Friday, June 22, 2012

Smear Blogging

Today must be my lucky day, my last post was the subject of a smear post written by the lord high smear blogger himself, Orac. Or, since he decided to get personal from the start, I think I should just call him by his real name, David Gorski. Gorski apparently didn't like the subject of my last post and decided to write one of his typical rambling rants about it, or as I like to call them, smear posts.

I call them smear posts because the good doctor doesn't like to confine himself to facts and talking about ideas. No, he seems to feel the need to editorialize about and impugn the character of everyone he writes about while impressing us with his brilliance. For example, I apparently don't understand science based medicine.

I was going to respond to his post with one of my own but after reading the comments on the his post I changed my mind.  I actually had to laugh at how inane some of these people are.

One particularly sad person took me to task for not thanking Gorski for plugging my blog and giving me a forum to correct my errors before telling me my "tone" was offensive.  According to this person, I defend child abusers.

Another explained to me that because I was having saying inappropriate things about MMS that I am one of its defenders.  And another one counted the number of words I wrote and decided that I spent too many words saying the wrong about MMS thing therefore I had to be defending it.  That was right before he said that I was "sampling the wares".

You really can't make stuff like this up.  I didn't think that my thoughts on MMS were unclear, but in case anyone didn't get the point, here it is from the top of the other post -
Now, let me be perfectly clear here. I see absolutely no reason to think that using this stuff will do anything to help my children's autism and I see a lot of potential for harm.
I can see why there is all of the confusion, that statement (and others like it) were totally ambiguous.  Or maybe, if you believe the post and the people making comments, I am really secretly an MMS sympathizer and my entire post was just a ruse.  Drat, they figured me out.

Like I said, I was going to respond to Gorski's points but, after reading some of the comments, I realized that it is completely pointless.  There is absolutely no point in engaging with these people because many of them are just fanatics.  Internet blowhards like Gorski exist because they can collect followers who feed into their desire to be important and because people will actually engage them.  If you can't see the huge ego staring out from behind Gorski's writing then you aren't paying attention.

I don't have any need or desire to prove to the world that mine's bigger than everyone else's.  You can take what I say and agree with it, disagree with it, or tell me I am an idiot, it is entirely up to you.  Gorski apparently thinks I'm an idiot and I really couldn't care less.

So, yea, good job David, you really showed me. Although, just between you and me, you really sound like an idiot when you say stuff like paying attention to differences in chemical composition is pedantry and it is the class of chemical that is more important.  Because I can totally see how that option fits into science based medicine.   After all, acetaminophen and ibuprofen are both pain relievers so they are exactly the same thing too, right?

But since I do care about accuracy, I will correct one potential mistake that I made in the last post.  The dose of chlorine dioxide in a single, uhm, serving of MMS might be higher than I thought it was.  I said that I though it was around 1 ppm and I based that on comments that I read around the internet.  According to Gorki, that dose is like 80 ppm and while I think that figure is probably wrong (anyone with a good knowledge of chemistry want to chime in?), I also think my figure is an under estimation.

However, even if you remove that one point, the rest of the post still holds true.  The hyperbolic rhetoric employed by people like Gorski and his ilk might be good for firing up the minions but it does nothing productive for the larger autism community.

68 comments:

  1. Tbh I didn't understand why you wanted to pick a fight about it when you know MMS is useless and psychologically if not physically harmful, like any exploitative quack remedy. The amount of words you devoted to explaining it wasn't physically harmful were out of proportion. Just seemed like you wanted to fight.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hmmm, good point.

      I wasn't really looking to pick a fight on the issue but I am getting so very tired of the that side of the fence playing beat up on the parents.

      Yes, these parents may be doing something less than desirable to their child but I really doubt there is a malicious intent there. If anything, most of the people who are using this stuff are trying to help, however misguided their efforts might be. They certainly don't deserve people shouting to the world that they are child abusers.

      A more measured and reasonable, hey, that isn't a good idea would have been a better response.

      Delete
    2. Not "beat up the parents," but rather "beat up certifiably insane parents who would subject a child to such torture."

      Delete
    3. So Shay, do you have kids with autism?

      Delete
    4. So Shay can only have a point of view on this, or speak up against abuse of autistic kids if he has an autistic child himself. Ludicrous.
      Well, I do have a little autist so here goes: Whether or not there is "malicious intent" in parents using MMS is secondary to the fact that significant harm can be done by it to a child's innards. Not only that but the repeated administration of enemas carries with it the not insignificant risk of injury particularly in restraining the child.
      Yes, this is child abuse and if some parents are taken in by those shilling this stuff then they need a wake up call and to be told what they are doing is abusing and degrading their child.

      Delete
    5. No I don't, MJ. And of course I NEVER see autistic children, teach them at VBS, or have friends/neighbors/co-workers who have autistic children, and therefore don't rate an opinion.

      You don't have to be a parent of an autistic child -- hell, you don't even have to be a parent -- to be horrified by the whole MMS idea.

      Delete
    6. @autismum,

      "So Shay can only have a point of view on this, or speak up against abuse of autistic kids if he has an autistic child himself. Ludicrous."

      Do me a favor, respond to what I actually say and don't put words in my mouth. I asked what I did because I wanted to know what perspective Shay was coming from.

      "Whether or not there is "malicious intent" in parents using MMS is secondary to the fact that significant harm can be done by it to a child's innards."

      Strangely, I am not arguing that harm can be done, so lets just accept that as a fact.

