MMS Still Doesn’t Cure Malaria (James Humble Fights Back)

James Humble, creator and lead pusher of the “Miracle Mineral Solution” (alternative known as the Master Mineral Solution), has apparently nothing but time on his hands.

Last night I received an email from James Humble. The email address is a gmail account (nothing out of the ordinary about that). I checked the IP address of my most recent visitors and it appears that shortly before the email was sent a visitor from Tlaquepaque, Mexico spent a good deal of time on my article about MMS and how the Red Cross did not cure patients of Malaria with it. Apparently, James Humble’s last known location was somewhere in Mexico.

Below is the email along with my point by point rebuttal:

Ah yes, I just read your “scientific” review or rather I should say “Fake Science” review of the video of the Red Cross curing 154 cases of Malaria in Uganda.  I got to say that you guys have the nerve to call it science that you are relying on.  You know nothing about the chemistry of chlorine dioxide or sodium chlorite.  

“Nothing” is a bit of a stretch, however it it is true I am not a chemist. But then again, neither are you.

You rely on the word of private agencies (FDA)

The FDA is not a private agency. It is a Government Agency, funded by tax dollars and accountable to Congress. A private organization would be Genesis Church, the one by which you train individuals to administer your Miracle Mineral Solution to patients.

who would lose billions of dollars if MMS came into universal use.  

The FDA is a government funded agency and will neither gain nor lose money based upon what drugs are approved. Their sole purpose is regulation.

The evidence is, the whole bunch of you are a bunch of fakes.

What evidence would this be? Who is the “you” of which you speak. You seem to think that I am a member of some nefarious cabal hell-bent on discrediting you. The truth of the matter is I am a blogger whose website has a medium amount of readers and the fact that you feel my small blog post warrants a reply such as this is fascinating given my current level of readership.

You set at home with your computer, read a few words from some government agencies and then write a long article using science to prove MMS cure malaria.  

I believe you may have mistyped this sentence.

Except you are fakes and the science you use is Fake.  

Again, calling me a “fake” without providing any evidence to support this is nothing more than an Ad Hominem fallacy.

Regardless of whether or not I am a “shill” for some nefarious anti MMS cabal, the science I use is certainly not fake.

Since my field is Psychology and not Chemistry, I am forced to rely upon the work of experts in the field when evaluating the risks and benefits of MMS. The experts, in this case are the FDA which employs chemists and medical doctors to evaluate such claims.

When they do so they publish papers in peer reviewed journals and, most importantly here, show their work. The chemical action of MMS is very well documented.

You talk like you know what you are talking about.  That is the main thing that makes you fake.  The entire science that you talk about is “fake science” because it is all based on money and made up by people like you.  

Again this is basic chemistry here. Something that can be looked up in any college textbook.

None of you went out and talked to the people who were cured.  

You are entirely missing the point. I do not need to talk to the people treated with MMS to evaluate the claims you have made about it.

When evaluating a scientific claim, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. In this instance you claim that those treated with MMS have been cured of malaria in less than 24 hours.

As I have pointed out in my previous article this claim has not met even the lowest burden of proof. The video in question shows that a rapid test is used to test for Malaria, which is prone to false positives, a possible confound in your experimental design. Additionally, I am unaware of any study using MMS which utilizes a Randomized Controlled-Study design, which is necessary to infer causation. Without this any claim that Malaria has been “cured” by MMS must be rejected.

Furthermore you have not provided any materials that demonstrate the chemical method by which MMS “cured” malaria or any other ailment.

Until you provide these most basic requirements the burden of proof is not met; therefore I and anyone who has a basic understanding of research methods must reject your claims about MMS.

None of you have even seen a bottle of MMS.  None of you have any idea about the chemistry of MMS.  

I have a very basic understanding of the chemistry. Granted, other than some undergraduate classes I have no training in chemistry, so much of this information is taken from the work of others, which I will cite. Please correct me if I am wrong:

Your own Wiki (I assume that this is the real James Humble and not some troll or other provocateur) describes MMS in the following manner:

• MMS is sodium chlorite 22.4% solution
• MMS1 or activated MMS is chlorine dioxide
• MMS2 is calcium hypochlorite that turns into hypochlorous acid in water
• CDS is chlorine dioxide gas put into water
• CDH is pre-activated sodium chlorite in water

Please inform me of any additional information one would receive from actually holding a bottle of MMS that is otherwise not available.

