chlorine dioxide, miracle mineral suppliment?

December 20, 2007 6:47 PM

Has anyone heard of the alternative health cure called chlorine dioxide, marketed under the name of Miracle Mineral Supplement (MMS), it is claimed to have cured 75,000 documented cases of malaria, as well as cancer, aids, lyme, etc..

Chlorine dioxide has been in use for disinfecting city water, poultry, etc.. for over 80 years, but someone has found that when ingested directly at higher doses (mixed with vinegar) it is purported to "cure" everything from malaria to cancer to aids, killing invasive/bad pathogens in the body within hours, but leaving the good stuff intact. Supposedly thousands have been cured of malaria in Africa and there are glowing positive first person reports all over the net (including someone I know). Other than alternative health skeptics, does anyone have any specific contrary information about this treatment?

posted by stbalbach to health & fitness (36 comments total)

Chlorine dioxide itself is a gas at STP, and although it can be dissolved in water, it's still pretty unstable there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorine_dioxide

The NPI states that exposure to ClO2 (as a gas) can cause all sorts of nasty lung problems, and it seems to be bad for fetuses too.

http://www.npi.gov.au/database/substance-info/profiles/21.html

The pages you link to cite no references for their impossible claims. I smell hoax. Ask your friend if they believe in Colloidal Silver as a magical cure-all too.
posted by 5MeoCMP at 7:08 PM on December 20, 2007

Other than alternative health skeptics, does anyone have any specific contrary information about this treatment?

So other than people who claim it is ineffective, does anyone claim it is ineffective?

There is no evidence whatsoever that chlorine dioxide does what you are claiming to have heard. Anyone saying otherwise is trying to scam you.
posted by Justinian at 7:19 PM on December 20, 2007

Chlorine dioxide is already in wide use as a disinfectant, but it's not as safe as those links or your friend might think. Here's a brief explanation, by way of Google Books.
posted by StrikeTheViol at 7:20 PM on December 20, 2007

An MSDS(pdf) I found for it suggests that it probably isn't carcinogenic and may not cause birth defects even at "exceptionally high exposure levels." The oral LD50 in rats is 292mg/kg. Judging from the dosage instructions on some sites selling the stuff, the suggested dose is well below that.

A clinical evaluation suggested that it isn't immediately harmful to humans.

So, maybe it won't kill you, but I wouldn't take it without at least some kind of proper experimental evidence that it actually does anything therapeutic.
posted by jedicus at 7:23 PM on December 20, 2007

Supposedly thousands have been cured of malaria in Africa....

So, are you asking people to prove a negative, which isn't going to work, or do you have specific instances you could point people to to allow them to disprove this, interesting, positive?
posted by pompomtom at 7:24 PM on December 20, 2007

Anyone saying otherwise is trying to scam you.

Unless they have evidence. Which they don't, because if they did, cancer and AIDS would be cured.
posted by tepidmonkey at 7:29 PM on December 20, 2007

That came off sounding a lot more circular than I intended. What I meant was, if this worked, don't you think doctors would be using it as a cure for cancer and AIDS?
posted by tepidmonkey at 7:30 PM on December 20, 2007

Sorry, my mistake, I hadn't followed those links, which seem more scammy than a lack of links.

I will post the remainder of my response for the low, low price of $9.95.



(admittedly, the lines:

"After taking the Miracle Mineral Supplement AIDS patients are often disease free in three days and other diseases and conditions simply disappear."

make me rather sceptical, and the suggestion that I can get part I for free, but must pay for part II doesn't seem to be the way most medical journals would publish the cure for AIDS...)
posted by pompomtom at 7:30 PM on December 20, 2007

Show me (1) peer reviewed data from an (2) independent (3) double blinded (4) properly controlled study.

No 1,2,3,4? Quelle surprise! This stinks to high heaven of snakeoil. Run, don't walk away.
posted by lalochezia at 7:33 PM on December 20, 2007 [1 favorite]

It appears that chlorine dioxide gets it disinfectant properties by acting as an oxidant. Basically it steals electrons from other molecules. If you put this into a human it would go around and steal electrons from whatever molecules it touched first. If that human had malaria it would also steal electron from the malaria parasite and cause lysis, cell rupture, but only after it had caused many more human cells to rupture first.

