DataBishop

Miracle Mineral Solution, now referred to as Master Mineral Solution or MMS is now being used in over 100 countries. More than 5 million free ebooks have been down loaded. More than 200,000 paper back books have been sold in Germany alone and similar numbers in the rest of the world including the US. The author, Jim Humble has thousands of emails telling of the successful us of the Master Mineral Solution. Although the FDA and several other agencies have reported that MMS is used in a 28% solution this is a mistake. The normal dose of MMS is used in the Body at a strength of .00004% EDIT to add that THIS NUMBER IS WRONG... which is 7000 times less than 28% and the stongest dose of MMS that anyone would ever receive would be 3500 times less that 28%, a figure that is well below a test made with human volunteers in 1982 to determine the safety of ingesting MMS (chlorine dioxide) and sodium chlorite. In addition the doses have also been subject to test by rats as well and the results were that the rates were not harmed. Although over a period of 100 years 4 or 5 people have been subjected accidently to 100,000 times the amount of sodium chlorite that is considered safe and they did indeed did suffer renal failure for a short period, but they did not die and no deaths have ever been recorded. However, it is a moot point as the procedure for prepairing a dose of sodium chlorite destroys the sodium chlorite chemically before it is injested.

EDIT 0.00004% sodium chlorite would be 0.4 PPM. A 3 drop dose of MMS mixed according to the MMS protocol has a concentration of about 190 PPM which is 0.019%. The Lubbers study found that 5 PPM is safe over a period of 12 weeks. This is 0.0005%. The concentration used in a 3 drop dose is 38 times higher than what Lubbers found to be safe. ENDEDIT

One of the main contentions of all critics is that chlorine dioxide is poisonous in large amounts. That is a fact that any scientist or layman should expect. That is not in itself any reason to come to a logical conclusion as thousands of medical drugs are poisonous in the same large quantities that are considered poisonous for chlorine dioxide. All drugs and all chemicals and all substances are poisonous to the body in large enough amounts. To just state the obvious, a fact that any high school chemistry student knows and then to walk away saying "health fraud" does not seem to be to be fair.

To get a drug approved by the FDA now days it costs 800 million dollars.

INSERT COMMENT: Jim makes it sound like you have to pay the FDA 800 million dollars for them to approve "your new drug" but this is completely wrong. Jim knows this but he constantly repeats this lie. It costs a pharma company on average 800 million dollars to develop a completely new drug from scratch, this includes all the research and development AND the costs of research that fail the long list of trials and DON'T make it to market. A large proportion of pharma research DOESN'T lead to a viable and safe drug, that research still has to be paid for, which is largely what adds up to that 800 million dollar figure, it's certainly NOT money that goes to the FDA as some sort of "approval fee" like Jim makes it sound. Jim ALREADY has the drug, so the R&D is already done, even though Jim doesn't even really understand what that means. Phase 1 trials on the other hand hardly cost anything at all, they can even be done on volunteers, so there really is NO excuse that he couldn't have already had at least a couple of trials under his belt, since he claims he's already been treating thousands of volunteers. Vespine (talk) 05:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

CORRECTION: Drug companies seeking to sell a drug in the United States must first test it. The company then sends FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research the evidence from these tests to prove the drug is safe and effective for its intended use. A team of CDER physicians, statisticians, chemists, pharmacologists, and other scientists reviews the company's data and proposed labeling. If this independent and unbiased review establishes that a drug's health benefits outweigh its known risks, the drug is approved for sale. The center doesn't actually test drugs itself, although it does conduct limited research in the areas of drug quality, safety, and effectiveness standards. Before a drug can be tested in people, the drug company or sponsor performs laboratory and animal tests to discover how the drug works and whether it's likely to be safe and work well in humans. Next, a series of tests in people is begun to determine whether the drug is safe when used to treat a disease and whether it provides a real health benefit. The FDA requires that drug companies undergo a specific set of criteria for a drug to be reviewed and then approved/disapproved. The process a drug must undergo to reach the final stage of approval can cost upwards of $800 million dollars. To infer that an ordinary person from the street is able to approach the FDA with a drug that has not undergone the required development & approval process is a falsity and misleading.119.12.195.24 (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your comment entirely, except that's is NOT the implication of a statement like: To get a drug approved by the FDA now days it costs 800 million dollars. As made by Jim Humble and his followers. As you note, the WHOLE process can cost up to 800 Million dollars, but the initial stages are a tiny fraction of that price. Pre-clinical trials are frequently undertaken by research scientists working just from donations. Once a drug or substance shows promise, that is a draw card to grants and investors. Phase one trials of Dichloroacetic acid were funded by donations due to the efforts of ONE MAN, Dr Evangelos Michelakis, who earlier conducted the initial In Vitrio studies. When that phase one trial completed he had no problems finding funding for the phase 2 and 3 trials. Guess which stage MMS has been up to? There is NO excuse if MMS was actually an effective antibiotic that there should be some properly conducted initial trials. In fact, Jim claims that 100,000 people in Africa have already been cured of Malaria using MMS, how much effort do you think that would have taken? It would have been a MAMMOTH task of resources and co-ordination, compared to that, running some properly conducted pre-trials on a few dozen people would be a piece of cake. So why hasn't it happened? There is only one reasonable explanation. Vespine (talk) 03:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC) Vespine (talk) 03:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Yet without a 100 million, or 10 million, or even 1 million, or 100 thousand, or even 10 thousand, Jim Humble took an effective chemical from not known, to being use by more than 5 million people throughout the world. How do you suppose he did that over a 5 year period if it didn't work? It was all anecdotal, word of mouth as there was no advertising. Jim Humble is not a dynamic personality; he did not convince 5 million people. MMS spoke for itself. It destroyed pathogens in hundreds of thousand of people.

