The world's scientific and social network for malaria professionals
Subscribe to free Newsletter | 11068 malaria professionals are enjoying the free benefits of MalariaWorld today

Any of your friends asked you about this?

May 10, 2013 - 12:24 -- Ricardo Ataide

I was wondering if any of your friends has sent you this link and asked you why we don't want the MMS miracle to be spread around... I'm still confused, not knowing if I should laugh or cry. But I'm inclined to cry...



Bart G.J. Knols's picture
Submitted by Bart G.J. Knols on

This video has unleashed a massive discussion online under it (see What is remarkable though is the comment that came from the Uganda Red Cross, from the Assistant Director Communications (Catherine Ntabadde Makumbi) who stated: "We are aware about this but we have written to disassociate ourselves from the study results and claims of a clinical trial being done with us! We shall follow up and see if the YouTube can be removed".

Over the years, I have received emails about Jim Humble from time to time, about the MMS as a cure for malaria. All he and his followers do is to condemn the big pharma industry for not accepting that MMS works but there are no data from any trials to support their claims. A search with 'miracle mineral supplement' reveals nothing in PubMed.

Bogus science or a wonder drug 'discovered' by a person nobody wants to believe?

Submitted by Michael Bretscher on

Over the years I have also had many encounters with MMS (the active chemical is supposed to be ClO2, is activated with acid, which is then supposed to release Cl02) - I have a friend and relative (not a scientist) who pationately advocates it. I've also diagonally read "Jim Humble"'s book, and was pointed a number of websites with stuff written by and about Humble - forgive me if I can't remember where exactly. After initally only writing about his MMS wonder drug, Humble went on to found the "Genesis II" church a few years ago, which makes it now totally obvious that we're dealing with some sort of sect. In his book Humble makes many ridiculous claims of curing everything, including HIV. The only interesting thing I read about MMS is that during Humble's self-experiments for dosage finding, he managed to produce an anaphylactic shock when overdosing and needed to be hospitalised. I somehow can't help believing that Humble himself believes in MMS, but maybe those sect-leaders who believe in their own things are most successful.. From personal communication I know that MMS has been tested in a drug-discovery lab, probably in an in-vitro assay, and it didn't have any effect at all on malaria. Technically, somebody who desperately wants to believe might still argue that MMS has only an effect in vivo. Perhaps with Cl02 as some citokine-like immune stimulant.. Is it not true that our way of finding drugs - from in-vitro assays to in vivo tests - would systematically miss drugs that are only effective in vivo? Perhaps the reason for this way of proceeding in drug discovery is that there are no such drugs known to man - I don't know enough about drug discovery.
It is clear that the prospects for a positive finding when e.g. testing MMS in mice are minimal, as well as the career benefit for a scientist who would take on the burden and write a short paper about the negative results and publish it in a peer-reviewed journal. But it would be the ammunition that is needed in the battle of science against desinformation, which maybe become more and more important in this age where everybody can easily produce his own video messages and distribute them via the internet..

The fact that sick people who expected treatment were used as guinea-pigs is disgusting, and should have legal consequences for those who conducted them. Treating non-febrile malaria-positive individuals with a substance that's allowed for human consumption (I guess the ingredients of MMS are used for water desinfection etc) may be a different story - still not beyond doubt - but the people in the video might have been acutely ill and are at risk of serious complications if denied the proper medication.

Submitted by Ricardo Ataide on

That is a good point Michael. Is MMS that important that we should spend time and money disproving it? I think that people like Ben Goldacre that spend their careers trying to disprove charlatans like these would certainly agree that yes, we should do it. I think that if this so called trial was ever conducted (there is no proof that it ever was and anyone can edit a video that makes it look like it was) then yes, it is important enough for us to discredit it. If it wasn't done, then maybe it is better to leave it alone and not give it too much publicity. In the end people believe in very weird things without any fact or evidence to support it and even against all the evidence to discredit it... so...

Ricardo Ataíde

Submitted by Kaye Char (not verified) on

I've been trying to research activated chlorine dioxide (MMS), which is how I found this website. Based upon a close friend's personal experience with MMS, I do believe it works on rashes and at least some parasites. I just saw new video which leads me to believe activated chlorine dioxide does work on malaria.

LEAKED: Proof the Red Cross Cured 154 Malaria Cases with MMS.

But if MMS does work, then why is everyone denying it? Brief observations:

⁃ What company is KPGCV? I've not found anything on it and have asked for an explanation and link to KPGCV website. Klass Proesmans is a Shareholder, and Red Cross is Big Business

⁃ Can doctors always be trusted? ie, Vaccines are not that safe, chemotherapy may be higher risk than activated chlorine dioxide

⁃ Can FDA always be trusted? ie FDA allows GMO and other products banned in many other countries

Death by Medicine - interesting paper

⁃ But I wonder: Are they still using MMS in Uganda? Fantastic if anyone has contacts there. I would bet (a) MMS is still being used, (b) no one has died, and (c) those that used MMS are healthier after having taken it?

⁃ Other organizations use MMS -

With the volume of anecdotal testimonies on blogs and forums, activated chlorine dioxide is hard to ignore completely. Especially now chlorine dioxide is the "new" mouthwash --

And for root canals

Because MMS does not seem to have the scientific evidence backing the results it achieves, especially with existing notoriety, then yes, it might seem risky for the Red Cross to claim MMS works.

Basic Science of MMS

If this group has the knowledge and capacity to scientifically progress research to disprove or support activated chlorine dioxide (MMS), or identify existing research, it might be the missing link groups like the Red Cross needs.

And the million-dollar question for Malariaworld? Is there someone willing to prove activated chlorine dioxide (MMS) resolves malaria, knowing they'd probably not have a job when they've succeeded?

Submitted by Kaye Char (not verified) on

My apologies, I didn't format links properly so will try again:

This is a completely different video featuring Klass Proesmans, CEO of the Water Reference Centre and activated chlorine dioxide
LEAKED: Proof the Red Cross Cured 154 Malaria Cases with MMS

Global Resource Alliance seems to be recommending activated chlorine dioxide
Global Resource Alliance includes MMS for Malaria Control

An interesting paper
Death by medicine

chlorine dioxide is the "new" mouthwash --
Effects of a mouthwash with chlorine dioxide on oral malodor and salivary bacteria: a randomized placebo-controlled 7-day trial

And for root canals
Effectiveness of a high purity chlorine dioxide solution in eliminating intracanal Enterococcus faecalis biofilm

Submitted by Jim Namaste (not verified) on

As you indicate, the MMS matter is surrounded by a large amount of disinformation, which in itself signifies something important.
From a deconstructionist perspective, your post is in fact quite interesting as it includes a large variety of claims operating at many levels and in several contexts. There are a number of implications that can easily lead an untrained or careless reader astray.
Among the thousands of possible interpretations that your text presents, there is one item that jumped out for me.
You say that you know of a test of MMS in a "drug discovery lab" and "and it didn't have any effect at all on malaria." Can you please help point me to that piece of information.
OTH, are you aware that reportedly there are at least two drug companies that are using some form of ClO2, one in an FDA-approved trial?
If I can find the time, I intend to use your post as example in a video, lol.
For one, you ask a great question that ought to have been answered many years ago, in its basic sense, even if the phrasing of the question incorporates a bias all by itself.
The basic fact, from what I can tell so far, based on only a few hundred hours of research, is that there is practically no science and very little non-Aristotelian logic surrounding the MMS controversy.

Submitted by juan (not verified) on

To the sick in Africa do not care who discovered this and the discussions of this forum, which were cured care only that they are healthy