lipped mussel, whose oil serves essentially the same purpose and which you will find being aggressively promoted at some US pharmacies (for example right under the customer's gaze at the counter of the well-run Palo Alto pharmacy I've been using for many years). Is it fair to ridicule the Chinese animal while accepting without protest the curative benefits of its New Zealand counterpart? (Disclaimers: I haven't tried either for my own arthritis, have no vested interests in either, and have no opinions either way on how much of the benefit of either is from the placebo effect.)

While the literature promoting MMS seems based largely (entirely?) on anecdotal evidence, this article spans the gamut from careful studies to drive-by hit jobs like the alleged fatal renal failure in the first paragraph. The article sourcing this claim describes someone who attempted suicide by ingesting 10 g of sodium chlorite, precipitating an acute hemolytic crisis leading to acute renal failure. Recovery can be on the order of weeks but in the case of this suicide attempt renal function reportedly took three months to normalize. The concluding sentence of the article's abstract reads, "To our knowledge, there has been no clinical report of human intoxication with sodium chlorite," which I don't know how to interpret in light of this incident (no prior report perhaps?), though it certainly was not fatal, contrary to the claim in the article.

Conclusion: If care is to be used, the first step might be to weed out the more egregious instances of poorly documented hit jobs like that one, and focus on properly conducted studies and sourced assessments of the quality of the MMS literature and research. A more neutral tone would also be appreciated. (Disclaimer: my own interest in promoted cures like MMS is with a close relative younger than me given only a short time to live, a situation greatly sensitizing one to the gamut of efficacious alternative medicine, wishful thinking, and willful fraud. A promoted cure that is more likely to be fatal than the disease should clearly not be taken, but suggestions to that effect are irresponsible when based on inaccurate reporting.) --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 15:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

If you didn't notice, you are replying to a post over a year old. Regarding me calling it snake oil, this is a talk page, the term is not used in the article so your first paragraph is completely unwarranted. As for the rest, my conclusion is that MMS is dangerous nonsense that deserves absolutely NO leniency. I've been actively investigating MMS for about 18 months now and NOTHING has changed: The BS excuses are exactly the same, the LACK of any studies or reviews and the complete lack of even a SINGLE corroborated account of MMS actually CURING ANYONE OF ANYTHING; there is absolutely NO reason or excuse to NOT treat this crap like the potentially dangerous quack scam that it is. In fact, if it wasn't for the positive public caution message, this kind of nonsense wouldn't even deserves its own article. I dare anyone to approach an actual printed encyclopedia and see if they would even consider if MMS warrants its own article. Vespine (talk) 05:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

If Wikipedia has a statute of limitations on replies to comments then my apologies for being unaware of it.

The problem I see with angry-toned defenses of either side of any disagreement is that they tend to undermine the credibility of that side. My point was to strengthen the article by suggesting a more professional sounding ("encyclopedic") tone.

I was also under the impression that Wikipedia tries to maintain a civil tone not only in the articles but in the talk pages, which is why I felt my first paragraph was warranted, contrary to your claim. Language like "absolutely NO reason or excuse to NOT treat this crap like the potentially dangerous quack scam that it is" comes across as unprofessional zealotry rather than a considered opinion to be taken seriously.

It's hard to take either an article or its talk page seriously when its authors are unable to stick to the facts and have to rely on misleading and arguably false information to make their point, for example the unsupported claim that sodium chlorite can cause fatal renal failure, which the source for the statement explicitly contradicts. The article should focus on real problems and not make up imaginary ones, otherwise readers are no more likely to believe your account of the real problems than the imaginary ones, which undermines the purpose you hope this article will serve. Any medical professional that wrote like that would have no chance of getting their article accepted for publication. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 01:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

While the desire to give WP:FRINGE theories a neutral pseudobalance, they remain fringe: no demonstrated benefit, demonstrated potential for harm. In general, it is bad form to accuse other editors of sounding unprofessional when you are misinterpreting the abstract of an article you have not read.Novangelis (talk) 14:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Apologies if my tone sounds "unprofessional" but understand that it is purely based on my lack of patience, not lack of objectivity. If you look at my posts here from OVER 18 months ago, you'll see that they were a lot more calm and collected. I did the research then and I have done a lot more research since then, I have been active on MMS support websites and other "health" forums, on MMS videos on YouTube, and I've read pretty much all the MMS information I've been able to find, but the MMS supporters position has NOT changed one bit. There are NO new case reports, studies, trials, NOTHING, even the claim about how there are thousands of "testimonials" is a load of rubbish, do yourself a favour try to find ONE testimonial on YouTube. It's a complete joke. Jim and his supporters just tirelessly regurgitate the same tired old claims and every few months, someone obviously fairly new to the subject like you comes along and cries foul. I have actually stopped editing the MMS article a long time ago because I agree I find it very hard to be unemotional about the topic, but I won't refrain from giving my opinion on the talk page as I don't believe I am breaking any guidelines doing so. Vespine (talk) 04:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Vespine, the miracle mineral is not snake oil; it is not quackery. I had a tooth root infection, that spread across the nerve into my brain, which was quite alarming, and an 8 drop dose of the miracle mineral in a pint of water cured the infection in four hours. I would recommend that you acquire the miracle mineral, as it could save your life.

If you notice, the ratings of the miracle mineral article are rather low. If you stop treating the miracle mineral as snake oil, and include the pros and cons from Jim Humble's book (I think this is a valid point of research), perhaps the ratings for the article would eventually increase. Right now they are rather abysmal, with a 1.3 for trustworthiness, and a 1.2 for objectivity. Again, if you treat this as a pro-miracle mineral article, and try to find supporting data for this miracle cure, perhaps the ratings would increase, and the article would no longer be listed as C-class. MoogleONE (talk) 05:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

You are wasting your time posting garbage like this here. We don't give a rat's arse what you think drinking overpriced bleach did to cure your toothache, and we don't care what the 'trustworthiness' rating of this article is either. Unlike quacks like Jim Humble, we don't lie to people to increase our credibility. Drinking bleach is dangerous, MMS is a con, and you are either a dupe, or more likely one of Humble's many cronies (if you aren't Humble himself). Go away... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Positive Studies of the Miracle Mineral on Cancer Patients

"3 of the 24 study participants (12.5%) reported a positive result from using MMS, as outlined below:" http://www.alternative-cancer-care.com/MMS_Cancer_Study.html

There are probably more of these. Your quack article is completely biased, and has severely lowered my respect for wikipedia.

Have a nice day. 69.143.187.109 (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

You delete my messages when I'm winning the argument. What a looser, andy. 69.143.187.109 (talk) 22:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

See WP:MEDRS and WP:NOTFORUM - and I suggest you read the article you linked: "MMS may slow the progression of cancer, however this has not been established on this study". "may": even quackery-promoting websites don't seem to support claims that it demonstrably does anything other than relieve people of the contents of their bank account. Though from anecdotal evidence (i.e. the nonsense that its promoters spout), I suspect that as well as the nausea and diarrhoea side effects reported, significant brain-rotting may be occurring. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

There is some secret technique you wikipedia users are using, to ban and oust out non-wikipedia users opinions. I did not vandalize this webpage Drmies; Andythegrump vandalized it by removing my text from the talk page. You say there is no evidence to support that the MMS works, but my own successes with the miracle mineral should point to SOME wiki-friendly PRO-EVIDENCE existing SOMEWHERE! Someone needs to find these 75,000 trials conducted in africa by Jim Humble. 1) The MMS is not quackery. 2) "I suspect that as well as the nausea and diarrhoea side effects reported, significant brain-rotting may be occurring." is a personal attack, and should be deleted. Let's play by the rules, huh? Stop making personal attacks.

I don't know how to change the edit summary, so if someone could help me here.. 69.143.187.109 (talk) 22:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a talk page for discussing article content. We base article content on published reliable sources - which for topics like this means peer-reviewed mainstream medical journals. We do not use material from unknown websites making 'scientific' claims (not that the site you linked claimed that MMS worked anyway). And neither do we base article content on anecdotal evidence. Jim Humble may well claim to have conducted 75,000 trials. We don't care. They aren't evidence of anything whatsoever, beyond the fact that Jim Humble makes claims and then fails to provide anything to back them up. Per policy, material not directly related to article content may be deleted from talk pages (seeWP:NOTFORUM). Soapboxing about Wikipedia 'bias', and suggesting that some random pro-quackery website is in any way relevant to this article is a waste of your time, and ours. If you consider my comments about 'brain-rotting' to be a personal attack, I have to ask whether your combative initial post was anything else? Unless you have suggestions for changes to the article which conform to Wikipedia policy, and are based on reliable sources (see WP:MEDRS for what is required), I suggest you stop posting - this isn't a forum for debate on anything else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

"A primary source in medicine is one in which the authors directly participated in the research or documented their personal experiences." (from WP:MEDRS) I documented my personal experience of the miracle mineral curing my tooth root infection, in my lower-jaw, that had spread to my brain, travelling across the nerve, in UNDER 4 HOURS, and you DELETED MY POST FROM THIS TALK THREAD, WHICH IS VANDALISM, AND then you said that this was my "point of view", while you adopt the "point of view" that the miracle mineral is evil quackery. I cannot recall my previous post from the history, due to conflicts in intermediate edits, and I DEMAND that an admin place a warning on you, for VANDALISM by DELETING MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE from the talk thread.

Also, Jim Humble has directly participated in a research on 75,000 malaria patients in africa, so he is a primary source for the miracle mineral as well. We have to go by the rules here.

Also, the mms church must have had lots of personal experiences of the curative effects of the miracle mineral, and you guys decry these people as "lackeys" of Jim Humble, and cry "point of view", while YOU HOLD a "point of view" as well! What is this nonsense??? I demand an administrator come here, and allow the primary sources of Jim Humble and his "lackeys" into the main wikipedia article for the miracle mineral. Your bias here is unbelievable! The miracle mineral WORKS! This is undisputable.

