Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:40, 12 January 2015

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Miracle Mineral Supplement article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Miracle Mineral Supplement article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been marked as needing immediate attention. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Medicine Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Alternative medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine

Pseudo-accuracy

It isn't more accurate to state that sodium clorite will cause renal failure if ingested in large doses without specifying what large doses are (and, for that matter, what would be a safe dose). Unless you have an ADI (sourced, of course), it's more accurate to say that ingestion can cause renal failure. Everything else would be pseudo-accurate. --Six words (talk) 12:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree with the term 'can' instead of 'will'. Though the article the sentence is inferring specifies that a 10 gram does was 'acute' enough to cause renal failure, which in dictionary terms means 'of short duration but typically severe'. Although the term 'acute' may not necessarily mean 'severe' in the case of describing a medical condition, the context of the article can qualify the dose taken as having been large enough to cause poisoning of the subject's renal system, thereby qualifying it as a 'large' dose in medical terms (while specifically not using the term 'large'). Thus, one must assume that the article in reference is also 'pseudo-accurate'. 119.12.195.24 (talk) 13:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, but I know what acute toxicity is. The source is a case study - you cannot conclude from it that 10 g is the dose necessary for acute poisoning, but you can conclude that it's possible for sodium clorite to cause renal failure. --Six words (talk) 13:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Possible, but not probable. By that line of reasoning it can then be assumed that it is no more possible to burp on a glass of cola than it is to burp on a bottle of soda water. And a single case study that cannot be conclusively proven is hardly what would be considered evidence of toxicity.119.12.195.24 (talk) 14:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Possibility is binary - something either is possible or it isn't. I've never heard someone claim something was "more possible" than something else. --Six words (talk) 14:10, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

You shouldn't change a comment after someone answered to it. That said, you're now arguing for a change that I didn't even contest - I hope you realise that. --Six words (talk) 14:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

My point exactly. It is no more possible to be poisoned by consuming sodium chlorite than it is possible to be poisoned by consuming chlorine dioxide, using that assumption. And I must apologize. I removed part of my previous statement because i felt it may be considered inflammatory and irrelevant to the topic in question. I will pay more attention in future.119.12.195.24 (talk) 14:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

We already have the Health Canada source stating that it is toxic and can cause kidney failure, so what is your point? --Six words (talk) 14:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

My point is, that it is very misleading to claim that ingesting MMS involves the ingestion of sodium chlorite. That claim is simply not true. Health Canada state on their website that "Miracle Mineral Solution is a 28% solution of sodium chlorite. Health Canada advises that sodium chlorite is a chemical used mainly as a textile bleaching agent and disinfectant." and that "using this product as directed may cause serious health problems. Ingestion of water treated with Miracle Mineral Solution (28% sodium chlorite solution) has been associated with two adverse reactions in Canada, including one life threatening reaction." (ref: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/media/advisories-avis/_2010/2010_74-eng.php). In order to ensure factual accuracy we must make it clear that people who ingest MMS according to the MMS protocols are not ingesting 28% sodium chlorite, as the article seemingly suggests.119.12.195.24 (talk) 14:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Adding a concentration that the prepared solution is supposed to have is another pseudo-accuracy: not only does the concentration depend on how much water you use to produce the diluted solution ("Normal dosage" suggests 1/3 to 2/3 to a full glass of water) it also depends on how many drops of the strong solution you put into that water. --Six words (talk) 13:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Deletion Proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The procedure for proposing deletions has been indicated. Deletion cannot be carried out via discussion here. There is nothing further to be gained by this debate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I request that the article be deleted on the basis that it is being promoted on scant factual information beyond that of journalistic opinion and anecdotal evidence. If the article cannot back it's claims with hardcore scientific data, studies and research then it should be deleted promptly. I have read through every reference in the article and find only news reports, journalistic reviews, warning letters, administration regulation references and contradictory reports that directly contravene findings made by the EPA over drinking water treatment. There are only two mildly scientific research findings produced as papers that state conclusions which do not specifically outline the research being performed, therefore do not qualify as actual research papers. I would like to see each individual claim in this article backed up by actual scientific studies and reports that qualify the statements being made.119.12.195.24 (talk) 14:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

