Enema as primary protocol

Why isn't the enema used as primary protocol? The obvious answer might be that performing it is unpleasant but putting that inhibition aside, is it not a much better delivery method than oral?

1. It bypasses the stomach and can be absorbed directly into the blood stream
2. It bypasses the mouth avoiding that horrible gagging feeling on high doses or empty stomach.

Much higher doses can be administered without causing nausea.

I realize the current protocol 1000 is 3 drops every hour and compared to 15 twice a day its better. It's more palatable and delivers sustained mms supply to the blood

But with houlry enemas you could delivery many more drops per hour, and lets face it the more mms you can get inside you the more can be used to attack the problem. By enema i just mean a syringe with the rectal tube so no major set up or need to lie down; just a 5 minute trip to the toilet. The idea would be the body absorbs the mms in liquid not excrete it out the rectum.

What am i missing here? why isn't it the primary modality ?

Maybe it's the difference between living in the "Real world" and in the "ideal world"

In the ideal world MMS would taste delicious and be a delight to take.
But in the real world it's pretty horrible stuff to drink.

But having said that - it's a lot easier then doing hourly enema's for 3 weeks.

Can you imagine running a jungle clinic with dozens (or hundreds) lined up. You can't treat very many per hour, how do you sanitize between clients, without flush toilets there would be a big mess around How do you send them home with instructions to repeat daily, hourly enema bags don't grow on trees.

@ARCHER

"In the ideal world MMS would taste delicious and be a delight to take.
But in the real world it's pretty horrible stuff to drink."

Archer, hang on as there is a new way to make MMS now being tested that has no odor and tastes like plain water.

Stay tuned.....

JB13 that sounds very exciting- i just hope it's as easy as preparing regular MMS. One of the drawbacks of CDS is it takes some time and effort to prepare.

The enema raises some interesting questions. Of course its much less application-friendly especially in larger clinical settings, but putting that aside and focusing only on effectiveness at restoring health it seems like it may have more potential:

1. Is more MMS in the blood better or not? I know current protocol emphasizes sustained delivery rather high quantities, and given a choice between the 8 x 3 drops per day vs 2 x 15 i think the former is better. But this is also based on the patient avoiding nausea. Remove nausea from the equation and lets say we can deliver 80 or even more drops per day via enema, wouldn't that be more effective? It seems to be established that more MMS is better hence the existence of protocol 2 and 3000.

2. does enema eliminate nausea? We commonly say nausea is too much "die off" of pathogens, but frankly i think it's the stomach and taste buds that cant stand the stuff and cause nausea. If that's correct we can deliver very high doses via enema with no nausea which is a great plus.

3. Are high enema doses safe? Could high mms doses cause irritation of the intestinal lining? If it is safe it seems like all the more reason to use either in combo or a main delivery method.

JB13 wrote: @ARCHER

"In the ideal world MMS would taste delicious and be a delight to take.
But in the real world it's pretty horrible stuff to drink."

Archer, hang on as there is a new way to make MMS now being tested that has no odor and tastes like plain water.

Stay tuned.....

wow!! Can you give us some more info about it?

Karlenar, check your PM.