You also engage in personal attacks, by referring to the mms church as the "church of bleach-chuggers". Well, that they are, a church of bleach chuggers, except the bleach DOES NOT HARM THE HEALTHY CELLS IN THE BODY, MAKING THIS A MIRACLE CURE. This ****IS***** a miracle cure, and I *****DEMAND***** that the wikipedia article reflect the non-bogus, curative nature of the miracle mineral. 69.143.187.109 (talk) 04:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, now the wikipedia-elite are now bashing and shoving aside the un-skilled wikipedia users, using some ridiculous jargon. The sources are NOT unreliable. They are VERY reliable, and I demand that an administrator punish you Yobol for VANDALISING the article. Then you claim the wikipedia is not a forum, THEN WHY AM I BEING PERSONALLY ATTACKED, by Andythegrump whenever I try to make a constructive message? Please undo the hide you did of this discussion, or I will do it for you. Stop hiding all of the positive primary sources of the miracle mineral, while promoting only the erroneous, negative sources. Governments can be incorrect you know. I don't know what they're thinking, the FDA telling people to dispose of the miracle cure for cancer and aids. 69.143.187.109 (talk) 05:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I just sent a report to the FDA, concerning my tooth root infection that travelled to the brain, and hopefully we will find some "reliable, positive sources" soon for the miracle mineral. 69.143.187.109 (talk) 05:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I just removed your hide of my text, and I also registered my account, so you won't see my IP 69.143.187.109 anymore. Let's see if you have the balls to continue this edit war with me, deleting and hiding my constructive attempts to rectify the horrible mangling you're doing to the miracle mineral with your insanely-biased article. I went ahead and requested dispute resolution. Let's see you guys hoist yourselves on your own petard, by deleting/hiding my comments. MoogleONE (talk) 07:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I looked at the beginning of the history of the miracle mineral supplement article, and it's very obviously a well-calculated smear attempt against Jim Humble. I have lost all of my interest with this article, and probably won't be making anymore edits. I leave it to someone else to clean out the trash. MoogleONE (talk) 09:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I will clean out all trash I can find. You can focus your attention elsewhere. Von Restorff (talk) 08:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Upholding Unbiased and Objective Information

This is a wonderful example of how NOT to have a constructive conversation. The rules clearly state that this is NOT a forum, and should NOT be used to discuss personal biases and sling mud at each other. Wikipedia is supposed to be an unbiased source of information and so far, none of you have shown that you can objectively consider both sides of the subject. In my opinion, none of those whom have contributed to this "Talk" page, should be allowed to edit or modify the actually MMS page.

In order to provide a truly informative, educational and objective page on MMS, all sides should be shown from a non-biased perspective. Which means that personal opinions and experiences hold no water unless they come from a verified expert in the subject of health and the use of homeopathic remedies, and that expert opinion is also followed up from an equal expert of an opposite opinion. --Bema Self (talk) 11:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bema Self (talk • contribs) 11:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I've moved this to a new section. The problem is, is that there are no reliable sources which explain the other side of MMS. Whilst I guess it can be said that the article is biased against MMS, that is because all the sources warn against using MMS, and so this is naturally reflected in the article - we only publish what has already been published. If you've got any ideas on how it can be improved, please go ahead. SmartSE (talk) 12:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Bema Self, I have reverted your edits. Blogs are not reliable sources. NPOV does not mean that we give equal weight to all sides of an argument; per WP:VALID, we give greater weight to reliable academic scholarship than fringe theories. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Bema Self, Wikipedia policy is pretty clear on what we see as an objective article: WP:NPOV (especially WP:WEIGHT and WP:BALANCE). Everything on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable via reliable sources (see Smartse's link), and medical claims are subject to even higher standards. I wonder why someone who's an expert in “the use of homeopathic remedies” would have any more credibility here than my grandmother - the relevant fields here are Toxicology, Epidemiology, Oncology and perhaps (since it's claimed to be a supplement) Dietetics. --Six words (talk) 15:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the info, I have read all the wiki policies I should have read in the first place and have once more attempted to provide an unbiased page on this subject.

That being said, has anyone considered simply deleting the entire subject of MMS on wikipedia? Clearly, whether you leave it as it, or change it back, it will still violate the NPOV. Not to mention, if it's not academic, and it's not verifiable or deniable from either reputable sources (since no reputable groups have done studies on the medicinal uses of MMS in the terms that humble describes), then it will always be a useless page that is not objective, educational or informative.

Couldn't we just link the search for MMS to the page for Chlorine Dioxide? That page already holds basic information about MSS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bema Self (talk • contribs) 09:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC) --Bema Self (talk) 09:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources show harm. Reliable sources do not show any benefit or even preliminary medical safety testing of the preparation. That's the unbiased information.Novangelis (talk) 13:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I partly agree: what you've added under the section “experimental uses” could at most be added to Chlorine dioxide, if there are better sources (used as mouth wash - a study with N=15? That's not good enough! A case report? No way!). This article is about “the supplement” sodium chlorite, and (medical) trials are only relevant for the MMS article if they study one of the purported uses as “alternative” treatment (you know, AIDS, Hepatitis, ...). Since a lot has been written about this product, it is notable as a stand-alone article, so I doubt there'll be a consensus to delete or merge it it; you can try to get it deleted/merged anyway, instructions are here. I'm going to revert your latest rewrite and - again - suggest to discuss any change to the article first, and to gain consensus before editing the article. --Six words (talk) 13:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem with trying to write this page only about MMS (sodium chlorite) in it's unactivated form, is that in order to use it according to the way suggested, it says to activate it with citric acid, which then turns it into Chlorine Dioxide, which is what the "miracle" (not much of a miracle, but w/e) part is. Now, if you want to remove all the information about MMS on it's own, without being activated, then rewrite the page to talk about it just that way. Take out anything that talks about MMS when it's activated, like the parts about it becoming a bleach or about anyone drinking it. And remove any parts about "experts" from poison control centers, because they are only talking about when people drink the activated version of MMS, which is CHLORINE DIOXIDE. You can't have it both ways. Either we are talking only about MMS unactivated as Sodium Chloride, or we are talking about the chemical that people use MMS to make (chlorine dioxide). So which is it?

Also, dental problems, cavities, gingivitis and oral sores are some of the things that MMS supposedly works on, that's how I found out about it originally. Which is why I put it in for being relevant to this wiki. I'm not going to suggest it does or doesn't work in the way that humble suggests, but I find that the verifiable experiments preformed by notable organizations, are relevant to this page, as they show that there is some potential weight to the boat that MMS users are all trying to float on. And seriously, it isn't a lot of ground to stand on, and far from enough to show any sort of support of the product, but I feel that it's enough to give some balance to page and allow the representation of both views, because it talks about how recognized science has used Chlorine Dioxide to heal some otherwise incurable issues.

Thank you for your suggestions and information Six words, I appreciate your consensus. I am normally the type of person who would prefer to get group consensus before editing anything. Though it's clear through the history of this page and talk page, that there are very few "watching" this page, who actually want to have the page here for information, and not just to show a large distaste for MMS. And believe me, the stuff seems crazy to anyone on the outside looking in, and I think that side is already fairly represented in the page now. Though there's just no point in having a page up that doesn't represent the information in the traditional fashion of wikipedia - and while the NPOV may not "require" a completely unbiased page, it does say that we should give our best efforts to be unbiased, balanced and written in a fashion of disinterest or detachment. The current page doesn't do any of that. If it did, you wouldn't have all these newbies coming on here trying to fix the page.

It makes me wonder if this page isn't left up, not for it's value, but simply as a fish hook to lure in unsuspecting people who have no idea the kind of nonsense they're going to have to deal with in order to try and help out. I mean, I thought that wikipedia was a group project that anyone could edit? So far, you've all refused to allow me to make any tiny edits, big edits or even to just reorganize the information so that the page doesn't look so dreadful, because as a writer, I can tell you the formatting looks horrible. You've even refused to incorporate any of the information I supplied into the article in other ways. It is relevant, though I could see it being worded differently. Yet NONE of you want to do the work. So while I did the work, and am continuing to do it, the only thing you do is sit there behind the mask of your computer screens and click the "revert" button. If you're going to be so hypercritical of the changes I've made, then at very least get into the page and make some serious changes yourself, without just reverting back to the original page. That's redundant, childish, and only going to result in the continuation of problems with this page.

I am going to seek the help of an admin, while I search for relevant studies of the uses of "sodium chlorite". While I do that, it would be helpful if anyone who has reverted the page again and again, to not just complain, but to get out there and do some research to. You need a better argument then the WP:NPOV and relevancy excuses. They don't have any legs to stand on, because according to those same rules, the current page doesn't fit either. And as far as wikipedia keeping the page simply because a lot of people have written about, that sounds pretty darn silly, especially in the form the page is in now. --Bema Self (talk) 21:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

"Research?" You mean "Drink bleach, if it doesn't kill you, it might kill something else more useful"? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

This is what research looks like. I've changed the section from "Safety" to "Safety and legal issues". If the two can be untangled, they might be broken into separate sections.Novangelis (talk) 23:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Good, that does help increase the integrity of this article. Though I wonder, if we are going to include the experience of a woman who could have potentially misused the substance, should we include something from someone who has used it and found good results, even if they could have experienced a placebo effect or combined the substance with something else that made it work better than it should have? Last I read that article about the woman who died, they hadn't yet done an autopsy to confirm if it was the MMS that killed her or not. There are so many variables, that I wonder if the information should be included according the NPOV. What do you think? --Bema Self (talk) 01:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

All consumption of MMS is abuse, unless you have a medical or legal source that says otherwise.Novangelis (talk) 01:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it can be considered abuse, but it is not the job of wikipedia to decide what is or is not abuse of a substance. There are articles on the use of recreational and medicinal cannabis, which are both illegal by the federal government regardless of the safety of using them and not "officially" recognized as having medicinal value. That is abuse of the substance, isn't it? If it were the job of wikipedia to censor information because it's considered abuse of the substance, wouldn't all other articles of the same be left out? That would require changes to such articles on topics like hallucinogens, drugs, colloidal silver, bongs, homeopathy and a number of other subjects, wouldn't it? They all talk about how others have claimed benefits that have no medical verifiability, but don't promote those uses and are not completely biased --Bema Self (talk) 04:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Is that the best rebuttal you have andy? Really? lol— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bema Self (talk • contribs) 00:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I would like to apologize for this statement. It serves no purpose other than to add fuel to the fire, and I shouldn't have done it. I am not sure how to strike through this, so I am adding my apologizes here. --Bema Self (talk) 01:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Put <s> and </s> around your text like this Nobody Ent 17:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't Bite The Newcomers

I would like to cite WB:DBN, because I truly feel that those of you whom have been on this page long term, especially Andy and Novangelis, whom are not benefiting this conversation or the page with insults to the information and zero objectivity.

"Remember, our motto and our invitation to the newcomer is be bold. We have a set of rules, standards, and traditions, but they must not be applied in such a way as to thwart the efforts of newcomers who take that invitation at face value. A newcomer brings a wealth of ideas, creative energy, and experience from other areas that, current rules and standards aside, have the potential to better our community and Wikipedia as a whole. It may be that the rules and standards need revising or expanding; perhaps what the newcomer is doing "wrong" may ultimately improve Wikipedia. Observe for a while and, if necessary, ask what the newcomer is trying to achieve before concluding that their efforts are substandard or that they are simply "wrong"." From the WB:DNB page --Bema Self (talk) 22:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Then stop trying to sell toxic snake oil.

I would like to cite WP:NEWCOMERYEAHRIGHTJIMHUMBLESTOOGEMORELIKE. I'll choose biting 'newcomers' over allowing crackpots to push bleach as a cure for AIDS, any day of the week. I have morals, unlike you... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Another alternative would be to neither allow unreliable information to be added nor to be unnecessarily biting; the former is as you say and the latter both civil and more efficient (less drama) in the long run. Nobody Ent 17:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Consensus

See Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. If you want to propose the article for deletion, this describes the appropriate way to go about it. There is no point in discussing it here, as even if we were all to agree, such an agreement wouldn't be sufficient reason to ignore the proper procedure. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There is more than enough coverage of the harmful and deadly of MMS to maintain this this page—WP:Notability is easily established. Yes, numerous single purpose accounts have appeared in order to whitewash the sale of snake oil, but there is no reason to eliminate the article. The only challenge is how to better represent the diffuse, possibly non-centralized, network trying to stay under the legal radar by indirectly implying unsubstantiated medical benefits for a corrosive industrial bleach.Novangelis (talk) 01:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I apologize Andy. When I was reading the page about the deletion procedure, it suggested gaining a consensus first before adding any tags. Do you feel I should add the tag even with only three people on this conversation right now?

