Talk:Miracle Mineral Supplement/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

This article is heavily biased.

As an unregistered user, inexperienced with Wikipedia editing and finding sources, I will not resort to changing anything on this page as it would obviously be considered trolling. Having that in mind, this needed to be said. Wikipedia always tends to be as objective as possible. Citing pumped up articles from The Guardian and calling chlorine dioxide a bleach, while anyone knowledgeable enough about this subject knows that no household bleach contains it, is unacceptable for an online encyclopaedia of such high reputation for finding quality unbiased sources. Even articles about media's most demonized psychoactive drugs, such as methamphetamine, offer a much more balanced and in-depth insight to the matter. I know this is of little value to the contents of this article, but I have been using this "bleach" for a year now, using it responsible and slowly increasing the dose. My hormonal problems retracted, I stopped taking replacement therapy, no longer have anxiety and depression and literally see more clearly with my eyes. While there is no doubt that this substance can be dangerous if not used properly, it's toxic effects are extremely exaggerated. Using Jim Humble's stupid public appearance to justify calling something a poison, even though it is FDA approved in certain quantities, is beyond any logic. How come chemotherapy, which kills way more people, is not described as merely "poison" in a Wikipedia article? Doctors kill millions of patients a year legally with their poisonous therapies and any proof of their efficacy comes from funded research. Because this compound is so easily obtained and impossible to license, no one is going to fund any substantial research to back up the evidence of thousands of people who found chlorine dioxide beneficial. I realise that even a quick Google search for MMS will reveal only the most heavily biased, attention-provoking propaganda, but it is the duty of this community to offer an in-depth perspective of the matter, which this article ultimately fails at. If there are so many testimonials of people who's intestines are still intact after using and who had some health improvements, it is highly irresponsible to disregard it. I am not advocating any marketing behind this, or calling this a completely unharmful miracle supplement. Someone with more Wikipedia editing experience and proper agenda could most certainly improve this article. Kind regards. TemporaryEditor/(talk)/(contribs) 14:50, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, the "proper agenda" is to make articles reflect the scientific consensus on a subject, using what reliable sources have published on the subject. In this case, that consensus is 100% that MMS is a dangerous product with no medical merit, no matter what a few lunatic charlatans believe. Kolbasz (talk) 14:09, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Using the word lunatic charlatan took any credibility from your statements. Someone disagreeing with you is not automatically crazy. Feel free to give me the science talk, but I, as well as many other people, will stick to what works for us. Consensus is invalid if it is based on biased funded research and article is worthless if it is based mostly on few overblown articles about people dying, that give little to no detail on the matter in question. Consensus should be respected, but differing scientific opinions which are also present in number of sources are completely ignored here, and that's where the problem is. Resorting to such politics makes Wikipedia no better than yellow pages. — TemporaryEditor/(talk) 13:17, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

First off, your facts are wrong. You don't seem to understand that there are many different kinds of bleaches, and when you mention "household bleach", you are referring to sodium hypochlorite. Other bleaches include calcium hypochlorite, sodium percarbonate, hydrogen peroxide and (drumroll please) chlorine dioxide. Basically, a bleach is any chemical which removes color and whitens certain materials when applied. There are many more bleaches than what I listed here.

Second, your personal experience is not a citable source for Wikipedia. Anyone could come here and claim anything they want. I could write an eloquent and logically irrefutable account of how this stuff killed my entire family. So if we're going to use your unverifiable experience to write how wonderful this stuff is, we're going to balance that with my horrible experience of losing my entire family to this stuff.

Third, the article reflects the best available sources for this subject. If you object to it being called dangerous or poisonous, then you're objecting to the FDA doing its job.

Fourth, if you're objecting to the article's statement that the drug is falsely marketed as a cure for (insert incurable disease here), then you're shit out of luck: It is. And it doesn't cure jack-all, unless you consider not-being-poisoned a disease.

Fifth, your long winded post consisted mostly of empty rhetoric and claims you seem to have just made up. To be fair, you spiced it up with a few demands that we prove you right. The fact that you think it's okay to sit here and lecture us about how we failed to reinforce your ignorant beliefs doesn't actually impart any authority to your claims.

Finally: This is Wikipedia, home of the pendantic neckbeard. You can't win us over without overwhelming us with highbrow logic, well-researched citations to irrefutable sources, dozens of words we need to look up so we can pretend we knew what they meant all along and numerous geek references. Hell, you didn't even use a single pentasyllabic word in your entire post! And despite intensive efforts, I couldn't find even one reference to Dungeons and Dragons, Monty Python, the Princess Bride, the IT crowd or Buffy the Vampire Slayer anywhere in your diatribe. How do you expect to convince a pack of nerds like us when you can't even speak our language? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:18, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll ignore the fact that with all your "scientific facts", you still resorted to insults. I clearly stated that I understand my testimony cannot be considered a reliable source. I once worked on Wikipedia articles, just not in this field, so I understand what a reliable source is. What you don't seem to understand is what biased means. Yes, I got the bleach part wrong, as I might have gotten many chemical references, as I am only a chemical enthusiast and do not have any degree in it. I haven't stated enough arguments to actually edit the article, which is why I didn't. You can quote proper agenda all you want. There is no consensus when it comes to these things, only propaganda. There are sources which give a completely different insight on MMS, and they are ignored here. And you mention FDA as a holy grail of truth, which is ridiculous, considering how many people die from FDA-approved poisons. What you say in the latter "well-researched citations to irrefutable sources, dozens of words we need to look up so we can pretend we knew what they meant all along", proves that you all go with the mainstream representation of the truth, rather than seeking the truth itself. Not at any moment any of you considered there might be something to MMS which is why dozens of people keep using it, despite first words Google spits out from it are "death", "poison", "fraud", etc. If you try googling beyond first page results for "mms toxic", you might find that it has nothing to do with "reinforcing my ignorant beliefs", as there are many testimonies of successful treatments with it, not just mine. Call me a paid promoter of Jim Humble's ideas if that will make things easier for you, but there is no way anyone who had positive experience with MMS would consider this article reasonable. Don't waste your time answering, because I know I cannot "win", as you have stated, which wasn't my idea in the first place. I cannot do it alone, but I will gather more knowledgeable people on the subject, and I will return with sources. Then we'll have a real discussion, because this article is a disgrace. I'm used to Wikipedia being a place full of egotistical geeks who like to link WP rule pages to anyone with an idea who didn't read every single rule there is, but this is a matter of moral as well. If MMS has potential, this article is harmful in many ways, and I don't need any more geeky replies. — TemporaryEditor/(talk) 13:17, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

