Update on MMS malaria ‘trial’ in Uganda


After release of the latest YouTube video concerning the ‘clinical trial’ in Luuka, Uganda, which allegedly proves that MMS (Miracle Mineral Supplement/Solution) was effective against malaria, it has become clear that the Ugandan Red Cross Society (URCS) was indeed involved and that it was organized (as a private initiative) by Belgian Klaas Proesmans, CEO of the Water Reference Center (WRC). See my earlier blogs, if this is the first blog on this matter you stumbled upon: Fake and Unethical Trial: Video Claims Miracle Mineral Solution Cures Malaria and What did the Ugandan Red Cross Society know about “the ‘miracle’ solution to defeat malaria” Video?
According to Jim Humble, inventor of MMS, this new video was produced by a Ugandan film crew, commissioned by Proesmans. It was uploaded to YouTube in January, but not made publicly available. Apparently the URCS and Proesmans were still debating what to do with the seemingly incredible results of the ‘trial’. The video was ‘leaked’ to Humble c.s. and is now being spread via YouTube and Facebook. They added a foreword by Humble and an epilogue by Leo Koehof (who produced the first video and was present in Luuka during the events in December 2012).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrwZN1cPfX8 (account has been deleted by YouTube)

Proesmans in the 2nd video about the ‘trial’ in Luuka

[Update 21 May 2019
YouTube has deleted many channels used by MMS promoters recently (see this article in Business Insider for some background). This video can still be found on YouTube if you know where to look for it.]

Although the statements of the URCS and the WRC (archived copy), in which they dissociate themselves from the first video, seem empty now, we still don’t have enough information to get a good picture of what happened. Is there enough proof now to accept MMS as a cure for malaria or to start more research immediately to follow up on this remarkable results? I don’t think so and I will tell you why.

In my earlier blog I suggested that they might have fooled us by making us believe that they did a proper check on the positive quick tests. Those tests quite often give false positive results in malaria endemic areas and if they only did a blood slide the next day, that could just be seen as confirmation of such a false positive result. However, now it is quite clear that the URCS was involved and is trying to keep things down, this scenario is not so likely anymore (otherwise they could just point this out themselves). But I think a closer look on the protocols for taking blood slides for malaria testing could provide some interesting ideas of what might have been the reason for the remarkable results.

Malaria Microscopy

basicmalariamicroscopyHow to take blood slides and use them for malaria diagnosis is written down in Basic Malaria Microscopy (pdf), published by the World Health Organisation (WHO). Like we see in the video, you start by taking a drop of blood from a finger prick. This drop is smeared on a slide. For checking for malaria parasites you’ll make a ‘thick film’, which consists of many layers of red and white blood cells. This smear is then stained, which causes the haemoglobin in the red cells to dissolve, so that large amounts of blood can be examined quickly and easily.
Now the microscopist will keep track of two numbers, the white bloodcells (leukocytes) and parasites he or she sees in each microscopic field. A satisfactory thick film will have 15-20 white bloodcells in each field. In each field the two numbers are counted and when finished, the slide is moved a bit so that you’ll see a completely new field. This continues until 200 leukocytes are counted (you have to finish counting the field in which you reach this number). The estimate of the number of parasites in the blood is now given by the following formula:

Formula by which the parasitaemia is estimated
Formula by which the parasitaemia is estimated

 So it’s the number of parasites per leukocyte multiplied by a constant, which is the average number of leukocytes in blood per microlitre. This ‘parasites per microlitre’-number is called parasitaemia. If you find for instance 539 parasites on 214 white blood cells, the parasitaemia is 539/214 x 8.000 = 20,150 parasites per microlitre, which makes a decent infection, but not a severe one. In areas which have a high malaria burden, severe malaria cases start at a parasitaemia of 250,000.
With very low parasitaemias things are a bit more complicated. If you reach the 200 leukocytes during the microscopic scan, but found less than 100 parasites so far, you should continu screening fields until you have counted 500 leukocytes. This of course takes a lot more time. Pronouncing a blood slide negative for malaria parasites even takes more time, because at least 100 fields should be examined and found free of parasites. This will take approximately 10 minutes. And here my doubt on the results of the ‘trial’ in Luuka starts.
They tell us all 154 participants who had malaria before ‘treatment’ were tested negative for malaria the next day (11 were not ‘cured’ immediately). Also we can hear Proesmans tell, that on day 1 they only found 5 malaria cases. This means that the lab has pronounced at least 149 slides malaria negative on days 3-5. This would, if done properly, take at least 25 hours continuous looking through a microscope.  As it seems that there was only one microscope present, this would mean they used it more than 8 hours a day. This doesn’t look feasible (and remember they also had to to confirm the positive quick tests and do blood slides of patients, not participating in this test).

