This seems amazingly beneficial to society and I hope it doesn't hit any regulatory hurdles.
My father has an 11cm HCC covering both sides of his liver, and isn't a candidate for Y90 because they say they can't keep Y90 from spreading to his lungs.
He's lost 60 pounds because he cannot keep anything down and they've done nothing to help this.
I'm going to start him on Ivermectin and Fendbenzenol tomorrow unless your treatment could possibly benefit him? This is hail Mary time. We are in Colorado.
I always emphasize that for cancer, early treatment is crucial. Delaying treatment makes our therapy increasingly complex.
Y90 is a type of local ablation therapy, but my intratumoral chlorine dioxide injection therapy overcomes one of the biggest drawbacks of ablation therapies like Y90: the need for complex techniques to ensure sufficient tumor cell destruction without harming too many normal cells. These therapies require the drug to remain localized within the tumor. However, the intratumoral chlorine dioxide injection therapy leverages the strong oxidizing properties of chlorine dioxide. When it comes into contact with the tumor, it reacts rapidly, directly killing cancer cells and destroying tumor blood vessels without requiring techniques to retain the injection within the tumor. Therefore, Y90 is not suitable, but the intratumoral chlorine dioxide injection can be used in any situation, guaranteeing effectiveness and without side effects.
Your father's tumor is very large, and I doubt that taking Ivermectin and Fenbendazole can effectively inhibit its growth. These two drugs are rarely reported to shrink tumors significantly in a short period.
I recommend your father start my therapy as soon as possible. We already have experience with liver cancer. Generally, one injection can reduce the tumor size by 70%, and four injections over 21 days can achieve 100% tumor necrosis. This result has been consistently replicated in multiple cancer patients.
I understand that the herb ‘sweet wormwood’ is the natural form of Ivermectin. Of course Big Pharma had to tweak it in order to get a patent, because a thing made by Nature cannot be patented.
Yes, you’re right that natural substances like sweet wormwood (Artemisia annua) and ivermectin (originally derived from a soil bacterium) have been pivotal in medicine — nature is a powerful source of healing.
However, it’s actually a common misconception that patents are the only path to pharmaceutical profit. In reality, Big Pharma has multiple legal pathways to profit from any effective therapy, even if it’s based on a natural compound. The key is not necessarily owning the original molecule — it’s about being the first to bring it through the FDA’s approval process.
For example, in the U.S., the FDA grants market exclusivity for new indications, orphan drug uses, and new delivery methods — even without a patent. This means that if a company develops and gets approval for a new use of an old or natural drug, they can enjoy several years of exclusive marketing rights, just like they would with a new patented drug.
So yes — the system does reward innovation, but it also rewards control of the process. That’s why many therapies (even natural or off-patent ones) don’t get developed: not because they’re unpatentable, but because no major entity is willing to sponsor the expensive approval path.
Thank you first for the info, and secondly- and equally importantly- for engaging with those who post comments. Your replies and explanations are as illuminating as the original article. Please keep it up!
My father died on pancreas cancer and now my mother is starving from brust cancer. I ´m interested to your method with ClO2, it could be very helpfull for my mom. She has a tumor about 7x4, maybe a metastases in lymph. Please could you give me a contact to your cooperative clinic in Germany? I ´m from Czech rep., close to Germany. Thankyou for your help.
Yes, after the injection, the tumor undergoes extensive necrosis, which makes it prone to bacterial infection. I am currently guiding patients to use methods similar to the MMS protocol to clear necrotic tissue and prevent infections.
Makes great reading, this case study. How do you take care of the 20% tumour area after the treatment, that are mainly in the periphery of the original tumour and probably a bit deep inside. Have you considered topical application of a strong solution, may be 2 times a day for a few days ? This is a much patient friendly method, which they can do under home care and have their doctors physically examining them regularly.
This was just a single injection. Our standard treatment consists of four consecutive injections, which ensures 100% tumor eradication. Once the patient's tumor is completely destroyed, the necrotic tissue will fall off, and recovery can proceed with standard care practices (disinfection, wound debridement, and infection prevention). I am currently developing care protocols for the patient's recovery process (using CDS).
