🧠 If WIRED Still Had an Honest Editor: An AI-Powered Internal Review That Should Have Happened

On July 24th, 2025, WIRED published an article about me titled

“An Inventor Is Injecting Bleach Into Cancerous Tumors—and Wants to Bring the Treatment to the US.”

It was emotionally charged, politically opportunistic, and medically misleading.

Today, I present what WIRED’s editorial process should have looked like—if guided by reason, fairness, and professional standards. Below is a simulated internal review memo, generated with the help of AI tools including GPT-4o and Gemini. It reflects how a responsible editor would have responded to this draft.

At the end of this piece, I include the full WIRED article so readers can compare it themselves.

---

📄 WIRED Editorial Review – AI-Generated Evaluation

Submission Title:

An Inventor Is Injecting Bleach Into Cancerous Tumors—and Wants to Bring the Treatment to the US

Author: David Gilbert

Date: July 24, 2025

Reviewer: AI Editorial Assistant (GPT-4o, Gemini-assisted review)

Final Recommendation: ❌ Major Revision Required Before Publication

---

🔍 Executive Summary

This article explores the controversial case of Xuewu Liu, a Chinese inventor promoting an intratumoral chlorine dioxide cancer therapy. While the story contains significant public health relevance, emotional resonance, and political timeliness, its current form does not meet WIRED’s standards for scientific integrity, evidentiary balance, legal safety, or ethical neutrality.

Overall AI Recommendation:

The article should not be published without revision. It risks accusations of defamation, bias, and sensationalism due to:

• emotionally charged language,

• unclear treatment of evidence,

• fragile attribution of political implications, and

• overreliance on unverified or anonymous sources.

---

✅ Strengths

1. Compelling News Hook

• Combines fear (“bleach”), hope (cancer treatment), cost ($20,000), and politics (RFK Jr.)

• Taps into ongoing debates on patient rights and FDA overreach

• Clearly designed for high engagement

2. Narrative Energy

• Presents a dramatic arc: outsider vs. establishment

• Highlights moral ambiguity and regulatory gray zones

• Includes multiple actors (patients, institutions, experts)

3. Public Health Relevance

• Raises real concerns about alternative therapies operating outside traditional oversight

• Timely in light of global interest in medical decentralization

---

❗ Major Editorial Failures

🔴 1.

Terminological Bias & Language Framing

• The phrase “toxic bleach solution” is misleading and unscientific.

• Chlorine dioxide (ClO₂) has regulated applications in water treatment and medical disinfection.

• Equating it with household bleach (sodium hypochlorite) is rhetorically manipulative and possibly defamatory.

AI Recommendation: Use a neutral definition at first mention:

“chlorine dioxide, a disinfectant with industrial and investigational medical applications.”

Afterward, refer to it consistently as “chlorine dioxide” or “ClO₂”.

---

🔴 2.

Misrepresentation of Provided Evidence

• The article claims that Liu’s “only evidence” is a WhatsApp screenshot, while earlier stating he submitted:

  • preprints (even if unreviewed),

  • a clinical pitch deck,

  • and photographic documentation.

• Presenting Dr. Morozov’s quote without clarifying what he actually reviewed gives the impression of deliberate narrative shaping.

AI Recommendation:

Clarify what materials were given to Morozov. If partial, say so. Ideally, request a reassessment from him based on full materials.

---

🟠 3.

Weak Link to RFK Jr.

• The Kennedy reference is politically enticing but factually thin.

• No evidence of direct endorsement, support, or contact.

• The narrative arc (“FDA webpage removed → Kennedy appointee → legitimization”) is speculative at best.

AI Recommendation:

Attribute all such implications to Liu’s personal interpretation. Use phrases like:

“Liu believes this may open doors…” rather than “This will help him bring it to the U.S.”

---

🟠 4.

Unverified and Isolated Patient Claims

• The anonymous patient’s report that her tumor grew after the injection is not medically confirmed.

• No pathology reports, third-party diagnostics, or imaging are referenced.

• Correlation is implied as causation.

AI Recommendation:

Introduce doubt explicitly:

“WIRED could not independently verify the claim, nor determine whether disease progression was related to the treatment.”

---

🟡 Additional Recommendations

5. Source Balance

• Only one critical voice is quoted: an oncologist with past ties to Pfizer.

• This may raise questions of industry bias given the piece’s tone.

AI Recommendation: Add perspectives from unaffiliated toxicologists, pharmacologists, or global health researchers.

---

6. Legal and Regulatory Language

• Statements about illegality or regulation should be framed with legal caution.

AI Recommendation: Use phrases like:

“may be in conflict with regulatory norms” or “has not been authorized by relevant agencies.”

---

7. Visual Ethics

• If tumor images are shown or described, ensure consent and disclaimers are used.

• Avoid emotionally manipulative phrasing (e.g., “disturbing photos”) unless medically necessary.

---

✅ Revisions Required Before Greenlight

---

🧾 Final Verdict

⛔ REJECT in current form.

✅ CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE upon major revision.

This could be a landmark WIRED feature, but only if we treat it with the editorial integrity our brand is known for. Sensationalism is easy. Credibility is earned.

Let me know when a revised draft is ready.

— WIRED Editorial Review Team (AI-simulated)

---

📌 Coming Next:

In the following section, I will reproduce the full WIRED article in question. As the primary subject of the piece, I am exercising my right to fair use and public response.

This article has been widely shared, and my full-text republication—paired with this internal review—is intended solely for:

• critical commentary,

• public interest journalism analysis,

• and transparency for those who want to judge for themselves.

👉 [Full WIRED Article Below]：https://www.wired.com/story/dangerous-bleach-injecting-cancer-treatment/

By David Gilbert

Politics

Jul 24, 2025 11:28 AM

An Inventor Is Injecting Bleach Into Cancerous Tumors—and Wants to Bring the Treatment to the US

A Chinese man with no medical training is injecting cancer patients with a toxic bleach solution; a full course of treatment runs $20,000. He’s now working to bring the unproven treatment to the US.

---

Xuewu Liu, a Chinese inventor who has no medical training or credentials of any kind, is charging cancer patients $20,000 for access to an AI-driven but entirely unproven treatment that includes injecting a highly concentrated dose of chlorine dioxide, a toxic bleach solution, directly into cancerous tumors.

》》》