Having spent a serious amount of time discussing online with users of MMS, I think it’s time to see what I can learn from this whole episode. Firstly something about discussions: arguments based on personal experience is just not helping anyone. In science personal experience is the lowest form of evidence because it is irreproducible and highly subjective. Also you naturally think you experience is somehow more right or more important than everyone else does.
I had to discover that we had differences about what a discussion should be about in the first place, by which I mean, all they ever say is, „But it works!“That really is an argument you will not be able to say anything against, without making enemies. Of course you might say „placebo“ or „maybe it doesn’t work as good as you think“, but you will receive a justifiably angry Imnotstupid as answer. I objectively cannot know, if it actually works for them. There are like two sites, one of which is screaming YES and the other one NO. Even having an opinion about who might be right I’m just not going to judge. That is not the point anyway.
Funny enough nobody was actually willing to talk about things you can really discuss about. During the discussion I was able to expose several fundamental mistakes (Or lies if you will. Again it’s hard but I try to avoid judging.) in Jim Humbles statements about how MMS works. That is really not too easy, since the peak of scientific accuracy in these is mentioning that the chemical formula of chlorine dioxide is ClO2. If anyone was interested for howsoever small reason, I would gladly deliver details. I even have sources, which is more than Mr. Humble can say of his works. Anyway, nobody really cared about this. I wonder what they thought. Most likely something like „Oh look, he just proved the whole theory wrong. Well, screw this dude, he’s biased anyway.“
Also it was not really possible to get statements about where, in their opinion, these mistakes come from and what they mean for Mr. Humbles credibility.
Secondly I learned something about at least some humans: They are willing to ignore everything that conflicts with their worldview, by marking it unimportant in case it cannot be declared wrong and focus on something else, that is well consistent with their view. That the unimportant thing, by logical means, leaves only crumbling ruins of the original view is easily ignored.
Thirdly esotericism is completely self-contained. Meaning however weird it gets, it is impossible to disprove theories without contradicting the central premises. By collecting several absurd theories that back up each-other, it is easy to build a logical circle that is impossible to get a foothold in. Whenever you do, somebody comes up with something else you’d have to disprove before you can continue. Examples and tests, that do not come to the same conclusion, are easily waved away as isolated case, botch or bias. At one point I got declared a hired writer for big pharma, which is something I am personally proud of. If you decide how trustworthy someone is, not by the quality of proof he/she delivers, but solely by how well compatible the statements are with your worldview, it becomes impossible to discuss. This way of thinking is the central feature of an ideology.
Fourthly: Meanwhile in Mexico
Jim Humble – now known as the self proclaimed archbishop James V. Humble – recently wrote a book called „Zero Fusion and Atomic Alchemy“ which is about how you can simultaneously produce gold and neutralize radioactive radiation. The ebook hundred bucks only but „BUY THIS BOOK AND STORE IT AWAY. MANKIND MIGHT NOT BE READY FOR THIS TECHNOLOGY“. I don’t think I need to comment.