Talk:GcMAF

Comments

The scientific terminology regarding Gc-MAF is not known to the public. People do not search on "macrophages" or "innate immunity" and they are being mislead by parties who provide them wrong information.

This page is created to direct people from the product name Gc-MAF to the more scientific pages explaining this part of the immune system and their role in disease process.

Ultimately this page will be like for instance the page about Interferons. It will take time and effort to build on this page.

I am a victim of the misinformation on the web and have the desire to structure information so that other people will have the correct information --Gcmafexpert (talk) 15:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

NOTE TO MODERATORS: i have detected an error in the way references are written, i will correct them one by one.--Gcmafexpert (talk) 15:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

This page needs to be updated to reflect the new research. http://www.gcmaf.eu/gcmaf-science/our-scientific-presentations/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.134.138.161 (talk) 05:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

See this list of research items that need to be incorporated in this item. Help is welcome : http://www.bgli.nl/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&id=6&Itemid=17 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gcmafexpert (talk • contribs) 17:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe from the scientific papers I've read that there is a key fact that is not understood widely. All cancers that oncologists see emit high levels of nagalase. When you understand the aneuploid nature of all cancers, that they have extra and missing whole chromosomes, the nagalase fact implies that all the cancers that did not make excess nagalase died at the hands of activated macrophages and their allies among the white blood cells. That is unless accidental production of nagalase prevents formation of GcMAF, as it does, each cancer is killed by activated macrophages and their friends before it gets large enough to be detected.

Now that Immuno Biotech Ltd. has found that adding oleic acid greatly increases the effectiveness of GcMAF, this treatment is a threat to the entire cancer, pharma, oncology industry which gets enormous funding while the cancer cure rates improve very little. Thus there are economic interests which motivate suppressing any treatment which can cure almost all cancers in a month or two at very low cost. Please do not let them succeed. Read the six hits Google Scholar returns for GcMAF oleic acid and incorporate that data into the main page for GcMAF. Nitpicker77 (talk) 02:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Cheney ref

The Cheney ref isn't really appropriate for the first paragraph...it really needs to be something in a peer-reviewed journal. Searching through google scholar I see various better references, but as I know nothing about Gc-MAF I can't really suggest any changes. --sciencewatcher (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

History section

I am moving this section here, as it is based only on primary sources and the claims about the chronology of the initial studies involving humans would appear to be at least partially contradicted by PMID 8665521 from 1996.

==History==

In 1999 Nobuto Yamamoto published his first report mentioning the use of Gc-MAF on tumor bearing mice.

The first report of the application of Gc-MAF in research on humans dates back to the same year by another research group.

Yamamoto has used Gc-MAF as a purported treatment for prostate cancer.

31.48.175.145 (talk) 22:54, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Disclaimer

Re the recently added COI / expert-subject tags [1]: This page was recently cleaned up by myself (as 31.48.175.145) and ChemNerd in response to posts on the Medicine project talkpage by The Anome. Speaking for myself, I have no relevant COI here (see disclaimer at User talk:31.48.175.145), and I do indeed have a professional background in evidence-based medicine.

In the current version (as of 22:22, 2 September 2014), I am confident that the page does not contain any COI content. 86.134.200.29 (talk) 23:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

COI apparently means Conflict Of Interest. The entire article is misleading since understanding GcMAF and nagalase is central to how we usually cure our own cancers and why we ever fail at that. Who would want to suppress information about how our cancers protect themselves from activated macrophages? The Conflict Of Interest is with the income stream to big pharma and hospitals and oncologists which would dry up if it were easy to cure virtually all cancers. In the article proper, the word misleadingly is applied to the measurement of effectiveness of a treatment by observing the nagalase level in the blood. Where is there ANY support for the claim that any misleading is going on? I don't see it. 75.101.93.75 (talk) 15:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC) Nitpicker77 (talk) 16:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Direct cites of retractions now available

I'm removing the RetractionWatch citations from the article, as we now have direct links to each of the retraction notices. Just for reference, here are the RetractionWatch articles that were cited:

• Oransky, Ivan (25 July 2014). "Paper about widely touted but unapproved "cure" for cancer, autism retracted". Retraction Watch. Retrieved 2014-07-26.
• http://retractionwatch.com/2014/10/10/yet-another-study-of-widely-touted-cancer-cure-retracted/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
• http://retractionwatch.com/2014/08/21/second-study-of-widely-touted-cancer-and-hiv-cure-retracted/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

