Home‎ > ‎

Dr. Hesselink's Bioredox mmsmedicalresearch

Dr. Thomas Hesselink is a registered General Practitioner in America who has compiled a website and documents with scientific research proving the efficacy of MMS. 


Thomas Hesselink MD is the main "expert" Jim Humble quotes in support of MMS. 


Most people would be convinced that this is proof positive that MMS must be a "scientifically proven" effective medicine. After all, if a medical doctor supports it and and is providing scientific references how the medicine works, surely that's more then enough valid evidence that MMS is effective as a medicine, isn't it?

Forget about the 1st thing you see on Hesselink's site which is a big disclaimer:

  • The information presented within these articles and accompanying communications is offered for legitimate educational and research purposes only.
  • This exists as an exercise of the author's constitutional rights to freedom of speech and to freedom of the press.
  • Nothing herein may be construed as providing:
    medical advice, manufacturing advice, business advice, nor any advice whatsoever, nor endorsement of any kind.
  • No claims, no guarantees nor promises of suitability or efficacy for any purpose are made.
  • The reader is further required and should agree not to aid nor to abet any deceptive, fraudulent, or illegal activity pertaining to any information obtained herein.
Obviously this is just to protect himself from litigation right? But he doesn't "really" mean it if Jim Humble claims THIS is the scientific evidence that proves the efficacy. So is it really that?

You might not be surprised that my answer is, no, it's actually not evidence at all.. 

BUT PLEASE WAIT, don't stop reading! At this point I know a lot of people will dismiss me out of hand and not bother reading on, saying "Well you're just TOO much of a skeptic, you won't believe ANYTHING even when the evidence is right in front of your eyes, so it's not worth reading what you have to say. "

PLEASE let me provide the evidence that proves my position is actually the more reasonable one.

There are three main reasons I can give why DR Hesselink's site is NOT strong evidence to support the efficacy of MMS. 

I will explain each of these in more detail below, but they are:

1. General practitioners are NOT research scientists and are not equipped or qualified to run controlled clinical trials which are the single and most reliable way to prove the efficacy of medicine. 

2. Hesselinks research is purely hypothetical. While a lot of his research "sounds" very scientific and plausible, it has NOT been empirically tested by experiments, except in test tubes. 

3. Hesselink's research is NOT peer reviewed. Generally, research is not taken seriously until it is peer reviewed and repeated by another independent scientist or lab.


1) Doctors in general and especially General Practitioners like Hesselink are not qualified research scientists. 

It is a very common misconception to not make this distinction, most people don't know or think there's a difference, but there is. You would probably have to ask a competent doctor or research scientist to tell you this and I have done both. Let me explain: Undoubtedly doctors are extremely educated and do a lot of training in medicine, they certainly know a lot more about human health and medicine then people who aren't doctors. Most of them ARE very good "scientists", but being a scientists doesn't make you an expert at everything scientific, even if you are in a field that seems similar like "medicine". In particular, General Practitioners are not specifically trained and generally not equipped to run or analyse clinical controlled trials, those are the domain of research scientists. Some research scientists are also qualified General Practitioners, but most GPs are not qualified research scientists. Just like a paediatrician is not qualified to prescribe you eye glasses, a GP is not qualified to run a clinical trial.

I'm not saying some doctors wouldn't make brilliant research scientist, I don't doubt that some do, but importantly: just because someone is a qualified GP you should not assume they make a great, or even half decent, research scientist.

Just think about what GPs are actually trained in. They are trained experts primarily in diagnosing disease and prescribing and administering medicine. However, they are highly dependent on what the results of research scientists tell them. The efficacy of the medicine they prescribe is not analysed by the GP, they rely on the results of clinical trial analysis to tell them which medicine works for what condition. GPs do not run or even analyse the trials for them selves. 

