My Response to Jim Humble (Part 3)

Cogito

Cogito

I've always been fascinated with Psychology, Skepticism and Critical Thinking. I mainly write about these subjects but I sometimes delve into other topics in science, education and parenting.

You may also like...

1 Response

  1. Ben Whitmore says:

    He’s not very eloquent, and there are some things I really don’t like about him, but in a number of regards he’s making a lot more sense than you are.
    You say that in the absence of any evidence, the burden of proof is on him. But there is video evidence of a substantial drug trial in Uganda with very striking results. There may be shortcomings around this evidence, but it’s not nothing.
    You criticize the absence of double blind protocols. Certainly such protocols would have been nice, but really, if visual parasite counts plummet one day after treatment, that should be very compelling evidence. It’s hard to see how bias could cause the microscope technician to so grossly miscount blood parasites that she falsely declares everyone sick one day and cured the next. As for False Cause bias, what’s the chance that in the space of 24 hours every single person recovered due to other (unknown) causes? That’s a complete non-starter. This trial may not have been gold standard, but the results are still incredibly striking and very difficult to explain in any other way than a) the whole thing is a hoax, or b) they cured malaria overnight with 100% success rate.
    You haven’t watched the video I have. You’re still going on about the false positive rate of the paper strip tests. The video I saw (actually I’ve watched two videos now) clearly explains (and shows) that initial screening with the RDT was immediately followed (for patients with positive RDT results) by visual parasite counts in blood, through a microscope, onsite. This same visual count method was repeated the following day to confirm patients’ recovery. Your arguments about antigens causing false positives are simply meaningless.

    Your question about the mechanism whereby chlorine dioxide can outperform blood oxygen in terms of attacking parasite cells is quite a reasonable one, if it truly has a lower oxidation potential. Actually, I suspect Jim is wrong: I did a quick google search and it seems Chlorine Dioxide may have substantially higher effective oxidation potential in the bloodstream than O2. (https://www.mmsinfo.org/misc/Oxidation_Potential_of_Oxygen_and_Chlorine_Dioxide_T.Horky_2014.pdf) Probably not as high as ozone, I would guess. Ozone therapy sounds much safer and potentially more effective, if the basic theory of oxidizing pathogens has any truth to it.

    I agree with you in loathing this guy’s failure to address the deaths that have followed use of MMS. I read about three cases of deaths on another site and looked them up: all involved overdoses ten to hundreds of times the recommended dose. The newspiece about the Vanuatu case doesn’t suggest an overdose, but who knows. Even if it was a result of overdose, it’s potentially a very dangerous drug if simple human error can cause death.

    I understand what he’s getting at with the FDA. FDA staffing has a revolving door with the drug companies, and the drug companies are also extremely powerful lobbyists, contributing millions to various branches of government. FDA tends to be a gateholder for these interests, and there is every incentive for big pharma not to want an unpatentable miracle cure to appear. And just consider: if MMS really were the miracle cure it claimed to be, how could it prove itself? Who’s going to stump up the millions for gold standard trials? How would it get ethics approval?

    In all, my take is: 1) Something happened in Uganda which, if it is not an outright hoax, represents a fantastic cure for malaria. The Red Cross should have a LOT more to say about it. 2) Jim Humble seems to be a poor scientist as well as angry and suspicious, a terrible spokesperson. But he seems to have surrounded himself with others who may have more scientific acumen or at least speak the scientific language a bit more convincingly. 3) The proposed mechanism of the drug is the same as that proposed for ozone therapy, which has some positive evidence behind it, appears to have a plausibly explained mechanism and also appears to have a fairly good safety record. 4) Years ago a girlfriend got me to take some MMS and it was disgusting and I have no idea if it achieved anything. But it didn’t do any noticeable damage.

    So I have no idea. My inclination is to get a bottle and give it a go if coronavirus hits.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

%d bloggers like this: