Cancer cure claim sparks heated debate at seminar

CLAIMS from a bio-medical businessman that his company could cure cancer and autism sparked a passionate debate at a Chamber of Commerce seminar yesterday.

Immuno Biotech CEO David Noakes had his claims that GcMAF could cure cancer and autism challenged when he made a presentation to the Chamber of Commerce yesterday. (Picture by Steve Sarre, 1297184)
Immuno Biotech CEO David Noakes had his claims that GcMAF could cure cancer and autism challenged when he made a presentation to the Chamber of Commerce yesterday. (Picture by Steve Sarre, 1297184)

CLAIMS from a bio-medical businessman that his company could cure cancer and autism sparked a passionate debate at a Chamber of Commerce seminar yesterday.

Immuno Biotech CEO David Noakes suggested that the use of GcMAF could repair the body’s immune system and act as a ‘rifle-shot’ to cure the diseases.

Mr Noakes claimed that more than 50 research papers had shown GcMAF, which is extracted from healthy human blood, could cure the diseases.

One doctor, who wished to remain anonymous, criticised the evidence presented by Mr Noakes.

‘You’ve cherry-picked the research to support what you’re saying, and the journal that has been published is very poor quality, whereas you have Cancer Research UK saying “if it sounds too good to be true it probably is”,’ he said.

But Mr Noakes responded: ‘Cancer Research is a front man – it’s rubbished the research saying it all depends on one person, but there are 119 other eminent scientists who have done their own research too.’

Comments for: "Cancer cure claim sparks heated debate at seminar"

markB

Prove it then Mr Noakes...find someone with terminal cancer that is willing and cure them

Dorothy

I believe this is happening as you write.

Richard Karpinski

Dear markB,

Look through the GcMAF.eu web site for research papers and check especially these three.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18633461

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18058096

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17935130

Nobuto Yamamoto is the expert on GcMAF and conducted these three trials in Japan. In each case, 15 or 16 patients were all cured. One trial was for colorectal cancer, another for breast cancer, and the third for prostate cancer. No recurrence was found using either nagalase testing or CT scans over up to seven years of follow up testing.

However, it is very hard to raise the funds to support the huge studies that the FDA requires for approval since there is no patented drug to guarantee monopoly profits to repay the multi-hundred million dollar costs. Would you like to encourage the NCI or NIH to fund such studies?

markB

It’s all very well looking at the GcMAF website, but they wrote it themselves!

as the saying goes “A fish monger never cry’s sticking fish”…..Independent research is needed.

Look, if Mr Noakes is correct then happy days and he will deserve the billons it will make him , but why is millions upon millions of pounds being spent on cancer research each year without, the results that Mr Noakes claims to be getting? the information is there for other researchers to look at but they are not interested by the looks of things….why?

Local Pete

Why would the fish be sticky??

Ted

The results you refer to are concerned with tiny sample numbers. Statistically, they are of little value and are, of course, tainted by association with a possible financial beneficiary (I know, that same tainting applies to much medical research). I will be more impressed when these results can be duplicated, independantly, in larger scale studies.

Mr verbal

I think our Mr Noakes would be well- advised to consider people's feelings before making what seems on the surface at least, unrealistic promises. As someone who has lost numerous family members to illness, I would be inclined to ask Mr Noakes this: if your company is in a position to cure cancer, why are you only making yourself known now? I would be inclined to concur with the opinion of the doctor cited in this article. This story is an absolute disgrace! Enough said!

Trevor

I have now seen the video of David's talk to the Chamber of Commerce and can categorically say that David did not state his company could cure cancer.

That is a statement made in two articles by the Guernsey Press now, and its the Guernsey Press's statement alone, not his.

The journalist failed to report Immuno Biotech Ltd export to Doctors and Clinics in 30 countries with good medicines laws, including Belgium, Holland, German, Switzerland Italy and Spain.

The fact that a total of 4,000 people through three hundred doctors' practices have been treated with his GcMAF was also suppressed.

Dr Robert

"However, it is very hard to raise the funds to support the huge studies that the FDA requires for approval....."

Not really; there are lots of biotech companies that are trying to bring biologics to market and they all have backing from larger pharma companies and/or venture capital. Mr Noakes says his compound cures cancer AND autism? He must have to beat the investors off with a stick!

Slash

Another one giving people false hope with this nonsense.

And yes, I am a survivor, as is my younger brother, due to conventional radiotherapy treatment.

Terry Le Monde

This sort of thing (like Homeopathy and other such nonsense) preys on the hopes and fears of those unfortunate to be suffering from ill health. Why on earth was this person invited to speak here- unless the intention is to peddle this through Healthspan?

Lesley

Hi. I work for GcMAF.eu doing customer follow ups. When I started, I was as sceptical as the majority of posters on here. I didn't believe that this stuff could cure cancer and aids, so I volunteered my services to see from the inside. What I have found is that it boosts the immune system. The immune system would, if not compromised by nagalase (I dont know if this was covered in the speech), cure most things. All the GcMAF is, is a naturally occuring human protein, which is crucial to a fully functioning immune system, so this is just replacing a deficiency caused by nagalase. That is all. With an effective immune system, the body can self heal. It won't work for everyone, but what cure does? And as for cancer research, just think, if a cure for cancer was found, what would they do for a job? All they do is research, not find cures, but they put out enough little tasters of potential cures to keep the milions flowing in. You just have to follow the smell of money. Anyhow, this is by another doctor, independent of Mr Noakes - http://gcmaf.timsmithmd.com/ And I know you will be sceptical of my response, because of my association with this company, but if I had any qualms that this was a quack remedy robbing the sick, I would have nothing to do with it. Life's too short for bad karma.

Slash

You're damned right I'm sceptical! GcMAF = charlatans

Lesley

I am surprised at the animosity against this, you all have the internet, and you can all do independant research. There are many peer reviewed papers that show this works, from a scientific point of view. Howwever, from a personal point of view, I would just like to give you a taste of the happiness that I have experienced in other people, thanks to David's product and his drive to get this product to the public, despite the animosity he has encountered. I was at the Treating Autism conference in September where David held a stand. A lady came up to us and told us how her non-verbal unresponsive child was not only speaking, but playing the piano, and she burst into tears as it was so emotional for her. Another lady sent me a video clip last week of her son of about 6 saying 'I love you' He too had been unresponsive before GcMAF. Another lady travelled 100 miles to personally thank David for giving her son back to her, he is now joining mainstream school. There are too many of these to recount here, but it makes me happy to know that it is making a difference to these families.

As far as cancer is concerned, it works. One lady had been told to go home and put her affairs in order as she was going to die. She turned to GcMAF and became well enough to go back to work. Her oncologist was impressed at her recovery and said that she was now well enough to have radiation, which she did. That destroyed her bone marrow, she became aneamic and died. I have lots of anecdotes, but when I see clinics worldwide repeat-buying for their clients, then I know that the word is getting around. A healthy immune system is the best cure for most things.

Slash

Plenty of jolly little anecdotes, sod-all verified proof.

I won't grace this garbage with any further comments, I'm too busy living what's left of my life thanks to conventional cancer cures.

Scientist in Guernsey

Lesley, in Mr Noakes' final video he claimed GcMAF was able to turn breast cancer cells into 'normal' cells without any macrophages present. Although he provided no evidence of 'normal' this means GcMAF doesn't even require the immune system to be a 'cure' and in one fell swoop he completely undermined the entire foundations of what he claims GcMAF does.

Harnessing the immune system to treat disease offers massive potential in many fields, but to suggest GcMAF can eradicate/cure these diseases is in my opinion either incredibly naive or worryingly misleading.

Lesley

Dear Scientist in Guernsey. As part of the extensive quality control to ensure that each and every batch of gcmaf is viable and active it goes through rigorous testing, including the tests shown on the videos. As with the results in autism, which were described as surprising, this too is a surprising result. I am sure that Immuno biotech would welcome comments and studies from scientists to explain this. However, despite not having an explanation, you can see what is happening. I don't understand quantum physics, but that doesn't mean its not real, and scientists didn't know about that until recently, but its always been there. I would suspect that GcMAF, like many things naturally occuring in nature, has more than one role

Lesley

Dear Scientist in Guernsey, your question prompted me to delve a little further. I am not a scientist, and do not understand all the terms, but this paper on PubMed seems to confirm that GcMAF (in this paper called DBP-maf) does not just activate macrophages, but directly fights cancer, although it is technically written and I may be mistaken.

What do you think? This paper was written in 2010 - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20976141

Disgusted of St Peter Port

Re: autism - first agree on the cause - then, and only then can you decide on a "cure".

As far as the claims about cancer cures - two words - Snakeoil Salesman.

Lesley

Why do you find it necessary to name-call? That does not make your argument valid. There is a peer reviewed paper that shows autistic children generally have a higher than normal nagalase level. This shows a higher than normal viral load. Just because the actual viruses have not been pinpointed does not mean that this is not a valid treatment. Aspirin from willow bark was used for hundreds of years, and it is only modern science that has enabled the reason for its effectiveness to be pinpointed. Does that mean aspirin didn't work before science found the reasons? No! Of course not. GcMAF for autism was only discovered last year, so work continues to try to pinpoint the reason it works so well. As the saying goes - the proof is in the pudding. Many families have seen their lives improve thanks to David Noakes, and I take offence at you calling him a snake oil salesman. He has higher ethics than many people.