INSERT COMMENT: Again another complete lie.. MMS is well known for its prolific and aggressive online marketing strategy! How could anyone believe Jim when he says there was no advertising? Jim alone has about a dozen websites set up and there are literally HUNDREDS of websites promoting or selling MMS. A simple google search for "miracle mineral solution" plainly shows how many websites there are promoting and advertising MMS. I've looked at first ten pages of google results and the vast majority of results are articles either criticizing MMS, or advertising it. In those 1st ten pages, there are very few if any "testimonials" or forums or anything like that, it's all advertising or criticism. Look for yourself. Vespine (talk) 05:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

VALIDATION OF CLAIM: You stated: "Jim alone has about a dozen websites set up and there are literally HUNDREDS of websites promoting or selling MMS". To better educate readers of this talk page as to the validity of that claim, please provide search links or direct links to these websites. In order for a claim to be valid on Wikipedia there must be at least two sources the editor can refer to in order to support the claim.119.12.195.24 (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

This isn't a Wikipedia article, so I don't have to reference my cliams thank you. Besides, are you actually seriously challenging this claim? All you have to do is google MMS and go down the list. Vespine (talk) 03:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Chlorine dioxide is an extremely effective pathogen killer. There is no poison, no acid, or any other chemical as effective. In small amounts in the body it is still effective against all pathogens. The fact is it is neutral to the body. Do you think that the world would rather that when he tried for years to get financing that he just walk away and leave those 100's of thousands of people die who are now alive and enjoying their lives. Well he did what most people wouldn't have the guts to do. He went grass roots below the awareness of the governments throughout the world. He did this after understanding the chemistry and after trying it on himself. He finance the operation with his own money and very little donations.

INSERT COMMENT: This bit is just a bit strange, it's like Jim has multiple personality disorder, as becomes much clearer in the next few paragraphs, this IS written by Jim Humble, but here he is referring to himself as "he" in the 3rd person.. Rather strange. Vespine (talk) 05:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:No personal attacks: Personal attacks on an individual is not allowed in Wikipedia and does not provide any educational or informative contribution to the site. Also, one must not presume that Jim Humble is the sole author and editor of this talk page. There might be a number of people editing this site on behalf of a single user, so suggesting otherwise is purely conjectural and does not constitute a reason to denigrate others.119.12.195.24 (talk) 03:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I made a claim and I supported that claim. The fact that Jim Humble refers to himself in the 3rd person is a fact, not a personal attack. Please read the policy you linked and tell me specifically why you think I made a personal attack? Vespine (talk) 03:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Hundreds of people now sell it throughout the world. Governments have band it, but that does stop it from being manufactured and sold in homes and garages around the world. There are two types of people. Those who want to see it work, and those who are against it.

I am not going to fight the critics or other closed minded people. There are a lot of really great people in America, but on the other side there are a few closed minded, people, who refuse to consider the hundreds OR thousands of people who believe them and who will not overcome their suffering because they believe in them. If these people had taken the time to study what they are against, they wouldn't be doing what they are doing. You can't call it anything but evil to refuse to check the data, because people will die trusting them. And then Stephen Barrett M.D. says, "There is no such thing pancreas or "cure all."" So how does he know that. Did God tell him? Jim Humble has spent thousands of hours treating more than 5000 people personally, answered more than 30,000 emails personally, more than 5,000 phone calls and trained 140 people who are from 42 different countries. Wikipedia asks for references to prove what one is saying. This author offers a number of references but the references do not show any proof of the authors contentions against MMS. In all fairness one does not get to just list references. The reference has got to be revelatory somehow proving its contentions.

See my comments in Dark Black printing.

1. The References link goes here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/9780071437639 It’s long list of places to find books if you know its ISBN number. If you click on the links saying “find this book”, you go to sites about the book (Goldfrank's Toxicologic Emergencies), such as this one, which has a link to Amazon where you can buy it for $259. I can't afford this reference at this time so we might give the author a maybe. 2. References link goes to a one-page article in French entitled “Chlorates.” I couldn't find any reference to chlorine dioxide, the item that is under discussion in this article.

3. ISBN 978-0683036329 I googled the ISBN number and found the book at Amazon here. It costs $1.20 used. I didn't buy it.

4. This link goes to a .pdf file which is a summary of testing done on NaCl, ClO2 and sodium chlorate. High doses were found to cause some harm but low doses were harmless. (AND ACCORDING TO THIS ARTICLE ALL MMS DOSES ARE ARE SAFE.) So this is a reference, but it doesn't prove any of the contentions that the Author seems to think it does.

5. This link (http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/media/advisories-avis/_2010/2010_74-eng.php) goes to Health Canada – A page warning consumers not to take MMS. Describing it as being at 28%. Health Canada has been attacking http://mmssupplier.com/ but the site is still selling it. (HEALTH CANADA GOT THERE INFORMATION FROM THE US FDA. THE US FDA RECEIVED SEVERAL PHONE CALLS WHICH WERE NO MORE THAN SOMEONE WITH A STOMACH ACHE. ONE CALL STATED THAT THEY EXPERIENCED LOW BLOOD PRESSURE, BUT THE FDA DID NOT INVESTIGATE ANY OF THE CALLS, I LEARNED BY A PHONE CALL TO THE FDA AT THAT TIME.) SO THESE AGENCIES MAKE STATEMENTS, THAT DON'T THEN MAKE THE STATEMENTS PROOF OF ANYTHING.)

MMS is “known to cause fatal renal failure[6] …”

6. “Acute sodium chlorite poisoning associated with renal failure” – no link to this article. A google search found it at an NIH site (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8290712) The abstract says it’s about a man who tried to commit suicide by taking 10 g of NaCl. (THIS MAN MAY HAVE EXPERIENCE RENAL FAILURE.) BUT THERE ARE NO RECORDS OF ANY DEATHS RESULTING FROM RENAL FAILURE FROM SODIUM CHLORITE.)

“When prepared with a citric acid solution as described in its instructions for preparation, the mixture produces chlorine dioxide, a potent oxidizing agent used in water treatment and in bleaching.[7]“

7. This citation is an FDA news release dated July 30, 2010. MMS is said to contain “industrial strength bleach”. It says, “High oral doses of this bleach, such as those recommended in the labeling, can cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and symptoms of severe dehydration.” (PAPER LIES STILL AND YOU CAN WRITE ANYTHING ON IT AND EVIDENTLY COMPUTERS TOO, AS THE FDA HAS NO EVIDENCE OF THIS AND THERE IS NONE. THE "HIGH ORAL DOSES" THAT THEY SUGGEST HERE WERE 7000 TIMES LESS THAT THE FDA CLAIMS.) THUS THIS REFERENCE PROVES NOTHING AND CANNOT BE LEGITIMATELY CLAIMED AS A REFERENCE.

