In this article we will attempt to share an unbiased and rational look into GcMAF, some believe the manufacturer David Noakes should be hailed a saviour, while others believe he is nothing but a crook profiting on the back of the desperate. Is GcMAF a ‘Wonder Drug’ or a fake unregulated and potentially dangerous scam?
What is GcMAF?
GcMAF (or Gc protein-derived macrophage activating factor) is a protein produced by modification of the vitamin D-binding protein. Biochemically, GcMAF results from sequential deglycosylation of the vitamin D-binding protein (the Gc protein), which is naturally promoted by lymphocytes.
The resulting protein may be a macrophage activating factor (MAF). MAFs are lymphokines that control the expression of antigens on the surface of macrophages, and one of their functions is to make macrophages become cytotoxic to tumours.
There have been multiple studies into the potential health benefits of GcMAF, however, some have been retracted due to irregularities in the way ethical approval was granted. Let’s take a look at some of these studies.
Clinical Experience of Integrative Cancer Immunotherapy with GcMAF – 2013
This study looked at 345 patients treated with GcMAF, the results were promising and the study concluded that:
‘345 patients with GcMAF. Among them we here present the cases of three patients for whom our integrative immunotherapy was remarkably effective.’
You can view the study in full [HERE]
Gc Protein (Vitamin D-binding Protein): Gc Genotyping and GcMAF Precursor Activity – 2005
The results of this study concluded that:
The Gc protein is also a very attractive and interesting molecule that acts as a vitamin D-binding protein and actin-scavenger protein. In addition, there are pleiotropic effects (corresponding to the dramatype), probably controlled by the sugar moiety, that include macrophage activation, antiangiogenic activity and antitumor activity. We intend to study the possible use of the Gc protein and GcMAF for the development of new antitumor agents based on the sugar-processing of these proteins.
You read this study in full [HERE]
GcMAF: a polemic or a highly promising molecule? – 2016
This paper was more an overview of existing studies surrounding GcMAF and whether or not its proclaimed benefits held merit. While they conclude that all existing trials have been relatively small in their test groups, they do combined show good results overall. They do warn that many of the claims being made about GcMAF and its ability to heal certain health issues need further studies as many of its advertised claims have little to no studies to back up the claims. However, they do recognise that GcMAF has many potential positive use cases and should be studied further to identify long term side affects and dosage requirements.
As a conclusion, GcMAF is highly promising molecule that provides benefits against a wide range of described diseases. However, further studies need to be done in order to determine its effectiveness against other pathological disorders and possible unnoticed longterm side effects. The study of GcMAF can potentially lead to ‘novel’ drugs with improved effects.
You can read this study in full [HERE]
Promising role for Gc-MAF in cancer immunotherapy: from bench to bedside- 2017
This paper again looks at existing studies and attempts to make a conclusion on where we should go from here in regards to GcMAF therapy. They without doubt believe GcMAF does have a promising outlook for treating Cancer, and recommend further studies into its efficacy.
In conclusion activation and contribution of cells (NK and T helper lymphocytes) and factors relating to immunotherapy are more complicated and costly than using Gc-MAF therapy. Moreover, these cells and factors have shown about 10-fold lower potent activity than the naturally activated (inflammation-primed) macrophages. There is a need to design further studies to directly compare the efficacy of routine cancer immunotherapy using activating NK versus Gc-MAF therapy.
They finish the paper with a very interesting statement:
The question must also be posed as to why this medication has not yet been approved by the FDA. Despite the doubts raised as results of some clinical studies, the efficacy of this drug has been endorsed in several studies. It appears that there are non-scientific reasons that prevent FDA approval.
‘There maybe non-scientific reasons that prevent FDA approval’, make of this what you will, but we certainly do have to wonder why there has been such resistance against GcMAF when the studies so far have produced nothing but positive results with few major side affects.
You can read this study in full [HERE]
As we mentioned earlier some studies have been retracted, not all of them though, as much of the mainstream media would have you believe, but just three studies out of four produced by Yamamoto. They were retracted following a letter from anticancerfund.org to the Scientific Journal that published the studies.
Here are some of the issues they raise with Yamamoto’s work:
- The Nagasaki and the Hyogo Immunotherapy Research Groups, that gave IRB approval for these trials, do not exist except in Yamamoto’s clinical papers. Three purported members of these groups, including one chairman, informed us they are not part of these groups and that they have never been involved in Yamamoto’s activities. Other members of these IRBs could not be found.
- Yamamoto’s co-authors in these papers could not be found.
- We contacted the sponsors of these trials (US Public Health Service and the Elsa U. Pardee Foundation), and we found that they did not support them. They only supported Yamamoto’s early preclinical work while he was affiliated to other institutions rather than his Socrates Institute for Therapeutic Immunology.
- Many of the references included in the studies do not support the claims made by Yamamoto and at times even contradict the claims being made.
- Without adequate randomized controlled clinical trials, the assertion “Since the molecular structure of GcMAF is identical to that of the native human MAF, GcMAF (even 5–fold higher therapeutic dosage) produced no side effects” is wrong and dangerous. It is well established that the injection of some human products (i.e., insulin and epinephrine) into patients can be lethal.