No suggestions for improving the article then? Why write this diatribe if you understand what a reliable source is? Stop wasting your time. And mine. -Roxy the dog™ woof 12:35, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Not yet. I naively relied on potential someone who feels obligated to the truth, and not only to the rules and hegemony of mainstream bias. Balance is they key, and this article has none. Since no one here seems to have unbiased views, and everyone seems to blow their expertise out of proportions, I definitely do not intend to "waste your time" any more. Since all of you attack me based solely on my lack of particular source-based ideas and expertise (which I at least clearly admitted), I will return once I have means to explain these matters in a language you understand. Why write this? If you read everything I wrote, you wouldn't ask that question. I know this is no forum, but if MMS can be helpful, this article endangers possibility for people to use it properly, since it is pretty much in the top Google searches for MMS, despite it's enormous lack of good sources for diverse theories and highly subjective writing. Not enough studies have been done to conclude what is written in this article, because they are not in the interest of FDA, or any other profit organisation that is behind all this demonization. Wikipedia is a non-profit organization, and whatever rule you throw me here, it won't change the fact that this article, as it is currently written, stands opposed to it's very idea. Idea of MMS has been brought down by a 15-year old child on a video blog. A bunch of people using it wrong ended up dead, and now there come the news stories, a few highly inconclusive studies are done, and there comes this article. Similar thing happened with GHB, which was classified as a "date-rape drug" by the media, based on little evidence, also called a research chemical, even though it's a naturally occurring neurotransmitter with numerous clinical applications. I believe at that time the Wikipedia article for GHB looked pretty much like this. Take a look at it today. It doesn't downplay it's abuse potential, dangers and in no way promotes it's illicit use. It deals with controversy in a way Wikipedia article should. MMS is controversial, there is no doubt in that. Controversial topics on Wikipedia are approached in a manner to show every fact, hypothesis and conclusion in the most objective way, without making unnecessary claims. This is not about wasting time, and I have right to express myself here even without directly influencing the article. At least someone can have a chance to read this discussion as well, and not only the article. This is an ethical question, and the only personal agenda I have here is that I'm tired of explaining people who are worried about me taking MMS what it really is, because they probably read this stupid article, being to lazy to do any further research. Thank you all for understanding. I've paired my efforts with an experienced chemist and microbiologist to try and shed a different light on this situation. Hopefully we will soon resume this discussion in a more constructive manner. — TemporaryEditor/(talk) 15:48, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

This isn't a forum for an identity-forging (stop using a user name that is not yours), IP-hopping user to rant. Wikipedia is reality-based. There is no science to support chugalugging industrial bleach, and, in fact, science, law, and common sense indicate that no one should do it. This article reflects that reality. Since you are not here to build a reality-based encyclopedia, you should not be wasting space on this page which is for article improvement. BiologicalMe (talk) 15:08, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

A bit heavy on the words. I apologise if there is anyone named Helios on Wikipedia. No forging was done, I simply took a temporary name which links to my IP address, and not to an imaginary username page. Other than that, I see we are pretty much going in circles here. We were on consensus, sources, now I'm hearing about reality. I see you are another one that gets ego-boosts when linking Wikipedia guidelines pages to others. I have a few guidelines for you. Reality in your words has no firm meaning. Reality changes with new facts. There is science to support it, just not enough studies, and you calling it bleach again won't make your point any more solid. Funny that you mentioned common sense, now I have link for you. Calling something bad because it is bleach is not common sense, but trying to improve an article that is biased based on too little research is. I am not here perhaps, but I will be when I will have time. And maybe when I make an account and memorize all your precious rules, which many forget are actually guidelines, maybe you'll start behaving more respectfully. — TemporaryEditor/(talk) 16:23, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Encouraging people to drink bleach is very probably against wikipedia guidelines. I doubt you will change that. Please stop wasting our time. Thanks. -Roxy the dog™ woof 15:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

You people have to have your last line, don't you? I write a lot, so it's obvious you don't read half of it, since your responses go around in circle with no arguments whatsoever and no response to half of my claims. I keep reading "bleach", "wasting time", "guidelines". Am I talking to robots? Here, I'm done. You, or anyone envolved in this conversation can copy-paste the last sentence after I write this and we are done. I will return with evidence, and then I cannot wait to see how your responses are going to look like when asking for sources, citing guidelines and inconclusive studies become redundant, if there will be any. — TemporaryEditor/(talk) 17:47, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Great. I look forward to discussing your reliable sources, and the improvements to the article we can make based on them. Thanks. -Roxy the dog™ woof 15:53, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll ignore the fact that with all your "scientific facts", you still resorted to insults. No, I never said anything insulting (except about wikipedians in general; which included myself, was done tongue-in-cheek and is arguably not insulting at all).

Yes, I got the bleach part wrong, as I might have gotten many chemical references, as I am only a chemical enthusiast and do not have any degree in it. Funny; I'm neither, yet I apparently knew more about the subject than you. I admit I looked up "bleach" right here on WP to get some of the chemicals for the list, but I knew off the top of my head that there is more than one kind of bleach. You didn't, and you didn't bother to look anything up before posting. That doesn't establish much credibility on your part. What little credibility you had after that post was eroded further by you claiming the be a "chemical enthusiast". I'm not sure what kind of "chemical enthusiast" knows less about chemicals than a random wikipedian, nor am I sure what sort of "enthusiast" of any sort might start making claims without bothering to do even the most trivial of fact-checking first.

There is no consensus when it comes to these things, only propaganda. That's completely untrue.

