well, for me it destroyed my digestion, gave me adrenal fatigue, low thyroid, liver problems, depression, anxiety, panic attacks, heart palpitations, inflammation through my whole body, crohn's, it was all kick started by Miracle-Mineral-Supplement . I think the only thing I haven't experienced yet is cancer, but I think I'm moving in the right direction and away from that now. No thanks to Miracle-Mineral-Supplement .

I did however feel good on Miracle-Mineral-Supplement for the first week or so of use. But I think oxidation and chlorine can damage any part of the body. I can see your list of side effects being huge. I noticed it was especially hard on the adrenals as it gave me that burnout feeling which I thought was die-off.

I was a die-hard MMS supporter before I got so ill. But it turned out to be my biggest mistake.

You would do yourself a favor to do a bit more investigation. This substance is just between H2o2 and AG+ in ability and power. As you know H2O2 (Hydrogen-Peroxid) is rocket fuel, so any oxidizer needs to be understood for what it is. (even the much safer but less powerful AG+ has argyia as unusual or uncommon, but still real, as that is).

Activated Miracle-Mineral-Supplement , Chlorine Dioxide, no mater the ballyhoo, has the evidence on it's side as just another safe, when used as prescribed oxidizer, (people think nausea or Intestinal distress are reason why a number of things should be outlawed, and if their cheap and easy to procure and effective, the FDA is right on board, driving that Big Business train wreck of propaganda).

Your evidence is suspect for reasons that seem obvious to me.

Id say it is best to believe anecdotal info when it is backed up by a preponderance of similar claims, which this one is not.

That the claims appreciated but not being of a large number not be overly emotional or dramatic, inflaming vs informing and aren't contesting information given out by a reputable unbiased proven source, which the FDA, which is virtually beyond arguing about since we know that not only have all recent agency directors been former pharmaceutical executives or attorneys, but that the drug and policy decisions made by them have continually been biased towards the pharma companies and also harmful to the public. An oxidizing agent that is inexpensive and safe, as sodium chlorite activated into chlorine dioxide has proven over decades of use, would be, exactly like CS, an agent that pharma companies would work to demonise using fear tactics by their minions and public relation ability to confuse the issue with the general public.

If all disgruntled people can describe are, classic examples of oxidative stress, than the onus is on them to disprove the safety record and excellent results of hundreds of thousands of recent personal users, undoubtly millions since its the most commonly used water purification chemical in the world chemical, far safer then chlorine and with none of the lasting serious unhealthful affects that chlorine does to water.

#1 FDA?
#2 Anecdotal info ?

Really Griz this is something that is under your radar at the moment but easily discovered to be different than your presently inclined to think. There is so much evidence exactingly like covering up the vaccination truth or in an opposite but exactingly similar vein, the demonizing of Colloidal Silver , tho now the public and the medical buisnesses have found it to be too good to ignore so they, pharma and the FDA, lost that battle.

"They" still tell the general public with press releases mimicking research reports that, apricot kernels are dangerous(guess again on that correct protocols % of success over standard of care cancer treatment there). "They", these same types you are siding with here claim in every way they are able that all alternative cancer treatments are worthless, ect ect ect

Keep on open mind and seek out both sides statements of facts, compare them and I think you will realize that the poster and reports like his are easily understood and have no real evidence to base their suppositions of danger on. Its exactly again, not a question of reletive risk, its question of representing the truth of a substance or an opinion that is an uninvestigated immature knee jerk reaction.

I don't really care and I figure you don't really that much either but sometimes theres a line in the sand----and sides need to be delineated so that it becomes evident that one side is quietly being prodded from behind, "crucify him, crucify him".