- The conclusions make no sense: “The curative rate measurements of tumors during GcMAF therapy and the estimation of the degree of tumor differentiation have been possible because of the availability of precision measurement of serum Nagalase”. Yamamoto proved that Nagalase failed as a disease measurement method when it was compared to CT scans at the beginning of the study. However, at the end of the study, when the CT scans matched the authors’ speculations, CT scans were again reported. The degree of tumour differentiation can only be determined by histopathology, which was not reported in this or their other articles (prostate and breast cancer articles).
But while three out of four of Yamamotos studies were retracted from publication we shouldn’t necessarily dismiss his work, there are strong forces at play in the medical industry – after all its a multi-billion dollar industry which will crush competition at any given opportunity.
But even putting Yamamoto’s work aside, there are dozens of other studies from other scientists around the World from some of the most prestigious medical institutions who came to the same conclusions and have not had their papers retracted from publication.
You can read the letter in full [HERE]
The following video explains just how GcMAF works:
David Noakes and Immuno Biotech Ltd
David Noakes is a by trade a Business Computer Consultant and Businessman, he was first introduced to GcMAF while he was working for IMG Bank in Belgium in 2009, he attended a talk by Ian R Crane who told his audience about a cure for cancer, called GcMAF.
Noakes later researched GcMAF and found 32 scientific research papers from 5 nations about the benefits GcMAF has in the fight against Cancer.
He then decided to put his life savings into setting up a business selling a GcMAF based product.
There is much said about Noakes’ character in the media, the most commonly used piece of information we see attached to just about any article on Noakes is the fact that he was a UKIP supporter, so it goes without saying that he is also often referred to as being far-right on the political spectrum. This is, of course, irrelevant to the discussion on GcMAF, but of course, it helps the Government and media build a profile of his character in the minds of its readers.
Noakes company was called Immuno Biotech Ltd and with the help of Lyn Thyer, who we’ll discuss later on in this article, the company began production and distribution of a GcMAF based product promising to cure a multitude of health issues, including Cancer.
It is the promise of curing Cancer that really got Noakes and his team into hot water as it violates the 1939 Cancer act, which clearly states:
(1)No person shall take any part in the publication of any advertisement—
(a )containing an offer to treat any person for cancer, or to prescribe any remedy therefor, or to give any advice in connection with the treatment thereof
Noakes was eventually charged with 4 charges relating to the manufacture and sale and supply of an unlicensed medicine (GcMAF), and one count of money laundering.
Money laundering is an automatically levied charge to anyone that sells an unlicensed product with claims of medicinal uses. Once you plead guilty to selling an unlicensed medication you are automatically guilty of so-called ‘money laundering.’
The UK’s Government website had this to say about Noakes conviction:
GcMAF was advertised as a ‘miracle cure’ for a range of conditions including cancer, HIV and autism. There is no scientific basis for any of Noake’s claims about the product and the court heard Noakes made approximately £10 million from the sale of GcMAF between 2012 and 2015.
This is technically a false statement as there is plenty of peer-reviewed scientific evidence to support the health benefits of GcMAF. But because his product was unlicensed it had therefore not been approved by an official scientific body and therefore in the eyes of the law has no scientific basis to back the claims he attached to the product.
The following is a statement from the MHRA on the conviction of David Noakes:
But if we step outside of the corporate-controlled science and look at the results the product produced in its customers, it is inarguable that the product did have clear a scientific basis to back the claims being made.
Note that they claim ‘The risk posed to public health in this case was potentially huge’ , and yet no one out of the 13,000+ users were harmed and in fact many claimed to be cured of the health defect they had.
David Noakes is guilty of selling a medicine without permission from our Government overlords, that is it. Now the debate to whether regulations are required to be in place by Government entities to protect us, the people from dangerous and ineffective products is a highly polarised one and its easy to see why such regulations have come about. After all where money is involved, frauds and scam artists will show their ugly head – this there is no doubt. However, we currently have a system where it is indeed these frauds and scam artists creating the regulations and laws to protect their own products.
The Cancer industry alone is a multi-billion dollar industry, it is monopolised by a few large corporations who all have a place at the table of the Health Governing bodies that create the regulations surrounding medicine. Conflicts of interest are rampant throughout the industry as well as the politics that back them.
David Noakes was sentenced to 15 months in prison.
The following video was filmed shortly after Noakes release from prison and he talks in some depth about his story:
Lyn Thyer was one of David Noakes’s Business partners and Research Scientists at Immuno Biotech Ltd. She has been under a court order for two years now and is currently facing extradition to France.
Interestingly the UK authorities have already cleared Lyn of any wrongdoing in the case, but the EU has stepped in using what she describes as a heavy-handed approach using intimidation and breaking their own protocols.
