As I mentioned in an earlier blogpost, Councillor Woodman promised to write a letter to the Chief Medical Officer for Wales, Dr Tony Jewell.
Today I received a copy of the reply.
First – the FSA have concluded that MMS is injurious to health and deemed it unsafe under Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No. 178/2002. This article sets the general principles and requirements of food law. Sodium chlorite also isn’t ‘on the permitted list of minerals as set out in the annex to Food Supplements Directive 2002/46/EC’. This means that it is not a permitted food supplement.
The next paragraph basically reiterates that MMS is not on sale here in Wales and that the FSA are identifying MMS sellers in the UK and reporting them and dealing with them.
Finally, the most exciting paragraph which I shall directly quote.
You should also be aware that MMS has also now been the subject of an international alert by the World Health Organisation (WHO). They are encouraging national authorities to take necessary steps to protect the public from harm associated with this product.
Wow. The World Health Organisation, baby.
Who’s on first.
You did a good thing for the rest of us, Rhys.
Thanks, I’m here all week, try the fish.
(You would be amazed how much I look like the chap in that video. Combover and everything…)
Woohoo! Well done you *hugs*
nice one rhys – its going global!
That’s really fantastic news Rhys. Well done!
Nicely done Rhys.
While you riding the wonderful train of success and people in power are listening, why not have a stab at something more established? You’ve clearly got the ear of the authorities as they’ve seen the dangers and you may well be able to exploit this by getting them to look at areas they wouldn’t touch before.
Goodness, this really is the best possible result you could have had so far on this. To think this all started out because of a little Crohns support forum makes it all the more remarkable.
You’ve got to wonder how the people on that ‘little Crohns support forum’ are feeling now.
Better, presumably, if they can’t get any more MMS 🙂
Well done, Rhys.
Presuming you’re aware that MMS is implicated in the death of a woman in Australia. You may well have saved some lives.
Thanks weez for pointing that out – no, I don’t think we were aware of that. Tragic.
From that article:
“Victorian Health Services Commissioner Beth Wilson said ‘‘if a product is harming people then it should be withdrawn from sale … Many of these ‘miracle’ products are without any evidence base whatsoever and their marketers are no better than snake-oil salesmen.’’”
“‘‘It just annoys me, these people selling MMS,’’ said Victoria Poisons Information Centre manager Jeff Robinson. ‘‘They get away with flogging all this stuff on the internet and it’s just garbage.’’
Mr Robinson confirmed that since MMS became available in Australia in 2008, three people had been hospitalised in Melbourne after drinking it. A further seven people in NSW had also suffered adverse reactions.”
I think that as with any treatment, if you take it inappropriately, you can do serious harm to the individual. As with any product if you don’t take the appropriate dosage it can be harmful or even deadly. That’s the case with just about EVERY DRUG ON THE MARKET! There are called SIDE EFFECTS! Consider paracetemol, even at the prescribed doses can lead to liver and kidney failure as well as a strong link with asthma in children. What’s the difference between that and MMS? Nothing except that the few cases of MMS get written up in the newspaper but the thousands who have had liver and kidney failure or who now have asthma from their parents giving paracetemol to them as children. All this is known to governments around the world but due to the pharmaceutical lobby pumping millions into the coffers of politicians, it’s a multi-billion dollar industry for big pharma.
I use MMS to increase the alkalinity of my filtered water and along with a product called superfood plus I have not been sick in six years. I recommended it to my mother who used it to cure here problem of osteoarthritis with positive results. The way that it works is by that it oxygenates your blood by releasing ClO2 gas into the blood stream. It reacts with pathogens in your blood by changing the electric charge of the pathogens wall. Note that this is the same process that takes places when CIO2 is used to disinfect water. That’s why if it is used at the right dosage it can be effective. If you use too much, what happens is you have manage to kill large numbers of pathogens in your body but your liver and kidney will not be able to handle the spike of waste that it needs to eliminate. When this happens, you have what is called a herxheimer reaction. This can lead to vomiting, diarrhoea and severe dehydration as your body tries to eliminate the toxins from your body.