You people have to have your last line, don't you? I write a lot, so it's obvious you don't read half of it, since your responses go around in circle with no arguments whatsoever and no response to half of my claims. You see this, right here, is the sort of posting that will get you blocked from editing. Not because of what it says per-se, but because it's in the context of you using this talk page as a forum for complaining about the fact that some snake oil you believe in doesn't live up to it's creator's claims when subjected to even the most minor scrutiny. If you do not have specific edits to suggest with reliable sources to back them up, then you are not welcome here. Since you have been told several times now that your comments are not adhering to the rules governing the use of this page, continued postings to this page will result in your comments being removed, and admin intervention requested to stop you from further disruption here. I hope this helps! MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:07, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Quoting Kolbasz (talk) : "On Wikipedia, the "proper agenda" is to make articles reflect the scientific consensus on a subject, using what reliable sources have published on the subject. In this case, that consensus is 100% that MMS is a dangerous product with no medical merit, no matter what a few lunatic charlatans believe. 14:09, 26 May 2016 (UTC)"

In the case of MMS (chlorine dioxide), the scientific consensus is not that chlorine dioxide / chlorite a dangerous product with no medical merit, because a pharmaceutical drug called tetrachlorodecaoxide (brand names: Immunokine, Macrokine), based on chlorite and chlorate, is available and approved for use in Thailand (see below).

87.115.69.131 (talk) 14:19, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Congradulations! You've just discovered how to do original research and engage in the improper synthesis of information. Now that you know how those things are done, you should be much better at avoiding doing those things. Because that's a big no-no around here. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:27, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I am fully aware of what original research means. But I have just cited studies. In what way is that original research? As for big no-no's, I have noticed that the only big no-no on Wikipedia medical articles is writing anything that even slightly supports alternative medical treatments. There seems to be an unwritten rule on Wikipedia medical that even if there is a partial truth to an alternative treatment, that is not acknowledged, but rather the alternative medical treatment is trashed. Now when an alternative treatment is bunkum, then that needs to be said. But when there may be some partial truth, in an ideal world, that should be acknowledged. 87.115.69.131 (talk) 19:59, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

You're taking a study that says "extremely small doses of chlorine dioxide aren't dangerous," and another study saying "chemically similar compounds are used in certain prescription drugs" and combining those together to come to the conclusion that relatively large dozes of chlorine dioxide are perfectly safe. That's not only original research, it's some of the shoddiest original research I've ever seen. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:42, 13 August 2016 (UTC):

Are you sure you are reading what I wrote, and not some other writing? Where did I argue or conclude that relatively large doses of chlorine dioxide are perfectly safe? You appear to be reading your own conclusions into my above cited studies. I just pointed out that very similar compounds are medically approved. And I also cited a study which found that oral doses of 5 mg of sodium chlorite daily appeared safe.

If you want to perform some analysis (I did not, but you appear to want to), then I suggest you find out what doses of chlorite are administered when drugs such as tetrachlorodecaoxide, WF10 and NP001 are used medicinally, and then compare them to the amount of chlorite / chlorine dioxide that typical MMS doses provide.

Incidentally, in terms of shoddy, look at some of the sources this article cites: like a journalist's weasel-worded anecdotal opinion of the safety of MMS: "extremely nasty stuff, and the medical advice given is that anyone who has this product should stop using it immediately and throw it away. In Canada it was banned after causing a life-threatening reaction." That is not an appropriate source for Wikipedia medical, and weasel words like "extremely nasty stuff" are not appropriate either. You need to use scientific terms. 81.174.176.87 (talk) 15:43, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I see your problem. You think this is an article about a medical topic. It's not. It's about a health fraud. Science doesn't tend to address blatant frauds like this. Guy (Help!) 08:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I think we're done here. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:29, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

No stamina! 81.174.176.87 (talk) 17:45, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Going back to the Founder of Cancer

Extended content

Being a trained minister in the use of MMS does make myself bias to the subject - objectively. Though this article has cited authorities and "newspaper" articles along with some incidences to individuals who have had some adverse reactions to the protocols. From a personal objective experience, there is no mention of the thousands of individuals who have benefited from its discovery and application since 1994. Mentions of Hydrogen Peroxide and other "bleaches" as used in commercial usages is well known. We all know of individuals who bleach their hair blonde. But no mention of the medicinal usage of Hydrogen Peroxide was included or referenced to? For example: In its natural form, hydrogen peroxide is found in breast milk, rain and, crucially, the body’s own immune cells. According to Dr Joseph Georghy from North Shore Cosmetic in Sydney, “It’s the body’s first line of defence against every type of infection.” For those who slept through science class, hydrogen peroxide (H202) is essentially water (H20) with an extra oxygen atom. Your own white blood cells make some hydrogen peroxide as a way of killing invading nasties such as fungi, viruses or cancer. Dr Frank Shallenberger, founder and director of The Nevada Center of Alternative & Anti-Aging Medicine in the US, says that when hydrogen peroxide is used as a therapy, it can help your immune cells do the job they were assigned. “It’s been used for decades to conquer viral infections by thousands of doctors in thousands of patients all over the world,” he adds. I could go on - I could even offer my own experiences of having used H202 over the years to improve my own health as well as those of others. But I won't. And on the subject of Bleach. Why didn't the article help the reader to understand how the activated MMS - Chlorine Dioxide is an oxidant. As are Oxygen, Hydrogen Peroxide, Ozone etc. . MMS in its purist form is undoubtly a bleach. But when activated with a suitable acid, such as HCL - Hydrochloric Acid, the same as what is produced within our stomachs, it produces the Oxidant - Chlorine Dioxide. All of the above are approved health therapies in one form or another throughout the world. Here's one source just on the use of Oxygen as a "therapy" So...as we see. Oxygen, H202 and Ozone all have other uses. Some are within the medicinal/health sector and others are within the commercial sectors as well. Oxygen as a vital chemical to life forms on this planet is a key component to leading a happy and healthy life. Chlorine Dioxide being in the exact same class of Oxidants would also offer the same health benefits though being less damaging due to its electrical ability and composure. In fact, it is less harmful as an oxidizer than the others due to having a lower electrical voltage. With an electrical potential of 0.95 Lastly - as an article that is completely biased and warning others of the dangers to MMS usage, it goes far from offering anything of substance in educating the reader in the subject of Oxidization. One only needs to go back to the works of Nobel prize winner - Dr. Otto Warburg. Wherein he stated: Cancer, above all other diseases, has countless secondary causes. But, even for cancer, there is only one prime cause. Summarized in a few words, the prime cause of cancer is the replacement of the respiration of oxygen in normal body cells by a fermentation of sugar. — Otto H. Warburg, Oxygen = oxidants. But being one of the most readily available gases on the planet makes for little of no profits for the large and ever growing pharmaceutical companies. Here is the uber example of a fundamental discovery made about a disease that is ravaging the planet with no end in sight, being lost. Not due to the lack of Clinical studies. After all, he was nominated and won a Nobel Prize back in 1931. Yes the author of this article is right. As far as the lack of "clinical" studies and the standard use of MMS. I don't expect to see any soon, as the current system of medicine is not geared towards the improvement of health within the populations of earth. All one needs to do is look at the rising statistics of all the diseases since that monumental discovery in 1931. But, as far as the effectiveness and results. When one takes an objective look into the subject, one can only see the plethora of positive results when compared with the negative. I can personally attest to that. References