Therefore, MMS would be an aqueous solution of 22.4 g of NaClO2 (sodium chlorite) dissolved in H2O (water). Now sodium chlorite is itself moderately toxic (its LD50 is 350 mg/kg). A toxic dose for a 15 kg child has been calculated by others to be 5.25 g.

However, your instructions on the preparation of MMS involve adding citric acid to the solution. When you do so the following processes take place. I am taking this directly from the excellent work of Dr Kat Day of the Chronicle Flask:

(1)  

Dr. Day points out that the reaction is more complicated and varies depending on the pH of the solution and can be formed by various mechanisms depending on which acid is used to “activate” MMS. Here are some of the possible reactions:

(2)  

(3)  

(4)  

Through various processes, chlorine dioxide (ClO2) is formed. This substance is more toxic than sodium chlorite) (the LD50 is 292 mg/kg).

Now, as with all toxins, the dose is what makes the poison. Again, based off of the work of Dr. Day, she estimates that your recommended protocol of preparation “could produce something in the region of 36 g of chlorine dioxide per litre of water.”

This would bring the resulting solution well above the recommended safety limits of chlorine dioxide (0.00008 grams per litre of water.

None of you left your desk while “proving” that MMS can’t cure malaria.  

Perhaps the fault is mine, I should have used more precise language. No one can prove that MMS “can’t” cure malaria. That would be proving a negative and not strictly possible, logically speaking. Rather, based upon all of our knowledge of biochemistry and medicine, the claims made by MMS proponents are not possible.

That is not to say that it is impossible that MMS works. Rather, we are unaware of any known mechanism by which it could work (for its claimed purpose of curing Malaria) and should it work, much of our fundamental understanding of chemistry would have to be rewritten.

Essentially, if you think MMS works, prove it. Then explain how it works.

If there really was anyone there who understood the chemistry of chlorine dioxide you wouldn’t be able to write what you wrote except of course unless you plain out lied which, of course, is what you did.

Again, I have a very basic understanding of organic chemistry based upon some undergraduate classes. There are others, however, at the FDA as well as certain bloggers who know quite a bit more than I do. I shall defer to their superior expertise in this matter.

By 2009 more than 20 million people had tried MMS.  By 2005 one of my people had sold more than a million dollars worth MMS in Texas alone.  We have trained people in 125 countries of the world.  I personally have helped 60,000 people with MMS. My first trip in Africa in Uganda and Kenya I helped more than 4000 malaria cases overcome malaria.  I didn’t set at my desk I went their and handed to MMS to each malaria case.

I don’t doubt that you handed MMS out to several patients. I don’t doubt that you’ve made millions off of selling it. What I doubt is your claim that it works.

When I asked the FDA about proving MMS they explained the process to me and said that it takes about 800 million dollars to finally get approval and 5 years.  

This appears to be an oversimplification of the process, based upon my experience. Having never worked in a medical study my experience will differ somewhat, but the basic process is the same.

To design a study to test the effectiveness of a certain drug’s ability to combat an illness (read here: MMS to treat Malaria) one would first need to perform several animal studies. To do so would require a laboratory, as well as the required equipment and trained lab professionals. In addition, ethical approval would be required both from the FDA as well as whatever institution you represent (typically a university or other research group).

In order to get ethical approval you would have to pass certain hurdles. First of which would be to describe the proposed mechanism by which MMS cures malaria. To the best of my knowledge you have yet to do so. Second, you would need to provide safeguards ensuring that no un-due harm is inflicted upon the animals. Again, I do not believe you have met this burden as all of our understanding of chemistry in this matter indicates that MMS is harmful to animal life, be it rats or humans.

Assuming, however, that you got approval for animal studies, you would then need to design a proper protocol. This would involve double-blind testing as well as randomized control groups. One would also assume that you would test the efficacy of different doses, as well as the efficacy of MMS on various stages of Malaria.

Let us assume that at the soonest this would take a year. After this, you would then need to submit your findings and get approval for human trials. This would involve an entirely new set of safeguards, as well as a scrutinous review of the findings of your animal trials. All of which would take time.

If we assume that you receive approval for human trials, again you would need to write very clear safety protocols to ensure as little risk to your human subjects as possible is posed by your drug. Again, I don’t see how this is possible given what we know about MMS. You would then have to do a series of pilot studies on small sample sizes. This would be to ensure that something about the chemistry of human bodies does not differ from that of rats. You would then follow this up with several larger-scale studies, usually connected with large research hospitals.

I am unsure of the cost of this entire venture but 5 years seems to be rather quick from my understanding of things. However, that’s how science works. When it comes to research on human subjects, every possible safety measure is created to ensure the wellbeing of the participants.

