Science and Technology news... :: View topic - Converting Magnesium Sulphate to Magnesium Chloride?

Pissant · Guest

"Madalch" <tressure@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6c1330ad-12f7-4cdd-8288-37b838e6199a@v13g2000pro.googlegroups.com...

Good God, man!!! And you think this is supposed to be -good- for
you???

Yes, it may react with pathogens, but ClO2 doesn>t distinguish between
organic molecules which are part of a bacterium and organic molecules
which are a part of you. It>s a bad idea.

[quote]This is a new medical breakthrough that is ignored by the allopathic
medical system that
is dominated by big pharmaceutical companies, because it is non patentable
and it can cure almost any viral or bacterial disease.

This is a new paradigm in medicine. You just don>t know about it yet.
[/quote]
Bing! Bing! Bing!!

You>ve just used at least three buzzwords that identify you as a
gullible idiot.

Instead of trusting the New Age, new paradigm, anti-science crowd, why
don>t you ask yourself: if "big pharma" could use such a cheap
substance to cure "almost any viral or bacterial disease", why
wouldn>t they make a pill containing it, give it a fancy name, and
make money hand over fist from it? They could charge the same price
for the pill as for all the other pills they sell, but the profit
margin would be far greater. Heck- they>d make almost as much money
as "big nutra"- those companies which grab a bunch of weeds and
package them up as "herbal supplements" without bothering to test them
to see if they>re beneficial or not.

And don>t give me that "non patentable" crap- almost -anything- can be
patented these days.

Well you have almost answered your own question. You obviously know what the
situation is, but you still don>t believe the truth when you see it. You
quite rationally think that "big pharma" would want to cure diseases if they
could, but that is not the case. It is far more profitable if drugs control
the symptoms to keep people in a state of dependence rather than sell things
which can quickly cure a condition by eliminating the cause. Thus most
research is funded toward such products,
In the present case you are of course aware that Sodium Chlorite is not
patentable, and just giving it a fancy name would not cut it, people would
soon find out what it was if it were promoted by the mainstream medical
world. You are arbitrarily dismissive of the idea without even reading how
this concept came about. It has been used extensively in Africa and South
America with the support of the medical authorities in Malawi on quite a
large scale to treat malaria.

http://www.miraclems.com/dwnldmms1.html

Obviously in this group many readers with a scientific education have great
difficulty in accepting that aspects of scientific investigation have been
totally corrupted by political and commercial economic considerations. Thus
many non drug based theraputic approaches to disease connntrol or cure are
effectively suppressed by being ignored, not adequatly researched, or simply
dismissed out of hand with no consideration of the merits. At the same time
enourmous research efforts are expended exclusivly on development of
patentable symptomatic drug treatments which almost as a precondition for
commercial acceptability must not ever "cure" a disease, but merely control
it to keep the patient alive while his wallet is emptied.

When you begin to look at the situation objectively the same pattern is
repeated over and over, for about the past eighty years. The often
nutritional basis of many diseases is ignored by the allopathic medical
system, and many doctors have an inadequate knowledge of such matters. They
are trained to prescribe drugs as a first approach to all conditions.
With an increasing awareness of the situation many of the "big nutra"
companies, you disparagingly refer to, have been taken over by "big pharma"
companies when the latter realised that many people were rejecting the old
drugs only approach of symptomatic treatment.
If you haven>t heard of the "Codex Alimentarius" you should look it up, to
understand how "big pharma" plans to try and assert total control over all
medical and dietary substances, through both commercial takeovers and
international regulatory restrictions.

There are many aspects of blood chemistry that are only now being more fully
understood and I can>t answer your point about you considering chlorine
dioxite so potentially dangerous, except to say that the use of it has been
tested extensively, as referred to above and that it is in fact highly
beneficial when used as described in the reference, which perhaps you should
read.

Here is another factor that may be at the basis of how it works.

http://www.hbci.com/~wenonah/riddick/index.html

The relatively recent development of much higher power optical microscopes
by the Greyfield Optical Company in Germany, able to view live blood and
pathogens interactions as distinct from the older electron microscope
technology, is furthering the new paradigm in knowledge of bacteriology in
medicine. The findings of German Professor Doctor Engleline in the field of
pleomorphism of pathogenesis confirm the alternative concept of pleomorphism
in bacteriology that has been proposed since the late 1800>s when Pasteur>s
concept of monomorphism was wrongly accepted as orthodoxy in the medical
field of bacteriology.

A lot of what is thought of as scientific dogma is simply being found to be
wrong. Perhaps you should look more carefully before being so confident.

Anyway your bicarbonate route to magnesium chloride works, so I>m grateful
for that, but just understanding basic chemistry does not meant that you
have enough knowledge to dismiss out of hand far more complex concepts which
have some sound new evidence to support them.

Pissant from Oz.

Pissant · Guest

"Bob M" <molab@ww.co.nz> wrote in message
news:6be9333a-9a76-46d6-8271-eae71ea7185e@b31g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
[quote]As Both mag. sulphate and chloride are fully ionised there is unlikely
to be any diference in their absorption.
Mag chloride is very hygroscopic and not suitable for use in solid
dietary suppliments. Many formulations use Mag carbonate. this is
insoluble easily blended and dissolves in stomach acid to produce
soluble magnesium.

Bob M
[/quote]
Knowledge of the action of magnesium as an essential nutrient is
progressing, well beyond what is generally known regarding its "ordinary",
perhaps we could say basic chemical properties.

In relation to the behaviour of the sulphate and chloride compounds in the
body the follow summarises one modern view.

