GcMAF - Does anyone know about this compound?

Discussion in 'Fibromyalgia Main Forum' started by consuegra, Jan 9, 2010.

  1. consuegra

    consuegra New Member

    I asked this forum a few months ago if anyone knows about this compound. This seems to be another study - http://assets0.pubget.com/pdf/19031451.pdf

    Is anyone trying this on XMRV? Does anyone know? I have heard rumors.

  2. hensue

    hensue New Member

    Are you hearing about trials on xmrv patients? Hiv or what keep me posted ok. I could not understand half of it so I hope you can.

    Please let me know if you hear anymore.

    Thanks hensue
  3. acer2000

    acer2000 New Member

    I read this as well... They have been testing this compound against HIV for a while. Looks promising? As you saying you know of them testing against XMRV? That would be cool...
  4. harmod

    harmod New Member


    I am quite familiar with GcMAF. What do you want to know?
  5. consuegra

    consuegra New Member

    I have heard of this compound potentially being used to treat CFS/ME. A particular specialist is especially keen on this, supposedly. I read about it on the internet and the claims relative to cancer and HIV are quite extreme. It is suggested that GcMAF is an immune regulator and I imagine that it is because of this that it might be considered for CFS/ME. GcMAF appears to be difficult to obtain and there is no information on the internet of it being used in CFS/ME. I wonder if it is seen as being safe and if there might be any grounds to the rumors that I have heard in regard to its potential use. As you know, all sorts of things are being considered, particularly in light of XMRV, and I wonder if there is any possibilities for GcMAF?

    Any suggestions would be welcome.

  6. acer2000

    acer2000 New Member

  7. simonedb

    simonedb Member

    do tell, all
    when what how why where etc
  8. acer2000

    acer2000 New Member

  9. acer2000

    acer2000 New Member

  10. harmod

    harmod New Member

    Dr. Yamamoto's discoveries are related to the role of the macrophage in the immune system. The macrophage, of course, is the Field Marshall of the immune system. In a healthy human body, damaged cells release the components of the cell membranes into the interstitial fluids and thence into the blood stream. These are lysophospholipids. They serve as a cytokine (or chemical activator) for the B cells.

    The B cells produce an enzyme called beta galactosidase in response to the lysophospholipids. The enzyme is located on the surface of the cell membrane.

    There is a protein in the blood stream known as "Vitamin D Binding Protein" or "Group Specific Component" or "Gc." We'll use Gc here.

    At one specific site on the protein, there is a three-sugar entity attached. The first sugar is attached to the protein, and the second and third sugars are attached to the first. In Dr. Yamamoto's papers this is described as a dibranched trisaccharide.

    The B cell's enzyme cleaves sugar #3, and an enzyme on the cell surface of the T-cells (always resident) can then cleave sugar #2. (If you want all the names, read the Prostate Cancer paper published in Translational Oncology at http://www.transonc.com/pdf/manuscript/v01i02/neo08106.pdf.)

    The Gc protein is then left with only sugar #1 of the original three. That resulting molecule is what activates the macrophages. Dr. Y states that it is the most powerful macrophage activating factor ever discovered.

    However, both cancer and viruses release an enzyme (Nagalase) into the blood stream that cleaves all three sugars in that entity. With all three removed, there is no way the body can convert it to GcMAF, because sugar #1 must be left in place.

    Cancers and viruses disable the immune system by destroying (deglycosylating) the Gc protein that is the precursor of GcMAF. With little or no Gc protein, there is little or no GcMAF. With little or no GcMAF there is little or no activation of the macrophages. With little or no activation of the macrophages . . . .

    Dr. Y extracts Gc protein from a healthy volunteer's blood and uses the two enzymes found in B-cells and T-cells to cleave sugars #3 and #2, thereby producing GcMAF in the lab.

    That GcMAF is then injected into the vein of the patient and begins the process of activating the macrophages. The dosage is 100 nanagrams (or one ten-millionth of a gram). Increasing the dosage will not increase the macrophage activation.

