Re: Answer to BIOSAFE Question?

I read that document you linked and here is a cut and paste from it:

No studies regarding the toxicokinetics of chlorine dioxide in humans or animals following the inhalation route of exposure were identified in the literature reviewed. There is only limited information available regarding the toxicokinetics of chlorine dioxide following oral exposure.

Then it goes on to say

The exposure limits derived by the ACGIH have not been updated since 1976 and are based on data from studies published in 1957. The ACGIH in their documentation in support of their occupational exposure limits values does not review the studies of Paulet and Desbrousses (1970, 1972) and only reviews one study post-1970. The lack of up-to-date toxicological information in deriving their exposure limit values places lower confidence in their scientific rationale. The single stakeholder providing comment on the information draft maintained that it was not appropriate to derive AAQCs by simply applying uncertainty factors to an occupational exposure limit.

--------------

That is enough cut and paste to illustrate that this document clearly states that they used a RAT study in the 1950's and extrapolated the guidelines there from:


Big brother is really watching out for the little guy. We will use one rat study funded by "who knows" "over 50 years" ago to formulate the safety guidelines...


Thanks for assisting me with my point! Don't expect big brother to look out for you.

Second - You did not answer my direct question which was: Hmmm intresting that is the 1st post I have seen saying that - you ARE implying that someone using Miracle-Mineral-Supplement protocol was hospitalized from it's usage.

Is this correct in your meaning? OR ? :)


So the answer is "NO" YOU HAVE NOT OR EVEN HEARD OF ANYONE HOSTPIALIZED FROM USING THE Miracle-Mineral-Supplement PROTOCAL.

CORRECT?


Tweet