From Antioxidation to Pro-oxidation: A New Paradigm for Cancer Treatment
Today, a scientist friend shared with me a paper published in Science titled "Dietary pro-oxidant therapy by a vitamin K precursor targets PI 3-kinase VPS34 function". You can access the paper here. As someone passionate about cancer treatment research, I took a brief look at this paper, and I couldn't help but feel impressed by how scientific studies are gradually unraveling truths that challenge conventional wisdom.
Here are the main findings of the paper:
The limitations and risks of antioxidants: Antioxidants have long been assumed to reduce the risk of prostate cancer. However, more and more studies are showing that this hypothesis does not hold up. In fact, antioxidants have proven to be ineffective and, in some cases, even harmful.
The therapeutic potential of pro-oxidants: The research team from Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory found that a pro-oxidant named menadione bisulfite (MSB) exhibited significant efficacy in reducing prostate cancer progression.
Breakthrough in molecular mechanisms: MSB targets a lipid kinase called VPS34, reducing PI(3)P levels and leading to endosome rupture within cells, which ultimately triggers cell death. This unique process of cell death was named triaptosis by the research team, setting it apart from existing paradigms such as apoptosis and necrosis.
Potential for treating other diseases: The study also found that MSB showed therapeutic potential for a rare genetic disorder called X-linked myotubular myopathy (XLMTM), significantly extending the lifespan and improving muscle health in experimental mouse models.
A new role for antioxidants: While antioxidants like vitamin C are traditionally thought to reduce oxidative stress, the research demonstrated that in certain cases, they could also exhibit pro-oxidative effects on cancer cells, suggesting a potential synergy between pro-oxidants and antioxidants in combination therapies.
Outlook for the future: The researchers plan to further explore the molecular mechanisms of MSB and aim to develop innovative therapeutic strategies with broad applicability for various diseases.
The Myth of Antioxidation: Why Antioxidants Are Not an Answer to Cancer
In my journey of developing the intratumoral chlorine dioxide (CLO2) injection therapy, I came to realize early on that antioxidation is not the way to treat diseases. On the contrary, it may even promote disease progression in certain cases. Many people have mistakenly embraced antioxidation as the guiding principle for treating diseases, which is clearly a fallacy.
From a biological perspective, the survival and spread of cancer cells are closely linked to the balance of oxidative and reductive forces in the body. Cancer cells often regulate their oxidative-reductive state to reduce oxidative stress and evade immune system attacks. This means that focusing solely on antioxidation may unintentionally fortify the "protective shield" of cancer cells, making them harder to destroy.
This paper published in Science further supports my viewpoint: Pro-oxidation, rather than antioxidation, is the foundational method for treating cancer. While this is not the first paper to propose this concept, it brings new molecular insights to support pro-oxidation as a promising therapeutic strategy.
Pro-oxidation Therapy: A New Paradigm in Cancer Treatment
The core idea of pro-oxidation therapy is to increase reactive oxygen species (ROS) in the tumor microenvironment and use these oxidative substances to directly kill cancer cells. This approach mirrors the natural behavior of the immune system: when the immune system detects pathogens or damaged cells, it releases large amounts of ROS to attack and eliminate these abnormal cells.
Building on this principle, I asked myself a crucial question: If the essence of pro-oxidation therapy is to generate excessive ROS to kill cancer cells, why not directly supply a significant amount of ROS externally to the tumor site?
My Therapy: Intratumoral Chlorine Dioxide Injection
Based on this scientific logic, I developed the intratumoral chlorine dioxide (CLO2) injection therapy. The essence of this therapy lies in following "first-principle reasoning" to its logical conclusion: directly delivering external ROS (like chlorine dioxide) to the tumor site to maximize the oxidative attack on cancer cells.
I explored this fundamental concept in detail in this article on my blog: How to Analyze Cancer Treatment Using First Principles. The key advantage of this approach is that it bypasses the complexities of traditional treatments, such as immune system stimulation or drug metabolism, and instead directly disrupts tumor cells through localized oxidative damage.