      But the intent of the parent clears matters when it comes to determining what the response should be. If a person intends to harm a child then that is certainly child abuse and you call child protective services to get the child out of there.

      If the intent is a good but misguided one then calmly pointing out the problem should be enough to change the situation.

      But if you take a person with good intent who is used to dealing with people on the internet attacking them for "doing the wrong thing" and you start shouting "child abuse" or accusing the person of torturing their children then they are going to ignore you, and rightly so.

      I can't tell you how many times I have been told that I must not love my children because I try and treat their autism. Or that even evidence based treatments such as ABA are "torture". I have run into people like this so often that I almost routinely dismiss anyone who makes claims of abuse of torture.

      "the not insignificant risk of injury particular
      ly in restraining the child."

      Injury from restraining the child, really? I am guessing that you have never had to restrain your little "autist" to deal with behavioral issues such as sibs?

      Having had to restrain one of my daughters to prevent her from literally kicking the crap out of herself, I can say that you can restrain even a struggling child (as long as they are small enough) without causing injury if you are careful and know what you are doing.

      "degrading their child"

      Which part of the mms "treatment" do you think is "degrading"?

      Delete
    7. @Shay,

      "No I don't, MJ. And of course I NEVER see autistic children, teach them at VBS, or have friends/neighbors/co-workers who have autistic children, and therefore don't rate an opinion."

      First, see my last comment above. I asked because I wanted to know where you were coming from. Don't put words into my mouth.

      Second, I have no idea who you are, what the VBS is, or what you teach. So don't get snippy with me.

      Third, it is easiest to judge and condem someone when you lack perspective and it is almost impossible to rationally discuss an issue like this when a person lacks the necessary perspective.

      None of that means that you aren't entitled to your opinion but it does change whether I am going to waste my time by engaging you.

      There are a few truisms when it comes to when it comes to autism. The first is that the autism looks different and causes an almost unique set of challenges in each person who has it, even if those people are identical twins. The second is that until you experience autism first hand you aren't going to understand it.

      I have spend more hours than I can count arguing about various facets of autism with people who have absolutely no exposure to autism and I really don't feel like wasting more.

      Now, if you want to actually have a discussion about the topic, I am willing to do that. If all you are here to do is get up on a moral high horse and shout "BLEACH ENEMA" then go do it somewhere else.

      Delete
    8. I'm not sure intent counts for much. People always mean well. Hitler meant well. Nobody does things for bad reasons. But they can be misguided and harmful nonetheless. I think you have to focus on effects.

      Delete
    9. Nerkul,

      I think I have to disagree with you, people do not always mean well and they do do things for bad reasons. Some people will do bad things because they don't know any better but there are people who will do bad things because they don't care about the other person.

      That is why intent matters - is it the difference between someone who pours a bleach down a kids throat to torture them and a person who does it thinking that it will help them.

      The former you toss in jail and throw away the key because there isn't much you can do with them while the latter will stop on their own and feel horrified if you convince them that what they are doing is wrong.

      Delete
    10. Giving a child repeated enemas is degrading.

      Intent is, indeed a secondary concern. When parents medically neglect their children choosing to trust their recovery from, for example, diabetes, to prayer, those parents are subject to the law as should any parent administering MMS to their child be. Parents intentions are not primary when harm is being done - protective services get involved whether or not parents mean harm. If parents cannot determine whether or not giving their child bleach is a good or bad idea then they are unfit parents.

      Whether or not Shay has an autistic child is irrelevant to the discussion. Wrong is being done and he is right to point that out whether as a parent or just a plain old human being.

      Your assumptions about my child are entirely wrong. We have had to restrain him on occasion and it is horrendous and yes, generally for sibs. It is always the very last option. Luckily for our child both DH and I have received training in proper restraint techniques, even so, I have still sustained injuries. Regularly restraining a child to force bleach into his rectum absolutely risks injury. It is a horrible imposition of a parent's will. That is abuse.

      Delete
    11. MJ: I am coming from the position of a mandatory child abuse reporter.

      http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/manda.cfm

      Delete
    12. @Shay,

      And? On normal days I have many mandated reporters in my house. I suspect that most autism families can say the same thing.

      If you tried to report someone just for using a biomedical treatment that you didn't like you would face an uphill battle and you would probably do nothing more than just piss off the parents. You might make their life problematic for a little while but I would bet that they would return the favor.

      Delete
    13. Are you now saying that MMS is simply a biomedical treatment that I don't like? It is a corrosive substance shoved up a kid's ass (since chemistry seems to be your weak point).

      Delete
    14. Shay, see my earlier statement in this conversation -

      "Now, if you want to actually have a discussion about the topic, I am willing to do that. If all you are here to do is get up on a moral high horse and shout "BLEACH ENEMA" then go do it somewhere else."

      Since all you seem to want to do is ride that horse, go do it somewhere else.

      Delete
  2. I think there is a difference between reason and rationality. (I thought your attempt was reasonable.)

    So many people who purport to worship rationality, seem so...emotive. I guess we all have a blind spot to our weaknesses. I don't think I could handle knowing mine.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Perhaps Orac was upset that despite all the adverse publicity and all the explanations of how this agent is effectively the same stuff as "bleach" (with zero demonstrable therapeutic benefit for anything, never mind autism, and a serious potential for harm when used as advised by the cranks promoting it), yet another person is disseminating misinformation about it to the autism community which might lead to more kids being exposed to it by parents who might get the wrong idea and think that it is harmless.