Even more disgusted...

Could you please enlighten us about the association-with both David Icke and the "office" located at Fort George?

Amazing how many "ethical" products you can purchase over the internet for 800 euros......

I am only surprised that you havent set up a stall in the market trying to flog this rubbish. Peer reviewed papers? You must think the general public are as naive as you are.

Alison

GcMAF has been discovered for many years. Thats yet another lie people make in the autism community.

Terry Langlois

I have met Mr Noakes and listened to him describe various conspiracy theories to be "fact". Based on that, I would not believe a word he says on any subject without serious independent verification.

Catherine Hall

Immuno Biotec claims that GcMAFF can lead to full recovery in Autism are premature and not borne out by any conclusive evidence. There is only one peer reviewed paper on the effect of GcMAF In treating autism. It relates to an in house study of children attending the authors clinic. The measure of improvement in these children is also based on an in house questionnaire rather than on independent assessment using standardised measurements of autism symptoms.

The author ,Dr Bradsteet himself says 'Since this is an open-label, non- controlled, retrospective analysis, caution must be employed when ascribing cause and effect to any treatment outcome'.

Catherine Hall

Branch Officer, National Autistic Society Guernsey Branch

Lesley

Catherine, thanks for your input, it is good to hear a professional point of view. In the same paragraph of your quote, Dr Bradstreet also said that despite the short observational time period, the result that 67.5% of the group responded in the 3-5 CGI range was unexpectedly substantial. That means that 67.5% saw gains of moderate, considerable or very considerable. 40% are in the 4 to 5 range, which, for any psychiatric drug, would be considered dramatic.

The CGI scale, Clinical Global and Impression, published in the AMC in 2007 is in open access and is an accepted scale for psychiatric observations. I don't know whether he followed this scale to the letter, I have not compared, but some children have gone on to loose the label of autism. Thats a good result, no question.

Other autism clinics around the world are seeing the same results, and it would be great if you were to approach this with an open mind. You could become one of the pioneers.

I am leaving this thread now, I am finding it a little tiresome with all the negativity, but good luck with all your research. BTW, this is the link to the peer reviewed paper that Catherine refers to, you will need to click on the download PDF to get the full text http://www.la-press.com/initial-observations-of-elevated-alpha-n-acetylgalactosaminidase-activ-article-a3450

PLP

There's a difference between being open minded and being naive, and although history shows some mainstream treatments were once decried as "quack" therapies you'll excuse me if I remain skeptical until something more conclusive than your biased position comes to light.

You claim you are leaving this thread because because you find the "negativity" tiresome. I wonder, is that the reason, or is it because you've realised Guernsey folk aren't quite as naive as you thought and we won't just swallow these claims without some kind of independent verification? Only you know the answer to that question but I have my suspicions.

scarlett

Leslie. I am interested to know...

How and why has Mr Noakes gone from being a UK Councillor and UKIP politician to this?

What are his actual qualifications and experience that enable him to do what is a considerable leap from politics to championing this alleged cancer cure all?

Why has he relocated to Guernsey (Fort George) to run this business? Why can't he run it from the UK?

Something doesn't feel right about your employer. He's not a scientist, his association with this business, and to be clear, Leslie, this IS a for-profit business, not charity, remains unclear, he is evidentially very wealthy (judging by his choice of address) and has relocated here for reasons unknown....

I have read his blogs and seen a few of his many You Tube posts, and he quite plainly likes to be in the limelight whether it's to slate the UK's involvement in the EU, discuss conspiracy theories (i too am bemused by his association with that nutcase David Icke)tell us all how he can 'cure cancer', and all the self aggrandisement is somewhat off putting, some would say, a distraction, from the actual subject matter.

The limited nature of his vague in house trials and the fact that despite millions being spent on easily verifiable legitimate cancer research, those bodies have thus far apparently 'failed' to come up with anything as allegedly successful as Mr Noakes's company

makes me very sceptical indeed, and I would also question whether an individual such as Mr Noakes is best placed to champion a product which, if his claims are true, could literally save many lives, and of course, make him a LOT of money.....

Sorry, I'm not buying it, literally or metaphorically.

Lesley

Hi Scarlett. I don't know David well enough to comment on his career choices, but I know that he is making a difference to a lot of people now, something that a UKIP politician is unlikely to do. I have had 6 different careers before taking early retirement to rural France, its not unusual to better oneself.

Why would he not run it from Guernsey? I have visited there and it is beautiful. I guess you live there so probably concur with my viewpoint.

He is not my employer. I wanted to work with this product, firstly because I wanted to ensure that this was not a scam, and now because I am proud to be in a position to be able to tell people about how this has helped people. I am retired and do not do this for the small fee that I get as a self employed person. Its a Good Karma thing.

People seem to have an issue about this product costing money. I have just looked up the financial reports of Genentech, a company that supplies chemo drugs amongst others. Their net income for 2008 (the latest year for which figures are available) was £3427 million.

Just because most of this sum is being paid for out of tax money via the NHS and similar, does not mean that we are not paying. A course of chemo is generally upwards of £20,000.

Does it not worry you that the billions spent on cancer research has come to nothing, and that one in 3 will now get cancer in their lifetime? To me, that is where the sceptism lies - where can all that money go, for such a little response, and for them to come up with a quote 'if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is' is the sort of playground argument that makes me shake my head in disgust. I have never seen cancer research purchase or ask for a vial of this GcMAF to test - they have enough money to be able to do extensive clinical trials, but they do not. Why is that? Because they are worried that this might actually put them out of work?

Trevor

David has never said GcMAF cures cancer.

Why should someone not get involved in his or her own research - it is a free world (or was last time I checked).

After discovering the press suppressed the initial findings surrounding GcMAF he decided to research further. Instead of fighting Europe or injustices in the political system David decided to put his energies into GcMAF and there are 1000's of people grateful that he has.

On his journey David has been assisted by some of the most brilliant and open minded Scientists an Doctors - without them I don't think all this would be possible.

He has 3 bio medical scientists not only producing active and sterile GcMAF but also spending much of their time researching in-house as well as providing and receiving information from other laboratories around the world.

I have watched David develop this from the ground up and despite some early reservations I take my hat off to him and his excellent team for giving GcMAF back to the world.

Gordon

So what is the problem? You have by you own admission a peer reviewed paper saying that GcMAF can help reduce the symptoms of autism. This is the first one. You have to start somewhere. It shows that it is worth continuing to investigate as positive results are apparent. Ok, not a double blind trial with thousands of patients.

My son has autism and really bad gut problems that have been with him for years. Autism causes are unknown. Dr Bradstreet has a theory based on the observation that autistic children often have immune systems that are not functioning properly. His theory is that this could be an infection so he tested his theory by giving GcMAF. Hundreds of autistic children had reductions in their symptoms. At the talk, it was pointed out that similar results have been obtained with autistic groups in other countries and written up in peer reviewed papers. The scientific method of other scientists obtaining reproducible results.

That is the scientific method - have a theory and test it out. Stomach ulcers were "caused by stress" until someone had a different theory that they were caused by an infection and proved it by swallowing the microbes and getting ulcers which he then cured by antibiotics.

Trevor

When reporting autism, the journalist gave good coverage to Catherine Hall, none to the fact that David's Company have treated 1,500 autistic children through 4 doctors who have a 15% full recovery rate, and an 85% response rate.

valeite

I do think the majority of posts on here are really being quite negative and until we are put in the position of needing this drug we really cannot say what we would do.

I lost both my parents to cancer and both within 8 weeks of prognosis, I would willingly have offered them this drug if I thought it was going to help them, admittedly if you had to choose between conventional medicine or this, it would take a brave person to try a new drug,to then be told it had not worked, but until you are in the situation you cannot say, because believe me I think you would try anything when push comes to shove.

scarlett

That's the problem with expensive alleged cancer cures, desperation is what those who are selling it depend on, Valeite.

so very sorry for your loss.

rosie

There seems to be an awful lot of jumping to (false) conclusions in these posts and it seems a shame to me that so many people have made such negative comments without it seems bothering to really find out what this article is about. There are 2 fundamental points that strike me.

Firstly, gcMAF only repairs the bodies own immune system, effectively turbo charging it so that is then better able to combat invasive diseases in the body. It is then your own immune system that actually conquers the disease.

Secondly, the negative comments are all criticising this treatment for lack of properly conducted clinical trials. Well hello! That is exactly what Immuno Biotec are asking for. Guernsey could be that test bed and it is worth reminding people at this point, that gcMAF is a naturally occurring substance produced by the body....... we all have it in us already.

PLP

Rosie

Look at Lesley's response to post 6 - after a few anecdotes about autism she makes a definitive claim that gcMAF works as a cancer cure. The evidence? Repeat sales and the story of a lady who subsequently died.

That in itself is worth paying close attention to: the lady who made dramatic improvements using the "miracle cure" only to die after going back to conventional treatment. In my opinion that sounds like a classic attempt to play on peoples fears rather than presenting a potential treatment for objective analysis.

