Skip to main content

Fake and Unethical Trial: Video Claims Miracle Mineral Solution Cures Malaria

NL-flag

A YouTube video being spread on the Internet in four different languages, claims that a successful trial has been conducted using Miracle Mineral Solution (MMS) as a cure for malaria. The trial allegedly has been organized in cooperation with the Ugandan Red Cross Society and the Water Reference Center, in Uganda, December last year. MMS is a well known quack product of which dangerous people claim it can cure diseases like cancer, HIV, hepatitis, avian flue and also malaria. In reality it’s nothing more than industrial strength bleach (sodium chlorite) which is ‘activated’ by adding citric acid so that it releases chlorine dioxide. There is no scientific evidence for any of the health claims made by MMS proponents. The US Food and Drug Administration is clear about it too: “throw it away“.
The following video was produced by Leo Koehof, who has translated several books of Jim Humble, the inventor of the MMS myths, and was uploaded to YouTube by Andreas Kalcker, a German living in Spain and also well known for spreading all kinds of quackery. Watch the video, but be aware that the voice-over is trying to make you believe something which did not actually happen as told. The International Red Cross (IFRC) has released a statement in which dissociates itself in the strongest terms from the video the Ugandan Red Cross Society did this as well in reply to questions from a Spanish blogger.

Malaria quick test used for the deception

The Red Cross statements do not explain why we see people in uniforms of the Ugandan Red Cross Society or what did actually took place in Luuka. Has a test been done which was deliberately misrepresented by the makers of the video? I think so and I guess that Koehof and Kalcker try to deceive the audience in the following way. The first test they use to determine if the person has malaria is a ‘quick test‘, which looks for the presence of antibodies antigens which evokes the production of antibodies against malaria. It is quite useless in malaria endemic areas, because people are likely to have been infected by malaria more than once and the antibodies not long before the test and the antigens will be circulating in the blood for quite a while after infection has been overcome. [corrections on 24/5/2013 after commentary by ‘Ric’ below]   A positive quick test doesn’t mean that the person was actually infected with malaria parasites on that moment! More info about these tests and their limitations can be found here.
The only proper way to determine whether someone is infected, is to take a blood slide and count parasites under a microscope. My guess is that they only did this proper test on the second day. So all ‘false positives’ quick tests were found to be true negatives for malaria the following day. Only a couple of people may have been infected with a few parasites and had to be tested another day to fall below the threshold. If there really was a proper check of the positive quick tests on the first day, then why don’t they mention the number of false positives?

Screenshot from the video (turned). Registration form used in this 'trial'. Is there any evidence that the positive quick test was confirmed by a blood slide?
Screenshot from the video (turned). Registration form used in this ‘trial’. Is there any evidence that the positive quick test was confirmed by a blood slide? (click to enlarge)

I cannot prove it without a doubt, but I think that the laboratory footage in the video (from 3.45) is actually shot on the following day. It’s also good to note that the lab registry doesn’t show a single positive blood slide, they are all annotated with ‘No mps seen‘ (‘mps’ = MalariaParasiteS). In fact, the video doesn’t give us definite prove of any malaria infection at all. I suggested this faulty testing procedure as an likely explanation for the seemingly huge ‘succes’ in a comment on the YouTube video. This comment was astonishingly fast marked as ‘negative’ a couple of times, so it doesn’t show unless you unfold it. One commentator even went as far as writing that I talked ‘like a classic Nazi‘. After more discussion the comments were closed. Could this mean that I am on the right track a bit too much for the comfort of Kalcker c.s.? In the comments of a copy of the video (still open for comments) I even got a reply from Jim Humble himself which makes clear he doesn’t know a thing about the problem of the high number of false positives the quick test gives in malaria endemic areas.
The registration form on the right (around 7.15 in the video) shows on the top half ‘malaria strip positive’, but it doesn’t give a number of parasites found in a confirming blood slide. On itself is doesn’t mean that the local doctors or lab technicians were involved in the deception, but I think it is very easy to fool the audience into thinking something else happened with the ‘proper’ voice-over. And besides all this, we do not know anything about other (real) medication the participants took.

The result of this ‘trial’ doesn’t prove anything. However suggesting that it proves that MMS cures malaria could be very dangerous if this myth is spread widely!

Malaria expert Bart Knols wrote a blog on Malaria World on this issue as well. Quote from that blog:

Is Africa still being used as a play ground for testing dubious drugs on innocent people expecting proper treatment? In 2013? How is it possible that such ‘trials’ can proceed without the Ugandan health authorities demanding results from Phase 1 and 2 clinical trials? A search on PubMed reveals nothing on MMS as a cure for malaria.

And if you’ve read that blog, please sign the petition www.fakedrugskill.org as well!

Who sponsored this ‘trial’?

From the story as told on the pro-MMS websites  (‘Malaria Finally Defeated’) we are told that Klaas Proesmans, a Belgian CEO of the Water Reference Center (WRC), was instrumental in organizing this ‘trial’ and even funded it privately. The website of the WRC doesn’t mention a thing about this and in the comments on the YouTube video some commenters mentioned that they had contacted Proesmans who dissociates himself from all this. I myself received a similar e-mail from him when I contacted the WRC (received May 21st 2013):

Dear Mr van Erp,

We dissociate ourselves from any content of any of these publications regarding possible activities in Uganda. The Uganda Red Cross Society has also dissociated herself from any communication on this topic

Met vriendelijke groet/kind regards,

Klaas Proesmans

With the stated dissociation of the Red Cross and the WRC, the MMS fanatics are now telling that there is a cover-up going on; that Big Pharma is using its influence on the IFRC to hide the positive results of this miracle cure again. Stupid conspiracy theories, which were to be expected from this sect like organisations, or is there some truth to this?
From watching the video, which shows documents with the WRC logo and features images of Proesmans, and a weblog from a German Red Cross volunteer [Update 9/9/2013: this has been deleted and is not longer available in Google cache. I have a copy, mail me if you are really interested] involved in this event, we can only conclude that Proesmans was involved at least in some way. I could be however that Koehof and Kalcker have tricked him into this somehow and try to make it look like he is far more involved than is actually the case. The Spanish Red Cross replied to questions from a Spanish weblog that the relations of the WRC and Proesmans to the Red Cross are not as formal as suggested in the MMS newsletter.
I had also urged Proesmans in my e-mail to make a public statement on the WRC website explaining his involvement and in doing so help in putting an end to this potentially dangerous rumour. He didn’t respond to this suggestion. On another website a email from him was quoted, in which he suggests that this was all about looking for the (general?) effect of water purified with chlorine dioxid on the human body (and that there are non-disclosure agreements preventing to tell more about this). But why on earth would you use chlorine dioxide to purify already clean bottled water, as can been seen used in the video?

I contacted the Secretary of the Board of the WRC, Ruud Koornstra, a well known ‘green’ entrepreneur in the Netherlands. He was quite shocked by the information I had send him. Obviously the board of the WRC was not aware of any involvement in this trial and Koornstra made it very clear to me that the WRC Board does not want to have anything to do with a trial using such an obvious quack product. He let me know that he will try to find out what happened. I hope we’ll see an official statement soon. At this moment it seems to me that Proesmans acted entirely upon his own and without consulting others of the WRC. A malaria trial looks rather distinct from the activities presented on the WRC website.

Klaas Proesmans (l) and Leo Koehof (r). Visiting the National Drug Administration in Uganda?
Klaas Proesmans (l) and Leo Koehof (r). Visiting the National Drug Administration in Uganda?

Leo Koehof in Frontier magazine

I also received an article based on an interview with Leo Koehof, from Dutch alternative magazine Frontier (May/June 2013 edition). In his version of events, a Belgian named ‘Peter’ (the article states that this is a fictitious name, but it has to be Klaas Proesmans) contacted Koehof in Gemany in October 2012. ‘Peter’ had become enthusiastic about MMS after attending a Jim Humble seminar (in Mexico?). He liked to see whether MMS was really capable of curing malaria within 24 hours as claimed and told Koehof that he was able to help out organizing a real test with 200 malaria patients. According to Koehof, he himself was already planning to go to Uganda and told ‘Peter’ he could join. A week later, to his surprise,  ‘Peter’ indeed came to Uganda and put his connections with the Red Cross to work. He had those connections due to his work for the Water Reference Center.
They eventually got clearance from the Ugandan Red Cross (from a certain Dr. Bulanda) to conduct a test after they provided evidence that sodium chlorite was essential for human health. They got this evidence after talks with the National Drug Authority and the local water provider, who would testify that sodium chloride is essential for … water purification. After several weeks of negotiating the test details with Red Cross representatives, they went to Luuka and did what we see in the video.