    I think you also fail to appreciate that the protocol for its use specifically dictates that the dose is increased until the child gets symptoms of toxicity, so this is not a question of some "possible" minor side effect from a product diluted to the point where it is harmless.

    The idea that, your self-confessed chemistry errors aside, the rest of your post holds true is laughable. You clearly have no concept of risk benefit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "which might lead to more kids being exposed to it by parents who might get the wrong idea and think that it is harmless."

      At which point exactly do you think I said it was harmless or implied it was harmless? Seriously, if you are going to try and criticize something I said then at least stick to things that I actually said.

      "You clearly have no concept of risk benefit."

      Really? I actually have a pretty good concept of risk/reward but I apply it evenly to any treatment. I don't automatically assume that treatments are safe just because a medical professional suggested it nor do I automatically assume that a treatment is unsafe just because a non-medical professional suggested it. I take the time to understand what something is supposed to do, how it is supposed to do it, and what problems it can cause.

      If you think the entire distinction is meaningless, then that is certainly your right.

      Delete
    2. "At which point exactly do you think I said it was harmless or implied it was harmless?"

      Hmm.... right about the point where you said it was weaker than swimmingpool water you let your kids play in all day.

      And I said it "might" give people the idea MMS is harmless. Now can any rational person read your post and NOT get that idea? I doubt it.

      Delete
    3. And you think the six or so times I said it wasn't a good idea wasn't enough to get the point across?

      Perhaps you need to go back and reread the post with an open mind? Because short of hysterical shouts of "its bleach, its bleach", it doesn't get much clearer than this -

      "Now, let me be perfectly clear here. I see absolutely no reason to think that using this stuff will do anything to help my children's autism and I see a lot of potential for harm. "

      Delete
    4. "At which point exactly do you think I said it was harmless or implied it was harmless?"

      At the point where you claimed we should not be calling out the advocates of this stuff for child abuse.

      BLEACH ENEMA. What is it about the phrase BLEACH ENEMA that escapes you?

      Delete
    5. Ok let's play it your way, MJ.

      I write a blog post that says venemous snakes are in fact harmless, and that playing with a live cobra cannot be worse than playing with a puppy, and that my kids do that all the time.

      I then mention by the by that maybe it isn't a good idea to play with cobras.

      And you would be happy if I insisted that my post could not be in any way misconstrued by a mother as saying its OK to play with snakes, simply because I also posted a quack miranda proviso?

      Sheesh!

      Delete
    6. You know you are just repeating yourself, right?

      Delete
  4. MJ
    From here, it looks as though you've responded in kind with your own "smear post". This post is full of ad hom.

    "Gorski apparently thinks I'm an idiot and I really couldn't care less."

    Then why your own smear post in response? Not a good look MJ.

    Just sayin...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unfortunately, guilty as charged.

      Bu, if you think this post was bad, you should have seem the original one that I almost posted. This one is extremely mild in comparison, possibly too mild. Gorksi found it to be "whinny".

      And, in all seriousness, I really don't like making it personal and almost never do (this is the about the third time in as many years). And yet, with people like Gorksi, I don't think there are many other options.

      Delete
  5. Go against the dogma. Get smeared.

    These are the same people who are totally cool with millions of children being dosed with thimerosal in vaccines in the developing world. THAT is not child abuse.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Citation needed.

      Or anti-vaccine dogma all you have?

      Delete
    2. "Citation needed"

      WTF? Since when does an opinion need a citation?

      Or are you saying that you doubt that thimerosal containing vaccines are still very much in use outside the US?

      Delete
    3. I was referring to Minority's claim that thimerosol in vaccines is child abuse. But if you claim that's opinion, not fact, and doesn't need a citation, I'll take that as proof you still have some brain cells left.

      Delete
    4. I certainly wouldn't give my children a vaccine that had thimerosal in it if there were another option any more than I would give them mms.

      There really is no reason for thimerosal to be in shots as it doesn't do anything except make them cheaper and there is the potential, however small, for it to do some harm.

      Delete
    5. It's a preservative. And your statement that there is the potential for it to do some harm is opinion, not fact.

      Delete
    6. Really? Are you that ignorant on the subject?

      Delete
    7. Evidently I'm as ignorant as the American Academy of Pediatrics.

      Delete
    8. No, they have an idea what they are talking about, you are the one who seems to miss the point.

      Now go be obnoxious somewhere else.

      Delete
  6. "One particularly sad person took me to task for not thanking Gorski for plugging my blog and giving me a forum to correct my errors before telling me my "tone" was offensive. According to this person, I defend child abusers."

    Were you referring to me MJ? I suggested that you thank Orac for pointing out the fallacy of your original post. You had the opportunity to correct the errors...and you didn't.

    I found your condescending tone, your lack of knowledge about basic chemistry and your lack of empathy for children who are undergoing these *treatments* with bleach, to be offensive.

    If you don't know the chemistry and you are ignorant of what a bleach solution does to a child's mouth, stomach, bowel and rectum and ignorant of the potential for bowel perforation/septicemia...you should not have posted your first article.

    Your feeble attempts to justify your first article and your personal attacks on doctors, nurses, scientists and parents who have rightfully labeled these practices as child abuse, only show your spectacular lack of empathy and your defense of the indefensible.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are certainly free to find my alleged ignorance offensive just like I am free to find your toadyism rather sad. Isn't freedom nice?