Dr. Jean Durlach et al, at the Université P. et M. Curie, Paris, wrote a
paper about the relative toxicities between magnesium sulphate and magnesium
chloride. They write, "The reason of the toxicity of magnesium
pharmacological doses of magnesium using the sulphate anion rather than the
chloride anion may perhaps arise from the respective chemical structures of
both the two magnesium salts. Chemically, both MgSO4 and MgCl2 are
hexa-aqueous complexes. However MgCl2 crystals consist of dianions with
magnesium coordinated to the six water molecules as a complex, [Mg(H2O)6]2+
and two independent chloride anions, Cl-. In MgSO4, a seventh water molecule
is associated with the sulphate anion, [Mg(H2O)6]2 +[SO4. H2O].
Consequently, the more hydrated MgSO4 molecule may have chemical
interactions with paracellular components, rather than with cellular
components, presumably potentiating toxic manifestations while reducing
therapeutic effect."

MgSO4 is not always the appropriate salt in clinical therapeutics.
MgCl2 seems the better anion-cation association to be
used in many clinical and pharmacological indications.[ii]
Dr. Jean Durlach et al

These researches also studied ionic fluxes in the two directions between the
mother and the fetus. They found that there was a greater positive effect
when MgCl2 was used and that MgSO4 could not guarantee the fetal needs in
sodium and potassium exchange like MgCl2 could. They also found that MgCl2
interacts with all the exchangers in the cell membrane, while the effect of
MgSO4 is limited to paracellular components without interaction with
cellular components. Dr. Durlach summarized saying, "MgCl2 interacts with
all exchangers while the interaction of MgSO4 is limited to paracellular
exchangers, and MgCl2 increases the flux ratio between mother to fetus while
MgSO4 decreases it."

Chloride is required to produce a large quantity of gastric acid each day
and is also needed to stimulate starch-digesting enzymes. Using other
magnesium salts is less advantageous because these have to be converted into
chlorides in the body anyway. We may use magnesium as oxide or carbonate but
then we need to produce additional hydrochloric acid to absorb them. Many
aging individuals, especially with chronic diseases who desperately need
more magnesium cannot produce sufficient hydrochloric acid and then cannot
absorb the oxide or carbonate.

Sulfate is also important and has an influence over almost every cellular
function. Sulfate attaches to phenols and makes them less harmful, and sets
them up for being excreted from your kidneys. A lot of these potentially
toxic molecules are in food. Sulfate is also used to regulate the
performance of many other molecules. Many systems in the body will not
function well in a low-sulfate environment. Sulfur is so critical to life
that the body will apparently borrow protein from the muscles to keep from
running too low.

Regards,
Pissant from OZ,
(Gullible idiot and candidate for the "Darwin Award", according to several
of the learned colleagues here. Perhaps they are of the type that insisted
that the earth was flat, and that Copernicus was a heretic in the middle
ages. So sure in their little bit of knowledge, their minds are made up, and
they refuse to be confused with facts!)

Rob · Guest

"Pissant" <indeorewendenx@7LK48kltyrwept.org.tt> wrote in message
news:gcm45u$c6v$1@news-01.bur.connect.com.au...
[quote]
"Madalch" <tressure@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6c1330ad-12f7-4cdd-8288-37b838e6199a@v13g2000pro.googlegroups.com...

Good God, man!!! And you think this is supposed to be -good- for
you???

Yes, it may react with pathogens, but ClO2 doesn>t distinguish between
organic molecules which are part of a bacterium and organic molecules
which are a part of you. It>s a bad idea.

This is a new medical breakthrough that is ignored by the allopathic
medical system that
is dominated by big pharmaceutical companies, because it is non
patentable
and it can cure almost any viral or bacterial disease.

This is a new paradigm in medicine. You just don>t know about it yet.

Bing! Bing! Bing!!

You>ve just used at least three buzzwords that identify you as a
gullible idiot.

Instead of trusting the New Age, new paradigm, anti-science crowd, why
don>t you ask yourself: if "big pharma" could use such a cheap
substance to cure "almost any viral or bacterial disease", why
wouldn>t they make a pill containing it, give it a fancy name, and
make money hand over fist from it? They could charge the same price
for the pill as for all the other pills they sell, but the profit
margin would be far greater. Heck- they>d make almost as much money
as "big nutra"- those companies which grab a bunch of weeds and
package them up as "herbal supplements" without bothering to test them
to see if they>re beneficial or not.

And don>t give me that "non patentable" crap- almost -anything- can be
patented these days.

Well you have almost answered your own question. You obviously know what
the situation is, but you still don>t believe the truth when you see it.
You quite rationally think that "big pharma" would want to cure diseases
if they could, but that is not the case. It is far more profitable if
drugs control the symptoms to keep people in a state of dependence rather
than sell things which can quickly cure a condition by eliminating the
cause. Thus most research is funded toward such products,
In the present case you are of course aware that Sodium Chlorite is not
patentable, and just giving it a fancy name would not cut it, people would
soon find out what it was if it were promoted by the mainstream medical
world. You are arbitrarily dismissive of the idea without even reading how
this concept came about. It has been used extensively in Africa and South
America with the support of the medical authorities in Malawi on quite a
large scale to treat malaria.

http://www.miraclems.com/dwnldmms1.html

Obviously in this group many readers with a scientific education have
great difficulty in accepting that aspects of scientific investigation
have been totally corrupted by political and commercial economic
considerations. Thus many non drug based theraputic approaches to disease
connntrol or cure are effectively suppressed by being ignored, not
adequatly researched, or simply dismissed out of hand with no
consideration of the merits. At the same time enourmous research efforts
are expended exclusivly on development of patentable symptomatic drug
treatments which almost as a precondition for commercial acceptability
must not ever "cure" a disease, but merely control it to keep the patient
alive while his wallet is emptied.