Thanks for the clarifications. Just to continue with my curiosity, in cases like these, would topical application be necessary and useful ? Would follow your briefings and case studies keenly. This process - we are onto something significant.
If the necrotic tumor tissue detaches slowly, there is a high likelihood of bacterial infection, much like the decay of meat. This requires the localized application of disinfectants, such as CDS.
Would 4 injections be enough for any not exposed breast tumor? Mine is infiltrating the skin a little (the skin is purple where the tumor is) but the tumor is encapsulated, non vascularized and in part liquified. I'm very interested in this therapy. I'd like to know if 4 injections could destroy the whole tumor. Thank you
In this case, antibiotics are not useful because the necrotic tumor has already detached from the body's network. Topical disinfectant is required instead.
Does the topical disinfection process use CDS? There will be some layers of the necrotic tissue that are no longer accessible via vascular since it has detached, S you mentioned. Would using DMSO be of benefit to facilitate the CDS dispersion throughout all layers of the localized tissues?
Can we have updates? I always read of necrosis and shrinkage but I haven't yet read a total healing of a tumor. Does it shrink to nothing? How does the body get rid of the dead tumor? After how long are people NED? Thank you
As far as I know, there are at least four tumors that have completely disappeared. However, clinics in Germany are reluctant to easily draw conclusions about this disappearance because no one has yet completed all four injections.
And were the treated animals completely healed after 4 injections? Did their tumor shrink completely till NED? Did they have relapses? This is important info. Thank you
Recurrence is not the right question at this stage.
What matters now is whether the tumor can be destroyed — and based on current results, it can. In some patients, tumors have completely necrotized and disappeared after just 1–2 injections.
Until the tumor is gone, talking about recurrence is irrelevant. You are asking about step 10 without taking step 1.
This therapy is designed to eliminate visible tumors quickly and effectively. That should be the focus — not hypothetical outcomes before any treatment is even done.
100% agree. If you were to inject 3 of my four lung tumors I’d be thrilled because my tumor load would be significantly knocked down and I could work on my end with healing diet and come back for more…
Sure wish this was known at the time my wife had such an issue…which ultimately spread to bone, lung, liver and brain. Most all strong and high tech chemo drugs did nothing…only after a oral 5FU was added was there any benefit but the oncologist failed to recheck a bone scan to verify spread after liver spread detected…and finally verifying a near totally destructed hip failed to follow thru with suggested by radiologistCT of brain due to possible mets present…near 9 mths later massive mets of brain became very symptomatic..which ultimately shortly was lethal. Women and even men should have aggressive oncologists…objective aggressive detection for mets must be ongoing…never agree that cancer is cured..mets occur early and must always be followed going forward.
Yes, cancer needs to be treated as early as possible. Even with my therapy, early treatment benefits the patients, and our treatment process is simple. However, delaying treatment can be dangerous for the patients, and our treatment process becomes extremely complex. Fortunately, with the current technology, we can almost administer injections for any late-stage cancer patient, although the later the stage, the more complex the process.
Yes, after the injection, the tumor undergoes extensive necrosis, which makes it prone to bacterial infection. I am currently guiding patients to use methods similar to the MMS protocol to clear necrotic tissue and prevent infections.
If someone was going to go to one of your clinics for a cancer treatment, would you recommend they start the MMS protocol a few days or a week before beginning the injections, or would they have optimal results waiting to start until a day or more after the first injection?
I generally would not recommend cancer patients to use the MMS protocol additionally, unless the tumor is exposed and there is a concern about infection.
I have a question that is unrelated to the above issue, but is certainly health-related. There is a real concern that there will be a Nipah Virus biological attack on the US on or around July 4th. A scenario has already been played out by government and industry officials.
Thank you for your thoughtful and constructive critique.
You are absolutely right to point out the scientific and clinical limitations of this single-case report. As the inventor of this therapy, I fully acknowledge that without larger studies, standardized protocols, and toxicity data, this evidence remains preliminary.