      Delete
    2. "You are certainly free to find my alleged ignorance offensive....."

      I found your obvious ignorance of chemistry with your first article offensive MJ...and it was not an "alleged ignorance"...as you yourself readily admit...

      "But since I do care about accuracy, I will correct one potential mistake that I made in the last post. The dose of chlorine dioxide in a single, uhm, serving of MMS might be higher than I thought it was. I said that I though it was around 1 ppm and I based that on comments that I read around the internet. According to Gorki, that dose is like 80 ppm and while I think that figure is probably wrong (anyone with a good knowledge of chemistry want to chime in?), I also think my figure is an under estimation."

      Too bad, in response to your pathetic plea "anyone with a good knowledge of chemistry want to chime in?", some posters have tried to explain some basic chemistry to you. Now do you *get it*?

      You chose to call my concern for your inaccuracies and support of quackery and child abusers "toadyism"...I call it advocacy on behalf of defenseless developmentally disabled children whose credulous parents, like you MJ, are clueless about the inherent dangers of forcing an industrial bleach into their children's mouths and rectums.

      You're just digging yourself in deeper MJ.

      Delete
    3. Do you understand the difference between the words "mistake" and "ignorance"? Because you seem to be ignorant of the difference.

      "Too bad, in response to your pathetic plea "anyone with a good knowledge of chemistry want to chime in?", some posters have tried to explain some basic chemistry to you."

      No, I have specific questions about the calculations, see the comment thread below. Admitting that you aren't an expert on everything and asking people who are more knowledgeable isn't a bad thing.

      Now I realize that Gorski would never do any such thing, and maybe that is a let down for you. But unlike Gorski, I don't try to use knowledge as a weapon to bludgeon people with. And I try to keep the kool-aid to a minimum.

      "You chose to call my concern for your inaccuracies and support of quackery and child abusers "toadyism""

      No, it was the toadyism that I was calling toadyism. And though it was my ignorance that was offensive, do you find inaccuracies offensive too?

      "I call it advocacy on behalf of defenseless developmentally disabled children whose credulous parents, like you MJ, are clueless about the inherent dangers of forcing an industrial bleach into their children's mouths and rectums."

      How's the view from the horse? You have to be careful, because people who spend all of their time on horseback are quite likely to get thrown.

      And as much as I hate to break up a good diatribe, but I think I was pretty clear about the dangers in my first post as well as what I thought of using the project. Here, let me refresh your memory -

      "Now, let me be perfectly clear here. I see absolutely no reason to think that using this stuff will do anything to help my children's autism and I see a lot of potential for harm. "

      Yupe, sounds exactly like I am a credulous parent who is clueless about the inherent dangers of mms.

      As I said earlier, if you going to try and criticize me, at least stick to the things that I actually said.

      And seriously, what is the point of the word "industrial" in your sentence? What exactly is "an industrial bleach" and how does it differ from "normal" bleach? Do you think that it is magically stronger because it is "industrial"? Standard everyday "bleach" can be "industrial bleach" under that definition because it is also used in industry.

      Delete
    4. MJ: No. Toadyism is exactly what you are engaging in.

      You've already admitted that you are deficient in chemistry, that you are clueless about the MMS bleach dosages and about the *routes of administration* and also are unaware of the inherent dangers to a child's epithelial tissues and the risk of bowel perforation/septicemia.

      You *claim* in both of your articles that you want to tone down the rhetoric. You have chosen to defend the quackery ("it's not a good idea"), to suck up to Jenny McCarthy's Autism One and the Age of Autism *journalist* who entered the fray...defending *well meaning parents* and disparaging a science blogger. That JM is toadyism.

      You pose the question to me, "And seriously, what is the point of the word "industrial" in your sentence? What exactly is "an industrial bleach" and how does it differ from "normal" bleach? Do you think that it is magically stronger because it is "industrial"? Standard everyday "bleach" can be "industrial bleach" under that definition because it is also used in industry."


      My classification of industrial bleach, was explained by Orac, here:

      "Orac
      June 21, 9:40 pm

      Actually, “industrial” also means not pure enough for human consumption. For instance, there is a drug I use in my experiments that’s an FDA-approved drug. However, what I buy is research grade, which is not sufficiently pure and hasn’t been manufactured using processes used to make drugs for humans. I use it in cell culture and in mice. Industrial grade is even less pure than research grade."

      You, by your words and deeds MJ, are enabling child abusers.

      Don't bother replying here MJ...take your comments over to Respectful Insolence, where you are challenging Orac to a "pissing contest".

      Delete
    5. "MJ: No. Toadyism is exactly what you are engaging in."

      Really? This is your response?

      "You've already admitted that you are deficient in chemistry"

      I'm deficiant, ignorant, and mistaken? Does that offend you too?

      "that you are clueless about the MMS bleach dosages"

      Haven't we already covered this?

      "and about the *routes of administration*"

      I am? Wow, I am so glad you told me.

      "and also are unaware of the inherent dangers to a child's epithelial tissues and the risk of bowel perforation/septicemia."

      It is like you can so totally read my mind.

      "You *claim* in both of your articles that you want to tone down the rhetoric."

      No, I *said* that the rhetoric isn't helpful. There is no claim.

      "You have chosen to defend the quackery ("it's not a good idea"),"

      So saying something isn't a good idea is the same as defending it? Ok, if you say so.

      "to suck up to Jenny McCarthy's Autism One and the Age of Autism *journalist* who entered the fray"

      Now you are just making me laugh.