Maybe they only checked about ten microscopic fields, that would be a normal number to reach the 200 leukocytes you have to count for getting an indication of the severity of infection for clinical purposes. But that’s not enough to pronounce someone free of malaria. We also have to consider that in Uganda 42% of the population has parasites in the blood without being ill. Their parasitaemia is too low to cause symptoms, and their partially immunity will keep the infection in bounds. So for clinical purposes such a quick scan of a couple of microscopic fields will probably give enough information.

On the other hand, those quick test are quite sensitive. They don’t react to parasites themselves, but to antigens the body creates against these parasites (but they might stay in the blood up to a couple of weeks after someone actually was infected). Translated to parasitaemia they can detect infections of as low as 50 parasites per microlitre, which would mean about 0.1 parasites in a microscopic field. To detect an infection with such a low parasitaemia, you’ll have to check quite some fields. If you know that someone already tested positive on a quick test, you might be inclined to check enough fields to confirm this and in doing so, check far more fields than you would do the next day when you pronounce the person free of malaria, when no such quick test is done.

If we don’t know if both microscopic tests were executed using the exact same procedures, I think it’s not possible to draw any conclusions from the results. To perform such a microscopic research properly, you’ll have to describe upfront very precisely how you will judge blood slides and it’s preferably done by microscopists who are unaware of the persons malaria status obtained from the quick test. It doesn’t look like they took those precautionary measures here and there is ample room for confirmation bias. It all differs quite a bit from the instructions prescribed by the WHO for assessing and monitoring of antimalarial drug efficacy. As a scientific test, it is just a mess and it’s impossible to draw any conclusions from the results.

Ugandan Red Cross Society keeps quit for the moment

To get to the bottom of this, we need the URCS to explain in detail what happened in the lab and release of the data. By almost denying that the ‘trial’ took place, they are just feeding all kind of conspiracy theories. They didn’t reply to my e-mail in which I expressed my worries that this would happen. On a German website however, there is a response by Sarah Musisi, Director Health and Care Uganda Red Cross Society (who earlier also responded to questions of a Spanish skeptical site):

If what I have written has turned out to portray a bad attitude, I must apologize for that. It was not my intention to do that. All I can say is that the whole video is very unfortunate and worse still that my name is mentioned in it. I still emphasize that URCS does not believe in the treatment of malaria as claimed in that video and we continue to encourage our communities to seek care and treatment from qualified health providers. The issue of the video is being handled by the URCS management and we hope it will removed from the net soon to save people from the lies.
I apologize once again
Sarah Musisi

There is no scientific evidence that MMS can improve the health of people suffering from serious illnesses like HIV/AIDS, cancer, malaria or whatever disease Humble and his followers claim MMS is good for. On the contrary, that MMS is good for anything at all, when swallowed is extremely implausible  A good resource on MMS which shows the lack of scientific backup for the claims of Humble, is: MMS Debunked.


Did you enjoy this article? Then please consider to support my blog with a donation.

20 thoughts to “Update on MMS malaria ‘trial’ in Uganda”

  1. Hello.
    The healthy reason says:
    If something has a good predisposition to be a cure, but tests, that were done yet, are not enough scientific, because of conditions… let’s do new, better tests, where truth will be shown.’
    By this video, MMS has good predisposition to be a cure, it’s really high chance, it will work. Instead of, making a new, legitible test, you are letting people die and suffer, and rather, finding a reasons, why it should have not worked in those, not-so-scientific tests.

