Gcmaf is now becoming more and more popular and can be purchased online.
A Cure for Metastatic Cancer?
Can it be true? A cure for early metastatic cancer and HIV that appears to work 100% of the time--that almost nobody are all aware of? My search for answers. Solving the riddle of GcMAF. Why GcMAF remains obscure. Please don't be intimidated by cell biology! The war analogy.
I had just completed my second volume, Outwitting The Number One Killer( about how to prevent and reverse atherosclerotically-driven heart attacks and strokes) when I came across three seminal investigates published earlier that year by internationally recognized research immunologist and molecular biologist, Nobuto Yamamoto, Ph.D. These pivotal papers--which will, I believe, change such courses of medical history--blew me away: Yamamoto had clearly discovered a route to "outsmart" cancer, and was employing the body's own natural mending systems to do it.
This guy has discovered a cure for early metastatic cancer that appears to work 100% of the time !!!" And this was no " black box " model or statistical study( you are familiar with, the kind that make observations but don't address underlying causal mechanisms. Medicine A cures illnes B, but nothing about how it actually operates ). All the basic science, all the necessary molecular biological information--an impressive showing of published research studies from a quarter century of work--was right there for all to see. No smoke and mirrors. Anyone who has perused Dr. Yamamoto's research papers would have to agree he published an impressively extensive series of serious science masterpieces.
As I learned more I became is fully committed to bringing this powerful new situated of ideas into public awareness. It became clear to me that we need to find a way to stimulate GcMAF available to all cancer, HIV, and chronic virus patients, and we need to institute routine annual Nagalase testing to find cancers much earlier than imaging now allows.
If all new cancers were detected early by regular Nagalase testing, we could reverse them with GcMAF--long before X-rays could find them--and set cancer out of business once and for all. This may seem like a rash statement, but I believe it is supported by the facts.
Yamamoto's three investigates showed that improbably small weekly dosages( 100 billionths of a gram--an amount that is invisible to the naked eye) of GcMAF had cured early metastatic breast, prostate, and colon cancers in 100% of( nonanemic) patients. In a fourth newspaper, he applied the same treatment to cure 100% of nonanemic HIV-infected patients.
For the three cancer investigates, Dr. Yamamoto had chosen patients who had recently received the standard mainstream triad of surgery, chemo, and radiation. Despite these cares, every patient had evidence of metastatic illnes, which means that despite the best efforts of conventional medication, their cancers were out of control and still growing. Their prognosis were poor at best. Nevertheless, this patient group had one thing in common: their tumor mass( also known as tumor burden) had been drastically reduced by the therapies they had received, and this in turn dramatically increased the likelihood that GcMAF would remove the few remaining cancer cells.
These investigates accentuate the best interests of the unique situation in which GcMAF is most likely to be effective: very low tumor burden. Low tumor burden occurs in merely two situations. The first is the earliest stage of any cancer, when the number of cancer cells is still very small. The second is immediately after a diagnosed tumor has been maximally debulked by standard therapies--i.e ., that which prevailed in Dr. Yamamoto's investigates. Conversely, the situation in which GcMAF is least likely to be effective is when there is a large number of tumor cells. Although results will differ greatly from one patient to another and further study is needed, clinical research experience to date suggests that tumors larger than one cm. in diameter are unlikely to respond to GcMAF therapy.( Discover Chapter 18:' The Cancer continuum and the Point of no return '_)
Curing metastatic cancer at all is rare. Until Professor Yamamoto discovered and administered GcMAF , no one had ever cured every single example. These are the patients oncologists give up on, the ones that get "palliative" care. Perhaps another round or two of chemo or radiation in the slim hopes of a long-term reversal or a little extra( probably not very high quality) time--but with metastatic illnes there is no serious expectation of an actual cure. The numbers are profoundly dismal.
Granted, all of Yamamoto's patients were in the earliest stage of metastatic illness and received GcMAF shortly after the Big Three had failed. For these patients( though a sprinkling might have been saved by additional radiation and/ or chemo ), the assumption would usually be that their cancers would develop and eventually kill them. GcMAF, remarkably, saved every single one. This is an exceptional outcome and deserves greater scrutiny that it has received.