Novangelis, while I agree that MMS is a notable subject, both by supporters and opponents, and that notoriety is a very good reason to include a subject in wikipedia, that reason alone is not enough to keep it. It would be nice to see the subject represented better, though we have yet to figure out what that compromise is. I would be glad to be a part of a conversation that discusses would could be added or removed in order to prevent the promotion of the product, without violation WB:COMPREHENSIVE or WB:CENSORED. We aren't here to protect people or to control the page according to our personal morals or views. Yet that seems to be the very theme of this talk page and the continued reverting of any good faith attempts to make the article more comprehensive. Which why I really think we should delete this article, despite any notoriety. If it can't be comprehensive, then what's the point of having it here? By slamming it, you only encourage people to try it. By providing all information, you arm people with the information to decide for themselves what should be done. --Bema Self (talk) 02:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy. We do not delete articles on notable subjects because of expressed concerns over neutrality - though your understanding of what constitutes 'neutrality' is in any case contrary to that of Wikipedia policy. And neither do we consider attempts to evade our policy on appropriate sourcing regarding claimed medical products (see WP:MEDRS) to be a legitimate 'compromise'. MMS is a notable example of a bogus 'medicine' that has never been proven to do anything other than empty people's pockets - except when it makes them ill. This is what the sources say, so this is what our article is going to say. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That argument seems a bit bizarre; showing people the actual harm despite the total absence of support for the wild unsubstantiated medical claims is not likely to encourage people. More importantly, that is exactly where all the reliable sources (not "supporters and opponents") lead.Novangelis (talk) 02:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

if that is the way you two feel about it, then why don't we change the article into one about the Scam of MMS. At very least, it would then become an informative article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bema Self (talk • contribs) 03:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Thank you, I just realized I didn't sign and was going to fix that. --Bema Self (talk) 03:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Instead of worrying about the title, focus on building content with reliable sources. The title can always be changed. Whether we put "scam" in the title or not, there is no legitimate medical use for MMS. I see you are coming around to good collaborative behavior, even if your most courteous post has been directed to an automated bot. (In case tone does not transmit appropriately in text, that is intended as a compliment.)Novangelis (talk) 04:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The reason I am concerned about changing the title, is because unless the title is changed to show we are talking about a hoax or scam, then it needs to be a more comprehensive article. It's not an article about the dangers of MMS. It's an article about the subject of MMS, which should be more comprehensive. By providing complete information, we aren't promoting it. We are simply showing what the subject is about.

And yes, the substance is dangerous because there have been no confirmed studies of it being used in the way suggested. Yes there are no reliable materials specifically to support MMS. No one is saying it's not, nor am I suggesting that we should pretend it's not potentially dangerous. Yet, in order to cover the topic comprehensively as suggested by WB:COMPREHENSIVE and to not censor general information according to WB:CENSOR, simply for beliefs about the product. This isn't a forum for writing articles about the opinion that something is dangerous or not. It's not about promoting anything, or not promoting it. It's about clean and wholesome information. Take the article on circumcision - it cannot only be written that circumcision is a wrong, dangerous experience for babies, nor can it be written that it has any complete benefits. So instead of writing about either, the article covers what circumcision is, and why people do it. It's just about information on the subject, not views on the subject. Why can't this article on MMS be the same way?

And thank you for the comment. Despite our disagreements and frustrations with each other and this topic, I hope we can continue to become better collaborators. --Bema Self (talk) 04:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the article's title. It's about MMS and the sources deal with exactly that. Just to remind you: the sources you added were not about MMS, but about chlorine dioxide (either used by professionals who know how to handle chemicals - when used for fumigation, paper production, water sanitation - or pre-mixed solutions that are safe to use - like a mouth wash that was tested on, I need to repeat it, only eight subjects). The rest of what you added (all that “balance”) was without any reliable source! You're asking why this article is the way it is: that's because reliable sources describe MMS like that. We're not censoring information, there's just nothing in the sources saying it is not a dangerous misuse of industrial bleach. --Six words (talk) 09:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Photo/Pics?

I haven't seen anything in the archives or current convo that mentions any discussion on adding any photos to this article? I know the photo has to be royalty-free/creative-commons, though what are any other issues concerned with including a pic or two in this article?

What are the challenges to adding one, what are the hold ups we'd need to watch out for and are there any foreseeable legal issues with anything that might be considered usable? --Bema Self (talk) 09:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:IMAGE & Wikipedia:Image use policy. Von Restorff (talk) 09:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the link to WP's image use policies, lol, I've already read through them several times. Though being new, I am not sure how it all applies to this particular article, and I am also curious about any specific answers to my questions from the consensus in this talk page, not just a list of standards, if that makes sense? --Bema Self (talk) 11:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The main difficulty you would encounter is that the label on a bottle of MMS is copyrighted. You'd therefore need to make a claim of fair use claim to go along side any photograph of the bottle. Details can be found at WP:FUR, but if you upload something then I or someone else could help make sure it is suitable. SmartSE (talk) 11:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

P.S. what's the deal with Ygafi? (or should I ask that question elsewhere?) --Bema Self (talk) 09:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Questions about editors are best asked on that editors talkpage, User talk:Ygafl, but he is blocked indefinitely. Von Restorff (talk) 09:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed the ban, which is why I wasn't sure where to ask. I'll just ignore it next time. =) --Bema Self (talk) 11:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Just as a point of information, it was a block, not a ban - there is a big difference. No one has ever been banned from editing the MMS article. SmartSE (talk) 11:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Good to know, I didn't realize there was a difference between the two. So much more to learn... lol =) Any thoughts on adding a picture to this article SmartSE? --Bema Self (talk) 02:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Not especially - I don't feel strongly either way. SmartSE (talk) 15:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Use of trademark symbol

I had removed the ™ symbol from the judgements section where it say "MMS Professional". But the symbol was restored with the edit summary "verbatim WP:QUOTATION so necessary for context per MOS:TM". However, the symbol is not necessary for context as outlined at MOS:TM, and neither the content guideline nor the essay give an exception to include the symbol when doing a quote where the use of the symbol is not otherwise supported by WP policy or guideline. --71.231.75.104 (talk) 01:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

MOS:TM notes a distinct exception which allows symbol use: "unavoidably necessary for context". In the Australian fraud judgement the exact description "MMS Professional™" was used. The trademark symbol was deemed relevant in that judgement, and it is an example of how a product was marketed. As such, it is my opinion that this is a perfect case where using the exact quotation (MOS:QUOTE: "Preserve the original text, spelling, and punctuation."—my apologies if I linked the wrong quote policy) validates the use of the symbol as an exact quote, and this fits, to a tee, the exception permitting the use of the symbol, since omission changes the content of the sentence.Novangelis (talk) 02:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I think I see where you're coming from now. But, I would suggest that it would be better to clarify the wording of the sentence rather than maintain an unnecessary trademark symbol. Regardless of the symbol use, the existing wording isn't very clear - and I think it's that unclear wording that is driving your opinion that the trademark symbol is clarifying context. I would suggest the phrasing:

MMS was a cure touted by an Australian couple targeting the Seattle area. They ran websites using fake testimonials (accompanied by sexy vignettes), photographs, and Seattle addresses, to promote downloadable books touted as containing secret cures as well as promoting "water purification drops" marketed as "MMS Professional".

This change would clarify the meaning of the text, bring it more in-line with the original sources, and through that clarification also removes any doubt of the appropriate context making the trademark symbol entirely unnecessary. --71.231.75.104 (talk) 03:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

@71.231.75.104: Thanks for removing the inappropriate trademark symbol in accord with the accurate summary of standard procedures that you have outlined. You are also correct that if the TM is a big deal, it should be spelled out in English with a proper reference. Johnuniq (talk) 03:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the wording you came up with hit the mark dead on. I gave it my go, using the word "brand" to convey what the trademark symbol had indicated. I don't think "[trademark]" did much because it lacked the visual impact. I also reused the reference to the legal case and spread out the others. As the paraphrase of Einstein goes, "make it as simple as possible, but no simpler"; I guess I had overshot the mark.Novangelis (talk) 05:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Minerals?

It strikes me odd that something called Miracle Mineral Supplement does not contain any minerals. Is anyone aware of a source that has commented on this fact? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Sodium Chlorite is produced through mineral chemistry manufacturing processes, therefore it can be considered a minerally derived chemical, although not a true mineral in it's own right. 119.12.195.24 (talk) 02:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't contain any miracles, that's for sure... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I had another look for sources ~10 days ago and didn't come across anything about that. There's not really any coverage beyond the fact that it's quackery. SmartSE (talk) 23:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Their website itself comments on it. Or one of them anyway. I'll see if I can dig it up for you. I think the ultimate answer is Humble's knowledge of geology is rivaled only by his knowledge of biochemistry and his penchant for honesty. In other words, he pulled the name out of his ***. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.232.131.133 (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussing Deletion of this Page

Okay, first, I would like to apologize for my addition to the vulgar conversation that has been going on here. I find myself ever frustrated with the way in which I and others have been treated when attempting good faith changes on this page, which I have yet to have seen on other pages. Regardless, I should not have added fuel to the fire, and I am sorry that I have done so.

I will add, that even the most disparaging comments, reverts and warnings, have at very least driven me to learn as much as I can about the process of being a wikipedia contributor. In the past, I've only made little changes, and been more of a reader than an editor. Everyone of you has motivated me to be more active here on wikipedia, for many reasons.

That being said, I would like to redirect this conversation into one that is more constructive about the topic at hand and the situation the page is in. I have reviewed previous comments, from myself and others, presently and from past conversations, and I seriously feel we should delete this page on MMS. Now, before I try to do more things I am unfamiliar and inexperienced with that will likely result in me being Bitten (WB:DBN) again, I would like to try and resolve this issue and get a true consensus for the idea of deleting this page. If we can't agree on how it should be written/edited, or on deletion, I will continue to seek the involvement of administrators, which I would prefer to avoid, as we are all intelligent people, and I believe there has to be a way we can be reasonable about this.