When you begin to look at the situation objectively the same pattern is
repeated over and over, for about the past eighty years. The often
nutritional basis of many diseases is ignored by the allopathic medical
system, and many doctors have an inadequate knowledge of such matters.
They are trained to prescribe drugs as a first approach to all conditions.
With an increasing awareness of the situation many of the "big nutra"
companies, you disparagingly refer to, have been taken over by "big
pharma" companies when the latter realised that many people were rejecting
the old drugs only approach of symptomatic treatment.
If you haven>t heard of the "Codex Alimentarius" you should look it up, to
understand how "big pharma" plans to try and assert total control over all
medical and dietary substances, through both commercial takeovers and
international regulatory restrictions.

There are many aspects of blood chemistry that are only now being more
fully understood and I can>t answer your point about you considering
chlorine dioxite so potentially dangerous, except to say that the use of
it has been tested extensively, as referred to above and that it is in
fact highly beneficial when used as described in the reference, which
perhaps you should read.

Here is another factor that may be at the basis of how it works.

http://www.hbci.com/~wenonah/riddick/index.html

The relatively recent development of much higher power optical microscopes
by the Greyfield Optical Company
[/quote]
Google - no hits for Greyfield optical.
Obviously a well respected and widely used technique.

[quote]in Germany, able to view live blood and pathogens interactions as distinct
from the older electron microscope technology, is furthering the new
paradigm in knowledge of bacteriology in medicine.
[/quote]
Cite?

[quote]The findings of German Professor Doctor Engleline in the field of
pleomorphism of pathogenesis confirm the alternative concept of
pleomorphism
[/quote]
Google, Engleline pleomorphism pathogenesis, and alternative spellings and
combos - no hits.
You want to provide a reference, or are you making this up as you go?

[quote]in bacteriology that has been proposed since the late 1800>s when
Pasteur>s concept of monomorphism was wrongly accepted as orthodoxy in the
medical field of bacteriology.

A lot of what is thought of as scientific dogma is simply being found to
be wrong. Perhaps you should look more carefully before being so
confident.

Anyway your bicarbonate route to magnesium chloride works, so I>m grateful
for that, but just understanding basic chemistry does not meant that you
have enough knowledge to dismiss out of hand far more complex concepts
which have some sound new evidence to support them.

Pissant from Oz.
[/quote]
Yep, a basic understanding of chemistry precludes understanding of complex
concepts, but zero knowledge of basic chemistry makes you an expert.
Have fun drinking wood pulp bleach.

Pissant · Guest

"Rob" <robbie.buckleyaoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:48eebeee$0$4454$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
[quote]
Google, Engleline pleomorphism pathogenesis, and alternative spellings and
combos - no hits.
You want to provide a reference, or are you making this up as you go?

[/quote]
Do you think I made this up too? Just because you have never heard of it
does not mean I made it up as I go along.!

Synthesis of the Work of Enderlein, Bechamps and other Pleomorphic
Researchers.

©Copyright 1997 by Dr. Karl Horst Poehlman, Australia
(Explore Issue: Volume 8, Number 2)

All mammals and most likely all other animals have two parasites. They are
in a particular relationship and supplement each other.

Those two parasites or endobionts are called Mucor racemosus Fresen and
Aspergillus niger van Tiegham.

Bechamp, Rife and Naessens could demonstrate that they are virtually
indestructible. Neither carbonizing temperatures nor radioactive radiation
can harm them.

Enderlein believed that they entered the cells of higher differentiated cell
colonies as parasites while Antoine Bechamp believed that they are the
essence of life in the cell.

The endobiont is always present and cannot be removed from the living cell;
the clinical symptoms of a disease depend on the stadium of its development.
This "fungal parasite" can be present in all tissues and organs.

Today>s mainstream medicine is governed by consent of opinions rather than
hard scientific evidence. This is the reason why false and fraudulent
teachings can survive even though the truth has been known for a long time.
There are basically three dogmas that are still adhered to:

The first and probably most disastrous error originates from Ferdinand
Cohn, who in 1870 proclaimed that all microbes and bacteria have only one
form (Monomorphism). This was also taught by Louis Pasteur. This teaching
was opposed to the teaching of Antoine Bechamp who, roughly at the same
time, could demonstrate that microbes can alter their form and appear as
different germs (pleomorphism). Enderlein basically confirmed this and many
other researchers after him.

All microbes that permanently live in our organism go through the same
stages of their development. According to Enderlein they are as follows:
Colloid -- microbe (primitive phrase), bacteria (middle phase), fungus (end
phase). Royal Rife could show that with increased toxicity the
transformation goes into non-filterable forms, not visible with ordinary
light microscopes (viruses). This also disproves Pasteur>s infection theory
as the "pathogenic bacteria" do not have to come from outside and in fact
hardly ever do. The state of development depends on the medium the germ
lives in:

Primitive phases live in a strong alkaline pH
Bacterial phases live in mild alkaline pH
Fungal forms live in a medium acid pH
Viral forms live in a strong acid pH

In order to keep the right environment, every microbe produces an organic
acid:
Mucor racemosus -- lactic acid,
Aspergillus niger -- citric acid.

The pathogenity of a particular germ lies only in one phase of its
development. Our "constant tenants" are the only exemption where all but the
very early stages are pathogenic. Only what Enderlein termed protit and
chondrite are completely avirulent and play an important regulatory role in
reducing higher virulent forms to primitive forms by copulating with them.

