Talk:GcMAF

Recent attempts to insert pseudoscience by misusing citations

This edit: was not acceptable, despite claims to the contrary made here:

The study (from over a decade ago) was a preliminary study to evaluate safety and tolerability (not whether the treatment was effective). They took a small sample of 12 patients, all with inoperable, incurable cancer, and gave them a series of increasing doses. This is standard preliminary research; after you are done with animal testing, you pick a small number of people who are pretty much going to die of cancer soon ans see if the new drug poisons them. In five out of the twelve the cancer was stable after a year. There was no control group and no way to know how many would have been stable without the drug. None of the cancers were cured or went int remission.

This is not evidence that the drug cures cancer.

WebMD has a nice explation for the non-technical audience: Is GcMAF a Potential Cancer Treatment? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:24, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

You misread the statement. It says evidence, not proof. There would be proof if Genentech had not gained control of Efranat Ltd using subterfuge by offering to support the next 2 clinical trials and then reneging on the promise. Once they gained control, Genentech immediately closed this little Israeli start-up to stop the clinical trials and keep a legal GcMAF product off the market. But there was a contract with the Sheba Hospital to complete the Phase 1 Clinical Trial which completed as shown on the Wikipedia GcMAF page. Genentech tried to suppress these results. That is why only the partial results from Phase 1 are published. But results from the second part of the trial which had 24 participants is unpublished and appeared briefly on Efranat’s LinkedIn corporate page also reported similar results. Only the results from the first part are summarized in the AACR proceedings - nowhere else. But these partial results show direct EVIDENCE that GcMAF has a direct effect on cancer.

A Phase 1 Clinical Trial is conducted under different guidelines than a regular medical study and limits the number of doses available to study participants. In this study the limit was 8, ranging from 100, 500 and 1,000 mg per dose. This well controlled FDA registered Phase 1 Clinical Trial on general cancer was conducted by a very professional staff at the Sheba Hospital. Due to the expense and level of expertise involved, this clinical trial would not have been done if there was no evidence. The Sheba hospital complex is their equivalent to out NIH. As shown in the AACR proceedings, you admit that 5 patients out of 12 (with different cancers) saw their terminal cancers halted after just 8 weekly doses (2 months) of GcMAF which was the trial limit.. These were in the higher dosage groups. This was unexpected and affected almost half of them.

Terminal cancers don't halt if the patient is not receiving some sort of treatment. The only treatment in this case was GcMAF. Why do you think that your immune system B and T cells make GcMAF - for what purpose? Do you think that the body wastes energy making something it does not need? Since the B and T cells make it (and they are the bodies major cancer fighting cells), they must need it for something important to protect your health, like protecting you from cancer and other potential diseases. Your internal GcMAF wanes with time and circumstances and people may need identical supplemental human GcMAF to boost their own GcMAF. It is well known that in time of deficiencies that lead to diseases that supplements can help.

Also why did the publisher of Dr. Yamamoto's GcMAF prostate cancer cure study not retract it given the tremendous pressure from all sides to do so. Did the DOD study on GcMAF provide the needed evidence of an effect which allowed this publisher to stand his ground - YES! Reference to this is included on the GcMAF page. Both of these studies are in PubMED. Also, why would the Japanese continue to maintain patents on the processes to make GcMAF in a biolab, if it was pseudoscience? These patents are listed on the GcMAF page.

Now give me your study which casts doubt on GcMAF as having no evidence of an effect on cancer. This is a scientific post and not an opinion piece. You won't find a study because the pharmaceutical industry here is afraid of positive studies on GcMAF (and there are many). This industry does not want to let GcMAF out of the closet. Safe, all-natural, relatively cheap GcMAF (no side-effects) can compete with chemo and this is a no no for the cancer pharmaceutical industry. Your information is based on a frightened cancer industry’s self-serving group opinion propaganda – no actual science. This error has persisted too long. It's time to face the truth. There is EVIDENCE (proof will come later) that GcMAF has anti-cancer effects. What say ye in light of this new information or do we need to go to arbitration?

The evidence is there if you are willing to see it. Also, there is a Russian pharmaceutical company now forming a registered clinical trial of GcMAF for Breast Cancer. The Russians and Japanese see the EVIDENCE, why not Wikipedia? Take the NOT out. There is EVIDENCE!! PageMaster (talk) 00:27, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Stop. Stop now. The next time you assign motive to anyone for their actions, without a strong reliable source, you will be blocked for disruptive editing. Conspiracy theory has no place here. DMacks (talk) 00:33, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Let's go to arbitration. I am dealing with paid disruptors. You are not interested in science. You have an agenda. You have removed up-to-date facts about GcMAF and made this page out of date and misleading. PageMaster (talk) 00:59, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Re: "Let's go to arbitration", request granted: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#PageMaster. Feel free to present your case there, including evidence that you are dealing with paid disruptors.

BTW, did everybody else get their paycheck from the pharmaceutical industry on Friday? Mine didn't show up in my Swiss bank account... --Guy Macon (talk) 01:28, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Since Roche Industries owns Genentech, and Roche is a Swiss company, maybe you should go by their headquarters to get a major bonus. I'm sure if you mention your sabotage of the Wikipedia GcMAF page, they will pay you hamsomely. PageMaster (talk) 04:43, 20 September 2026 (UTC)