    GcMAF has been tested at ten times the maximum effective dose (one millionth of a gram) without any adverse side effects. Even in a healthy person, it exhibits no side effects.

    Within 4 hours the ingestive rate (phagocytic rate) of the macrophage increases 30-fold. In about 4 days, the number of macrophages will have increased about 40-fold. The amount of superoxide produced by the macrophage increases 15-fold.

    So, 40 times as many macrophages gobbling up things at 30 time the rate . . . . You do the math.

    GcMAF is not disease-specific, because the macrophage is not disease-specific. If there is a protein or organism in the ailing body that the macrophages should be attacking, they will do so when GcMAF is administered.

    Curing CFIDS would probably take about 5 to 10 IV injections (at one per week).

    Sometime in the future, research will prove that CFIDS is a viral disease -- probably a recombinant virus formed by rubella fragments and a retrovirus. But activated macrophages do not care where it came from. If it's not normal, they'll destroy it.

    That was the good news. What follows is the unhappy news.

    GcMAF does have an Achilles Heel -- prescription drugs. Certain drugs prevent the activation of the macrophages. They include all pain-killers (even Novacaine), blood pressure meds, and steroids. There is no comprehensive list of the drugs that interfere with macrophage activation, so the safest course for anyone using GcMAF is to refrain from ANY drug use. This is somewhere between difficult and impossible in some extremely late-stage cancer patients.

    Also, GcMAF is not available in the United States. Nor, to my knowledge, is it available anywhere on earth. But I am hoping that it will be made available somewhere within the next year.

    There is a cancer clinic in the Bahamas that has been producing and administering what they say is GcMAF, but their results have been dismal. I have it on good authority that the product has been analyzed by a researcher and found to have little or no activity.

    Another counterfeit version is being sold by a fellow in the western United States, but he is careful to only ship it out of the US. I have reliable reports of adverse reactions to that product.

    GcMAF is very, very difficult to make, requiring extremely exact laboratory procedures. Only highly-qualified scientists with an intimate knowledge of certain key steps are able to produce it, so it is unlikely to show up on the black market.

    Also, not all reagents and biologicals are the same, even though they have the same names and formulae on the labels. More than one batch has been lost, because of sub-standard reagents and biologicals.

    I am not one of those who can produce it.

    If I had CFIDS and could not get GcMAF, I would be investigating photoluminescence, intravenous hydrogen peroxide, and intravenous polymannans (extracted from aloe vera). I am sorry that I am not allowed to post information on how to obtain those treatments. They are all legal. A prescription for the polymannans must be filled by a compounding pharmacist.

    I hoe you find this useful. If I can help you with anything else, let me know.
  11. consuegra

    consuegra New Member

    This answer is like a gold mine of information. I cannot imagine a better response. Thank you for your effort in writing this.

    As far as I can see GcMAF is floating around the edges of CFS/ME.

    I now have the information to ask more questions. I have been informed that it is available in a limited circle - but you bring up a good point about the quality of the product.

    Thanks again. This was great.


  12. denis321

    denis321 New Member

    Here is my not-as-technical understanding from skimming the article. The writing in this article is not only very technical but not the clearest.

    Because this substance acts on the immune system rather than acting on a specific virus (HIV in this case), it has the potential to get rid of HIV ("cure"?). Antiretrovirals currently prevent replication, attachment, etc. so that new T-cells are not infected as much but my understanding is that those T-cells that have latent HIV are not affected by antiretrovirals. And thus HIV cannot be eliminated entirely and people must remain on antiretrovirals.

    What caught my eye in this study was that the Japanese subjects involved appeared to not have taken any antiretrovirals at all from my reading but had low viral loads and high CD4 count. This is a very early small study. It would have be interesting for the authors to compare their findings to people on antiretrovirals.

    In regards to CFS, if XMRV is a player and is latent and not active or is a slow replicator, antiretrovirals currently available may be less helpful ala John Coffin so another mechanism of controlling or ridding the virus would be welcome.