Those phases can be easily seen in living blood under the microscope, but
only in "darkfield" as the small primitive forms are invisible in
"brightfield."

Even Louis Pasteur said in the last minutes of his life: "Bernard is right;
it is the soil and not the germ, that makes the plant grow."

The second major error originates from William Harvey who stated in 1651
(!!) that the cell is the smallest unit of life. This statement can be
easily understood considering the very limited magnification and resolution
of the microscopes of his time. Enderlein demonstrated and published in 1921
and 1925 that the smallest unit of life is not the cell but the protit,
named microzyma by Bechamp and somatid by Gaston Naessens.

The third error came again from Pasteur who claimed that the blood is
sterile, a piece of nonsense still taught by modern bacteriologists. A look
through a high power darkfield microscope quickly disproves this theory
(provided one wants to see). Pasteur had the talent of teaching the biggest
nonsense and of making people believe it. It is now well known that he even
falsified the results of his research when it did not show the results he
wanted. He was also quite ready to plagiarize the results of others. The
vaccination fraud is based on his manipulated "research". Whole generations
of researchers followed his example. Modern "scientific medicine" became a
collection of long disproven theories (blood clot and obstruction theory of
coronary heart disease, germ theory and infection theory, single cell theory
of cancer, etc.).

Don>t feel too bad mate, even Pasteur realised he was wrong in the end.
Trouble is a lot of people still don>t know about it a hundred years later,
and despite clear evidence mounting all the time that Enderlein, Bechamps,
Rife and Virginia Livingstone were right all along about pleomorphism, it
still is almost unknown to most doctors. They spend most of their training
learning to prescribe useless dangerous drugs and their biology is a century
out of date.

Same goes for the Magnesium Chloride and Sodium Chlorite that started all
this, there are aspects to these apparently simple substances that are far
beyond the ken of the average chemist. Someone gave me a simple tip on a
basic chemical process to do what I wanted, and I>m grateful, but then I>m
not a know all. The fact that I needed some basic chemical help does not
mean I don>t know a lot about other nutritional and medical aspects of these
basic compounds that is well beyond the ken of a chemist or chemical
engineer who could show me how to make a million tons of MgCl2 or NaClO2,
but would know precious little about their action medically.

Regards,
Pissant from OZ,
(Gullible idiot and candidate for the "Darwin Award", according to several
of the learned colleagues here. Perhaps they are of the type that insisted
that the earth was flat, and that Copernicus was a heretic in the middle
ages. So sure in their little bit of knowledge, their minds are made up, and
they refuse to be confused with facts!)

Pissant · Guest

"Bob" <bbx107.XYZ@excite.XYZ.com> wrote in message
news:iejte4hfrh8ji7509ln1r8gp1udar84pqa@4ax.com...
[quote]On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 12:34:39 +1000, "Pissant"
indeorewendenx@7LK48kltyrwept.org.tt> wrote:

And the difference (even if real) is worth the trouble of making the
chloride? That seems unlikely.

bob

Only seems unlikely because you have not looked at the matter objectively in[/quote]
sufficient detail.

It wasn>t at all hard to do, even for poor little me that "doesn>t know any
basic chemistry"! I>ve already done it, finished, fixed, ready to use.
Maybe it is worth it, it cost me next to nothing, and look here for details

http://www.arthritistrust.org/Articles/Magnesium%20Chloride%20Hexahydrate%20Therapy.pdf

Regards,
Pissant from OZ,
(Gullible idiot and candidate for the "Darwin Award", according to several
of the learned colleagues here. Perhaps they are of the type that insisted
that the earth was flat, and that Copernicus was a heretic in the middle
ages. So sure in their little bit of knowledge, their minds are made up, and
they refuse to be confused with facts!)

Pissant · Guest

"Rob" <robbie.buckleyaoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:48eebeee$0$4454$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
[quote]
The relatively recent development of much higher power optical
microscopes
by the Greyfield Optical Company
[/quote]
Here is the link

http://www.grayfieldoptical.com/index.html
[quote]
Google - no hits for Greyfield optical.
Obviously a well respected and widely used technique.

in Germany, able to view live blood and pathogens interactions as
distinct from the older electron microscope technology, is furthering the
new paradigm in knowledge of bacteriology in medicine.

Cite?

The findings of German Professor Doctor Engleline in the field of
pleomorphism of pathogenesis confirm the alternative concept of
pleomorphism
[/quote]
OK I mispelled the name, its Enderlein, you didn>t look too hard, seem more
intent on sticking your head in the sand.

http://groups.google.com/group/de.alt.naturheilkunde/browse_thread/thread/418b85d3ccea21ca/e99cdc569c659c55?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#e99cdc569c659c55

See also
http://www.explorepub.com/articles/enderlein2.html

http://www.rawpaleodiet.org/pleomorphism-1.html

http://www.whale.to/v/pleomorphism.htm

[quote]Google, Engleline pleomorphism pathogenesis, and alternative spellings and
combos - no hits.
You want to provide a reference, or are you making this up as you go?

Nope! I wasn>t making it up, see the above links, and the more you look into[/quote]
it the more interesting it is. You haven>t even heard of the concepts that
you are so willing to dismiss before you even have any idea about them.
Maybe it isn>t all 100% correct, but then that>s the course of knowledge,
mistakes are made, new ideas replace the old as they die out.
But you won>t learn a lot with your head in the sand, determined to deny any
different or new concept, because it disagrees with a rigid and often wrong
concept of the world.