Now that you understand a bit more about how scientifically it works, given the that pathogens are in general acidic (i.e. they have a positive charge), it is easy to see how lots of individuals can find this an effective treatment for a large number of illnesses. Of course if one doesn’t understand the science behind it and is dumb enough to think that taking more of it will improve their health even faster (!?!), then YES THEY MIGHT DIE OR HAVE ADVERSE!!! Same can be said for many who have abused conventional drugs like Heath Ledger or Brittany Murphy.
For me this still doesn’t justify getting government involved since they are the least competent to judge whether something is effective or not. I say that because MORE PEOPLE DIE FROM IATROGENIC DEATHS THAN FROM ANY DISEASE!!! And note that in almost every case because the government has judged the medicine as “Safe”, the company is protected from liability!!! A better, more efficient and cost effective option would be that the company accepts full liability for anything it sells. They would then have to get insurance which means it would be insurance companies that would assess the safety of the product. In this case, they would have to meet certain guidelines laid out by the insurance company in terms of education of the consumers who want to use their product and labeling to minimize the risk of adverse reactions from its use. That way the product would be priced accordingly (not subsidized by the government – read our money) to its risk/benefits profile. That way the products that are safest and most beneficial would be more highly valued and overtime with volumes in a competitive market would be among the least expensive. I hope this helps.
Wow, so you’ve started an international crusade against these guys, sweet.
Amazing Rhys, well done.
A tiny push on a human network at the right point can create a powerful resonation. Good job!
That’s fantastic news, Rhys, really good work!
Do you know if there is anything about this on the WHO website? My quick search didn’t find anything, although the WHO probably has the hardest-to-navigate website in the whole world, so I could easily have missed it.
Excellent work! The further this goes the better. Tom.
I can confirm that the World Health Organisation have asked that public health authorities alert medical personnel, poisons centres and pharmacists about these products and requested notification of cases of adverse effects to the appropriate health authority.
Within Wales the Welsh Assembly have notified staff on call for this purpose (which this week includes myself)of the need to receive reports of adverse effects to inform any required further public health action.
In other parts of the UK appropriate bodies such as the Health Protection Agency in England will be taking similar action too.
Does anyone have an URL for WHO’s statement?
It’s amazing that by quoting the FDA (not exactly known for it’s scientific approach – i.e. GMO foods, cloned animals, Vioxx, irradiation of foods, etc) and the FSA (another not known for a robust scientific approach – i.e. GMOs – look at where the invest their funding, recent meta-study on organic vs conventional foods) to base an opinion that we should ALL be forced to forgo using MMS. Maybe instead of quoting 3rd party sources, you should consider investigating the science behind the claims. There are large number of individuals who appear to have had positive results using it.
I see this as typical of modern day society. Individuals trying to impose their views on everyone else through government. Let’s consider the result. Since we allow government to decide what can be used for medicinal purpose for ourselves, we pay first by the funding the bureaucrats to do the work (often very poor work), then through the regulations the cost of any treatment is pushed up. Have you not noticed that the NHS is bankrupt, the banks are insolvent as well as the government. It’s primarily because the government tries to micromanage our lives instead of allowing for the free market to function. In the free market, if MMS is as bad as you say, it will lose out to more efficient treatments. The fact that it is so widely used shows that there might be some truth behind the claims. Saw you on the One Show. Use it as a platform to really search for the answers to hard questions (i.e. UK economy, NHS, How regulatory bodies help create monopolies and keep prices high, health, the danger of the EU and especially the EC). Otherwise you will become what Frederich Hayek called “professional secondhand dealers in ideas”. All the best!