-- Impsswoon (talk) 17:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Poor source

Recently editors insisted that a link to a talk by Marco Ruggiero, hosted at a German private website is sufficient to include here. a) A private talk is a very poor source, especially for inclusion in a controversy section, at a medicine article. b) Further is the person who held the talk involved in another controversy about HIV/AIDS, Inquiry launched over AIDS contrarian's teaching. I suggest the editor Skyfall revert the addition and reads WP:RS and WP:MEDRS.prokaryotes (talk) 11:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to revert my edit, but from my point of view this change of mind is very interesting. I'll wait until the primary source (the private talk of one of the main authors of these controversial studies) will be included in a secondary source more reliable than this. --Skyfall (talk) 13:33, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

OR

Recently editor MeisterEckart added his own original research (WP:OR) to the article, about journal publications, the source does not include anything about GcMAF, hence this is his own research. I suggest the editor reverts his addition. prokaryotes (talk) 11:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

It's a very profitable scam right now, this is not a big surprise. Guy (Help!) 21:57, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Predatory journals

While there's clearly a lot of misinformation about this out there, what exactly defines these journals as "predatory"? One source is from a leading cancer research journal, which clearly represents conflict of interest. The other just calls it "questionable". Can we call it "questionable" rather than "predatory", and use less-inflammatory language? -- By editor Wikimeonetwo

Here: Predatory open access publishing. --Skyfall (talk) 09:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Content changes

User:169.1.210.115 you are adding unsourced content and removing sourced content, and not using edit notes. Would you please explain what you are doing? Thx Jytdog (talk) 03:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I believe the Article to be misleading! We should Approach this topic with caution and rather be true to our prospective growth as collective beings. We have been researching GcMAF for quite some time and the positive results are promising. To completely deny the research as a hoax and to refer to the anticancer results- which have been attempting to find a cure for cancer for almost 100 years, where has the research gone? we should rather open all avenues and make claims which should lead the way for more research.. Peace to the world... And Love Unconditionally — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.1.210.115 (talk) 03:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for posting here. You are about to blocked for edit warring, so I suggest that you stop reverting. What an editor believes is not relevant in WP. Content must be based on reliable sources per the policy WP:VERIFY; please read WP:MEDRS, which defines what a "reliable source" is for content about health. You cannot remove reliably sourced content and add unsourced content in Wikipedia. That is not OK. Jytdog (talk) 03:49, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Efranat edits

User:PageMaster, the content you have added:

• here at 02:53, 8 November 2017
• here at 18:24, 8 November 2017
• here at 19:20, 8 November 2017
• here at 19:41, 8 November 2017
• here at 00:14, 9 November 2017

are blatantly promotional and unacceptably sourced, which is why they kept getting reverted. If you don't understand the problem please ask. But please respond to my inquiry on your Talk page first. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Would you please also clarify if you are the same person who did the following?

• diff at 05:35, 1 November 2017
• diff at 02:53, 2 November 2017
• diff at 03:11, 2 November 2017
• diff at 03:23, 2 November 2017
• diff at 05:42, 2 November 2017
• diff at 13:23, 2 November 2017
• diff at 13:32, 2 November 2017

(noting that in this diff the page was protected, at 14:04, 2 November 2017 until Nov 6)

Do tell Jytdog (talk) 01:02, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

GcMAF in Israel

There is definitely progress being made at Efranat Ltd in Israel in developing GcMAF. The old post misleads people to think that GcMAF is a dead subject. This is hugely misleading. Efranat Ltd is the only world entity advancing the cause for GcMAF. So it is not possible to discuss GcMAF without bringing up Efranat Ltd. They are at the forefront of GcMAF reseach and this fact is not intended to promote Efranat Ltd. They do not have a product on the market yet to promote. Efranat Ltd just completed a FDA registered Phase 1 Clinical Trial on their GcMAF product (EF-022). This product is produced using Dr. Yamamoto's original GcMAF production patents. GcMAF itself cannot be patented. It is just common sense that everyone would want to know the results of the Phase 1 Trial. (Your post insinuates that GcMAF has never gone through any formal clinical trials. This is wrong now.) This Phase 1 proves that GcMAF is safe and effective. Look at what Efranat Ltd posted on their Linkedin web page. I standby the references I used to support my comments. They are all reputable.

