CureZone   Log On   Join
Re: Cancer and MMS

J.Crow’s® Lugol’s Iodine
Free S&H.Restore lost reserves.J.CROW’S®Lugol’s Iodine Solut...

Original Hulda Clark
Hulda Clark Cleanses

Your Ad Here
Place your ad here !

Better Than Colonics. Period.
Oxygen Detoxification for both small and large intestine...

Google Advertisement
Google Advertisement
Google Advertisement
sedonapure Views: 18,599
Published: 11 years ago
This is a reply to # 1,691,465

Re: Cancer and MMS

Tom Thank you for your reply Tom. (Please read the entire reply before commenting)

Lets please examine this in more detail..

I will take your comments in the order that you presented them:

  Your comment "Sodium Chlorite the precurser to Chlorine Dioxide is not accepted as water disinfectant"  False.......... Please read the current ruling by the EPA titled "Alternative Disinfection" located Here also you should visit and re-read the Dupont data concerning water treatment Here 

The EPA , along with "JIM" state very clearly that Sodium Chlorite can be added "directly" to water wells without the need for "activation" and will still produce disinfecting chlorine dioxide with just the natural activation by water alone. (although a slower reaction and prolonged release) Please re-read Jims books.

                           Conerning Your process of chlorine dioxide and water purification I believe that you have missed the section on "Chlorine Dioxide Generators" The system of commercial generation is based upon the very well known fact that Chlorine Dioxide is not stable when activated by an acidic agent. This directly is the main focus of "on demand" generation of chlorine dioxide thru the use of onsite generators that infuse chlorine dioxide directly into the effluents used in disinfection rinses that are incorporated into food processing facilities and also as the means to "pre-treat" waste water effluent prior to the introduction of chlorine  to the effluent to reduce the hazardous byproducts of chlorine oxidation when it reacts with organic, and inorganic materials such as pathogens when they are made "inactive" by the action of chlorine thus effectively reducing the amount of THM's and HAA's residuals in water.

Since the body is composed of 70% water I believe this is highly relevant.

In addition, sodium chlorite IS accepted by the WHO for the disinfection of potable water sources as the effects of sodium chlorite are released far more slowly and therefore far more stable and prolonged although not as immediately reactive, as chlorine dioxide. The issue is cost. Sodium Chlorite is far more cost inhibitive than chlorine. The other issue being that chlorine Dioxide, as stated above, is far to unstable to provide a lasting residual effect.

In reference to ppm the accepted ppm of 5 is directly related to chlorine residuals, The actual addition of chlorine to water in treatment facilities is far higher than 5ppm at the source, in fact the concentration can be in the range of 20 to 30ppm at the source. It is concentrated at the source to allow the calculated "fall off" of concentration to reach the approved range of 3-5ppm by the time it emerges from the tap, and this is further regulated as determined thru testing what the actual amount to be added at the source should be according to the distribution distances to different outlets within the water system. Case in point. More is added when the end user is known to live further from the source, and less is added when the user lives closer to the source.

Tom it is well known that chlorine dioxide is only commercially produced by sodium chlorite. As a matter of fact sodium chlorite and chlorine dioxide are almost "interchangeable" when reference is made.

Conerning the 4 part process, YES, it is correct and verified by the independent laboratories that are referenced in the report.

Yes, as stated clearly and shown clearly over 30 known disease causing pathogens are effectively destroyed, and within seconds at the low concentraion rate of .01 - 1 ppm. The point of the presented study is to effectively show within the confines of the current legal environment that chlorine dioxide does kill pathogens that have proven to be other wise anti-biotic resistant.

As far as using "acid reacted" sodium chlorite please perform more research. There is a current "approved for use" patented system of vegetable and fruit preservation in which sodium chlorite and a certain NON acid reacting agent are blended and added during the manufacture of the clear film used to wrap produce in which amounts of chlorine dioxide are released by the plastic wrap surrounding the produce to drastically increase shelf life.

In closing: The systems manufactured by Dupont for the onsite production of chlorine dioxide to effectively kill surface pathogens on produce are directly related to the 4 part series, but the fact remains that the above mentioned pathogens major mode of transport is water and fluids. Kill them there. 

The main focus of attention in the whole debate concerning MMS and chlorine dioxide needs to be re-directed into the means of producing a product that can be used to stabilize the release of chlorine dioxide "within" the body over longer time spans and at the correct dissolution rates as to allow for pathogen destruction while at the same time not produce the ill side effects of the current mode of delivery.

Jim himself has made mention several times of encapsulating as a means to ingest the material, and therefore aleviate the bad taste. The issue is that this mode of delivery is not very realistic as the "liquid" does cause the capsule to dissolve in short order.

                                  I will venture this much. That considering that sodium chlorite placed into water wells will produce chlorine dioxide without the need to activate it prior as water alone will activate it, (would this not also be a delivery method of chlorine dioxide?) and due to the high water content of the body (a kind of well) does it not therefore seem reasonable that all that is needed is to encapsulate the sodium chlorite, although in much smaller amounts and mixed with other helpful items such as probiotics, Thiosulfate to remove chlorine, mercury, and dioxins, and prebiotics to feed the good flora? The Big Claim of MMS is that it does not harm "good" tissue or "good" flora correct? o.k. great! then mix them together and add an ingredient to buffer the ill effects of stomach upset and all in "dry" form. This seems to me, on a personal level, to aleviate all the "down sides" of the current product.  No bad taste, No stomach upset, No continual need for hourly dosing, stable long term low level release.

People do not like to drink concentrated chlorine dioxide due to the horrible taste, thick acrid smell and the all to well known stomach upset and diarrha.

Tom, again, Please remember that the body is 70% water, and to clean the body the water must be cleaned. If the water is contaminated the body is contaminated. If the water is balanced and clean the body will be clean. This is the truth of microbiology.







Printer-friendly version of this page Email this message to a friend
Alert Moderators
Report Spam or bad message  Alert Moderators on This GOOD Message

This Forum message belongs to a larger discussion thread. See the complete thread below. You can reply to this message!


Donate to CureZone

CureZone Newsletter is distributed in partnership with

Contact Us - Advertise - Stats

Copyright 1999 - 2021

0.969 sec, (4)