Thank you, Dr. Wentworth, for this deeply inspiring and historically grounded piece.
As someone who has spent the last decade developing an alternative, targeted, and non-systemic cancer therapy, I see your article as both a validation and a call to action.
Your recounting of Dr. Min Chiu Li’s story and the boldness of Dr. Diaz’s recent work resonates deeply with me. Like them, I have faced skepticism, regulatory inertia, and isolation — yet continued because I see patients, real patients, responding to something the system isn't yet ready to embrace.
I invented **Intra-Tumoral Chlorine Dioxide Injection Therapy**, a minimally invasive approach that uses localized oxidative pressure to selectively destroy solid tumors without harming healthy tissue. We do not rely on systemic toxicity. We use image-guided precision to inject directly into the tumor — and we see results: breast cancer, liver cancer, peritoneal metastases, all responding rapidly.
We have now treated patients in Germany, China, and Spain with consistent outcomes, and are preparing data for publication. Like Dr. Diaz’s trial, many of our cases cannot ethically be randomized: patients refuse surgery and chemo, and there is simply no comparable control to “not injecting the tumor.”
What I see is a clear pattern: progress does not follow the establishment. It follows logic, courage, and patients who are willing to try when institutions are not.
Thank you again for articulating this vision. We are much closer than people think — and as you said, only need the courage to continue.
This is incredible. I cannot believe this was possible. This should be everywhere on the news. I am sharing this with people. Drugs that effective should never be ignored.
My four year old son has a NSGCT (yolk sac mix type, not choriocarcinoma) but I had the opportunity to learn about different GCTs when he was diagnosed and read up on the breakthrough treatment options.
Unfortunately the primary protocol for GCTs is relatively unchanged (BEP), dating back to 1979, and while highly effective, it’s still a side effect heavy protocol. I recently had a call with the doctor who chairs the international malignant germ cell tumor consortium and we briefly discussed genetic testing of the tumors for targeted treatment (my son’s tumor was submitted for testing) and relapsed non refractory tumor research. It was a lovely and educational call and I look forward to speaking with her again. Targeted treatments, and less toxic treatments are really so incredible and important, and why I will continue my advocacy for increased access to research and funding.
Yes! You are so right! Just because we have a curative treatment regimen does not mean we cannot do better. GCTs in children are a great example. Please keep us posted on the test results!
Wow, that’s amazing! We need more funding for this type of research, we need more diversity in the research teams so that treatment isn’t just targeted towards white people.
This administration is causing real harm to present and future cancer patients. 😡
I thought of you recovering from surgery WHILE the announcement was happening. I am not an optimistic person when it comes to "scientific breakthroughs," but the work Diaz has done first at Hopkins and now at MSK is fantastic. IMHO, he should be leading the NCI like yesterday.
My surgeries were still 100% worth it, but not having to go through them or chemotherapy or radiation would also save survivors a lot of trauma in the future. Thanks for thinking of me 💙
It is absolutely fair to say that enormous progress has been made in the past few decades in cancer diagnosis and treatment. I urge caution in the use of the term “cure cancer” for several reasons: (1) cancer is a broad term for a wide spectrum of types, some more amenable to diagnosis and treatment than others; (2) the term “cure” implies a level
of certainty that cannot be achieved with cancer in the sense that (at least within the technologies we are aware of and actively pursuing) we cannot say with certainty that all tumor cells have been eliminated from a given patient, such that the chance of reoccurrence cannot be predicted; (3) there will likely always be cancers that are difficult to fully eradicate. However, as noted in my recent book, “Taming Cancer,” advances in immunotherapy and our increasing understanding of cancer biology are providing a means for obtaining long (decades) remissions in some patients. For others, we are learning how to slow and perhaps even shut down the biochemical processes that drive metastatic spread. This is an exciting time in cancer medicine, with enormous opportunities for further advances in diagnosis and treatment. I am concerned that the current “war on science” will damage future progress in this and other fields of medicine.
I was diagnosed with Lynch Syndrome and early stage rectal cancer (considered cured with surgery) right around when Dr. Diaz's results were published. I know this is exciting patients with Lynch Syndrome (MMR gene deficiency), but my doctors don't really talk much about it - I mostly gathered that excitement through my own research and reading publications like this one. I realize doctors don't want to create false positivity and remain cautious, but most female Lynch patients (including me) get hysterectomies due to the risk of uterine and ovarian cancers from Lynch. It's a decision I can't go back on and is pretty disruptive as someone in medical menopause in my early 40's. If doctors thought these results could be replicated on Lynch-related uterine or ovarian cancers, I wonder if that could change the recommendation for preventative surgery right away. I also can't help but wish the many oncologists I've seen since my diagnosis (OBGYN, GI, Breast) and/or genetic counselors would mention this study in some way, even if just talking about potential positive momentum/results for folks with genetic cancers who have to make life-changing decisions in service of prevention. Just wondering your thoughts on that as to me, this is a study that seems VERY exciting to Lynch patients, but I've only had my rectal surgeon mention it to me.
Thank you, Dr. Wentworth, for this deeply inspiring and historically grounded piece.