Cover-up?

Even if this story is only approximately true, it seems that something went really wrong in Uganda. Having some experience in Africa myself (and with bureaucracies there), this wouldn’t surprise that much. But if it is true, there should be enough documents to prove it. Maybe the Ugandan Red Cross just thought it was a project about water purification without the claims about curing malaria. That a product is useful for water purification doesn’t mean that it is safe for human consumption, though. The Ugandan Red Cross Society might be trying to hide a terrible blunder, but it’s not a cover-up of a successful test of MMS for malaria in any case.

Whether you believe that such a product as MMS can cure diseases or not, there is no excuse whatsoever to carry out a trial bypassing all ethical en scientific research standards as was clearly the case in this ‘trial’. The only reassurance is that the participants probably had no malaria to start with, they also looked quite healthy.

Based on my blog on Kloptdawel.nl (in Dutch): Grof schandaal: MMS kwakzalvers doen alsof ze malaria kunnen genezen in Oeganda (“Big scandal: MMS quacks pretend to cure malaria in Uganda”)

Follow up on this story:

What did the Ugandan Red Cross Society know about “the ‘miracle’ solution to defeat malaria” Video?

129 thoughts on “Fake and Unethical Trial: Video Claims Miracle Mineral Solution Cures Malaria

    1. I know that wiki. The explanation probably looks somewhat plausible to a layperson, but when you read the references you’ll find out that in many cases those do not say what the mmswiki wants the reader to believe they say. For instance there is no substantiation for the claim that mms will attack pathogens but will leave good organisms (or healthy tissue) alone. Chlorine dioxide is not specific in that way.

    2. Just for your information, there is another oxidation process which is called “chlorination”

      My oath. Who writes like that?!
      That is not “a layperson’s explanation”, that’s a four-year-old’s explanation, with all the magical thinking that four-year-olds can be forgiven for.

  1. I agree with you, Pepijn, it is totally unethical to try to cure malaria with a simple and cheap method.

    Particularly now that millions have been spent already on the a malaria vaccine. Isn’t it much better to inject every African with a vaccine? That way we can even make money before people get sick. Much better. Terribly unethical to render millions of investments useless. Good you are doing something about it Pepijn!

    1. So, you’re not even trying to explain why I’m supposed to be wrong about MMS not being a cure for malaria? Without that, your comment is just meaningless.

      1. I was present at the MMS trial in Oeganda and have seen that MMS is really working within 4 hours to clean the blood from malaria patients but not only from malaria but also from several other pathogens.

        With the MMS crew we have traveled to a lot of other countriesin Africa, Asia and South=America and everywhere we performed the same instant curing results for a lot of infection based illnesses.

        MMS is in fact an old day-to-day used tool for every hospital, dentist and industries and therefore its very well tested by a lot of labor and health related organisations, incl. FDA, NASA, ARBO labs, etc.

        The widespread use of MMS in the world would be a terrible disaster for millions of people who are now working in the hospitals, nurseries, pharma industries, insurance companies, etc. so its normal that they defend their interests with severe lies, trolling, terror and murder on millions of easy to cure sick people worldwide but they all handle unethical.

        1. I doubt that you were at this event in Uganda, why don’t you just give your name? All people involved are identified in the videos.

          That clorine dioxide is a useful product for bleaching, water clorination and disinfection (and tested for those purposes) doesn’t make it a safe product for human consumption.

          Your suggestion that millions of people working in hospitals etc. knowingly work against this miracle cure, because it would harm their interest, is a foul unsubstantiated insult.

  2. After reading this article and watching both videos about this trial, I conclude that Pepijn, the author of this post, is the dishonest and misinformed, party. I find the words that he chooses to be either exaggerations, baseless, accusatory, or deceitful. I am wise enough to look with clear eyes at ALL of the presented information from BOTH sides of an argument, then research more if needed, and come to my own informed conclusion.

    Jeff

    1. A bit weak that you only share you conclusion, but fail to give explicit examples of where my analysis goes wrong or my article is dishonest. Please elaborate.

  3. I’d like to point out that the Red Cross said they wanted to distance themselves from the tests in Uganda. They didn’t say that they didn’t do the test. They didn’t say 154 people didn’t get cured from Malaria, they just said that they wanted to distance themselves in the strongest terms. Nobody has seem to notice that they said nothing that could ever be called a lie. They have only said that they want to distance themselves in the strongest terms. Well that means nothing. They didn’t say anything and none of the critics noticed anything because the critics don’t want to notice anything.

    But let me say of the critics. Not a one of the critics has ever tried to test MMS for themselves. Not a one of the critics has ever tried to study just a few hours of chemistry to see if what I said could possibly be true. All critics continually try to use logic, of course their own logic, to disprove what I have done. But they continually do nothing but broadcast their own illogic on the subject which I am sad to say is evil, about as evil as anyone can get.. The result is over the world that thousands who have believed the critics have continued to suffer and die when it was and is not necessary. My church now has 1500 ministers trained in using MMS in 110 different countries of the world, and these ministers charge nothing, but ask for donations. Thousands recover their health each month. It is not my job and has never been my job to prove MMS to the critics. I don’t sell MMS and have never sold MMS. None of the critics have the slightest understanding of what evil I have been up against since I started and thus none know why I have chosen to continue to not prove it and to keep it grass level below the radar. So go ahead and rack up your karma, and let me say every time you prevent someone from overcoming their suffering or allow someone to die because you have been too lazy to check MMS for yourself. Some day some time you will pay for the karma you have racked up. I am truly sorry for you, but more sorry for those who have suffered and died because of you. — Jim Humble

    1. In the follow up to this post I’ve explained that I think the Ugandan Red Cross Society should be more transparent about this mess.

      For your comment “Not a one of the critics has ever tried to study just a few hours of chemistry to see if what I said could possibly be true. ” I’ll point to the fact that after one and half year you have apparently have not been able to come up with an answer to the question I raised earlier in this thread http://www.pepijnvanerp.nl/2013/05/fake-and-unethical-trial-video-claims-miracle-mineral-solution-cures-malaria/comment-page-1/#comment-169

      So you claim to know so much about the chemistry of Chlorine Dioxide? Than it will be easy for you to give some calculations of how the ‘cure’ as presented in the video is supposed to work. Simply present figures like how much of Chlorine Dioxide is created, how much of that enters the blood stream, how much is left to oxidize malaria parasites and isn’t ‘spoiled’ on other stuff. And show that it can clear the body of infection this way. All as a theoretical concept, no individuals have to harmed. I bet you can’t do this, but just try and publish a document on your own website and drop a link here.

  4. Not sure what happened to my other post, but I shall have to retype, evidently.

    Even though you appear to be well-meaning, you are evidently involved in “second-order quackery” which in some ways is more serious than 1st order quackery.

    This page demonstrates in a number of ways that you appear to be rather ignorant about the foundations of science, and likely know little about the history of science, methodology and epistemology.

    What you are doing borders on criminal negligence. Why? Because you are like the Pied Piper of Hamelin leading the scientifically illiterate when you are pretending that this site is about “science” and “bad science.”

    The language you use on this page is totally irresponsible. Do you even know what it means to communicate about science? Look at the semantics and the contextual implications of your language. Are you really that ignorant or are you nefarious, or simply neurotic? Is this about self-gratification? If so, I recommend another method.

    You have a link to the FDA warning page. Have you actually analyzed that page and looked into its contextual foundations?

    I hope that you do better with your other pages. If not, I recommend that you just play chess. forget about this science stuff until you learn to apply Kotov’s “Think Like a Grandmaster” to science (levels of abstraction.)

    Personally, I do not believe or disbelieve in the efficacy of MMS. However, I am quite confident that when Occam’s razor is applied to the evidence that does exist, that it warrants the scientific investigation of MMS. That is in fact the responsible position to take because so many lives are at stake.

    For example, as mathematician of some sort, why don’t you do a risk analysis and see what the analysis shows is in terms of lives and costs of adopting one position or another? That would be an interesting contribution.

    1. However, I am quite confident that when Occam’s razor is applied to the evidence that does exist, that it warrants the scientific investigation of MMS.