I've nothing against people "thinking outside the box" in efforts to beat cancer - and I have no problem with Immuno Biotech seeking help for clinical trials. What I do have a problem with is them selling this "miracle cure" now without any of this proper due diligence being done. I don't want our island associated with that kind of practice.

Lesley

OK, I felt I should come in and defend myself from these unsubstantiated attacks on my posts. For the records, this lady seemed a lovely woman in her early 40s. This is what she said Dec 11 - 'Before I started I was on a walker and unable to work and on morphine. Now I am walking normally and back to work and taking advil (2 a day)' Her husband said after her death in October 'Doctor put her on radiation again which gave her anemia, then chemo and killed her. Herceptin and chemo.' I don't understand why you dont want Guernsey associated with bringing a cure to the public? That's a bizarre statement, considering GcMAF efficacy is well documented by many other scientists

rosie

PLP. I have looked at that post. The first part clearly explains what / how gcMAF is / works. She admits that repairing the immune system alone won't work for everyone but it seems to me that having a repaired immune system is bound to put you in a better position for recover than without. And indeed that does seem to be what they are finding. In her second answer (same post) she gives an example but says she could tell of many more. It would be ludicrous for her to list them all here.

The point is that the positive results that they have so far had, in my mind justifies further examination. We are talking about boosting immune systems here. Just where is the down side in that? If we did trials in Guernsey and it didn't work, then it doesn't work. But those people will be no worse off for having a repaired immune system would they? But if it does work, then bingo. Fantastic.

This whole debate is not helped by gcMAF being described by posters as a 'drug'. That makes me think of foreign chemicals. gcMAF tho' is just one small element of the blood we all have but an element that is crucial for a healthy immune system. To my mind it is no more a 'drug' then the blood I give when I donate.

It would be a shame if once again Guernsey's innate conservatism prevents us from keeping an open mind and exploring something that ultimately could be to all our benefit.

Catherine Hall

That a substance normally occurs within the body, is not a reason to assume it is safe to use. Both insulin and adrenaline occur naturally in the body, both are used therapeutically, both can be lethal if used inappropriatly.

Mr Noakes has stated that he only gets feedback from 15% of the people to whom he supplies GcMAF. This means there is no information on how the majority respond. It cannot therefore be guaranteed as 100% safe.

rosie

Terry L. Permission to do clinical trials is exactly what I thought Immuno-Biotec were wanting. Mr Noakes seems to be caught between a rock and a hard place....... he needs to state that gcMAF works and be able to demonstrate some examples in order to justify further and more extensive clinical trials. But by so doing, he risks having everyone jump onto his back accusing him of jumping the gun with his claims.

It might be true that the language he uses to make his claims is too forthright for your tastes. They might even be too strong for my tastes on occasion but I do not see that as a reason for not going ahead with some trials to see if gcMAF does do what it says on the tin.

Incidentally, he doesn't claim that gcMAF cures all cancers- it seems to be most effective on early stage cancers. He said that advanced cancers would most likely have compromised the immune system to such a level that it would be beyond repair.

Trevor

"Stepwise treatment of purified Gc protein with immobilized beta-galactosidase and sialidase generated the most potent macrophage activating factor (termed GcMAF), which produces no side effects in humans"

Full article here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19031451

Terry Langlois

Rosie - you surprise me, but I think that you've missed the point.

No-one would object to this article if Mr Noakes had called for more clinical testing. In fact, if he had called for more clinical testing there would not have been an article in the first place, since the Doctor in the audience would not have had to challenge the claims being made.

The article states that Mr Noakes claimed that there is already evidence to show that it cures diseases. It appears that he has posted YouTube videos making unqualified claims as to its efficacy.

So no, people are not rubbishing the drug as a possible future addition to the anti-cancer armoury, they are rubbishing the claims that are already being made by Mr Noakes and his ilk, and questioning the fact that it is already being sold on the basis of those wild claims.

PLP

Thanks Terry - you've saved me some time as that's pretty much exactly what I was trying to get across.

Lesley - If Immuno Biotech are seeking funding / support for independent, verified clinical trials to prove its effectiveness then you're very welcome to do so. If however you want to use Guernsey as a platform to peddle this "cure" with nothing more than anecdotal evidence and the support of a few scientists then the answer is a very strong NO.

That is the practice I don't want Guernsey associated with, and with all due respect I don't care how many times you come on here and say "it works" or talk about your karma - until an independent and recognised body says that then the answer remains no as far as I'm concerned.

Trevor

Infantile cancers rates up 10,000% in 15 years.

Autism from 1 in 25,000 to 1 in 88 in 30 years.

ME/CFS & fibromyalgia from nowhere to 1,000,000 in 20 years.

What is happening to our world?

The medical establishment cannot identify the causes for any of these illnesses let alone provide effective treatment for any of them. This despite the billions spent on research.

The latest chemo drugs are really old drugs that have gone out of patent had their chemical compound changed slightly then re-branded and patented as a new treatment. Is this really worth the +40 billion spent on the war on cancer – calling it a war somehow justifies the poisoning, burning, hacking and slaying this ‘treatment’ offers.

CFS is called Chronic Fatigue Syndrome to keep the illness in the sufferers mind – making out it is not actually real.

Autism – It has taken dedicated work by a few scientists around the world to finaly show the world that autism in most cases is caused by viruses and by taking a holistic approach significant gains can be achieved by Doctors and Clinics around the world.

I have lost both family and friends to cancer and understand that it leaves a raw nerve that can be irritated by some of the claims made here but seriously folks – do your research. There is much published on the internet by over 100 scientists that demonstrate GcMAF activates macrophages in the innate immune system which then go on to eradicate cancers and diseases. This is a fact.

If you turn your back on nutrition & natural remedies in favour of chemotherapy, radiation & surgery then this is your choice and right. But please do your research before belittling anyone willing to voice an alternative view.

And how many of you are, or know of someone, taking statins. One of the greatest lies ever told in recent years is how statins can reduce your chances of a heart attack by 33% - sounds good eh? Until you do the research – it actually lowers your risk of a heart attack from 3% down to 2% which is either a 33% or 1% reduction depending on which side of the fence you sit on.

GcMAF is one of many effective treatments that have been suppressed over the years.

Here are a few more:

Burzynski: Cancer is Serious Business FDA Tyranny - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRua3NLg-Z8

world without cancer the story of vitamin b17 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeYMduufa-E

Raymond Rife - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEt5zd3YYHw

PLP

Trevor - I really don't know how many more times I have to say it. All most people here are asking for is verified proof from independent clinical testing before swallowing these claims - and no I'm afraid Lesleys stories don't count (no matter how vociferous her claims to the contrary) as they are neither independent or verified.

Even the gcMAF website acknowledges it hasn't been trialled properly yet, as to buy the product you have to sign this disclaimer:

"I understand I will be taking part in a pre clinical trial and I guarantee to provide progress reports every 2 months. I have done my own research into GcMAF elsewhere without relying on you, and my decision to take it is mine alone"

Don't confuse a reasonable skepticism with closed mindedness. If gcMAF ends up being the miracle cure that's being claimed I'll be as happy as anyone. In the meantime, you'll forgive me for being a little skeptical.

rosie

PLP. So why are you so against these trials being given the go-ahead to be done in Guernsey? Where do you think they should be done?

PLP

Rosie - for goodness sake read my post Jan 28 at 12:49pm and tell me where you get the idea I'm against trials on Guernsey. Let me make is at clear as I can - I am not against independent and clinical trials, in Guernsey or anywhere else. What I'm against is using Guernsey as a base to sell gcMAF at EUR600 a go (+EUR60 delivery fee) to the general public until such trials are completed. I'm no medical expert but surely it needs to be better controlled than that?

rosie

PLP. Immuno Biotech are not at this point trying to sell gcMAF to Guernsey or to anywhere else, FROM Guernsey.

They want to do the clinical trials (or have them done) that everyone keeps banging on about and think that Guernsey would be a good location to do those trials. ( I don't know exactly how clinical trials are done but would presume that they would need to be overseen by some sort of independent body.)

I see no down-side to our engaging with that process. Do you?

rosie

Terry- apologies. I posted my reply to you in the wrong place- under the poster above yours.

Gordon

For clarity, the "Doctor" in the audience was not a medical doctor. He has a doctorate in research.

If you were present at the talk, you would have heard Mr Noakes say that he wanted to do trials on Guernsey but was being prevented from doing so. This was clearly covered in the second piece on the same page of the press that is not on line or at least not attached to this first article.

I recommend that people read the second article as it addresses a lot of the points that people are commenting about.

Jose

Some of the above negative comments are reminiscent of those dark days of witch hunts and burning - a time of dangerous ignorance and intolerance. They protesteth too much, methinks...

Oh dear another believer..

Not ignorant at all Jose, just able to read and therefore able to make up own mind about such things. I suspect you believe anything anyone is a suit tells you. Sad.

For the record:

Family members lost to Cancer: 4

Friends lost to Cancer:innumerable

Child with autism: 1

Willingness to believe this guff? Narp.

Dorothy

Chemotherapy drugs and radiotherapy treatment probably started in test tubes many years ago. I can't find any data on their claims for recovery etc.

Every drug/immunotherapeutic product must start somewhere. He did ask for help from Guernsey. He did explain that he had autism trails in various locations with now positive results.

