Jim Humble's Miracle Malaria Cure

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) are a marvellous bunch of chaps.

Not content with quack-bashing in their own backyard, they've served as a model for advertising regulators throughout the world. Those whose advertising codes are in English are often lifted word-for-word from the ASA's own CAP Code.

Not many readers will realise that almost all of these bodies will accept complaints from overseas. Or so it would appear - so let's find out!

(Image credit)

Jim Humble's Miracle Mineral Supplement (MMS) - already illegal throughout Europe and North America because of its unfortunate resemblance to industrial bleach - is still available to unsuspecting customers in New Zealand.

One outfit hoping to make a quick buck are the Miracle Mineral Trust, who sell MMS at the knock-down price of just NZ$44.

Why would you want to buy it? Well, according to the Trust:

"MMS is a scientifically proven pathogen killer... MMS is FDA approved for food contact use... MMS has been proven safe for human consumption in clinical trials..."

None of these claims are true, of course, but the Trust's main offence - and it is an offence under New Zealand law - is to advertise a treatment for malaria, for which it claims:

"...MMS would be the best product to use for malaria, as it has already been proven successful in thousands of malaria cases."

The Trust have already been reprimanded at least twice for their illegal marketing practices. Here comes the hat-trick. NZ-ASA complaint follows!

"I'm writing to complain about a website advertising two therapeutic products - "Miracle Mineral Supplement" (MMS) and "Chlorine Dioxide Solution" (CDS).

The products are available to buy from the website.

I think the advertising breaches the Therapeutic Products Advertising Code (Principles 1, 2 & 3).

http://www.miraclemineral.co.nz/index.htm
Mirror: http://www.freezepage.com/1330693520IDISIGXWUI

1. "MMS is a scientifically proven pathogen killer."

I challenge whether this claim is misleading, because I have not able to find any clinical research in humans relating to the MMS product.

2. "MMS is FDA approved for food contact use: (Food Contact Substance CAS Reg. No. 10049-04-4)."

I challenge whether this claim is misleading, because:

(i) The referenced approval relates to chlorine dioxide (ClO2), whereas MMS contains sodium chlorite (NaClO2) [1]

(ii) In any case, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has warned of "Serious Harm from Drinking MMS" [2]

3. "MMS 'supports' healthy Immune System function."

I challenge whether this claim is misleading, because I have not able to find any clinical research in humans relating to the MMS product.

4. "MMS has been proven safe for human consumption in clinical trials..."

I challenge whether this claim is misleading, because:

(i) The research referenced by this claim did not investigate the MMS product

(ii) The research investigated very low concentrations of chlorine products, such as that found in "chlorine water treatment" [3] for drinking water

(iii) The MMS product contains very high concentrations (reportedly 28%) of sodium chlorite

(iv) I have not able to find any clinical research in humans relating to the MMS product

http://www.miraclemineral.co.nz/cds.htm
Mirror: http://www.freezepage.com/1330693578OLGNJVBSQA

5. "Much stronger doses can probably be used, because there is less herxheimer (nausea) reaction. We assume this is because there is no acid in the dose to react with the poisons created by the dead pathogens. More time will be needed to check this out, but it could result in overcoming some diseases faster than with the present MMS doses."

I challenge whether the claims that MMS and CDS can "[overcome] some diseases" and produce "dead pathogens" are misleading, because I have not been able to find any clinical research to substantiate them.

6. "Since there is no acid, the spray for skin can be several times more intense and thus deal with skin problems faster."

I challenge whether the claim that CDS can "deal with skin problems" is misleading, because I have not been able to find any clinical research to substantiate it.

7. "There is one known report of CDS not working on malaria. Until this can be verified with further tests, MMS would be the best product to use for malaria, as it has already been proven successful in thousands of malaria cases."

I challenge whether the claim that MMS has "proven successful in thousands of malaria cases" is misleading and not truthful; whether the claim fails to observe a high standard of social responsibility; and whether the claim does not comply with the laws of New Zealand.

8. "Used in the body, [CDS] oxidises foreign bacteria, viruses, etc; in much the same way that a healthy immune system does."

I challenge whether this claim is misleading, because I have not been able to find any clinical research to substantiate it.

9. "For a particular ailment, you can take up to 5 mls, three times a day, or 1 ml every hour for up to 10 hours per day, (this is the preferred, most effective dose method)."

I challenge whether the claim that CDS is "effective" in treating any "particular ailment" is misleading, because I have not been able to find any clinical research to substantiate it.

10. "For the serious disease protocol, one 100 ml bottle of CDS will last approximately one week."

I challenge whether the claim that CDS can be used to treat a "serious disease" is misleading, because I have not been able to find any clinical research to substantiate it.

Footnotes:

[1] http://www.caslab.com/Chlorine_dioxide_CAS_10049-04-4/
[2] http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm220747.htm
[3] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1569027/pdf/envhper00463-0059.pdf, "Introduction" section
"