I feel it should be deleted on [the following] grounds: --Bema Self (talk) 01:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Many of the following policies and guidelines are, if true, reasons for improving the article, not for deleting it. The basic rule is that if something is wrong with an article it should be fixed, not deleted. Only things that are unfixable (like the fact that an article about a garage band is not notable) are grounds for deletion. See Wikipedia:Deletion policy. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:ATTACK

although I understand the value of having the information provided on this page there in an attempt to prevent anyone from assuming that MMS is safe, that is not the purpose of wikipedia. Wikipedia is here for encyclopedic information. Unless the page is edited to reflect straight information that neither encourages or discourages the use of MMS, or more information is added, such as the claimed uses - and why those uses should or should not be avoided, relevant information about the use of Chlorine Dioxide and Sodium Chloride, then it is clear the page is simply an attack on the product. Personal feelings are one thing that we should try to avoid on wikipedia, and if we cannot do that, then the page is simply an attack and should not be included, as it serves no other purpose than to goad people into edit and talk warring. WB:ATTACK --Bema Self (talk) 01:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: "Unless the page is edited to reflect straight information that neither encourages or discourages the use of MMS..." That's not how Wikipedia works. The page should reflect what reliable sources say about using MMS. The Wikipedia page on Physical exercise is not written to "neither encourage or discourage" exercising. It simply reports what is in multiple reliable sources - that exercise is good for you. Likewise, the Wikipedia page on Cigarettes is not written to "neither encourage or discourage" smoking. It simply reports what is in multiple reliable sources - that smoking is bad for you. You need to switch your emphasis to what is in the sources, whether the sources are reliable, and whether important sources are missing. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

If what Guy Macon says is true then the default approach would be to write a balanced article based on factual information from both sides of the story. Sources should be derived from studies and evidence in support of both positive and negative aspects of the item being described. Leaning too heavily toward what is presumed to be authoritative 'truths' on any matter may form an extremely strong bias in favor of the positive or negative views, opinions and evidence being presented. 119.12.195.24 (talk) 02:52, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:NPOV

Until some agreement can be made as to supporting the entire subject of MMS in this page, and probably even then, there is no way to avoid the NPOV with this page. In it's current position, it is written only for those who oppose MMS from a person opinion that it is bad. Although the FDA and EPA conduct their own tests on the potential medicinal value of Chlorine Dioxide in the ways suggested by it's creator, then there is no concrete way to prove that it is bad or good for a persons health. Events that have "supposedly" shown that MMS is harmful to your health through published experiences, are no better than the published experiences of those whom have stated the benefits. Both experiences are subjective and subject to random conditions that none of us can no about. Someone who had a bad experience, could have used the product incorrectly, or had a genetic predisposition to the chemical, and someone who used it correctly could have experienced a placebo effect or unknowingly combined the product with something else that actually brought about the success and couldn't only be attributed to the product. Clearly, this page violates the NPOV as it is, and from the perspective of opponents to the product, any attempt to create a NPOV, is only seen as the POV of a supporter. WP:NPOV --Bema Self (talk) 01:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand what NPOV is. Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. Do you have any reliable sources that should be included but aren't right now? If so, please post them here on this talkpage. Von Restorff (talk) 08:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOT - Not Censored

"some articles may include text, images, or links which some people may find objectionable, when these materials are relevant to the content. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal or inclusion of content." Although some might find it "offensive" that information is included that might in some way support MMS, that is not grounds for excluding that information. If we cannot include all information, regardless of our objections to it, the article should be deleted. Not Censored --Bema Self (talk) 01:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Please provide diffs where you believe that content was excluded on the grounds of being "objectionable". I am only seeing arguments that content be excluded because there are no reliable sources that support it.

At this point your list of Wikipedia policies that this page allegedly violates is beginning to look like a case of throwing everything against the wall and seeing what sticks. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOT - WP:BURO

Clearly, there are some instances that the rules should be ignored. I say that in the instance of not promoted unverified claims should be ignored, simply to document those claims, while you say that the NPOV should be violated as to not promoted a perceived scam. There is no way to say who is right, which stands for grounds for deletion, unless someone can propose a way to come to a compromise between all views. WP:BURO

Please show (with diffs) a specific edit that you believe violates Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines, along with the specific portion of the policy. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:BEANS

If you truly want to discourage others from using MMS, attacking it in a wiki page is not the way to do it. Even if you have the best intentions for preventing people from using or doing something, you are actually promoting them to do so. So if there is way more consensus that MMS is harmful and shouldn't be used, we should delete the page so that it doesn't encourage others to see wikipedia as an addition to any smear campaigns, which only further many peoples resolve to try it out. WP:BEANS --Bema Self (talk) 01:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Not a valid reason for deletion. See Wikipedia:Deletion policy --Guy Macon (talk) 14:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:WIN

Wikipedia is not here so that you can be right, win or control a subject, that includes me and everyone else contributing here. The whole consensus should be able to be reasonably proud of this page. With the ratings of this page being terrible, the huge disputes flooding the talk page and all the other problems in here, it is clear that many are taking this subject as a need to win and be right about it, which is not in the spirit of wikipedia at all. If we can't agree on what should be written, we should be able to agree that the content doesn't belong in wikipedia the way it is. WP:WIN --Bema Self (talk) 01:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

It may be clear to you, but I see no evidence that supports it. I see some WP:CIVIL problems, but no WP:WIN problems. As always, diffs documenting specific edits would be a big help. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:COMPREHENSIVE

"Wikipedia is, first and foremost, an encyclopedia, and as such, its primary goal is to be a fully comprehensive and informative reference work; that is, it does not purposefully omit (i.e. suppress or censor) non-trivial, verifiable, encyclopedically-formatted information on notable subjects.

In the pursuit of completeness, Wikipedia includes truthful (sometimes "sensitive") information which could itself be considered, or may have possible uses which could be considered, illegal, immoral, unethical, or potentially harmful. Wikipedia's place is to merely provide useful information; what people do with that information is entirely up to them and is either none of Wikipedia's concern or it is believed that the world is better overall for the information being available than if it were not. Wikipedia's ethos is to be informative. Also, trying to predict how people will use a given piece of information is nigh-impossible; thus, making decisions based on such predictions in order to "protect" an entity is questionable."

Not including the information from all sides of the coin, because you feel the idea is stupid, a scam or that you are protecting people, violates the basic nature of Wikipedia. It is not wikipedia's job to protect people. Only to inform. What people do with that information is their own business. If we can't agree on that, then the page should deleted. WP:COMPREHENSIVE --Bema Self (talk) 01:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

You are right. Not including information because you feel it is stupid or a scam does violates the basic nature of Wikipedia. However, if reliable sources report that it is stupid (see Tobacco smoking for an example) that should be reported. WP:COMPREHENSIVE does not apply in this case. WP:V and WP:RS do. You need to challenge the sources that support things the page says that you don't like. That's the only way to get them removed. You need to find reliable sources that support adding things you want added. That's the only way to get them on the page.

WP:EW

Clearly, there has been an edit war going on here for a very long time. This isn't likely to stop, due to the nature of the subject and the way in which everyone has handled the situation. Reverts should not be used every time, especially on good faith edits. We've all taken part in this, and in order to cease fire for us and in the future, we should delete this page. WP:EW --Bema Self (talk) 01:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Please provide evidence (with diffs) that anyone has been edit warring as defined in Wikipedia:Edit warring. This is clearly a content dispute, not an edit war. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

WB:MERGE

In it's current form, even with the bias, this article is short and not really worthy of having it's own page. Instead of deleting, we might consider merging it into the already covered content on the Chlorine Dioxide page, or add it to the page about Sodium Chlorite or the page about Jim Humble. WP:MERGE --Bema Self (talk) 01:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

We don't have an article on Jim Humble - entering this into our search function redirects here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone mind if I delete/hide this section? I think after the D.R. and some help from others, that most of these issues have been cleared up, and obviously the whole situation was mangled from the beginning. If anyone wants it to stay, that's cool. I just figured it was kind of wasting space now, aside from the helpful info from Guy and AndytheGrump. --Bema Self (talk) 18:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

It is generally best not to hide sections unless they are off-topic or otherwise inappropriate, and we normally only delete vandalism, spamming etc. I'd just leave it as is - it will get archived at some point anyway. 19:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the update. --Bema Self (talk) 20:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

An unrelated thread is not a new horse to beat

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closed for tendentious editing—an ongoing WP:REHASH about an article that does not mention subject of the article, describe the same substance, or discuss the same route of exposure.Novangelis (talk) 09:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

---

My attempt to provide evidence of an independent study into the toxicological effects of inhaling 0.1 ppm of chlorine dioxide over a 6 month period was downright rejected, even though it directly referenced the section in the article that stated "The United States Department of Labor restricts occupational exposure through inhalation of chlorine dioxide to 0.1 ppm since concentrations at 10ppm resulted in deaths in rats, after 10 days while a case where a worker was accidentally exposed to 19 ppm resulted in death." The independent, scientific research I referred to explored the occupational exposure through inhalation of chlorine dioxide to 0.1 ppm in rats with no reported toxicological effects. Even though my use of the word gas in reference to chlorine dioxide was rejected as not being the same thing as MMS, the already accepted reference to gas in the approved article contradicts the motives behind such a rejection. I was merely introducing additional material which superseded previous studies and findings. Why are editors allowed to retain certain findings yet reject other findings merely because they do not see the relevant context? The medical research I linked to was highly relevant to The United States Department of Labor findings and therefore did not constitute or warrant exclusion. Is this a blatant attempt at keeping certain aspects of medical knowledge from the general public? The FDA may have final authority over the legalities of MMS, but that authority does not extend to the publishing of material designed to inform and educate the general public. I fail to see why certain WP members cannot make the connection between the 0.1 ppm federal safety restrictions of chlorine dioxide gas and the 0.1 ppm safe-level laboratory findings of chlorine dioxide gas. If the moderators of this article wish to maintain credibility on this topic then the reference to The United States Department of Labor must be removed as it must be assumed that it is no longer relevant due to it's reference to chlorine dioxide gas and not chlorine dioxide solution.119.12.195.24 (talk) 09:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Additional 2012 Research Material

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This discussion has been closed for failure to provide any content suggestion that is not speculation, for excessive use of false claims, and because there is nothing but horseburger to flog. See also, WP:FRINGE. Novangelis (talk) 08:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

---

There is new research available that supports the use of chlorine dioxide as an effective method to destroy microbes in the human body in levels that are perfectly safe for human consumption. This new research investigates the therapeutic and medical use of chlorine dioxide in ways that directly contradict the findings made by the FDA and EPA, though supports the restrictions put in place by the United States Department of Labor.

