Excellent. I understand you are using text book chemistry in choosing ClO2 to target the cancerous cellular matter. You must also explain, for the benefit of many of us with some scientific background and curiosity, as to why you chose ClO2 and how does it work chemically in that biological environment, consisting of normal cellular proteins, cancerous cellular proteins and others. How is that it targets only cancerous proteins, not the normal proteins ? The cancerous mass will also contain normal cellular material. Like radiation burns off the whole mass, does ClO2 chemically degrade the entire mass, at a cellular level ? As a chemist, I know ClO2 is a powerful oxidant and what is its oxidation process here. Why not other similar oxidants ? Thanks.
To completely destroy a tumor, you must damage a portion of the normal cells or tissues. When determining how to treat cancer, we naturally aim to keep damage to normal tissues within a reasonable range. This reasonable range can be understood as the cost we must bear. There’s no need to worry about minor damage to normal tissues, as the human body’s regenerative capabilities allow for the repair of such damage, making it reversible.
At present, chlorine dioxide appears to be the most suitable oxidant. I have not screened a variety of oxidants; rather, I discovered by chance that chlorine dioxide can effectively treat cancer, especially through the intra-tumoral injection method I invented. I may not have the time or energy to evaluate other oxidants.
Thanks for the clarifications and just as I thought. ClO2 seems to have the advantage over radiation in that it can eliminate CSC also, the widely recognised root cause for recurrence even after long remissions. As a liquid, it may have the advantage of clearing the periphery of a cancerous mass, over radiation. How is this ensured ? Obviously, the chemistry is powerful here, as you have observed positive signs in as little as 15 minutes after the administration. I am still curious about the whole oxidation chemistry here. If people have studied it, would greatly love to have the links. It is perfectly alright that you want to focus only on ClO2 and there is enough scope to refine the treatment with simple materials like DMSO. The unexplored chemistry is still vast and future generation of researchers would find even more efficient options. Best wishes.
I Totaly agree
Excellent. I understand you are using text book chemistry in choosing ClO2 to target the cancerous cellular matter. You must also explain, for the benefit of many of us with some scientific background and curiosity, as to why you chose ClO2 and how does it work chemically in that biological environment, consisting of normal cellular proteins, cancerous cellular proteins and others. How is that it targets only cancerous proteins, not the normal proteins ? The cancerous mass will also contain normal cellular material. Like radiation burns off the whole mass, does ClO2 chemically degrade the entire mass, at a cellular level ? As a chemist, I know ClO2 is a powerful oxidant and what is its oxidation process here. Why not other similar oxidants ? Thanks.
To completely destroy a tumor, you must damage a portion of the normal cells or tissues. When determining how to treat cancer, we naturally aim to keep damage to normal tissues within a reasonable range. This reasonable range can be understood as the cost we must bear. There’s no need to worry about minor damage to normal tissues, as the human body’s regenerative capabilities allow for the repair of such damage, making it reversible.
At present, chlorine dioxide appears to be the most suitable oxidant. I have not screened a variety of oxidants; rather, I discovered by chance that chlorine dioxide can effectively treat cancer, especially through the intra-tumoral injection method I invented. I may not have the time or energy to evaluate other oxidants.
Thanks for the clarifications and just as I thought. ClO2 seems to have the advantage over radiation in that it can eliminate CSC also, the widely recognised root cause for recurrence even after long remissions. As a liquid, it may have the advantage of clearing the periphery of a cancerous mass, over radiation. How is this ensured ? Obviously, the chemistry is powerful here, as you have observed positive signs in as little as 15 minutes after the administration. I am still curious about the whole oxidation chemistry here. If people have studied it, would greatly love to have the links. It is perfectly alright that you want to focus only on ClO2 and there is enough scope to refine the treatment with simple materials like DMSO. The unexplored chemistry is still vast and future generation of researchers would find even more efficient options. Best wishes.