I do understand the "snake oil" accusations etc but the poor quality videos show something was happening and after speaking to him after the talk he wants the cell stuff checked out to find out what is going on.

I think he should do this and try to organise clinical trails. I don't understand all of what he said but it must be worth investigating further from a medical/scientific side to either confirm or dismiss his claims. I so hope he is right as my friends have undergone conventional treatments with often unpleasant side effects

Nick Le P

An interesting story this with understandably skeptical responses to a drug which doesn't yet have the full clinical evidence required to gain mainstream medical approval.

Some are open to its efficacy and others are concerned that this is a money spinning exercise which preys on the vulnerable. However, is there an alternative view?

As yet there is no cure for cancer but given the vast sums of money made by drug companies, hospitals and doctors in supplying and administering clinically approved treatments, is it in their interest for a cure to be found?

Take a look at the cost of some of the newer treatments such as Avastin and Herceptin for example, which only prolong life not cure disease. The NHS has already limited their spending on these drugs.

I lost my mum to cancer and she responded horribly to conventional chemotherapy, which only made her ill rather than better. For this reason if I should be diagnosed with cancer I am not sure I will accept chemotherapy and so an alternative may be more preferable.

Taz

Agree Nick, the 'cure' can be worst than the disease.

I lost my mum to cancer and while it could be said that the chemo extended her life for 9 months it certainly didnt give her any quality of life as she spent most of it too ill to do anything.

I would seriously think twice before having any chemo myself.

I do support cancer research if only for them to find drugs that dont harm as they help.

If this gcMAF can been shown to be good at boosting the immune system then it should at least have a proper trail.

Catherine Hall

Unfortunately Immuno Biotec' s own tendency to use rather emotive and overblown claims based on hypotheses and unsubstantiated user testimony, tend to arouse sceptism.

There are a number of controversial therapies and treatments for autism that have similar parent testimonials to those claimed by Immno Biotec. None have yet proved to have any consistent effect on the core symptoms of autism.

NAS Guernsey recommended that parents considering using any of these therapies consult their child's Dr. We would advise that GcMAF is as yet an unproven injectable product and should only be used under the supervision of a qualified medical practitioner.

valeite

An article in the Sunday Express written by the health editor is also claiming to have given terminally ill patients an injection boosting their immune systems, does anyone know if this is the same injection as mentioned here, as there have been some alarming results.

It also says that no child will have to grow up with the fear of cancer. lets hope this is a fact.

Dorothy

It will happen one day, hopefully soon. Just need to wean them off of the modern food and hide playstaions, tv controls etc and kick them outside on the beach or in the fields. Restore Guernsey's greenhouses and grow organic food.

Adam Flude

How sad to see so many bigots on here!

I have a dear friend who last year had a very tragic "last supper" with her daughters after the doctors said she would be dead within a couple of months from her stage 4 metastasised cancer, if she didn't have the chemotherapy. Well I am VERY happy to say, she has NEVER been so well since rejecting the chemo and having many months of GcMaf. OK she is only ONE person and it's only months not years, but the fact remains that the Oncologist said she would be DEAD if she didn't take the legalised poison from the multi-billion dollar chemotherapy industry and the doctor was WRONG, she is NOT dead and she is thriving.

Let's not forget what happened to the poor doctor who DARED suggest that the mothers & babies in his hospital might be dying from germs carried up BY THE DOCTORS from the morgue, because they didn't realise they should wash their hands. He was LOCKED in a MENTAL HOSPITAL where he remained till he was dead!

Why is the Doubting Thomas doctor who criticised Mr Noakes remaining anonymous? Why do we have people on here with funny anonymous names like "SLASH"!! Who is protecting the multi-billion dollar ESTABLISHED drug industry? I believe the evidence MAY be limited, but for Christ's sake, let's give this guy Mr Noakes a CHANCE. Or maybe we should just MAINTAIN the crazy status quo, keep insisting the world is flat, keep insisting the WORLD is the centre of the universe (solar-system), not the sun!

I truly sympathise with everyone who lost loved ones to cancer, but PLEASE, DON'T take it out on Mr Noakes, maybe if your loved ones HAD tried GcMaf they might be alive today. I have done a LOT of research on this and I would have certainly recommended it (had I known about it at the time) to my own father who tragically died of cancer.

Thanks to Lesley for all your clear concise and obviously HONEST input. What a shame some people have been so rude in preserving their closed-mind prejudices. Good luck to everyone who has found the COURAGE to say NO to traditional stuff which will often kill you quicker than the cancer to TRY a new(ish) remedy, against which there appears to be a well orchestrated hate-campaign.

Cousin Vinny

Adam. With respect, to accuse people of being bigots and then responding with a bigotted response does you no favours. It's a good example but it's not independent evidence and I don't think people are asking too much when that's what they want.

Whilst it is an emotive subject and your passion is understandable - your capitalisation of words you want people to focus on makes your post look more like a marketing leaflet in the tabloid press than your personal opinion.

I've come across Mr Noakes who strikes me as a very good salesman as he's passionate about his product. As people above have already questioned though, in what respect is he qualified to opine? That is, why should laypeople listen to Mr Noakes when respected people within his trade/area (currently) don't?

Scarlett

I concur with most if not all of Cousin Vinny's points, Adam, in particular, reiterating the point I made, that Mr Noake's way of expressing himself and promoting his product as a 'cure for cancer' and many other ills, or so it seems, is not (perhaps I should say 'NOT') borne out by his own research when probed more thoroughly......yet.

Not yet.

Maybe it will be, in which case we can hail him as a genius, or perhaps, to be more accurate, a very savvy businessman who fronts a company with the potential to save many lives and make many millions, maybe it has had a positive result in the very small percentage of people who have confirmed that to him, but until then, until the research proves beyond a reasonable doubt that it actually works, I personally would not buy into his arguments, however persuasive.

Actions speak louder than words, however loud, verbose, scientifically put or seductive.

If it works for you or the people you care about, that's great, good, I am more than happy for you. I will watch the progress of the extensive properly monitored independent research that is required to prove his claims, and of course, hope that they are right...

until then, I retain the right to remain sceptical.

jozie

Dear Aunty Vinny? Scarlett? I am the real live lady (so far!) that Adam is speaking about. I have lost both my parents to cancer, lung and breast. There is a twenty year gap between each death, the first occurred in 1976. Since then there has been absolutely no change in the "authorised" treatement for cancer, it goes - and I know this is familiar to lots of you - operation, radio, chemo, death. If you are lucky, in a two year period of agony with intervals of slight recovery.

Forgive me for wondering why with all the money spent on cancer research, both voluntary and donated by the government in all those years we still have no other solution! Can it be for that very reason?

I refused chemo, not many given that bullying scenario of "you only have two months to live without it...." would!

If this is giving people hope - what is wrong with that? Certainly the expert cancer dr didn't give me any! After chemo he put on my report "pallative" so he obviously didn't think the chemo would cure me.

Mr Noakes is looking for people to try this, why does that threaten anyone? We all have a right to make our own choices. At the moment I feel people are wanting me to drop dead so that they can prove their negativity right!

It appears to me that all these "aunt Vinny's" and "Slash's" and "Scarlett's" are people with very financially lucrative interests in the current stalemate of affairs in cancer treatments.

A top specialist I spoke to in Bristol, who actually did give me an alternative, one of hormone therapy, said there is official research being done on macrophages and the results are "very good!" but....wait for it....it won't be available for a few years! Well, great!

Please Mr. Noakes, don't be brow beaten, well done on all your research and good work.

vic gamble

...are they still issuing bits of Linda Martel's clothing to those who believe in miracle cures?

The Man

A long time ago in a galaxy far far away i used to work in a research lab as an Immunologist, and although immuno modulating drugs offer fantastic potential (arguably the most promising avenue in current medicine IMO of course), much more research is required, and unfortunately that means much more testing on Humans.

Lets be frank here, the whole pharmaceutical industry is bent as hell, well meaning and extremely clever sicnetists controlled by boards of directors more concerned about profit than they are about the diseases they can cure. Whilst a phrase such as "surely a one stop cure for cancer must be profitable and therefore makes commercial sense" on the face of it appears obvious, it unfortunately doesnt take into account the sheer complexity of the politics that goes on at this level.

(Just google TGN1412 and try to determine how the hell that drug ever went to clinical trial as a very good example of the politics involved)

Unfortunately, GcMAF has been around for a while, with no massive investment into a trial, why not?? Who know, it could be a million and one different reasons. Does it work? Who knows, but for now a really balanced article can be found here.

http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2008/12/03/cancer-cured-for-good-gc-maf-and-the-miracle-cure/

valeite

I defy anyone on this blog that they would not take this drug if they were told that the cancer they had was terminal. Until you have been put in that position, be careful what you say.

Believe me I know there are cranks about but if all else has failed, you will try anything.

Julie

Absolutely! Well said Valeite

PLP

Valeite - you're absolutely right and it is precisely that desperation which lines the pockets of the cranks you mention, and all the more reason to ensure any claims of this kind are subjected to independent rigorous testing.

rosie

Quite.... so let's do the testing and see if it does what is being claimed. These constant comments re the need for additional testing are strange when that is exactly what Immuno Biotech are asking for.

Your comment re feelings of desperation could also be attributed to taking chemo and / or radiotherapy- both which are acknowledged to have significant negative side-effects.

