Chlorine Dioxide Injection Therapy Officially Offered by Mexican Clinics as an Alternative Treatment for Cancer Patients Worldwide.

On the afternoon of September 20, I reached a cooperation agreement with Gregory DiRienzo, CEO of ICCA Global Cancer Center: starting next month, my chlorine dioxide injection therapy will be offered to cancer patients worldwide through the ICCA Global Cancer Center's clinic in Tijuana, Mexico. This therapy is currently not approved and can only be legally provided to cancer patients in Mexico as an alternative treatment.

The agreement we reached today is a milestone for both parties. For me, it provides a legitimate channel to generate income to support my next clinical trials. For ICCA Global Cancer Center, this therapy will strengthen its position as an international leader in intratumoral injection and bring in a significant volume of patients seeking effective treatment.

I believe that in the future, my chlorine dioxide injection therapy will attract more clinics in Mexico, and I look forward to establishing multiple collaborations across the country.

About Chlorine Dioxide Injection Therapy

The Primary Mechanisms of Intra-Tumoral Chlorine Dioxide (CD) Therapy for Treating Cancer

1.Direct Destruction of Cancer Cells:

•Strong oxidative properties allow chlorine dioxide to kill cancer cells upon contact.

•No need to maintain prolonged presence in the tumor, unlike many existing treatments.

2.Destruction of Tumor Blood Vessels:

•High-concentration chlorine dioxide can damage tumor blood vessels.

•Leads to untreated tumor cells dying due to lack of energy.

3.Induction of Systemic Anti-Tumor Immune Response:

•Triggers a systemic immune response against tumors.

•Effectively inhibits small, untreated tumors at distant sites.

4.Promotion of Tissue Regeneration:

•Supports tissue regeneration, aiding in healing post-tumor removal.

•Crucial for patients with advanced cancer who cannot undergo surgery due to difficulty in healing large wounds.

Comparative Advantages Over Traditional Ablation Methods

1. Convenience

Chlorine dioxide injections take only 10 seconds.

Enables at-home treatment with high convenience.

2. Higher Inhibition Rate

Directly kills cancer cells.

Destroys tumor blood vessels.

Triggers immune response.

3. Greater Sustainability

No limitation on tumor size.

Fast injection speed and low precision requirements mean almost no restriction on the number of tumors.

4. Lower Side Effects

Apart from pain, which can be managed with anesthetics and lasts about 24 hours, there are no other side effects.

Compared to Ethanol Ablation

Ethanol Ablation:

•Significant global potential due to minimal technological requirements (only ultrasound needed).

•Widely available and inexpensive; skills for administration are easy to teach and learn.

•Can be repeated easily with local anesthesia.

•Generally safer but appears less effective than surgical options.

•Requires longer retention time within tumors to effectively kill cancer cells.

Chlorine Dioxide Injection:

•Offers similar advantages to ethanol ablation.

•Its rapid oxidative properties allow for quick cancer cell destruction upon tumor penetration.

•Does not require prolonged retention in the tumor.

•Theoretically, desired effects can be achieved by simply increasing the effective dosage of chlorine dioxide.

About ICCA Global Cancer Center

The ICCA Global Cancer Center's clinic in Tijuana, Mexico, is a pioneer in the field of intratumoral injection. While traditional cancer treatments focus on chemotherapy and radiation without considering side effects, this clinic has been implementing intratumoral injection methods (using chemotherapy drugs, immunotherapeutics, and chemical ablation agents) for nearly 20 years. These methods significantly reduce side effects without compromising efficacy, but they still fall under alternative therapies and cannot be legally provided in most countries worldwide.

My intratumoral chlorine dioxide therapy has not yet been approved by any regulatory body. However, given the urgent needs of advanced cancer patients, I have chosen to collaborate with this Mexican clinic to offer treatment to cancer patients globally, especially those with late-stage cancer. I believe this is my best option at this time, particularly because the ICCA Global Cancer Center's experience with intratumoral injections aligns well with my chlorine dioxide therapy.

The clinic's website is: http://www.treatyourcancer.com/

On Alternative Therapies

I do not want my intratumoral chlorine dioxide therapy to remain classified as an alternative therapy forever. I will do everything I can to advance it into compliant clinical trials and ultimately secure approval from regulatory bodies in most countries around the world. 

I have a scientific framework for evaluating the effectiveness of natural or alternative cancer therapies:

Which alternative therapies are effective? I believe almost none are, though I'm not saying they lack value entirely. The reasoning for my judgment that alternative therapies are ineffective for cancer is as follows: In the U.S., any therapy using a new active substance, if submitted as a new cancer drug, would automatically receive a five-year market exclusivity from the FDA. If it's a new indication for a known drug, there would be a three-year exclusivity period. This represents a significant revenue opportunity. If there were an effective alternative cancer therapy, it would easily pass clinical trials. If it cannot pass clinical trials, then it is naturally ineffective against cancer. Passing clinical trials would grant market exclusivity and the potential for substantial income. Yet, why haven't we seen any alternative therapy undergo such a transformation?

Clearly, there hasn't been any. Considering future possibilities, if an alternative therapy remains an alternative for an extended period, I can confidently conclude that it is ineffective for cancer.

I am the inventor of the intratumoral chlorine dioxide injection therapy, which has not yet been approved, although I am advocating for its approval process. Currently, I provide guidance as an alternative therapy for late-stage breast cancer patients, who self-administer the treatment at home—one of the few legal methods available. Three late-stage breast cancer patients now follow my guidance, showing consistent results: more than a 50% reduction in tumor size within one month and over 70% within two months. I am confident that this therapy can pass FDA clinical trials and soon transition from alternative to standard therapy.