It is consumed diluted (I think the vendors suggest to mix it with lemon juice or so) and only few droplets a day, so it’s not that bad as drinking industrial-strength bleach.
And it could actually work.
To me, EY’s post is a couple of unfavorable case studies.
Case Study 1: Treat a substance as if it had a “curing/harming property” as an out of context absolute—out of context of treatment protocol, dosing protocol, or the particulars of a patient.
We see this all the time. Newspaper headline: “Substance X cures/does not cure disease Y.” Of course, both could be true for different treatment protocols. For that matter, both could be true for the same treatment protocol but for different people.
Always use 5 drops of one of these food acids to each one drop of MMS, mix in a empty dry glass and wait at least 3 minutes, then add 1⁄3 to 2⁄3 glass of water or juice and drink.
When citric acid or other food acid is used to “activate” MMS as described in its instructions,[8] the mixture produces chlorine dioxide, a potent oxidizing agent used in water treatment and in bleaching.[9]
Now, I don’t know if the MMS protocol simulates a beneficial water treatment in dosing terms, but I’ll bet a nickel that EY didn’t either when he wrote this post.
Case Study 2: Confirmation bias on “the world is full of morons.”
EY writes:
We can always use more case studies of insanity that aren’t religion, right?
My brain is still not pessimistic enough about human stupidity.
If you’re just looking for case studies of idiocy, and you habitually tell yourself that you’re not pessimistic enough about human stupidity, are you likely to look for the sense in what people do or say?
To combat this, when I see something that looks stupid, I try to remind myself that “The other guy might not be a moron.” In this case, it wasn’t really that hard. I have a historical antipathy to Case Study 1 (ny own confirmation bias was at work), and the other comments provided hints and pointers to relevant information.
With these facts available from wikipedia, wouldn’t it be reasonable to think that the MMS folks had actually worked out dosing based on their treatment protocol, so that it in fact did simulate a perfectly safe and beneficial water treatment method? If they’re not morons, they can use wikipedia, they don’t want to kill anyone, don’t want to be sued, and would hope for some beneficial effect that helped sales.
I doubt that this cures whatever ails you, but very likely some guy just figured he could make money if he sold something, that when used as directed, amounted to home water treatment. If he was just a quack, there would have been a zillion and one things he could have thrown in water and sold—seems like a huge coincidence for him to happen upon something used in water treatment.
If it were so (intentionally or accidentally), users would be instructed to put MMS in any water they drink. But in fact they are instructed to take few droplets of MMS once a day; they can drink whatever water they wish after that. I doubt a disinfecting agent works several hours after being ingested.
seems like a huge coincidence for him to happen upon something used in water treatment
Almost any chemical is used for something; couldn’t you just write “seems like a huge coincidence for him to happen upon something used in dish washing” if MMS was instead a saponate? (Note that water treatment and dish washing are of approximately same relevance to human health.)
Also trying different chemicals and finally choosing sodium chlorite due it’s observed beneficial effects seems to me a less likely way to “discovery” in this case than knowing that bleach kills bacteria, concluding that it could work even internally and then using confirmation bias upon experimental data. Provided Jim Humble is not an ordinary quack.
I agree with your first point; I was surprised that EY used the “MMS is bleach, bleach is poison, MMS is poison” syllogism, given what he has written explicitly about poisons. It was perhaps a shorthand for a more valid argument, but surely sounded like very hasty reasoning.
I don’t get your points on water treatment. Maybe you don’t get mine. Selling a water treatment solution as a miracle health cure has the benefit of being safe and possibly having some marginal benefit. Such a sales plan doesn’t require that every bit of water be treated.
And it doesn’t seem like you read the directions. The directions are to put it into water, as I quoted earlier, and as can be seen in the included link.
Almost any chemical is used for something
But not every chemical has been so widely ingested to human benefit.
Also trying different chemicals and finally choosing sodium chlorite due it’s observed beneficial effects seems to me a less likely way to “discovery” in this case than knowing that bleach kills bacteria,
Replace “knowing that bleach kills bacteria” with “knowing that sodium chlorite can be easily transformed into chlorine dioxide, which is used as a water treatment”, and you’ve got my point about coincidence. It’s more likely that he picked this chemical because he knew it was used in water treatment than picked some chemical at random and liked the results.
Selling a water treatment solution as a miracle health cure has the benefit of being safe and possibly having some marginal benefit.
Safety would be guaranteed if the concentrations used for MMS didn’t exceed the level used for water treatment (under the natural assumption that water is not treated in order to become toxic), I don’t assert that the concentrations suggested by MMS proponents are unsafe, but rather that being a water treatment agent does not alone guarantee safety.
As for marginal benefits: water treatment is beneficial if all water one drinks is treated and if the water were infected before treatment. The MMS protocol, as likely applied in the western world, reduces to treating one glass of water a day, or even a glass of juice. Under normal conditions in developed countries drinking water or juice are perfectly safe as they are—adding disinfectant improves nothing. If, accidentally, the user has access to spoiled water only, treating one glass again is nearly worthless, since the germs would arrive to the intestinal tract with the next glass. If MMS were indeed beneficial, it would probably be for reasons completely unrelated to its being used for water treatment.
sodium chlorite can be easily transformed into chlorine dioxide, which is used as a water treatment
Reading more into Wikipedia I found the transformation goes as 2 NaClO2 + Cl2 → 2 ClO2 + 2 NaCl, which suggests you have to add chlorine to trigger the reaction. Are you sure this is happening when MMS is put into water? I suppose adding salt would be sufficient, but they suggest adding organic acids.
