"However, it is important to note that the immune enhancement observed was transient, as the growth curves of both groups started to converge after 30 days."
"It is worth noting that CD11b+Gr-1+ cells possess immunosuppressive properties and contribute to the promotion of cancer metastasis [18], which may explain the transient nature of the immune response stimulated by intratumoral CD injection."
Q: Did the treatment group tumour size meet the growth trajectories of the control group after day 30?
A: "However, it is important to note that the immune enhancement observed was transient, as the growth curves of both groups started to converge after 30 days."
Discussion: Does this mean that treatment was not 'effective' post 30 days?
I personally want CD to be effective, as I believe the oxidizers are amazing, and CD is easier to transport and use compared to ozone, and can be mixed on site compared to hydrogen peroxide.
“I personally want CD to be effective, as I believe the oxidizers are amazing, and CD is easier to transport and use compared to ozone, and can be mixed on site compared to hydrogen peroxide.”
---------Yes, your judgment is very professional and accurate.
Thank you for carefully reading my article. The mechanisms by which intratumoral injection of chlorine dioxide therapy rapidly kills tumor cells include the following four aspects:
1. **Directly killing cancer cells:** Chlorine dioxide reacts chemically to quickly and effectively destroy cancer cells.
2. **Disrupting tumor blood vessels:** It cuts off the tumor's blood supply, "starving" the cancer cells and causing extensive necrosis.
3. **Eliminating inflammation around the tumor:** This restores vital systemic functions, particularly the immune system, refocusing it on suppressing the tumor.
4. **Promoting wound healing:** After the tumor is cleared, chlorine dioxide accelerates the healing of affected tissues, restoring them to a healthy state.
Regarding the activation of anti-tumor immune responses, my research indicates that it might exist but at a very minimal level. However, I am not concerned about this, as the direct tumor-killing capacity of my therapy is so strong that it does not rely on immunological activity.
In specific clinical cases, for a patient's tumor, necrosis can be observed (via ultrasound) progressively beginning just 30 minutes after injection, and within approximately 2 hours, most of the tumor shows significant necrosis. Therefore, this therapy does not rely on the effects following immune activation.
Dear Liu, Believe me, you will not get it if you can cure. Pharma just wants expensive treatments to hide/relieve symptoms, not cure. Independent scientists should be financed for control studies without big pharma involved. The link is not working as hyperlink, for me.
But why price a very inexpensive therapy high, available only to rich? Am I missing something? Have you heard of the Day Tapes? How already in 1969, they had most cures for cancers, but, with population explosions plus finite energy resources, they realised saturation of earth by humans would arrive sooner, if they saved cancer sufferers, so they let them die, after extracting much $$$ from them with killer procedures, like chemo.
What I said was a metaphor. I want to tell you that I don't think large pharmaceutical companies deliberately block curative cancer therapies from being approved, nor do they have the ability to do so.
If my therapy is approved, I hope to price it based on value. For example, if Bill Gates were to use my therapy, then I would price it at $100 million. If a poor person were to use my therapy, I would price it at $100.
If a therapy can cure cancer, it certainly doesn't need to be set at a high price that makes it inaccessible to the majority of poor people. If you've studied economics, you'd know the concept of monopoly pricing: setting a high price for the wealthy and a lower price for the poor.
An interesting fact for you. I read the other day that the word CURE is no where in any at all medical dictionary. Isn't that interesting. I found it shocking but....now days not shocked at all. You are spot on in your Big Pharma comment of life long treatment only. Anything involving CURE, to them is quackery.
"I invented the intratumoral injection of chlorine dioxide"
My friend, you did not invent it. CDS has been used previously. People injected CDS experimentally before 2014 (just as I was involved with injecting ozone gas into muscles).
You are the pioneer in this protocol, and the investigator and first to publish medical research in this procedure.
Please note that this treatment method was invented by me, and intratumoral injection is different from intramuscular injection. Furthermore, my patent application was submitted as early as 2014. Therefore, it is correct for me to state that I am the inventor of the intratumoral chlorine dioxide injection therapy.
How do you guide the needle into the tumor? Ultrasound, or otherwise? Do you have any publication on this procedure, which would be helpful to any practitioners whom wish to replicate some of your experiments.
"However, it is important to note that the immune enhancement observed was transient, as the growth curves of both groups started to converge after 30 days."
"It is worth noting that CD11b+Gr-1+ cells possess immunosuppressive properties and contribute to the promotion of cancer metastasis [18], which may explain the transient nature of the immune response stimulated by intratumoral CD injection."
Q: Did the treatment group tumour size meet the growth trajectories of the control group after day 30?