Scarlett

Which doesn't prove it works, just that we will all do pretty much anything when we're desperate, valeite....

which is, as I've already pointed out, what the purveyors of many 'miracle' cures depend on.

Type 1 Diabetic

Out of interest, if this can cure cancer, by using the bodies own immune system, can it be applied to cure Type 1 Diabetes?

I often feel disheartened thinking that clinical trials are funded largely by drug companies and that if they were to fund research into cures for diseases such as cancer, diabetes et al, it would be like turkeys voting for xmas. Sure, they could charge large sums for the cure, but nothing beats a forever repeat customer.

Lesley

As far as I know we only have one person trying this for type 1 diabetes. 16year old male, under medical supervision, doing well, this was latest feedback in November - 'In the meantime, long story short, I just got back from Z's doctor and she wants me to double up on his dose because of his response and because of our travel plans' Possible cause of his diabetes is the EBV virus. His mother is very pleased with his response to GcMAF

However, one person with a good result is not conclusive, and I would suggest you talk with your doctor as to whether the underlying cause of yours might be viral, in which case you could consider it further.

I think you have the current situation with the medical profession down to a T. I used to work for the company that makes Viagra, and when that was going off patent, they invented a new illness called female sexual disfunction, to be marketing in pink packaging. I had a row with my boss as there is no such thing. Woman may not be in the mood, but that would be more about stress or lack of closeness. I left shortly afterwards but it never gained its patent as it was no better than placebo. But that's the pharma industry for you, happy to invent illnesses so that they can sell product. David Noakes has higher ethics than these companies.

Lesley

This is the latest email received overnight. I have loads of reports, so I know it works, and I guess that puts me in a better position than the doubters on here, because I get to see firsthand how it is helping people. But you are just going to say, 'thats just another anecdote'. How many of these will it take for you to become more open-minded? I've got plenty....

Female, 53, lung cancer, started GcMAF December 14th - 'I have NSCLC, adenocarcinoma with EGFR positive. I had a follow-up CT scan on 23 January which showed the tumors in my lungs were less dense.'

First Immune GcMAF works, and it doesnt matter how many times you come on here and say 'I don't believe it' you will not change the facts.

MarkB

What sort of cost are we looking at for this treatment?

sarnia expat

Whatever retainer you are being paid, it obviously isn't enough.

This product must really and truly be a miracle. For someone with lung cancer to have a positive result after 9 days..... purlease. You are absolutely ridiculous.

Ask this lung cancer patient in 6 months if he/she is still "cured".

Lesley

Thats not nine days, thats 5 weeks. And I do not get paid any retainer or commission. To me, it is a pastime that is very rewarding. I charge out 2 days flat pay for admin work, but often blog or discuss GcMAF over and above my paid time. In my mind, this is not something that should be hidden as it can make a massive difference to so many people, and I am happy to shout this from the rooftops!

Catherine Hall

Lesley, perhaps you could clarify what it is Imuno Biotec are proposing. Is it that Guernsey should set up and fund a research project into the efficacy of GcMAF. Or are they merely requesting permission to provide the product directly to anyone who is willing to try it. The latter seemed to be what Mr Noakes was suggesting as he ventured the opinion that it would be easier to obtain feedback within an island community.

While immuno Biotec continue to cite anecdotal evidence as 'proof', they will inevitably arrouse sceptism. So yes, I am afraid it doesn't really matter how many stories of individual ' cures' you provide. I note that for autism you have not quoted any of the online posts from parents who clam to have discontinued the use of GcMAF because of high fever and worsening behaviour symptoms in their children. Perhaps these parents are within the 85% of customers who have not provided feedback.

As I pointed out to Mr Noakes at the presentation last week, it is not numbers of unsubstantiated 'cures' that are needed to prove the efficacy of GcMAF it is the results of quality research.

Lesley

You will need to speak to David on that, I do not live on Guernsey so was not present at the discussion so can make no comment.

I do receive positive and negative responses, of course, and the negative responses around autism are the flu like symptoms and occasional worsening of behaviours. The flu like symptoms are a sign of an immune response and are short lived. Where a child is definitely a non-responder, or shows worsening of behaviours, the dose is lowered, or GcMAF is stopped. This is the 15% bracket as shown by Dr Bradstreet.

I believe that David is looking for quality research, which is why he is out there in the public eye, raising awareness. Rome wasn't built in a day, and his focus up until now has been to ensure that his GcMAF is the best quality available, and setting up the high tech lab needed and the quality control tests.

Gordon

Why are you muddying the waters? At the meeting, which you were at, he said he wanted permission to do trials on Guernsey. He did not ask Guernsey to pay for them. The last comment from the audience was from a gentleman who used to work at HSSD who said that similar trials had happened in the past and could see no reason why they could not be done for GcMAF.

You keep going on about the quality of the research. That is not down to Immuno Biotech. You should address your concerns to the peers that accept scientific papers from doctors and professors for publication and presentation at conferences. Personally I would think that they are better qualified to comment on the quality of scientific research and trials.

Dorothy

He spoke to you at the breakfast meeting saying that over 1500 children are trailing this in various countries. The results are consistent and hopefully the papers/findings will be published. After the talk I was interested in the mechanics behind this product.

It seems that a blood test (nagalase) indicates a viral or tumour load and all of the children put forward had high levels of this ?enzyme nagalase. I did a bit of google searching and found autopsy reports on autistic spectrum disease and they all had very high viral loads demonstrated in both brain and gut biopsies.

I know it sounds unbelievable as I have worked with autism spectrum over the years.

I certainly would be open minded regarding this product especially as it is a natural protein.

I would certainly work with a doctor conducting trials at the moment esp as they seem to have consistently encouraging results.

What is there to loose?

The Questionner

The cynical side of me thinks:

Cancer Research and other charitable organisations who make millions of pounds per annum through donations have a vested interest. Do they really want to find a cure for all cancers as they would effectively become redundant.

The pharmaceutical industry (a strong lobbyist) has a vested interest too in that if a cure was found, they would lose billions in profits. One conspiracy theory says there is a cure for the common cold, yet the pharmaceutical giants are keeping this under wraps to protect the industry around cold remedies.

Maybe I'm just an old cynic, but come on Cancer research, et al, put your money where your mouth is and don't just dismiss what potentially looks like one of those major breakthroughs of all time.

Terry Langlois

Do your research. Cancer Research UK are not dismissing it, they are saying that the claims being made by Mr Noakes and others like him are premature and overstated at this stage - and that further research is needed.

Trevor

And Cancer Research UK closed down the discussion about GcMAF - why?

The Man

Not forgetting the revenue drug companies get from a constant stream of cancer patients needing Chemotherapy!

Having seen it firt hand, I can tell you that you are not being cynical.

Guernsey is actually a good place for a potential cancer cure to set up shop thanks to all the Radon.

Having thought about this a lot overnight and taking to one side the processes involved, I cant help but think that we as an island should be embracing this, rather than taking pot shots at the figurehead.

Guern abroad

Why always the focus on treatments, is it seen as the easier option because then you do not need to change the corrosive cause forming lifestyle that the west is so keen to pedle.

Unfortuneately medical approach does not always work and at best only prolongs the time to the next episode.

Look at bowel cancer screening, is it really worth continuing the diet that is at the root of the caner then to actually change eating habits and reduce your risk. What is screening but a mask to the real problem, it creates a false sense of I can continue what I am doing as I am going to be screened, but would you rather not in fact cut your risk by changing habits in the first place.

There is money in the medical world if they can find a fix that enables the lifestyle to not change, but would you rather not go through any of that agnony in the first place.

Re type one diabetic, on my browsing there is implications to dairy as there is a fit at a molecular level with the insulin producing cells on the pancreas.

When facing any health crisis look at all approaches what got you to were you are and what can be changed to better prevent a reoccurence or to curtail flaming the situation.

Oh Dear

Leslie you're position within the company makes your comments untrustworthy.

As for the claims of Mr Noakes, you cannot make these sort of claims until the necessary clinical trials have been carried out.

These sort of things should be kept under wraps until the trials have been done and you have collated the data. These claims could lead to a frenzy. There are millions of people all over the world hoping for a cure to cancer and autism. Announcing you can do it without actually testing your product sufficiently is bound to cause some general disbelief amongst the less naive of us. Those that are naive however are going to feel seriously let down if this product fails to prove itself.

I'm not saying that it won't work as I am not in a position to say this, I'm saying that it's very egotistical to come out announcing the "wonders" of this drug when it has not been proven to work.

Leslie, your examples on a previous post just sounds like those typical comments that appear all over social networking sites.

"Oh my god, if you fill in this form you can win £1000, I did it it's easy".

You're information is about as believable as any of those internet scams.

Lesley

Oh Dear, oh dear, oh dear!!! So you think I am untrustworthy and a scammer. Thanks for that, seeing as you do not know me at all. I have already said, and can prove, that I do not have a 'position' within the company. Also, all the points I have made can be verified.