      " and disparaging a science blogger"

      Yupe, I certainly did that.

      "That JM is toadyism."

      And that is not my name.

      "My classification of industrial bleach, was explained by Orac, here:"

      Ok, good. Now, next question, what type of bleach isn't "industrial" under that definition?

      "You, by your words and deeds MJ, are enabling child abusers."

      Sad, so very sad.

      "Don't bother replying here MJ...take your comments over to Respectful Insolence, where you are challenging Orac to a "pissing contest"."

      Yeah, no. But don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

      Delete
    6. "Don't bother replying here MJ...take your comments over to Respectful Insolence, where you are challenging Orac to a "pissing contest"."

      This clearly shows the cowardice of these "science-based" cretins. They can't engage others without their little pals nearby to back them up.

      Delete
  7. I'm a biochemist and Orac is quite right. Dose is not measured in parts per million, concentration is. As MMS is a 28% solution it is actually 280,000 ppm sodium chlorite (28 grams per 100 ml, which is 280 grams per liter, which is 280,000 milligrams per liter or 280,000 perts per million) and contains about 10 milligrams of sodium chlorite in each drop (280 milligrams per ml, assuming 28 drops per ml). When 'activated' with an acid, that 10 milligrams of sodium chlorite will generate about 8 milligrams of chlorine dioxide. What is important is how much is consumed and the concentration when it is consumed. Humble recommends working up to a dose of 15 drops of activated MMS. That's 120 milligrams of chlorine dioxide. If that was diluted in half a liter of water (considerably more than the glassful Humble suggests), the concentration would be 240 parts per million. Rivera recommends an even higher daily dose. So not only is the concentration when consumed over 100 times higher than the maximum stipulated by the EPA, you would have to consume over 100 liters of water at that maximum concentration to consume as much chlorine dioxide Humble and Rivera suggest. By anyone's standards. this is a massive overdose.

    Also, to answer Minority, the maximum dose of thimerosal in a vaccine is 50 micrograms. The lethal dose of thimerosal in rats is is 75 mg/kg, or 750,000 micrograms per kilogram, so the lethal doe for a 10 kg child might be expected to be around 7,500,000 micrograms or 150,000 times the amount in a vaccine. That's a pretty good safety margin.

    The lethal dose of chlorine dioxide in rats is 292 milligrams per kilogram, so the lethal dose for a 10 kg child might be expected to be around 2920 milligrams, or 24 times the maximum dose recommended by Humble. Not much of a safety margin there, is there? No wonder this dose causes vomiting and diarrhea.

    Does anyone really think that a dose of thimerosal that is 150,000 times lower than a lethal dose is comparable to a dose of MMS that is only 24 times lower than a lethal dose?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I'm a biochemist"

      Good, then maybe you can clear up a few things for me.

      "28 grams per 100 ml"

      I was under the understanding that this number was an estimate that assumed a mixture of mostly water and that to arrive at an actual grams per ml you had to adjust by the density (might be be wrong word) of the solution. In a very dilute solution the estimate is decent but it skews as as the concentration of the solution increases.

      I was also under the impression that this figure can change based on the method of producing the substance. It is one thing to say that the "typical" MMS is a 28% mixture of sodium chlorite and 72% water but you have to look at the exact materials or test the resulting product to get the real numbers.

      Am I wrong?

      "When 'activated' with an acid, that 10 milligrams of sodium chlorite will generate about 8 milligrams of chlorine dioxide."

      What type of acid are we talking about and in what concentration?

      "What is important is how much is consumed and the concentration when it is consumed."

      The funny thing is that I said exactly that in my post, something orac failed to mention.

      Delete
    2. Hi. Toxicologist, here.

      I'm not sure how to quote using html, so I'll just do my best.

      Re: % solutions. The standard notation for percent solutions in chemistry is grams per 100ml. If I need to make a 10% solution of something, I would take 10 grams and dissolve it in 100ml of water. Likewise, if I have a 28% solution of something, I can assume there is 28 grams of it in 100ml. Density isn't taken into consideration, because we don't need it to determine grams or percentages; it's just a simple weight/volume percentage.

      Re: Acid. According to wiki and Humble's website, you can use citric acid or any other food grade acid. Neither are as acidic as your stomach, so any of the unreacted MMS ingested orally will complete the reaction to the oxidant there. According to one of the supplier's websites, the acid is at 50% concentration weight/volume (which means 50 grams of citric acid dissolved in 100ml of water).

      Delete
    3. Re: errors in determining exact amount. MJ, you're close, but a bit off the mark. The variance is based on the significant figure (i.e. the spot you use to determine from where to round). For example, if we are working with a 1% solution, our significant figure is in the tenths place, so we could actually be anywhere from 0.5% to 1.4%. If we had a 1.0% solution, we would have anywhere from 0.95% to 1.04%. With the 28% solution, we're working with 27.5-28.4%.

      So in a way, you are correct to state that you'd need to run further analysis to determine the exact amount, but when we're working on the order of percentages, and toxicity is on the order of per millions, a margin of error on the order of percentages becomes irrelevant. If, for example, a pretend chemical is toxic at 100 ppm, the difference between a concentration of 200,000ppm and 250,000ppm won't make a difference in toxicity (pedantically: it may have a difference if the range of toxicity stretches that much, but that's just me being true to my trade, and effectively irrelevant for our conversation).