      What evidence? And reasoning based on commonly accepted chemical and biological scientific insights doesn’t count for anything, you think? It’s so unlikely for MMS to work like Humble says, he has a a lot of work to do on a theoretical basis for his claims and in vitro tests. Results should be verified by others. All this before applying it to animals and humans. That’s the responsible way to do science.

      1. Haven’t been here for a while and just noticed your reply.
        Not to be pedantic, but considering that about 50,000 people died from malaria since your post, perhaps a serious analysis is past due. Yes, within the context of your semantics, I am sure that your paragraph can be interpreted as true.
        However, just for starters, if one challenges the meanings of the terms “evidence” “reasoning” and “verified”, all of which have a long history in epistemology of being challenged, we can come up with an entirely different conclusion.
        Now, if we then add such things as ethical and sociological discourse, then “commonly accepted” and “applying to animals and humans” and “responsible” can generate a whole other analysis.
        Further, what Humble claims or does not claim is not relevant from a scientific perspective.
        The scientific question that ought to be investigated ASAP, is whether chlorine dioxide does or does not have beneficial effects when taken internally, considering how many people are dying EVERY DAY, and given that bleach is a universally used and effective disinfectant.
        If it turns out that it works it may be nice to understand the mechanisms. That is a nicety when lives are at stake. Result versus process are two separate questions among the many other issues.
        In addition, the FDA has reportedly fast-tracked a drug where chlorine dioxide is, also reportedly, the active agent.
        Most fundamentally, interrelating science, medicine and ethics, not including many other issues, does not work well the way you are presenting on your web site, and that is not responsible.

        1. So you come back here to lecture me on responsible writing on science, without bothering to look up what the FDA Fast Track Development Program is about, or providing a link to a report on this “fast-tracked-drug in which chlorine-dioxide is the active agent”? Fast track has nothing to do with skipping essential trials, just provides quicker administrative procedures by the FDA.

          I repeat my position: there is no plausible working mechanism for MMS taken orally to work against malaria as is presented in the videos. Even if you accept the presented ‘facts’ from the videos as true, than still there is a reasonable explanation for those without jumping to conclusions that science has overlooked some miracle drug in MMS. Maybe you want to comment on that explanation I have given in my later post. Or is that too sciency for you?

  5. the people that know mms works and tell lies about it have the blood of a child on there hands every 60 seconds, why argue with them, leave them to god, they will get what all murdering scumbags get, hell

  6. Dude hopefully your words will one day proof if they are lies or not (i know they are) and when this day has come and you are suffering a serious illness like aids, malaria, tbc or cancer or whatever….. and you are close to death…you would do anything to get some MMS 😉

    when chemotherapy for example destroys your whole immune system and every single fucking day means suffer and pain…

    And untill this day has come, enjoy the bloodmoney you are probably earning from pharma industry for lying this hard, scum….

    Yours sincerly
    – not a bitch…-

    1. You could just point out where I’m lying according to you, without calling names and suggesting that I get paid for writing this, which is not the case. If you read my follow up on this matter, you will see that I acknowledge that the Ugandan Red Cross Society is trying to downplay their involvement. But I didn’t yet see any evidence for MMS being a cure for all those illnesses you mention.

      1. why don`t you find somebody with malaria and test it yourself?then you will know.you seem to be in a position to do so.if you are ,please go out there and find out.you did not see evidence?did you look for any?if i where in a position to find out if something this big is for real,i would do so….unless you are afraid of something…if so, i can understand….

        1. I don’t see any reason to perform such a test without any prior established plausibility that it could work. I’ve pointed out in other comments that Humble can’t even give some basic calculations that any chlorine dioxide will enter the blood stream if you take it orally. You just don’t start playing with people’s lives without consulting experts in the field.

        2. how about you test it,and if it works,you take the credit for it…ahah!screw humble!now ,considering the cheapness of it(virtually free) and the way the”system” works,i wonder how long it (you)would last..?i just thought of something..apparently,they can`t prove that it works…how about somebody come up with some tests proving that it doesn`t work..should be simple enough…maybe it`s because it does??hehe!

        3. Why do you want him to drink a thing than possibly will cause cancer? Are you mad or what?

        4. not to worry,100s of thousands have taken it,nobody died from it,thats not what the debate is about,it`s what they (humble and friends)claim that it does(cures diseases)…and why they say it`s being suppressed…

        5. What the say it’s being suppressed? So why do you and me know what the say? Do we have paranormal powers? How do you know that those 100s of thousand (really??) haven’t developed a cancer? Are you following their medical history? Are you doing it with your paranormal power?

      2. lying or not, the FACTS are you have never taken it, you obviously have no backround involving chemistry, unless your the government type who just listens to the fda and their laughable info. ill bet you really trust the government with your life don’t you ?

        1. I don’t have to take cyanide to know it will kill me. Just like I don’t need to jump off a cliff to know the sudden stop at the bottom will hurt. Sometimes a duck is just a duck.

  7. Wow, what an amazingly unconvincing video. It’s scary that people are swayed by a video which doesn’t even pretend to explain the tests that were done and the numbers, much less providing links to data.

    For example we are never shown the second tests process, only someone signing a form.

    Regarding your speculation about two different tests being done I think this is likely.

    The first test we were shown and it was an antigen test of this type: http://www.ivdpretest.com/Malaria-pf-pv-Rapid-Tests.html

    You can see a simlar product of the same brand here: http://jdbiotech.en.alibaba.com/product/235958666-200298127/Malaria_pf_pv_Comb_Rapid_Diagnostic_Test_Card.html

    These tests are extremely sensitive and accurate.

    Note the test shown at 2:57 only tests for a single strain of milaria – the Pf strain.

    I think it is likely that the tests done the second day were using a different test method (eg looking for malaria organisms in a blood smear) which is much less sensitive, so people can test positive with the initial antigen test but then negative by this less sensitive method. They are in NO way cured – they just have a relatively low test level.

    Anyway, the video doesn’t provide nearly enough information to assess what has occured much less infer a “cure”.

    Perhaps the pro MMS camp should publish their results if the expect anyone to listen – even though they haven’t been independently verified at least it would give them some credibility and further this conversation. This video totally fails in this regard

    Highly suspect and little wonder the Red Cross blocked it.

  8. I guess how my comment is judged will be determined by whether or not you believe this: I have no reason to lie. I know people who take MMS and have always looked at it from a skeptics point of view.

    That being said, I have lived in a tropical third world country for a few years now and Dengue Fever is a serious problem here. People here are losing their children to the illness. If they have any money at all then they can go to a “hospital” and receive the most basic assistance such as an IV. For some patients the fever is too much and they die.

    A friend of mine, and strong proponent of MMS, offers MMS treatment to families who have no other choice (there is no cure for dengue). He told me about this and I have personally witnessed people with dengue (sometimes called bone crushing disease because of the excruciating aches) receive treatment and by the next day be totally out of the woods. In two days they were living normally.

    This blew my mind. I have always been a skeptic and a scientist first. There is something here and obviously it is being covered up.

  9. You are criminals; you should be put into prison for your
    idiotic disinformation propaganda,

    There is not any better cure for Malaria than MMS.

    I have personally tried MMS and MMS has helped me to recover
    from this terrible disease.

    The current Medical Establishment
    is a bad science, pseudoscience.

    Chemotherapy is one example about how insane people working
    in Medical Profit Industry. Industry that is killing many millions people a day
    around the world.

    1. Why do you mention Chemotherapy? Do you have any kind of obsession or something worst? Just talk about MMS, certificate you had malaria and that MMS cured you. MMS produces cancer.

      1. Actually I have made a copy. Will think about putting it online. It’s probably not allowed due to copyright and the importance is not that great, after all it is now clear that the Ugandan Red Cross Society was involved in some way.

        1. Thanks – great site BTW

          This is such an important issue – Malaria is a huge problem.

          Jim Humble is clearly giving MMS under the guise of a Church outreach program. Appently he has “Treated” tens of thousands of people in Africa.

          The scary thing is how gullible people are to be taken in by this. It is just implausible and unsupported on so many levels.

          Seems to be more like a cult than anything.