The following is an excerpt from UK Column:
Lyn has been found entirely innocent of all related charges in the UK and even the MHRA admitted she was guilty of nothing. Under EU law an EAW can only last a maximum of 60 days. At her previous extradition appeal hearing on 28th March 2019 the EAW had been in effect for approximately 700 days. The EAW is based upon charges simply copied from the original charges brought against David Noakes and are completely unrelated to Lyn Thyer. This copy and paste of charges was evidenced by the fact that the EAW charge sheet provided to Lyn had David Noakes’ case number on it.
No evidence has been presented against Lyn to support an extradition order to France, which is not at all surprising since the UK found her not guilty of any crime – however, Lyn has been informed that the extradition request from France has been granted, though as of today she is still waiting to be extradited.
The Dr Bradstreet Conspiracy
Dr. Jeff Bradstreet was a prominent figure in the anti-vaccine community, former preacher and then practising alternative medicine practitioner. Bradstreet began using GcMAF to treat children with Autism and while this was a short-lived treatment he offered due to his sudden death, the initial results were looking very promising.
Bradstreet was found dead from a gunshot wound to his chest in the Broad River in Rutherford County, North Carolina in June 2015, this happened just days after his Georgia Medical Office was raided by the FDA in relation to an investigation by FDA into GcMAF treatments.
The Police ruled the cause of death as suicide, however, family members believe his death to be murder, in an interview with Tommy Polly, Bradstreet’s younger brother said:
“It is our 100 percent belief that Jeff did not commit suicide. Not only because of who Jeff was as a person, but because we looked at the science of it; we looked at the medical proof and it’s just not possible that Jeff took his own life,”
There is little evidence to prove or disprove this theory, but likewise, there is also little evidence to prove Bradstreet’s death was suicide. We will likely never know the truth, but unline Snopes and Wikipedia we don’t feel any accurate conclusion on this can be assumed.
GcMAF Success Stories
Regardless of whether or not this product was unlicensed for distribution the most important thing to consider is whether it actually produced positive results.
Now its important to note that all the videos you are seeing below are produced by Companies who at some point have distributed GcMAF, so of course we are only going to see good results. Some might even argue that these testimonials could be fake – we don’t have the answers on that one unfortunately but it is worth baring in mind when listening to their stories:
There are dozens more just like this, all with good results – we decided to try and search for negative results from people who were treated with GcMAF. Interestingly it wasn’t easy to find negative feedback on the product, the only case we kept coming back to was one which the BBC reported on which refers to a lady who claims to of “Almost died numerous times”.
The article also claims that 75% of patients who reported taking the ‘unlicensed drug’ had side affects. These side affects ranged from Nausea and headaches to abdominal pains and toxic shock. Though as Noakes quite correctly responded in Court, these types of side affects could easily be attributed to the health defect they were fighting, which in many cases was Cancer.
If you search the Internet yourself you will struggle to find any negative feedback on GcMAF from individuals, all you will get is negative stories coming from mainstream media regarding David Noakes as a crook selling unlicensed medicine, they will call it a drug, which it is not, they will claim GcMAF has no scientific basis backing the benefits Noakes proclaimed, this again is not true.
Its clear from just a short amount of research that there is plenty of evidence to suggest GcMAF has huge potential in the fight against Cancer, Autism, Allergies and a host of other Immune disorders. It is also clear that the media are ignoring this fact while reporting on David Noakes case.
How effective Noakes product was can only really be determined from the testimonials we find online, which on the whole seem pretty positive. But of course we don’t really know just how good his product was. Was the produce consistently effective, were there potential health risks associated with the production environment of the product?
But these are all questions we already know the answer to in licensed, regulated medicine – No, they are not. How many times do we hear of pharmaceuticals being contaminated with deadly substances, like in the case of the old Polio Vaccine which was found to be contaminated with SV40, a cancer causing virus which made it into the vaccine from a monkey kidney which was used to produce the vaccine. Millions of people received this vaccine before it was removed from use.
Or more recently Johnson & Johnson who’s talc products were found to contain asbestos, 22 women claim their products led to their ovarian cancer. A court awarded the Women $4.7 Billion in damages. A further 9000 cases against the company are still ongoing.
We could share with you hundred upon hundreds of similar cases where supposedly licensed and regulated products are found to be contaminated and often deadly to human life. The point is, while David Noakes GcMAF product was unlicensed and unregulated the ultimate result was a positive. No one has ever died from using the product, no one has had long term side affects and if the testimonials are to be believed the positive affects are outstanding.
With a reported 89% success rate in reducing cancer tumours without having to destroy healthy cells at the same time, it’s hard to not laugh when we are told GcMAF is a scam. Even if you want to blame the benefits on the Placebo effect – that’s fine, if it works, it’s a damn sight more effective then current Cancer therapies used in mainstream medicine.
The crimes of David Noakes and his colleagues was simply not asking for permission to compete in the Cancer business, of course if they had of asked for permission they would of been denied. There is no room for competition in medicine, it is a monopolised market where only a few may walk.
Always do your own research, that is all we can do, don’t assume your Government or Health Authorities have done it for you – they have not, they simply inform you of what their Corporate interests would like you to know.