These new studies from the Taiko Pharmaceutical Company in Osaka, Japan conclusively show that chlorine dioxide gas in quantities of up to 0.1 ppm, far exceeding the level effective against microbes, is not at all toxic under conditions simulating human life in laboratory rats over a six month period. Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology 2012, 7:2 (21 February 2012) "Six-month low level chlorine dioxide gas inhalation toxicity study with two-week recovery period in rats" Akinori Akamatsu, Cheolsung Lee, Hirofumi Morino, Takanori Miura, Norio Ogata, Takashi Shibata (R&D Department, Taiko Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd, 3-34-14 Uchihonmachi, Suita-shi, Osaka 564-0032, JAPAN) http://www.occup-med.com/content/7/1/2

This recently published (2012) clinical study supersedes that of the older FDA and EPA statements made in 2010 and conclusively demonstrates that exposure to quantities of chlorine dioxide gas at 0.1 ppm does not cause toxicity in laboratory rats. Chlorine dioxide at quantities below 0.1 ppm exceed the level effective against microbes, therefore introduction of chlorine dioxide into the body in quantities considered fatal to microbes can be considered non-toxic and non-harmful to humans. The United States Department of Labor is in total agreement with this finding, according to their restrictions of occupational exposure of 0.1 ppm of chlorine dioxide. The background of the study explains "Chlorine dioxide (CD) gas has a potent antimicrobial activity at extremely low concentration and may serve as a new tool for infection control occupationally as well as publicly. However, it remains unknown whether the chronic exposure of CD gas concentration effective against microbes is safe. Therefore, long-term, low concentration CD gas inhalation toxicity was studied in rats as a six-month continuous whole-body exposure followed by a two-week recovery period, so as to prove that the CD gas exposed up to 0.1 ppm (volume ratio) is judged as safe on the basis of a battery of toxicological examinations". The result of the study was as follows "Well regulated levels of CD gas were exposed throughout the chamber over the entire study period. No CD gas-related toxicity sign was observed during the whole study period. No significant difference was observed in body weight gain, food and water consumptions, and relative organ weight. In biochemistry and hematology examinations, changes did not appear to be related to CD gas toxicity. In necropsy and histopathology, no CD gas-related toxicity was observed even in expected target respiratory organs". The study concluded "CD gas up to 0.1 ppm, exceeding the level effective against microbes, exposed to whole body in rats continuously for six months was not toxic, under a condition simulating the conventional lifestyle in humans". 119.12.195.24 (talk) 03:48, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Complete bullshit. The research says nothing whatsoever about anything being 'conclusive'. It says nothing whatsoever about 'destroying microbes in the human body' - and even if it did, per WP:MEDRS we wouldn't cite a single primary source in the article as 'proof' for the safety of MMS - which is clearly your intent - when the research isn't into this quack 'cure' anyway. Unless and until mainstream science ceases to identify MMS as a potentially-lethal scam, we will continue to state the facts, regardless of whichever cherry-picked 'evidence' its supporters chose to misrepresent. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The research paper presents a scientific conclusion, therefore it is scientifically 'conclusive'. Please read the actual research report and the findings and then please make a comment on the actual evidence presented in the research. 121.91.185.186 (talk) 04:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

"The research paper presents a scientific conclusion, therefore it is scientifically 'conclusive'"? Congratulations, you've won the Wikipedia 'idiotic talk page comment of the day' prize. And anyway, even if the paper did claim that its results were 'conclusive', it wouldn't matter. They don't support your claims, and even if they did, per WP:MEDRS we do not cite single primary sources for medical claims. Unless you can find sources which comply with WP:MEDRS, and actually support your assertions (you won't be able to, needless to say), there is nothing more to be said here. Wikipedia policy is clear, and we aren't going to let Jim Humble and his cronies weasel-word their way around it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I have summarised the findings of actual research papers that have been published in a well-respected medical journal. I have also provided a second source that supports the findings of this research and is self-referenced by the MMS article itself. The second source specifically stated in the MMS article is the United States Department of Labor restriction policy that enforces a 0.1 ppm exposure limit on chlorine dioxide gas. This United States Government finding supports the Taiko Pharmaceutical research papers. By omitting scientific findings and conclusions that illustrate research beyond that of the FDA and EPA findings, you are skewing the article heavily towards a negative 'anti-MMS' bias and therefore breaching a number of other guidelines. 119.12.195.24 (talk) 04:35, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

No guidelines or policies have been breached. You clearly do not understand Wikipedia policy. You appear not to wish to. Unless you can find sources conforming with the relevant policy, there is nothing further to say. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Your comments are in breach of WP:ATTACK, WP:NPOV, WP:WIN and WP:COMPREHENSIVE. This very thread itself has already fallen under the category of WP:WIN due to your intention to argue a moot point.

There is no evidence that MMS has been submitted to the FDA for approval. The paper being touted makes no mention of MMS or similar formulations. Claiming policy changes requires documenting policy changes. Until there is a statement by the FDA to the contrary, we will stick with the most recent opinion: "The product, when used as directed, produces an industrial bleach that can cause serious harm to health."[1]Novangelis (talk) 05:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

We can't include the results of an animal study and draw conclusions - that's what scholarly reviews do. We don't write scholarly reviews here, we're a "tertiary" source: we report what scholarly reviews and other secondary sources say. Wikipedia health content is strictly governed by policies and guidelines. In this advice I'm referring to:

1. Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)
2. Wikipedia:No original research, particularly the sections

• Primary, secondary and tertiary sources and
• Synthesis of published material that advances a position
  

--Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

If there is no evidence that MMS has been submitted to the FDA for approval then why is the article using FDA findings on MMS to claim it is a danger to humans? According to the research paper published in the Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology, chlorine dioxide gas was the chemical being tested on laboratory rats over a 6 month period. This chlorine dioxide gas is the very same active ingredient that is used in MMS and the purpose of the Japanese research was to test it's maximum exposure level to humans without using human test subjects. These same levels of chlorine dioxide gas are what is considered 'safe' to human exposure by the United States Department of Labor. If you do not find Taiko Pharmaceuticals or The United States Department of Labor to be factual in their claims then you must consider that the FDA findings are flawed as there is no evidence that MMS has been submitted to the FDA for approval. This then calls into question the validity of statements in the entire MMS article and therefore the article should be deleted. Whatever claims are made on animal research or 'scholarly reviews' is irrelevant when the inclusion of unsubstantiated claims by the FDA is allowed. 119.12.195.24 (talk) 05:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Scientific research papers published in a respected medical journal is what has been quoted as the source. If what you say is true then all other scientific research papers and 'scholarly reviews' quoted in the article as source material must also be removed. 119.12.195.24 (talk) 05:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Assuming for the moment and the sake of argument that the study would meet the threshold of WP:MEDRS, it still isn't appropriate in this article. The study makes zero mention of MMS. The study, as you point out, is of chlorine dioxide gas, while MMS is a chlorine dioxide solution. The study is on a gas which is released into the air, while MMS is ingested. It's completely original research to make any claim that the results of the study of an inhaled gas also applies to MMS which is an ingested solution. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Chlorine dioxide gas is used by Jim Humble in the production of his Chlorine Dioxide Solution (CDS) which is an improved version of MMS and therefore makes the research into the toxicological effects of chlorine dioxide gas by Taiko Pharmaceuticals completely relevant. The result of the process Jim Humble uses creates a solution that is virtually identical to regular MMS and incorporates the infusion of chlorine dioxide gas into water to produce lower and more accurate measurements of chlorine dioxide solution. Therefore the resulting solution is the same, only the purity of the solution is different. 119.12.195.24 (talk) 05:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

MMS, as a product sold to the public, is a solution. Consumer use of the product would be as a solution. To be relevant to an article about the product, a study would need to be about a solution. At best, assuming the study meets WP:MEDRS, all it could support is health impact to those manufacturing the product, and would have no bearing on any presentation of impact to the consumer. Any claim that the study also applies to the solution that is the final product is original research. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Chlorine dioxide gas dissolves upon contact with liquid. MMS solution is the result of that dissolution. Likewise, chlorine dioxide gas is dissolved upon contact with human tissue and an unstable form of chlorine dioxide solution is the result. Chlorine dioxide gas does not remain a gas upon absorption into the human body. That is basic medical knowledge. 119.12.195.24 (talk) 06:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

None of this is of the slightest relevance to the article: the source cited does not meet WP:MEDRS, doesn't say what the IP claims it does, and says nothing whatsoever about the subject of the article - the snake-oil-salesman Jim Humble's ridiculous claims about the efficacy of drinking bleach as a cure for AIDS, cancer etc. I suggest that unless the IP can produce material and proposals that comply with Wikipedia policy, and which are directly relevant to the article topic rather than being based on original research, we consider this discussion closed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

MMS, as a product sold to the public, is not the solution being tested here. The solution that is sold to the public is 28% Sodium Chlorite and water. The solution that is derived from the addition of citric acid is the solution that is being tested, therefore the context of the term 'solution' is applicable either way and still describes the form chlorine dioxide takes upon entering the blood stream. 119.12.195.24 (talk) 06:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy does not welcome the enforcement of biased opinion and presumptuous arguments. For the article to be authentic it needs to stick with the facts as they present themselves and not be used as a platform to push personal agendas or scientific, religious or medical beliefs onto others. Please keep this article factual. 119.12.195.24 (talk) 06:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The two sources I published are not papers I created myself and are therefore not original research materials. One source comes directly from the Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology 2012 (which can also be found at The National Center for Biotechnology Information - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3298712/) as well as sources cited directly within the article itself from The United States Department of Labor - http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/healthguidelines/chlorinedioxide/recognition.html 119.12.195.24 (talk) 06:37, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy does not welcome promoters of toxic scams. The solution that is fraudulently sold to the public as a cure for multiple potentially-fatal health conditions is itself of proven lethality, and of no benefit whatsoever. These are the only facts that matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

That is your personal view on the matter and reinforcing that view does not qualify it as a factual statement. You must first provide factual references to genuine research that follows the same preperation guidelines as MMS and use that to enforce the logic and truth behind your statements. You must provide these facts otherwise anything you say in relation to the matter is pure 'emotion-filled' conjecture. Please provide the necessary sources and research data that backs up your statements. And I am not promoting MMS in any way, shape or form. Promotion for or against the use of anything in any article is not the purpose of the article. For the article to be a neutral and balanced WP:NPOV it must present both sides of a story, regardless of whether one agrees with one side of the story or the other. I am merely providing additional research data that supports the view that chlorine dioxide solution is not harmful to the human body as was originally believed. 119.12.195.24 (talk) 06:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Neither paper is about MMS. Making inferences from one substance to another is original research. By this same so-called logic, carbon dioxide is club soda. Similarly, if you want to claim that a product is no longer considered harmful by the FDA, show that the FDA has changed its stated position that it is harmful. Present something real, not inferences (technically, inference would be an upgrade from wild fictional speculations) made from studies on a different substance. On Wikipedia, reliable sources talk and snake oil walks (or slithers).Novangelis (talk) 06:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Novangelis, you stated yourself that "There is no evidence that MMS has been submitted to the FDA for approval". Therefore you cannot use the FDA statement to back up further claims in defence of the article when you clearly state that the FDA does not have any evidence of a submission for approval. Without such submission the FDA would not have a position on MMS. Yet you claim it does. The FDA does not have scientific data to back up their claim. They issued a warning on a clinically untested substance. Yet I have provided a link to a recent clinical study performed on the same substance which contradicts the FDA warnings. To clarify: The studies by Taiko were made with chlorine dioxide in it's gaseous state. As chlorine dioxide gas is ultimately dissolved into the blood stream of laboratory rats as a liquid then it is chemically identical to chlorine dioxide solution. It is not a different substance. It is the exact same chemical (ClO2) which simply exists in a different chemical state. 119.12.195.24 (talk) 07:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