Thetabeing (talk) 01:28, 3 September 2016 (UTC)Thetabeing

*sigh* WP:Original Research, WP:FRINGE, WP:Neutral point of view, no reliable sources, ect. I could go on and continue to post numerous policies and guidelines that say why we are NOT going to be saying that this sham of a "treatment" (and I use that word with the utmost sarcasm) is anything but a dangerous snake oil. But I doubt it will actually make any difference. --Majora (talk) 01:34, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

MMS Wiki

I discovered there is an "MMS Wiki"[1] that contains information about MMS. The disclaimer at the bottom says "The protocols described on this site are official sacraments of the Genesis II Church of Health and Healing. The reader accepts 100% responsibility for any and all use made of any information herein." This site also claims Jim Humble as an "Archbishop" in this church. --Auric talk 23:47, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok? Other wikis aren't sources and we can't link to it per WP:EL. So I'm not entirely sure why you posted that here. --Majora (talk) 23:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

More of as an FYI, so others will know not to link it on the main article. --Auric talk 00:05, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Miracle Mineral Supplement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070710214037/http://www.emea.europa.eu/pdfs/vet/mrls/sodiumchlorite.pdf to http://www.emea.europa.eu/pdfs/vet/mrls/sodiumchlorite.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:06, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2017

I am requesting omissions rather than changes, that this page be updated to remove claims that MMS is a dangerous substance, and that it can not be used to treat and cure disease, sickness and cancer as it has not been clinically proven to be dangerous in appropriate dosages, nor have the inability to heal, and studies have not been done to prove otherwise. On this page Wikipedia calls administers of the pro-oxidant MMS "quacks", yet on the Wikipedia "Pro-oxidant" page I quote,"These agents may show specific toxicity towards cancer cells because of the low level of antioxidant defenses found in tumors. Recent research demonstrates that redox dysregulation originating from metabolic alterations and dependence on mitogenic and survival signaling through reactive oxygen species represents a specific vulnerability of malignant cells that can be selectively targeted by pro-oxidant non-genotoxic redox chemotherapeutics.[13]" So, the Wikipedia stance against MMS ability to heal is unsubstantiated, and unproven. Furthermore, MMS is not a form of bleach nor does it contain any chemicals found in bleach, and the Wikipedia statements that claim this are false. After MMS is activated and ingested it oxidizes and attacks pathogens within the body, where after 2 hours later it loses its oxidation and turns into what is equal to a dose of table salt. 104.129.194.188 (talk) 19:31, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. You also make some pretty strong claims that contradict the reliable sources present on this article, without presenting reliable sources to back your claims. Furthermore, Wikipedia does not call anyone a "quack" on this article; of the two instances the word "quack" appears in the body of the article, one is part of a direct quote, and the other is cited to a reliable news source that uses this term. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:42, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2017

To add to my previous request, please also site the Wikipedia "Sodium Chlorite" page which states that the FDA permits use of sodium chlorite in toothpaste and mouthwash, to treat produce, etc., as it is useful to kill bacteria and is safe to ingest at certain levels. As well please site your "Chlorine Dioxide" page which states that Chlorine Dioxide "is far different than chlorine". Lastly, after reading all the rude, derogatory remarks in the conversation above from 2016, I would like to point out how on behalf of Wikipedia, several of you violated many of the policies regarding using this page, and how to treat others, and to remain neutral. And for those of you who are convinced MMS is a "dangerous poison" and that we should take heed from the FDA, lets have a talk about Flouride! 104.129.194.188 (talk) 20:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Wikipedia pages are not reliable sources for claims made on other, unrelated pages such as this. Furthermore, using these articles in this way is a blatant violation of the No Original Research policy. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2018

I do not promote this product or know exactly if it even is chlorine dioxide but upon reading this page it seems the first line is contradicting itself saying this is chlorine dioxide which is an industrial bleach, but when you click on the wiki link for chlorine dioxide it has much more information about what chlorine dioxide is, not just used in industrial bleach. This entry seems to have one sided opinions of it's own. 2001:56A:F804:7B00:DD4C:B13F:3B2B:8587 (talk) 18:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

This is not a request for an edit. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 18:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Chlorine_dioxide#Bleaching is rather clear. Perhaps you mean Bleach, which is usually Sodium hypochlorite? Many other chemical compounds are also known under the name of bleach.--Auric talk 21:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Potential reference article

This is a well investigated article, it mostly concentrates on Jim Humble. [www.houstonpress.com/news/soggy-weekend-on-deck-for-houston-10197009] SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 11:13, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

No. it doesn't. Thunderstorms and chilli cookoffs? Wut? -Roxy, the dog. barcus 12:12, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you meant [2] or [3]?--Auric talk 14:00, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

lolz, I have no idea why it put that article in my clipboard. Thanks for looking up the actual articles, Auric. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 00:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Rearranged