At this time, we do not yet have the institutional conditions or regulatory environment in place to launch large-scale clinical trials. However, we are actively planning a formal observational or Phase I study, most likely in Mexico or possibly the U.S., involving approximately 100 patients. That study will include detailed dosing protocols, safety monitoring, imaging follow-up, and consistent reporting standards in line with accepted clinical research norms.
This early case is meant to spark discussion and awareness of what may become a valuable option for patients with localized, solid tumors — especially those who have exhausted conventional therapies. I respectfully ask for patience as we move step by step toward clinical recognition.
Thank you again for your engagement and for holding the scientific process to a high standard. Your insights are appreciated.
This seems amazingly beneficial to society and I hope it doesn't hit any regulatory hurdles.
My father has an 11cm HCC covering both sides of his liver, and isn't a candidate for Y90 because they say they can't keep Y90 from spreading to his lungs.
He's lost 60 pounds because he cannot keep anything down and they've done nothing to help this.
I'm going to start him on Ivermectin and Fendbenzenol tomorrow unless your treatment could possibly benefit him? This is hail Mary time. We are in Colorado.
I always emphasize that for cancer, early treatment is crucial. Delaying treatment makes our therapy increasingly complex.
Y90 is a type of local ablation therapy, but my intratumoral chlorine dioxide injection therapy overcomes one of the biggest drawbacks of ablation therapies like Y90: the need for complex techniques to ensure sufficient tumor cell destruction without harming too many normal cells. These therapies require the drug to remain localized within the tumor. However, the intratumoral chlorine dioxide injection therapy leverages the strong oxidizing properties of chlorine dioxide. When it comes into contact with the tumor, it reacts rapidly, directly killing cancer cells and destroying tumor blood vessels without requiring techniques to retain the injection within the tumor. Therefore, Y90 is not suitable, but the intratumoral chlorine dioxide injection can be used in any situation, guaranteeing effectiveness and without side effects.
Your father's tumor is very large, and I doubt that taking Ivermectin and Fenbendazole can effectively inhibit its growth. These two drugs are rarely reported to shrink tumors significantly in a short period.
I recommend your father start my therapy as soon as possible. We already have experience with liver cancer. Generally, one injection can reduce the tumor size by 70%, and four injections over 21 days can achieve 100% tumor necrosis. This result has been consistently replicated in multiple cancer patients.
I understand that the herb ‘sweet wormwood’ is the natural form of Ivermectin. Of course Big Pharma had to tweak it in order to get a patent, because a thing made by Nature cannot be patented.
Yes, you’re right that natural substances like sweet wormwood (Artemisia annua) and ivermectin (originally derived from a soil bacterium) have been pivotal in medicine — nature is a powerful source of healing.
However, it’s actually a common misconception that patents are the only path to pharmaceutical profit. In reality, Big Pharma has multiple legal pathways to profit from any effective therapy, even if it’s based on a natural compound. The key is not necessarily owning the original molecule — it’s about being the first to bring it through the FDA’s approval process.
For example, in the U.S., the FDA grants market exclusivity for new indications, orphan drug uses, and new delivery methods — even without a patent. This means that if a company develops and gets approval for a new use of an old or natural drug, they can enjoy several years of exclusive marketing rights, just like they would with a new patented drug.
So yes — the system does reward innovation, but it also rewards control of the process. That’s why many therapies (even natural or off-patent ones) don’t get developed: not because they’re unpatentable, but because no major entity is willing to sponsor the expensive approval path.
Excellent Xuewu !
Thank you first for the info, and secondly- and equally importantly- for engaging with those who post comments. Your replies and explanations are as illuminating as the original article. Please keep it up!
Thank You for your patented product chlorine dioxide intratumoral Injection. Is a realy great hope for all over cáncer solid accesible tumors.
My father died on pancreas cancer and now my mother is starving from brust cancer. I ´m interested to your method with ClO2, it could be very helpfull for my mom. She has a tumor about 7x4, maybe a metastases in lymph. Please could you give me a contact to your cooperative clinic in Germany? I ´m from Czech rep., close to Germany. Thankyou for your help.
Thank you. Could you please send me the patient's CT report at xuewu.liu@cdsxcancer.com ? I will email you the contact information in Germany.
Can this work for anal cancer
Continuing good reports, well done Xuwue.