Regards,
Pissant from OZ,
(Gullible idiot and candidate for the "Darwin Award", according to several
of the learned colleagues here. Perhaps they are of the type that insisted
that the earth was flat, and that Copernicus was a heretic in the middle
ages. So sure in their little bit of knowledge, their minds are made up, and
they refuse to be confused with facts!)

Bob · Guest

On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 12:34:39 +1000, "Pissant"
<indeorewendenx@7LK48kltyrwept.org.tt> wrote:

[quote]
I want to do this as MgSO4 is readily available and cheap, but the chloride,
which is harder to come by is I believe more effective as a mineral
supplement and is more readily absorbed into the digestive system that the
sulphate, which I understand is to a far greater extent excreted by the
kidneys.

[/quote]
And the difference (even if real) is worth the trouble of making the
chloride? That seems unlikely.

bob

Rob · Guest

"Pissant" <indeorewendenx@7LK48kltyrwept.org.tt> wrote in message
news:gcmkp6$roe$1@news-01.bur.connect.com.au...
[quote]
"Rob" <robbie.buckleyaoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:48eebeee$0$4454$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...

The relatively recent development of much higher power optical
microscopes
by the Greyfield Optical Company

Here is the link

http://www.grayfieldoptical.com/index.html

Google - no hits for Greyfield optical.
Obviously a well respected and widely used technique.

in Germany, able to view live blood and pathogens interactions as
distinct from the older electron microscope technology, is furthering
the new paradigm in knowledge of bacteriology in medicine.

Cite?

The findings of German Professor Doctor Engleline in the field of
pleomorphism of pathogenesis confirm the alternative concept of
pleomorphism

OK I mispelled the name, its Enderlein, you didn>t look too hard, seem
more intent on sticking your head in the sand.
[/quote]
LOL - my not being able to translate your mistake is my fault?

http://groups.google.com/group/de.alt.naturheilkunde/browse_thread/thread/418b85d3ccea21ca/e99cdc569c659c55?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#e99cdc569c659c55
[quote]
See also
http://www.explorepub.com/articles/enderlein2.html

http://www.rawpaleodiet.org/pleomorphism-1.html

http://www.whale.to/v/pleomorphism.htm

Google, Engleline pleomorphism pathogenesis, and alternative spellings
and combos - no hits.
You want to provide a reference, or are you making this up as you go?

Nope! I wasn>t making it up, see the above links, and the more you look
into it the more interesting it is.
snip[/quote]
Checked out the links. Sir, with all due respect, you are being duped by
quacks. This stuff is simply laughable.

Rob · Guest

"Pissant" <indeorewendenx@7LK48kltyrwept.org.tt> wrote in message
news:gcmrlr$50r$1@news-01.bur.connect.com.au...
[quote]
"Rob" <robbie.buckleyaoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:48eebeee$0$4454$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...

Google, Engleline pleomorphism pathogenesis, and alternative spellings
and combos - no hits.
You want to provide a reference, or are you making this up as you go?

Do you think I made this up too? Just because you have never heard of it
does not mean I made it up as I go along.!

Synthesis of the Work of Enderlein, Bechamps and other Pleomorphic
Researchers.

©Copyright 1997 by Dr. Karl Horst Poehlman, Australia
(Explore Issue: Volume 8, Number 2)

All mammals and most likely all other animals have two parasites. They are
in a particular relationship and supplement each other.

Those two parasites or endobionts are called Mucor racemosus Fresen and
Aspergillus niger van Tiegham.

Bechamp, Rife and Naessens could demonstrate that they are virtually
indestructible. Neither carbonizing temperatures nor radioactive radiation
can harm them.
[/quote]
You are kidding, right?? "Neither carbonizing temperatures nor radioactive
radiation can harm them." How can you post this crap with a straight face.

[quote]Enderlein believed that they entered the cells of higher differentiated
cell colonies as parasites while Antoine Bechamp believed that they are
the essence of life in the cell.

The endobiont is always present and cannot be removed from the living
cell; the clinical symptoms of a disease depend on the stadium of its
development. This "fungal parasite" can be present in all tissues and
organs.
[/quote]
Must be tough to do, without any DNA of its own. You do realise, if this was
true, the parasite DNA would show up in tissue samples?

[quote]Today>s mainstream medicine is governed by consent of opinions rather than
hard scientific evidence. This is the reason why false and fraudulent
teachings can survive even though the truth has been known for a long
time. There are basically three dogmas that are still adhered to:

The first and probably most disastrous error originates from Ferdinand
Cohn, who in 1870 proclaimed that all microbes and bacteria have only one
form (Monomorphism). This was also taught by Louis Pasteur. This teaching
was opposed to the teaching of Antoine Bechamp who, roughly at the same
time, could demonstrate that microbes can alter their form and appear as
different germs (pleomorphism). Enderlein basically confirmed this and
many other researchers after him.

All microbes that permanently live in our organism go through the same
stages of their development. According to Enderlein they are as follows:
Colloid -- microbe (primitive phrase), bacteria (middle phase), fungus
(end phase). Royal Rife could show that with increased toxicity the
transformation goes into non-filterable forms, not visible with ordinary
light microscopes (viruses). This also disproves Pasteur>s infection
theory as the "pathogenic bacteria" do not have to come from outside and
in fact hardly ever do. The state of development depends on the medium the
germ lives in:

Primitive phases live in a strong alkaline pH
Bacterial phases live in mild alkaline pH
Fungal forms live in a medium acid pH
Viral forms live in a strong acid pH

In order to keep the right environment, every microbe produces an organic
acid:
Mucor racemosus -- lactic acid,
Aspergillus niger -- citric acid.

