M.B. is a 69-year-old white male who has been treated for chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia for the last five years. He started taking substance twenty drops twice a day in October of 2015. This was because of the concern about falling red blood cell counts and platelet counts. His white blood cell count, though elevated remained elevated, and fluctuant. Results: In October 2015, his red blood cell was four point zero five (4.05) and his platelet count was ninety (90). In April 2016 his red blood cell count was four point nineteen (4.19) and his platelet count was one hundred and five (105). It was felt that this was a significant increase in both his red blood cell count and platelet count. Please see table below (Table 1) as follows.

J.O. is a 45-year-old white male diagnosed with advanced stage four colon cancer. He was diagnosed in January of 2016 and was not thought by the attending physician that he could have a positive outcome as the cancer was in mastitis and had spread throughout his body. His symptoms included a damaged liver, renal obstruction, lung polyps, anxiety, depression, and severe lack of energy. The patient received the first cycle of chemotherapy in March 2016. Results: In April 2016 the patient received his first dose of Innovation administered orally at forty drops three times daily. At this time the patient showed noticeable improvement in overall health in minutes. The patient showed an improvement in energy levels as the next day he was playing basketball, mental focus, depression, and anxiety improved noticeably and his outlook on life was a positive hope. His tumors have shrunk and since the treatments of substance and chemotherapy he has had no major side effects such as hair loss, debilitating constipation, depression, anxiety, weight loss, or nausea. He has not had to visit the emergency for complications except for a staph infection at his injection port. The patient is doing well and can function without interference with his normal lifestyle. The patient has been motivated to tell others of the benefits of taking substance that it can help others with Serious or Life-threatening conditions or diseases (Table 2).

R.G. is a 60-year-old male diagnosed with an enlarged prostate. He had been to multiple medical professionals that have treated him for everything from bleeding eyes to a heart attack. Physicians have recommended various surgeries for his prostate but the patient did not want to have these surgeries because of the possible adverse outcomes. Results: In October 2017 he was administered Innovation/Technology while in the hospital being treated, within three minutes he felt an improved feeling in his prostate which felt like less pressure and less pain. He continued to improve over four months and no longer requires invasive procedures to alleviate prostate swelling. Please see the table below (Table 3) as follows.

Comparison of Red Blood Count and Platelet Count from October; 2015 through April; 2016.

Comparison of White Blood Count and Platelet Count from April; 2017 through November; 2017.

Comparison of estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate, White Blood Count, and Platelet Count from October; 2017 through December; 2017.

E.B. is a 46-year-old white male diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis (MS) in November 2016. He was the first suspect as having Lyme disease but upon further testing it was found to be MS. He experienced a continual degradation of motor function until he was bedridden, and he had almost total immobility of his legs and arms. The caregiver would assist the patient with all movement including bathroom activities. Results: The patient began taking Innovation in October 2017 and showed a positive response for the first dose. Throughout treatments, the patient has experienced improved motor function to where he can sit in a wheelchair and move and can sit on the toilet without the aid of the caregiver. The patient continues to show marked improvement as the treatment progresses. The see table below (Table 4) as follows.

R.H. is a 54-year-old white male who was diagnosed on December 26, 2016, with esophageal cancer in stage two after the patient collapsed for no apparent reason and began spewing blood. The patient was rushed to the local emergency room where testing immediately began and the diagnosis was made. The patient refused standard medical cancer treatment (chemotherapies). Results: The patient began taking Innovation on February 20, 2017 and showed improvements in both reports blood reports and medical scans. The physician at the hospital after reviewing the blood report and medical scans recommended: “resume regular diet” and receive another checkup in four weeks. Please see the table below (Table 5) as follows.

Comparison of White Blood Count and Platelet Count from September; 2017 through December; 2017.

Comparison of White Blood Count, Mean Platelet Volume and Platelet from January; 2017 through March; 2017.

Purpose: A Dermal Sensitization test was conducted with guinea pigs to determine the potential for the Innovation to produce sensitization after repeated topical applications. The test substance (20% w/w solution in distilled water) was topically applied to ten healthy test guinea pigs and 1-Chloro-2,4-Dinitrobenzene (DNCB, 0.08% in 80% aqueous ethanol) was topically applied to ten healthy positive control animals, once each week for a three weeks induction period. Fourteen days after the last induction dose, a challenge dose of the test or positive control substances at their highest non-irritating concentration (12% w/w solution in distilled water and 0.04% w/w solution in acetone, respectively) was applied to a naïve site on each guinea pig from the respective groups. Approximately twenty-four and forty-eight hours after each induction and challenge dose, the animals were scored for erythema. Two naïve control groups (five animals for the test substance and five for the positive control substance) were maintained under identical environmental conditions and treated with the test or positive control substance at challenge only. Based on the results of this study, the test substance is not considered to be a contact sensitizer. The positive response to 0.04% DNCB in acetone validates the test system used in this study [19] [20]. Conclusion: Based on these findings and on the evaluation, system used, substance is not considered to be a contact sensitizer (Table 6 and Table 7).