If you wish to propose that the article be deleted, first read Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy, and then if you wish to proceed, follow the procedure set out at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion. You cannot make such a proposal here. You will be wasting your time though. We don't delete articles because the promoters of the toxic snake-oil they describe don't like them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

If the article is deleted then it should be deleted due to a lack of factual and verifiable sources, not because it is considered by someone as "toxic snake-oil". The MMS article is being presented as a seemingly 'factual' representation of available information on a subject that seemingly lacks credible scientific data to support it.119.12.195.24 (talk) 14:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Jim Humble and his gang of goons have never produced the slightest bit of 'credible scientific data' that MMS does anything other than line their pockets. They have however succeeded in killing at least one person with their toxic snake oil. Anyway, if you want to propose that the article be deleted, do so in the proscribed manner. You can't do it here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

If you publish something as a fact but only support it with opinions, inconclusive reports or unsubstantiated rumors then you should not claim it on the premise of a fact. It is as simple as that. Using the death of a single person to quantify one's position on a subject does not qualify that as proof enough to reach a conclusion as to the danger or ineffectiveness of any given treatment (regardless of the FDAs position on the matter). If this were not the case then prescription medicines which cause the deaths of over 100,000+ Americans every year would also receive the same attention as MMS. Yet this is not the case. Therefore the article is based less on evidence and more on journalistic and administrative opinion. WP:MEDRS specifically states that "Misplaced Pages's articles, while not intended to provide medical advice, are nonetheless an important and widely used source of health information. Therefore, it is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge. Ideal sources for such content includes general or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher, and medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies". As none of the sources referenced in this article can be verified to fall under any of the suggested requirements of the WP:MEDRS, beyond that of journalistic reviews and legal opinions, then the article should be wholly and unequivocally deleted.119.12.195.24 (talk) 15:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Wrong Chemistry Used In Article

The chemistry stated in the article for the acidification of sodium chlorite is in error. Acidification of sodium chlorite is a chemical process that involves the mixing of sodium chlorite (NaClO₂) with an acid (H+) which produces an unstable solution of chlorite anion (ClO₂), chlorous acid (HClO₂) and compounds of chlorine dioxide (ClO₂) and chlorate anion (ClO₃). Ultimately, chlorous acid breaks down into a simple chloride (Cl).

You state that hypochlorous acid is part of the "main product" produced during this process. This statement is in error as you have used the wrong formula for hypochlorous acid (HCLO₂). The correct formula for hypochlorous acid is HClO. Hypochlorous acid (HClO) is formed when chlorine (Cl) dissolves in water. When chlorine dioxide is exposed to water it does not release a chlorine atom to form hydrochlorous acid as does chlorine. Simply put: hypochlorous acid cannot be formed when sodium chlorite is acidified in acid. These are two completely different chemical processes and you appear to have them mixed up with one another.

You also state that the final product derived from the acidification of sodium chlorite (NaClO₂) is chlorine dioxide(CLO₂). This statement is also in error as chlorine dioxide is the by-product, not the final product, of the acidification process. The final product produced from the process is a simple chloride (Cl-), which is a compound of chlorine and is a major mineral that the body needs to make digestive juices and to keep body fluids balanced.

To clarify: HClO₂ is chlorous acid which breaks down into chloride (Cl). HClO is hyperchlorous acid which breaks down into chlorine dioxide (ClO2)121.91.185.186 (talk) 00:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why I started adding all the inappropriate "hypos" (probably too many distractions). Thank you for the pick-up.Novangelis (talk) 01:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Way too much BS in the article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This discussion has been closed for promoting pseudoscience and conspiracy theories with total disregard to reliable sources.