To bypass this procedure is simply to say that you do not care about the safety of your patients and are unwilling to wait to make sure that your product actually works.

But I realize at that time, because of liars like you guys, I would never get MMS approved.  But I don’t have to get it approved.  There are already millions of people who believe in it, and fake articles by people who have never seen a person with malaria simpy doesn’t change that.  People all over Africa are being cured in private places.  I can save thousands of more people and alleviate suffering of thousands by simply doing it rather than waisting time on fake science trying to prove it. Some day you guys are going to have to answer for all the suffering you didn’t stop but could have.  Do you think God will excuse you because the FDA didn’t want to lose money.

Again, the FDA would not lose money from approving MMS.

You theory that it is OK to allow people to go on suffering because it wasn’t proven by science is simply evil.  

That is not my premise at all. If MMS works then it should be given to Malaria patients, provided it doesn’t do any harm to the patient. But until it has been shown to both work and be safe it should not be given to unsuspecting patients.

If someone says he has a cure for malaria it is your responsibility to see if it will or will not work if you are going to be the one who writes where others can read it.  

Certainly not. This is called shifting the burden of proof, a logical fallacy. If you claim that MMS works to cure malaria, you must show that it does. Until you do so I will not advocate for its use. Furthermore, based upon the judgement of others, I will advocate against its use until it can be shown that it does not have deleterious effects on humans, in a lab, under strict safety protocols.

Also, in the United States I have some pretty broad rights regarding freedom of speech. If I were to, for example, write that vaccines are dangerous (they’re not) I would be protected so long as I did not attempt to pass myself off as a medical professional (I’m not).

When you write you have a responsibility to your readers.  

I suppose I do, and that responsibility to to promote accurate information based upon my understanding of science.

But then, of course, if you are with those who want to kill most of us and make slaves of the rest of us then you are evil in any case.  

This is essentially a combination of an Ad Hominem Fallacy and a Begging the Question Fallacy. Let us assume that there are those who want to “kill most of us and make slaves of the rest of us”. Even if this is true (maybe it is) you have no evidence that I am one of them. And even if I were, the science happens to be on my side. Frankly, my motives are irrelevant in this instance: the science is clear. MMS doesn’t work, and is in fact dangerous.

In that case Trump has beaten you at every move so far.

Jim     

Archbishop Jim Humble  
Genesis II Church of Health and Healing
More than 1500 trained Ministers of Health and Healing in 110 different countries.

When the great scorer comes,
To score against your name,    
It will matter not whether you won or lost,
but rather how you played the game.

I can’t help but wonder who actually wrote this email. The spelling and grammatical errors lead me to only two possibilities (three actually). The first is that this is written by an individual in haste and who did not take the time to proofread. The second is that this is written by an individual without a full grasp on the english language, or perhaps without full control of his mental faculties. The third is that I am being trolled, and that this is simply bait. However, it is intriguing that I received a visitor from Mexico (James Humble’s last known location) on the same evening that this email was sent.

I have no idea which of these possibilities is most likely, and frankly I don’t care.

MMS doesn’t work. MMS is dangerous. Don’t use it, don’t give it to sick people.

As a side note, I haven’t written much about James Humble, the proponent of MMS, until now. It seems that Humble was once an engineer and an author of industrial manuals. However, he currently is a Bishop, or possibly the head Bishop, of Genesis Church. The function of the church appears to mainly be a smoke screen so that Humble and his acolytes can sell MMS without fear of prosecution. He even admitted as much in a newsletter:

“Look at the Catholics. Their priests have been molesting women and children for centuries and the governments have not been able to stop it. If handled properly a church can protect us from vaccinations that we don’t want, from forced insurance, and from many things that a government might want to use to oppress us.”

It would seem that, much like Scientologist L. Ron Hubbard, James Humble appears to be going the “Church Route”. As a Church, Humble and his followers can claim that MMS is a holy sacrament, as well as peddle their wares with some limited protection from both health regulating agencies and tax authorities. It appears that Hubbard is currently located in Mexico, but his websites are all being hosted with the .is domain, the top level domain for Iceland. Since anyone can register a .is domain, it appears that the sole reason they are using this domain is convenience.

Interestingly, according to ABC News, Humble claims to be a 1000-year-old god from the Andromeda Galaxy who as put in the part of the “space navy that watches over Earth.”

This man is either someone in need of professional help, or a scam artist that is using religion to mask his activities. Either way, the proponents of MMS need to be educated about the risks of such a compound, and MMS needs to be stopped in its tracks.