I don't understand the opposition I have received to posting the truth. I am a newbie to Wikipedia and seems there are one or two old timers who want to jump on me and oppose me without adequate discussion.

You should know that the last undue to restore my post was made by ScienceWatcher. So maybe this editor is on my side. I welcome a review by the board because I know my information is correct and the old post is misleading and out of date. But it can be left in place to show the evolution of GcMAF as an up and coming medical advancement.

PageMaster (talk) 05:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Sources about health effects need WP:MEDRS. So far the decent sources we have say this was a scam based on dodgy research. When decent secondary sources say otherwise, Wikipedia will follow. Alexbrn (talk) 12:09, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

If GcMAF is such a touchy subject, why did you permit the update that reported in 2014 that Efranat Ltd began a clinical trial at a hospital in Israel? This is a true recent event. Since you do not want to report that this clinical trial has successfully completed, the next current event would be the following per an FDA announcement: (Assuming that you do not consider the FDA a questionable source.)

"In May 2017 the U.S. Food and Drug Administraion (FDA) granted both an Orphan Drug Designation and a Rare Pediatric Disease (RPD) designation to Efranat Ltd to develop a GcMAF treatment for Recurrent Respiratory Papillomatosis (RRP)."

Since we know that this clinical trial was on GcMAF, any basic change to the GcMAF protein (no longer GcMAF) would require a new clinical trial. There has been no reports that Efranat Ltd is starting a new Phase 1 Trial on a new substance called EF-022. So Efranat Ltd is still working on their brand of GcMAF called EF-022 trying to find a mixture (something like Vitamin D-3 and Oleic Acid) that will better stabilize the protein when used in clinical practice. This is expected and normal product improvement. So if you are not going to permit this GcMAF page to be updated, then the subject of GcMAF needs to be deleted for Wikipedia. The current page is out of date.

Common sense would tell you that there is more to GcMAF than meets the eye. The immune system makes it for a reason. The immune system would not waste the energy if it did not serve a purpose. Since it is made by the immune system and this system attacks defective cells and invaders, you would think that GcMAF has something to do with this. The studies will tell us what it does. GcMAF is the term given to a real immune protein that was unknown until Dr. Yamamoto discovered it. There are many studies on PubMed that prove it exists. So let science give us the answers, not have a mental block because it may be too good to be true. Keep an open mind, follow all the developments and do not hide anything that can be reported under the Wikipedia guidelines.

PageMaster (talk) 04:52, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

The sources say that EF-022 is merely "based on" GcMAF, so it's not the same. In any case, we need secondary and/or WP:MEDRS sources on EF-022 and these do not appear to exist, so there is nothing to be said. Alexbrn (talk) 07:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

What sources? I follow the research, what sources? If GcMAF is the active ingredient in the EF-022 product, it is a GcMAF treatment. EF-022 would have to be completely devoid of GcMAF to be a different product. All the Efranat Ltd patents pertain to GcMAF processing. Efranat Ltd has not filed a patent on any new substance. They are down playing the fact their EF-022 is based on GCMAF because of negative pages like the current Wikipedia "GcMAF" page. This page needs to be updated or deleted because it is no longer relevant (Dr. Yamamoto is history) and is hiding new and amazing research on GcMAF. Where is the information that 43% of the terminal cancer patients (different tumor cancers) in the first part of the Phase 1 Trial were stabilized by the end of this part. Where is the information that 25% of the terminal patients (different tumor cancers) in the larger second part of this Phase 1 Trial were stabilized by the end of the trial. Where is the information that this safety was successfully completed without any toxicity. Where is the information on the recent FDA reward action that I am trying to post? Is it Wikipedia's intent to hide new factual information on an up and coming scientific advancement? What are people going to think when new information surfaces that completely challenges the slant of the Wikipedia article? This will tarnish Wikipedia's reputation. Is that your purpose? Wikipedia should be unbiased and follow new validated developments on GcMAF. Did you know that the Belgium Anticancer fund is working on a new paper on GcMAF after results of the Phase 1 Trial were released?PageMaster (talk) 19:14, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

108.202.67.74 (talk) 18:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Please log in when you edit. You appear to be same person as PageMaster -- please confirm that you are. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:00, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