“The name was first coined by author, Jim Humble, in his 2006 self-published book, The Miracle Mineral Solution of the 21st Century.[8]“

8. This link goes to www.miraclemineral.org, to the download Part 1 page.

See 9 below: “However reliable scientific evidence supports only dangers from use of the substance and not any clinical efficacy; claims of benefit come only from anecdotal reports and Jim Humble's book.[9][10]“ (SO FAR IN THIS ENTIRE ARTICLE AND ALL OF THE REFERENCES THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF "RELIABLE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS THE CONTENTION THAT "ONLY DANGERS FROM COMES FROM THE USE OF THE SUBSTANCE".

9. This link goes to an FDA site that posts a copy of a warning letter they sent to Jenine M. Cohoon in Provo, UT, telling her that MMS (along with 4 other items for sale) are drugs and she’s violating an Act by selling them with the text on her site. It then quotes some of her site’s claims for each of them. She has 15 days to correct her violations. (THIS LETTER CONTAINS NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE AT ALL.)

10. This link goes nowhere. It’s supposed to go to the Brisbane Times’ article called “Backyard cancer ‘healer’ deceived patients” written in April, 2009.

See 11 below: “Stephen Barrett M.D. an expert in health fraud, advises to "Be skeptical of any product claimed to be effective against a wide range of unrelated diseases—particularly diseases that are serious. There is no such thing as a panacea or "cure-all." "[11]“

11. Link goes to www.quackwatch.org. The above quote is #8 in his list of “Ten Ways to Avoid Being Quacked”. (DO YOU SEE, QUACKWATCH IS DOING EXACTLY WHAT HE ACUSES OTHERS OF DOING. HE DOESN'T KNOW THAT THERE IS NO SUCH THINGS AS A PANACEA, THE FACT IS THAT THERE IS. THIS MAN STATES HIS OPINION, BUT IT DOES NOT LEND ANY TRUTH TO THE AUTHOR'S STATEMENTS THAT MMS IS FALSE.

• * *

See 12 below: “In the UK, the Food Standards Agency also released a warning, following the warnings from Health Canada and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, in it they stated that "MMS is a 28% sodium chlorite solution which is equivalent to industrial-strength bleach.[12]“

12. Link goes to a news report of BBC online (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-11540146) that quotes the same FDA text about “"MMS is a 28% sodium chlorite solution which is equivalent to industrial-strength bleach…” A teenager with Crohn’s disease reported some websites selling MMS and is quoted at the end as saying, “"I was just warning about the Miracle Mineral Solution. I think it is worrying that it is effectively industrial-strength bleach. The people who are taking it are told the vomiting, diarrhea and nausea are signs that it is working." THE FACT IS IT IS NOT INDUSTRIAL STRENGTH BLEACH. IT IS THOUSANDS OF TIMES WEAKER THAN INDUSTRIAL STRENGTH (DO YOU SEE? THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC REFERENCES IN ANY OF THESE REFERENCES. THE WRITER HAS WRITTEN A COMPLETE ARTICLE DEBUNKING MMS WHILE GIVING NO REFERENCES THAT HAVE ANY COLLABORATING EVIDENCE, BUT INSTEAD SHOWING 10 REFERENCES THAT ARE FALSE AS FAR AS VERIFYING HIS DATA IS CONCERNED.

I AM NOT ADVERTISING MMS. I AM JUST TRYING TO LEAD YOU IN LOOKING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. I DO NOT FEEL THAT IT IS MY JOB TO PROVE MMS TO YOU. I DISCOVERED IT, I SPENT YEARS AND THOUSANDS OF HOURS BRINGING IT TO THE PUBLIC, I TRAVELED TO AFRICA AND OTHER COUNTRIES SHOWING THAT IT WORKS. I DO NOT THEN FEEL THAT IT IS ALSO MY JOB TO SPOON FEED IT TO YOU. I MENTION WHAT IT DOES. IF YOU ARE NOT INTERESTED THAT'S YOUR LOSS. THERE ARE THOUSANDS THAT ARE INTERESTED AND THOUSANDS WHO HAVE BECOME WELL.)DataBishop (talk) 23:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC) DataBishop (talk) 01:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Q&A Jim Humble and vespine

SEE MY ANSWERS BELOW IN CAPITAL LETTERS TO SEPARATE THEM FROM VESPINSE'S TALK:

I really believe you should borrow or buy a basic books about science, I can personally recommend How to Think About Weird Things: Critical Thinking for a New Age. You really lack a basic and fundamental understanding of how science and critical thinking work. Don't take it personally you are not in the minority, in a recent survey only 28% of American adults passed a basic science literacy test.

THANKS FOR THE SUGGESTION. HOWEVER YOU REALLY HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE THAT I LACK A FUNDAMENTAL UNDERSTANDING BECAUSE 90% OF THE THINGS THAT YOU AND YOUR FRIENDS HAVE MENTION HERE THAT ARE PRESENTED AS FACTS ARE NOT TRUE. CASE IN POINT: ALL OF THE REFERENCES YOU GIVE DO NOT APPLY TO WHAT YOU HAVE SAID, AND OBVIOUSLY DON'T PROVE WHAT YOU HAVE SAID. YOU JUST LIST A BUNCH OF REFERENCES TO MAKE YOU WRITING LOOK MORE AUTHENTIC.

The main thing here you seem not to grasp is veracity and plausibility of a claim. If I say cows can't fly, that's not a controversial claim, people could dispute it, but I don't really need to prove anything. All the evidence available supports my claim. Cows are big mammals, they don't have wings, no cows have ever been observed to fly, I'm not claiming anything "new" or controversial. I don’t really NEED to present any evidence to support my claim.

YES, YES, THAT'S QUITE TRUE, AND WHEN I TELL YOU ABOUT A FACT IN CHEMISTRY I SHOULDN'T HAVE TO PROVE IT TO YOU. CHEMISTRY HAS BEEN THERE FOR YEARS AND IT SUPPORTS MY CLAIMS. WHEN ONE TRIES TO MAKE OUT THAT THE CHEMISTRY IS WRONG EITHER ONE IS LYING BECAUSE OF JEALOUSY OR THE OTHER POSSIBILITY IS ONE IS BEING PAID BY PHARMASEUTICAL COMPANIES.