A fourth analyse, published in January of 2009, depicted Yamamoto--using the same treatment protocol--had removed all signs of viral activity in 100% of HIV infected patients. All patients were free of HIV within 18 weeks.
Remarkably, Yamamoto accomplished these cures relatively rapidly. The breast and prostate cancer patients were all cured in less than 6 months of weekly GcMAF injections. The colorectal cancer analyse took approximately one year to cure all subjects. Five to seven years of careful followup disclosed no recurrences in any of individual patients. Anyone who is familiar with cancer research would have to find this remarkable.
This was not a" one off ," a "lucky strike." Yamamoto's four papers were the culmination of decades of trailblazing research in which he had already proven--via basic science and animal studies--exactly how GcMAF and Nagalase work. The 2008 human trials were just the frosting on a phenomenal cake that took a quarter century to bake. The breadth and depth of the underlying research is important here because misinformed critics squeak about GcMAF being "unproved." Had these naysayers read the dozens of Yamamoto papers published in peer-reviewed journals between 1979 and 2008 that lay down an unimpeachable foundation for his final proof? I doubt it.
My search for answers
When I first read Yamamoto's investigates, I couldn't believe it either. A cure for early stage metastatic cancer that's effective in every single example? Absurd. Published in peer-reviewed journals? No route. I figured there must be some hitch, a mistake, a logical fault, a weak link, a fatal flaw, and I was determined to find it, but the deeper I delved the more convinced I became that GcMAF was for real!
Then I started wondering why I seemed to be among the very few who "got it."
At first, I expended a huge amount of day enhancing my understanding of the relevant molecular biology, genetics, and immunology. I learned a lot more than I ever supposed I would about cancer, macrophages, oxidative bursts, adhesion molecules, antibodies, phagocytosis, protein chemistry, cytokines, messenger molecules, receptors, N-acetyl-galactosaminidase( Nagalase ), and GcMAF. At periods I seemed as if I had stuffed so much new information into my chief that it was going to explode. I needed to understand exactly how it all operated, how all the pieces fit together. I poured over research articles and molecular genetics texts until I seemed I had a reasonable comprehend of what Yamamoto was doing and mentioning. I developed the ability to visualize--in great detail--the workings of macrophages duelling cancer cells and viruses in this brutal microscopic cannibalistic war.
The more I learned the more it drops in: applying impeccable science, Yamamoto had seen a powerful means of enhancing our bodies' own anti-cancer, anti-viral weaponry! That's what cured the cancers.
The more I learned the more I asked the issues to: why had the medical community--much less the average person--never heard of GcMAF? No article in the print media. No video , no volume , no research articles other than Yamamoto's. No serious scientific web debates( which is truly extraordinary, because everything is on the internet ). No nothing.
Googling on GcMAF does make some reaches, but nothing substantial , no serious science beyond Nobuto Yamamoto's own original papers." Hmmm. This is truly remarkable ," I thought.
Next I turned to what I call" human browsers ." I called a bunch of my physician buddies and molecular biology colleagues--good scientists all--but there, too, I drew a blank every single day. Not a single one of them had ever heard of GcMAF.
Not easily dissuaded, I contacted several immunology researchers at major institutions, and again no one had heard of GcMAF. Maybe someone in the governmental forces or research establishments, the FDA( Food and Drug Administration ), the NCI( National Cancer Institute ), the NIH( National Institutes of Health ), American Cancer Society( ACS) knew something? Nope. No one there had ever heard of it either.( Or if they had, they sure weren't talking .)
In those early months, my degree of annoyance gradually escalated. Proof of a natural cure for advanced( metastatic) cancer( not to mention HIV and other chronic viral infections) and nobody seemed interested? I merely couldn't understand it.
Finally, a sense of surrealism set in. I had expended hundreds of hours on this, with literally nothing to present for it. Nobody knew anything. And when I tried to explain Yamamoto's work to some of the person or persons I called, I could hear their eyes were glazing over. I could hear them supposing," C'mon now, doc. A cure for all cancers? Oh, sure. One that works 100% of the time? On metastatic cancer? Give me a transgres. It sounds like smoke and mirrors to me ." I started questioning my comprehend on reality. No Oprah? No Larry King? No New York Times article? No article anywhere? No media coverage of any kind! No scientific recognition? What the heck going on here here?