In relation to not using MMS as a test subject in either study... MMS is Sodium Chlorite. The substance absorbed into the body is not Sodium Chlorite. That substance is Chlorine Dioxide. Therefore no test can be performed on MMS in the form that it is sold to the public. The issue here is that any testing on MMS must be performed on chlorine dioxide solution, whether it be in gas or liquid form as these are the only two states that the chemical has been made available in in the case of MMS. 119.12.195.24 (talk) 07:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC):::The study was done on gaseous inhalation - this article is about MMS which is sold as an ingested solution. You are making the claim that the effect on a body is the same regardless of the form of exposure, which is not supported by the source. You continue to use your personal opinion (ie: original research) that the effect would be identical. Regardless of if the study meets WP:MEDRS, it is of a different form of exposure. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 07:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The FDA has authority over substances illegally sold as medicine. The advisory about MMS was issued after documented harm. I recommend this discussion be closed; this horse is dead.Novangelis (talk) 07:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The study was done on gaseous inhalation - this article is about MMS which is sold as an ingested solution. You are making the claim that the effect on a body is the same regardless of the form of exposure, which is not supported by the source. You continue to use your personal opinion (ie: original research) that the effect would be identical. Regardless of if the study meets WP:MEDRS, it is of a different form of exposure. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 07:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

You clearly did not read the study. The study did not stop at the effects of gaseous inhalation because liquid absorption of chlorine dioxide gas occurs on a molecular level before the gas is absorbed into the tissue and blood stream. In the case of the study, full autopsies were performed on 32 rats and included full toxicological, biochemical, hematological, histapathological and necropsy examinations. The rats were examined down to the cellular and biochemical levels and there was no chlorine dioxide toxicity found through liquid absorption into the tissues, organs and blood streams. For you to claim that toxicity effects stopped at the point of gaseous inhalation in the lungs requires you to prove that chlorine dioxide gas is not absorbed into the body after any prolonged period of time. 119.12.195.24 (talk) 07:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter how you try to rationalize the link between the linked study of a gaseous inhalation to a solution that would be drank - you can't get past the fact that the form of exposure is different. You continue to use original research to bridge that gap. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 07:58, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Exposure to chlorine dioxide gas does indeed provide additional topological effects to the human body that would otherwise not be experienced from ingesting it in a liquid form. This does not preclude the fact that chlorine dioxide still dissolves into a liquid form and is absorbed into the human body. The presence of additional topological effects on the human body as a direct result from contact to the gas (ie: corrosion of soft tissues and air sacs in the lungs) does not fundamentally change the internal effects of chlorine dioxide as a liquid. Chlorine Dioxide liquid can be produced from dissolved gas or crystals, it does not matter. At the end of the process you sill have chlorine dioxide in liquid form. The quantities of chlorine dioxide in the blood stream and tissues of lab rats (in the form of a liquid of 0.1 ppm), as per the quoted sources above are so insignificant that it does not have any toxic effects on the system. At much higher volumes of 0.8 ppm in drinking water, as approved by the FDA and EPA, the effects of Chlorine Dioxide are still insignificant yet exceed the nominal volume needed to kill microbes. 119.12.195.24 (talk) 08:10, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

And again, you dance around the fundamental disconnect between the forms of exposure. We appear to be done here, as you are so adequately demonstrating that the only way you can bridge the gap is by using original research, and this endless looping of trying to weasel around that problem is getting us nowhere. As Novangelis said, this horse is dead, the discussion has reached its end. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 08:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

You claim there is a 'fundamental disconnect' between the forms of exposure to chlorine dioxide, therefore the burden of proof is on you to back up your claim. Please provide references, sources and links to evidence which supports this claim of 'fundamental disconnect'. Do not merely state it in an authoritative way without scientific proof. I do not need to prove anything more on the subject because all I am doing is bringing attention to information that clearly proves that minimum exposure to chlorine dioxide internally is safe enough to be non-toxic yet strong enough to kill microbes. If exposure to 0.1 ppm chlorine dioxide gas or liquid is safe, according to both The United States Department of Labor and Taiko Pharmaceuticals... and exposure to 0.8 ppm chlorine dioxide gas or liquid in drinking water is safe according to the FDA and EPA, then ingesting 0.1 ppm at a volume exceeding the level effective against microbes is not as dangerous as is claimed elsewhere in this article. This fact alone is enough to support the concept of MMS and therefore should not be excluded from the article.119.12.195.24 (talk) 08:46, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, according to the Safe Drinking Water Act passed by Congress in 1974, the safe level of Chlorine Dioxide in drinking water in the United States is 0.8 ppm. This amount is 8 times higher than the strength of Chlorine Dioxide used in the Taiko Pharmaceuticals lab tests which proves that Chlorine Dioxide is safe for human consumption in minute quantities. The EPA itself recommends the use of 0.8 ppm of Chlorine Dioxide in regular drinking water, which is also approved by the FDA. Source: http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/disinfectants.cfm 119.12.195.24 (talk) 07:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the FDA does have authority over substances illegally sold as medicine, but for a substance to be made 'illegal' it must first be disapproved by the FDA itself. As you stated yourself that there is no evidence that MMS has been submitted to the FDA for approval then the FDA legally cannot disapprove MMS without a submission. The FDA has no legal basis to enforce their authority over MMS which is why their

enforcement policy is limited only to issuing warnings over the untested use of MMS. 119.12.195.24 (talk) 07:48, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

And now we're into the realm of total fiction. It is illegal to introduce or deliver a drug that has not been FDA-approved for a specific application under sections 301(d) and 505(a) of the Act 21 U.S.C. §§ 331(d) and 355(a). The FDA is authorized to enforce it and the hospitalizations do to a substance illegally sold as a medicine were evidence of harm which could be investigated under the FDA's purview. Not filing an application is an not exemption from FDA authority. On the other hand, drinking water is under EPA, not FDA authority. Even if the concentration of MMS fell within EPA limits (which it doesn't), it would still be illegal to sell it as a medicine unless it was first shown to be safe, then shown to actually treat something.

Absence of chlorine compound toxicity in routine toxicological samples is not evidence of absorption; in fact, it could indicate absence of absorption. For Wikipedia, evidence of absorption is a reliable source that explicitly states that it is absorbed. Given that we are not discussing anything that could become an edit, based on something stated in a reliable source, and the talk page is being filled with fiction, this discussion will be closed.Novangelis (talk) 08:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Page protection

Given the repeated attempts by an IP contributor to spin the article to promote MMS, in violation of multiple Wikipedia policies, I have requested that the article be semi-protected. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Deletion Proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The procedure for proposing deletions has been indicated. Deletion cannot be carried out via discussion here. There is nothing further to be gained by this debate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

---

I request that the article be deleted on the basis that it is being promoted on scant factual information beyond that of journalistic opinion and anecdotal evidence. If the article cannot back it's claims with hardcore scientific data, studies and research then it should be deleted promptly. I have read through every reference in the article and find only news reports, journalistic reviews, warning letters, administration regulation references and contradictory reports that directly contravene findings made by the EPA over drinking water treatment. There are only two mildly scientific research findings produced as papers that state conclusions which do not specifically outline the research being performed, therefore do not qualify as actual research papers. I would like to see each individual claim in this article backed up by actual scientific studies and reports that qualify the statements being made.119.12.195.24 (talk) 14:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

If you wish to propose that the article be deleted, first read Wikipedia:Deletion policy, and then if you wish to proceed, follow the procedure set out at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. You cannot make such a proposal here. You will be wasting your time though. We don't delete articles because the promoters of the toxic snake-oil they describe don't like them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

If the article is deleted then it should be deleted due to a lack of factual and verifiable sources, not because it is considered by someone as "toxic snake-oil". The MMS article is being presented as a seemingly 'factual' representation of available information on a subject that seemingly lacks credible scientific data to support it.119.12.195.24 (talk) 14:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Jim Humble and his gang of goons have never produced the slightest bit of 'credible scientific data' that MMS does anything other than line their pockets. They have however succeeded in killing at least one person with their toxic snake oil. Anyway, if you want to propose that the article be deleted, do so in the proscribed manner. You can't do it here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

If you publish something as a fact but only support it with opinions, inconclusive reports or unsubstantiated rumors then you should not claim it on the premise of a fact. It is as simple as that. Using the death of a single person to quantify one's position on a subject does not qualify that as proof enough to reach a conclusion as to the danger or ineffectiveness of any given treatment (regardless of the FDAs position on the matter). If this were not the case then prescription medicines which cause the deaths of over 100,000+ Americans every year would also receive the same attention as MMS. Yet this is not the case. Therefore the article is based less on evidence and more on journalistic and administrative opinion. WP:MEDRS specifically states that "Wikipedia's articles, while not intended to provide medical advice, are nonetheless an important and widely used source of health information.[1] Therefore, it is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge. Ideal sources for such content includes general or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher, and medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies". As none of the sources referenced in this article can be verified to fall under any of the suggested requirements of the WP:MEDRS, beyond that of journalistic reviews and legal opinions, then the article should be wholly and unequivocally deleted.119.12.195.24 (talk) 15:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wrong Chemistry Used In Article

The chemistry stated in the article for the acidification of sodium chlorite is in error. Acidification of sodium chlorite is a chemical process that involves the mixing of sodium chlorite (NaClO₂) with an acid (H+) which produces an unstable solution of chlorite anion (ClO₂^-), chlorous acid (HClO₂) and compounds of chlorine dioxide (ClO₂) and chlorate anion (ClO₃^-). Ultimately, chlorous acid breaks down into a simple chloride (Cl^-).

You state that hypochlorous acid is part of the "main product" produced during this process. This statement is in error as you have used the wrong formula for hypochlorous acid (HCLO₂). The correct formula for hypochlorous acid is HClO. Hypochlorous acid (HClO) is formed when chlorine (Cl) dissolves in water. When chlorine dioxide is exposed to water it does not release a chlorine atom to form hydrochlorous acid as does chlorine. Simply put: hypochlorous acid cannot be formed when sodium chlorite is acidified in acid. These are two completely different chemical processes and you appear to have them mixed up with one another.

You also state that the final product derived from the acidification of sodium chlorite (NaClO₂) is chlorine dioxide(CLO₂). This statement is also in error as chlorine dioxide is the by-product, not the final product, of the acidification process. The final product produced from the process is a simple chloride (Cl-), which is a compound of chlorine and is a major mineral that the body needs to make digestive juices and to keep body fluids balanced.

To clarify: HClO₂ is chlorous acid which breaks down into chloride (Cl^-). HClO is hyperchlorous acid which breaks down into chlorine dioxide (ClO2)121.91.185.186 (talk) 00:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why I started adding all the inappropriate "hypos" (probably too many distractions). Thank you for the pick-up.Novangelis (talk) 01:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Way too much BS in the article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This discussion has been closed for promoting pseudoscience and conspiracy theories with total disregard to reliable sources.

---

1. The article makles blanket statements of it being toxic, while it fails to mention by HOW MUCH. The MMS website restricts what amount to take and warns anything of excess is toxic. 2. It is NOT bleach. The MMS website explains why it is not bleach, complete with data.