If I say there's no such thing as a Pegasus, in a way, that's a bit less "certain" then "cows don't fly" because there's not really any "evidence" to support my claim. However I can still be quite certain of my claim because it does fit all the other known evidence like paleontology and evolutionary theory and the collected observations of all the explorers and biologists all over the world.

When Dr Barret makes the claim that there are no panacea, this claim is not controversial. It fits all our current knowledge. There are a multitude of causes for different diseases, there is no plausible reason to think there would be a single cure. Also: no one has ever observed a panacea, the more we learn about biology and medicine, the less plausible a panacea becomes.

THAT IS TOTAL WRONG. SORRY BUT THE CONCEPT THAT A CHEMICAL (CHLORINE DIOXID) THAT KILLS ALL THESE DISEASES IN THE LABORATORY AND ON HOSPITAL FLOORS, AND IN RED MEAT, AND CHICKENS PREPARED FOR MARKET, AND IN IN WATER SUPPLIES AROUND THE WORLD AND IT DOES THIS AND IT HAS BEEN SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN THOUSANDS OF TIMES, AND IT HAS BEEN DOING THIS FOR 100 YEARS, THAT DOES INDEED GIVE US A PLAUSIBLE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THIS SAME CHEMICAL CAN ALSO KILL THESE DISEASES IN THE HUMAN BODY. WITH ALL YOUR SMARTS, YOU CANNOT GIVE ME A REASON WHY CHLORINE DIOXIDE WILL NOT KILL THE DESEASES IN THE HUMAN BODY.

So now, do we know for absolute certain that Pegasus don't exist? The answer is NO we are not 100% certain, the only thing we can say is that we are almost certain. This means if someone comes along and claims there IS a Pegasus, they will need to provide evidence IN PROPORTION to how controversial their claim is, in this case, quite a lot! They can't simply turn around and say: "prove Pegasus don't exist." That's not a valid argument.

THAT'S NOT QUITE A PROPER CONCEPT IN A WORLD WHERE WE TRY TO BE FAIR. HERE IS A MAN THAT DOESN'T HAVE MILLIONS TO PROVE A POINT, BUT HE CLAIMS HE CAN SAVE MANKIND UNTOLD SUFFERING AND HE HAS TENS OF THOUSANDS OF LETTERS FROM PEOLE CLAIMING TO BE CURED. SO DO WE JUMP ON HIM WITH BOTH FEET AND SAY HE IS A SNAKE OIL SALESMAN OR DO WE HELP HIM PROVE HIS CONTENTION, OR AT LEAST CHECK IT OUT?

Even if they present a skeleton of a horse with wings, that most likely won't be enough evidence to convince most people that Pegasus exist (no doubt some would!). But there are a LOT of other hypothesis that would need to be ruled out first to convince critically thinking people; like maybe it's 2 skeletons that got mixed up, or maybe it's just an elaborate hoax, or maybe the person who found the skeleton is not an expert and has honestly misinterpreted what they found?

SURE, WHY DON'T WE JUST JUMP ON HIM AND SAY HE IS A SNAKE OIL SALESMAN AND REFUSE TO EVER LOOK AT HIS SKELETON OF A HORSE WITH WINGS? THAT'S REALLY THE QUESTION. DO WE AT LEAST CHECK HIM OUT OR DO WE TOTALLY REFUSE TO LOOK AT THE SKELETONS WITH HATE.

Following me so far?

WELL YES, I GET YOUR POINT. DO YOU GET MINE?

SO: the claim that there is no such thing as a panacea is not controversial because it fits all known evidence: In proportion, there is NO onus on Dr. Barrett to provide evidence for his claim, even just the fact we've never seen a panacea is enough evidence in this case. Does that mean that a panacea can't exist or is impossible? NO, it does not mean that, but it does mean that if someone comes along and claims to have FOUND one, THEY will need to present very good evidence. Historically there have been lot's of people to claim they found a panacea and all of them, without exception, have so far turned out to be mistaken, or frauds. So the evidence to date in fact does support the claim to be wary of people who claim to have found a panacea. That's why it's on Dr Barrett's list of "things to look out for".

AH YES, SO JIM HUMBLE HAS SPENT 14 YEARS TRAVELING AND TREATING PEOPLE AND NEVR RECEIVING A CENT FROM THE SALES OF MMS. HE GETS THE MONEY FROM THE SALES OF BOOKS WHICH 100% OF IS USED TO FURTHER THE MMS MOVEMENT. WHO WHEN WE HEAR THAT HE SAYS HE HAS THE PANACEA DO WE CHECK IT OUT, OR DO WE JUST START CRYING LYER. YOU SHOULD REALIZE THAT IF THERE IS ONE CHANCE IN A THOUSAND THAT HE MIGHT BE RIGHT WE SHOULD AT LEAST GIVE HIM A CHANCE. MANKIND'S FUTURE RESTS ON THE ANSWER.

Over a decade, Jim Humble has conclusively FAILED to provide any evidence except anecdotal evidence, which holds very little to no weight in scientific considerations. Argue and deny it as much as you like, the evidence is NOT THERE. If it WAS a panacea: we should see REAL trial results, if there was 100,000 people cured in Africa: we should have their medical records, no such records exist. It's not a matter of not having millions of dollars, or some "big pharma" conspiracy, if it worked, there are innumerable humanitarian organizations which would LOVE to help him with trials. As I have said in other places, other "un-patentable" alternative therapies get tested all the time, homeopathy, reiki, acupuncture, you name it.

IN THIS CASE, MY FRIEND, YOU SHOW YOUR TOTAL LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF THE WORLD WE LIVE IN. YOUR WORLD IS A COLLEGE WORLD THAT WE WOULD ALL LOVE TO LIVE, BUT IT DOES NOT EXIST. I HAVE CARRIED MY DATA AND PICTURES AND THE EVIDENCE I HAVE TO HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE EVEN BILL GATES. ALL OF THE RICH GUYS SAY THEY WILL BE HAPPY TO HELP SOON AS I GET FDA APPROVAL. THE LAST TIME I LOOKED FDA APPROVAL COSTS ABOUT 800 MILLION DOLLARS. I DON'T HAVE IT. ALSO THE DRUG COMPANIES WILL STOP IT IF THEY CAN AND EITHER YOU KNOW THAT OR YOU ARE REALLY TOTALLY IGNORANT OF THIS WORLD.