Solving the riddle of GcMAF
After writing an entire volume on the subject, I can still honestly tell I don't know why the average person--not to mention the average physician or the average molecular biologist--has never heard of GcMAF. It seems to me that that should have happened a very long time ago. I hope that sharing this information will create the critical mass we need to overcome the obstacles. So: Hello out there! Here's a cure for cancer and AIDS !!! Even more significantly, here's a way to rid the planet of the scourge of cancer. I am passing on what I have learned about it to enable you to chip in and work with me to transform GcMAF from a situated of abstract notions to a lifesaving reality. Millions upon millions of lives would be saved if we could stimulate GcMAF--a harmless protein--available to the masses of cancer and HIV patients who urgently need it. And countless cancers would be prevented applying Nagalase screening and GcMAF therapy on all adult human populations.
Please help! This is a two-way street. I've chosen a reader-editable format( actually, truth be known, my web genius friend and cyberguru, Peter Rowell generated it specifically for this volume) whereby anyone who is interested can contribute their minds. The charm of this approach is the fact that it facilitates collective developed at minds by an organized community. Just scroll over the left horizontal green bar, click to open a dialogue container, and share your minds, edits, corrections, and questions. In doing so, you will have participated in a process that has the potential to assist a lot of your fellow humans and to alleviate a huge amount of suffering.
And--as if that weren't enough of a reward-- you'll also( if you so desire) be listed in the Acknowledgments.
Why GcMAF remains obscure
Here are a few key realities that provide a partial answer to the fascinating topic: Why has GcMAF gone unnoticed?
Understanding Yamamoto's work requires a firm comprehended of some fairly advanced molecular biology, which most people--even most doctors and researchers--don't possess. It's kind of a language problem: if anyone wails" Cancer Cure !!! Cancer Cure !!! Cancer Cure !!!" in Swahili, it is quite possible that earthshatteringness of it all won't get through, and everyone will go on about their business as if nothing happened.( In this volume I have translated these ideas into everyday speech. It's not that complicated .) To a stodgy medical community that's resistant to change, GcMAF is just another " unproved therapy ." And an "alternative" one at that. Unproved therapies are not to be trusted.( Even if they're harmless and bioidentical .) "Proving" this discovery the conventional route would involve developing and promoting a lucrative narcotic. Doing that takes about a decade and costs over 100 million dollars. Beyond time and money, it requires a lot of biochemical know-how and some sophisticated equipment. Brewing it up in your basement laboratory with a chemistry situated and a bunch of buddies is not available. However, a motivated pharmaceutical corporation could do it overnight. Big Pharma isn't interested because there's no cash cow at the end of this rainbow. GcMAF--like all chemicals our body is programmed to make--can't be patented because it fits the FDA's definition of "natural"( translation: "unpatentable" ). We are thus confronted with the supreme pickle: is it possible to conduct open-minded , non-profit driven research in an era of corporatized and politicized medical science? I yearn for the olden days when science was done for the sake of science. It wasn't that long ago .) The cancer industry does not really want cancer "re going away". This may seem harsh, but it's true. Many incomes would be interrupted if cancer and HIV abruptly ceased to exist. Government bureaux would have to be closed, oncologists would have to be retrained, researchers redirected, cancer treatment centres shut down or converted to screening and prevention facilities--and that's just the tip of the iceberg. We're talking profound social upheaval here. Cancer is entrenched and institutionalized, and overpowering it would make major fireworks. These dreads are largely unfounded, however. For optimum effectiveness, GcMAF and Nagalase testing will need to be integrated into the existing cancer care system, so we need the organizations of the system. To understand GcMAF and Nagalase we must embrace an entirely new model--a completely different approach to cancer and chronic viral infections. "They dont have" super narcotic , no magic bullet. Our bodies already know how to cure cancer and viral infections; we simply need to enhance these systems applying natural medicines. That's how GcMAF operates. The scientific community, however, is deeply resistant to the idea of natural medicines bolstering the immune system. If we are going to commit to stopping these epidemics our new direction must be annual screening( with Nagalase or AMAS testing) for early detection, then nipping cancer in the bud with GcMAF. The age-old" wait until its gotten so big we can see it on imaging and then slash and burn it out" approach should certainly got to go.
Many people are now using gcmaf creams and gcmaf yogurt with good results.