    The red cross, in first place, should be interested, in re-done the tests, under better scientific condition, where we all can see the truth.
    But wait, there is a problem… money. If it would work, it is cheap, and pharmaceutical companies would lost, what they’ve invested into developing much expensive drugs, and malaria infection is very good generator of money. This is evil, and need to be stopped immediately, by REPEATING the tests under adequate scientific care, and showing the results to public.

    Claiming, that MMS don’t work, because there are not any scientific studies, is not scientific approach. It just reflects the fact, there is NO INTEREST to do such tests, even despite the fact, that predisposition that they will be positive, are very high. It’s evil. Nothing else.

    My friends, children are dying, every minute one, and their mothers are suffering in great pain. Let’s fight for truth, the clinical tests need to be done, so this evil from redcross disapear. The should be at least free from malaria, it’s very painful disease in many aspects, sucking energy and vitality from patient. All all of this, can be with very high chance easily cured – and for free. But there will be milions of dollars loses on the pharmaceutical companies, and that’s the problem.

    1. There is no plausibility for MMS to work as the Genesis II church of Jim Humble claims, he can’t even make the simplest estimation of how much chlorine dioxide would enter the blood when you follow his protocols. It is just criminal to start experiments on humans without good reasons.

      There are many researchers working hard on real treatments and vaccines for malaria who aren’t tied to ‘Big Pharma’ (I know some of them) and they would be happy to research a cheap simple remedy if there was any reason to think that it would actually work. But they know MMS is quackery in its worst form.

      1. The reason, why they cannot do this, is, that when they start to find out, it is actualy working, they immediately start to become enemies. As it was many times during history, also with Scurvy issue, and citrus fruits, that was healing Scurvy… it was simple and cheap, and they REFUSED it. Cannot you learn from history? More then 100 years, people were massively dying on Scurvy again, they thought, it is infection, they were even throwing the ones with disease into the sea, so they don’t infect others.

        So what about to make first experiment on animals. MMS is completly safe on animals, usually I am against experiments on animals, but in this case, as I know, it is working, and it is safe, I will encourage them to try it on animals.
        It will easy cure malaria (I know, human malaria is different, but if something heals animals malaria easily, you can predict, it will working also on humans… that’s how the tests go all the time), that will be results my friend, but anyone, who will find it out, will be silenced. Actually, there is even no will to do such tests, because first, someone need to give huge amount of money for it. And it will never happen. They are guarding it very good. They know, it is working, the ones, at higher places of Pharma industry. Now, you see the point… should they give huge ammount of money on something, that will decrease their income even more? And as it can replace antibiotics in many ways, it is even more threathing to them. So official clinical studies on MMS will NEVER happen. And the ones, which tries on their own, will be silenced.
        All, what can people do in desperation, is to try make it visible by attempts like this with Red cross, or their own Youtube video. The problem is, even, when someone would make very good laboratory tests on their own, and make video, Red Cross and FDA would just state, it was fake, and MMS is dangerous. That is, how it is, it’s informational war, where, behind the curtain, is fight for the money.

        But there’s truly a way how to do it. If you go in the Africa on your own. Find 100 or 200 ill people, and make some kind of proof, that they have really malaria (it can be done through video, that they will first tests officially on malaria, with positive results, and then, you make a video, as you are healing them in few days, and they all come again to test it, and you carefully document all 100-200 cases, then… it is without doubt, you have a proof in your hands. Now tell, where to find the money for it, and how to organize it, as it is risky… after this incident with Red Cross, they will be more cautious. It would be very hard to organize such experiment…
        You see, even when it would work, there is no way how to proof it. Because of money.

        I know, Pharma companies, and many people in it, are trying to help and find cures… but the way, so they have income from it. And it is the bad. The human life is not something, on which you should make income, but something, you should try to save, no matter of income.

        You see, all the money, millions of dollars, which goes into the hands of Pharma industries for malaria cure, could be saved… and invest into those regions, help those people to get them education, so they can get out of powerty and start to live like human beings.

        My friend, lets try to tell your friends, to make experiment on animals. And you’ll see, you will be silenced, even before experiment can happen. Just try, you will see, it will never happen, even when you want to see the results.