1. The article makles blanket statements of it being toxic, while it fails to mention by HOW MUCH. The MMS website restricts what amount to take and warns anything of excess is toxic. 2. It is NOT bleach. The MMS website explains why it is not bleach, complete with data.

I will add more when this is addressed. 112.200.23.44 (talk) 07:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The MMS website is not a reliable source, so we can't use it for these claims. Can you propose a reliable source? Alexbrn 07:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I knew you'd say that.

In regards to MMS being a bleach, this pdf was cited, from an external website operated by the government. http://www.epa.gov/ogwdw/mdbp/pdf/alter/chapt_4.pdf

It is a detailed study and refutes the bleach argument, as usage for chlorine dioxide as bleach exceeds the amount recommended in MMS. Like all things, it is toxic on high concentrations, but NOT on controlled amounts and applications. MMS itself is prepared differently from industrial chlorine dioxide. For comparison, a PDF on systematic dilutation of the formula is here: http://www.mmsinfo.org/infosheets/cds_how_to_dilute.pdf

According to the MMS dosage: One Standard DOSE is 3 mg of chlorine dioxide in 125 ml (4 fl oz) of water.

This article, http://www.lenntech.com/processes/disinfection/chemical/disinfectants-chlorine-dioxide.htm#ixzz0wGZVWFWL also concurs with the fact chlorine dioxide has benefits. 112.200.23.44 (talk) 14:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi 112.200.23.44, I left you a welcome message on your User Talk page and also a pointer to WP:MEDRS, our sourcing guidelines for biomedical info. If you'd like to make changes that will "stick", you need to help locate sourcing that meets those standards. Generally, commercial product websites or blogs won't be sufficient. Zad68 15:16, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Then you're in luck. Also cited is this article that highlights the actual use of Chlorine Dioxide if it makes its way inside the body. Cited: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1569027/pdf/envhper00463-0059.pdf

This link also details chlorine dioxide usage in foodstuffs: http://law.justia.com/cfr/title21/21-3.0.1.1.4.4.html

112.200.23.44 (talk) 15:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Neither source mentions MMS. They therefore cannot possibly be cited for assertions that MMS is safe. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:39, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

We haven't gone to that part yet. It's not bleach in such amounts. 112.200.23.44 (talk) 15:55, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Please read Misplaced Pages:Original research. Any statements about the safety of MMS must be based on sources which refer directly to MMS. We cannot use other sources to draw conclusions about this matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:04, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, the study you cite is over 30 years old, and as WP:MEDRS makes clear, unlikely to be of any use as a source. The US regulation you cites refers to the use of chlorine dioxide as "an antimicrobial agent in water used in poultry processing" and as "as an antimicrobial agent in water used to wash fruits and vegetables". It says nothing whatsoever about the direct ingestion of chlorine dioxide, and thus cannot be cited as a source on such matters. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:14, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Scratch that then. There should be a more recent one somewhere. One clarification: How about testimonies that starkly contrast the dangers written here? IE. success stories that are not written in the MMS website? I have seen YouTube links of series of videos that demonstrate the success of its usage, and none are connected to the MMS websites, but attribute MMS. Sadly, many writeups that do write about MMS in positive light are in blog formats. 112.200.23.44 (talk) 16:29, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Seriously? I take it you've read WP:MEDRS ... Alexbrn 16:31, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes. But being new to wikipedia in this manner I can still probably make mistakes here and there. Here's a video involving the red cross with MMS: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrwZN1cPfX8

Firstly, the channel that provides testimony of successful MMS usage: http://www.youtube.com/user/MMStestimonials

A video using MMS on autism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnCiX5blI-Y

And more. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRQgM7EDHO0

Let's see if I can dig up more. 112.200.23.44 (talk) 16:53, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

You are wasting your time. Only sources complying with WP:MEDRS are acceptable - this is not open to negotiation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Yet again, "the plural of anecdote is not data".