A Cure for Metastatic Cancer?
Can it be true? A cure for early metastatic cancer and HIV that appears to work 100% of the time--that almost nobody are all aware of? My search for answers. Solving the riddle of GcMAF. Why GcMAF remains obscure. Please don't be intimidated by cell biology! The war analogy.
I had just completed my second volume, Outwitting The Number One Killer( about how to prevent and reverse atherosclerotically-driven heart attacks and strokes) when I came across three seminal investigates published earlier that year by internationally recognized research immunologist and molecular biologist, Nobuto Yamamoto, Ph.D. These pivotal papers--which will, I believe, change such courses of medical history--blew me away: Yamamoto had clearly discovered a route to "outsmart" cancer, and was employing the body's own natural mending systems to do it.
This guy has discovered a cure for early metastatic cancer that appears to work 100% of the time !!!" And this was no " black box " model or statistical study( you are familiar with, the kind that make observations but don't address underlying causal mechanisms. Medicine A cures illnes B, but nothing about how it actually operates ). All the basic science, all the necessary molecular biological information--an impressive showing of published research studies from a quarter century of work--was right there for all to see. No smoke and mirrors. Anyone who has perused Dr. Yamamoto's research papers would have to agree he published an impressively extensive series of serious science masterpieces.
As I learned more I became is fully committed to bringing this powerful new situated of ideas into public awareness. It became clear to me that we need to find a way to stimulate GcMAF available to all cancer, HIV, and chronic virus patients, and we need to institute routine annual Nagalase testing to find cancers much earlier than imaging now allows.
If all new cancers were detected early by regular Nagalase testing, we could reverse them with GcMAF--long before X-rays could find them--and set cancer out of business once and for all. This may seem like a rash statement, but I believe it is supported by the facts.
Yamamoto's three investigates showed that improbably small weekly dosages( 100 billionths of a gram--an amount that is invisible to the naked eye) of GcMAF had cured early metastatic breast, prostate, and colon cancers in 100% of( nonanemic) patients. In a fourth newspaper, he applied the same treatment to cure 100% of nonanemic HIV-infected patients.
For the three cancer investigates, Dr. Yamamoto had chosen patients who had recently received the standard mainstream triad of surgery, chemo, and radiation. Despite these cares, every patient had evidence of metastatic illnes, which means that despite the best efforts of conventional medication, their cancers were out of control and still growing. Their prognosis were poor at best. Nevertheless, this patient group had one thing in common: their tumor mass( also known as tumor burden) had been drastically reduced by the therapies they had received, and this in turn dramatically increased the likelihood that GcMAF would remove the few remaining cancer cells.
These investigates accentuate the best interests of the unique situation in which GcMAF is most likely to be effective: very low tumor burden. Low tumor burden occurs in merely two situations. The first is the earliest stage of any cancer, when the number of cancer cells is still very small. The second is immediately after a diagnosed tumor has been maximally debulked by standard therapies--i.e ., that which prevailed in Dr. Yamamoto's investigates. Conversely, the situation in which GcMAF is least likely to be effective is when there is a large number of tumor cells. Although results will differ greatly from one patient to another and further study is needed, clinical research experience to date suggests that tumors larger than one cm. in diameter are unlikely to respond to GcMAF therapy.( Discover Chapter 18:' The Cancer continuum and the Point of no return '_)
Curing metastatic cancer at all is rare. Until Professor Yamamoto discovered and administered GcMAF , no one had ever cured every single example. These are the patients oncologists give up on, the ones that get "palliative" care. Perhaps another round or two of chemo or radiation in the slim hopes of a long-term reversal or a little extra( probably not very high quality) time--but with metastatic illnes there is no serious expectation of an actual cure. The numbers are profoundly dismal.
Granted, all of Yamamoto's patients were in the earliest stage of metastatic illness and received GcMAF shortly after the Big Three had failed. For these patients( though a sprinkling might have been saved by additional radiation and/ or chemo ), the assumption would usually be that their cancers would develop and eventually kill them. GcMAF, remarkably, saved every single one. This is an exceptional outcome and deserves greater scrutiny that it has received.
A fourth analyse, published in January of 2009, depicted Yamamoto--using the same treatment protocol--had removed all signs of viral activity in 100% of HIV infected patients. All patients were free of HIV within 18 weeks.