The write up of the trial itself refers to EF-022 as a "modified" activator. But once again, we need on-topic secondary sources for this. There are none I can see. If you're editing logged-out, that's bad. Alexbrn (talk) 19:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

No, the reference does not say that. It says Macrophage activator and modified Vitamin D Binding Protein, not "modified activator." If you look at the scientific background in the article you reference you will see that it says Efranat has developed cancer immunotherapy based on macrophage activation using a plasma protein designated EF-022, a modified Vitamin D Binding Protein Macrophage Activator. This is same definition for GcMAF. GcMAF is a blood protein and EF-022 is the same blood protein. Both are made by the immune system by modifing Vitamin D Binding Proteins. "A rose is still a rose by any other name." Vitamin D binding proteins are the precursors for both. Your refernce does not backup your claim and in fact supports my position that GcMAF and EF-022 are one and the same. PageMaster (talk) 19:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Your comprehension is at fault: as "modified" is explicit (quote: "a modified Vitamin D Binding Protein Macrophage Activator"). In any case, absent WP:MEDRS this topic is now at a dead end. I shall not respond further unless decent secondary sources are produced. Alexbrn (talk) 19:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

User:PageMaster thanks for acknowledging that you made the edit by the IP above. Please see your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 20:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

No, your comprehension is wrong. What do you think GcMAF is? It is by definition a modified Vitamin D Binding Protein Macrophage Activator. My reference for the FDA reward to Efranat Ltd for a GcMAF treatment for RRP is valid, correct, independent of Efranat Ltd and reputable. It was reviewed by 2 HELP Desk editors. Do us all a favor and "undo" your block to my post. It is appropriate to show that GcMAF is not dead and evolving to keep Wikipedia relevant on GcMAF. If you don't, we will go to arbitration and cooler heads will prevail based on the facts. This may be a bad reflection on you when facts have no meaning to you and you cannot be persuadedPageMaster (talk) 21:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC).

If "the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted an Orphan Drug Designation", It would be appreciated indicate a reliable source as this. --Skyfall (talk) 03:36, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

The 3-party reference based on a press release is at http://www.evaluategroup.com/Universal/View.aspx?type=Story&id=709149 The Efranat Ltd company website also brags about this but it is a primary reference which cannot be used. But the evaluategroup.com reference should be sufficient. Any help in getting my previous post "restored" from the "undue" status would be appreciated.PageMaster (talk) 04:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

The evaluate ref is a press release and this is not OK. Jytdog (talk) 04:16, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I have emailed the FDA for more information. I will see where this leads and if I can get another reference.PageMaster (talk) 05:08, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

The source of the press release cited before was Efranat, a company founded in 2009 by an architect, a commercial aviation pilot and Nobuto Yamamoto. This startup company is raising funds for Its primary product, EF-022, based on the controversial research of Yamamoto whose several works have already been retracted, some pretty "weird" (like these published 9 years ago when he claimed to have eradicated HIV in 15 seropositive patients using GcMAF). Yes, It is necessary a bit more reliable source.

References

--Skyfall (talk) 21:48, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Skyfall. I am impressed with your research. The wives of the architect and pilot both died after a lengthy battle with colon cancer. They had tried about every known conventional cancer treatment to no avail. Their wives were receiving treatment in Germany where the two men met. They were about to try GcMAF when their wives died, but believed that GcMAF could have saved them. So they contacted Dr. Yamamoto and persuaded him to go in with them to form a new start-up in Israel using Dr. Yamamoto's processing patents and research. The crux of the problem is GcMAF is a natural immune protein and the protein itself cannot be patented. Therefore the big pharmaceutical entities are not interested. Thanks again for the update and I will try to find another source.PageMaster (talk) 03:18, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, we are getting there. I emailed the FDA for a reference and AdisInsights to update their database. AdisInsights has updated their database to show that a Orphan Drug Designation has been granted. Also it makes reference to a Phase 1 study and further development of GcMAF. The FDA reference is at . Someone needs to update the GcMAF page now. Whose page is this?

References

--PageMaster (talk) 00:40, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Jytdog for your update. We'll all continue to watch the evolution of GcMAF. Just wish it was in America.PageMaster (talk) 06:13, 13 December 2017 (UTC)