I have yet to see any explanation, including published studies, that actually explains how mms works in vivo. So, aside from a couple of Humble cronies with no credibility, Dr. Hesselink leaps to mind for some reason, no one claims to understand what happens once ClO2 is ingested.
So I have to ask, why would someone take it knowning that no one knows how it works in vivo. And, I have to ask, why would others suggest that it might work and so it might be worth taking, when they too, have no idea how it works or what, ultimately, the effects are when ingested.
I think that society often makes a choice between two options, even if neither of those choices are completely benign. In this case, I think there is a general concensus that ClO2 as used in water treatment, food packing, and other uses, may be less harmful than the known alternatives.
I don't think one can merely extrapolate that choice to another situation and use that as a basis for it's "good," when the original decision was a result of completely different circulstances. Should a decision be based on an earlier, unrelated decision? (I live in a town where people in cars, generally stop when you walk across the street. Were I to do this in NY city, I'd probably be dead in a couple of hours.)
Any thoughts? This, to me, is the crux.
P.S. As far as Hesselink is concerned, he has only compliled a list of some of the ClO2 research involving living things, but there is no proof, nor any implication, that it's good to ingest ClO2. In fact, he covers his backside with a silly "disclaimer" at the top that claims that his list is to be considered only as an attempt to get research money. Last I checked, it didn't work and the last time I filled out grant paperwork, free-syling wasn't encouraged.