And it could actually work.
To me, EY’s post is a couple of unfavorable case studies.
Case Study 1: Treat a substance as if it had a “curing/harming property” as an out of context absolute—out of context of treatment protocol, dosing protocol, or the particulars of a patient.
We see this all the time. Newspaper headline: “Substance X cures/does not cure disease Y.” Of course, both could be true for different treatment protocols. For that matter, both could be true for the same treatment protocol but for different people.
Here’s the place with directions for using this stuff: http://miracle-mineral-supplement.com/instructions-for-taking-mms/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_Mineral_Supplement
And at the Wikipedia Chlorine Dioxide page, they show how it is used in water treatment, and the conditions for which it is superior to the use of chlorine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorine_dioxide#Uses
Now, I don’t know if the MMS protocol simulates a beneficial water treatment in dosing terms, but I’ll bet a nickel that EY didn’t either when he wrote this post.
Case Study 2: Confirmation bias on “the world is full of morons.”
EY writes:
If you’re just looking for case studies of idiocy, and you habitually tell yourself that you’re not pessimistic enough about human stupidity, are you likely to look for the sense in what people do or say?
To combat this, when I see something that looks stupid, I try to remind myself that “The other guy might not be a moron.” In this case, it wasn’t really that hard. I have a historical antipathy to Case Study 1 (ny own confirmation bias was at work), and the other comments provided hints and pointers to relevant information.
With these facts available from wikipedia, wouldn’t it be reasonable to think that the MMS folks had actually worked out dosing based on their treatment protocol, so that it in fact did simulate a perfectly safe and beneficial water treatment method? If they’re not morons, they can use wikipedia, they don’t want to kill anyone, don’t want to be sued, and would hope for some beneficial effect that helped sales.
I doubt that this cures whatever ails you, but very likely some guy just figured he could make money if he sold something, that when used as directed, amounted to home water treatment. If he was just a quack, there would have been a zillion and one things he could have thrown in water and sold—seems like a huge coincidence for him to happen upon something used in water treatment.
If it were so (intentionally or accidentally), users would be instructed to put MMS in any water they drink. But in fact they are instructed to take few droplets of MMS once a day; they can drink whatever water they wish after that. I doubt a disinfecting agent works several hours after being ingested.
Almost any chemical is used for something; couldn’t you just write “seems like a huge coincidence for him to happen upon something used in dish washing” if MMS was instead a saponate? (Note that water treatment and dish washing are of approximately same relevance to human health.)
Also trying different chemicals and finally choosing sodium chlorite due it’s observed beneficial effects seems to me a less likely way to “discovery” in this case than knowing that bleach kills bacteria, concluding that it could work even internally and then using confirmation bias upon experimental data. Provided Jim Humble is not an ordinary quack.
I agree with your first point; I was surprised that EY used the “MMS is bleach, bleach is poison, MMS is poison” syllogism, given what he has written explicitly about poisons. It was perhaps a shorthand for a more valid argument, but surely sounded like very hasty reasoning.
I don’t get your points on water treatment. Maybe you don’t get mine. Selling a water treatment solution as a miracle health cure has the benefit of being safe and possibly having some marginal benefit. Such a sales plan doesn’t require that every bit of water be treated.
And it doesn’t seem like you read the directions. The directions are to put it into water, as I quoted earlier, and as can be seen in the included link.
But not every chemical has been so widely ingested to human benefit.
Replace “knowing that bleach kills bacteria” with “knowing that sodium chlorite can be easily transformed into chlorine dioxide, which is used as a water treatment”, and you’ve got my point about coincidence. It’s more likely that he picked this chemical because he knew it was used in water treatment than picked some chemical at random and liked the results.
Safety would be guaranteed if the concentrations used for MMS didn’t exceed the level used for water treatment (under the natural assumption that water is not treated in order to become toxic), I don’t assert that the concentrations suggested by MMS proponents are unsafe, but rather that being a water treatment agent does not alone guarantee safety.
As for marginal benefits: water treatment is beneficial if all water one drinks is treated and if the water were infected before treatment. The MMS protocol, as likely applied in the western world, reduces to treating one glass of water a day, or even a glass of juice. Under normal conditions in developed countries drinking water or juice are perfectly safe as they are—adding disinfectant improves nothing. If, accidentally, the user has access to spoiled water only, treating one glass again is nearly worthless, since the germs would arrive to the intestinal tract with the next glass. If MMS were indeed beneficial, it would probably be for reasons completely unrelated to its being used for water treatment.
Reading more into Wikipedia I found the transformation goes as 2 NaClO2 + Cl2 → 2 ClO2 + 2 NaCl, which suggests you have to add chlorine to trigger the reaction. Are you sure this is happening when MMS is put into water? I suppose adding salt would be sufficient, but they suggest adding organic acids.