          This is a nice overview of Jim Humble and MMS

          http://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/sep/15/miracle-mineral-solutions-mms-bleach

  10. There are already too many comments in this thread on the use of MMS in general. It’s clear that there are quite some believers, but they fail to show proper evidence for the plausibility of MMS being able to cure all those diseases as claimed by Humble and his followers. I would like to remind all those commenters to the words of Richard Feynman: “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool.”
    In my opinion Proesmans and the others involved have probably fooled themselves. In order to asses what really happened and whether it can’t be explained by non ‘miraculous’ properties of chlorine dioxide, the original data, protocols and exact followed laboratory procedures are necessary.

    From now on I will remove any comments which are not on topic and try to direct the discussion to the use of MMS in general. There are enough other sites for that. Here it will be about this particular event in Uganda.

  11. Lets Test this MMS……

    We are not followers of Jim Humble but have taken MMS everyday for 5 years
    now ($20 per year) and have been traveling over the World continually for over
    10 years, SEE http://www.worldglobetrotters.com. We spent 2.5 years in East & South
    African countries, plus time in Asia, SE Asia, Central & South
    America. We went in areas where everyone
    had some form of Malaria and we never had a problem. My reacquiring dengue fever that I got
    before taking MMS has not returned, I swish MMS in my mouth and have had no
    cavities, gingivitis, and my teeth are clean with no dental cleanings. Before MMS, I had always had bad dental
    problems.

    [deleted by Mod(PvE): not interested in anecdotes, which I cannot check]

    Your
    article uses name calling ” Fake and Unethical”, ” well known
    quack product of which dangerous people”, “throw it away“, ” inventor of the MMS myths”, ”
    spreading all kinds of quackery”, MMS fanatics, only to name a few. Why
    not just test it. Your article uses childish
    logic and your writer is obviously uninformed on this subject and is using a predetermined
    bias. Millions of people have taken this
    MMS with some positive results, why not test it.

    I
    have contributed appreciable money to the Red Cross in the past but that stops
    , NOW.

    Go
    to the newly released video, that you have obviously not yet seen, at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrwZN1cPfX8 which very clearly shows the Red Crosses
    involvement in this MMS test in Uganda.

    Please
    reconsider your view on this subject. The World is round and you do need to
    disinfect your hands before doing surgery, change in beliefs is hard for most
    people and very hard for science.

    Best
    regards

    Joseph
    Gill

    http://www.worldglobetrotters.com

    gilljoseph1949@yahoo.com

    1. Well, this is weird. You suggest I didn’t see the new video, but I’ve linked to it in a comment myself a week ago. Did you actually read anything I wrote? I’m not that interested in your own experiences which I can’t check and of which I neither can judge if those are relevant for this trial, so I deleted most of it. Anybody who is interested can find your own website via the link, which I did not delete for this purpose.

      There are some articles which deal with chlorine dioxide solutions for mouth washing, that has nothing to do with a cure for malaria of course.

  12. I have been following the MMS scam for over three years now. You can find my website if you google MMS Debunked, and I have a couple of videos on youtube. This is easily the most brash and polished propaganda video I have seen coming from MMS supporters. However now that’s Jim’s plans are coming to fruition and his church is making a fortune from the sale of MMS and MMS seminars: it’s really no surprise that we will see these slick and well produced videos.

    What we will never see however is verification or corroboration from ANY reputable independent or third party source. Even malaria infected areas of Africa have bloggers, doctors, media, universities… But we are led to believe that not a single person, or patient, or doctor or nurse, was amazed enough to see their fellow countrymen cured overnight of a disease that has probably touched each and every single one of their lives, to write about it? Or contact some media? or put it on a blog? And this has happened twice? Because Jim claims a further 100,000 people were cured of malaria prior to 2006.

    The fact is, if people HAVE been cured of malaria, and HAVE been cured of HIV as Jim claims, it would be a piece of cake to prove. Jim and his MMS supporters have had a decade to come up with some credible proof that MMS can cure serious diseases and the best they can do is a youtube video.

    1. You seem to be looking for proof on paper while there are thousands of people around the world and more (including me, my family, my friends) that have long been cured of their illnesses using MMS. They have posted their testimonies ont eh Jim Humble site or all over the internet. People won’t simply claim something had helped them unless it really did. Why don’t you take their word as truth just as you seem to believe in the Pharmaceutical industry and their so-called remedies that hardly ever cure anyone?

      Your bias is quite embarrasing!

      1. “Just as you seem to believe in the pharmaceutical industry”

        Where did you draw that conclusion? This is your bias, not mine. On my site I link several alternative medicine websites which speak out against mms, they include Gaia health, sign of the times, healthwyze report and several others. Where are any independent health sites that support mms? All the sites I linked are highly critical of big pharma and support and promote “natural remedies” but all of them conclude MMS is a scam. Even phaelosopher from thought for food blog, the producer of the mms documentary and long time mms supporter has announced that he no longer supports mms.

        As for people claiming it works, I have a video about mms testimonials which shows there really aren’t any strong mms testimonials. I had a cold and mms cured it is not a strong testimonial. I had a rash and mms cured it is not a strong testimonial, what you don’t see is I had HIV and mms cured it, not even on Jim’s site.

        1. So you’re not buying the pharma scam. Good for you. But alas it is still bipartisan when you pit ‘independent health sites’ against MMS. What makes them a greater authority to judge a substance such as chlorine dioxide as ineffective?

          They have obviously not tested it for themselves like I and others have. I do not only advocate MMS as a great remedy for diseases but also recommend Urine Therapy, Hemp Oil (i.e. Rick Simpson’s), DMSO, and many other natural solutions out there after carefully trying them out for myself and my family. If it works I support. If not, I retry in case the fault lies in my testing method. If a supposed cure is still ineffective after retesting several times, only then I’d speak out against it for the sake of the people in need.

          MMS is easy to test and try out. It is cheap to buy, simple to mix, and instant in results. I can imagine that it could be a threat to some of the other ‘alternative products’ out there that are less effective, though natural… Therefore I’m not impressed with those ‘alternative medicine websites’ that don’t advocate MMS.

          I know it is human nature to be bipartisan, to choose one and not the other even if there may be good in both. Unfortunately this tendency may be good for promotion of a particular business or product but not necessarily good for the betterment of humanity.

        2. You completely miss my point. My claim is not just that “those websites do not advocate MMS” it’s that hardly ANY websites advocate MMS and more then a few do the complete opposite of “advocate”. A lot of those websites are started by communities of people just like you, they are precisely the places you would expect to see real MMS supporters, if it really worked.

          One of, if not THE biggest independent advocate of MMS was the phaelosopher fromTthought for Food blog, even he recently publicly announced he no longer supports MMS. Just try to find one independent website that still supports MMS? About the only site left supporting MMS is Project Avalon and it doesn’t take long to figure out they don’t really have a critical filter for what they promote.

          Why do you say they “obviously have not tried it”? You don’t know that, I bet that a lot have. A lot are started by people just like you.

          One of the first things you learn when you study critical thinking is that the easiest person to fool is yourself. The problem when you evaluate medicine for yourself is you are by definition unblinded and subject to all your beliefs and biases. One of the strongest biases (but by far not the only) is confirmation bias. It’s how a lot of superstitions start: I wore my lucky socks and I won the soccer match, therefore my lucky socks really work! I felt sick and took this miracle medicine, now I feel better, therefore the medicine works! They are identical scenarios. But how do you know what would have happened if you didn’t wear your socks or take the medicine? You don’t know and more importantly you CAN’T know, even if you “test” it for yourself on your friends, you can’t possibly control for all the other factors that affect the results. This is why we trial medicine in a blinded way, it’s not a game scientist play, it’s actually required to remove bias from the trial.

          The biggest warning sign is if you believe you are too smart or somehow not subject to these biases. Even the smartest people in the world are subject to this and can be honestly mistaken. It’s why science was invented, precisely because humans are not capable of being completely unbiased. It is simply how our brains are wired.

          Let me illustrate one example: say you run a trial on all your sick friends to see if MMS works and there is only a 1% chance that they get better by them selves, by chance alone, their cold gets better, their rash goes away, etc… You give them MMS and they all get better soon after. Most people would conclude that they are 99% certain MMS cured their friends, that makes sense right? That’s a very high degree of certainty. However, if Jim Humble is correct and tens of thousands of people have tried MMS, there will be hundreds if not thousands of people who are genuinely and honestly 99% certain MMS works! They will swear they saw it cure their friends with their own eyes! Over and over again. And this is where confirmation bias gets thrown into the mix:but it didn’t work for all those other people who left testimonials: well they didn’t use it properly, they weren’t dedicated to it, it’s somehow their fault, or they are paid pharma shills, it can’t be MMS’ fault because I KNOW it works….