Another important clue is in how a doctor interacts with their patients. They make a diagnosis, they prescribe medicine, they document how successful the treatment was and later alter it if necessary. This process is called "case reporting". Most people would assume that a number of case reports together is no different to a real "clinical trial", but when you look at the process closely, there are very important distinctions. A "case report" is much more like the "personal testimony" of a doctor then a clinical trial. Specifically, it completely lacks most of the "controls"  which are especially designed to eliminate things like bias and placebo effect.

To name just a few:

A GP won't have a proper "control" group so they can't ensure "other" factors didn't play a more significant part in the observed outcome. Did the patient take some other medicine not prescribed by the doctor? Did the patient change their sleeping habits? Did they start meditating? Have they been stressed? Did they change their diet? To name just a few.

A GP also won't have a placebo group so they can't ensure placebo effect is not playing a significant part in the observed outcome. If you are not convinced that this can significantly skew the results of a clinical trial, there is a separate section on Placebo effect on this site, plus loads of material elsewhere on the internet about how placebo can skew a trial and give the impression that something has a medicinal effect when really it actually does nothing. Controlling for placebo effect is a very important part of almost any clinical trial, but not a visit to the GP. 

It is well established that people also in general just want to get better and want something to make them feel better. If they hear that some medicine worked for others, they want it to work for them and they feel like it would be embarrassing or that they are somehow inadequate if it doesn't work for them. Similarly patients who believe their doctor gave them medicine and is expecting them to get better, will also more often report that they do indeed feel better even if there is no change to their condition.. People don't do this on purpose and the incredible part is most people don't even realize they do it! This is called social desirability bias.  This is why properly controlled trials have to be blinded so the patient doesn't actually know "which" medicine they are receiving, the one on trial or a placebo control. 

Perhaps most importantly a GP is not able to conduct case reports in a "double blinded" fashion. This is a critical factor. It is a well established fact that people, including doctors are biased to report far more positively on treatments that they like or already believe to be effective, regardless of their clinical efficacy.  This is called experimenter's bias. 

All humans experience bias, it is psychologically impossible to be entirely sure your own judgement is not affected by this bias. Ironically, often it is the people who most fervently argue that they are not affected by bias who actually are. This is why properly controlled trials have to be double-blinded. 

It is critically important to understand that these biases are NOT conscious decisions made by people with the intention to deceive, you do NOT have to be dishonest or a fool to be affected by these biases, it is entirely human nature, they are simply the way our brains work. Even expertly trained scientists are affected by these biases, that's the whole reason why we have randomized, double blind, placebo controlled clinical trials. It's not just a fancy long name which is a scheme by scientists to keep out the "outsiders". Every single one of those controls is a very carefully considered step to reduce the affect of bias on the result of trials. Something that GPs are NOT generally trained or qualified to do.

Besides, Hesselink never actually claims that he even ran a trial, or that he has even ever prescribed MMS to any of his patients.

2. Hesselinks research is purely hypothetical. 

Most people are not able to really understand Hesselink's "research" and certainly are not qualified to properly analyse it. For another thing there is a whole lot of it! Heaps in fact, but most people just find this daunting, so much scientific jargon, they read a paragraph or two, they read the title of one or two citations and don't bother reading on. It looks plausible, there's lots of "citations" to sciency sounding articles, so a lot of people just accept that the research is, at face value valid, as Hesselink and Humble claim it is. But let's examine if this position is justified, it doesn't take a lot of digging to see the real truth behind this research.

As you can see with just a bit of a browse, the majority of the research and citations just study the antiseptic qualities of 
chlorine dioxide. That it kills germs and bacteria, even how it kills the malaria. But this has never been in dispute, this IS based on real scientific research, it's the reason why Sodium Chlorite is used in municipal water treatment and for disinfecting food and for surface cleaning. It is an antiseptic. But so is alcohol, bleach, dettol and boric acid. But you wouldn't drink any of those to cure a disease, so why would you drink chlorine dioxide?

