Re: DMSO and MMS transdermal protocol questions
This is one of the wonderful dichotomies of chemistry. [smile icon] In this case, less is actually more.
Years before Jim Humble went prospecting in South America, the food industry was trying to find ways to keep food safe for the consumer. They pioneered and developed the use of acidified sodium chlorite. They were interested in using the strongest chemicals they could and still provide safe working conditions. In addition, they were not interested in bleaching out the food products, or altering taste, smell, or appearance.
Years of testing has revealed the proper way to activate sodium chlorite, and not wanting to have to deal with rogue chemical reactions they have pretty much settled on using a 5% sodium chlorite solution. They want to treat the food to eliminate the bacteria that causes people to get sick, slow down the spoiling process, and present the public with a product that doesn't have any chemical residue as a result of this treatment.
protocol uses an activation that tends to release more of the available chlorine dioxide from the sodium chlorite. Some of this chlorine dioxide is lost as fumes during the activation. Also, the addition of large amounts of activator tends to dilute the sodium chlorite solution and this results in some different chemical reactions in the solution. The result is a less than optimal solution that has less strength than a solution that is properly activated. This is in respect to its disinfecting properties.
To verify this, for my own understanding, I set up a series of tests. I mixed up solutions using to compare the Miracle-Mineral-Supplement
protocol with the industry standard protocol. I used small, measured amounts of ascorbic acid to determine effectiveness. I found that the industrial protocol activation required about 30% more ascorbic acid to neutralize the solution than what was needed for the solution mixed according to the Miracle-Mineral-Supplement
I then ran the test procedure and results by some research chemists and asked them why there was such a difference. They informed me of the losses due to fuming and impurities introduced during the excess activation.
As you can see, this is how a more dilute solution ends up being more effective than a stronger solution.
I believe the current MMS protocol is flawed. I advise people not to ingest solutions that contain high concentrations of chlorine dioxide. I know that ingesting solutions that contain high concentrations of chlorine dioxide will result in mild poisoning and bring symptoms of nausea, diarrhea, and vomiting.
I have changed from using the 28% sodium chlorite solution to using a 5% sodium chlorite solution. This was prompted by the hazards involved in handling, using, and storing the 28% solution. Since you can obtain the same disinfecting potential with either solution, why subject myself and my family to the hazards associated with the 28% sodium chlorite solution.
I also don't agree with the activation used in the MMS protocol.
I haven't used this as a transdermal application on myself, but I do have a spray bottle that I use to treat cuts, scrapes, and puncture wounds. My interest in transdermal use comes from working with some friends animals that are having problems with inflammation.
There is no doubt that the chlorite ion is absorbed through the skin, but there have been no studies to determine if the chlorite ion can be beneficial once absorbed.
It is too early to comment on what we are seeing, but there has been some improvement.