Rethinking MMS: A Cell’s-Eye View
I don’t take the things that you’re about to read lightly. I can’t even say that my understanding of this subject is full and complete, but it is changed enough that what I write from now on must reflect that change. It’s a view that makes better sense than the one I had.
I had chemistry in high school, many years ago. Didn’t do too bad. But it’s a distant memory, just like Latin, the only “foreign language” that I elected to take. While I never learned, or even needed to speak it, fluently or otherwise, my grasp of the etymology and meaning of words grew deeper. While there is much that I don’t understand about chemistry, I retained a fundamental comprehension that has served me enough to get to this point; which included an intrinsic appreciation for the authenticity of Jim Humble’s story about MMS, which was supported by the amazing results that he claimed.
This understanding was enough for me to write and publish over 100 articles about it on this blog, starting with “No Miracle, Just Wonderful Chemistry,” which has had over 140,000 direct page views alone. My audio conversations with Jim Humble were listened to by hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people, and my documentary has been distributed on many continents and in several languages.
This effort hasn’t been “for hire” due to being on anyone’s payroll, where I needed to go through a process of someone approving what I had to say. As such, I make every effort to give my best understanding on the subject, realizing that understanding will never be static unless one closes the mind.
Now, after five years and roughly a month of intensive conversation with Grant Maanum (which now happens daily), my view of what MMS is, what you’re looking for when you use it, and how best to do so, has changed enough that this re-statement is warranted.
ClO2: A Molecule with a Light and Dark Side
As it is in all of creation, a full spectrum of potential exists within the molecule known as ClO2. As chlorine dioxide (ClO2), it is highly reactive and unstable and its destructive potential is very high. However, in its ionic form as chlorite (ClO2-), it is chemically stable, and restorative, so much so as to be considered miraculous.
Given that ClO2 is a chemical phenomenon that doesn’t naturally occur in nature, the key to getting the miraculous, versus the destructive results rests in the ingredients used, and how they are prepared. Produce it one way, you’ll get the highly reactive and toxic chlorine dioxide (ClO2), used as a bleaching agent in paper manufacturing. This is produced using sodium chlorate, sulfuric acid, and electrolysis.
Chlorine Dioxide (ClO2)
- Extracellular Free radical
- Avoid at all costs
- Positive charge
In order to recover from chronic and degenerate diseases (yes, I know I used the word “degenerate” instead ofdegenerative – I’ll explain), it is necessary to nurture and restore the cell, which is capable of fighting its own battles when properly equipped.
One thing that cells need dearly on the inside, is the chloride ion (Cl-). Normal cellular “motor function,” where it produces the energy that runs the body, is outlined in the Krebs Cycle (see below). Mixing a particular strength of sodium chlorite (NaClO2) with a particular strength of light acid, releases the O2 from the bond detoxifying the compound. The success that so many people have experienced using the MMS product as first introduced by Jim Humble, means that while there may be discussion on what was actually happening, it was done right and well enough. That means by minimizing or avoiding the generation of chlorine dioxide to get the real prize, i.e., chlorite ions.
Chlorite Ion (ClO2-)
- Essential Element
- Negative Ion
The Chlorite Ion (ClO2-) is what I will be referring to from now on when it comes to use of the product that has come to be known as “MMS,” or the “Miracle Mineral Supplement.”
A Big Industry for Chlorine Dioxide
A very large chlorine dioxide industry existed prior to my meeting Jim Humble or learning about MMS. Instead of small bottles with which to dispense miniscule amounts of the molecule in question, railroad cars like the one pictured below are typically used within the chlorine dioxide industry.
The largest application for chlorine dioxide is as a bleaching agent in the pulp and paper industry. Needless to say, a lot of it is used. If you’ve ever used white paper, you’ve supported the demand for, and use of toxic chlorine dioxide. Chemtrade, a company, based in Prince George, British Columbia, manufactures and ships sodium chlorate (NaClO3), the fundamental component for making chlorine dioxide, in 100 metric ton quantities, via rail cars like the one pictured above.
This is the chlorine dioxide that the FDA’s Safety Alert (07/30/2010) and Consumer Update (10/01/2010) against MMS referred to in its characterization as a “potent bleach.” However, this has never been the product that was produced when MMS was (or is) properly prepared and taken as directed.
The chlorine dioxide (ClO2) generated for use in the pulp and paper industry is derived from a recipe that requires adding sodium chlorate (NaClO3) and sulfuric acid (H2SO4) together, plus an electric current (electrolysis).
According to Wikipedia, 95% of the ClO2 produced in the world is made using sodium chlorate. A large percentage of the remaining five percent, involves bleaching of flour, disinfection of meat and produce, and water treatment. ClO2- is such a different thing chemically from ClO2 that it is called by another name, i.e., “chlorite,” “ionic chlorite,” or “the chlorite ion.” All of these terms refer to the molecule that is ClO2-.
It’s easy to dismiss the significance of that little “minus” sign when you don’t know the chemistry deeply enough and you see, by the results that you trust and the research that you’ve done, that claims of efficacy appear to be true. I found Jim Humble’s presentation of the chemistry credible, I also did my own research, which appeared to support and corroborate his claims, which was supported by the beneficial results that people were experiencing.
If I even noticed the minus sign, I surely ignored any meaning or role it may have played. Jim never mentioned it. Dr. Humiston didn’t mention it. Chlorine dioxide was presented as a milder oxidizer than ozone (O3) and hydrogen peroxide (H2O2). There didn’t appear to be anything else to think about. They didn’t mention the chlorite ion as being relevant, so I accepted their picture as the complete one.