I've rearranged the content to indicate there is little to no support for healthy use of this substance. I'd have to check sources to see if content matches up with the sources. Given the strength of the sources which indicate life threatening problems I don't see any reason per weight to include anything that supports use of this substance. Littleolive oil (talk) 23:03, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Jim humble was not a Scientologist. He was/is a member of Genesis II Church of Health and Healing

Jim humble was not a Scientologist. He was/is a member of Genesis II Church of Health and Healing

https://jimhumble.co/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.18.59.22 (talk) 02:39, May 22, 2019 (UTC)

He is both, according to the cited source. [4] – bradv🍁 02:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2017

I desperately need information about MMS product for low CD 4 so that i can see how to access it soonest. 41.79.120.22 (talk) 09:48, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 11:39, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

To expand slightly on DRAGON BOOSTER's answer: As the article should make clear and despite whatever you may have heard, there is almost no chance you need to access this soon, later, or at any time for low CD4 counts. There is no clinical evidence that bleach can treat HIV, cancer, or any other disorder. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:32, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Don't take MMS as medicine, guys. It's dangerous for your health. starship.paint (talk) 13:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

FDA article not matching article

There is no evidence in the FDA article proving any of the claims that MMS (Sodium chlorite 22.4%) or Activated MMS (Chlorine dioxide) is harmful when ingested in the few drops diluted in water, as is suggested in that article. No scientific sources what so ever is provided to the reader. "[5]purpl9 (talk) 25 October 2014

• [6] High oral doses of this bleach, such as those recommended in the labeling, can cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and symptoms of severe dehydration. starship.paint (talk) 13:50, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• Removed this material which wasn't in the source. [7] starship.paint (talk) 02:08, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

50,000 Ugandans

US pastor runs network giving 50,000 Ugandans bleach-based 'miracle cure' Revealed: group led by Robert Baldwin and part-funded by Sam Little claims toxic fluid will eradicate HIV/Aids and other diseases - The Guardian. [8] Needs to be added, but I’m busy. starship.paint (talk) 11:44, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Added, but without 50,000 number, instead noted 1,200 clerics with 50 churchgoers each. starship.paint (talk) 02:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Alan Keyes

Conservative pundit Alan Keyes is now promoting it on his show and distributing it in Uganda as well: [9] 63.231.148.111 (talk) 12:48, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

QAnon

Someone should add to the article that MMS has recently been endorsed by several top QAnon promoters (with tens of thousands of followers) as a supposed prevention/cure for the new coronavirus outbreak. See [10]. 63.231.141.132 (talk) 08:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2020: Missing comma

Please change "In a 2018 study by Enno Freye of the Heinrich Heine University in Düsseldorf, Germany chlorine dioxide was tested on 500 malarial patients in Cameroon"
to "In a 2018 study by Enno Freye of the Heinrich Heine University in Düsseldorf, Germany, chlorine dioxide was tested on 500 malarial patients in Cameroon"
this comma is necessary and not optional.
--2003:F6:274D:BE00:8D0D:5FE4:F121:77A9 (talk) 20:02, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

done -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 20:37, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Subsequent Editing

@Johnuniq @El C In my edits yesterday I misspelled Jordan Sather's name. Instead of spelling it "Sather" I spelled it "Seyther", could you guys fix that since I am not an admin and do not have access to edit it anymore? As well I recommend adding Sather to the Subsequent Proponents section on the first template on MMS, and adding a bit more about how the QAnon community has embraced it (though with that last request I understand you guys may not want to add it in order to avoid unintentionally spreading misinformation in the same way you mentioned yesterday). Eons of Mollusk (talk) 00:34, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@Johnuniq @El C I found the submit edit area after, but since I put this down I have decided to leave it up instead, since it's essentially what I want changed. Eons of Mollusk (talk) 00:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@jps: You recently edited and would be best placed to change "Jordan Seyther" to "Jordan Sather" per above, and you might consider the other suggestion. I haven't looked at the sources. Johnuniq (talk) 04:12, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I actually removed the "subsequent proponents" wholesale as it does not seem to serve any purpose for the infobox since none of these proponents are notable in their own right except Alan Keyes who isn't even listed (we can revisit that, I suppose). jps (talk) 10:46, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

If there are some third-party sources which discuss the QAnon community in connection to MMS, I'm happy to read them. Right now, it looks like it's just another "embrace the conspiracy" aspect of them which isn't particularly relevant to MMS quackery, I think. jps (talk) 10:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

My initial thought is that the QAnon/MMS connection may be relevant and notable for QAnon but not for MMS. The disorganized response to Covid-19 strengthens the conspiracy theory so MMS is a natural addition to it but that doesn't mean that it is a notable promoter of MMS. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:18, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

This may be the most remarkable application of WP:ONEWAY I've ever seen, but I think I agree with you. jps (talk) 19:43, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@jps @Eggishorn I took a look at the info and tried to find more third-party sources. I have found that a lot of the attention came to the QAnon community & MMS connection after they began promoting it as a cure for Coronavirus. Despite this Jordan Sather and others were definitely promoting it before than as a cure for other diseases. I'd recommend just adding a sentence right before the Coronavirus sentence saying that MMS has gained popularity in the QAnon community and among the Anti-Vaxxer community (since the two communities overlap). Eons of Mollusk (talk) 21:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I think that this analysis may be more appropriate for the QAnon or the Anti-vaxxer page, perhaps. Here we're supposed to talk about MMS. Its adoption by these groups is noteworthy, but I fear that undue emphasis on this synergy is a bit off-topic from the subject of this page. jps (talk) 14:46, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 April 2020

Re mention of its founder Jim Humble, change from "former Scientologist" to "expelled Scientologist". Sword090 (talk) 12:44, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

We would need a good, reliable WP:RS source. Do you have one? -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 13:55, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello Roxy the Dog. I have found a reference for this. It is from a website run by the Church of Scientology. Jim Humble was expelled from the Church of Scientology in 1991. If you could make the adjustment, it would be much appreciated. https://www.standleague.org/news/media-watch/20180131-unwarranted-aspersion-against-church-of-scientology.html HowardOBB, HowardOBB (talk) 01:13, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