Not much point replying directly TO jboyd2010 – I’ve attempted to reason with dyed-in-the-wool Tory fools like this before – but just to point out to OTHERS that this person is no more that a “professional secondhand dealers in ideas” him/herself. Hayek indeed! What a 1979 timewarp. The NHS is not “bankrupt”. Bankruptcy is a state with an exact definition, not just an insult to throw around. The NHS is the ONLY health service in the world with a good record of actually providing best practice healthcare to the penniless, and if we can’t applaud its expensive but fantastic work, we’re just crabby. And the more I think about the statement “regulatory bodies help create monopolies and keep prices high” the crazier it gets. But as I said, no direct argument with this person. To repeat one of my favourite quotations, from Jonathan Swift, “it is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”
With all due respect Steve. If an organization’s costs exceeds it’s revenue, then it’s bankrupt because it is incapable of using its assets to pay its liabilities. This is a chronic situation with the NHS. In fact it’s more of a ponzi scheme where the people on the bottom are paying for the people on top of the pyramid. The people on the bottom are those who are marginally healthy are pumping money into the system with the majority not needing to use it’s service in the near term allowing the older sicker population to use that money to take care of themselves. While being the 5th largest organization in the world with 1.3 million employees, I agree with Steve that people in the UK are living longer as measured by median survival rates, but that is far different from living healthier. UK is 24th in the world which is not terrible More and more of the resources of the UK population to keep people ticking. Consider that at the same time that patients are living longer, the NHS is spending £2 billion per year for patients having an adverse reaction to drugs prescribed for them by doctors and that 1 in 300 are killed by avoidable blunders at the NHS. The NHS means well but it is not very good at what it does.
The scary thing is that if you look at the demographics, (i.e. aging population, decreasing immigration – reducing the number of young workers at the bottom of the pyramid, self inflicted disease through lifestyle choices – crisps, kebabs, etc leading to diabetes, heart disease, cancer and finally the increase in serious diseases among children – autism, asthma, diabetes, etc) it’s getting worse every year.
As to the whole regulatory issue, consider that the NHS uses almost all of its resources on allopathic medicine. What should be important is whether a particular treatment works, the science behind it can come later. Note this is the case for thousands of very effective treatments that come from many forms of tradition, homeopath and natural medicines for hundreds even thousands of years before the science behind some of it is today is understood. But instead, NHS committees who determine what is considered an effective treatment don’t even consider many of these treatments. This leave the field open to allopathic doctors and pharmaceutical companies who use their lobbying power to exclude more effective, safer and cheaper remedies out of the NHS. With no competition from other forms of medicines pharmaceutical companies are able to charge prices with hefty margins for the products. Second many pharmaceuticals are based on natural products that were discovered to be effective and the research that was done was to produce a synthetic version of that product when the natural one is available for a fraction of the cost because you cannot patent a natural substance. One example from the US is the case of Wyeth’s synthetic women’s hormone versus the nbio-identical, naturally occurring estrogen hormones such as estriol. The FDA tried to ban estriol arguing that estriol is “a new and unapproved drug” and that “the safety and effectiveness of estriol is unknown.” An example here in the UK is researchers have discovered there is a volcanic clay, called agricur which is used as a spa treatment and is folk remedy for eliminating nausea, that when added to cell colonies of MRSA 99 percent of colonies were eliminated within 24 hours. Now with the problems of superbugs in NHS hospitals, you would think that the NHS would maybe test and if validated rollout a potentially inexpensive solution to people who are infected by MRSA. But alas no! Instead they are waiting for a pharmaceutical company to come up with a synthetic version.
Note that in relation to natural substances, the research is growing exponentially, showing how natural substances can be used to treat many illnesses. But instead we get the Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products Directive and the Supplements Directive, where bureaucrats try to figure out how the remedies and natural substances work!?! Of course the UK, and our former PM, Gordon Brown, bought into the whole EU project without even asking the approval of the public. So now not only do we have the NHS using massive public resources to deliver a health service in a highly inefficient manner showing a clear preference for only one form of medicine over all others to the detriment of safety and cost, but we also have the EU eliminating what little choice for people who choose not to use NHS by severely restricting the remedies these practitioners use! Always willing to discuss the issues in a constructive manner. All the best!
You think the banking crisis was caused by regulatory bodies or governments trying to “micromanage our lives”? That’s one warped point of view. Even the most ardent free market, rampant capitalist, nut-jobs would find it hard to deny that this mess is the result of *lack of* regulation rather than interference.