Remarkably, Yamamoto accomplished these cures relatively rapidly. The breast and prostate cancer patients were all cured in less than 6 months of weekly GcMAF injections. The colorectal cancer analyse took approximately one year to cure all subjects. Five to seven years of careful followup disclosed no recurrences in any of individual patients. Anyone who is familiar with cancer research would have to find this remarkable.
This was not a" one off ," a "lucky strike." Yamamoto's four papers were the culmination of decades of trailblazing research in which he had already proven--via basic science and animal studies--exactly how GcMAF and Nagalase work. The 2008 human trials were just the frosting on a phenomenal cake that took a quarter century to bake. The breadth and depth of the underlying research is important here because misinformed critics squeak about GcMAF being "unproved." Had these naysayers read the dozens of Yamamoto papers published in peer-reviewed journals between 1979 and 2008 that lay down an unimpeachable foundation for his final proof? I doubt it.
My search for answers
When I first read Yamamoto's investigates, I couldn't believe it either. A cure for early stage metastatic cancer that's effective in every single example? Absurd. Published in peer-reviewed journals? No route. I figured there must be some hitch, a mistake, a logical fault, a weak link, a fatal flaw, and I was determined to find it, but the deeper I delved the more convinced I became that GcMAF was for real!
Then I started wondering why I seemed to be among the very few who "got it."
At first, I expended a huge amount of day enhancing my understanding of the relevant molecular biology, genetics, and immunology. I learned a lot more than I ever supposed I would about cancer, macrophages, oxidative bursts, adhesion molecules, antibodies, phagocytosis, protein chemistry, cytokines, messenger molecules, receptors, N-acetyl-galactosaminidase( Nagalase ), and GcMAF. At periods I seemed as if I had stuffed so much new information into my chief that it was going to explode. I needed to understand exactly how it all operated, how all the pieces fit together. I poured over research articles and molecular genetics texts until I seemed I had a reasonable comprehend of what Yamamoto was doing and mentioning. I developed the ability to visualize--in great detail--the workings of macrophages duelling cancer cells and viruses in this brutal microscopic cannibalistic war.
The more I learned the more it drops in: applying impeccable science, Yamamoto had seen a powerful means of enhancing our bodies' own anti-cancer, anti-viral weaponry! That's what cured the cancers.
The more I learned the more I asked the issues to: why had the medical community--much less the average person--never heard of GcMAF? No article in the print media. No video , no volume , no research articles other than Yamamoto's. No serious scientific web debates( which is truly extraordinary, because everything is on the internet ). No nothing.
Googling on GcMAF does make some reaches, but nothing substantial , no serious science beyond Nobuto Yamamoto's own original papers." Hmmm. This is truly remarkable ," I thought.
Next I turned to what I call" human browsers ." I called a bunch of my physician buddies and molecular biology colleagues--good scientists all--but there, too, I drew a blank every single day. Not a single one of them had ever heard of GcMAF.
Not easily dissuaded, I contacted several immunology researchers at major institutions, and again no one had heard of GcMAF. Maybe someone in the governmental forces or research establishments, the FDA( Food and Drug Administration ), the NCI( National Cancer Institute ), the NIH( National Institutes of Health ), American Cancer Society( ACS) knew something? Nope. No one there had ever heard of it either.( Or if they had, they sure weren't talking .)
In those early months, my degree of annoyance gradually escalated. Proof of a natural cure for advanced( metastatic) cancer( not to mention HIV and other chronic viral infections) and nobody seemed interested? I merely couldn't understand it.
Finally, a sense of surrealism set in. I had expended hundreds of hours on this, with literally nothing to present for it. Nobody knew anything. And when I tried to explain Yamamoto's work to some of the person or persons I called, I could hear their eyes were glazing over. I could hear them supposing," C'mon now, doc. A cure for all cancers? Oh, sure. One that works 100% of the time? On metastatic cancer? Give me a transgres. It sounds like smoke and mirrors to me ." I started questioning my comprehend on reality. No Oprah? No Larry King? No New York Times article? No article anywhere? No media coverage of any kind! No scientific recognition? What the heck going on here here?
