It is more effective as a disinfectant than chlorine in most circumstances against water borne pathogenic microbes such as viruses, bacteria and protozoa - including the cysts of Giardia and the oocysts of Cryptosporidium.If one puts that together with the double-blind experiment described in this paper in pdf on the website of the U.S. National Center for Biotechnology Information, one would be very irresponsible indeed to refuse to admit there is a very reasonable possibility that ‘the science’ may someday be discovered which demonstrates that MMS works and how. It says in the abstract:
. . . Phase II considered the impact on normal subjects of daily ingestion of the disinfectants at a concentration of 5 mg/l. for twelve consecutive weeks. . . . The three phases of this controlled double-blind clinical evaluation of chlorine dioxide and its potential metabolites in human male volunteer subjects were completed uneventfully. There were no obvious undesirable clinical sequellae noted by any of the participating subjects or by the observing medical team. In several cases, statistically significant trends in certain biochemical or physiological parameters were associated with treatment; however, none of these trends was judged to have hysiological consequence. One cannot rule out the possibility that, over a longer treatment period, these trends might indeed achieve proportions of clinical importance. However, by the absence of detrimental physiological responses within the limits of the study, the relative safety of oral ingestion of chlorine dioxide and its metabolites, chlorite and chlorate, was demonstrated.I'm not defending MMS here as much as I am insisting on honest publication on your part in your accusations of someone else being dishonest, especially under the banner of our fine institution at the Waikato. I don't know ‘the science’ any more than you do, but I have used MMS, which amounts to my own clinical trial, to my satisfaction. You, however, cannot claim any direct experience, therefore, no matter how informed you are on existing science of ClO2, you must qualify all of your statements as assumption-based, speculative opinion or, better, say nothing.
[I said] The science does exist, and Mr. Humble is knowledgable of it.[and you said] Does Mr Humble have any actual advanced science qualifications? No?You even answered your own question on my behalf, without my permission, with yet another question, as if to say you know something I don't.