      Delete
    4. Jarred,
      "If I need to make a 10% solution of something, I would take 10 grams and dissolve it in 100ml of water."
      I'm nitpicking a little, but when I make a 10% solution of something, I take 10 grams of it and make it up to 100 mls with water. That means that 100 mls of the solution will contain 10 grams. Your method would result in slightly more than 100 ml of slightly less than 10% solution.

      MJ,
      "In a very dilute solution the estimate is decent but it skews as as the concentration of the solution increases."
      You have this back to front. A 28% solution of X contains 28 grams of X in every 100 mls by definition. It's true that you would need to add less than 100 mls of water to 28 grams of X, depending on the density of X, to get a 28% solution.

      "It is one thing to say that the "typical" MMS is a 28% mixture of sodium chlorite and 72% water but you have to look at the exact materials or test the resulting product to get the real numbers."
      MMS is advertised as 28% sodium chlorite, that's what it says on the label, and that's what Jim Humble recommends so I don't follow you here. As Jarred points out the kind of errors you seem to be referring to are not relevant to toxicity.

      "What type of acid are we talking about and in what concentration?"
      Jarred is correct, 50% citric acid is used or some people use an acidic fruit juice.

      Another way to look at MMS is that a single drop of it would have to be diluted in about 10 liters (that's nearly 18 pints) of water to make it safe to drink, according to the EPA. Whatever way you look at this, MMS proponents are promoting the consumption of potentially dangerous amounts of a form of bleach, in doses more than a hundred-times higher than the EPA tells us is safe . We have no idea of the long term effects of consuming this stuff. It is quite possible that chlorine dioxide in the concentrations suggested will react with organic molecules in the body to form carcinogens. In my view giving this to children should be unequivocally condemned.

      Delete
    5. Krebiozen,

      Yes, you are correct.

      MJ, I apologize for my error, as it can be misleading and lead to errors in your experiment if you follow my words exactly. You don't start with 100mls of water and then add the solute; you should start with the solute, and bring the water up to 100mls. That method is more precise.

      Delete
    6. Thanks Krebiozen & Jarred.

      If I could bother the two of you with one more question just to make sure I understand. Assuming that you use one drop of mms and mix it with 50% acid mixture in a standard glass, say 250 ml, then the resulting cocktail would have roughly 32 ppm of chlorine dioxide, correct?

      Which, although that is far more than you should take, it isn't enough in isolation to do extreme damage (of course depending on if the person is a child or an adult).

      The problem comes in when you use more than one drop and/or take multiple doses in a relatively short period of time. So if you did 6 drops in the same 250ml of acid/water and did that every 2 hours for 12 hours you would be taking a mixture that was almost 200 ppm (rounding up) each time and you would ingest almost 50 mg of ClO2 over the 12 hours.

      Which, if you weren't brain dead to start, you might be if you be if you kept it up for a while.

      Delete
    7. MJ,

      "the resulting cocktail would have roughly 32 ppm of chlorine dioxide, correct?"

      I get the same value; 32ppm in 250mls of water.

      "Which, although that is far more than you should take, it isn't enough in isolation to do extreme damage (of course depending on if the person is a child or an adult)."

      As for damage, as a toxicologist, I can try to shed some light (in a general sense), but as I am not that familiar with chlorine dioxide (ClO2), I can't get into detailed specifics.

      First, we have to define "extreme damage." Earlier, someone mentioned the LD50. While the LD50 does tell us at which dose the chemical had a lethal effect on a tested population, it doesn't tell us much else, such as the shape of the dose-response curve or the therapeutic index. If we define extreme damage as death, then no, 32ppm is not nearly enough. If we define extreme damage as sloughing of the esophagus or stomach lining, then 32ppm isn't likely to cause damage in amounts that we will feel (as in being painful), but it will still likely cause some damage as ClO2 is a very potent oxidizer.

      I mentioned the therapeutic index (TI) because Krebiozen brought up the safety margin. How far one is away from the LD50 doesn't matter if we don't know the TI. The TI tells us the margin between safe therapeutic doses and dangerous doses. For example, the TI of Tylenol is about 4. This means that at 4 times the therapeutic dose, Tylenol is a very dangerous drug. We want the TI to be as large as possible. As MMS does not have a therapeutic dose, it is impossible to create a TI value. I just wanted to point out that how far a dose is from the LD50 doesn't mean much, because it entirely depends on the efficacy and the shape of the dose response curve.

      "The problem comes in when you use more than one drop and/or take multiple doses in a relatively short period of time. So if you did 6 drops in the same 250ml of acid/water and did that every 2 hours for 12 hours you would be taking a mixture that was almost 200 ppm (rounding up) each time and you would ingest almost 50 mg of ClO2 over the 12 hours."

      With a cursory glance, that seems correct. We do have to be careful, though, because we don't know what the dose-response curve looks like for the specific types of damage that we're looking at. We do know that there is some damage going on at suggested doses, because people are complaining of nausea and diarrhea, but we don't know at which dose those symptoms start, and we don't know what's causing those symptoms (I can give some speculation, such as a lack of intestinal bacteria, or potentially a sloughing off of cells from the interior of the stomach or intestines).

      "Which, if you weren't brain dead to start, you might be if you kept it up for a while."