Antibiotics that target things like malaria are selectively toxic. That is they disrupt cell processes that are either not present in human cells or are metabolically different in human cells in order to avoid damaging human cells. Chlorine dioxide is not selectively toxic. I would be highly skeptical of the claims that are being made.

Also a quick search of Pubmed reveals nothing relevant.
posted by 517 at 8:04 PM on December 20, 2007

No, this doesn't cure AIDS. Nothing cures AIDS. Really. If someone claims that their special secret whatever cures AIDS, even if they are a head of state, they are lying to you.
posted by gingerbeer at 8:15 PM on December 20, 2007

Here's the thing. There is no mechanism by which it would cure viral infections, parasitic infections and cancers. They all work by such profoundly different mechanism that anything claiming to cure all of them is most assuredly nonsense.

If it worked, it would be used widely.
posted by tomble at 8:46 PM on December 20, 2007

There is no mechanism by which it would cure viral infections, parasitic infections and cancers

Not clear if it "cures" all of these things or simply keeps them in check by helping boost the immune system which then does the work. Does that by killing off bacterial cells in the gut which are a drag on the immune system. Same idea as taking pro-biotics are known to help with many disorders so are anti-biotics.

If it worked, it would be used widely.

They say it's fairly new, has not garnered attention from the majors as there is no money in it (off the shelf compound), and it has been used a lot in Africa.

-- --

are you asking people to prove

no

-- --

no evidence whatsoever

There is considerable "evidence" linked above, the quality of it is low on expertise and high on bias, but it's not "no evidence". Thus my question, looking for additional sources that are higher up the expertise ladder and lower on the bias scale. Typically with these things there is a kernel of truth surrounded by a lot of hype, one can't discount it entirely, it's usually more complex than either the proponents or naysayers make it out.
posted by stbalbach at 9:08 PM on December 20, 2007

Anything that promotes itself with the word "miracle" is a scam.*




*99.99% of the time, anyway.
posted by Savannah at 9:30 PM on December 20, 2007

There is considerable "evidence" linked above, the quality of it is low on expertise and high on bias, but it's not "no evidence".

What? No, there isn't any evidence linked. There are unsourced, undocumented claims made by the people trying to sell you the product. That is exactly "no evidence"!

Thus my question, looking for additional sources that are higher up the expertise ladder and lower on the bias scale.

Ok, well the answer to your question is that there are no additional sources that show any evidence of chlorine dioxide curing these conditions.

Typically with these things there is a kernel of truth surrounded by a lot of hype

Actually, typically with these things there is a kernel of wishful thinking surrounded by a lot of hype. Anyway, you seem to have made up your mind about there being something to this.

You asked the question; is there evidence that this stuff works? The answer is: no, there isn't. You can accept that or reject it, but that's the answer to the question you asked.
posted by Justinian at 9:43 PM on December 20, 2007 [1 favorite]

There is considerable "evidence" linked above, the quality of it is low on expertise and high on bias, but it's not "no evidence"

People making a marketing claim is not evidence.

From the site:
Scientific clinical trials have been conducted in a prison in the country of Malawi, East Africa. The Malawi government produced identical 99% cure results.

If these people had found a drug that cured malaria with a 99% effectiveness, it would be front page news, and would have been published in any or all of the best medical journals. (ditto for AIDS, cancer, etc)

The fact that you've never heard of this drug is not evidence of a conspiracy or medical cover-up. It is evidence that these hucksters are trying to make a quick buck off of people who don't know any better. Now that we've told you this, you should know better. Please don't support these scam artists.
posted by chrisamiller at 10:01 PM on December 20, 2007

I see what you're trying to accomplish, stbalbach. Part of the problem is that, as a moderately potent disinfectant, you'd need an awful lot more than the dilute solutions these people are selling to cure every ailment. It is used in Africa in the same way as in the States: A first-line water disinfectant. Chlorine or UV is still used, because the dioxide can't replace them. It's a effective mouthwash, but it wouldn't cure malaria nearly as well as quinine, despite the latter's side effects. (This is why you don't hear surgeons in the ER yelling "this patient needs Tylenol, stat!".)
posted by StrikeTheViol at 10:26 PM on December 20, 2007

More stats here. Insufficient data to conclude the liquid form is dangerous, which is good, because it's used all over the place already. If it cures disease better than we understand, we're all reaping the benefits without spending an extra dime, but I suspect these people are misguided, instead.
posted by StrikeTheViol at 10:40 PM on December 20, 2007

Not clear if it "cures" all of these things or simply keeps them in check by helping boost the immune system which then does the work.