On the other hand, the fact that Jim Humble employs the known tactics of a snake oil peddler is a big red flag: he appeals to altruism, he appeals to conspiracy, he appeals to anecdote, all these are KNOWN smoke screen tactics used by people who can't provide REAL empirical evidence.

YOU MAY BE USING THE WRONG WORD THERE BECAUSE I HAVE PLENTY OF empirical EVIDENCE GAINED BY observation, experience, or experiment. I HAVE THE PHONE NUMBERS AND HEATH REPORT OF 800 PEOPLE CURED OF HIV IN MALAWI. THEIR GOVERNMENT DOES NOT KNOW ABOUT THAT. WE ALWAYS OPERATE GRASS ROOTS BELOW THE GOVERNMENT. BUT YOU COULD COME HERE TO OUR CHURCH IN THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC AND CALL EVERYONE OF THEM. BUT IT IS NOT MY JOB TO SPOON FEED YOU OR THE WORLD. I HAVE THE HEALING SOLUTION AND TECHNOLOGY. THE WORLD IS COMING TO ME. I DON'T HAVE TO PROVE IT TO YOU OR THE WORLD. SORRY, I KNOW YOU HATE TO THINK I WILL SUCCEED, BUT WE HAD 5 MILLION PEOPLE TEST IT BY 2 YEARS AGO. I'VE NEVER CLAIMED MORE, BUT THERE ARE PROBABLY TWICE THAT NUMBER BY NOW. FIVE MILLION HAVE DOWNLOADED MY FREE BOOK.

Based on that, to an objective observer, only one conclusion can be drawn: Jim Humble's claims are not verified by the evidence, his claims are extraordinary and his evidence is weak. Since there's been a decade for Jim to present real objective evidence but all he has managed to provide are conspiracy theories and excuses, it's safe to conclude he is most likely either just wrong, deluded or a fraud. WELL THAT'S YOUR CONCLUSION. SO FAR SEVERAL MILLION PEOPLE DO NOT AGREE WITH YOU. AND ON THE ARTICLE PAGE EVERY REFERENCE YOU USE IS A LIE, AND EVERY CONCLUSION YOU COME TO IS A LIE AND I KNOW YOU FEEL THAT YOU CAN CONTINUE TO LIE HERE IN WIKIPEDIA FOR A LONG TIME TO COME, BUT YOU WILL ONLY HELP THE MMS CAUSE AS THERE IS A SIMPLE TRUTH TO EACH OF THOSE LIES AND IT IS EASY TO GIVE THE TRUE EXPLANATION. I WONDER HOW YOU ARE GOING TO GET AROUND THAT.

ALSO, I NOW HAVE 178 MINISTERS OF HEALTH IN 47 DIFFEREN COUNTRIES AROUND THE WORLD. THEY ALL HEAL PEOLE WITH MMS FREE OF CHARGE. THE NEXT TIME YOU KNOW SOMEONE IN YOUR FAMILY, OR A FRIEND GOES TO A MEDICAL DOCTOR TO HAVE A CANCER TUMOR REMOVED, HOW WILL YOU JUSTIFY NOT MENTIONING MMS TO THEM WHEN YOU KNOW THAT OPERATIONS FOR CANCER ONLY GIVES THEM A 2.7% CHANCE OF LIVING 5 YEARS. AND IF YOU DON'T KNOW IT, IT'S TIME THAT YOU DID. Vespine (talk) 04:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

FINALLY LET ME SAY THAT I REALIZE THAT YOU CARE NOTHING FOR THE TRUTH. THE REFERENCES THAT YOU USE TO TRY TO PROVE THE LIES ON THE ARTICLE PAGE DO NOT PROVE ANYTHING. HOWEVER THEY DO PROVE YOU CARE NOT FOR THE TRUTH. YOUR INSULTS IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH CONCERNING MY TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE ARE NOTHING MORE THAN THAT, INSULTS. I WROTE 5 BOOKS ON THE ASPECTS OF THE COVERY OF GOLD IN MINING, I DISCOVERED WAYS OF HANDLING ATOMIC WASTE, I TAUGHT OVER 200 SEMINARS ON THE CHEMISTRY AND RECOVERY OF GOLD, AND OTHER SCIENTIFIC ASPECTS OF MINING, I HAVE A PATENT ON METHODS OF CREATING ELECTRONIC CIRCUITS, I DISCOVERED AN ELECTRONIC METHOD OF WATER PURIFICATION FOR PLATING PLANTS IN LOS ANGELES, AND WAS THE PRESIDENT OF PURETEK, WATER PURIFICATION COMPANY IN 1978 WITH 50 EMPLOYEES. I AM 79 YEARS OLD AND I JUST SUPPOSE MY TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE IS AT LEAST EQUAL TO YOURS. MAYBE YOU SHOULD READ THOSE BOOKS THAT YOU SUGGESTED TO ME.DataBishop (talk) 04:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Welcome

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions seem to be advertising or for promotional purposes. Wikipedia does not allow advertising. For more information on this, see:

• Policy on neutral point of view
• Guideline on spam
• Guideline on external links
• Guideline on conflict of interest

If you still have questions, there is a new contributor's help page, or you can write {{helpme}} below this message along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and how to develop articles
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• Article wizard for creating new articles
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Novangelis (talk) 04:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Miracle Mineral Supplement‎ are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 08:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Yobol (talk) 04:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The real Jim Humble?

SEE MY ANSWERS BELOW IN CAPITAL LETTERS NEXT TO YOUR COMMENTS. Wow, is this REALLY Jim Humble?? I've really wanted an opportunity to ask you a few questions:

Can you please tell me if these photos are real and if not how do you explain them?

I TRAVELED TO AFRICA ON MY OWN AND COULD NOT SPEND TIME TAKING PICTURES OF MYSELF TREATING PEOPLE.

http://www.networkamericastore.com/jim_humble_in_africa.jpg

THE PICTURE IS REAL BUT SEVERAL OF THE PEOPLE WERE BLENDING INTO THE BACK GROUND AND THAT WAS THE BEST BICTURE I HAD. I REDID IT SO YOU COULD SEE THE NURSE AND ME AND IT LOOK REASONABLE.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/imagenes_salud/salud_28.jpg

SAME WITH THIS PICTURE. IT IS REAL. IT WAS DONE WITH MY CAMERA WHICH WAS PRETTY GOOD AT THE TIME, BUT ALL PICTURES OF ME WERE TAKEN BY LOCALS USING MY CAMERA. MOST OF THE PICTURES WOUND UP BEING PICTURES OF THE GROUND.