I don't think there will be a frenzy, there are too many people who are sceptical of anything that is not mainstream (just look at the percentage on here), despite the fact that mainstream cancer treatments can be horrendously damaging. But people trust their doctors, and doctors trust the sales teams of the pharma companies and their glossy brochures. These sales reps are commission based and taught to sell hard, if they don't make the grade, they are out. I've seen this from the inside, having worked for a large pharma company in the past. I don't blame the doctors on this, not at all, I have utmost respect for them. But their continued professional development is, in the main, from pharma funded conferences, that's where the problems lie, in my view. How are they ever going to hear about the unpatentable and lesser known alternatives, such as this or healing with nutrition? Happily, there are many doctors who are thinking outside the box, and they supply to many clinics worldwide, for cancer, autism, CFS and others.

ps, it is rude to mis-spell someones name, in the same way it is rude to call someone untrustworthy, unless you have very good cause to. It is not the case here. That makes you a liar. See, we can both be rude, if thats what you want?

markB

Have you tried the American Market? they seem to be more open to try things??

Oh Dear

Saying that you're untrustworthy isn't exactly an insult, that is the opinion I have made of you.

I do apologise for mispelling your name Lesley.

If this drug was so good it would have had a clinical trial by now, would it not?

This site isn't exactly a great marker for an entire population of people. There are a lot of naive people out there who will believe in this drug whether it works or not.

If you don't have a place within the company why do you feel the need to back it up and why get so angry about someone elses opinion? Shouldn't Mr Noakes be trying to protect his own reputation?

I think you became extremely angry over post. I didn't really insult you, I was merely saying how you portrayed yourself on this board.

I don't think Doctors trust the sales teams per say, I think they trust the drugs that actually go to clinical trial and have been proven to work.

They will hear about this drug if it actually gets a clinical trial. That's what is needed, not some hearsay from someone who is clearly a close friend of Mr Noakes, considering the lengths you're going to, to defend him.

I'm sorry if you mistake anything else for an insult, I'm simply stating my opinion.

An unimpressed person who works in the medical profession.

Oh Dear

Oh and get a dictionary and look up the term liar.

Then cross reference it with opinion.

It'd be a lie if I said that pigs could fly. I'm not lying if I believe your comments to be untrustworthy. :-)

Denis

What the hell is wrong with all you negative people?! I have never seen so much negativity and unjustified personal criticism about a group of people who are simply trying to help make people better and prolong their lives.

Lesley, you deserve a medal for sticking up for Mr Noakes and his company and your frank and honest approach under such heavy fire is really commendable!

All this criticism from a foundation of such ignorance!

Why do so many people place the Big Pharma brigade on such a high pedestal? Do you not wonder why they have not seized the opportunity to produce GCMAF themselves and do the necessary clinical trials?

The answer is quite simple - it is a natural product produced from human blood and therefore cannot be patented!

Big Pharma is not interested in anything which cannot be patented because their product can then be copied!

Immuno Biotech do not hold a patent for this product and they are not the only company who produce it. They simply claim to be the best and are held in very high regard by doctors all over the world.

Big Pharma also are obviously not interested in finding a cure for cancer because they make billions from repeat orders of chemotherapy, not permanent cures.

Have none of you critics ever wondered why no cure has yet been found for cancer? There are a number of effective treatments out there but the cost of many years of double blind placebo controlled trials can only be afforded by massive drug companies who will only publish results from synthetic drug trials which can then be patented.

There are no serious side effects from GCMAF.

This product has been around since about 1995 and not caused a single problem in that time.

Compare that to Big Pharmas's track record and you will have a shock.

Vioxx for instance was a drug passed by the FDA for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.

It killed 60,000 people and damaged at least another 150,000! The drug company pleaded guilty to a 'misdemeanor' after plea bargaining! They were fined $320 million for killing an equivalent of the population of Guernsey!!

Vioxx is only one example of Big Pharma's mistakes. There are many others.

Incidentally before you critics attempt to have a go at me I have no connection to or interest in this company at all. I have simply done my own research and come up with my own conclusions.

I also have a friend with 'terminal' grade 4 cancer who uses GCMAF and she is still alive and well after five months having been given two months to live by her doctor.

Why not embrace this company and this wonderful product and support clinical trials here in Guernsey? Why do we have to blindly follow the UK without thinking for ourselves?

What have we got to lose?

Finally I call upon all critics to think again and try a more balanced approach to this subject.

Saddened Always

Terminal cancer dosen't mean you will pop off in a couple of weeks. It might - but then, like my sister, who was given 18 months tops, was still going strong three years on due to an uncontrollable urge to live and with a huge amount of positive thinking. No drugs.

I am glad you are able to see the positives in Mr Noakes and all he stands for. Perhaps you will be proved right. Who knows? Just don't give people false hopes when the truth is often too hard to take.

Unfortunately for the majority of people with cancer - it is The End. Fin. Over and done with. Pushing up the daisies when everyone around you cry tears of frustration for lives lost too early.

hear hear

Well said Dennis. As the mother of a child who had cancer all I can say is that if there is nothing else left to try you will try anything!! 'Hope' alone can trigger amazing things to the wellbeing of both the patient and the carer so stop bashing these people and everyone get a bloody life :)

Oh Dear

As I said, if there is a proper clinical trial that proves it works, then great.

I don't think anyone here is putting Big Pharma on a pedestal. Most people are well aware of the health risks with drugs like chemotherapy. But at least it has actually been PROVED that it saves lives.

The Man

I think you are missing the point!

Jude

Good for you Denis. I couldn't agree with you more. Lesley thank you for being so brave and subjecting yourself to this verbal abuse. I can see you are a person that "cares" and wants to make a difference to people's lives and what a privilege it is to bring help to others especially in the field of health as I well know. When will people wake up and realise how BigPharma controls the world and it is not in their interests for us to be well.

Gordon

Good point Denis. Remember that Vioxx would have been put through clinical trials paid for and run by its Big Pharma manufacturer.

Lesley

Thank you, Denis, for your kind words. It can be really frustrating to be up against such negativity. Ambivalence, I can understand, because there is a lot to be discovered still with GcMAF. Positivity, I can absolutely understand that, as there are many science papers that say it works, plus many anecdotes, plus there has never been a single death attributed to GcMAF. But negativity? Why? What has this product done wrong to deserve such vitriol? But that's people for you, and I do love a good discussion about GcMAF.

As you can gather, I am very passionate about this little protein, having been in the fortunate position of hearing from many whose lives it has changed. No amount of negativity is going to dampen my spirit.

I wish your friend all the best in her fight against cancer.

Terry Langlois

Lesley - you are missing the point. It is not the product which attracts vitriol, nor any calls for it to be investigated and developed.

The target of the vitriol (as you describe it - I would describe it as words of caution and scepticism) is the people who are selling it at rather steep prices whilst making all manner of unproven claims (unproven in a recognised scientific sense, that is).

If they were developing the drug and not already selling it, or if they were selling it whilst saying "we think it works but it remains to be proven scientifically", then I am sure it would have 100% support.

Lesley

But Terry, big pharma with their big budgets could have picked up on this 20 years ago, and brought this to the public. They didn't because a) it would interfere with their profits from other sales and b) it is unpatentable so it will not make them £millions.

Although David comes across as well-off, he has not always been so, and he would not have had the money for in depth trials before now. But that is why he wants to do more now - he is in a position to be able to do so, and he wants to prove the effectiveness of his product to the scientific community and the world.

I understand this was the point of this meeting? And as for it being expensive, it is a fraction of the price of a round of chemo....

And from my point of view, to say we think it works, when we know it works, would be to mislead.

It is down to David and his team to now prove this scientifically and that is what he is striving for at the moment. He would not have been able to do so, had he not been making money. Only big pharma are in a position to do that, and they don't want to.

Gordon

The article in the Press was too short to cover an hour long detailed presentation. I was at the presentation and actually heard what was said. The company came to Guernsey because it could provide an ideal location to do trials as Guernsey has done several times in the past. Unfortunately HSSD placed a blanket ban on GcMAF as not approved as needs trials. A Catch 22 situation.

My take on the whole presentation was that the company's aim is to make available the best quality GcMAF extracted from human blood. In this they are succeeding as the researchers and doctors are coming to them for GcMAF as per the scientific papers that cite Immuno Biotech as the supplier.

As to claims about GcMAF, they mainly cited peer reviewed scientific papers and that they are being invited to talk about GcMAF at important conferences. They also talked about testimonials from people who had used GcMAF in a whole range of diseases and the small numbers in each case means that had to be viewed with caution but supported the position of research papers that GcMAF injections restore the immune system to normal so that it can fight a wide range of infections.

Huge clinical trials that the sceptics say they want to see done cost vast sums of money which is fine for Big Pharma but not easy for a small company which is why they are saying look at the trials being done by groups of scientists around the world who are independent of Immuno Biotech. Surely you would trust such research to be more likely to be independent than trials funded by Big Pharma of their own products - just read the papers about side effects that have been played down.

The history of science is full of examples of scientists who have come up with theories that go against the conventional thinking of the time and stirred up vitriolic comments such as the ones in this blog. The scientific method is to have a new idea and test it with observations. Dozens of scientists are testing GcMAF with positive results in peer reviewed scientific papers. To me, that is very promising and deserves an open minded view rather than a knee jerk rejection.

Terry Langlois

Gordon - no-one is being a luddite and closing their eyes to what could be a fantastic new development. But it need proper analysis.