We already know that there is no hope for curing Aids through boosting the immune system, because the virus continues to live in archived immune cells. This is why anti-retrovirals (for which we have scads of evidence of effectiveness), even when they eliminate the virus from the blood, do not cure Aids. Go off the meds, the HIV comes back. Given what we now know about the natural history of HIV in the human body, if we were able to wipe out the immune system entirely (while still killing the virus) we'd have a better chance of curing Aids than by the mechanism you're talking about here.

So, I'm not going to comment on the evidence for the other claims, although I do think you're being to credulous, but the Aids claim would seem to be bunk on its face.
posted by OmieWise at 6:54 AM on December 21, 2007

chrisamiller: it's more than marketing people, it's people I personally know. Also, it's dirt cheap over the counter chemicals, no one is making real money on this, there is no secret formula or chemical.

Justinian: I don't think your being intellectually honest, sorry, I don't trust your pronouncement that there are "no sources", it conflicts with claims made elsewhere - you may be right, but I know you have not done the legwork to support your position, your making an educated guess, it's sort a lazy mans quick answer rather than doing the research. Again, not to say your wrong, and you are most likely right, but I want to know with a higher degree of certainty than an educated guess.

StrikeTheViol: thanks for the links. You've made the best replies in the thread bringing in a lot of useful stuff. I think there is something about the vinegar that makes it more potent.

OmieWise: yeah "cure" is not the right word, I think they are saying for some things it keeps in remission, or helps in some way, so long as one keeps taking doses of it regularly.
posted by stbalbach at 2:19 PM on December 21, 2007

you may be right, but I know you have not done the legwork to support your position, your making an educated guess, it's sort a lazy mans quick answer rather than doing the research.

Well, this is a serious question stalbach, how can I prove to you that there isn't any real evidence for this? I don't know how I'm supposed to prove a negative like that.
posted by Justinian at 4:03 PM on December 21, 2007

Good God, it's snake oil. The bogosity is off the scale. WHOOOOP! WHOOOOOP!
posted by unSane at 8:21 PM on December 21, 2007

Also, stbalback, you do understand that the onus is on the people who are selling this stuff to prove their case, not on anyone else to disprove it? And you understand that someone saying something is so is not evidence?
posted by unSane at 8:23 PM on December 21, 2007

this is a serious question stalbach, how can I prove to you that there isn't any real evidence for this?

Well, since they make the claim for 75,000 documented cases, that is very factual piece of information that should be fairly easy for someone to look into and prove or disprove - "documented" means there are documents, physical evidence. It's not "proof" of anything one way or another, but certainly it would either show them to be outright liars, or a legitimate concern. That is one way.

Another way would be to contact some of the people posting on blogs and mailing lists that have made claims of being healed and getting first hand accounts and background information to make sure they are not shills. These people are fairly easy to contact.

Another way would be to try it yourself and see what happens.

Another way would be to seek out experts for their opinions.

There are probably other ways. None are definitive, all can be weighed in balanced.

the onus is on the people who are selling this stuff to prove their case

True, but when Justinian says unequivably "they are wrong", that is a lot different than saying "they need to prove their case." I agree with you, they do need to prove their case, but I sure as heck am not saying they are wrong - there is a high likelihood they are wrong, but I feel there is enough interesting evidence to look into it further and see what else I can find out. Thus this AskMe.
posted by stbalbach at 9:29 PM on December 21, 2007

Late to this, but god...

Well, since they make the claim for 75,000 documented cases, that is very factual piece of information that should be fairly easy for someone to look into and prove or disprove...

Are any of their documents from peer-reviewed scientific journals? Are any of their documents based on double-blind studies? Are all or most of their documents in the form of testimonials like "I had malaria, and I took this liquid, and then I didn't have malaria anymore - Signed, Some Guy" or "I am a doctor, and when I gave this to my patients, it made them better!"

Your skepticism meter needs tuning.

People who are actually sick with malaria, cancer, HIV, and the like are not getting proper (i.e. scientifically based) treatment that can help them - they take "cures" like this instead, stay sick, get sicker, die sooner.