As someone who has spent the last decade developing an alternative, targeted, and non-systemic cancer therapy, I see your article as both a validation and a call to action.
Your recounting of Dr. Min Chiu Li’s story and the boldness of Dr. Diaz’s recent work resonates deeply with me. Like them, I have faced skepticism, regulatory inertia, and isolation — yet continued because I see patients, real patients, responding to something the system isn't yet ready to embrace.
I invented **Intra-Tumoral Chlorine Dioxide Injection Therapy**, a minimally invasive approach that uses localized oxidative pressure to selectively destroy solid tumors without harming healthy tissue. We do not rely on systemic toxicity. We use image-guided precision to inject directly into the tumor — and we see results: breast cancer, liver cancer, peritoneal metastases, all responding rapidly.
We have now treated patients in Germany, China, and Spain with consistent outcomes, and are preparing data for publication. Like Dr. Diaz’s trial, many of our cases cannot ethically be randomized: patients refuse surgery and chemo, and there is simply no comparable control to “not injecting the tumor.”
What I see is a clear pattern: progress does not follow the establishment. It follows logic, courage, and patients who are willing to try when institutions are not.
Thank you again for articulating this vision. We are much closer than people think — and as you said, only need the courage to continue.
— **Xuewu Liu**
Inventor, Intra-Tumoral ClO₂ Therapy
cdsxcancer.com | clo2xuewuliu.substack.com
This is incredible. I cannot believe this was possible. This should be everywhere on the news. I am sharing this with people. Drugs that effective should never be ignored.
My four year old son has a NSGCT (yolk sac mix type, not choriocarcinoma) but I had the opportunity to learn about different GCTs when he was diagnosed and read up on the breakthrough treatment options.
Unfortunately the primary protocol for GCTs is relatively unchanged (BEP), dating back to 1979, and while highly effective, it’s still a side effect heavy protocol. I recently had a call with the doctor who chairs the international malignant germ cell tumor consortium and we briefly discussed genetic testing of the tumors for targeted treatment (my son’s tumor was submitted for testing) and relapsed non refractory tumor research. It was a lovely and educational call and I look forward to speaking with her again. Targeted treatments, and less toxic treatments are really so incredible and important, and why I will continue my advocacy for increased access to research and funding.
Yes! You are so right! Just because we have a curative treatment regimen does not mean we cannot do better. GCTs in children are a great example. Please keep us posted on the test results!
Wow, that’s amazing! We need more funding for this type of research, we need more diversity in the research teams so that treatment isn’t just targeted towards white people.
This administration is causing real harm to present and future cancer patients. 😡
I thought of you recovering from surgery WHILE the announcement was happening. I am not an optimistic person when it comes to "scientific breakthroughs," but the work Diaz has done first at Hopkins and now at MSK is fantastic. IMHO, he should be leading the NCI like yesterday.
My surgeries were still 100% worth it, but not having to go through them or chemotherapy or radiation would also save survivors a lot of trauma in the future. Thanks for thinking of me 💙
Incredible. Thank you for sharing this!
It is absolutely fair to say that enormous progress has been made in the past few decades in cancer diagnosis and treatment. I urge caution in the use of the term “cure cancer” for several reasons: (1) cancer is a broad term for a wide spectrum of types, some more amenable to diagnosis and treatment than others; (2) the term “cure” implies a level
of certainty that cannot be achieved with cancer in the sense that (at least within the technologies we are aware of and actively pursuing) we cannot say with certainty that all tumor cells have been eliminated from a given patient, such that the chance of reoccurrence cannot be predicted; (3) there will likely always be cancers that are difficult to fully eradicate. However, as noted in my recent book, “Taming Cancer,” advances in immunotherapy and our increasing understanding of cancer biology are providing a means for obtaining long (decades) remissions in some patients. For others, we are learning how to slow and perhaps even shut down the biochemical processes that drive metastatic spread. This is an exciting time in cancer medicine, with enormous opportunities for further advances in diagnosis and treatment. I am concerned that the current “war on science” will damage future progress in this and other fields of medicine.
I was diagnosed with Lynch Syndrome and early stage rectal cancer (considered cured with surgery) right around when Dr. Diaz's results were published. I know this is exciting patients with Lynch Syndrome (MMR gene deficiency), but my doctors don't really talk much about it - I mostly gathered that excitement through my own research and reading publications like this one. I realize doctors don't want to create false positivity and remain cautious, but most female Lynch patients (including me) get hysterectomies due to the risk of uterine and ovarian cancers from Lynch. It's a decision I can't go back on and is pretty disruptive as someone in medical menopause in my early 40's. If doctors thought these results could be replicated on Lynch-related uterine or ovarian cancers, I wonder if that could change the recommendation for preventative surgery right away. I also can't help but wish the many oncologists I've seen since my diagnosis (OBGYN, GI, Breast) and/or genetic counselors would mention this study in some way, even if just talking about potential positive momentum/results for folks with genetic cancers who have to make life-changing decisions in service of prevention. Just wondering your thoughts on that as to me, this is a study that seems VERY exciting to Lynch patients, but I've only had my rectal surgeon mention it to me.