You didn't read WP:RS did you?. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 08:41, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

fixing source 32

Could someone fix the broken link of the source 32 ? (Chlorite (sodium salt); CASRN 7758-19-2) i can't edit now. here is new link for the source: https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris/iris_documents/documents/subst/0648_summary.pdf Thanks ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.193.95.224 (talk) 23:25, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Done. - Sumanuil (talk) 21:18, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Spelling error

Australia is spelt incorrectly in the paragraph regarding the fine given by the TGA in 2020. TbohlsenNSWSSMRC (talk) 07:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Done. Thank you. -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 07:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 June 2020

Subsequent proponents Robert Baldwin Sam little Andreas kalcker Kerri Rivera Mark grenon 194.223.1.88 (talk) 14:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done - please make suggestions in a format of "add x" where x is formatted wikitext. In the case of Baldwin and Little, this is already included in Miracle_Mineral_Supplement#Uganda. Here's a source for Kalcker, likewise for Rivera and Grenon in case anyone wants to expand the covid info. SmartSE (talk) 14:44, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

More to add to the list: arrest in Florida Bolivia. SmartSE (talk) 22:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Sold on Amazon and 16,000 cases of chlorine dioxide poisoning. Part of wider conspiracy theories. SmartSE (talk) 12:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 October 2020

The first paragraph of the page has the following sentence: "This mixture produces chlorine dioxide, a toxic chemical that in "high oral doses" can cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and life-threatening low blood pressure due to dehydration.[2]"

I believe this should be changed to read: "This mixture produces chlorine dioxide, a toxic chemical that can cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and life-threatening low blood pressure due to dehydration.[2]"

I find the modifier "high oral doses" problematic. a) The word "high" in this statement is very ambiguous (high relative to what?). This will inevitably lead some people to conclude that a "low" dose is safe; no amount of this chemical should be considered safe for human consumption. b) This only mentions that oral ingestion is problematic, leading some people to possibly conclude that other routes of administration may be safe. World leaders have even suggested that injection of certain chemicals may be an appropriate way to treat certain disease. c) The phrase "high oral doses" does not appear in the FDA press release.

Thank you. 2600:6C44:E80:3D1F:A172:AD41:9203:D682 (talk) 21:20, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

It is done. - Sumanuil (talk) 22:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

covid-19

MMS has also been falsely promoted as a cure for covid-19, as can be seen here https://jimhumble.co/blog/coronavirus-update-covid-19 and here https://mmstestimonials.co/coronavirus/85-year-old-man-and-family-recovered-from-coronavirus-covid-19-with-mms . I do not have permissions to update the article, but I believe that due to current events adding this piece of information to the fourth paragraph may be helpful. Rickuzumaki (talk) 12:29, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Of course, better sources would be needed. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to use any of these: https://www.businessinsider.com/wuhan-coronavirus-conspiracy-theorists-claim-miracle-mineral-solution-cures-2020-1?r=US&IR=T https://www.bbc.com/news/world-51735367 https://www.factcheck.org/2020/02/fake-coronavirus-cures-part-1-mms-is-industrial-bleach/ Sjö (talk) 13:07, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Additional references: ; -- Mandalamama

Wikipedia is very unfair and biased about mms. Your information should be trust worthy. Since 24 years we are using mms which has reduced our medical bills to 90% and now world is suffering with corona virus and only mms can cure it. Stop giving false information about mms. I am and millions are using it... Earth Unit (talk) 14:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• A bias would be if we said, "Don't drink this stuff, it will kill you, and we don't want you to die." Instead we just say that it's a toxic chemical, that people who promote it are charlatans, and that people have died from drinking it. We're just providing the facts – whether you still drink it is up to you. – bradv🍁 15:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
• @Earth Unit: Wikipedia depends on information that is published in reliable sources. If you can suggest any such source which supports your claim that MMS cures COVID-19 then please post it here so we can evaluate it.--Gronk Oz (talk) 09:13, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

References

• The claims is that MMS is deadly and that is what should be proven. Force others to prove claims do not make MMS deadly. The only I have succeeded to find is a news about someone already almost dead given MMS. I would say it was not the MMS if I were a sceptic; of course it is not a scientific evidence and there are no because I can not find any. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.82.90.208 (talk) 08:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Intriguing. We'd need a paper along these lines I think: PMID 14684649. Alexbrn (talk) 08:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Edit request July 8, 2008

Sorry, I am still trying to figure out how to submit edit proposals so I apologize if this is the wrong spot, but regarding the use of MMS and Covid-19, a Genesis II Church in Bradenton, Florida had multiple Federal agencies as well as hazmat crews called out to it based on an injunction against selling Miracle Mineral Solution. Links: https://www.mysuncoast.com/2020/07/08/federal-agencies-hazmat-crews-respond-bradenton-church-selling-covid-miracle-solution/ https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/coronavirus-covid-19-update-federal-judge-enters-temporary-injunction-against-genesis-ii-church -- Amscheip (talk) 19:37, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the source. There is no need to go through the formality of an edit request if you don't offer a specific edit. When you have a useful source you want to share, and this qualifies 100%, you can simply mention it in a new section (tab on the upper right part of this page) or add it to an approprite section. If you know what changes you would like to make to the article, then an edit request is appropriate. I have added text based on the source. Keep up good contributions like this and you won't need to go through the formality. Again, thank you and happy editing. BiologicalMe (talk) 20:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

New Zealand

New Zealand has had plenty of issues with MMS. Maybe it should get a mentioned.

Our own Medsafe sent out an alert: "Medsafe is again warning consumers not to buy or drink Miracle Mineral Solution products. These products can cause dangerous and potentially life-threatening side effects." https://medsafe.govt.nz/safety/Alerts/MiracleMineralSolution.asp

It was sold as a COVID-19 cure: https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/in-depth/419150/covid-19-bleach-cure-sold-by-new-zealand-man-rusts-steel

In NZ we also have our own version call Te Kiri Gold which was backed by Sir Colin Meads: https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/114461359/taranaki-doctor-involved-in-peddling-an-untested-cancer-cure-te-kiri-gold-struck-off — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielryan0 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Human health implications/benefits for Chlorine Dioxide

With all respect I refer to https://medcraveonline.com/IJVV/chlorine-dioxide-clo2-as-a-non-toxic-antimicrobial-agent-for-virus-bacteria-and-yeast-candida-albicans.html https://www.solumium.com/enwiki/static/pdf/SOLUMIUM_DENTAL_DentalNews2009_1.pdf Thanks Samuel in NL

Wikipedia needs WP:MEDRS for medical information. The sites you linked are junk. Alexbrn (talk) 14:37, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Personal drinking water treatment tablets using chlorine dioxide

It's probably worth adding some nuance to the article to note that tablets used for purifying drinking water use Chlorine Dioxide. The initial segment noting the Guardian article appears strong, particularly as ClO2 is used to purify water in situ for personal used, such as in camping stero-tabs.