I'm not an expert, but these photos looks fake.. Were you really there for the photos or were they "made" without your knowledge?

If you are not an expert then you could not possibly know they are fake. The very same 'halo' effect people see around the heads of the two African women can be replicated without superimposition simply by masking out the women and adjusting the overall brightness and contrast within the masked area. If the mask was 'feathered' then the edges of the masked image would develop a false halo produced by the overexposure of the foreground in contrast to the background within the feathered area. As the image is also rasterized (ie: jagged/pixelated edges) it is too difficult to ascertain whether the image was produced using superimposition (layering) techniques or a simple brightness/contrast masking technique. It is likely the photograph was manipulated (somewhat amateurishly) in order to 'lighten' the darker skinned women so as to bring out their details in the image and is the only technique that can qualify his claim that "several of the people were blending into the background" and that he "redid it" so that he and the nurse "look reasonable".119.12.195.24 (talk) 11:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't claim to "know" they are fake. I was genuienly posing the question, because the photos look suspect. The claim of curing so many people in Africa, or at least setting up the process do do so, does NOT match the evidence, two crappy and IMHO dodgy looking photos. Even if they are not photoshopped, they could easily be staged. Vespine (talk) 03:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any other photos from Africa when you claim to have cured 100,000 people? I've seen one or two, but surely, it would have been trivial to thoroughly document your activities? You should have hours of footage and hundreds of photos of the "thousands" of people that were cured.

Jim Humble appears to have posted many videos to YouTube demonstrating his MMS treatment in Africa. As of this edit there are 4,170 videos referencing the search term "mms africa" and 196 videos referencing the search term "jim humble africa" on YouTube. 10 videos can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/user/jhv999/videos?view=0 while dozens more can be found on YouTube using the search function.119.12.195.24 (talk) 12:26, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

You are joking right? Spend 5 minutes with those 4,170 results and tell me what you find. Then spend 3 years trying to find ANY independent sources which verify ANY of the claims and tell me how you go. Let me save you the trouble and tell you that I have already tried and it's a waste of time. Vespine (talk) 03:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I NEVER SAID THAT I CURED 100,000. I SAID THAT PEOPLE WHO I TRAINED TREATED 100,000 AFTER I LEFT AFRICA AND THAT THERE WERE NO DEATHS REPORTED IN THE GROUP, AND THERE ARE NORMALLY ABOUT 400 DEATHS IN 100,000 CASES OF MALARIA OTHERWISE.

Also, in mid 2009 you said "(MMS) doesn't kill the HIV virus always, just sometimes" in this article

http://jimhumble.biz/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=66

but afterwards, you are still making the claim that MMS cures HIV 100% of the time. Can you please clear up these contradicting statements? Does MMS cure HIVor not? Do you know of any cases of people who took MMS for HIV treatment but died?

DON'T KNOW OF ANYONE WHO DIED WHO FOLLOWED THE PROTOCOL. YOU MUST OF READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE WHERE I SAID I ADDED THE MMS2 AND GOT BETTER RESULTS. WELL THE FACT IS THAT IT TURNS OUT THAT THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC PAPERS ANYWEHRE SHOWING HIV VIRUSES HAVE BEEN ISOLATED.

Just to address some of the other points you raised

OR DO WE JUST START CRYING LYER.

Sorry Jim, but no one has just started crying lier, you've had 14 years to come up with some good evidence and you haven't done it..

YES YOU ARE CRYING LYER RIGHT NOW INSTEAD OF DOING YOUR HOMEWORK ON HOW CHLORINE DIOXIDE WORKS. I CANNOT POST THOSE MEDICAL REPORTS ON THE WEB. EVEN YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT. THE ONLY THING I CAN DO FOR ANYONE IS TO ALLOW THEM TO COME HERE AND CALL THE PEOPLE.

Does it not strike you as absurd that you ask me to fly to the Dominical Republic to see your evidence? Why don't you post it online? Why don't you post some footage, and not 5 photos and 3 minutes with 5 people so it looks like it can be staged, but just post a few hours with dozens or hundreds of the people you cured. In fact, if you are SO great at healing people why don't you just set up a live web cam feed? That will go a long way to prove it to the world. If you are scared of being "caught", tape it and get one of your fans to post it, hell I'LL post it. Even send it to Julian Assange if you like!

I HAVE FOOTAGE OF AFRICA BUT FOOTAGE OF ME CURING PEOPLE I DIDN'T GET. I DID POST ON THE WEB THE TOTAL CURE OF A BABY FROM MALARIA. IT'S ON UTUBE.

THE LAST TIME I LOOKED FDA APPROVAL COSTS ABOUT 800 MILLION DOLLARS

That is totally not true. 800 Million dollars is what it costs a pharma company to get a drug ALL THE WAY THROUGH the R&D and trial process, from scratch! According to you, the R&D is already done! That's the part that takes years and millions of dollars. Phase 2 and phase 3 trials can also be quite expensive but pre-trials and phase 1 trials are trivial: you can even do them on voulenteers! Which you claim you have PLENTY of, in fact, if you cure so many people "all the time", all you need is a compotent doctor to write it up and and you would literally have a case report trial right there. So what other excuse can you come up with? "Big Pharma" stopping you from posting online? Obviously not...

NO I NEVER SAID THAT ANY OF THE R AND D WAS DONE. THAT'S YOUR IDEA. WE HAVE HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE HEALED ON THIS ISLAND SO FAR. IT'S YOUR IDEA THAT I HAVE TO HAVE PROOF. MY IDEA IS THAT I WILL NEVER HAVE "PROOF." I DON'T NEED IT. IF I HAVE IT, EVERY WORKER IN EVERY HOSPITAL IN THE WORLD WILL BE MY ENEMY, PLUS BIG PHARMA, PLUS ALL THE GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES THAT BIG PHARMA CONTROLS. WE HEAL FOR FREE. WE ASK NO MONEY UNTIL A PERSON IS WELL AND ONLY THEN WE WILL ACCEPT DONATIONS. WE DO NOT SELL MMS. SO YOU THINK I AM DOING ALL THIS SOMEHOW FOR SOME REASON I CAN'T FATHOM.