Question: are you only doing injections into cancerous tumors now or are you experimenting also on other ways of using CD?
Update us on all your projects toward making the Universal Antidote universal.
Yes, after the injection, the tumor undergoes extensive necrosis, which makes it prone to bacterial infection. I am currently guiding patients to use methods similar to the MMS protocol to clear necrotic tissue and prevent infections.
Is the infection procedure already described somewhere? Thank you
How do you find the information for the clinic in Germany to go there? Thank you
Could this be delivered to oesophageal cancer and could it be effective for neuroendocrine carcinoma? (NECs?)
Theoretically, all solid tumors can be injected with this, and it should be effective.
Makes great reading, this case study. How do you take care of the 20% tumour area after the treatment, that are mainly in the periphery of the original tumour and probably a bit deep inside. Have you considered topical application of a strong solution, may be 2 times a day for a few days ? This is a much patient friendly method, which they can do under home care and have their doctors physically examining them regularly.
This was just a single injection. Our standard treatment consists of four consecutive injections, which ensures 100% tumor eradication. Once the patient's tumor is completely destroyed, the necrotic tissue will fall off, and recovery can proceed with standard care practices (disinfection, wound debridement, and infection prevention). I am currently developing care protocols for the patient's recovery process (using CDS).
Thanks for the clarifications. Just to continue with my curiosity, in cases like these, would topical application be necessary and useful ? Would follow your briefings and case studies keenly. This process - we are onto something significant.
If the necrotic tumor tissue detaches slowly, there is a high likelihood of bacterial infection, much like the decay of meat. This requires the localized application of disinfectants, such as CDS.
And if the breast tumors are not exposed, after the injections would the necrotic tumors shrink and reabsorb within the breast? Thank you
Yes, breast cancers that haven't penetrated the skin are easier to deal with, especially as they are less likely to get infected.
Would 4 injections be enough for any not exposed breast tumor? Mine is infiltrating the skin a little (the skin is purple where the tumor is) but the tumor is encapsulated, non vascularized and in part liquified. I'm very interested in this therapy. I'd like to know if 4 injections could destroy the whole tumor. Thank you
That’s increadible progress! Well done! I wonder… since the tumor was exposed, did the patient take any antibiotics during the treatment?
In this case, antibiotics are not useful because the necrotic tumor has already detached from the body's network. Topical disinfectant is required instead.
Does the topical disinfection process use CDS? There will be some layers of the necrotic tissue that are no longer accessible via vascular since it has detached, S you mentioned. Would using DMSO be of benefit to facilitate the CDS dispersion throughout all layers of the localized tissues?
Wow. that is incredible. thank you for your work.
Can we have updates? I always read of necrosis and shrinkage but I haven't yet read a total healing of a tumor. Does it shrink to nothing? How does the body get rid of the dead tumor? After how long are people NED? Thank you
As far as I know, there are at least four tumors that have completely disappeared. However, clinics in Germany are reluctant to easily draw conclusions about this disappearance because no one has yet completed all four injections.
Time has passed now. Have patients in the German clinic completed 4 injections? What are the latest results? Thank you
I imagine these things take time for their final results to remain to be seen- exactly like any other treatment.
Were studies completed on animals first? Or is this treatment already used in your country Dr Liu?
I completed animal testing 10 years ago. This therapy has not been approved in China and cannot be legally provided.
And were the treated animals completely healed after 4 injections? Did their tumor shrink completely till NED? Did they have relapses? This is important info. Thank you
Recurrence is not the right question at this stage.
What matters now is whether the tumor can be destroyed — and based on current results, it can. In some patients, tumors have completely necrotized and disappeared after just 1–2 injections.
Until the tumor is gone, talking about recurrence is irrelevant. You are asking about step 10 without taking step 1.
This therapy is designed to eliminate visible tumors quickly and effectively. That should be the focus — not hypothetical outcomes before any treatment is even done.