External ROS: A New Hope in Cancer Treatment
In another article, I elaborated on the potential of external ROS as a breakthrough in cancer treatment: A Nobel-Prize Worthy Paper Rejected. Although this article was not accepted by top-tier journals, I firmly believe it presents a paradigm shift in cancer therapy:
Direct action on tumors: External ROS can disrupt the oxidative-reductive balance of cancer cells, causing irreversible damage to cellular membranes, proteins, and DNA, thus triggering cell death.
Reduced side effects: Compared to traditional chemotherapy and radiotherapy, localized ROS injections can significantly reduce damage to healthy tissues.
Broad applicability: This approach is not limited to solid tumors but may also hold promise for hematological malignancies and other diseases.
Clinical Evidence: The Potential to Cure Cancer
In clinical practice, my therapy has already demonstrated initial success, supported by early clinical data. While further research and validation are needed, the results so far suggest that intratumoral chlorine dioxide therapy has the potential to cure cancer.
Conclusion: From Science to Practice, Driving a Revolution in Cancer Treatment
As scientific research advances, a clear message is emerging: Antioxidation is not a panacea, and pro-oxidation may well be the future of cancer treatment. This paper in Science provides new molecular evidence for pro-oxidation therapy, while my research takes it a step further by exploring the application of external ROS in clinical settings.
The road to curing cancer is challenging, but by adhering to first principles and exploring innovative approaches, I believe we can discover more effective and safer treatments. I am confident that pro-oxidation therapy will usher in a new paradigm in cancer treatment, giving hope to countless patients around the world.
This makes sense as CDS kills parasites, of which numerous studies, case studies and antidotes point to cancer simply being parasite infestations. If we take supplements, we are feeding the “cancer”.
Now it’s figuring out which supplements stay or get the boot. I’m in that conundrum as I dose CDS internally and do not want to decrease it’s efficacy.
My thoughts are keep the fat soluble ones: CoQ10, omega 3, vitamin D, vitamin K2 for heart health and move calcium from the arteries to the bones.
Keep pregnalolone, progesterone, estradiol ( for those of us in menopause, , external bioidentical creams USP for progesterone and estidiol). I feel a difference when I skip those!! Maybe keep vitamin E as it’s synergistic with progesterone. Boron good as it supports hormones.
Potassium, magnesium and sodium a must have.
But I’m trying to figure out where to take my potassium, while taking CDS internally. I don’t want to reduce CDS efficacy, but I also do not want to do potassium loading only twice a day. Not good for the heart.
Collagen powder a stay. Selenium with iodine a keeper.
D ribose, not sure. That one is hard too, because I like it in my coffee, however, as an antioxidant it could potentially reduce the efficacy of CDS.
NAC not sure to keep it helps nervous system yet unsure if CDS does this better.
My assumption is yes CDS is better with the results on autism.
Taurine for BP. Not sure to keep or drop.
Vitamin C , although required with iodine, I’m kicking it to the curb.
I mean, could you imagine if we knew which supplements went were completely unnecessary when you take CDS internally?
The supplement market would collapse. Which may not be a bad thing because a lot of supplements have toxic ingredients, which really are just a byproduct of manufacturing processes. I firmly believe that a lot of corporations just sell their toxic manufacturing byproducts to the supplement industry just to make a profit.
And then a lot of us would save a lot of money and a lot of time. I think I’m popping an upwards of 30 different supplements a day and I’ve just about had it.
Especially with trying to figure out the timing of my CDS. I would take four doses in the morning, take a three hour break to take supplements and binders, then take 3 to 4 doses in the afternoon. But I want to take it 10 times a day. So I need to reconfigure and drop a few things
Doesnt seem to. I intermittent fast every day trying to hit that 17hr mark for ketones and stem cells, put glycine in either coffee, hot lemon water, hot fresh ginger water, turmeric/ginger/cinnamon or a variety of teas whatever my fancy. it took some weeks to notice benefits but now you would have to arm wrestle me to get my bulk supp bag away from me