Introduction means just that; the beginning of my appreciation for the role and importance of the chlorite ion (ClO2-) in the cell’s ability to produce energy. When properly activated, MMS delivers massive amounts of chlorite ions that are vital to the inner workings of healthy cells, and their ability to self-repair and restore vitality. The proof of that restoration would be a return of energy (increased ATP production), and organ functionality.

…

Consider, on the other side of the equation, how standard medical practices such as chemotherapy and radiation in cancer treatment, decimate, if not obliterate the cell, and the disease gets blamed for it. Since we don’t acknowledge the damage that the treatment does, even after it kills (and the medical system robs) the patient, the practice continues unchanged. So who is to blame for that when we’re under no obligation to take the drugs?

Before this introduction to the inner state and workings of the cell, I paid no attention to its place in this matter. None of the reference material that I consulted mentioned it either, because it was not in the context of the application. Documents written about municipal disinfection were not going to be concerned about Krebs Cycle in a single individual.

I assumed that the health improvements that people reported were due to the net effects of viral and bacterial depopulation, as a state of balance within the ecosystem was being restored. But it appears that unless a cell is self-sufficient and able to produce energy, success isn’t assured. There wasn’t much “legitimate” scientific information available that we could call upon. But maybe we didn’t know where to look.

Grant may or may not have known either, but he didn’t stop looking until he found something that either scientifically confirmed or refuted the MMS claims. That was the work of Cornford, Frost, Herring, and McDowell (1971) of the University of British Columbia. Could it be mere coincidence that MMS formulation and dosing methods closely matched that of a long-forgotten analog, known as Dichloroacetate, or “DCA”, which was first synthesized in 1936? (See additional article.)

A large number of children and adults have been exposed to DCA over the past 40 years, including healthy volunteers and subjects with diverse disease states. Since its first description in 1969 (Stacpoole, 1969), DCA has been studied to alleviate the symptoms or the haemodynamic consequences of the lactic acidosis complicating severe malaria, sepsis, congestive heart failure, burns, cirrhosis, liver transplantation and congenital mitochondrial diseases.

Here’s another, published in the British Journal of Cancer (2010).

These articles are valuable in the following ways, showing:

According to Grant, the Cornford work was conducted due to knowledge that ClO2 was a carcinogen and mutagen that was classed as pervasive due to its 300,000 year longevity. They therefore looked only at the chemistry that could produce ClO2, with the intention to conclusively confirm the presence or absence of ClO2.

Here’s one site that suggests DCA is worse than MMS!

The importance of the Cornford work lies in its confirmation of the chlorite matrix (ClO2-) as the salient element in cell restoration. It delivers chloride ions (Cl-) into cells, restoring their viability and vitality, which is experienced as added energy and accelerated healing.

The Cornford work confirmed, through emission spectroscopy, that the chemical emissions of chlorine dioxide species (ClO2), were not present after detoxification when the sodium chlorite was combined with acetic acid.

In a General Paper titled, Detoxification of chlorine dioxide (ClO2) by ascorbic acid in aqueous solutions: ESR studies, Ozawa and Kwan, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Teikyo University, independently confirmed the Cornford findings. Their paper, published in Volume 21, Issue 2 (Feb. 1987) of Water Research, concluded:

• Chlorine dioxide (ClO2) which was easily prepared from dissolving sodium chlorite (NaClO2) in acidic aqueous solutions can oxidize l-ascorbic acid (AsA) to give the short-lived intermediate, ascorbic acid free radical (AFR). 
  
• The detection of the ascorbate radical was made by using the electron spin resonance (ESR) spectroscopy coupled with a rapid-mixing flow technique which enabled us to detect radicals having a life-time of 5–100 ms at room temperature. 
  
• This result indicates that the ascorbic acid becomes a suitable reagent for detoxification of the ClO2, which is remaining in drinking water, in the living body.

What does this all mean?

In order for MMS to be used effectively by people who have become aware enough of it to seek it out, they need to understand it sufficiently in order to assure that they get the best potential results possible.