I HAVE CARRIED MY DATA AND PICTURES

Data and picture? Why don't you make it all public? I'd love to see it. Why don't you post it all on your website? Again, one or two photos won't do, i could say hi to a few people and ask them to drink a cup of water for a photo, if you really cured 100,000 people in Africa, you should have photos of hundreds of people at least, if not thousands.

I HAVE SAID MANY TIMES THAT I HAVE TREATED 5000 PEOPLE. WHICH I HAVE, BUT NEVER SAID 100,000. EVIDENTLY THAT IS YOUR CREATION. HOWEVER, AGAIN, I NOW HAV 178 MINISTERS IN 47 COUNTRIES WHO ALL TREAT PEOPLE FOR FREE AND ONLY ACCEPT DONATIONS AFTER THE PERSON FEELS A LOT BETTER OR IS COMPLETELY HEALED. WE DON'T SELL MMS, SO WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO COMPLAIN ABOUT. THOSE WE TREAT WE GIVE THE BOTTLES TOO. THERE IS A LOT OF EVIDENCE ON THE INTERNET. I DON'T KNOW WHERE YOU ARE LOOKING, BUT CERTAINLY NOT ON MY SITES. ONE LADY IS TREATING 125 AUTISTIC CHILDREN AND ALL HAVE EXPERIENCED A GREAT DEAL OF RELIEF AND A FEW ARE SEEMINGLY COMPLETELY WELL.

SO FAR SEVERAL MILLION PEOPLE DO NOT AGREE WITH YOU

Fortunately, many more do agree with me Jim. As is plainly evident on this website.

NO I DON'T KNOW THAT AT ALL. ONLY A FEW CRITICS WON'T LOOK. NOT ALL THAT MANY PEOPLE AGREE WITH YOU AND AGAIN THE DATA YOU GIVE ON THE ARTICLE IS FALSE, AND ALL THE REFERENCES YOU GIVE ARE FALSE IN THAT THEY DO NOT APPLY TO MMS.

FINALLY LET ME SAY THAT I REALIZE THAT YOU CARE NOTHING FOR THE TRUTH

if you could show me some truth, I would care, all you offer is promises and excuses, excuses, excuses.

I'VE NEVER SAID IT WAS MY JOB TO PROVE IT TO YOU. I DON'T THINK YOU CARE. IF YOU CARED THE ARTICLE ON WIKIPEDIA WOULD CONTAIN SOME TRUTH. ALL OF THE POINTS THAT ARE MADE ARE FALSE. BUT DON'T LET ME DISCOURAGE YOU. I WILL SOON HAVE A VERY NICE SITE EXPLAINING HOW WIKIPEDIA LIES AND I CAN PROVE IT BY CHEMISTRY THAT THEY ARE JUST THAT AND THAT YOU GUYS HAVE REMOVED THE TRUTH EVERY TIME I HAVE TRIED TO TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT MMS. I WANT TRUTH ABOUT MMS, BUT YOU CONTINUE TO SHIFT THE ATTENTION TO ME. AGAIN KEEP IT UP AS THE TRUTH ABOUT MMS WILL EVENTUALLY GET YOU. YOU THINK YOU CAN PREVENT MMS FROM BECOMING KNOWN BY DISCREDITING ME. BUT THAT IS UNLIKELY TO HAPPEN, AND IF ONE WERE TO HIRE A PRIVATE DETECTIVE AND ALL THAT, AND CHECKED WITH ALL THOSE COMPANIES, THEIR RECORDS WOULD SHOW I WORKED THERE.

AND WAS THE PRESIDENT OF PURETEK, AND THIS CAN BE PROVEN TOO.

You forgot that you worked on the first intercontinental missile, the moon vehicle, wrote instruction manuals for the first vacuum tube computers, set up experiments for A-bomb explosions, worked on secret radio control electronics, set up experiments in electrical generation by magneto hydro dynamics, complete wired the first machine to be controlled by computers at Hughes aircraft company and invented the first automatic Garage door opener, you HAVE been busy  :)

YES I DID ALL THOSE THINGS. I SOLD THE IDEA AND TECHNICAL DATA TO A WOMAN IN 1948 ON THE GARAGE DOOR OPENER FOR 50 DOLLARS, AND DID NOT KNOW THAT SOMEONE ELSE HAD DONE IT BEFORE. SO SOMEONE DID IT BEFORE ME. OK. I WITHDRAW THE CLAIM.

I believe you wrote a book and I believe you have a patent, see? the truth can be verified... Can you confirm or deny any of those other claims? I'm especially interested in the last one, why does our article say the garage door opener was invented by C.G. Johnson in 1926 in Hartford City, Indiana. If i'm not mistaken, that's just about the time you were born isn't it?

IT'S OK. IF HE DID IT IN 26 THAT WAS 6 YEARS BEFORE I WAS BORN. I WITHDRAW THE CLAIM FOR GARAGE DOORS. DIDN'T KNOW THAT SOMEONE ELSE HAD DONE IT.

So, what were you saying about caring for the truth?

To sum up, can you please address these points for me:

1. Are the photos real? ALREADY ADDRESS THIS ABOVE.

2. If you "have" the evidence, why not make it public? I for one would love to see it all. That's ALL I've been asking for the whole time.

MOST OF THE EVIDENCE I HAVE IS ON MY WEB SITES AND UTUBE. THAT STUFF DOESN'T JUMP ONTO THE WEB. IT COSTS MORE THAN 100 THOUSAND DOLLARS IN LAST 6 MONTHS TO SET UP WEB SITES AND MOVE THEM TO WHERE THEY ARE.