What people do not like is that the product is already being sold and people such as Immuno Biotech and their supporters (Lesley's posts above for instance) area already making claims about how fantastic it has "proven" to be.

If they really want testing, they should not yet be selling it.

For as long as they are selling an un-proven product, they will be seen by many as being the same category as snake-oil salesmen and those preachers who claim to heal all manner of diseases by laying on hands and screaming a lot. They are preying on the understandable fears and desparation of people in terrible personal situations and that is why it raises suspicions.

Gordon

Terry, what do you define as proper analysis? Scientific papers analysising how GcMAF works exist. Research scientists have published results of giving GcMAF to hundreds or even thousands of people.

Are you saying that this body of work by independant scientists is bunkum and, if so, on what grounds?

Scientist in Guernsey

Research published in peer reviewed papers is not automatically correct. Much of the research on GcMAF is self-citing and mainly the work of one scientist who has to maintain his publication record to get funding. One of the papers states a treatment group of 14! Where you get 100s/1000s from I have no idea. Merely being published is not enough. You have to critically read the papers and make an informed judgement. If 10% of what was claimed for GcMAF was true it would make the front cover of Nature/Cell, not a journal with an impact factor of ~7.

If any of the undergraduates I have supervised had designed experiments as poorly of those often quoted here I would ask them to go away and try again.

The big pharma debate is a distraction. I know many free thinking scientists who have set up companies to exploit their discoveries with help from charities such as CRUK (Mr Noakes' nemesis) and sold out to big pharma companies for millions. Big pharma companies want smaller competitors to come up with the ideas and do the initial research it saves them millions/billions.

Why doesn't Mr Noakes bring over his scientists from their secret location lab to talk to us. Then all the emotion can be taken out of the debate and the research can be properly scrutinised.

rosie

Gordon. Good to hear from someone who was actually at the talk and can give an informed and balanced view. It is a shame that for some, personalities seem to have become the centre of the debate rather than the focus being on the product and how we could help in the process of establishing its efficacy or not.

Ted

I had no idea that Immuno Biotech had expressed a wish to conduct double blind trials in Guernsey. Have they announced this publically?

Dorothy

yes he did state that at the talk

OccupyCustardCastle

Interesting, as I was discussing another advance in medical treatment, the gut flora transplant.

Before anyone laughs, every single owner of rabbits, cavys etc already knows that "transplanting" a few pellets from a healthy rabbit to a sick one jump starts its gut back to normal operation.

People are being crippled and dying left and right from C difficile yet somehow this treatment took until now to be "discovered" meanwhile Big Pharma invents new antibiotics that just make things worse.

I say to hell with so called "modern" medicine, listen to the little guys once in a while and we might learn something valuable.

Back in the olden days honey was used as a cure-all but had the singular advantage of actually helping in a lot of cases.

It is possible that it worked by introducing non-harmful bacteria to the wound therefore "crowding out" the harmful ones.

Lesley

Hi Occupy, you are right about the gut flora transplants. Because I like to verify the things that are reported back to me on the feedback forms, I looked into feacal transplants which have been used in autism, to good effect. My initial reaction was eeuurrgghh, but it worked for these people. I am not an empiricist, I do not have to see it with my own eyes to believe it. There are lots of traditional cures that have been lost over time, such as honey and cloves for toothache. People kind of know about them, but rarely use them. My partner had toothache recently and was using painkillers. I made him use clove and he was surprised that it was much more effective. They don't tell you that at Boots!

Royal Rife was a genius of his time, but his work was destroyed. However, Rife machines are still being used today, and many of the people who are using GcMAF for cancer are using Rife as well, with good effect. Rife is also used in treating Lyme disease alongside GcMAF. Rife's work, like Nikola Tesla, stood to ruin the status quo of the money spinning industries of pharmaceuticals and power generation. They had to be stopped.

Lesley

I haven't yet got to the bottom as to why GcMAF was discovered 20 years ago, had amazing successes in small scale trials and yet never progressed to larger trials. I personally suspect money changed hands to suppress this. If anyone can come up with a reason that is verifiable, I am keen to learn it. It is likely that pharma has been keen to keep this under wraps, and it has taken someone like David Noakes, with his larger than life persona and his ability to take huge knocks, to bring GcMAF to the public. Lesser people, such as myself, would have stumbled at the first hurdle.

OccupyTauCeti

Then there is the (in)famous Rife Beam Ray, which in all likelihood did work just not by the mechanism Rife thought it did.

As we now know, near infra red (NIR) light of very specific wavelengths stimulates mitochondria which are the cell powerhouses.

NASA proved that NIR light is beneficial to ulcers, and later research suggests that even eye problems such as AMD and RP can be mitigated by NIR as it appears to help regrow the photoreceptors.

My own analysis suggests that NIR light is essential for normal fetal eye development so it would make sense for there to be an effect later by adding an external energy source to the retinal cells.

SunSt

Why is there so much anger ? Couldn't this be a good news story ?

I know I'd give it a go if I had cancer. It sounds as if it is a natural product which somehow triggers the person's own immune system to fight the enemy.

Perhaps it has got even more beneficial effects which are yet to be discovered.

J

I have never posted on here before but feel compelled to write.

My main concern is that Mr Noakes is offering an unproven product to people in an extremely vulnerable state. When you're diagnosed with cancer it's completely overwhelming for both you and the people around you, and you're liable to believe what you want to hear. And a cancer cure with few or no side effects is pretty compelling. I was told that in order for gcmaf to work you have to use it on its own, not in conjunction with a conventional course of chemo or radiotherapy. That's a pretty risky decision to be making for an unproven product. Potentially one that could decide whether you live or die.

I am a cancer patient currently in remission. I was approached by Mr Noakes in 2011 while I was out with some friends. I was nearing the end of my chemotherapy and his sentiments were essentially "Chemotherapy may be working now but you'll be back where you started in a year or so". Thanks, just what I need to hear at the moment! He was quite 'hard sell', and scathing of local and UK oncologists who in his opinion wouldn't listen to him because it would put them out of a job.

After doing some research online, the results did seem impressive. Too good to be true perhaps? But the nail in the coffin for me was when I started researching Mr Noakes himself. Call me cynical, but I'm reluctant to take serious medical advice (and let's face it this is about as serious as it gets) from an ex UKIP politician, with hours of video on youtube outlining his conspiracy theories. Gcmaf may indeed be the cure he claims it to be, and for all I know he may even be correct in his conspiracy assertions, but what worries me is that until it is proven people could make potentially life threatening decisions when in an emotional state based on the claims of an unqualified person.

I'm more than a year into remission now and I'm pretty happy with the decision I made. I can only speak for myself and from my own experiences, but I owe my life to the doctors who treated me and the nurses and staff at Bulstrode House, and their opinions on this subject carry a lot more weight with me than from a businessman with no training in this field. Who would you trust, a team of qualified oncologists or an ex politician offering you a cure for cancer in a pub?

sarnia expat

Wonderful post. You have summed up what, I suspect, a lot of us are thinking.

Good luck J.

Terry Langlois

J - an excellent post. Best of luck to you with your continued remission.

I share your assessment of Mr Noakes. He is an ex-accountant and an ex politician. He has every right to set up a company selling medical products, but most sane people would question his authority on complex scientific or medical matters. Ultimately, he is a salesman, not a technician. And when you hear his views on other subjects, it makes you doubt the rigorousness of his own due diligence even more.

He strikes me as a man who is passionate about the things he believes in and who talks stridently about them. Admirable qualities in a politician. Not so suited to the scientific environment where critical analysis and a healthy scepticism of your own findings is required, rather than a reliance on fundamental belief.

Lesley

J, I am pleased that you are in remission and I hope that you remain so. GcMAF works by boosting the immune system; radiation and chemo can compromise the immune system, giving less macrophages to be activated, so it will not work as well as it could. Saying that, there are many people who take the two together, and they find the rounds of chemo in conjunction with GcMAF less uncomfortable than the ones they had previously. I have plenty of anecdotes about this (which I will not recount as people here do not want them). However, I appreciate it would take a huge leap of faith for many to discount conventional treatments.

Yamamotos original studies were on patients who had gone through conventional treatments but then had metastises. It is a sad fact that this happens. In the future, once this treatment becomes more widely accepted, I envisage that this will be given to patients after conventional treatment to ensure metastises no longer occur. (The ebook to which I referred earlier suggests this). But that's my opinion, assuming that this becomes recognised by mainstream medicine. In the meantime, I have my fingers crossed for your continuing recovery

Oh Dear

I'm pleased you are in remission J.

I love the fact that he thinks oncologists would be out of a job if his product came to market. They do the job to help people not make as much money as possible. There are quicker, easier and less emotionally destructive ways to get rich.

It's nice that he's so passionate about his product but he comes across as very egotistical. I think it's appalling that he tried to sell his unproven product to you at a time when you were not in the frame of mind to be considering such options.

Those at Bullstrode house are brilliant.

Terry Le Monde

Hi Lesley

In your first post on here were you seriously suggesting that GcMAF can cure AIDS?

Trevor

Immunotherapy of HIV-infected patients with Gc protein-derived macrophage activating factor (GcMAF).

