Hi there,
I am Rhys, the teenager who has been leading the campaign against MMS here in the UK - the campaign which has spread across the world.
First, I'd like to state that the BBC did not run the story because they're part of some Big Pharma conspiracy - they ran it after picking up on my story - it was my campaigning which gave them the story. Not the doctor, not Big Pharma, not Dom - me.
Second, clearly, shutting Jim Humble down is not impossible. I've caused the FSA to release a warning who passed it onto the European Commission who passed it on to the World Health Organisation.
Even it it were extremely difficult to shut Jim himself down, it's possibly to educate future potential users of the dangers.
I'd like to thank you for all the anti-MMS articles on your website, including mirroring articles about my campaign and mirroring this video.
- Rhys

Another Impression I got from the video is If they ban or control the MMS, the same thing will apply for vitamins because both are categorised under the supplements.

No, the only reason that MMS is being banned is because it's an inherently dangerous supplement.
Vitamins, while 200+ mg of Vitamin C won't necessarily do anything, it also won't do you any harm. MMS will.
There's the difference.

Above, Quoting Laura.

I was thinking that since JH is able to sell this poison as a supplement, that later on they (PTB) could use it to imply that all supplementation is bad. This would allow them to pass sweeping laws (which to my understanding they intend to do) which ban the use of supplementation.

Apologies for not being to specific, I don't fully understand Codex Alimentarius [Link]but thought maybe there is a connection between how they will forward (force) the Code and this JH guy. Hopefully that makes sense.

I have a background such that I worked in the bleachery section of a pulp mill where sodium hypochlorite, chlorine gas and chlorine dioxide gas were used as part of the process. One of the occupational hazards was inhaling the gases when too much remained in the pulp as it was washed. I recall that chlorine dioxide was far more reactive than chlorine itself. This means ClO2 reacted vigorously but because of that fact became harmless quickly. Chlorine was used in the initial gas warfare attacks of WW I. The effects of inhaling included shortness of breath and the standard treatment by co-workers was consuming bubbly carbon dioxide beverages like soda or beer. Now maybe "MMS" may be suitable for sterilizing surfaces or an enclosed atmosphere, but I myself wouldn't take it internally. I am certainly not an authority regarding "dosages", but I would advise people to research the MSDS sheets regarding the contents of "MMS". My suspicion is that it may well cause allergic reactions even if the dose was nominal. Also, that were it to have any substantive effect as a disinfectant, the dose required may well prove lethal. Even at my most charitable, I would have to say that this item is extremely overpriced.

I have no stake in either side of the debate.

some of you just talk and believe propaganda ihave researched intensly mms 1 and 2
and i have taken it when nothing else helped me anymore mms2 saved MY LIFE so i speak from experience and knowledge yes i got diarrea but everything came out of my body and being so sick that i only could crawl to the bathroom and the doctors gave me up taking 3 days mms 2 and i was healed so i love jim humble
blessings iris

While I agree wholeheartedly that shysters like Jim Humble need to be exposed, I have to take issue with SOTT's speculative rationale on the part of the BBC.

I see no reason to infer that the BBC "wants" people to take MMS, and the rationale that they are doing so by giving it publicity is a charge that could equally be claimed against sott.net for doing the very same thing! The only difference is that sott is an independent website and the BBC is obviously a giant mainstream corporation.

Whoever wrote that commentary on behalf of SOTT is exhibiting a form of irrationality that is highly prevalent throughout the "conspiracy scene", I.E: the assumption that if something appears in the mainstream media then it MUST be part of "The Agenda". This simply is not true. A company like the BBC employs thousands of individuals, making hundreds of shows. If one assumes there was an ulterior agenda for this piece on The One Show, then we must also assume that the researchers and producers were also in on it. We have to assume shady meetings between BBC officials and the pharmaceutical industry, secretly plotting to expose this vile impostor to medicine in order to... make people buy it so that... they profit from sale of drugs....ummm, hang on I'm confused now!

The motivations of the doctor in this clip are also equally easy to explain without resorting to baseless speculation. Perhaps he is an official mouthpiece for the pharmaceutical industry, but it is also equally, if not more likely, that he is simply expressing his own genuine opinion. If that makes him deluded, so be it, but it does not necessarily mean he is there to promote anyone else's agenda.

I suggest as well that this should be read before concluding what is pure and simple, which it is not, evidently. Especially when you digest this intricate logical information about a purely logical look at it. Read it all, then make a logical comment to either refute or concur, not just dismiss.

Just saying young lad your a smart whipper and I appreciate your tenacity but don't throw that baby out with the bathwater boyo.

Danny Muir

[Link]