          The above scenario perfectly explains people like you and the small clusters of mms supporters and testimonials we see MOSTLY on websites run by Jim Humble. Even Jim’s main forum has very few actual user testimonials, I encourage you to find my youtube vidoe called ‘mms testimonials the sequel’ which examines the testimonials found on the forums of the genesis church.

          What we do NOT see is a lot of support on other independent sites, like Facebook, youtube, and other alternative health websites. It’s not mentioned or supported even by the champions of alternative medicine like Jo Mercola, Dr Oz, Mike Adams, the people that would absolutely LOVE to stick it to big pharma if they had half a chance. You need to invoke a conspiracy and a cover up in every single case to explain the evidence away. Or they haven’t tried it, or they have their own interest, sure some do, but not every one, its been a decade, if mms was really curing people of HIV by the hundreds, do you honestly believe we would not have heard about it from at least ONE SINGLE source independent of Jim humble? Where are these people? Have they all been killed? Wiped out? Paid off? How do you explain it? Are there hundreds of new millionaires paid to keep quiet about being cure of HIV? They have no HIV infected friends they met at the clinic who they would help? They didn’t get a HIV test at their clinic to confirm they were HIV negative? When the clinic saw the results they didn’t think it was strange given there are literally one or a couple of cases in the literature of people truly being cured of HIV? None of this evidence adds up.

        3. There are a thousand alternative medical treatments to try – many of which could be great. If someone wanted to try one why not try one that has a plausible mechanism for action, some evidence of effectiveness and is broadly safe.

          Why bother trying one which looks dodgy, sounds dodgy, and presents unconvincing videos of poorly designed unregulated trials on uninformed civilians as “Proof”, without providing any of the simple information which would let us assess the results of the trial.

        4. too bad these alternative medicines can be patented…therefore the government can make loot off it..you can’t patent mms..

        5. Hello, Just a little update, I guess, since “MMS debunked” refers twice to a blogger named “phaelosopher” who writes on “Thought For Food”—i.e., that this blogger apparently no longer supported MMS. However, judging by two blogs in February 2015, at http://phaelosopher.com/2015/02/25/beyond-mms-the-doj-v-daniel-smith-is-not-just-another-product-trial/ and http://phaelosopher.com/2015/02/11/mms-case-the-inconvenient-factor-of-truth/ it would appear that he is indeed still supporting the right of MMS to a “fair trial”, as well as outlining some of the evils the FDA is resorting to, in their use of inordinate & unlawful tactics against MMS.–And yes, he believes MMS works. Notably, the FDA is not basing their case against Daniel Smith (who sold MMS) on any claims that the use of MMS caused harm to any individual. For a multi-million $ agency whose mandate is, I think, to protect the public health, you’d think this would be the main issue for them, and something they’d want to prove. I would write more details, but I’m not sure Mr. van Erp will consider this “on topic”. However, if there IS evidence of dirty play & corrupt prosecution in a desperate attempt to “silence” MMS once and for all, then this alone should raise flags & cause honest men to look deeper into the MMS issue.

          [Mod: I consider the FDA case against Daniel Smith indeed off topic. That a supporter of MMS, who changed his mind on this once, has now apparently changed his mind again, I also consider not really interesting; might only be an indication of the mental states off people who fall for Humble’s fairy tales]

  13. Perhaps a little more research would change your mind. Sodium Chlorite mixed with a mild acid such as citric acid produces Chlorine dioxide gas. This is also called Acidified Sodium Chlorite. If you look up PubMed (published studies) you will find numerous evidence that this product does actually have an impact on things such as Flu, Hep A, Polio virus and oral bacteria.

    Further research would also reveal that this product is used extensively around the world to treat water and minimise bacteria on food and food preparation surfaces.

    I’m all for healthy scepticism, but it is also too easy to fall into the trap of confirmation bias and thereby fail to give balanced consideration to something that challenges your paradigms.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18089729?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=5

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17066904?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=6

    1. I pointed out in this blog that there is no scientific evidence that MMS can cure diseases in humans. That it can kill bacteria and viruses in water or Petri dish doesn’t mean it can do that in humans, when they take it orally. So, if you want me to change my mind, you have to come with scientific articles which actually have something to do with taking MMS orally as a cure, not like the ones you provided.

      1. Whether you change your mind or not is immaterial to me. However, you and many others presented an opinion that this treatment/trial must be fake and unethical.

        Since the history of treating human conditions is littered with experiments first on animals and then on humans, it is reasonable to consider the possibility that MMS may have the same or similar affects on humans.

        With the mountains of evidence that this chemical does in fact kill bacteria and viruses, why has no one funded a trial on humans? There is no benefit to a pharmaceutical company to do so, as there would be no return on their investment. But what about all the government agencies and NFPs? Surely someone would consider this a worthwhile investigation.

        Instead, many people are testing it for themselves, particularly if they have exhausted all conventional treatments. However, their experiences count for nothing in scientific and medical community.

        As for me, I have used it internally and successfully treated soft tissue infections. While the process was not overseen by scientists or medical staff, each time the initial presence of the infection and the successful treatment of the infection were verified by both my doctor and home nurse. I had been treated far too frequently with antibiotics, so they were having less and less effect – two full doses to treat an infection. Low, frequent doses of MMS got rid of the infection in a day.

        I cannot speak for the efficacy of MMS to treat malaria, cancer, AIDS, etc. But I successfully treated 7 separate soft tissue infections, over a year.

        The medical community uses a multitude of dangerous chemicals in small controlled doses to treat many human health conditions. The side affects listed for these treatments include everything up to and including death. The potential side affects of MMS are nausea, diarrhea and dehydration. And this is the basis for the FDA hysteria.

        A true sceptic would be asking questions from both sides, because the failure to investigate the potential of this chemical doesn’t make sense, You have merely jumped on the bandwagon to rubbish something.

        1. Why don’t you ask Jim Humble why he didn’t hire a lab or scientist (with good reputation) to do some indepent tests in all those years he is making money from his ‘invention’? As it seems he has enough followers who would be happy to act as volunteers. For a start he could try to find out how much ClO2 will actually be in the blood after taking some MMS.

        2. Once again, you have been remiss in not checking your facts.

          1. Jim Humble has, from the beginning, provided the formula for MMS and hence not made a fortune out of it. Anyone can buy the commonly available ingredients and make it for themselves. And this is why it is useless to pharmaceutical companies.

          2. From memory, it costs close to $1M to perform a double blind clinical trial.

          So, the aid agencies that spend billions of dollars every year working in many destitute malaria-ridden countries around the world – who would best benefit from a cheap cure for malaria – WHY HAVE THEY NOT DONE A TRIAL?

          Clearly, there is no convincing response to this question – which is why you ignored it – resorting to logical fallacies rather than address the point in question.

          Thank you for confirming that you are committed to your paradigm and blatantly unwilling to entertain any ideas that may smash it into tiny pieces.

        3. Oh, come on, you either are blinded by the stories Humble spreads himself or you are part of his organisation. No one would start with a randomized controlled trial for testing MMS, before other simpler tests have been done. Just read up on how you proper research in Medicine is done. The simple labtests I suggested could be easily paid for by Humble. There is enough money going on in his ‘church’ to make trouble about in his forum.

          Of course aid agencies are not willing to do research on MMS, because there is no plausibility that it works. Just ask Humble for some basic calculations, he doesn’t provide any credible scientific backup for his claims.

        4. Since chlorine dioxide is already established as an effective killer of bacteria and viruses, and has been tested on animals, your argument that Jim Humble should test it is therefore just as valid for the government and aid agencies. And Jim Humble has provided the scientific basis for its efficacy.

          More logical fallacies are not going to swing the argument back to your paradigm.

        5. Chlorine dioxide is an effective killer, but it kills the good stuff as easy as the bad stuff. Humble doesn’t give any scientific evidence to prove otherwise.

          As I stated in http://www.pepijnvanerp.nl/2013/05/fake-and-unethical-trial-video-claims-miracle-mineral-solution-cures-malaria/#comment-956255403 I’m not really interested to keep on going pointing this out to people who don’t substantiate these claims on MMS without credible evidence. And for those people it would make more sense to debunk the thorough debunking of MMS on the MMS debunked website: https://sites.google.com/site/mmsdebunked/home/mms-scam

          If you have a link to a website of Humble or someone else who gives good counterarguments to that site, just drop the link here. I see no use in repeating old debunked arguments on my website.