Plenty of examples but here's one... https://www.emergencyfoodstorage.co.uk/products/water-treatment-tablets-30-chlorine-dioxide-tabs

They're normally used by campers when using ground water supplies, with ppm mixtures being within safe guidelines for ingestion. Here's a good guide: https://www.chemicalsafetyfacts.org/chlorine-dioxide/

It notes: "Chlorine dioxide is used to disinfect drinking water around the world. According to U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, chlorine dioxide is added to drinking water to protect people from harmful bacteria and other microorganisms. EPA recognizes chlorine dioxide use as a drinking water disinfectant, and it is included in the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality." and "the U.S. Occupational Safety and Hazard Administration (OSHA) regulates the level of chlorine dioxide in workplace air for safety. OSHA has set a Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) for chlorine dioxide at 0.1 parts per million (ppm)..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dommoor (talk • contribs) 12:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

There is no missing nuance. MMS is a dangerous mixture that treats nothing. I am not aware of a proper study that even shows it provides a significant reduction in the level of pathogens in the water it is mixed in; it may not be given adequate time to act. Chlorine dioxide tablets are not an equivalent: different concentrations and procedures. A common chemical does not make them the same. It would be same as substituting Nitroglycerin (medication) with Dynamite. (People who don't know which one to stick under their tongues tend to shoot their mouths off.) With an appropriate source (commercial sales web sites do not qualify), disinfection for camping looks like an appropriate addition to Chlorine dioxide#Other disinfection uses. It is already covered in Portable water purification#Chlorine dioxide. The FDA

The FDA says, "MMS Consumers Are Drinking Bleach".[11] Pointing out the permissible air concentration was meaningless. In toxicology, route of exposure matters. This article reflects the known danger of MMS and doesn't try to conflate with other entities to provide a false balance. BiologicalMe (talk) 17:12, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

As COVID-19 cure in Estonia

Estonian Consumer Protection and Technical Regulatory Authority demanded removing street ads and restricting access to web sites promoting MMS as cure for COVID-19 on March 31th 2021. --Kamma (talk) 13:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

How dumb are they? They are directly supporting killing people. (Remove if found offensive, only 10+ edits can remove) DXLB and LokiBlaster 18:06, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

ClO2 trial results awaited, additional publication references provided

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.

---

There's indications of a Chlorine Dioxide v Covid-19 trial being conducted. For completeness, it'll doubtless need adding - here's the link to the formal Gov trial website: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04343742 And detail below. Results awaited.

Brief Summary: Abstract The objective of this study is to review, through prospective case research, the efficacy of oral chlorine dioxide in the treatment of patients with COVID infection 19. The research will be carried out between April and June 2020 with a quasi-experimental design in two health care centers on a sample of twenty (20) patients, through direct intervention, who will measure the changes in the manifest symptoms of infection and negativity. a COVID 19 after administration of the study preparation, to determine the effectiveness of chlorine dioxide in the treated group. Based on the results that are found and on the evaluation of efficacy on the basis of clinical improvement on a scale of 1 to 5, and of the negativization of COVID 19, we can conclude whether the therapeutic efficacy in this investigation is considered good by verifying whether or not there is efficacy of treatment with chlorine dioxide in COVID 19. With this research, it is hoped to stimulate the search for new therapeutic options in the treatment of COVID 19 and contribute to the development of NEW options in medications, considering the immense number of deaths and morbidity that currently exists in the present pandemic.

Key words: COVID 19, chlorine dioxide, treatment.

Condition or disease Intervention/treatment COVID-19 Drug: chlorine dioxide 3000 ppm

Determination of the Effectiveness of Oral Chlorine Dioxide in the Treatment of COVID 19

Group/Cohort: chlorine dioxide 3000 ppm. Bottle x 150 cc. Assignment of study medication Each patient will receive, in order of admission to the study, a consecutive patient number and the corresponding study medication. The assignment of this medication was made before the start of the study, using a computer generated list. Patients will receive the 3,000 ppm chlorine dioxide base preparation with written and precise instructions on how to prepare and take the dilutions. 7.1 Dosage and route of administration. Medication: chlorine dioxide 3000 ppm. Fco x 150 cc. 10 ml of 3000 ppm chlorine dioxide are added to 1 liter of water, per day. One part is taken every hour, until the content of the bottle is finished (8 to 12 shots). Both the original dioxide bottle and the preparation for the day should be kept refrigerated.

Intervention/treatment: Drug: chlorine dioxide 3000 ppm Each patient will receive the 3,000 ppm chlorine dioxide base preparation with written and precise instructions on how to prepare and take the dilutions.

10 ml of 3000 ppm chlorine dioxide are added to 1 liter of water, per day. One part is taken every hour, until the content of the bottle is finished (8 to 12 shots).