The pathogenity of a particular germ lies only in one phase of its
development. Our "constant tenants" are the only exemption where all but
the very early stages are pathogenic. Only what Enderlein termed protit
and chondrite are completely avirulent and play an important regulatory
role in reducing higher virulent forms to primitive forms by copulating
with them.

Those phases can be easily seen in living blood under the microscope, but
only in "darkfield" as the small primitive forms are invisible in
"brightfield."

Even Louis Pasteur said in the last minutes of his life: "Bernard is
right; it is the soil and not the germ, that makes the plant grow."

The second major error originates from William Harvey who stated in 1651
(!!) that the cell is the smallest unit of life. This statement can be
easily understood considering the very limited magnification and
resolution of the microscopes of his time. Enderlein demonstrated and
published in 1921 and 1925 that the smallest unit of life is not the cell
but the protit, named microzyma by Bechamp and somatid by Gaston Naessens.

The third error came again from Pasteur who claimed that the blood is
sterile, a piece of nonsense still taught by modern bacteriologists.
[/quote]
Bullshit.

[quote]A look through a high power darkfield microscope quickly disproves this
theory (provided one wants to see). Pasteur had the talent of teaching the
biggest nonsense and of making people believe it. It is now well known
that he even falsified the results of his research when it did not show
the results he wanted.
[/quote]
Proof?

[quote]He was also quite ready to plagiarize the results of others. The
vaccination fraud is based on his manipulated "research". Whole
generations of researchers followed his example. Modern "scientific
medicine" became a collection of long disproven theories (blood clot and
obstruction theory of coronary heart disease, germ theory and infection
theory, single cell theory of cancer, etc.).

Don>t feel too bad mate, even Pasteur realised he was wrong in the end.
Trouble is a lot of people still don>t know about it a hundred years
later, and despite clear evidence mounting all the time that Enderlein,
Bechamps, Rife and Virginia Livingstone were right all along about
pleomorphism, it still is almost unknown to most doctors. They spend most
of their training learning to prescribe useless dangerous drugs and their
biology is a century out of date.
[/quote]
Must all be true, cos it says so on the internet? Idiot.

[quote]Same goes for the Magnesium Chloride and Sodium Chlorite that started all
this, there are aspects to these apparently simple substances that are far
beyond the ken of the average chemist. Someone gave me a simple tip on a
basic chemical process to do what I wanted, and I>m grateful, but then I>m
not a know all. The fact that I needed some basic chemical help does not
mean I don>t know a lot about other nutritional and medical aspects of
these basic compounds that is well beyond the ken of a chemist or chemical
engineer who could show me how to make a million tons of MgCl2 or NaClO2,
but would know precious little about their action medically.

Regards,
Pissant from OZ,
(Gullible idiot and candidate for the "Darwin Award", according to several
of the learned colleagues here. Perhaps they are of the type that insisted
that the earth was flat, and that Copernicus was a heretic in the middle
ages. So sure in their little bit of knowledge, their minds are made up,
and
they refuse to be confused with facts!)
[/quote]
Have you _ever_ cracked a chemistry or biology textbook? It really doesn>t
hurt, y>know.

Madalch · Guest

On Oct 10, 6:56 pm, "Pissant" <indeorewend...@7LK48kltyrwept.org.tt>
wrote:

[quote]The German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer was the first to identify this
process, and wrote that :-
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it
is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as self-evident."
[/quote]
"They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the
Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."
--Carl Sagan.

Just because an idea is ridiculed does not mean that it is truth.

Pissant · Guest

"Rob" <robbie.buckleyaoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:48ef4b8c$0$31804$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
[quote]Bullshit.
Proof?
Must all be true, cos it says so on the internet? Idiot.

Have you _ever_ cracked a chemistry or biology textbook? It really doesn>t
hurt, y>know.
[/quote]
The fact that you reply with mainly one word answers, and ask me to do even
more work for you, despite being given ample references and names that you
could look up if you were really interested to make an objective criticism
of these matters, suggests two possibilities to me.

One is that you are a learned expert on these matters, widely read on the
work of all of the people referenced, and have carefully considered their
theories and through a process of scientific and intellectual rigor have
decided to disagree. However you lack the time to pose any reasoned
response, being so busy pushing back the frontiers of learning, and so
resort to almost mono-syllabic negative responses. However I feel this is
the less probable case.

More likely is it that you know nothing at all about the matters linked to,
seeing you had to resort to Google to find anything at all on the subjects,
and then couldn>t find anything, because of my misspelling of one name, and
now having been given the links, resort to calls of "bullshit" and
"quackery", without any real consideration of the issues and claims
involved. You had obviously never heard of the work of Enderlein, or
Bechamps, and probably still have no idea about the work of Virginia
Livingstone or Royal Raymond Rife or Gaston Naessens (which a careful
following of the subject of pleomorphism would have inevitably have led you
to), because one simply could not take in the enormous scope of their work
in the time taken for your response, much less formulate cogent argument in
rebuttal. You perhaps fall into the mould of those prone to wildly chanting
slogans while dancing around piles of burning books in times gone by.
Scientific and medical orthodoxy has over the course of the growth of
knowledge been wrong far more often than it has been right.

You are chanting "bullshit" and "quackery" purely on the base of yesterdays
orthodoxy. I do not claim that every aspect of the work of those I
referenced is absolutely correct in all details, but along with some still
violent opposition, there is a growing acceptance of many of the things
they postulated.

The German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer was the first to identify this
process, and wrote that :-
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it
is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as self-evident."

The subjects I referenced for you are currently in between the second and
third stage!

Do you see where your understanding of these matters is at on the
Schopenhauer scale?

In response to your concluding and only sensible question. Yes.

