You have quite the talent for changing the context.
Again, let me explain rat to human testing. I already talked about this in an earlier thread.
Scientist certainly do use animal testing to help establish safety in humans. They use certain protocols, record keeping, they retest, etc.... Once you have the rat information, there is then quite a bit of mathematical and statistical manipulation that is done to those numbers in an attempt to make it relevant to humans. My point was, that unless you're the next Eistein or have a good academic background such as a Ph.D. or having years of such experience, it's unlikely that you would actually be able to produce any relevant data. At the very least, they use concepts involving orders of magnitude to fill in the gap between rodents and humans. Further, there must be statistical analysis in order to generate the mathematics which indicate how valid or invalid the testing was at all. Also, you should be reporting your math when you report your experiments. Again, without it, there's no point in going further. Also, I will say that here have been tests on Monkeys, cats, and other animals.
So, I'm not disputing that you believe you can duplicate or even advance testing of mms, but as far as I know, you test in your kitchen, you tell people not to worry about the amount of ClO2 gas released, you don't have a lab, you don't have the basic skills to actually produce meaningful data, and while I think you mean well, you have no basis for giving anyone advice that is pro in vivo at all.
That is the problem. There are no relevant studies which show that ClO2 is safe in vivo, or another way, to ingest.
You are quite right that there are human studies with ClO2, although not mms, and they're not necessarily the same. Most studies, as you well know (so please stop trying to change the subject) involve inhalation. Period. There are a limited number of human studies that test ingestion but these tests have generally been done to test whether or not ClO2 is safe as a water purifier. Testing results of that are not transferable to the way people are using mms.
You are quite familiar with all the tests out there and you know that human tests involving ingestion have shown that ClO2 can cause problems with red blood cells, anemia, thyroid, and higher rates of prenatal problems. In fact, the test most often cited is the one in which there are three groups of HEALTHY men who drink ClO2 in various combinations as a way to purify water. It lasted, I believe, 12 weeks and the authors concede that it was too short, there was no follow-up and even though the voluteers did not show any health issues serious enough to require intervention, they did find some negative effects on the body that could lead to potential problems. The very fact that this test was designed to use only healthy males as subjects is an obvious design flaw if someone is trying to prove how safe ClO2 is for the population at large. Context is very important.
It is the trained scientists who did the published studies that were used to try to identify safe limits of both inhalation and ingestion of ClO2. Your tests are not done following protocols they use and so while you obviously find them interesting, as do others, it doesn't mean they have the validity to be used to set safe ingestion limits.
Taking information out of context and trying to use it to prove something that wasn't part of the origianl research, is what people like Humble do. It has to be in there first.