No, its not true.
The described method of inactivation lacks credibility
Such a potential cure would garner massive scientific interest, unyet the only publications since 1991 have been 3 places, 2 of which is correspondence / letters, the other is publication of an article in an un peer -reviewed journal.
Lack of peer review
Lack of data showing the experimental method, number of samples etc
Lack of proof of concept
A range of untruths about patents being offered as "facts". Length of time to obtain a patent is meaningless. The award of a patent does not in itself offer any proof of concept.
Anytime you see offered so called miracle cures, offered by famous "inventors", with no proof beyond anecdote,assertions of a suppressive conspiracy,experimental vagueness, rhetorical hyperbole and a couple of references on the internet, you should be extremely sceptical of any potential benefit.
It remains an unevidenced, highly dubious treatment protocol, and for that reason is dangerous.