Sign up Calendar Latest Topics

  Author   Comment  

Avatar / Picture

La Deesse
Posts: 329
Reply with quote  #1 
Konstantin, can you tell us what to make out of this (found on if this is serious, why this silence about it? The pharmaceutical loby which does not want to loose a captive market of patients at 10000$ a chemo session?? Would the medical world be that cynical just out of greed...? I do not want to believe that is the case, so depressing... If it is a hoax, shame on people, just the same...
Thanks, Catherine

Posts: 105
Reply with quote  #2 
 Although, I am not Constantine, I had heard this on NPR last week, so I do not think it is a hoax. 
They mentioned how this protein was found and how it could cure colon cancer.  They made no mention of BC, however, they did say that since they found this particular protein that targeted colon cancer, they were investigating how either that protein or some other one could be isolated and used to treat cancer's other than colon cancer. 
The report also mentioned how they were waiting for approval to start administering this protein to colon cancer patients and expected that approval to come in April of this year. 
Truthfully, I was wondering why more publicity about this breakthrough was not forthcoming, but I would guess that once the protein therapy is administered to more patients and proves to be successful, we will hear more about it. snhb

Avatar / Picture

Contributing Member
Posts: 52
Reply with quote  #3 
SNHB, I searched NPR and can't find anything.  Can you remember what show you heard it on, or what the discussion was (I'm looking for search terms).


Avatar / Picture

La Deesse
Posts: 329
Reply with quote  #4 

this would be great news... thank you for the info... Take care


Avatar / Picture

Posts: 7,476
Reply with quote  #5 
This is certainly thought provoking, but I can't help but wonder, if it was really true, why wasn't it on the cover of every magazine and tv station?
This is one of those time will tell things.
Keep taking the Vitamin D ladies- Its powers are revealing itself here!

bonjour cher Catherine! Je suis si heureux de vous voir ici!

Thank you Valerie for your report on this!

Brenda- I MET WATSON ON SATURDAY! I sure wished you were there!!!!




Chief of Research
Posts: 1,129
Reply with quote  #6 

Catherine and Others:


I have been amazed at the uncritical heralding of GcMAF across hundreds of Internet sites and blogs by hundreds of naive observers and commentators, to the point of dozens and dozens of sites suggesting that the claimed results are such that, since they have not lead to acceptance within the medical community, there must be some concerted conspiracy to suppress or halt the progress of the findings or the commercial advance of this putative cure.  This is errant nonsense, and one fears for the future of scientific assessment and commonsense.  It is one thing for patients lacking necessarily the critical appraisal skills to find the widely hyped results seductive - no fault of theirs and no discredit - and quite another for professionals to have allowed the vast misperceptions to have continued so far and for so long.  Kudos to Gina for her healthy suspicions, but really no dishonor to anyone else hoping for positive results against a stealthy destroyer of so many lives.  Indeed, I sincerely commend all the users who posted to in fact ask for a critical assessment of the findings before accepting them as valid.  


GcMAF: Nor Heed the Rumble of a Distant Drum

Several studies on small numbers of patients with solid malignancies (including prostate, CRC, and breast cancer) have purported to provide (highly questionable, see below) evidence of benefit on survival and/or recurrence of GcMAF ( (Vitamin D-binding Protein-derived Macrophage Activating Factor).  However all studies have been undertaken by the same key Japanese investigators under Nabuto Yamamoto, the holder of the patent on GcMAF, and these positive results have never been confirmed independently.  In addition, the claim of a cancer cure via a single agent like GcMAF is strained, given that cancer appears to be a highly multifactorial entity with complex etiology and pathogenesis. 


Fatal Flaws in the Edifice

In addition, in breast cancer in particular, I critically appraised his late 2007 publication which he published in the International Journal of Cancer (IJC) on GcMAF immunotherapy in breast cancer patients and found it uncompelling.  I noted that the sample size was small, at only 16 patients, as the sample size was in all the trials conducted by Dr. Yamamoto in any cancer type. Furthermore, 8 of these 16 patients had priorly received chemotherapy (CT), while another 7 had priorly received radiation therapy (RT) one of whom had also received both CT + RT, leaving only one patient was not pretreated with CT  or RT, making for 15 out of 16 patients treated priorly by either radiotherapy or chemotherapy or both. 


Moreover, the study is silent on the issue of what kind of breast cancer patients - ER / PR / HER2 status is not reported, nor is lymph node status, but the cited result of no recurrence for over four years is not necessarily  exceptional in 16 undifferentiated breast cancer patients, and the NNT (numbers needed to treat) and other evidence-based critical appraisal factors associated with the extremely small sample size, limited follow-up, undifferentiated breast cancer type, and near universal pretreatment of patients by chemo- or radio-therapy suggests the study to be underpowered to support its conclusions and weak methodologically, and we have insufficient power to determine what part of recurrence free survival to allocate to GcMAF, if any, and what part to allocate to previous chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy  treatment.  This is considered in evidence-based critical appraisal to be a fatal methodological flaw, in its nature disqualifying of the studies integrity to deduce anything let only its own conclusions. 


Furthermore, tumor progress was in fact not formally monitored at all in the patients, but rather the investigators monitored a wholly non-standard outside-the guidelines blood enzyme known as Nagalase. This too is a fatal methodological flaw - from the levels of Nagalese observed, Dr.  Yamamoto concludes this to be "indicating eradication of the tumors".  It indicates no such thing to this evidence-based medical researcher, namely me, nor would it to any health professional with evidence-based training and critical appraisal skills.  The patients could have had significant tumor progression without having a recurrence in four years, this happens every day as any oncologist can tell us (and 80% of women with undifferentiated breast cancer survive for 5 years independent of therapy).


Finally, and also disturbing is the wholesale lack of any patient control arm, as the GcMAF intervention was not compared to any untreated population, making all conclusions as drawn by the investigators illicit and unfounded.  


This Too Shall Pass

I conclude therefore that we need more robust and methodologically stronger studies to validate these independently unconfirmed, isolated, at best questionable and at worst, as I have shown, fatally flawed results, and we would require patient samples in the thousands, a comparative control arm, a standard tumor progression assessment, and all from teams unassociated with Dr. Nabuto Yamamoto and his colleagues, and outside the narrow spectrum of the Socrates Institute for Therapeutic Immunology in Philadelphia, and in over a decade of time it is disconcerting that none have been forthcoming. 


Constantine Kaniklidis
Breast Cancer Watch 


Avatar / Picture

La Deesse
Posts: 329
Reply with quote  #7 
Thank you Constantin, and Gina :-) 

If it sounds to good to be true...

Take care
Previous Topic | Next Topic

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.