    I would be hesitant to draw conclusions for CFS though without further data.
  13. acer2000

    acer2000 New Member

    I don't really understand why there aren't more wide scale trials with GcMAF for HIV. Clearly HAART doesn't really work in the long term because of resistance and expense. What's the hold up with GcMAF? Lack of funding for research? Patent issues? Bottleneck with manufacturing? Lack of interest? It seems like such a great treatment for various things...

    Also, what became of these patients who have (had?) HIV and were treated with GcMAF? Are their viral loads still 0? Were they tested with PCR assays that are sensitive enough to detect low copies? Are they now unable to transmit the virus despite not being on HAART? I'm very curious about this... I hope Dr. Mikovitz and Dr. Yamamoto talk because I think this would be a great study for them to do with XMRV.[This Message was Edited on 01/16/2010]
  14. harmod

    harmod New Member

    In the words of Deep Throat, "Follow the money."

    All drug trials are extremely expensive. That's how the big guys keep upstarts out of the business.

    A "new concept" drug is said to cost over a billion dollars to get through the (often needless) FDA testing. If you read Dr. Marcia Angell's book, you learn that the entire testing approval process is corrupt.

    One of the reasons that FDA testing costs so much is that they require such large experimental groups. They require large experimental groups, because
    (a) most drugs do not show much improvement over
    (1) existing drugs or
    (2) no drugs at all and
    (b) most drugs are quite toxic.

    To get statistically reliable data on a drug that shows only a slight effect requires a large experimental population.

    If GcMAF were evaluated on a purely scientific basis, it could be done with fewer than a thousand experimental subjects in less than a year. The reasons that I say that are that (a) GcMAF shows incomparable results (complete cures) in nearly 100% of patients and (b) has no toxicity.

    But I seriously doubt that the FDA would even dream of allowing that.

    In this case, if GcMAF were to be approved by the FDA, it would cause unemployment in the health care industry that could be measured on a seismograph and scored on the Richter Scale.

    Getting such a revolutionary discovery to market would require the wisdom of Solomon.

    If you know how to do it, I'd love to learn how. And I bet Dr. Y would too.

  15. acer2000

    acer2000 New Member

    I don't know how to, but perhaps Dr. Yamamoto should talk to the Gates foundation. They seem to be more concerned about results than profits. I have no idea if they would fund research or not, but it would be worth a shot...
  16. acer2000

    acer2000 New Member

  17. acer2000

    acer2000 New Member


    Have you heard any more information regarding this compound? I am curious, are you able to share which CFS specialist has taken an interest in this? I gave the paper about HIV to my CFS specialist. I don't know what he'd going to do with it.

    I have since found another paper that says GcMAF has been helpful in curing or treating certain types of prostate cancer as well.


    I wonder if this has something to do with XMRV or a virus causing prostate cancer in some cases?
  18. marius68

    marius68 New Member

    I must say that I've been following Gc-Maf since my aunt died of colon cancer. Of course when such bold claims are made people will ask why isn't it readily available. I want to share with you all and interesting example of the arguments used by the establishment to DENY progress in medical treatment. Please read carefully the arguments exposed in this Cancer Research UK blog about Gc-Maf (http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2008/12/03/cancer-cured-for-good-gc-maf-and-the-miracle-cure/). It was authored by a certain Kat (I guess Kat Arney of some posts), ith thanks to Thorsten Hagemann at the Institute of Cancer, Barts and The London School of Medicine.