        6. They haven’t done a trial because there isn’t even a plausible mechanism of action. The outlandish claims of curing everything from HIV to cancer further point to MMS being a scam rather than a legitimate medical product.
          In the example in the video, the test process is poorly documented and they don’t seem to have published the results. Why would any scientific organisation listen to someone who doesn’t even try to document things correctly?

      2. “That it can kill bacteria and viruses in water or Petri dish doesn’t mean it can do that in humans, when they take it orally..”

        true,it doesn’t mean that it can do that in humans..but common sense says it can and will, and guess what… it DOES.

    1. The URCS is obviously subject to some ‘powers to be’. Klas Proesmans is clearly pro MMS in this video. Any change of mind and debunking of MMS on his part proves him to be either fickle-minded and/under pressure from some higher authority that is threatened by MMS.

      At least, Pepijn, you could take back your false review of MMS (Chlorine Dioxide) and its efficacy in treating illnesses. You invalidate real people’s positive testimonies based on silly arguments such as ‘you’ have not seen the results yourself (are YOU now the authority in this matter?) or based on ‘improper trial procedures. Funny that all the proper procedures in the labs have not produced a cure for Malaria so far… what does that tell about proper procedures?

      I’m no follower of Jim Humble (I don’t go for his ‘spiritual’ stances nor his philosophies) but I have tested and substantiated MMS for my use not only for the common cold but have reversed more serious conditions including cancer several times with it. Klass Proesmans validates MMS as an effective cure for Malaria in the video above.

      You don’t have to be a believer but be honest, open minded and humble (pun not intended) for goodness sake! It might help a few helpless people!

      1. Klaas Proesmans is not trained in medical research, so his opinion is of little value. I’ve made clear a couple of times in these comments that there is no objective evidence of MMS being a cure for any of the diseases as claimed by its proponents.If you want to take MMS yourself, you’re free to do so, but I object strongly to the propagation of the unsubstantiated claims, especially towards vulnerable people, who don’t have easy acces to proper information about this issue.

        1. I think I get you Pepijn, on what you’re concerned about. I suppose it would be great if the MMS folks, Proesmans, URCS or whoever that undertakes the trials do it right according to protocols for the sake of those that rely on their substantiation (you, for example) before taking a ‘remedy’. Why take the trouble to test and do it wrongly? I get it completely from your perspective! But, what is the right way, by the way? Where did they go wrong in the test? Can you be specific?

          Still, in regards to open discussion platforms like this, take note that not everyone reading these dialogues is looking to the official medical reports for substantiation anymore due to past experience with the system delivering ineffective yet expensive solutions. In fact as a result many of us will get suspicious of a product that gets approved and ‘substantiated’ through the official lab tests! 🙂

          The internet discussion platforms offer the public the old fashioned word of mouth testimonies – some useful, some useless. It places the responsibility rightfully back to the user or reader to think, test and try out what works and what doesn’t. Humans are capable of doing this if allowed to. This is open source education and it’s better than if people hung their thinking capacities to dry and relied on some expert they don’t know to dictate what is approved and what isn’t. Therefore your strong objection to the ‘propagation of unsubstantiated claims’ actually propagates the latter culture of lazy, irresponsible minds that cannot decide for themselves.

          Many of these people who are surfing to find remedies are those that have ditched their doctors and yet quite vulnerable without support. They need anecdotal examples more than an official lab’s approval. These people are also reading your posts and until they get deeper into the thread they do not know your stance on these matters.

          So do be cautious and fair when tagging a harmless substance as ‘fake’ and ‘unethical’ because of a particular poor trial procedure especially since you don’t seem to treat harmful pharma products with similar tagging that have undergone all the proper trial protocols to be substantiated! How do you justify such substantiation of products that create harmful side effects, which are also notoriously high-priced? If you treat all substances and procedures equally, your criticism of the above MMS trial would be better applauded.

          Nevertheless, for the sake of those needy readers that are still looking for official substantiation, I agree with you that the tests should be done properly according to protocol. Therefore, do tell what the proper protocols are.

        2. The people who are most in need of cheap and reliable cures for malaria, like those in Uganda don’t generally have access to Internet or have the knowledge to discriminate between sound scientifically backed health care interventions and quackery, which just sounds scientifically.

          And let’s be clear: I called the trial fake and unethical, and that’s still how I think about it, if it is presented as a proper clinical trial, as was done. It would be quite another thing if Proesmans and Koehof had presented it as a remarkable result from a test, which according to them (without any knowledge of malaria research) should be looked further into. In that case, I would still ask “what the hell were you thinking that you could defer from standard malaria treatment, without some plausibility for MMS being able to cure malaria?” but maybe then I would have called it a ‘stupid and irresponsible’. Hanlon’s razor could apply here as well: “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”

        3. What, is this now a competition between MMS and the standard malaria treatment? Must everything about the tests show polarized differences?

          From what I read, Proesmans was skeptical and Koehof knew of MMS’ plausibility to cure Malaria. So the inspiration for the test was different than usual.
          Could it be that the intention was purely to bring cure, help and relief for the poor Malaria crippled society?

          It worked! 100% cure! Why so sour about it and why debunk it if it works? I wished you’d be more precise about where the problem is for those of us who are sincerely seeking a solution and want to do it right in future.

        4. Does Koehof have a scientifically plausible story for the allegedly miraculous workings of chlorine dioxide? don’t think so.
          And if there was anything to cure is debatable without actual data. But that’s the only issue we agree on, I think, that the URCS is keeping things behind and that that is a bad idea. I think that a proper analysis of the data and the way those were obtained, will give no reason to change the scientifical consensus on the potential curative effects of MMS. Until that information is released, it’s speculating.

        5. Why is a “scientifically plausible” explanation required from Klaas?? That is a bizarre reason to reject the results. Do you need a scientifically plausible explanation to explain why electricity lights your house? Or do you flip the switch and accept it?

        6. Oh, BTW this is not an open discussion platform, it’s my personal website, commentators are my guests and I could block all criticizing comments easily.

        7. “Klaas Proesmans is not trained in medical research”..

          he doesnt have to be.. HE WAS THERE…HE SAW THE PEOPLE BEING CURED didn’t he?.. where were you ? on the net making up stories about mms? jumping on the hate bandwagon with ZERO clue as to the actual science going on here?.if i see a man who tests positive for hiv, then tests negative after taking mms…do i need to be trained in medical research to understand that something helped him here? you keep reaching for cigars and coming up empty everytime.

  14. Pepijn

    Thanks for exposing this. Humble’s actions are thoroughly reprehensible and downright dangerous.

    One thing struck me as odd: why is the letter addressed to the WRC at ‘p/o Red Cross Seychelles’?

    1. They share offices I guess: http://waterreferencecenter.com/contact The WRC is an initiative in which the Red Cross (Seychelles + Kenya) is participating, only their activities have nothing to do with clinical tests or medical research. I think Proesmans has done this on his own using the ‘status’ of the WRC in getting things done in Uganda. I would like to see this cleared up by the WRC and the URCS in more detail.

  15. None of you critics would know a fake and unethical trial if it hit you over the head. None of you were there and none of you were able to determine if it was fake or unethical by watching the video. None of you have the slightest understanding of chemistry or the chemistry of Chlorine Dioxide. And none of you have even tried to learn. One or two of you have had a thought or two, but nothing more. You read a report or see a video and you think you instantly know the science of it all and what you have said indicates that you know nothing about what you say. But I tell you what, I’ll answer any questions about the science of it all and why it works and then you can take my answers to any scientist who is a scientist who knows the chemistry of chlorine dioxide. You might want to see if my answers are correct and my answers will indeed show scientifically that MMS works.

    My bet is that you won’t have the integrity to do this, because you must somehow convince people that Chlorine dioxide doesn’t work for the pharmaceuticals and you can only do that by throwing a lot of confusion into the question.

    Any of you know it all’s up for it?

    1. So you claim to know so much about the chemistry of Chlorine Dioxide? Than it will be easy for you to give some calculations of how the ‘cure’ as presented in the video is supposed to work. Simply present figures like how much of Chlorine Dioxide is created, how much of that enters the blood stream, how much is left to oxidize malaria parasites and isn’t ‘spoiled’ on other stuff. And show that it can clear the body of infection this way. All as a theoretical concept, no individuals have to harmed. I bet you can’t do this, but just try and publish a document on your own website and drop a link here.