- Actually, Jim, it takes less than $20 to start a website... 194.70.29.190 (talk) 14:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Not true. The assumption that it takes a mere $20 to start a website is a technical fallacy. For an individual/sole trader it costs an average of $20 to privately register a domain and then upwards of $100 p/m to host a single webpage on that domain, exclusive of all costs, overheads and expenses associated with running that page. Webmasters that design and build websites from scratch for medium sized clients can charge anywhere between $7500 - $10,000 for a very basic site consisting of 10-20 pages, no fancy programming, some roll-overs, some framed pages, some content and perhaps even payment processing (in some cases). If a medium sized business or charity uses a webmaster to set up a basic site for $7500 and duplicates it over 12 web domains, then the cost of setting up and running those 12 sites over a 6 month period can total an average of $90,000. Domain registration, web hosting and all inclusive services, certificates and hosting features over 6 months at a minimum of $100 p/m would cost on average approximately $3200. Total these two figures together and you are approaching the $100,000 figure as quoted by Jim Humble.119.12.195.24 (talk) 02:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

This seems strange, you seem to be justifying Jim spending $100,000 in 6 months on WEBSITES when that money could have easily gone towards the tests and trials Jim him self claims he can't afford to do. Vespine (talk) 03:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

3. Does MMS cure AIDS always or sometimes? Why the confusion? Don't make excuses about AIDS tests, does it or does it not cure AIDS 100% of the time?

YOU SEEM CONFUSED. I HAVE SAID I TREATED 800 HIV CASES IN MALAWI AND THEY ALL WERE HAPPY AND HEALTHY AFTER THE TREATMENT. THERE IS NO PROOF OF THEM BEING HIV NEGATIVE AS THE ANTIBODIES WILL PROBABLY ALWAYS BE PRESENT. THERE IS NO PROOF OF HIV OR AIDS VIRUS AND THE ARV DRUGS THAT THEY ALL TAKE ARE EXTREMELY POISONOUS AND KILLING THEM. READ THE LABEL. MANY DEATHS WERE REPORTED IN THE TEST GROUPS WHEN THESE DRUGS WERE TESTED. BUT ALL 800 WERE WELL AND THOSE WHO WENT TO THE LOCAL HOSPITAL GOT A HEALTHY BILL OF HEALTH, BUT THEY WERE MOSTLY NOT TESTED FOR HIV OR AIDS. THEY WERE HEALTHY BECAUSE MMS NEUTRALIZES THE ARV DRUGS. IT'S NOT MY JOB TO TEACH YOU PERSONALLY ABOUT THIS CIVILIZATION OF WHICH YOU KNOW SO LITTLE NOR CHEMISTRY.

4. Your claims about working for NASA, the A bomb tests and inventing the automatic garage door? Did you make the claims and do you have any evidence to support any of them?

I WORKED FOR HUGHES AIRCRAFT, FOR NORTHRUP, AND NORTRONICS, AND MHD RESEARCH, GENERAL MOTORS RESEARCH DEFENSE CORPORATION AND OTHERS. DON'T REMEMBER SAYING I WORKED FOR NASA DIRECTLY. NEVER DID. WHEN SETTING THE A BOMB TESTS IN MERCURY NEVADA I WORKED FOR MHD RESEARCH, INC. FINALLY THIS TALK IS SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT MAKING THE ARTICLE BETTER. I WANT AN ARTICLE THAT TELLS THE TRUTH ABOUT MMS, AND WE WILL WORRY ABOUT BISHOP JIM HUMBLE LATER IN ANOTHER ARTICLE. BUT TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT THE MMS. IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS YOU AND YOUR COHERTS WILL REALLY LOOK STUPID WHEN MY WEB SITE DOES TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT YOUR STUPID ARTICLE. ASIDE FROM MAKING A MISTAKE ON THE GARAGE DOOR OPENER I DID EVERYTHING I SAID I DID. I'D LIKE TO SEE YOU PROVE YOUR LIFE OUT. GIVE ME A MILLION DOLLARS AND I WILL PROVE EVERY POINT. MEANWHILE IT'S NOT MY JOB TO PROVE MY LIFE TO YOU. IT'S MY JOB TO BRING HEALTH AND HEALING TO THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE AND THAT WILL HAPPEN AS THERE WILL SOON BE 200 MINISTERS OF HEALTH. YOU WON'T LIKE IT, BUT THE CHANCES ARE THAT BEFORE THE YEAR IS OUT THERE WILL BE 1000 MINISTERS OF HEALTH FROM MORE COUNTRIES OF THE WORLD AND THEY WILL ALL BE HEALING PEOLE FOR FREE AND ACCEPTING DONATIONS ONLY WHEN THE PEOPLE ARE WELL AND ONLY WHEN THEY ARE WILLING TO DONATE. SORRY, MY FRIEND, BUT YOU CAN'T STOP IT. I WON'T BE ANSWERING YOU AGAIN. I WAIST MY TIME. DataBishop (talk) 02:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your time. Vespine (talk) 10:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Posting on top of others' posts

DataBishop, if you are going to post near my posts, or anyone's, it is wise to KEEP YOUR DAMNED COMMENTS SEPARATE at least by one space. And leave Vespine alone.76.195.85.160 (talk) 03:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:Civility: Please keep all replies and responses civil and stick to the Wikipedia policies outlined. WP:Assume good faith may be a good place to start. Underhanded threats or implied use of the word 'DAMNED' to convey anger or aggression should not be allowed here.119.12.195.24 (talk) 02:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Technique for addressing critics of MMS

Perhaps you should reformulate MMS to become a homeopathic remedy.
Then it could not possibly be dangerous, yet it would be no less beneficial.
Sales of other homeopathic formulas imply excellent marketing prospects.
Ornithikos (talk) 14:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Deletion Proposal

I propose that this page be reviewed for deletion as it provides no educational or informational content which contributes to the purpose of Wikipedia. This page is nothing more than an attack page on an individual who has clearly breached some Wikipedia policies and should be treated accordingly to the policies as set out by Wikipedia administration. Editors should not use this page as an arena to throw mud at others and to slander people using derogatory comments or comments designed to discredit and invalidate another editors claims. All sincere efforts to introduce a neutral, non-biased and fair-for-all environment in Wikipedia for the purpose of making Wikipedia an enjoyable and welcoming place for the informationally curious have been completely dashed on pages like these. As a user and editor, I find this page offensive and I strongly suggest that it be taken down or it's content deleted.119.12.195.24 (talk) 01:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The only edits you have made have been on MMS related pages and have been blatantly "pro-mms", it seems to be the sole reason that you are even here. Well done for doing your research on wikipedia policy, however here's one you seem to have missed Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest. Vespine (talk) 03:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)