      Speaking of being brain dead, I looked up the toxicity of ClO2, and there is a neurodevelopmental study on rats that showed the "No Observable Adverse Effect Level" (NOAEL) to be 3mg/kg-day (or roughly 200mg for your average sized adult male human). For a 25kg kid (average weight of a 6 year old), that's about 75mg. If Krebiozen is correct, then Humble recommends around 110mg to start. With this data, there is a potential that using MMS may also cause even more neurodevelopmental problems for an autistic child.

      (Sorry if I rambled on a bit, and feel free to ask anything else. I tend to forget what is common knowledge, and what is specific knowledge to my field, so I don't know if I'm using terms you may not be familiar with).

      Delete
    8. Thanks Jarred, that is very helpful.

      Delete
    9. I thought of one more question, if you don't mind. What effect, if any, would the acidic nature of the stomach have on the effectiveness of ClO2 as an oxidizer?

      Delete
    10. None, really. Most oxidizers and reducers work independent of the acidic or basic nature of an environment. Some oxidizers are themselves acidic or basic, and then would be influenced by the pH level. ClO2 happens to be neither, so it'll work the same in the esophagus (~pH 4-6), the stomach (~ pH 2), or the rectum (~ pH 5-7). What the acidic nature of the stomach will do is turn any unreacted chlorite ions into ClO2. I haven't done the math to determine how much, if any, unreacted chlorite ions will remain in the initial solution; on a reasonable level, we shouldn't expect any unreacted chlorite due to the relatively small amount of sodium chlorite drops in the relatively large amount of citric acid.

      Delete
    11. Hmm, I was under the impression that other related types of oxidizers were sensitive to changes in pH.

      For example, in the case of chlorine, its effectiveness as an oxidizer/sanitizer, as measured by ORP, goes down as pH increases.

      Maybe I am mixing up concepts, maybe ClO2 just works differently, or maybe I am just flat out wrong?

      Delete
    12. That's quite a possibility. It all depends on the specific molecule. Remember, reduction/oxidation is the gain and loss of electrons, while acids/bases (which is the pH) is the gain/loss of hydrogens. Specifically, the pH is a measure of available H+ or OH- ions (for acids and bases respectively). For ClO2, I wouldn't expect any influence by acidity, but I am happy to be corrected if I am wrong. If you are correct with Cl2 as an oxidizer, and if ClO2 works the same, then it would be a more potent oxidizer in a strongly acidic environment, like the stomach.

      Delete
    13. Here's a pdf that covers the subject:

      http://www.furrowpump.com/Resources/chlorinedioxidestrongoxidizer.pdf

      It compares the different chlorine species as oxidizers. One thing it mentions is that ClO2 is effecting at a much greater pH range than Cl2. This suggests that ClO2 is effected by pH, contrary to what I said, but it has a large range of pH that it can work in, which aligns with my thought process.

      Delete
    14. "effective" not "effecting"

      My apologies.

      Delete
  8. I entirely agree with what Jarred wrote. I have read accounts of people suffering nausea with only 2-3 drops of MMS in a glass of water or juice. This suggests that this is enough to irritate the lining of the gastrointestinal tract. Animal studies have found that similar doses to those suggested cause hematological abnormalities and thyroid dysfunction. There is a very real possibility that this stuff could cause serious and permanent harm to a child.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Jarrod Caldwell wins the Internet! Very nicely done.

    - pD

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You so funny. If I didn't know better, I would think you were poking fun.

      Seriously, rational discourse beats hyperbolic rhetoric every day of the the week and twice on Tuesdays.

      Delete
  10. On the thimerosal, I haven't seen anyone who is concerned that the amounts are high enough to kill, even for newborns. However, over the years it has turned out that even a very tiny amount of lead can cause neurological damage for infants and children. The amount that was dangerous turned out to be far lower than was originally assumed.

    I think the concept that as long as we are avoiding a fatal dose it is okay to inject pregnant women and infants with heavy metals is a bit of a reach. But whatever...

    Certainly, if I took a two year old and moved into an apartment filled with flakes of lead paint, on purpose, a lot of people would consider that child abuse. Despite the fact that the lead exposure would fall way short of what would kill the poor kid.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Minority,
    "I think the concept that as long as we are avoiding a fatal dose it is okay to inject pregnant women and infants with heavy metals is a bit of a reach. But whatever..."
    My point was that there is an enormous gap between a lethal dose of thimerosal and the amount in a vaccine, a factor of about 150,000. We know quite a bit about poisoning by organic mercury compounds thanks to people exposed to much higher amounts of organic mercury either due to accidents or in their diet. Measurable effects only occur at much higher blood levels than those seen after vaccination with thimerosal-containing vaccines. Even test tube experiments show effects on brain cells only at much higher concentrations than those seen after vaccination. The safe levels for mercury consumption that people continue to get so excited about had large safety margins built in, so that a child vaccinated with several thimerosal-containing vaccines over a short period mighy temporarily exceed the EPA safety limit for mercury exposure, but never approached the dose of organic mercury that is known to cause any measurable effects, even if it had been given each and every day for years, which or course vaccines are not. That, along with numerous epidemiological studies, is why I am very skeptical about the possibility that thimerosal in vaccines had or has any detrimental effects on neurodevelopment.

    I don't really follow your argument about lead paint, as we know that children eating lead paint are at risk, but that the amount of mercury as thimerosal in vaccines is safe. Tetraethyl lead is considerably more toxic than ethylmercury.