Regards,
Pissant from OZ, (Orthodox Iconoclast)
Gullible idiot and candidate for the "Darwin Award", according to several
of the learned colleagues here. Perhaps they are of the type that insisted
that the earth was flat, and that Copernicus was a heretic in the middle
ages. So sure in their little bit of knowledge, their minds are made up, and
they refuse to be confused with facts!)

Pissant · Guest

"Bill Penrose" <dangerousbill@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f74646c3-dd11-49ec-b16e-436d1b62914c@c22g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 8, 11:31 pm, "Pissant" <indeorewend...@7LK48kltyrwept.org.tt>
wrote:

I>ll wait for the movie, thanks.

Dangerous Bill

The movie is already out Bill.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EC4hpiCnQug
Can you speak German?

Regards,
Pissant from OZ, (Orthodox Iconoclast)
Gullible idiot and candidate for the "Darwin Award", according to several
of the learned colleagues here. Perhaps they are of the type that insisted
that the earth was flat, and that Copernicus was a heretic in the middle
ages. So sure in their little bit of knowledge, their minds are made up, and
they refuse to be confused with facts!)

Pissant · Guest

"Madalch" <tressure@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:eb7799e7-751b-4d04-9870-4dfefc5adcc5@p10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 10, 6:56 pm, "Pissant" <indeorewend...@7LK48kltyrwept.org.tt>
wrote:

"They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the
Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."
--Carl Sagan.

Just because an idea is ridiculed does not mean that it is truth.
==================================================

We both can agree on that, as it isn>t an new concept, and almost falls into
that category of "truth" which some consider to be self evident.

But I think between Carl Sagen and Arthur Schopenhauer, the latter>s opinion
is the more pertinent in cases of the present ilk. Schopenhauer does not
opine that ridicule and opposition is any indication of the correctness of a
new concept. He merely states that any idea which is new or different to the
established orthodoxy will be ridiculed and violently opposed, before it
becomes accepted. Clearly the principal relevance of his statement is to
matters which are ultimatly proven to be true.

If any inference is to be drawn from Schopenhauer, it must be that ridicule
and violent opposition are to be expected as the norm for all new concepts,
and that they are no indication that a new concept is wrong.

The absence of such ridicule and opposition to a new idea would only
indicate it was something completely insignificant.

Regards,
Pissant from OZ, (Orthodox Iconoclast)
Gullible idiot and candidate for the "Darwin Award", according to several
of the learned colleagues here. Perhaps they are of the type that insisted
that the earth was flat, and that Copernicus was a heretic in the middle
ages. So sure in their little bit of knowledge, their minds are made up, and
they refuse to be confused with facts!)

Magnesium Chloride, yum, yum, have some for breakfast! Its very good for
you!
http://www.mgwater.com/rodtitle.shtml

http://www.mgwater.com/Seelig/Magnesium-Deficiency-in-the-Pathogenesis-of-Disease/jacket.shtml

Peter Fairbrother · Guest

Madalch wrote:
[quote]NO!, NO! Dear friend, not sodium chlorate, sodium chlorite, when you mix it
with a weak acid, it releases the chlorine dioxide into the bloodstream
after it is mixed with water or fruit juice and is then ingested.

Good God, man!!! And you think this is supposed to be -good- for
you???

Yes, it may react with pathogens, but ClO2 doesn>t distinguish between
organic molecules which are part of a bacterium and organic molecules
which are a part of you. It>s a bad idea.
[/quote]
Second that.

[quote]
This is a new medical breakthrough
[/quote]
No, chlorite has been investigated for treating several diseases, going
back a long time.

that is ignored by the allopathic medical system that
[quote]is dominated by big pharmaceutical companies,
[/quote]
No, they have investigated it quite a bit in the past, and they aren>t
ignoring it now, but don>t expect much - it>s all been done before.

because it is non patentable

No, in the EU it could be patented under a "Swiss Claim" which is,
roughly, a patent for using something which is in itself not patentable
in a remedy (I am simplifying the Swiss Claim patent position a bit, but
it doesn>t affect the result. It doesn>t have anything to do with the
Swiss, the idea just started there).

A recent example of a Swiss Claim patent being granted is the use of
methylene blue, which has been available in tablet form for 50+ years,
for the treatment of Alzheimer>s.

US law is slightly different, and it would be straightforward to patent
a new use there.

Further, the mixing with citric acid to form a medicine would be
straightforwardly patentable in either jurisdiction.

[quote]and it can cure almost any viral or bacterial disease.
[/quote]
No. While chlorite it may have some use in some acute life-threatening
cases, it>s far too dangerous and damaging for everyday use, and often
ineffective - put simply, for most bacterial and almost all viral
pathogens the dose required to kill the pathogen is greater than the
dose required to kill the patient.

By the way, both sodium chlorite and methylene blue have been
investigated in the treatment of malaria - but this doesn>t prevent them
being patented for other uses. Neither was very effective, though there
are some new results which suggest chlorite may be more effective than
previously thought - however these results are disputed, and seem
unlikely on the face of things.

Methylene blue however is a reasonably effective anti-malarial. But
using chlorite as an anti-malarial, where a dose is taken every day,
would be lethal - it would cause too much damage.

I am having an ethical problem continuing this - are you suffering from
a lethal disease, or are you just a hypochondriac?

'Cos if you are suffering from something which is going to kill you
soon, it can be worthwhile taking a therapy which will kill you later -
but if I suggest a last-chance therapy a hypochondriac might take it, to
his detriment.