Do you really wish for society and the public interest to come second place to the market? Surely not! Regulation and intervention is absolutely essential otherwise.
Simon. I’ll give you an example. Consider that money is a media of exchange that was invented to facilitate an exchange of goods between two parties. Without it, one would need to barter. But as you may not want say the shoes that I’m selling in exchange for the meat that you sell, I would be obliged to find someone willing to trade a third product for shoes before you might sell me meat. So the key elements of money are that it is 1. in demand; 2. highly divisible; 3. easily portable; and 4. high value per unit weight. So basically there is a direct relation between the money unit and the product or service that you produce expressed as a price. Depending on the civilization and the circumstances, there have been many different things that have been used as money like cowrie shell or salt, in jails it tended to be cigarettes, but the most prevalent have been gold or silver.
Through the exchange of goods and services among willing participants, individuals were able to become wealthier and in order to keep their wealth safe, they started to warehouse their money in banks in order to keep them secure (demand deposits). The key thing to remember is that the bank would give you a document that could be used to allow you to take your money out when you wished. you can go into a bank at anytime and take out ALL of your money. This is deposit banking. At the same time, some individuals who were interested in generating revenue from their wealth so they provided their funds to the bank in order for it to be invested. This is loan banking.
Now because people would request to take out all of their money and people would pass around the demand note they had instead pulling money out of the bank and providing it directly to other merchants, so unscrupulous banks would start to lend out their demand deposits and even beyond what they had in loan and demand deposits. That would fuel a boom because of an increase in the money supply causes an appreciation in prices. Technically the banks were bankrupt since demand deposits needed to be paid immediately but loans were only paid at some point in the future. So their liabilities didn’t match their assets. Then when people sensed that the bank was unstable, there would be a bank run where people would demand specie for their demand deposits, forcing the banks to call in the loans causing a serious contraction of the money supply. This would cause a bust as companies and individuals went bankrupt because they were not able to pay off their loans and their assets were liquidated. This causes a depreciation in prices.
So bankers, specifically a consortium fronted by William Patterson presented to King William a scheme where they and the King would create a central bank where the notes that they issued would force everyone to use it as legal tender. King William accepted and the bank immediately monetized the debt of the UK by creating out of thin air £760,000 that was used to by the government debt for the civil wars and campaigns against the French. Now note that if we were to print notes in the form of money, we would be thrown in jail as counterfeiters!
Cut to modern day. Banks are only required to have 6% of the funds related to its demand deposits. Even in the best of times, banks are insolvent since if people came in and requested their money, they could not meet this liability with existing assets. If we did that with our company, HMRC would force us to wind up the company. The regulations from the Bank of England and FSA are part of a shell game to make it appear that they are secure. They serve primarily to ensure that every bank in the market plays the “game” of fractional reserve banking. If a bank doesn’t it is difficult if not impossible for the bank to get access to funds and most do not survive. The “profits” that they make are pure fiction. In the worst of times, like now. As they have had to repossess most of the assets which they bought by creating money out of thin air via a computer (since when a person buys a house with a mortgage in fact the bank buys the house, you are given a loan – for the bank it is registered as an asset since they are receiving revenue every month, for you it’s a liability since you must pay your mortgage every month). As the money supply contracts, there is a depreciation in the prices of their assets. The government has allowed the banks to transfer all of these assets into shell companies that show massive losses and keep it off the books of the banks. Of course when this initially broke, the banks had a major funding problem as even without a bank run, many of the banks (excluding Barclays and HSBC) would not have been able to pay staff the following week. This is one of the main reasons the Central Bank because as a lender of last resort, it will always bailout the banks when push comes to shove. that The other thing to remember about the central bank sets the interest rather than the market. There is nothing more important than the price of money (supply vs. demand) expressed in the interest. As politicians are looking to get re-elected, there is constant pressure on the Governor to keep the interest low and keep pumping more money into the economy. This sends a false signal to investors that it is a good time to invest in new projects and to consumers that it is a bad time to save money. So there is over investment. Finally quantitive easing works this way. The BoE creates money out of thin air say £10 million to buy bonds from the banks. This money is deposited in the accounts of the banks with the BoE. Now the multiplier (i.e. assume 10% is required as reserve to simplify example) comes into effect as the banks create loans at a multiple of the 9 (i.e. £90 million) which normally a percentage might be lent to the public but as banks aware that times are difficult, lend it BACK TO THE GOVERNMENT by purchasing Gilt Bonds! Plus banks are able to borrow money from the BoE at a low rate (i.e. close to 0%) and re loan it to them buying Gilt Bonds yielding 3%. It’s a very easy arbitrage opportunity. As it is a loan, WE HAVE TO PAY IT BACK!!! So it is by government intervention in the form of nationalizing the bank, quantitative easing and arbitrage of BoE rates and gilt rates it has transferred all the banks losses to the public. If this was really the free market, there would be no central bank (and they would not show such ridiculous profits and bonuses) and the incompetent banks (which only Barclays and HSBC can be excused) would have went into administration. But no, we have the government and regulation. All the best!