...but I feel there is enough interesting evidence to look into it further and see what else I can find out.

Yes, and the onus is on them to prove that their substance works. That's how drugs get tested: the onus is on the drug-maker to prove that the drug is safe and effective, and there is an established procedure for doing so. Avoidance of this procedure is indicative of hucksterism at work. It might be well-meaning hucksterism, but it's still hucksterism.
posted by rtha at 6:55 PM on December 23, 2007

I'm looking for more information. THAT'S WHAT SKEPTICS DO. Christ almighty the nanny patrol is driving me nuts.
posted by stbalbach at 7:10 AM on December 25, 2007 [1 favorite]

Sorry, stbalbach, if what I said came off as nanny-ish. But you're looking for information in the wrong place: as many folks have said above, it is up to the producers of this stuff to prove it is safe and effective. It is not up to other institutions to prove it is not (although some may - who knows?). If the producers refuse to engage in the well-established scientific process of testing drugs for safety and efficacy, that in itself is is big red flag that they are not on the up-and-up.
posted by rtha at 10:41 AM on December 25, 2007

Yeah well I'm in the more delicate situation that I have friends who I know and trust (with PhD's and stuff) who have tried this therapy and reported that IT WORKS. So, being somewhat skeptical by nature, but also believing my friends are reporting something, I'm trying to find additional information, any information, about the therapy. History is full of things that took a long time to be accepted -- as I said above, usually it's never black and white - even colloidal silver is known to be an anti-bacterial agent (although at a high cost with side effects). My guess is that is the case here (well, I know it is, this stuff kills bacteria is not controversial) - but what are the downsides?

Now, this is not really a "product" being sold by a "company" - it's an off the shelf chemical that can be bought anywhere - a gallon for $25 or so would last a lifetime. Someone is selling information about it, but that information is freely available on the net - some people are selling it pre-bottled, but thats just a convenience. So what "institution" is going to spend the 10s or 100s of millions to "prove" it is safe and effective? Which leads to the next logical step, some third party will probably publish a report showing it is either not effective, not safe, or both. Probably some sort of consumer health group or the US goverment. That's why I came here seeking additional information, data or opinions - not from AskMe members who I already know will think it's snake oil.
posted by stbalbach at 12:07 PM on December 25, 2007

I'm looking for more information. THAT'S WHAT SKEPTICS DO. Christ almighty the nanny patrol is driving me nuts.

Well, your responses in the thread make it seem as if you're skeptical about SCIENCE, not as if you're skeptical about this stuff that is supposed to be a miracle cure. When scientifically-minded people talk about skepticism in relation to quackery they are talking about taking a position that is pro-science, pro-evidence, and anti-quackery; it is cranks and quacks who write about being "skeptical" of scientific assertions that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and that anecdotes are not evidence. Perhaps you've conveyed your sense badly, or I've read it wrong, but you seem to be a skeptic of the latter class, at least in this case.
posted by OmieWise at 9:46 AM on December 26, 2007 [1 favorite]

My stance on MMS is simple. If there is much to argue about that leaves really only one conclusion...well two.....
No one is right and no one is wrong....

but, I am betting that those who think they are right are in reality wrong and those who are being blamed for being wrong are correct.....

geez....now I'm sounding like I can sell Salt Lake City......

MMS is nothing more than what is already in mouthwash and toothpaste and tap water. 45 extra drops a day will not do what many sites claim it will do.

MMS is a hoax. It gives merely an antidote by placebo effect....that is, if it doesn't kill you in the long run.....

Or wait? Would that be a cure to what all ails you?

Oh, what do I know, I'm only certified in being wise.

Folks, I can make anything sound just as good as the next person when it comes to MMS or "chelation" therapy.

It is not a new treatment for any disease because it isn't really a treatment to begin with.
The only reason why MMS may seem new is because the speel that is given has changed the last decade or so.

Also, I know somewhere there is a Law Statute about anyone claiming cure alls. I believe it passed in 2001.

Stephanie

PS. we are having the same discussion at hepatitis c objectives- yahoo groups.....I am certified in HCV infection, so I am capable of stating that MMS does not do what it's intended for....infact, chronic ingestion of MMS can cause your body harm in the long run.
Think about what's been said here. I even paid 5 bucks just to state my case!
IT DOES NOT WORK and CAN BE POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS IN CHRONIC ILLNESSES. (not yelling, just stressing my valid and honest input!)