100% agree. If you were to inject 3 of my four lung tumors I’d be thrilled because my tumor load would be significantly knocked down and I could work on my end with healing diet and come back for more…
Sure wish this was known at the time my wife had such an issue…which ultimately spread to bone, lung, liver and brain. Most all strong and high tech chemo drugs did nothing…only after a oral 5FU was added was there any benefit but the oncologist failed to recheck a bone scan to verify spread after liver spread detected…and finally verifying a near totally destructed hip failed to follow thru with suggested by radiologistCT of brain due to possible mets present…near 9 mths later massive mets of brain became very symptomatic..which ultimately shortly was lethal. Women and even men should have aggressive oncologists…objective aggressive detection for mets must be ongoing…never agree that cancer is cured..mets occur early and must always be followed going forward.
Yes, cancer needs to be treated as early as possible. Even with my therapy, early treatment benefits the patients, and our treatment process is simple. However, delaying treatment can be dangerous for the patients, and our treatment process becomes extremely complex. Fortunately, with the current technology, we can almost administer injections for any late-stage cancer patient, although the later the stage, the more complex the process.
Thank you for this writeup! What other protocols, if any, did the patient combine with the ClO2 injections?
Yes, after the injection, the tumor undergoes extensive necrosis, which makes it prone to bacterial infection. I am currently guiding patients to use methods similar to the MMS protocol to clear necrotic tissue and prevent infections.
If someone was going to go to one of your clinics for a cancer treatment, would you recommend they start the MMS protocol a few days or a week before beginning the injections, or would they have optimal results waiting to start until a day or more after the first injection?
I generally would not recommend cancer patients to use the MMS protocol additionally, unless the tumor is exposed and there is a concern about infection.
Ok thank you.
Hello Xuewu!
I have a question that is unrelated to the above issue, but is certainly health-related. There is a real concern that there will be a Nipah Virus biological attack on the US on or around July 4th. A scenario has already been played out by government and industry officials.
Here's a link to that "scenario". Do a search for nipah: https://biodefensecommission.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/National-Blueprint-for-Biodefense-2024_final_digital.pdf
If such an awful thing were to happen, what would be your recommendation for those of us who don't have access to your chlorine dioxide injections?
And, if we did want to have the injectable on hand, how would we go about procuring it please and thank you!
Pamela
Scientific and Medical Caveats
This case is promising, but it has limits that must be respected:
Issue Concern
Sample size: It’s a single case. No control group, no follow-up data, no comparison to placebo or standard care.
Dose & formulation: No details on concentration (ppm), volume injected, or how it was buffered or neutralized to protect healthy tissue.
Adverse effects: No information on systemic markers, blood work, or whether any toxicity appeared.
Reproducibility :No indication whether this protocol has been tested across multiple patients under clinical conditions.
What This Shows and What It Doesn’t
This shows:
That intratumoral chlorine dioxide may induce visible tumor necrosis.
That it may offer short-term local benefits such as bleeding control and pain relief in ulcerated tumors.
This does not show:
Long-term survival impact
Safety across multiple patients or tumor types
How it compares to radiotherapy, chemotherapy, or other local ablation techniques (e.g., cryo or electrochemotherapy)
Next Step: Toward Clinical Recognition
To move toward legitimacy and integration into standard practice, this approach needs:
1. Phase I safety trials with dose escalation
2. Standardized protocols (formulation, injection technique, follow-up)
3. Multicenter studies or registries
4. Ethical oversight to protect patients from unregulated experimentation
Thank you for your thoughtful and constructive critique.
You are absolutely right to point out the scientific and clinical limitations of this single-case report. As the inventor of this therapy, I fully acknowledge that without larger studies, standardized protocols, and toxicity data, this evidence remains preliminary.
At this time, we do not yet have the institutional conditions or regulatory environment in place to launch large-scale clinical trials. However, we are actively planning a formal observational or Phase I study, most likely in Mexico or possibly the U.S., involving approximately 100 patients. That study will include detailed dosing protocols, safety monitoring, imaging follow-up, and consistent reporting standards in line with accepted clinical research norms.
This early case is meant to spark discussion and awareness of what may become a valuable option for patients with localized, solid tumors — especially those who have exhausted conventional therapies. I respectfully ask for patience as we move step by step toward clinical recognition.
Thank you again for your engagement and for holding the scientific process to a high standard. Your insights are appreciated.