Purpose: To provide information on health hazards likely to arise from a short term continuous exposure (four hours) to Innovation via the inhalation route at an exposure level of 2.0 mg/L. Data from this study may be used as a basis for classification and labeling and/or to select subsequent exposure levels for further studies. An Acute Inhalation Toxicity test was conducted with rats to determine the potential for

substance to produce toxicity via the inhalation route. Based on the results of this study, the single exposure Acute Inhalation LC₅₀ of the test substance appears to be greater than 2.02 mg/L. After establishing the desired generation procedures during pre-test trials, ten healthy rats were exposed to the test atmosphere for four hours. Chamber concentration and particle size distribution of the test substance were determined periodically during the exposure period. The animals were observed for signs of gross toxicity and behavioral changes at least once daily for fourteen days or until mortality. Conclusion: This single exposure Inhalation Acute LC₅₀ of substance appears to be greater the 2.02 mg/L when aerosolized as received (Table 8).

An Acute Inhalation Toxicity Results: One male and two females died within two days of exposure to the test atmosphere. The gravimetric and nominal chamber concentrations were 2.02 mg/L and 23.62 mg/L. Based on graphic analysis of the particle size distribution as measured with an Anderson Cascade impactor, the mass median aerodynamic diameter was estimated to be 2.6 microns.

In-chamber animal observations included ocular and nasal discharge, facial staining, irregular respiration, dyspnea, hunched posture, and hypo-activity. With the exception of ocular and nasal discharge, similar clinical signs persisted upon removal from the exposure chamber and most rats also developed gasping, reduced fecal volume and/or red stains were found in the litter. Prior to death, two of the decedents also exhibited a prone posture. All surviving rats recovered from the above symptoms by Day #4 and appeared active and healthy for the remainder of the study. Although most surviving animals failed to gain bodyweight through Day #7, all gained weight over the entire 14-day observation period. Gross necropsy of the decedents revealed discoloration of the lungs, liver, and intestines, edema of the lungs and rigor mortis. No gross abnormalities were noted for the animals necropsied at test termination (Day #14). Conclusion: The single exposure Acute Inhalation LC₅₀ of substance appears to be greater than 2.02 mg/L when aerosolized as received.

Dermal Sensitization Test Results: Test Animals (applied as a 20% w/w solution in distilled water): Very faint to severe erythema (0.5 - 3) was noted at all test sites during the induction phase. Even though the dose sites were relocated to a naïve prior to the second induction, the overall severity of irritation continued to increase with each successive application. Eschar was noted at four dose sites following the third induction. Positive Control Animals (0.08% DNCB in 80% aqueous ethanol): Very faint to severe erythema (0.5 - 3) was noted at all positive control sites during the induction phase. Overall, the incidence and severity of irritation increased with each successive application. Eschar was evident at several sites following the second or third inductions. A decrease in the severity of irritation was noted in several animals, after the dose site was relocated to an adjacent area prior to the third induction. Conclusion: Based on these findings and on the evaluation, system used, substance is not considered to be a contact sensitizer. The positive to 0.04% DNCB in acetone validates the test system used in this study.

The Innovation involves the disciplines of Quantum Mechanics in Equation [23], Quantum Biology, and particle physics [24]. The advancement forward using the Innovation in the adaptation of biological organisms responding in similar fashion may perform to crossing species. For instance, the Innovation may be used in the treatment of animals yet, and the Innovation may also be used in the treatment of humans. The Innovation has a broad spectrum of applications including an application to the treatment of plants species. This crossover of animal, to human to plant species gives further Credence to the application of the quantum method to the Innovation. It is believed that the Innovation has changed or created either a new particle unknown to science or has caused the new function of an existing particle not seen or theorized in the scientific community. This theory is surmised because the Innovation may permeate through cellular tissues anywhere in a biological organism and repair damage to the organism. The delineation of particle transference may describe a particle that may travel through solid mass and transfer to the other side of the mass or to be transferred or transformed to the mass.

The Tiȇu Equation incorporates the wave function through temperature that releases energy for the subatomic particle movement [25]. The Innovation has the ability through absorption to cross the blood-brain barrier from the blood system to the nervous system without damaging the barrier [26] (when thermal energy is absorbed or released). This is accomplished from particle permeation through the barrier which may contain a layering effect. Particle permeation may only be done through a vibration and vacuum fluctuations that is caused from the wave effect explained through the String Theory that delineates wave function of particles [27]. Particle Entanglement: Is the measurement from the outcomes of object state I Particle-A which is correlated with the measurement of outcomes from object state II Particle-B (two independents then and events with solution, (then-PA(ƴ₁) = event-PB(ƴ₂)).

NOTE: Though the Tiȇu equation shows the quantum method that delineates the Innovation for practical application, the mathematical calculation is not disclosed on this paper but will be forthcoming in future publications. These calculations will show the results of study subjects administered with the Innovation and the benefits received from are use.

The theory and prediction by the author accurately predicted the Innovation as defined for Real-World Evidence as pre-clinical data regarding the usage, or the potential benefits or risks, of a drug derived from sources other than traditional clinical trials [28].

Schrödinger Equation. “The Cat in the Box” has never had any experimental practical application only theory or equation (though experiment) and Quantum Mechanics has been considered as incomplete. The Schrödinger Equation has been used in many theories and has not given a fully proven method for Quantum Mechanics. When Erwin Schrödinger created “The Cat in the Box” [29] it was considered a thought experiment and was to provide for new ideas but was not considered for an actual practical application, only to be a consideration of particle physics. Albert Einstein even believed that the theory of Quantum Mechanics was incomplete and needed more study to explain its shortcomings [30]. In fact, many experiments for Quantum Mechanics have been performed thru mathematical calculations without practical or Real-World application being performed.