The results obtained thus far with MMS have been great. Yet, evidence is that it can be better. However, MMS1 in its original form is the only method that is supported by legacy science that predates, by several decades, its introduction. The Cornford et. al. findings, which confirmed the harmlessness of DCA because NO chlorine dioxide species was present, have never been challenged or refuted.

Given the numerous conversations that I’ve had with Grant, most of which involve my simple willingness to listen and ask questions, to which I was shown answers, I now see areas of potential deviation from the original purpose and goal behind preparing and using the chlorite matrix.

Given that I have played a role in providing information to help people make their decision to use MMS, it is my responsibility to update my understanding if or when it comes. Now is such a time.

Whether the MMS community chooses to adopt any of the new guidelines that Grant or I will be proposing or not, is up to each. However, as we continue to rollout information on the HeLa cell, the importance of proper preparation of MMS (and DMSO) for effective elimination of HeLa cells will grow.

So are my suggestions on how to best prepare, purchase, and use the product known today as “MMS1.”

The product is best made with pure sodium chlorite. To my knowledge, that is never the case. If it is made with 80% grade sodium chlorite (NaClO2), then the product should contain no sodium chlorate (NaClO3) whatsoever amongst its residual byproducts (which sometimes include NaCl and other salts).
If you’re an MMS manufacturer or user, be aware that many distilled water producers add ozone (O3) during the production process. Please avoid using any water that contains ozone. If any bromide (Br) is chemically present in the body, potassium bromate (KBrO3) can be produced.
The purpose of adding citric acid is as a reagent to detoxify, and thereby eliminate chlorine dioxide (ClO2), leaving the chlorite matrix (ClO2-) that can be taken in to repair and restore the cells. This is a process of detoxifying chlorine dioxide, not activating it. Do not inhale the product as it is being detoxified. Done correctly, the FDA’s warnings, and the critics’ claims of snake oil, become especially specious, because chlorine dioxide (ClO2) production is no longer the goal.
Continue to use the guidelines for MMS1 use developed by Jim Humble (www.jimhumble.biz). No one has devoted more time and energy to inform and help people heal, as well as encourage and empower them take an active role in their own healing journey, or to help others. My interest here is to suggest a more precise and reliable way to get the results that the chlorite matrix can deliver, and reduce any adverse reactions.

Let me repeat here. From what we’ve been able to confirm through verified, independent clinical research (i.e., Cornford, et. al, Sarin, et. al, and Oxo Chemie, et. al.), the chlorite matrix (ClO2-), not chlorine dioxide (ClO2), is the actual item that chemically breaks down to a form that can be delivered to, and used by the cells to self-repair and restore Krebs Cycle function.

This is not a separation from, or rejection of what Jim Humble introduced to the world. The intention is to ensure that the actual results that he intended, actually be realized, and to expand the benefit.

The critics of MMS weren’t totally misinformed. Some of them understood the dangers of chlorine dioxide (ClO2). Yet, most contented themselves with ignoring and/or dismissing the beneficial results that people reported, or turned their judgments toward Jim Humble.

I realize that some factions actually don’t want people who heal. Anyone who takes an objective look at standard medical practices these days can see that drugs are designed and approved to mitigate symptoms only, even while vaccines, thanks to the HeLa-laced cocktails that they push on us from cradle to grave, represent the seeds of future diseases that will become one’s medical cross to bear.

When you see how pervasive and coordinated these actions against humanity are – medicine, GMO’s, chemicals in products, toxic water and atmosphere, electromagnetic field toxicity, and government enforcement policies – it comes as no surprise to see modest changes instigated within MMS that could undermine its effectiveness, whether from outside, or from within.

I have put considerable thought into this communication, as it appears to deviate from established norms. However, the deviation, albeit well-intended, from the one formula that could help support MMS (via its own analogs) on a scientific foundation, started long ago. I felt it important to call attention to the needs and power of something that has been overlooked this entire time; the trillions upon trillions of very powerful cells. That is, if we give them what they need.

Allikas: http://phaelosopher.com/2012/10/01/rethinking-mms-a-cells-eye-view/