And some useful references to ClO2 efficacy in viral treatment: Publications of Results: Zhu Z, Guo Y, Yu P, Wang X, Zhang X, Dong W, Liu X, Guo C. Chlorine dioxide inhibits the replication of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus by blocking viral attachment. Infect Genet Evol. 2019 Jan;67:78-87. doi: 10.1016/j.meegid.2018.11.002. Epub 2018 Nov 3. Other Publications: Schijven J, Teunis P, Suylen T, Ketelaars H, Hornstra L, Rutjes S. QMRA of adenovirus in drinking water at a drinking water treatment plant using UV and chlorine dioxide disinfection. Water Res. 2019 Jul 1;158:34-45. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2019.03.090. Epub 2019 Apr 1. Kingsley DH, Pérez-Pérez RE, Niemira BA, Fan X. Evaluation of gaseous chlorine dioxide for the inactivation of Tulane virus on blueberries. Int J Food Microbiol. 2018 May 20;273:28-32. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2018.01.024. Epub 2018 Feb 1. Montazeri N, Manuel C, Moorman E, Khatiwada JR, Williams LL, Jaykus LA. Virucidal Activity of Fogged Chlorine Dioxide- and Hydrogen Peroxide-Based Disinfectants against Human Norovirus and Its Surrogate, Feline Calicivirus, on Hard-to-Reach Surfaces. Front Microbiol. 2017 Jun 8;8:1031. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2017.01031. eCollection 2017. Ma JW, Huang BS, Hsu CW, Peng CW, Cheng ML, Kao JY, Way TD, Yin HC, Wang SS. Efficacy and Safety Evaluation of a Chlorine Dioxide Solution. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2017 Mar 22;14(3). pii: E329. doi: 10.3390/ijerph14030329. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dommoor (talk • contribs) 11:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS needed for health claims. Alexbrn (talk) 11:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Result: ethical "desastre". Posting a study at clinicaltrials.gov does not indicate anything about quality or validity. The sponsor, "Genesis Foundation", should have been indicative. BiologicalMe (talk) 15:25, 10 February 2021 (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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 September 2021

'This produces chlorine dioxide, a toxic chemical that can cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and life-threatening low blood pressure due to dehydration.'

Is too weak and should be:

'This produces chlorine dioxide, a corrosive and toxic bleaching agent that invariably causes life-threatening reactions such as severe nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, low blood pressure, and dehydration.' Asadefa (talk) 20:02, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done As with all toxins there is a dose response, so no effects are invariable. There is no need to sensationalize. BiologicalMe (talk) 20:27, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Cleanup Request

This comment: (producing so-called "rope worms") should be removed fom the article, as it is unnecessary in the paragraph it's in.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HelixxUnderscore (talk • contribs) 17:43, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

@HelixxUnderscore: I don't understand why it's unnecessary. Can you please elaborate? SmartSE (talk) 17:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Citation needed for "falsely promoted" Extended-confirmed-protected edit request

Add after the word 'falsely' in the first sentence. Also add Autism , Eczema after cancer

Hamsterson 06:02, June 11, 2022‎ (UTC)

 Not done as the lead does not need references as it is based on referenced content in the body of article. This is standard practice. There the false nature of the claims is mentioned several times. I also added a signature for you. Always add a signature and timestamp to every comment by adding four tildes. This is a fringe topic as it lacks any scientific evidence, and the claims made are pseudoscientific quackery. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:20, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the tilde, Val. Advertising that this topic is technically 'fringe' is superfluous and betrays a personal animus. I ask you, is a 'fringe topic' considered by the 'confirmed editors' community to be one which people should be discouraged from editing or attending to?

"Standard practice" on subjects deemed "pseudoscientific quackery" in your case would seem to be deniaL of pLain evidence of which there is manifold in the present case. What I surmise you intend by "scientific evidence" is a double-blind trial with thousands of participants funded by hundreds of millions of dollars in drug profits by rapacious serial felons like Pfizer, or the government agencies that protect them. We can be sure this will never happen for a drug that costs .10

You are right of course, the claims of 'miraculous' recoveries are made by pseudo-scientific pseudo-people, and Quacks helping each other find answers to problems that we must studiously insist have no solution.

Hamsterson (talk) 05:55, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Did this have a point? I could not find it in all that empty rhetorics and hyperbole. I think you should read WP:TALK. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:53, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling@Valjean does this clearly need a DS talk notice? Doug Weller talk 11:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes @Hob Gadling, a reader might easily see that "this" has several:

Point 1) a question regarding the tone of the response which seems to contain a hostile bias

Point 2) a rebuttal seeking to refute the stated basis for rejecting the suggested edit; the hope being perhaps another 'confirmed editor' not sharing this bias (clearly not yourself) might come to aid.

Point 3) Rhetorical defense of myself and those who feel similarly that this is an important topic, pointing to the gentleman's own angry hyperbolic mockery by turning it against him.

Does this need a talk notice @Doug Weller?

Hamsterson (talk) 16:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

For what? Doug Weller talk 17:42, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

the lead does not need references as it is based on referenced content in the body of article. This is standard practice. answered your question. The matter is resolved, and you are trying to "win" by blowing hot air, e.g. your "points" 1 and 3. I could not find anything resembling a "rebuttal", so your point 2 does not exist. Please consult WP:TALK to find out why you are not using this Talk page for its intended purpose. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:52, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Calling something false and fake, which is false and fake is not in any way a "hostile bias". It is the very definition of being neutral. A hostile bias would be referring to this as "bullshit" or mocking people who believe in it, neither of which we do. Your complaints, in fact, show many signs of a hostile bias to the truth on this issue. Ironic, but that's generally the case with editors who complain of bias in articles such as these. Happy (Slap me) 13:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

o KewoL!! it's like a barroom brawL wher no-one leaves his barstooL lol Hamsterson (talk) 21:25, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Readability suggestion for opening sentence

The opening sentence is structured as a compound sentence and borders being run-on. I suggest the following minor edit,

Miracle Mineral Supplement, often referred to as Miracle Mineral Solution, Master Mineral Solution, MMS or the CD protocol,[1] is a branded name for an aqueous solution of chlorine dioxide, an industrial bleaching agent, and it that has been falsely promoted as a cure for illnesses including HIV, cancer and the common cold. Techguy95 (talk) 17:57, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Yup, a definite improvement. Done. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

15 killed or poisoned in Bolivia?

I have amended the article to say that 15 were “poisoned” rather than “killed”, as that is all the cited Guardian article says. Unfortunately, “to poison” is ambiguous;; although Wiktionary only gives “kill or paralyse with poison”, Chambers agrees with my feeling that it can also mean “administer poison to”, “injure with poison”, “pollute with poison” etc. If they were killed, or if longer-term statistics were available, a better citation would be very welcome! PJTraill (talk) 19:32, 26 December 2022 (UTC)