-- Peter Fairbrother

Pissant · Guest

"Peter Fairbrother" <zenadsl6186@zen.co.uk> wrote in message
news:48f10088$0$3537$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk...
[quote]Madalch wrote:
A very interesting post, comments interleaved.[/quote]

[quote]No, chlorite has been investigated for treating several diseases, going
back a long time.

that is ignored by the allopathic medical system that
is dominated by big pharmaceutical companies,

No, they have investigated it quite a bit in the past, and they aren>t
ignoring it now, but don>t expect much - it>s all been done before.
[/quote]
This is not coming from the pharmaceutical companies, in fact if you read
the story of it there is evidence that as usual their attitude is to
suppress it.
If you are interested browse through this book.

http://www.miraclems.com/dwnldmms1.html
[quote]
because it is non patentable

No, in the EU it could be patented under a "Swiss Claim" which is,
roughly, a patent for using something which is in itself not patentable in
a remedy (I am simplifying the Swiss Claim patent position a bit, but it
doesn>t affect the result. It doesn>t have anything to do with the Swiss,
the idea just started there).

A recent example of a Swiss Claim patent being granted is the use of
methylene blue, which has been available in tablet form for 50+ years, for
the treatment of Alzheimer>s.

US law is slightly different, and it would be straightforward to patent a
new use there.

Further, the mixing with citric acid to form a medicine would be
straightforwardly patentable in either jurisdiction.
[/quote]
If what you say is true, I think it is a very unfortunate and immoral
situation that the concept of patentability should be extended so far. The
idea of patenting has expanded to the point where it is being used to deny
the benefits of knowledge to much of the world, while at the same time
distorting the direction of intellectual endeavour away from pure research
towards specific commercial ends. Thus acting not as a stimulus, but as a
brake on the pursuit of knowledge, for the benefit of the few, at the
expense of the many. Without using the word in any religious sense I
consider such an extension of patentability to be pure evil. It wouldn>t
surprise me that it occurred in the EU, which is a fundamentally
antidemocratic structure which has only a superficial veneer of democracy.
If you disagree research the relative powers of the unelected European
Council and the highly restrictive rules of debate in the European
Parliament. The power structure of the EU represents the global elite, not
the peoples of Europe, who labour under the illusion of really
representative democracy, whereas the reality id vastly different.
[quote]
and it can cure almost any viral or bacterial disease.

No. While chlorite it may have some use in some acute life-threatening
cases, it>s far too dangerous and damaging for everyday use, and often
ineffective - put simply, for most bacterial and almost all viral
pathogens the dose required to kill the pathogen is greater than the dose
required to kill the patient.

Please read the book or at least brows it, and then comment. It may be that[/quote]
the dosage recommended, a few drops of a 37% solution mixed with a weak acid
citric, acetic, possibly as lemon juice or vinegar, then left to react for
three minutes and then mixed with a fruit juice, is much lower than what you
have in mind.

[quote]

By the way, both sodium chlorite and methylene blue have been investigated
in the treatment of malaria - but this doesn>t prevent them being patented
for other uses. Neither was very effective, though there are some new
results which suggest chlorite may be more effective than previously
thought - however these results are disputed, and seem unlikely on the
face of things.

Methylene blue however is a reasonably effective anti-malarial. But using
chlorite as an anti-malarial, where a dose is taken every day, would be
lethal - it would cause too much damage.

I am having an ethical problem continuing this - are you suffering from a
lethal disease, or are you just a hypochondriac?

'Cos if you are suffering from something which is going to kill you soon,
it can be worthwhile taking a therapy which will kill you later - but if I
suggest a last-chance therapy a hypochondriac might take it, to his
detriment.
[/quote]
I am neither suffering from an incurable disease, nor am I a hypochondriac.
I came across the Sodium Chlorite treatment by chance, while researching the
properties and uses of magnesium chloride as a dietary supplement, and found
it very interesting. There appears to be quite a sound basis to it based on
the proponents experiences in Africa and South America. Please have a look
at the above link and comment.
Also the stuff is already being sold on the internet widely, (as MMS -
Miracle Mineral Supplement) and if it was half as dangerous as you make
out, we would have had an epidemic of sudden deaths from chlorine dioxide
poisoning. There hasn>t been, but lots of testimonials that it is effective.
Even if it is not so effective as claimed, the situation of already
widespread use does not fit with it being as dangerous as you claim. Maybe
dose critical?
The fact that I have not gone off and bought it off the internet, might
convince you that I am neither a hypochondriac nor particularly gullible. I
am researching it further, and you seem to have made the most intelligent
comments so far, and thus I invite you to see what I have read and further
comment.

I am interested in how to make sodium chlorite from other sodium and
chlorine compounds if there is a simple method, as the industrial process is
unsuitable for adaptation to small scale production with simple equipment.
( I know I can buy it as a lab reagent, or possibly as a water treatment
agent.)

I can>t see why you would have an ethical problem continuing, are you a
medical doctor?

Also the original heading of this thread was "Converting Magnesium Sulphate
to Magnesium Chloride", and clearly now it has drifted onto another subject,
so I propose to also repost this reply under a new heading "Sodium
Chlorite - MMS - Broad Spectrum Viral treatment??" and hopefully invite some
further intelligent contributions.

Thank you for your response and I look forward to your further comments.

Regards,
Pissant from OZ, (Orthodox Iconoclast)
Gullible idiot and candidate for the "Darwin Award", according to several
of the learned colleagues here. Perhaps they are of the type that insisted
that the earth was flat, and that Copernicus was a heretic in the middle
ages. So sure in their little bit of knowledge, their minds are made up, and
they refuse to be confused with facts!)


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Chemistry Forum	Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next
Page 2 of 3