What is very obvious from even a quick browse, is that what's missing from all these studies are ANY actual studies of what happens when you DRINK Chlorine Dioxide. Most of the quoted articles are of studies conducted IN VITRIO. Which means IN A TEST TUBE.

The site which Jim Humble claims: "you will see that MMS stands up to scientific scrutiny."


Isn't even a trial! Not even "in vitrio"! It's pure speculation, nothing more. He is just theorizing, but it has absolutely no value as scientific research until it is tested.

As you can plainly see from the examples of alcohol and dettol, just because something is an antiseptic in a test tube, does NOT mean in any way that it will make an effective medicine for any disease. The one and ONLY fairly sure way you can positively confirm anything makes a good medicine is with clinical trials in humans. Even pharmaceutical companies invent and produce far more medicine then what actually passes efficacy studies. They conduct enormous amounts of research and in vitrio trials, but it is estimated something like 90% of the medicine conceived by all the companies in the world never makes it all the way through the trials required to pass onto the market as a legitimate scientifically "proven" medicine. Even if something passes "in theory" and "in the test tube" and EVEN in animal trials, it still only has a small chance of actually being an effective medicine for humans. It's something that can not be guessed or theorized, not even by the smartest people in the world. It simply MUST be tested. It doesn't take a lot of searching to see that this is the crucial step completely missing from the mountains of research and citations on Hesselink's and Humble's sites.

3. Hesselink's research is NOT peer reviewed or independently verified. 

In the scientific world, research is generally not worth the paper it is printed on until it is peer reviewed and independently replicated.

There are thousands if not millions of scientists around the world doing all sorts of experiments and trials all the time, not just medical ones. Is every single one of their studies correct and positive 100% of the time? Of course not, that would be a ridiculous assumption. Even careful studies often don't go quite to plan, let alone people who "THINK" they are scientists. Often some factor wasn't considered, or some control wasn't properly implemented, there are many reasons why a scientist or group might get results from a trial or experiment, or even a "theory" that are not accurate. They might be convinced that their work is valid, especially if they are passionate about it, but how can they be sure? 

The ONLY way to be sure that your science is valid is for other people to check your work and try to reproduce it. Scientists and doctors are NOT somehow incapable of making mistakes or being wrong.

The excuse usually given by Jim Humble and Hesselink is that they can't afford a clinical trial or to have their work peer reviewed. Another claim they make is that the "Big Pharma" companies are worried they'd be put out of business so they "block" and suppress any information or research regarding MMS. Unfortunately most people don't really know anything about academic research or the anonymous peer review process and so those claims don't sound unreasonable.

I make some arguments related to this in the section on Clinical trials, but I have a few points to add here.

As of late 2010, Jim Humble and Hesselink have had more then ten years, why hasn't Hesselink managed to convince any of his peers about MMS? Is it really reasonable to assume he is THE ONLY doctor in America who is "brave" enough to stand alone against "Big Pharma"?  Are there NO OTHER doctors willing to stand up for a cheap and effective medicine for all? Is it really reasonable to assume that every single other doctor is greedy and bought out or silenced? No other doctors have parents or other loved ones suffering from diseases? Don't most people become doctors in the 1st place  because they want to HELP people? And if not most, then at least a few? Are there no young and bright doctors just out of university ready to take on the world? And if there really is a "Big Pharma" and the really are "after" Humble, why haven't they just shut down Hesselink's and Jim's sites? You can even google hesselink's address after all, why hasn't Big Pharma paid him a visit to shut him down? He's not in hiding like Jim claims he is. 

Or is it more reasonable to assume that they're one crackpot GP with some zany theories and an old con artist?

Each of these three arguments, even on their own is damming to the position that hesselink's site provides any reasonable evidence that MMS is an effective medicine like they claim.  The three reasons combined should prove beyond any reasonable doubt that scientific evidence for the efficacy of MMS simply does not exist as it is presented by Humble and Hesselink.
Comments