:o)
posted by stephanie at 6:18 PM on January 14, 2008

Heh, couldn't access one of stbalbach's links before. The short, short version: Chlorine dioxide in sufficiently high doses causes nausea, diarrhea and vomiting by irritating the stomach and esophagus. The dose is higher than any normal disinfectant use, and is designed to cause this distress. The ridiculously high concentration (28%!) triggers purging well before digestion, which makes tossing your cookies and getting the runs the sum total reason to drink the stuff.
posted by StrikeTheViol at 9:47 AM on February 3, 2008

Jackpot. Levels as high as this huckster's concentration were never tested in humans because they led to thyroid defiiciency, internal lesions, birth defects and renal failure in animal testing. Just wish I'd found this sooner.
posted by StrikeTheViol at 10:05 AM on February 3, 2008 [1 favorite]

Thanks! This is exactly the type of information I was looking for. I'll let folks know.
posted by stbalbach at 10:22 AM on March 4, 2008

Hi stbalbach. I've been intrigued by your search for info on this. A good friend of mine has started using MMS and asked me to check it out for her. Congrats on maintaining your cool through all the provocation; I admire your clarity of vision.
Have you found out any more about chlorine dioxide's possible usefulness in treating malaria, AIDS et al?
BTW I read through StrikeTheViol's attachment ("Levels as high as this huckster's concentration were never tested in humans because they led to thyroid defiiciency,...") and I think he/she's in error. From my reading of the linked paper (and gobbledegook is not my major) studies were done on humans with doses of .34mg/kg and found no changes in vitals (including blood thyroid hormone levels). According to my (possibly flaky) calculations, the so called huckster's recommended dose @ 2x15 drops a day would be circa .01 mg/kg/day.
From memory, the dosage at which vitals changes were noted in monkeys was a massive 9.5 mg/kg.
Sorry STV, don't mean to offend. But I would be slow to label this guy as a huckster; he doesn't come across as such to me.
I'm not saying I think MMS does what it's claimed to do in all situ.s for all patients. Or that anyone should necessarily buy it hoping they'll get the same results as Dr Opondo got with his Kenyan babies using ClO2. But I'm willing to believe that he did get those miraculous results. It does take a small amount of faith but i'm up to it these days.
If anyone's wanting to contact Dr Opondo for 1st hand info his address is Dr Isaac Opondo, PO box 1176, 50100 Kakamega (or Kakarnega), Kenya. Africa. Phone [phone]
The video showing him using the treatment is at http://www.mlivingstone.co.uk/page6.html
posted by conspiro at 9:41 PM on August 26, 2008

Re: "Here's the thing. There is no mechanism by which it would cure viral infections, parasitic infections and cancers. They all work by such profoundly different mechanism that anything claiming to cure all of them is most assuredly nonsense.

If it worked, it would be used widely.
posted by tomble at 8:46 PM on December 20, 2007 [+] [!]"

WADR tomble, i imagine supporters of the product might propose a way in which it could work against all 3 even tho they all work thru profoundly different mechanisms, if in all of them there are vital components which occur in an environment with pH<7> I.e. maybe the profundity of the differences is not really relevant if there exists also a similarity which the treatment can successfully exploit, No?
posted by conspiro at 11:51 PM on August 26, 2008

Re: "Show me (1) peer reviewed data from an (2) independent (3) double blinded (4) properly controlled study.

No 1,2,3,4? Quelle surprise! This stinks to high heaven of snakeoil. Run, don't walk away.
posted by lalochezia at 7:33 PM on December 20, 2007 [1 favorite +] [!]"

hate to disagree again but the fact that it hasn't been the subject of a 1,2,3,4 doesn't necessarily mean it's a scam.
They might genuinely be motivated by altruism - it does happen, quite a lot actually - and may not have been able to get funding for a study. Who's going to fund a study into something you can buy at the hardware store for $25 a gallon?
I wouldn't necessarily dismiss it just because of a 1,2,3,4 deficiency, not if I had a good reason for wanting to know if it's for real.
posted by conspiro at 12:33 AM on August 27, 2008