When the critics arrived, full of righteous indignation and ridicule, I considered their arguments specious, figuring that MMS was working and harmless due to the very small concentrations of chlorine dioxide (ClO2) that were being generated compared to the amounts that are routinely produced for industrial applications. So I continued to explain and “defend” the idea of generating chlorine dioxide. I can’t say that any more.
Today I heartily recommend using MMS1 as much as ever, if not more so. I would recommend preparing it as it was originally conceived. However, the objective would be to detoxify the chlorine dioxide that presents itself for an instant, when prepared as directed, and using what remains, which is referred to as the chlorite matrix.
No “Froot” this Guy from Kamloops
It may be hard to take anyone who calls himself “frootloopsian” seriously at first glance, but you do so at your own peril with Grant. He knows chemistry, very deeply.
Of his own accord, he began addressing MMS attackers in the comments thread of one of my YouTube videos. He has saved his two dogs with MMS, as well as himself, oddly enough, after being exposed to chlorine dioxide poisoning.
I don’t always remember to monitor all the comment threads to the material that I have put out, so with gratitude and excitement I watched and read numerous comments and clarifications that he wrote, back and forth, over a period of months.
It was he who tracked down the WF10 information. He tracked down the “Sarin et al,” and the “Cornford, Frost, Herring, McDowell” research into the chlorite matrix. It was he who understood the efficacy of this work, chemically and metabolically, as well as how the chlorite matrix differs from chlorine dioxide.
Grant also understood what was not being said in many of the available documents. For example, the 190-page Toxicological Profile of Chlorine Dioxide and Chlorite (2004) published by the CDC makes no clear distinction in hazard potential between chlorine dioxide and the chlorite ion. It lists the chlorite ion as one of the “disinfection byproducts” of chlorine dioxide. Without saying anything about its toxicity. Fact is that chlorite is vital to health, especially its restoration.
- 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.
It was Grant who began taking me deeper down the rabbit hole of cellular biochemistry, patiently introducing me to the subject of membrane potential, and the dance that occurs as chlorite ions are taken into the cell, and potassium ions are pumped out through ion channels. These ions can only be produced by combining a specific strength of sodium chlorite with one (or more) of five specific acids.
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:
- he wide medical interest in, and potential of, a product that has many similarities to MMS.
- that the claims made by people who have used MMS track with the results achieved by medical researchers.
- long-term experience with the product.
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.
DCA Similarities to MMS
The Cornford tests with DCA were done using a 28% solution of pure sodium chlorite (NaClO2), activated with a 10% solution of acetic acid. Acetic acid is one of the five known mild acids proven to detoxify chlorine dioxide (ClO2).
The sodium chlorite used to produce MMS is generally 80%. While pure is best, the 80% purity is not deemed to be a problem with MMS as long as there is no sodium chlorate (NaClO3) in the remaining 19%.
The potential problem is that some sources of 80% sodium chlorite have been found to contain small amounts of sodium chlorate. No amount is acceptable.
Trace amounts of sodium chlorate could cause adverse reactions, such as nausea, diarrhea, and vomiting. It couldbe the body’s reaction to chlorine dioxide (ClO2) exposure.
This is not to say that some people wouldn’t experience some of the more extreme forms of detox reactions even if they had no chlorine dioxide exposure. The objective is to make sure they have no chance of such exposure through preventable and unwanted inadvertent reactions.
These potential facts made the FDA warning credible, even if it was disingenuous.
They don’t want people to use MMS for reasons other than any potential health danger, but I acknowledge the potential dangers that could occur if a different species of chlorine dioxide is produced due to the presence of sodium chlorate in the source material.
Evidence of this lies in the fact that when MMS is activated as recommended, chlorine dioxide ClO2, is detoxified by the acid. Chlorite matrix, (ClO2-) breaks down to salt (NaCl-), which has the proper “electrical credentials” to enter the cell.
WF10 is another analog to MMS
A bit more complicated, but no less important, is WF10, a product originally developed by the pharmaceutical firm Oxo Chemie, and is now owned by Nuvo Research, of Mississauga, ON. A patent was awarded to Dr. W.F. Kuehne for the formulation, which uses not one, but five 10% strength acids with the same 28% solution of sodium chlorite. Must be a reason, eh?
Researchers reported cellular repair in post radiation and chemotherapy treatments after WF10 treatments.
- Oxo Chemie has completed a controlled randomized, crossover study in France in 1991 that examined the effects of 103 patients with acute radiation dermatitis and radiation- or chemotherapy-induced mucositis.
- Results demonstrated that WF 10 significantly improved lesions and accelerated recovery without side effects. – Drugs R.D. 2004
The five acids used in WF10 are:
Lenntech, a Dutch company that provides water treatment and disinfection solutions, has extensive information about chlorine dioxide, including its characteristics and uses, on their website. The closest application to MMS would be under the term, “stabilized chlorine dioxide.” However, they are mum with regard to how it is applied.
Where Lenntech does give specifics for generating chlorine dioxide ClO2, they speak of using sulfuric acid, for which the term “activator” is likely appropriate. I am now beginning to see that both the compound and the acid used, are critical. The chart below shows seven “species” of chlorine, along with their chemical formulas. Only one of them can get inside the cell.
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.