What follows are my opinions and information based on readings from peer reviewed materials, opinions of science bloggers and other very smart people. I welcome corrections but be forewarned if you are an MMS supporter I may heavily moderate or edit you comments. In other words, no YouTube testimonials or links to more of Humble’s or Rivera’s crap. I will not by proxy support this CULT in any way.
__
So, we know that Humble and Rivera have both skewed their understanding of basic biology and the chemistry behind MMS. They have cherry-picked the science behind the actual use of sodium chloride and then high-jacked terms to make it sound like science but ignoring the dangers. (Watch how they use the "language" of science, as neither Humble nor Rivera are specific in their terminology or claims - “pathogen” means all bad while “bacteria” only means some; “virus“ aren‘t like bacteria so they are destroyed differently that other pathogens. It is difficult to follow)
In regards to Rivera and her protocol, the driving force behind the use of MMS is the flawed belief that some type of "pathogen(s)" (which need to be purged or exorcised) has infected the biome of the gut which in turn has caused toxins to infect brain development. All the while ignoring the neurodevelopmental aspects of autism. (Remember the issue here is the jump from correlation to causation.)
BUT,,,
Regarding Humble's statement, "CHLORINE DIOXIDE HAS AN OXIDATION POTENTIAL OF .95 VOLTS, MUCH LESS THAT WHAT IS REQUIRED TO OXIDIZE BODY CELLS," I am struggling to understand the significance of his reference to this point. It doesn't help the Rivera makes a similar claim, "Chlorine dioxide is an oxidizer with a lower oxidation potential (.95 V) than any of the other oxidizers in the human body."
That aside for the moment, what is this "oxidation potential" they speak of?
In aqueous solutions - dissolved in water; ie. NaCl (aq) - the reduction potential (redox potential, oxidation / reduction potential, ORP, pE, ε, or Eh) is a measure of the tendency of the solution to either gain or lose electrons when it is subject to change by introduction of a new [chemical] species. A solution with a higher (more positive) reduction potential than the new [chemical] species will have a tendency to gain electrons from the new [chemical] species (i.e. to be reduced by oxidizing the new [chemical] species) and a solution with a lower (more negative) reduction potential will have a tendency to lose electrons to the new [chemical] species (i.e. to be oxidized by reducing the new [chemical] species). Oxidizing and reducing agents occur as couples, with a strong reducing agent coupled with a weak oxidizing agent and vice versa.
The easiest way to think of it, the game tug-of-war; the larger reduction potential pulls the electrons over to its side. Put a different way, "the greater the difference between the redox potentials of two substances, the greater the vigor with which electrons will flow spontaneously from the less positive to the more positive (more electronegative) substance."
Reduction potential is measured in volts (V), or millivolts (mV). Each [chemical] species has its own intrinsic reduction potential; the more positive the potential, the greater the species' affinity for electrons and tendency to be reduced. ORP is a common measurement for water quality (not just the stuff we drink), groundwater and soils.
In other words, measurements and comparisons are made under standard conditions; it is under these conditions that the voltage is measured:
- the concentration of all soluble chemicals is 1 M,
- the temperature is 25C, and
- the pressure is 1 atm for any gaseous chemicals.
Both pH and redox potentials are properties of solutions, not of elements or chemical compounds per se, and depend on concentrations, temperature etc.
As you can see right from the out-set, there are a few problems. First, Humble ignores that ORP is a property of a solution, not elements or chemical compounds. Last I looked, I am not a "body" of water that needs disinfecting, nor am I a pool or hot tub. I may roll around in the dirt when I play with the kids but I am not soil. Also, I am fairly certain the inner environment of my body does not constitute the "standard conditions" required of said measurement. As for sticking this shit up a kids ass, I'm pretty certain that's a bad idea as well.