What is ‘the right dose’?
@jboyd2010: Bankruptcy is a *legally declared* inability or impairment of ability of an individual or organization to pay its creditors. It’s a state which people or organisations are either in or not in, not an opinion. You aren’t getting anywhere by confusing bankruptcy with running an organisation with a deficit, which is done all over the world by successful organisations from the smallest to the largest.
@Steve Rogers. I stand corrected, your definition of bankruptcy is correct. But I beg to differ as to your view that it is possible to run an organization with a deficit and be successful. First of all, it’s not sustainable. Consider that it was through running organizations in this manner that the USSR collapsed. Consider also that by running public institutions in this manner, the next year Britain debt will surpass £1 trillion pounds! That’s about £33,000 per working person! And each household in Britain will owe about £2000 in interest. Look at what’s happened in Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain and the truly scary one the US which the immediate debt is $13.8 trillion. Note that doesn’t include the cost of social security and medicare. When you include those (which are unfunded liabilities) the estimates range from $60 trillion to $300 trillion. In a good year the US economy is worth $15 trillion. That’s the world we live in. One where almost every western country save for Germany, Luxembourg, Switzerland and Norway are all the rest are living above their means. (i.e. country’s costs exceeds it’s revenue – tax and otherwise) and they way that they cover the difference is by printing money from thin air or borrowing more. And as evidenced by events over the last two and a half years, the reckoning is here!
hi there Rhys.
I have a few points i’d like you to consider..?
I been Looking at both sides of this mms story,
the Scientists say it really bad for you & that it doesn’t work,
the general Public says it the best thing ever,
Jim hubble is not doing himself any favors at the same time by not releasing the Data he has.
and also tends to ramble on about how it works.
If your on here jim,
You really gotta give us Something solid to work with…?
You say you’ll go to jail if you release the Data you have.
Well it seems that from what i’ve read, its all starting to falling as it is.
so its like now or never,
i noticed resently that youtube is really starting to become alive with Pro mms Videos.
i’ve watched both for & against.
i’ve read blogs opon blogs & its left me divided on this matter.
But Rhys at the same time your taken a very negative stance on this matter,
so at the end of the day your not really helping the situation.
in fact to be fair it prob made it worse in that it will now more than likely go underground.
one thing is for sure is that there is a missing link here that everybody is running past.
cos somebody’s gotta be right. but yet i haven’t really come across anyone who’s taken it apon themselfs to find out what the truth is.
i just see alot of giving out on both sides which gets ya no where.
so i ask any sciencetist’s on here to either get together on this, or on there own & start testing this mms on mice or something to put an end to all this speculation.
Cos i for one had enough of it.
I’m not a sciencetist, but this story really need to be put to bed.
lets get crackin people…?
I just found this video which seems to have alot if solid info.
can everybody please watch this.
it starts off talking about an engine but goes on to talk about mms in great detail.
if someone could some how contact this man, we maybe able to get some more soild answers cos he’s talking about doing clinical trials with mms.
I’m not for or against mms,
I just want answers. not arguements.
sorry forgot to add the video
jboyd2010 sure runs off at the keyboard.
Leave a comment