I will add more when this is addressed. 112.200.23.44 (talk) 07:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The MMS website is not a reliable source, so we can't use it for these claims. Can you propose a reliable source? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I knew you'd say that.

In regards to MMS being a bleach, this pdf was cited, from an external website operated by the government. http://www.epa.gov/ogwdw/mdbp/pdf/alter/chapt_4.pdf

It is a detailed study and refutes the bleach argument, as usage for chlorine dioxide as bleach exceeds the amount recommended in MMS. Like all things, it is toxic on high concentrations, but NOT on controlled amounts and applications. MMS itself is prepared differently from industrial chlorine dioxide. For comparison, a PDF on systematic dilutation of the formula is here: http://www.mmsinfo.org/infosheets/cds_how_to_dilute.pdf

According to the MMS dosage: One Standard DOSE is 3 mg of chlorine dioxide in 125 ml (4 fl oz) of water.

This article, http://www.lenntech.com/processes/disinfection/chemical/disinfectants-chlorine-dioxide.htm#ixzz0wGZVWFWL also concurs with the fact chlorine dioxide has benefits. 112.200.23.44 (talk) 14:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi 112.200.23.44, I left you a welcome message on your User Talk page and also a pointer to WP:MEDRS, our sourcing guidelines for biomedical info. If you'd like to make changes that will "stick", you need to help locate sourcing that meets those standards. Generally, commercial product websites or blogs won't be sufficient. Zad68 15:16, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Then you're in luck. Also cited is this article that highlights the actual use of Chlorine Dioxide if it makes its way inside the body. Cited: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1569027/pdf/envhper00463-0059.pdf

This link also details chlorine dioxide usage in foodstuffs: http://law.justia.com/cfr/title21/21-3.0.1.1.4.4.html

112.200.23.44 (talk) 15:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Neither source mentions MMS. They therefore cannot possibly be cited for assertions that MMS is safe. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:39, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

We haven't gone to that part yet. It's not bleach in such amounts. 112.200.23.44 (talk) 15:55, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Original research. Any statements about the safety of MMS must be based on sources which refer directly to MMS. We cannot use other sources to draw conclusions about this matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:04, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, the study you cite is over 30 years old, and as WP:MEDRS makes clear, unlikely to be of any use as a source. The US regulation you cites refers to the use of chlorine dioxide as "an antimicrobial agent in water used in poultry processing" and as "as an antimicrobial agent in water used to wash fruits and vegetables". It says nothing whatsoever about the direct ingestion of chlorine dioxide, and thus cannot be cited as a source on such matters. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:14, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Scratch that then. There should be a more recent one somewhere. One clarification: How about testimonies that starkly contrast the dangers written here? IE. success stories that are not written in the MMS website? I have seen YouTube links of series of videos that demonstrate the success of its usage, and none are connected to the MMS websites, but attribute MMS. Sadly, many writeups that do write about MMS in positive light are in blog formats. 112.200.23.44 (talk) 16:29, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Seriously? I take it you've read WP:MEDRS ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:31, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes. But being new to wikipedia in this manner I can still probably make mistakes here and there. Here's a video involving the red cross with MMS: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrwZN1cPfX8

Firstly, the channel that provides testimony of successful MMS usage: http://www.youtube.com/user/MMStestimonials

A video using MMS on autism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnCiX5blI-Y

And more. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRQgM7EDHO0

Let's see if I can dig up more. 112.200.23.44 (talk) 16:53, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

You are wasting your time. Only sources complying with WP:MEDRS are acceptable - this is not open to negotiation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Yet again, "the plural of anecdote is not data".

You claim "the red cross" for the first of your videos, yet it opens with Jim Humble, who is no spokesman for the Red Cross and this is very far from an independent or objective source. I agree with you on one point though, I do smell BS... Andy Dingley (talk) 16:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The Red Cross denies it.[2] Your nose is not wrong.Novangelis (talk) 17:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Will they approve something that will kill the business of medicine companies? I don't think so. It's hard to get anything that complies to WP:MEDRS with stuff like this, but I don't think it's mission impossible. Hmm... in connection, look at this video, a movement of MMS in Spain gets some mysterious police intervention and accompanied by protest: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWDakTWtjZ0

Explanation: http://g2cforum.org/index.php/list/attacks-on-or-criticism-of-genesis-ii-sacraments-and-responses/25139-the-country-of-spain-attacks-mms-and-andreas-kalcker-11-21-2012#27917

It's a tough hunt-- any professional who puts MMS in good light seems to have higher chances of being antagonized. I think this is why we don't have WP:MEDRS stuff on MMS. 112.200.23.44 (talk) 17:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

And this one, personally I don't know this group, but what the hell: http://www.usobserver.com/archive/aug-12/daniel-mms-govt-theft.htm

112.200.23.44 (talk) 17:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Not WP:MEDRS compliant. 17:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

It's kind of funny though. "An innocuous water purification product known as MMS." That wouldn't be very convincing if the name was spelled out: "An innocuous water purification product known as Miracle Mineral Supplement." Looie496 (talk) 17:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I recommend this section be closed unless the discussion involves reliable sources.Novangelis (talk) 17:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Policy on acceptable sourcing has been made entirely clear. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:35, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

As closing: http://g2cforum.org/index.php/list/attacks-on-or-criticism-of-genesis-ii-sacraments-and-responses/25616-jim-humble-responds-to-gabriela-segura-md-author-mms-or-trojan-horse

The reliable sources you're looking for are being censored, it seems. Oh well, let's close this. 112.200.23.44 (talk) 17:39, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored, but it also does not allow promotion of pseudoscience and conspiracy theories.Novangelis (talk) 17:55, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

MMS by the back door?

I was shocked to see that MMS (sorry, "CD", they vociferously deny the connection with MMS) is now being touted as a cure_(sic) for autism. "CDAutism" seems to be the tagline - Kerri Rivera has a website at cdautism.org and there's also a Facebook presence. As an autistic kid has more sense than to deliberately drink bleach, they're administering this by enema. The phrase "magic water" is favoured amongst its adherents. There's also much discussion of the virtues of "magic water", and the externally visible skin damage it's already causing (with the usual justifications that this is "toxins leaching out through the skin" etc.).

Do we need to start covering this particular piece of unpleasant abusive snake oil too? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Gorski has written about it, and this is RS here, so I think we should. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

They don't seem to "vociferously deny" the connection with MMS—on the contrary, they seem to (frighteningly) embrace it: cdautism.org/mms-master-mineral-solution. (That said, it's possible that there are online forums and proponents who prefer to deny that their MMS is MMS.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Related to "CD autism"?

A book by one Kerri Rivera has caused another batch of this dangerous nonsense, from what I can tell; she has convinced people that giving autistic children enemas with dhlorine dioxide will 'cure' their autism. Which is essentially child abuse. Her book is at www.amazon.com/Healing-Symptoms-Known-as-Autism/dp/0989289001 and there's a facebook group, under the name of "CD Autism" (with over 7000 members, appalling enough), build on that book.

I ask that this be covered here, since it is related (and god helps us if it becomes popular...) 46.239.250.137 (talk) 17:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I've consolidated this comment with the above thread, since they're on the same topic. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Pseudo-accuracy

It isn't more accurate to state that sodium clorite will cause renal failure if ingested in large doses without specifying what large doses are (and, for that matter, what would be a safe dose). Unless you have an ADI (sourced, of course), it's more accurate to say that ingestion can cause renal failure. Everything else would be pseudo-accurate. --Six words (talk) 12:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree with the term 'can' instead of 'will'. Though the article the sentence is inferring specifies that a 10 gram does was 'acute' enough to cause renal failure, which in dictionary terms means 'of short duration but typically severe'. Although the term 'acute' may not necessarily mean 'severe' in the case of describing a medical condition, the context of the article can qualify the dose taken as having been large enough to cause poisoning of the subject's renal system, thereby qualifying it as a 'large' dose in medical terms (while specifically not using the term 'large'). Thus, one must assume that the article in reference is also 'pseudo-accurate'. 119.12.195.24 (talk) 13:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, but I know what acute toxicity is. The source is a case study - you cannot conclude from it that 10 g is the dose necessary for acute poisoning, but you can conclude that it's possible for sodium clorite to cause renal failure. --Six words (talk) 13:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Possible, but not probable. By that line of reasoning it can then be assumed that it is no more possible to burp on a glass of cola than it is to burp on a bottle of soda water. And a single case study that cannot be conclusively proven is hardly what would be considered evidence of toxicity.119.12.195.24 (talk) 14:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Possibility is binary - something either is possible or it isn't. I've never heard someone claim something was "more possible" than something else. --Six words (talk) 14:10, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

You shouldn't change a comment after someone answered to it. That said, you're now arguing for a change that I didn't even contest - I hope you realise that. --Six words (talk) 14:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

My point exactly. It is no more possible to be poisoned by consuming sodium chlorite than it is possible to be poisoned by consuming chlorine dioxide, using that assumption. And I must apologize. I removed part of my previous statement because i felt it may be considered inflammatory and irrelevant to the topic in question. I will pay more attention in future.119.12.195.24 (talk) 14:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

We already have the Health Canada source stating that it is toxic and can cause kidney failure, so what is your point? --Six words (talk) 14:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

My point is, that it is very misleading to claim that ingesting MMS involves the ingestion of sodium chlorite. That claim is simply not true. Health Canada state on their website that "Miracle Mineral Solution is a 28% solution of sodium chlorite. Health Canada advises that sodium chlorite is a chemical used mainly as a textile bleaching agent and disinfectant." and that "using this product as directed may cause serious health problems. Ingestion of water treated with Miracle Mineral Solution (28% sodium chlorite solution) has been associated with two adverse reactions in Canada, including one life threatening reaction." (ref: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/media/advisories-avis/_2010/2010_74-eng.php). In order to ensure factual accuracy we must make it clear that people who ingest MMS according to the MMS protocols are not ingesting 28% sodium chlorite, as the article seemingly suggests.119.12.195.24 (talk) 14:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Adding a concentration that the prepared solution is supposed to have is another pseudo-accuracy: not only does the concentration depend on how much water you use to produce the diluted solution ("Normal dosage" suggests 1/3 to 2/3 to a full glass of water) it also depends on how many drops of the strong solution you put into that water. --Six words (talk) 13:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Extract: "In August 2009, a Mexican woman travelling with her American husband on their yacht in Vanuatu took MMS as a preventative for malaria. Within 15 minutes she was ill, and within twelve hours she was dead."

I somehow doubt that people fall ill from a mosquito bite in 15 minutes. The usual incubation period is 8 to 30 days. Neither of the supporting sources, 16 & 17, still seem to exist.

There's no implication that she died from malaria, but rather from the effects of a chemical poisoning, owing to MMS. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

FYI: I've updated refs 16 and 17 to use the archiveurl field so that the articles referenced can still be viewed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

U.S. trial regarding alleged MMS suppliers

See [3] - a DoJ press release regarding the charging of several individuals with "Internet Sales of Industrial Bleach as Miracle Cure". A primary source, obviously, and as such not sufficient to merit inclusion in the article. I'll see if I can track down secondary sources and/or the result of the trial. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:56, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

New BBC piece

• "'Miracle autism cure' seller exposed by BBC investigation". BBC News online. 11 June 2015.