Solving the riddle of GcMAF
After writing an entire volume on the subject, I can still honestly tell I don't know why the average person--not to mention the average physician or the average molecular biologist--has never heard of GcMAF. It seems to me that that should have happened a very long time ago. I hope that sharing this information will create the critical mass we need to overcome the obstacles. So: Hello out there! Here's a cure for cancer and AIDS !!! Even more significantly, here's a way to rid the planet of the scourge of cancer. I am passing on what I have learned about it to enable you to chip in and work with me to transform GcMAF from a situated of abstract notions to a lifesaving reality. Millions upon millions of lives would be saved if we could stimulate GcMAF--a harmless protein--available to the masses of cancer and HIV patients who urgently need it. And countless cancers would be prevented applying Nagalase screening and GcMAF therapy on all adult human populations.
Please help! This is a two-way street. I've chosen a reader-editable format( actually, truth be known, my web genius friend and cyberguru, Peter Rowell generated it specifically for this volume) whereby anyone who is interested can contribute their minds. The charm of this approach is the fact that it facilitates collective developed at minds by an organized community. Just scroll over the left horizontal green bar, click to open a dialogue container, and share your minds, edits, corrections, and questions. In doing so, you will have participated in a process that has the potential to assist a lot of your fellow humans and to alleviate a huge amount of suffering.
And--as if that weren't enough of a reward-- you'll also( if you so desire) be listed in the Acknowledgments.
Why GcMAF remains obscure
Here are a few key realities that provide a partial answer to the fascinating topic: Why has GcMAF gone unnoticed?
Understanding Yamamoto's work requires a firm comprehended of some fairly advanced molecular biology, which most people--even most doctors and researchers--don't possess. It's kind of a language problem: if anyone wails" Cancer Cure !!! Cancer Cure !!! Cancer Cure !!!" in Swahili, it is quite possible that earthshatteringness of it all won't get through, and everyone will go on about their business as if nothing happened.( In this volume I have translated these ideas into everyday speech. It's not that complicated .) To a stodgy medical community that's resistant to change, GcMAF is just another " unproved therapy ." And an "alternative" one at that. Unproved therapies are not to be trusted.( Even if they're harmless and bioidentical .) "Proving" this discovery the conventional route would involve developing and promoting a lucrative narcotic. Doing that takes about a decade and costs over 100 million dollars. Beyond time and money, it requires a lot of biochemical know-how and some sophisticated equipment. Brewing it up in your basement laboratory with a chemistry situated and a bunch of buddies is not available. However, a motivated pharmaceutical corporation could do it overnight. Big Pharma isn't interested because there's no cash cow at the end of this rainbow. GcMAF--like all chemicals our body is programmed to make--can't be patented because it fits the FDA's definition of "natural"( translation: "unpatentable" ). We are thus confronted with the supreme pickle: is it possible to conduct open-minded , non-profit driven research in an era of corporatized and politicized medical science? I yearn for the olden days when science was done for the sake of science. It wasn't that long ago .) The cancer industry does not really want cancer "re going away". This may seem harsh, but it's true. Many incomes would be interrupted if cancer and HIV abruptly ceased to exist. Government bureaux would have to be closed, oncologists would have to be retrained, researchers redirected, cancer treatment centres shut down or converted to screening and prevention facilities--and that's just the tip of the iceberg. We're talking profound social upheaval here. Cancer is entrenched and institutionalized, and overpowering it would make major fireworks. These dreads are largely unfounded, however. For optimum effectiveness, GcMAF and Nagalase testing will need to be integrated into the existing cancer care system, so we need the organizations of the system. To understand GcMAF and Nagalase we must embrace an entirely new model--a completely different approach to cancer and chronic viral infections. "They dont have" super narcotic , no magic bullet. Our bodies already know how to cure cancer and viral infections; we simply need to enhance these systems applying natural medicines. That's how GcMAF operates. The scientific community, however, is deeply resistant to the idea of natural medicines bolstering the immune system. If we are going to commit to stopping these epidemics our new direction must be annual screening( with Nagalase or AMAS testing) for early detection, then nipping cancer in the bud with GcMAF. The age-old" wait until its gotten so big we can see it on imaging and then slash and burn it out" approach should certainly got to go.
Many people are now using gcmaf creams and gcmaf yogurt with good results.