    Some of the arguments include:
    (1) “the studies are very small, involving fewer than twenty patients in each – rather than the thousands needed to make the sort of claims mentioned above”;

    (2) “all the patients involved had received standard treatment for their cancer, including surgery, chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy”;

    (3) “On top of this, the researchers didn’t actually monitor the progress of tumors in the patients, and provide no clinical information about them. Instead they opt to measure levels of Nagalase in the blood, rather than looking at any standard established markers for cancer”;

    (4) “Another telling point is the type of journal in which the research was published. If this research was truly groundbreaking, and pointed the way to a cure for cancer, then the research would likely be found in top-tier ’high-impact’ medical journals like The Lancet, The New England Journal of Medicine or the Journal of the American Medical Association. “

    Most arguments were easily dismissed by bloggers like Bill Sardi, Jack L. and Lilly. The argument that Nagalase is not a valid marker for Cancer progress was dismissed in 2009 by and Italian research group - Cancer Lett. 2009 Oct 8;283(2):222-9. Epub 2009 Apr 25. Maybe the next argument is that this paper is not valid because one of the authors name is Maffia!!! Please read the abstract and judge for yourself:

    Serum proteomic profile of cutaneous malignant melanoma and relation to cancer progression: association to tumor derived alpha-N-acetylgalactosaminidase activity.
    Greco M, Mitri MD, Chiriacò F, Leo G, Brienza E, Maffia M.

    Oncological Centre of V. Fazzi Hospital, ASL LE, Lecce, Italy. m.greco@physiology.unile.it

    Currently clinical outcome in melanoma is not predictable by known serum biomarkers. The only reliable tool for the diagnosis of this tumor is the histopathological assay after surgical removing. We used a proteomic approach in order to identify novel non-invasive serum biomarkers of melanoma. Serum proteomic maps showed different patterns in relation to the presence and progression of the tumor in five regions of the map. Differently expressed spots were identified by MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry. Significant increases of expression were found for transthyretin (TTR) and angiotensinogen (AGT) while vitamin D binding protein (DBP) expression was decreased in presence of melanoma. Interestingly, protein expression came back to control values in stages I and II of the disease after 1 month since surgical removal of suspected melanoma. We related the decrease of DBP spot to the impaired immune response of cancer patients. In fact cancer cells release the alpha-N-acetylgalactosaminidase that can deglycosylate DBP thus interfering with the immune cascade response in which DBP is involved, leading to immunosuppression in melanoma patients. Specific enzymatic activity of serum alpha-N-acetylgalactosaminidase was significantly increased in stage III melanoma patients, but not in early stages. This enzymatic assay may provide a non-invasive way of evaluation of melanoma severity.

    To conclude, there's also the suggestion that there's not "intelligent life" in immunotherapy research, outside Cancer Research UK: "And many Cancer Research UK-funded scientists are also working in this field. For example, Professor Fran Balkwill and her team are working on ways to trick macrophages and other immune cells into attacking cancer cells." According to published research, Dr. Yamamoto arrived first!!!

  19. smylze111

    smylze111 New Member

    Harmod or Others,

    Is anyone familiar with GcMAF as to how it may affect late stage Lyme? Just trying to get my head around how amazing it sounds.

  20. VitaminBoss

    VitaminBoss New Member

    I have extensive knowledge on Gc-MAF. First of all, the lack of "side effects" as per Dr. Yamamoto is relative to the harsh side effects of chemotherapies and antiretrovirals. The fact is, Gc-MAF results in high levels of TNF-alpha production and other cytokines which in effect cause side effects such as severe fatigue, fevershness, and depression in some patients. Basically, "sickness behavior". This is due to the immune system activation, no different from taking strong immune boosters or pharmaceutical interferons. The Gc-MAF made in the western USA and shipped to Europe is PURE, and as a matter of fact, the scientist who participated in its production is one of the top researchers in Gc-MAF from southeast Asia, who was retained to help produce it. The deleterious side of Gc-MAF is well known in the scientific community by those researchers who are working on synthetic mimics of Gc-MAF who are working on tweeking the protein to be able to induce macrophage activation without the production of pro-inflammatory cytokines. Therefore, all patient's using Gc-MAF that is currently made in the USA and shipped to Europe experience fatigue and distress during therapy. I can only predict that CFS sufferers will feel miserable during such therapy and should be supervised by doctors.

[ advertisement ]