You claim "the red cross" for the first of your videos, yet it opens with Jim Humble, who is no spokesman for the Red Cross and this is very far from an independent or objective source. I agree with you on one point though, I do smell BS... Andy Dingley (talk) 16:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The Red Cross denies it. Your nose is not wrong.Novangelis (talk) 17:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Will they approve something that will kill the business of medicine companies? I don't think so. It's hard to get anything that complies to WP:MEDRS with stuff like this, but I don't think it's mission impossible. Hmm... in connection, look at this video, a movement of MMS in Spain gets some mysterious police intervention and accompanied by protest: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWDakTWtjZ0

Explanation: http://g2cforum.org/index.php/list/attacks-on-or-criticism-of-genesis-ii-sacraments-and-responses/25139-the-country-of-spain-attacks-mms-and-andreas-kalcker-11-21-2012#27917

It's a tough hunt-- any professional who puts MMS in good light seems to have higher chances of being antagonized. I think this is why we don't have WP:MEDRS stuff on MMS. 112.200.23.44 (talk) 17:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

And this one, personally I don't know this group, but what the hell: http://www.usobserver.com/archive/aug-12/daniel-mms-govt-theft.htm

112.200.23.44 (talk) 17:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Not WP:MEDRS compliant. 17:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

It's kind of funny though. "An innocuous water purification product known as MMS." That wouldn't be very convincing if the name was spelled out: "An innocuous water purification product known as Miracle Mineral Supplement." Looie496 (talk) 17:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Policy on acceptable sourcing has been made entirely clear. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:35, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

As closing: http://g2cforum.org/index.php/list/attacks-on-or-criticism-of-genesis-ii-sacraments-and-responses/25616-jim-humble-responds-to-gabriela-segura-md-author-mms-or-trojan-horse

The reliable sources you're looking for are being censored, it seems. Oh well, let's close this. 112.200.23.44 (talk) 17:39, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not censored, but it also does not allow promotion of pseudoscience and conspiracy theories.Novangelis (talk) 17:55, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

FDA article not matching article

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

MMS by the back door?

I was shocked to see that MMS (sorry, "CD", they vociferously deny the connection with MMS) is now being touted as a cure_(sic) for autism. "CDAutism" seems to be the tagline - Kerri Rivera has a website at cdautism.org and there's also a Facebook presence. As an autistic kid has more sense than to deliberately drink bleach, they're administering this by enema. The phrase "magic water" is favoured amongst its adherents. There's also much discussion of the virtues of "magic water", and the externally visible skin damage it's already causing (with the usual justifications that this is "toxins leaching out through the skin" etc.).

Do we need to start covering this particular piece of unpleasant abusive snake oil too? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Gorski has written about it, and this is RS here, so I think we should. Alexbrn 13:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

They don't seem to "vociferously deny" the connection with MMS—on the contrary, they seem to (frighteningly) embrace it: cdautism.org/mms-master-mineral-solution. (That said, it's possible that there are online forums and proponents who prefer to deny that their MMS is MMS.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Related to "CD autism"?

A book by one Kerri Rivera has caused another batch of this dangerous nonsense, from what I can tell; she has convinced people that giving autistic children enemas with dhlorine dioxide will 'cure' their autism. Which is essentially child abuse. Her book is at www.amazon.com/Healing-Symptoms-Known-as-Autism/dp/0989289001 and there's a facebook group, under the name of "CD Autism" (with over 7000 members, appalling enough), build on that book.

I ask that this be covered here, since it is related (and god helps us if it becomes popular...) 46.239.250.137 (talk) 17:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I've consolidated this comment with the above thread, since they're on the same topic. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Skepticism articles
• Low-importance Skepticism articles
• Skepticism articles needing attention
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• C-Class medicine articles
• Low-importance medicine articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages
• C-Class Alternative medicine articles