A: "However, it is important to note that the immune enhancement observed was transient, as the growth curves of both groups started to converge after 30 days."
Discussion: Does this mean that treatment was not 'effective' post 30 days?
I personally want CD to be effective, as I believe the oxidizers are amazing, and CD is easier to transport and use compared to ozone, and can be mixed on site compared to hydrogen peroxide.
“I personally want CD to be effective, as I believe the oxidizers are amazing, and CD is easier to transport and use compared to ozone, and can be mixed on site compared to hydrogen peroxide.”
---------Yes, your judgment is very professional and accurate.
Thank you for carefully reading my article. The mechanisms by which intratumoral injection of chlorine dioxide therapy rapidly kills tumor cells include the following four aspects:
1. **Directly killing cancer cells:** Chlorine dioxide reacts chemically to quickly and effectively destroy cancer cells.
2. **Disrupting tumor blood vessels:** It cuts off the tumor's blood supply, "starving" the cancer cells and causing extensive necrosis.
3. **Eliminating inflammation around the tumor:** This restores vital systemic functions, particularly the immune system, refocusing it on suppressing the tumor.
4. **Promoting wound healing:** After the tumor is cleared, chlorine dioxide accelerates the healing of affected tissues, restoring them to a healthy state.
Regarding the activation of anti-tumor immune responses, my research indicates that it might exist but at a very minimal level. However, I am not concerned about this, as the direct tumor-killing capacity of my therapy is so strong that it does not rely on immunological activity.
In specific clinical cases, for a patient's tumor, necrosis can be observed (via ultrasound) progressively beginning just 30 minutes after injection, and within approximately 2 hours, most of the tumor shows significant necrosis. Therefore, this therapy does not rely on the effects following immune activation.
I have forwarded your reply to lifestyle medicine MD doctor for potential evaluation
Xuewu, please learn how to make your link active.
Congratulations on awarding yourself the Nobel Prize...
and try not to confuse it with the Noble Lie of the Hierarchical Priesthood of whatever Sect: Medicine or Politicks (sicK--pun intended).
Whatever, keep up your good work to get the Universal Antidote out there freely for all to use.
Dear Liu, Believe me, you will not get it if you can cure. Pharma just wants expensive treatments to hide/relieve symptoms, not cure. Independent scientists should be financed for control studies without big pharma involved. The link is not working as hyperlink, for me.
I will become a large pharmaceutical company myself, and I will price my therapy very high, so the issues you mentioned will no longer exist.
But why price a very inexpensive therapy high, available only to rich? Am I missing something? Have you heard of the Day Tapes? How already in 1969, they had most cures for cancers, but, with population explosions plus finite energy resources, they realised saturation of earth by humans would arrive sooner, if they saved cancer sufferers, so they let them die, after extracting much $$$ from them with killer procedures, like chemo.
What I said was a metaphor. I want to tell you that I don't think large pharmaceutical companies deliberately block curative cancer therapies from being approved, nor do they have the ability to do so.
If my therapy is approved, I hope to price it based on value. For example, if Bill Gates were to use my therapy, then I would price it at $100 million. If a poor person were to use my therapy, I would price it at $100.
If a therapy can cure cancer, it certainly doesn't need to be set at a high price that makes it inaccessible to the majority of poor people. If you've studied economics, you'd know the concept of monopoly pricing: setting a high price for the wealthy and a lower price for the poor.
Dear Xuewu. I hope you win the Nobel Prize, not only in science, but also for your humanitarian efforts for saving people's lives!
An interesting fact for you. I read the other day that the word CURE is no where in any at all medical dictionary. Isn't that interesting. I found it shocking but....now days not shocked at all. You are spot on in your Big Pharma comment of life long treatment only. Anything involving CURE, to them is quackery.
I love ducks. Hahaha
Too bad my vote doesn't count. You would have it for sure.
Thank you very much.
"I invented the intratumoral injection of chlorine dioxide"
My friend, you did not invent it. CDS has been used previously. People injected CDS experimentally before 2014 (just as I was involved with injecting ozone gas into muscles).
You are the pioneer in this protocol, and the investigator and first to publish medical research in this procedure.
Please note that this treatment method was invented by me, and intratumoral injection is different from intramuscular injection. Furthermore, my patent application was submitted as early as 2014. Therefore, it is correct for me to state that I am the inventor of the intratumoral chlorine dioxide injection therapy.
How do you guide the needle into the tumor? Ultrasound, or otherwise? Do you have any publication on this procedure, which would be helpful to any practitioners whom wish to replicate some of your experiments.