        1. So you are happy to follow all this Big Pharma consipracy theories from a guy (Jim Humble) who believes he is a some sort of god from a galaxy far, far away sent here to save the world? That’s hilarious.

        2. I share your dislike of animals being used in science to test drugs for their possible toxicity or harm to humans. If animals were used they would suffer because they would be injected with malaria first in order to do the tests. So even if the MMS doesn’t harm them they would of suffered after their initial injection. Their only hope is to be cured by the MMS treatment.
          There has been a patent passed that involved the successful treatment with Chlorine Dioxide to cure HIV (Patent no. US6086922). So there is a good chance this MMS treatment works on curing Malaria to and it certainly deserves more trials. Why can’t humans be tested if there is no harm from the doses stipulated? Especially in these situations when they volunteer and the alternative is probably death!
          Big pharma and doctors should remember their primary duty is curing patients not profits. The use of Chemotherapy and Radiotherapy etc is the norm even though it severely harms the patient as it fights the cancer. With all the research no fundamental improvement over these harsh methods has been adopted even after promising treatments like this one have been found. Contrarily it seems like we are getting more diseases and cancers the more money is spent on healthcare! The whole business stinks and needs investigation.

        3. A Patent only means that somebody took the effort to write his ideas down and was willing to pay the fee, it does not have any scientific value as claims in patents are not checked by the patent office (although I thought they don’t accept patents which are clearly perpetuum mobiles).

      2. Hi, if this is “quackery in its worst form”, then why is cloride being used in water treatment for desinfection?
        I can tell you (not scientifically) that in our ministry in the Turkana desert we treated people with MMS against worms and Malaria. And just gues what…., it worked.
        Not quackery, chemistry.
        Greetings from the frontline.

        1. Desinfecting water with a chemical like MMS (using proper quantities) is something completely different than drinking the stuff. You want your water clear of all biological substances and MMS can do that pretty good, but if you drink MMS it will kill the cells of your body as easy as it does bacteria in the water.

      3. What your saying is actually rediculous, nobody has tested it and shown it not to work, in fact there was a study led by a recognised professor proving it does work.

  2. I believe that anything that is going to make the big pharma corps loose money will always be fought. I believe in trying this stuff and if it does not work I do not think that is going to harm me more than the meds i am on already. The big pharma corporations are there to kill us anyway, so i give Jim Humble a tumb up and i wish him the best. Malaria has ben cured with MMS and some people are taking it for HIV and are getting better. So F..k the FDA, the Corps and the health departments and lets try it.

  3. Interesting phenomenon this MMS. I jut now (march 2014) encountered the video’s and the stories.

    One would think that with the claim of cleaning the body from parasites with sodium-chloride, and the hundreds of say-so successful treatments, that at least the red cross, WHO and and other laboratories would be very eager to do some real clinical studies themselves.

    With yearly thousands of people dying from malaria, it would be a crime against humanity if it turned out that vested special interests had a hand in preventing such studies and clinical trials.

    Something is fishy about this story, but from both sides.

  4. There’s actually lots of scientific evidence saying that it does help. Stop trying to put things down that cause no harm and may cure things. More people die from Chemo and radiation therapy then cancer its self so just give things a chance that might not be the best but ayleast they work without killing you and leaving you with awful side effects from pharmaceuticals

    1. Justin

      All info says that the whole Church built around the MMS and Jim Humble is a scum. it has all the ingredients: desperate people looking for a cure, someone to blame: conspiracy theories, etc.
      You say that there is a lot of evidence, which evidence is that? the church’s videos? could you please provide us with that info? I will buy the MMS and if it Works, then I will work to promote it, but everything says that it is a scum: The self-called Archbishop Jim Humbleteaching and his masters? come on!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked * Your comment might stay in the moderation queue for some time, especially if it is your first comment on this site. Usually all comments will be published, even if they express extreme disagreement with my writing, but I suggest that you find another place to leave rude and offensive comments. Also completely anonymous and non-English comments are not likely to pass moderation. Also read the Privacy Policy.

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.