But yet something about my exploration is not setting well. Any numbskull can see that Humble’s reference to ORP (oxidation potential) is misleading and/or out of context. Yes, Lenntech’s material sheet does show the “oxidation potential” or more accurately “oxidation strength” of +.95 for CLO2 (other sources have it listed as +1.19; Humble has also referenced +1.28 for O2, when it is 1.229) but, that doesn’t yet explain why Humble thinks that chlorine dioxide does not harm the body. It wasn’t until a friend point blank asked, ",,,you know what oxidation is don't you?"
Being trapped in the sciencey sounding gobble-de-gook of Humble’s pseudo-realm, and not "KISS"ing it, I missed the obvious when my friend said "it's rust." With that rolling in the back of my mind, I found this among the numerous items Humble has published. It is a 2009 (PDF) brochure devised by Humble to try and stifle his critics. In my quest to understand Humble’s thinking deception, I overlooked the rust:
Humble’s premise is flawed on this point as not all “pathogens“ (remember the definition of a pathogen) respire in the same manner. In fact a virus, since he mentions it, is a interesting little bugger but is way beyond the scope of this post; but I will say this:
Unlike human cells or bacteria, viruses don't contain the chemical machinery (enzymes) needed to carry out the chemical reactions for life. Instead, viruses carry only one or two enzymes that decode their genetic instructions. So, a virus must have a host cell (bacteria, plant or animal) in which to live and make more viruses. Outside of a host cell, viruses cannot function. For this reason, viruses tread the fine line that separates living things from nonliving things. Most scientists agree that viruses are alive because of what happens when they infect a host cell.But back to those pathogens that live in (and on our bodies),,,
Just like Vitamin O and other “oxygenation therapies” the underlying premise, oxygen only kills the bad stuff (anaerobes in this case), is seriously flawed. “In this vast community of gut bacteria, anaerobes outnumber aerobes by estimates of 100–1000 anaerobes to one aerobe.” In other words, a majority (a very large one at that) of the normal healthy bacteria that makes up human gut flora is anaerobic, NOT aerobic.
[Keep in mind that my true focus is Kerry Rivera and her use of Humble’s science in support of her MMS protocol in “treating” autism. Although jumping ahead a bit, it is based on the false belief that pathogens in the gut cause autism and because CD effectively kills pathogenic microorganisms such as fungi, bacteria and viruses they believe they can simultaneously cure autism. Hence my specific focus on gut flora and the effects the MMS would have on said flora.]
But yet,,,,
Consider Shigella flexneri, a bacteria commonly responsible for human dysentery, which relies on oxygen availability in your gut:
Shigella is primed for invasion and expresses extended T3SS needles while reducing Ipa (invasion plasmid antigen) effector secretion. This is mediated by FNR (fumarate and nitrate reduction), a regulator of anaerobic metabolism that represses transcription of spa32 and spa33, virulence genes that regulate secretion through the T3SS. We demonstrate there is a zone of relative oxygenation adjacent to the gastrointestinal tract mucosa, caused by diffusion from the capillary network at the tips of villi. This would reverse the anaerobic block of Ipa secretion, allowing T3SS activation at its precise site of action, enhancing invasion and virulence.Or
Escherichia coli (E. coli) another facultative anaerobic (an organism that makes ATP by aerobic respiration if oxygen is present, but is capable of switching to fermentation or anaerobic respiration if oxygen is absent), which is a normal part of the human gut flora - producing vitamin K2 and preventing colonization of the intestine with pathogenic bacteria. However, certain strains of the same bacteria are also one of the leading causes of food poisoning.
Do you see the problem?
Regardless of what Humble may think, bacteria is bacteria, whether it is good for you or not. A chemical compound has no means to differentiate between the two (think of the effects of an antibiotic, it takes the good with the bad). So does MMS kill it or not?
Although I may have gone down a “wrong” path in my initial thinking, the “rust analogy” (for lack of better) has made me realize that Humble really has no clue but his devotees are blind to the science. Mindlessly propagandizing and parroting their leader. He learned well,,,
No comments:
Post a Comment