From Fringe to Framework — Uniting All Chlorine Dioxide Therapies Under a Path to Validation

Why Now Is the Time for a Global, Science-Driven Approach to the Full Spectrum of ClO₂ Therapies

---

Introduction: The Tide Is Turning, but the Narrative Is Still Controlled

In my recent article "The FDA Quietly Removed Its Warnings", I reported on a pivotal development: the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has silently removed its long-standing public warnings against chlorine dioxide (ClO₂). This bureaucratic move, largely unnoticed by the public, represents a tectonic shift in regulatory posture. But the question remains: Will the public narrative catch up with the scientific opportunity?

Unfortunately, the answer so far appears to be no.

In the latest piece from WIRED Magazine, "The Bleach Community Is Ready for RFK Jr. to Make Their Dreams Come True", the same tired tropes are repeated: chlorine dioxide is labeled as "bleach," users are painted as cultish fringe actors, and any effort to differentiate scientific application from pseudoscientific misuse is actively blurred. This kind of reporting underscores the urgent need for those of us who believe in the therapeutic potential of ClO₂ to come together—not only to defend our work, but to professionalize it.

---

Section 1: The Diverse Ecosystem of Chlorine Dioxide Therapies

Contrary to the media’s caricatures, chlorine dioxide therapy is not a monolithic movement. It is a diverse and often fragmented ecosystem comprising:

• Oral ingestion: Often promoted by grassroots communities as a universal detoxifier, with anecdotal claims in infectious disease, cancer, and autism.

• Topical application & sprays: Used for wounds, skin infections, and oral/nasal conditions.

• Nebulized or vapor therapies: Applied in respiratory conditions like COVID-19 or asthma, often self-administered.

• Intravenous (IV) sodium chlorite: A more recent and highly controversial direction. Notably, a U.S.-based company has already developed and tested intravenous sodium chlorite under the name NP001 for ALS.

• Intratumoral injection: My own field of invention. We have demonstrated the ability of ClO₂ to induce tumor necrosis through direct injection, with rapid and localized results in advanced solid tumors.

Each method has its own rationale, risk profile, and mechanism of action. Lumping them together is not just scientifically lazy—it is dangerous.

---

Section 2: Why ClO₂ Remains Marginalized

Despite its potential, ClO₂ remains relegated to the shadows of medicine. Why?

• Lack of controlled studies

• Toxicological concerns based on industrial misuse

• Regulatory ambiguity

• Media-driven stigma

Most importantly, there has never been a unified movement to legitimize ClO₂ through science, data, and ethics. Until now.

---

Section 3: My Position — A Therapy Deserves Validation, Not Blind Faith

My work has focused exclusively on one use case: intratumoral injection. We inject a carefully prepared chlorine dioxide solution directly into solid tumors, under imaging guidance. The mechanisms are clear: direct oxidative cytotoxicity, vascular collapse, and immune modulation. The results in real-world patients—both human and veterinary—have been encouraging.

But unlike others, I do not ask for belief. I ask for verification.

This is the line that separates medicine from myth.

---

Section 4: A Validation Pathway for Each Modality

To professionalize ClO₂-based therapy, we must recognize that different routes of administration require different paths to validation:

Each stream deserves its own scientific treatment—not media dismissal.

---

Section 5: A Call for Collaborative Scientific Infrastructure

We now call upon:

• Researchers to publish preliminary findings, even in case-report form.

• Clinicians to join cross-border trials.

• Patients to register their outcomes.

• Advocates to stop infighting and support scientific transparency.

I propose we build a decentralized, ClO₂-neutral platform to host:

• A clinical registry of all treatment routes.

• A digital repository of preclinical and human data.

• A network for physicians and scientists to collaborate across borders.

---

Conclusion: We Must Lead the Narrative Before Others Define It for Us

The FDA has silently removed its warning. But WIRED and others still dictate the public narrative. This is a dangerous disconnection.

Our therapies—if real—deserve real scrutiny. If safe, they deserve regulation. If effective, they deserve adoption.

If you are a doctor, scientist, journalist, patient, or investor who believes that chlorine dioxide deserves a rigorous, global, science-first evaluation—please contact me. Let us bring it from fringe to framework. Before others bleach the truth entirely.

Contact: xuewu.liu@cdsxcancer.com