      1. Excuse me, but this is all nonsense. The question that matters is were there parasites on the ‘before’ slides and were their parasites on the ‘after’ slides.

        If you want to figure out the other crap on your own time as an entertaining parlor game, knock yourself out. Meanwhile, for the people who are living with the daily threat of malaria, they have the answer they are looking for.

        1. Try to keep your eyes on the real goal. The real goal is ridding the patient of their disease. It is the only goal that truly matters.

          If you have a secondary one of satisfying your curiosity, fine. It’s not one that the people of Uganda care about – they just want to save their children and themselves from dying from this major killer.

          Let’s not forget your headline where you called the field trial “Fake and Unethical.” It turns out the fakery and breech of ethics has come from Klaas and the Red Cross.

          It’s time for you to apologize for your headline.

        2. I still consider ‘fake and unethical’ proper judgement considering which was known at the time I wrote this blog. Now that it is presented more as a field test and not as a clinical trial, I would not have called it fake. Still it is unethical to my opinion, you cannot start giving patients drugs which have not been tested for side effects and without an ethics commission giving its approval.

        3. Let the people make their own choices. Tell them, “MMS hasn’t been given a seal of approval by X, Y or Z, so you assume the risks if you do decide to take it. If you’d prefer to wait for approval, then don’t take it because it has not been approved yet.”

          The millions of people who get malaria and the millions who die presently each year don’t have a satisfactory alternative at the moment. But if they decide they’d rather take their chances with the malaria, then they can always turn down the MMS.

          The notion that others should have to the power to decide for us is an elitist concept. At some point were MMS shown to be demonstrably unsafe, then sure, it could be withheld, but until there is real evidence of its danger at the recommended dosage, people should be allowed.

          We can buy cough medicine off the shelf. If you drink too much, it can be harmful. We don’t take he cough medicine off the shelf because some people take too much. Rather we trust most people will use it properly.

          There is no reason as yet not to do the same for MMS, or at the very least allow professionals to administer it with the assumption of risk being made clear.

          In the field test 154 people took it. 154 people had their blood tested before and after with good results. No one was made sick by MMS. In fact they were made well.

          Lastly, the story here is that the Red Cross and Klaas lied and are attempting to cover up the results. Klaas went so far as to claim the Red Cross tee shirts were part of the scam.

          It’s unethical on your part to keep a headline and not correct it in the first sentence with an update, preferably in bold, when it has been shown that the only fraud committed here was not by the proponents of MMS, but by those who oppose it, as is clearly the case here.

    2. I should think you would have to know a lot more than just chemistry to understand how Chlorine Dioxide acts inside a human body, Jim. You would have to understand every feedback loop, chemical reaction and nuance of the body. I don’t know any chemistry students who know all that. A human body is not a test tube!

      Drug trial protocols exist for a reason, and they’re done in a certain way so as to ensure that the results can be confirmed and held up to scrutiny. (That’s the way science works, and not just pharmaceutical science – you have to prove things according to predetermined scientific standards, or else it’s not counted as science.) Such trials are the hard proof that something works the way it is supposed to, and just as importantly, that it isn’t going to harm people horribly. You don’t have to be a pharmaceutical industry company to do such trials. Many makers of natural products do them too. For instance (and I’m picking a product at random here, not endorsing any product) the makers of Arthred conducted extensive trials on their product; Arthred is a supplement, and the company is not a pharmaceutical giant as far as I am aware.

      Generally speaking, if someone is sure their product is good, they are usually happy to conduct LEGITIMATE trials to prove it, trials that meet certain standards and are published for peer review. And though trials cost money, if the product is as effective as you claim it to be, with an almost unprecedented alleged 100% cure rate, then raising the finances to pay for trials shouldn’t be a problem. Why, Bill Gates is looking for a cure for malaria, and he’s got the big bucks – if something actually worked like you claim Chlorine Dioxide does, I’m sure he’d be interested!

      But getting back to the subject of chemistry, I am well aware that halides such as chlorine, bromide, fluoride etc. can interfere with iodine absorption in the human body, so taking any strong chlorine solution such as this for any length of time troubles me greatly. The endocrine system, which the thyroid is a central part of, is one of the most important systems in the body, and to interfere with it is fraught with danger, both in the short and long term.

      Also, I’d be worried about interactions between Chlorine Dioxide and other ingested things. For instance, Chlorine Dioxide can be used to remove estrogen contamination in the environment, at least according to articles you can find in a quick Google. To my mind, this immediately makes me wonder, what interaction might it have with hormonal contraceptives, either in pill or implant form? Or how might it interact with the female monthly menstrual cycle too, and female fertility, which it theoretically could do if it interferes with the estrogen cycle. It could also assumedly have an effect on pregnant women and their unborn babies. It might interact badly with other medicines, and with some foods, and with some vitamin and mineral supplements. Also, what happens in the case of someone with a damaged or slow-working liver taking it, or someone who also drinks a fair amount of alcohol, given that slow clearance rates of the substance through the liver would lead to higher than recommended concentrations building up in the body? For that matter, what if you take it with a drug like metronidazole or disulfiram, as a for instance, since drugs such as that can slow down the liver and back things up? Or any other drug that works through the same Cytochromal P450 channels Chlorine Dioxide uses? These are questions I’d want answered before I’d even consider taking this drug.

      Also, if the Chlorine Dioxide works as well as you claim it does, then there should be a herxheimer effect, assumedly. This is usually caused by acetaldehydes, which are released in profusion when pathogens die and break down. However, in the case of Chlorine Dioxide, you should theoretically get a HUGE herxheimer reaction, because of the particular nature of Chlorine Dioxide, which I will mention here, as quoted from a reliable toxicology textbook: Chlorine Dioxide reacts with natural organic matter mainly on the aromatic part. Formaldehyde and acetaldehyde are the main byproducts of oxidation of natural organic matter by Chlorine Dioxide.

      One would assume that the human body contains some natural organic matter, at the very least as a result of us eating foods.

      Also, some people on the internet recommend taking Chlorine Dioxide with vinegar, which is naturally high in acetaldehydes.

      Acetaldehydes are implicated in many inflammatory conditions of the body. They’re also toxic and classed as either a level 1 or 2 carcinogen, depending on what country you’re in. I don’t think I’d want to be exposed to high levels of them for long. Not at all. They make you feel lousy as well. Acetaldehydes are what cause hangover symptoms after you’ve gotten drunk on alcohol.

      Formaldehydes are just as nasty, too.

      Trying to clear big loads of these two aldehydes out of your body for any length of time could potentially cause damage to the filtration system, including liver, kidneys and bladder. (That’s why alcoholics end up with liver damage – it’s the fault of all the acetaldehydes.)

      If Chlorine Dioxide really worked as a cure, and if reliable, standard tests proved it, as well as proving that there weren’t horrible side effects, I would support it. I’m a strong advocate of natural remedies and as sceptical as the next person about what some of the big pharma companies are up to. But I’ve learnt the hard way not to fall for non-scientific hype when it comes to many natural products. I trust proper scientific studies. Hard facts. And with good reason.

      And finally, as chemistry seems the central point to this string of the debate, I will end with another chemistry-related piece of info about Chlorine Dioxide, which I find rather troubling, especially when I think about all these chemicals potentially forming inside my body as a result of ingesting Chlorine Dioxide:
      At a wastewater treatment plant in Indiana, which used Chlorine Dioxide as a primary disinfectant, more than 40 organic disinfection by-products were identified at very low concentrations. Eleven of these are regulated chemicals by the EPA (bromodichloromethane, carbon tetrachloride, dibromochloromethane, 1,1,1-trichloro-2-propanone, maleic anhydride, bromoform, 1,4-dichlorobenzene, benzyl cyanide, benzoic acid, naphthalene, and decylphenol).

  16. This article reeks of another dirty Pharma intervention. Shame on Proesmans and the Uganda Red Cross for succumbing and dissociating from the trial and the results. What’s new!

    [PvE(MOD): removed some unsubstantiated health claims regarding MMS]

    There is no doubt for me that the trial was genuine and the results were indeed as was reported on the video.

    Your article was poor and does great disservice to mankind!