    In contrast, animals given very similar amounts of MMS (when corrected for their weight) do show neurodevelopmental effects as well as hematological abnormalities and thyroid dysfunction. Not only are the EPA safety limits exceeded by a factor of over 100, but similar doses by weight are known to cause problems in animals.There's more about the safety of sodium chlorite and chlorine dioxide in the following document than anyone is every likely to need.
    www.epa.gov/iris/toxreviews/0496tr.pdf

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think Minority's comment is about the changing state of knowledge. It wasn't that long ago that we "knew" that even moderate exposure to lead was harmless. Fast forward a few years and we "knew" that exposure to small levels of lead was safe. Now we "know" that exposure to even small levels can cause subtle harm.

      Maybe our knowledge about the various forms of mercury is better than it was for lead but there still is the possibility that there are gaps in our knowledge and that we don't understand the subtle effects it can have. That was certainly true for lead even twenty or thirty short years ago.

      Delete
    2. A lot of this can be explained by looking at the history of toxicology in the US. It wasn't until the 1970s that toxicology became a serious field in the academia. Before then, it was just attached to other fields; some would look at it, others wouldn't. For example, for a long time, only adult men were tested for new drugs. Children and women weren't look at. How effective can research be if you only look at half the adult population? And the idea that children might be effected is a relatively recent idea, only surfacing in the past 40 years or so.

      Some of my older professors at my alma mater used to tell me stories of when they would pipette by mouth. That's horrible! Extremely dangerous! But back then, you were considered weak if you didn't do it that way. The knowledge that these chemicals in small amounts were dangerous was unknown.

      Lead was thought of in the same way, and it wasn't until we started doing toxicology research in the 70s that we found out how dangerous it was to children. Likewise, in today's world (despite protests from the NRA), we're seeing lead poisoning in children who frequent indoor firing ranges and lead runoff into streams and rivers from outdoor firing ranges. Some states have taken action to mitigate these dangers, others haven't. But it wasn't until we did the research before we knew about the dangers.

      As for mercury (Hg), well, unfortunately we have two very good examples of the dangers of methyl mercury (MeHg): Minamata Bay (1950s) and Iraq (1970s). The question about Thimerosal is whether ethyl mercury (EtHg) is dangerous, because Thimerosal can break down into EtHg. One CH3 group can make a huge difference in the biochemistry and toxicity of a chemical (look up the difference in consuming ethanol vs methanol). The difference between elemental Hg (dangerous if inhaled, but not if consumed or handled) and MeHg (extremely dangerous if consumed) is only one CH3 group. Likewise, EtHg is an addition of one more CH3 group. This can be huge when looking at bioaccumulation and whether each chemical is able to cross the blood brain barrier. MeHg can cross the BBB, because it's similar enough to another chemical in our bodies to attach itself to an enzyme that specifically pulls it across the BBB. EtHg is dissimilar enough where it does not get pulled across. Also, MeHg has a greater tendency to bioaccumulate (that is, build up in the body over time with small doses to produce a large effect) than EtHg. This is because MeHg is actively pulled into our brains by enzymes, while EtHg is actively pulled into our excretion system by different enzymes (this is one of the reasons why large doses of EtHg causes kidney damage).

      While I haven't read all of the literature on EtHg, an overwhelming amount of what I have read suggest it is not nearly as dangerous as methyl mercury. I have read some that suggest EtHg may stay in the body for longer periods, but replicate papers I've read have said otherwise, and considering that EtHg is pulled into our excretion system, I'm inclined to believe the latter. Then again, we're not looking at the extremely dangrous/obvious toxic effects, are we? We're looking at subtle effects. Does EtHg have a subtle effect on the neurodevelopment of children? Epidemiology studies to date suggest they don't, but I would still like to see more research.

      Regardless of what we're looking at, one thing that is important to remember is that our tools have improved across the board. Toxicology is a serious study in academia now, and we understand a lot of what we didn't back before the 70s. So while the timeline of ethyl mercury may be shorter than the timeline for lead, the tools and techniques we learned while studying lead can be directly applied to ethyl mercury, thereby gaining us the same or better knowledge in a shorter amount of time. I'm not saying that we know everything, but we have to make decisions based on what we do know, not just on what we believe.

      Delete
    3. I apologize if any of that sounds condescending. It wasn't my intention, but after reading it again, it might be construed that way.

      Delete
  12. Children die every day from iatrogenic causes. I would love to see a side by side comparison of unnecessary medical deaths versus woo deaths.

    It will never happen, though.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why don't you create one? Just be honest with yourself and your work, and be willing to change your mind based on the evidence you uncover. One of the biggest challenges with research is overcoming conformation bias (which is trying to fit the evidence to our preconceived notions rather than letting our opinions be guided by the evidence at hand). It's a human trait; the only way to overcome it is to recognize that it happens. It's one of the reasons why we are never supposed to trust a single research paper or scientific article; the authors may be biased in ways they are unable to recognize or control. When looking at a subject, it's important to look at all the valid research which has been done, and take into consideration the weight of each piece of evidence, and how well replicate studies do.

      With that, let's play a thought game. If we were to do such a study, what would be important for us to consider? Are we considering all iatrogenic deaths, or just those that happened because of unnecessary medical treatment? How do we define both iatrogenic and unnecessary for the purposes of this project? How do we define woo? Once we answer those questions, we can refine our project with more questions. I shall await a reply.

      Delete
    2. I think the CDC or a related organization already tracks this. I remember reading something was published by the CDC not that long ago. It might not break it out into "woo" vs non-woo but it does keep track of kids who die for medical reasons.

      Delete