A self-styled "reverend" [Leon Edwards] who claims autism can be "purged" by swallowing bleach has been exposed by a BBC London undercover investigation.

Andy Dingley (talk) 09:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The Guardian has described MMS as...

If you read the articles the Gaurdian has posted it's all opinions. In fact they quote a 15 year old. MMS is chlorine dioxide. Chlorine Dioxide even in small doses kills fungi, some parasites, bacteria and some viruses. I used to be paid wikipedia supporter but I'm tired of the ignorance of the moderators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.197.107.3 (talk) 01:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Bleaches can certainly kill fungi, bacteria etc. I don't think anyone has ever disputed the fact - it is one of the major uses for such substances. That isn't the issue with MMS. The question is whether there is any scientific evidence that MMS, as used in a manner advocated by its proponents, has any beneficial medical effects. And the answer, clearly and unequivocally, is no. On the other hand, there is strong evidence that MMS as used in the manner proposed by its proponents, can have harmful effects - and in extreme cases bleach can also kill people. This is the scientific evidence (based on more than just the Guardian, though they are merely repeating the scientific consensus), and accordingly, that is what this article will state. Because Wikipedia policy is that when it comes to scientific and medical issues, we report the scientific and medical consensus, rather than repeating the bogus claims of hucksters who set up fake 'religions' to reel in the gullible. If you want a website that tells its readers that drinking industrial bleach is good for them, you will have to look elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2015

My request is to change the name Miracle Mineral Supplement intyo the since long correct name: Master Mineral Solution. Astermedia (talk) 09:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

You would need reliable sources for this change, do you have any? -Roxy the dog™ woof 10:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it's necessary to keep changing the title on this article to keep up with whatever new names the marketers have come up with for their...product. Miracle Mineral Supplement has the distinction of being the original name, and still seems to be the most widely known. Other product names can (and probably should) be created as redirects, where they don't already exist. For example, if you search for or follow a Wikipedia link to Master Mineral Solution, it now brings you straight to this article. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:48, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, if you are involved in the sale or marketing of this product, you should familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for editors who have a Conflict of interest. Particularly important are the relevant sections of Wikipedia's Terms of Use and Wikipedia's policy on disclosure of paid contributions. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• Not done: page move requests should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves.

  I am declining this request as procedure. Edit semi-protected requests should not be used to request moves. If you want to change the title of this page please follow the guidelines at requested moves. However, as mentioned above other editors question the necessity of this move so it may be better to just leave it. --Stabila711 (talk) 19:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Notes on a Pharmaceutical Version of Miracle Mineral Supplement (Chlorine Dioxide / Chlorite)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

You may be interested in what is more-or-less a pharmaceutical version of MMS licensed for use:

The pharmaceutical company Nuvo Research have successfully completed phase II clinical trials on their WF10 product for chronic allergic rhinitis. WF10 is based on chlorite and chlorate: WF10 is a 10% aqueous solution of the drug tetrachlorodecaoxide. 1 gram of tetrachlorodecaoxide contains 42.5 mg of chlorite, and 1 mL of WF10 solution contains 4.25 mg of chlorite. Ref: here

In these trials, Nuvo Research pharmaceuticals gave around 170 mg of chlorite intravenously each day to patients for 5 consecutive days.

(Calculation: 1 mL of WF10 contains 4.25 mg of the chlorite ion, and in these clinical trials, they gave 0.5 mL of WF1O per kg of body weight. For an 80 kg person, this works out to a dose of 80 x 0.5 x 4.25 = 170 mg of chlorite).

Nuvo Research thus think that 170 mg of intravenous chlorine dioxide / chlorite is safe, at least for short term treatment. (Note that when chlorine dioxide dissolves in water it forms chlorite).

WF 10 is already approved for use in Thailand under the brand name Immunokine in patients with post-radiation chronic inflammatory disease. WF10 is currently being studied in the United States, Europe and Asia for treatment of late-stage HIV disease, as well as recurrent prostate cancer, late post-radiation cystitis, autoimmune disease and chronic active hepatitis C disease. Ref: see the Wikipedia article on tetrachlorodecaoxide.

The difference between WF10 and MMS is that the former also contains chlorate as well as chlorite (WF10 also has some chloride and sulphate). Ref: here.

Further info about WF10 on Nuvo Research's website given here and here.

In terms of dose level comparisons, one drop of Miracle Mineral Supplement (MMS) generates around 8 mg of chlorine dioxide. Ref: here. Doses of MMS are of the order of 10 drops orally, so this works out to around 80 mg of chlorine dioxide / chlorite. So this is comparable to the WF10 doses employed for chronic allergic rhinitis.

Anyway, regarding this MMS article: it is somewhat misleading to say, as the article does, that "MMS is not approved for the treatment of any disease". This suggests that chlorite has no medical uses. But in fact the chlorite-based WF10 is indeed approved to treat disease, and if the current research pans out, WF10 may in future be approved for treating chronic allergic rhinitis, late-stage HIV disease, prostate cancer, post-radiation cystitis, autoimmune disease and chronic active hepatitis C.146.199.78.214 (talk) 21:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Who does your analysis of these reports? Vani Hari?

No. Pretty much every statement you have cooked up in the above section is nonsensical crap (that's a technical term, have a chemist explain it to you). Your post is such utter nonsensical crap that it doesn't even deserve a more detailed response, as it would be a waste of typing. You have misunderstood (to be generous) pretty much every bit of research on WFIO here. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

"No" is a very taciturn answer, Andy, do you think you might be able to articulate yourself a little better? Or is your vocabulary limited to only pejorative words? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.199.78.214 (talk) 00:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

"No" certainly seems like a reasonable answer; I have to go with Andy on this one. Tetrachlorodecaoxide is a pretty terribly-sourced article, too, and desperately needs attention and pruning. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Andy's reply was a bit unnecessarily uncivil, but you're comparing apples and oranges. Saying that tetrachlorodecaoxide is equivalent to sodium chlorite just because they both happen to contain chlorite is like saying that table salt (NaCl) is equivalent to chlorine gas (Cl₂) because they both contain chlorine. Kolbasz (talk) 13:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Kolbasz, I appreciate your analogy regarding NaCl and Cl₂. However, in the case of WF10 and MMS, we are not comparing apples and oranges, because both are solutions of exactly the same chlorite ion (ClO₂^-).

Here is an excerpt from the website of the manufacturer of WF10, Nuvo Research pharmaceuticals:

About WF10

WF10 is a solution containing stabilized chlorite ions that focuses on supporting the immune system by targeting the macrophage, a type of white blood cell that coordinates much of the immune system, to regulate normal immune function. WF10 is an infusion therapy currently approved only in Thailand under the name IMMUNOKINE for the treatment of post-radiation-therapy syndromes and adjunctive therapy of diabetic foot ulcers.

The reader should be informed that chlorite is used as a medical treatment. I appreciate that when the general public are willy nilly drinking a powerful oxidant like chlorite, and sellers of MMS are making all sorts of wild and unsubstantiated claims about the curative powers of MMS, it can be tempting for editors here to take a reactionary stance to all this. But that stance should still keep to the truth. Chlorite is approved and used as a medical treatment.

146.199.78.214 (talk) 14:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, on further reading on this subject, there may be a difference between WF10 and MMS, which is as follows. An MMS kit includes a bottle containing sodium chlorite (NaClO₂) in solution, which will be the same chlorite ion as found in WF10. The MMS kit also includes another bottle containing an acid (citric acid or hydrochloric acid) which is used as the "activator". Making MMS involves mixing the solution of sodium chlorite with citric or hydrochloric acid to create chlorine dioxide gas (ClO₂). This gas is highly soluble water, and so remains in solution. Thus the final MMS product that people actually swallow is chlorine dioxide dissolved in water.

So it seems WF10 and MMS are different: WF10 is based on the chlorite ion ClO₂^- whereas MMS is based on the chlorine dioxide molecule ClO₂.

What muddies the waters though is that apparently when chlorine dioxide dissolved in water enters the body, it is then quickly changed to the chlorite ion (this fact comes from a CDC webpage, which says: "Both chlorine dioxide and chlorite act quickly when they enter the body. Chlorine dioxide quickly changes to chlorite ions, which are broken down further into chloride ions"). So although MMS is chlorine dioxide dissolved in water, MMS quickly turns into the chlorite ion in the body. So in the body, MMS in effect quickly turns into WF10.

Chlorine dioxide is apparently a stronger oxidizer than sodium chlorite, though, so in as far as oxidation poses a possible health risk, taking the MMS chlorine dioxide solution could bring health risks that are not found with WF10 (even though, as stated, MMS I think will soon turn into WF10 once in the body).

So this story is a bit more complicated than I first thought. But it would seem that MMS might be considered a prodrug for WF10. 146.199.78.214 (talk) 18:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2015

the Active ingredient in making MMS is Sodium Chlorite and when acidified, it is called acidified sodium chlorite or ASC Dioxide has been approved for use by dentist for removing dental film https://www.dentistselect.net/dentist/oracare/ and has numerous safety studies to support it use. 

In a University of Iowa in-vitro study, OraCare™ killed the bacteria Streptococcus mutans, the most common bacteria causing tooth decay. Kills Germs that cause plaque Breaks down unhealthy Biofilm Eliminates 99% of the VSCs that Cause Bad Breath Safe for the Entire Family (age 8 and up) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aum2U (talk • contribs) 05:26, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done. Need WP:MEDRS for material on treatment efficacy. Alexbrn (talk) 05:57, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2016

Two new names should be added, Maltesian Mineral Solution, and CDS which can be seen here power-cds.com/en/home/8-mms-no1-classic-2x100ml-4260342920015.html 46.17.121.213 (talk) 14:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done You did not propose any reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 14:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean 'I haven't provided reliable independent sources?' This is a selling page of some charlatan, people invent their own names to avoid persecution, you can find MMS under tons of different names, such as CDS, AMS, etc... you can't possibly find any more reliable source on this, by actually looking directly into evidence, and that is selling pages of this poison. If I make up a name for MMS, and sell it under name FRT and post the actual ingredients on the cover, what FRT consitutes of, why would you need someone else to tell you what you can see with your own eyes? It's right there: NaClO2 + HCl activator, and new name is under the logo. It's like asking for someone to confirm you independently, what you can observe with your own eyes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.17.121.213 (talk) 15:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Link (with photo)

Mary Beth Quirk (May 11, 2016). "Another Company Accused Of Peddling Poisonous Bleach Concoction As "Miracle" Cure". Consumerist. Retrieved 27 May 2016.--Auric talk 15:02, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Consumerist is a consumer affairs blog with some editorial staffing, so I'm not sure if the article rates as a reliable source. Even if it isn't, it might lead to a reliable source. BiologicalMe (talk) 16:05, 31 May 2016 (UTC)