    1. I think the Ugandan Red Cross is embarrassed by this video. I do not doubt that what we are shown actually happened, but it is not a proper clinical trial. And the ‘results’ are entirely wrongly interpreted by Koehof and Proesmans if we want to look at it all in a friendly way. If you like the more sinister scenario they deliberately misled the Ugandan Red Cross.
      I’ve received some documents which do shed some light on this. I will publish those next week.

        1. Of course you don’t judge the quality of a test by it’s results, but by checking if the proper methods were used. A negative result can be as good the result of the perfect field test as a more welcome result.

  17. The Water Reference Center has published a similar statement as the Red Cross: http://waterreferencecenter.com/blog/2013/06/wrc-strongly-dissociates-from-the-claim-of-a-miracle-solution-to-defeat-malaria#.UbAxldJ7JSk
    It’s dated May 24th (a couple af days after I contacted Koornstra) but only published online om June 3rd (just after I asked Koornstra for an update).

    In the mean time I have received a document which looks like a draft of the proposal for this ‘test’. If it is genuine (which I do not really doubt) it confirms that Proesmans and the Ugandan Red Cross were involved. It’s presented as a pilot for water purification, but it mentions that one of its purposes is to look at ‘the possible positive side-effects in the fight against malaria’. I think it confirms the scenario I describe in the blog.

    Will do some checking before publishing.

  18. Regardless of anything stated in this article, MMS is not a myth. I have many first hand accounts of people using MMS to resolve various health issues. I do not have any information Malaria however, as it is not prevalent in my part of the world.

  19. Hey, friend, I have just finished reading the article. Very good job. The point contacting Ruud Koornstra has been wonderful. I wish he answer you. Let me know it. And the link on youtube were Humble manifests himself is simply delightful 🙂 I’m going to share it with the spanish. I also would like to read Kerstin saying her opinion about all this.

    1. I’ve scanned through the report, but can’t find the number we want to know in this case: the percentage of positive quick tests on bloodsamples of people in malaria endemic area’s which would not be interpretated as malaria cases by the local standards for parasite counts in blood slides. The false positive rates in this report are determined by using blood which is known to be clear. That can’t be compared to blood samples of the participants in the video.

    2. I think they used at least two different types. The Maleriscan can be seen at 3.22 it’s probably the Maleriscan® Malaria Pf/Pv from Bhat Bio-Tech India. At 15.55 you can see details of the package of the test which looks like the most used in the video. I think it’s the Paracheck® Pf-Rapid Test for P.falciparum Malaria Dipstick (Ver.3) of Orchid Biomedical Systems. Both test are in that list at http://www.finddiagnostics.org. On the last test the WHO reports doesn’t report much about false positive rates. Looking at the numbers of the samples in the video, it seems like they used this test first and later used the Maleriscan. Screenshots attached.

      1. Hi Pepijn,

        After this test they did an analysis by microscope to verify the malaria infection. I also believe MMS works, I’ve been in Burundi myself for three months, and I used it personally. I never got malaria and took no other antimalarial drugs. I did get bitten by mosquitos.. I also gave MMS to some Burundians who claim they had malaria, and they all were cured in about four hours. I didn’t do any medical tests, but the results were good enough for me personally.

        1. They claim they did this analysis to verify malaria infection after a positive quick test, but there is no convincing evidence of that. There’s no mentioning of false positive quick tests, which are to be expected. Even if they did perform the analysis it depends on the exact protocol they followed for what to think of the result. I have other theories, that might explain the ‘results’ quite well, without any positive contribution of the MMS given. It would be better if the Ugandan Red Cross Society would release the data which were written down and the exact way in which they did the microscopy on (possibly) first and second day.

          I’m happy for you that you didn’t got bitten by an infected mosquito in Burundi, but to think that MMS worked preventative makes no sense.

        2. *They claim they did this analysis to verify malaria infection after a positive quick test, but there is no convincing evidence of that.*

          That’s true.. But there’s no cinvincing evidence they didn’t either.. My best guess is that the microscopist and others like the German blogger are honestly reporting what they do.

          * There’s no mentioning of false positive quick tests, which are to be expected. *

          That’s true as well, but I wouldn’t expect such an elaborate explanation of the protocols followed in a video..

          * Even if they did perform the analysis it depends on the exact protocol they followed for what to think of the result. I have other theories, that might explain the ‘results’ quite well, without any positive contribution of the MMS given. **It would be better if the Ugandan Red Cross Society would release the data which were written down and the exact way in which they did the microscopy on (possibly) first and second day.*

          Here we see your prejudice Pepijn.. You seem to have a great desire to explai all this in such a way to discredit the people doing this test. Nonetheless good science should look into such criticism. All I’m saying is that I also treated people with Malaria with MMS, I just didn’t do the tests, I just saw the people get well.. Anyway I’m interested to know your theories :-).

          * *

          *I’m happy for you that you didn’t got bitten by an infected mosquito in Burundi, but to think that MMS worked preventative makes no sense.*

          Nice to hear you care about my wellbeing, thanks! But here you are again jumping to conclusions.. You may be right, but since I was there for three months I think the chance I wasn’t bitten by an infected mosquito was about 40%. So the possible options are:

          1 I was not bitten by an infected mosquito – about 40% chance in my estimate.

          2 I was bitten by an infected mosquito – about 60% chance. Than there’s the possibility that the infection didn’t take for some other reason than MMS, that’s about 40% as well.

          You’re right that MMS is not preventative though, it only stays in the blood for about 1.5 hours. If you take it on a regular basis it probably would kill off any infection even before you notice you’ve been infected.

          I’m curious.. For me it looks like this video is exactly what is claims, 154 malaria patients healed by MMS, and the people involved very happy with the results. Why are you so motivated to say that’s not the case? Do you have evidence MMS does not heal malaria? Do you really think all the people in the videos and the German blogger and myself are lying and acting?

          I’m willing to do a little follow up test, I’d be willing to get stung by malaria infected mosquitos to verify that MMS can than remove the infection.. I’ll contact some malaria reasearchers in the university of Nijmegen about that, and it would be nice if you could think along and see for yourself how that test goes :-).

          Thanks again for your quick response and all best,

          Rudolf.

          P.S. I’m a biologist myself, MSc. from Wageningen university.

        3. As you have a Masters degree in biology you’ll probably be able to judge for yourself that the evidence Jim Humble presents for his claims considering MMS does not hold up to scientific standards. If he is such an expert in the chemical science behind MMS, he should be able to answer my questions about the plausibility of MMS as a cure for anything at all, when swallowed. Still waiting for an answer to my questions which would make a start: http://www.pepijnvanerp.nl/2013/05/fake-and-unethical-trial-video-claims-miracle-mineral-solution-cures-malaria/#comment-935253791
          There’s nothing more than personal experiences and doubtful anecdotes as support for the health claims concerning MMS (and we’re not talking about water purification now) and there’s a whole lot of science which deems this as implausible and possibly dangerous. Indeed it’s dangerous if people who really have malaria will put their trust in MMS for curing them.
          You can call that prejudical, I consider it common sense and caring about other peoples lives.

        4. instead of waiting for jim to acknowledge how important you are,why don`t you experiment with mms yourself (it hasn`t killed anybody yet)or with someone that is sick and figure it out for yourself ?all you do is jump to conclusions…using some sort of logics (i.e.if they don`t do this it must be because they are hidding this etc…)the fact is,you don`t know what you are talking about…so your opinion doesn`t really matter.(sounds more like you are full of yourself) p.s. its ok if you don`t post this..

        5. You didn’t do any medical tests, but the results were good enough for you. Is this serious?????

  20. Hi Pepijn, nice post. Regarding the RDTs, they don’t detect anti-malaria antibodies (that would be rather useless to detect current infection, indeed!). What they detect are circulating Plasmodium antigens that may persist in the body for up to 28 days (at least) after the infections has been cleared.

    Cheers,

    1. Thanks, I will correct that in the text. Because of the long rains which last until November, I think it is very likely that many of the ‘positive’ participants had been infected a little while before this ‘trial’ and still have those antigens circulating.

  21. Thanks a lot Pepijn. This weekend I’ll read it. It seems to be a very interesting article. I think you still don’t know that Andreas has to go to trial because he was denounced by the police for selling this MMS thing as a medicine which in Spain is strictly prohibited.

    Jorge.

        1. I did already link to that video in my comment. And for ‘negationists’ I do not deny that a test was conducted, it’s just a faulty test and certainly not a proper clinical trial. The WHO has guidelines for malaria trials, which were not used here.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *