A Nobel Prize-Worthy Paper Rejected Again by a Peer-Reviewed Journal: My Thoughts and Decisions
A few days ago, I wrote a post asserting that the preclinical research report on my intratumoral chlorine dioxide therapy is a paper worthy of a Nobel Prize.
Link to original post
My claim is based on the latest clinical summary of our work:
Link to clinical summary
However, just earlier today, I received a rejection letter from a journal where my manuscript had been under review for six months:
Dear Mr. Liu,
Thank you for submitting your manuscript to Journal of Drug Delivery Science and Technology. I regret to inform you that we have been unable to secure reviewers willing to review your manuscript, and we must therefore reject it. I am sorry to disappoint you with this decision and hope that you will be able to successfully publish your manuscript elsewhere.
Thank you again for submitting your manuscript to this journal and for giving us the opportunity to consider your work.
Kind regards,
Feng Zhang
Associate Editor
Journal of Drug Delivery Science and Technology
Why I Believe My Therapy Can Cure Cancer
Using common sense and the data we’ve collected, it is clear that my intratumoral chlorine dioxide therapy has the potential to cure cancer. In a short period (four injections over 21 days), the therapy can completely eliminate tumors in the body, regardless of the size or number of tumors (excluding those that cannot be accessed for intratumoral injection under ultrasound guidance). For example, each tumor with a diameter of 4 cm can be injected in under 2 minutes.
This treatment has no side effects (except for manageable pain) and surpasses all existing therapies. Additionally, it eliminates inflammation around the tumor.
Given that time is the most precious resource for cancer patients, my therapy’s ability to completely eradicate cancer in a short period gives me an urgent motivation to promote this treatment and save as many late-stage cancer patients as possible. This is why I have partnered with clinics in countries like Germany, Mexico, Brazil, and the Philippines to treat patients using this therapy as an alternative treatment.
The clinical data we’ve collected so far is highly consistent and aligns with our expectations. Based on the clinical summary, I am now more confident than ever that my intratumoral chlorine dioxide therapy can cure cancer, revolutionize cancer treatment, significantly reduce global cancer mortality rates, and dramatically improve human life expectancy.
For a breakthrough therapy like this, even ten Nobel Prizes would not suffice to recognize its value. However, this therapy has yet to gain recognition from the scientific community.
Why Peer-Reviewed Journals Keep Rejecting My Paper
Despite the groundbreaking nature of my therapy, my preclinical research report has been submitted to nearly ten peer-reviewed journals, all of which have rejected it. Based on the rejection letters, I suspect the reasons for rejection are as follows:
Bias Against Chlorine Dioxide:
Reviewers likely reject the paper outright upon seeing "chlorine dioxide," influenced by repeated FDA warnings about its use.Simplicity of the Therapy:
My therapy is simple and straightforward, requiring only common sense to understand. It does not rely on complex technologies or molecular-level experiments, which may lead reviewers to dismiss it as unscientific.Departure from Conventional Medical Knowledge:
My therapy does not heavily rely on existing medical knowledge, making it appear to reviewers as if it is "built on thin air."
Clearly, the entrenched backgrounds and path dependencies of reviewers in traditional cancer research make it difficult for them to accept a therapy developed through first-principles thinking and common sense.
The Problems with Traditional Cancer Research
In this post, I analyzed the issues inherent in traditional medical research, particularly cancer research. One major issue is the excessive focus on complex technologies and molecular mechanisms.
This approach often prevents researchers from coming up with truly groundbreaking cancer therapies. Traditional cancer research is akin to digging a well by the side of a river to fetch water, all while ignoring the abundant river water nearby.
A timely example is the wildfires in Los Angeles. Firefighting efforts were hindered by a lack of water, even though vast amounts of water were being discharged into the ocean from California. Perhaps if water from Northern California had been diverted to reservoirs near Los Angeles, the wildfires would not have caused such devastating damage.
Similarly, traditional medical research operates within a highly closed system. Researchers within this system are financially and professionally dependent on it, and disrupting the system would severely impact their interests. As a result, the system’s participants lack creativity and may consciously or unconsciously suppress groundbreaking innovations.
My Confidence in the Therapy’s Future
Based on the latest clinical summary, I am confident that once my therapy undergoes clinical trials and receives approval from regulatory agencies worldwide, 30%-50% of global cancer patients could be cured using my therapy alone.
Such a result would significantly disrupt the cancer treatment market, causing many existing cancer therapies to lose market share and potentially leaving numerous oncologists unemployed. It is understandable that peer reviewers may not believe in or want to see such a therapy gain widespread recognition.
My Decisions Moving Forward
Today, I have made the following decisions:
Preclinical Research Publication:
I have already published my preclinical research on preprint platforms and will no longer seek publication in other peer-reviewed journals.Promotion of the Therapy:
I will focus on promoting my intratumoral chlorine dioxide therapy in countries that allow for medical freedom, using it as an alternative treatment to save as many late-stage cancer patients as possible.Regulatory Approval:
Over the next 1-3 years, I will apply for new drug approval in major countries and conduct compliant clinical trials to complete Phase III trials as quickly as possible. I am confident that my therapy will pass clinical trials and receive approval as a new drug.Punitive Pricing:
Where legally permissible, I will impose punitive pricing (e.g., 50% above the baseline price) on organizations or groups that have obstructed the promotion of my therapy. This is to hold them accountable for delaying the treatment and causing preventable deaths among patients who could have been saved by my therapy.
Conclusion
I remain steadfast in my belief that intratumoral chlorine dioxide therapy is a revolutionary treatment that can cure cancer and transform the landscape of oncology. Despite the resistance from traditional systems and peer-reviewed journals, I will continue to push forward, driven by the urgency to save lives and bring this therapy to the world.
Great and civilizational changing work, Xuewu! It’s too bad and sickening that profits reign supreme in our messed up world!
Please have a look at this article on the Day Tapes, from 1968/69. Under the heading "Suppressing Cancer Cures as a means of poulation control" It states - "Cancer. He said. "We can cure almost every cancer right now. Information is on file in the Rockefeller Institute, if it's ever decided that it should be released. But consider - if people stop dying of cancer, how rapidly we would become overpopulated. You may as well die of cancer as something else." It goes on to say more which you can read here and you'll realise who and what you are up against. sagehana.substack.com/p/everything-is-in-place-and-nobody