"After less than 18 weekly administrations of 100 ng GcMAF for nonanemic patients, they exhibited low serum Nagalase activities equivalent to healthy controls, indicating eradication of HIV-infection, which was also confirmed by no infectious center formation by provirus inducing agent-treated patient PBMCs. No recurrence occurred and their healthy CD + cell counts were maintained for 7 years."

Full article is here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19031451

Please do your research first

Lesley

Yes. That is what the initial research indicated and the reason why David wanted to make this available to the public, HIV and cancer. There are several people who use this to treat their HIV.

Since David has made GcMAF available, it has successfully treated a much wider range of ailments, including, notably, autism.

Dave Haslam

It would be so typically Guernsey, for someone to come trying to offer a cure for one of the worlds greatest ills, to be chased away from the island with burning sticks!!

On one hand we say 'we'd like you to prove thet it works please', and with the other hand we are quickly locking the door.

Donkey is right!

Scarlett

Dave, really, this 'typical Guern' comment from someone who's past posts have been so intelligent....?

Is that all you've got?

I'm surprised at you. If we were all buying into this would we be 'typical Guern' naive?

I've asked Leslie why Mr Noakes is in Guernsey. She was unable to answer that question and speculated it was for the view, despite the fact she apparently works closely with him and the product, and he told everyone at the presentation why he was here, according to someone on these boards who attended....

I find that rather odd.

Mr Noakes is not a scientist, he is an ex politician and conspiracy theorist who has connections with David Icke the infamous self proclaimed 'second coming' and has moved here to do trials without actually checking his facts first to see if he's allowed to, David.

Does this, and his outrageous claims based on very little evidence, and the fact he's already selling this product to desperate people based on those claims make people sceptical?

Absolutely, and rightly so.

Some champions do indeed come in unlikely guises, but many moons ago I was in sales and marketing and I can tell you that you can have the best product in the world, but if the personality of the sales person doesn't 'feel' right to people, they won't buy it, that's just people for you.

I genuinely hope this is the solution and the miracle cure that Mr Noakes claims it to be, who wouldn't?! I just don't 'buy' Mr Noakes - or his reasons for being in our little tax haven - at all.

Dave Haslam

No scarlett, its not all I've got, you really dont want to know what I've got. But you allude to the fact that most of my posting on these boards has been intelligent, to which I am grateful, so I'll ask you to think why an 'intelligent' poster, would post what I did.

You make valid points, but I looked past the salesman and at the product. Now I am a person who has read Bad Pharma (which is a very interesting read), and I'm looking at a product which hasnt been tested! For whatever reason......... However it certainly isnt because its dangerous, that much has been proven, so whats the harm? He comes here, offers people another option, yet most are too stubborn to look past the fact that this bloke used to be a UKIP member, or saying that we dont want this because its untested, yet refuse to let the bloke test it.

I dont care what this bloke has done in the past, the compound he is promoting has done more than enough to warrent further investigation, he's asked for a leap of faith, but we wont give it because seemingly of our innate suspicion of fort george residents.

He's in a goldfish bowl here, if he cures even 1 person the whole island will know, and the whole island will light up like a christmas tree, I would suggest Mr Noakes knows that, that said, if the product fails to cure people, we'll all know about that pretty soon too.

I'm not saying trust Noakes, I'm not saying this is a cure for cancer, what I am saying is that we will never know unless we give it a shot.

Lesley

Scarlett

You find it odd that I cannot answer questions on Mr Noakes private life? Well to be honest, I live a couple of hundred miles away in France and do not tend to pry into peoples personal lives. I feel that is their business, not mine. If he stated why he is in Guernsey at the presentation, why are you asking the question? I work closely with him? No, I work on the database and speak to customers, and update the database. Thats how I know so much about it, and why I am championing the cause. Not from what Mr Noakes told me, as I was initially probably more skeptical than you, hence I offered to follow up customers. And had I had any qualms about this being a scam, I would have blown the whistle. But I have seen too many positive responses, and know that there are many people who have thanked David for their recovery, or the recovery of their loved one. This stuff works.

Mr Noakes is not to everyones taste, but it has taken someone as forthright and strong minded as he to bring this product out of the hidden depths to which it was cast 20 years ago despite extremely promising early trials.

And I am associated with Greenpeace and the Occupy movement, does that make me commie/socialist/any other dubious name/ in your eyes? Last time I looked it was a free world, and if David or I want to make associations with people who are seen as alternative, whats the problem?

soph

There is no cancer cure yet (caught early will give more hope to work) Chamber of Commerce that was a controversial speaker with I would suggest outside motives

Trevor

David did not state his company could cure cancer. That is a statement made in two articles by the Guernsey Press now, and its the Guernsey Press's statement alone, not his.

This is one place where inaccurate sensationalism is not needed to sell newspapers. The bare, accurate and highly verified truth is exciting enough on its own.

Jude

"Mainstream medicine plays very dirty indeed to defend its near-monopoly on cancer treatment, leaving a long trail of promising cancer treatments lying ignored and suppressed in its wake. By way of illustration, Dr Stanislaw Burzynski may be on the verge of a hard-fought breakthrough for his antineoplaston treatment – and his struggles offer an object lesson about the trials in store for another promising therapy, Gc-MAF."

Terry Le Monde

And the other side of the argument can be found here: http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/01/07/lets-make-dr-stanislaw-burzynski-do-something-good-for-cancer-patients-for-a-change

This is nothing to do with suppression and all to do with preventing sick people being ripped off

Lesley

And this is a review of the court proceedings that Burzynski has been subjected to. This shows a point of view of the patients and parents of patients.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zBBfN5mQa8

The first interview is with a police officer under oath.

Mainstream pharma and the system keeps these alternatives suppressed.

Lesley

Sorry, this should have come beneath Terry's post at 8.59 on the 1st Feb. But the Burzinski thing is a sidetrack, although it does go to show the lengths to which the regulatory bodies will go to keep the profits of big pharma protected (particulary at around 49 minutes in).

So this may explain why GcMAF has never seen the light of day before now, Big Pharma don't want it as it is unpatentable. No-one, up until David Noakes, has had the drive and determination to stand up to these hurdles.

Terry Le Monde

Hi Lesley

I'm sure you have the best intentions here and I know we'll never agree. BUT and this is a big BUT- my issue is that the cost of GcMAF and other 'cures' that are unproven are exploiting sick people that are naturally desperate for hope. Your reference to Burzynzki just does more to convince me that this whole thing is a sham. Did you actually read the details as to why he wasn't convicted for false claims of a cancer cure. I know you won't change your mind on this but please read this blog to the full of someone desperate for your miracle cure to work. Try not to think about the financial hardship the family goes through.

http://csn.cancer.org/node/241453?page=1

rosie

Terry. So I am presuming that since you think that gcMAF is as yet unproven, you would like to see some trials being conducted to discover its efficacy or not? Am I also right then to think that you would welcome Guernsey conducting those trials...... which really is all that this is about. And if not, where do you think should trial it?

Lesley

Hi Terry, the colon cancer patient who wrote the thread on your post is using a different product, a home made yoghurt kit called MAF 314. Obviously I have no connection to MAF 314, neither do I have any connection to Burzyinski, so can offer nothing but my opinion. I would prefer to stick with facts that I know can be verified, which is that each batch of First Immune GcMAF goes through many tests, costing an awful lot of money each time, to ensure that each and every vial of this product is active. I'm not sure a home made yoghurt is going to have the same quality control.

dorothy

I was at the talk and the press as usual reported an inaccurate version of the presentation. Well done Guernsey press. Perhaps your journalist should urgently apply for a job in the lower class national papers.

I spoke to Mr Noakes after the talk.

He wants clinical trails to happen. In Guernsey preferably but they are in progress in other countries. Hopefully the clinicians will publish their findings.

The company releases its product to any research scientists interested in its mechanisms.

Chemo therapy and radiotherapy probably started in a small lab somewhere. Give the guy a break. Get your press to report the facts. This was a scientific presentation. Your journalist failed to understand the very basic concepts.

Yes it needs more clinical trials.

Yes Mr Noakes asked for them.

No he did not used the word "cured". I thought the word "recovery" was used.

Yes his PA told me his lab is helping research scientists worldwide.

The video he showed us showed something happening to the cells. Apparently they are working on the findings and will publish their findings.

It is a small young company requesting help. Instead of all of the accusations, perhaps we as an island should offer a supporting hand instead of a knife in their back. Everyone needs to start somewhere. Let it be beautiful Guernsey

Trevor

Hi Terry - you have voiced many opinions regarding alternative cancer therapies, an open debate is very healthy.

However sometimes it is too easy to go on the attack without offering anything positive.

Can you please tell us which cancer therapy you deem to be the most successful and why?

I look forward to hearing from you.

Terry Le Monde

Trevor and co are fond of quoting out of context so I'll do the same.

Burzynski has never demonstrated that A-2.1 (PA) or “soluble A-10″ (PA and PAG) are effective against cancer or that tumor cells from patients treated with these antineoplastons have been “normalized.” Tests of antineoplastons at the National Cancer Institute have never been positive. The drug company Sigma-Tau Pharmaceuticals could not duplicate Burzynski’s claims for AS-2.1 and A-10. The Japanese National Cancer Institute has reported that antineoplastons did not work in their studies. No Burzynski coauthors have endorsed his use of antineoplastons in cancer patients.

Terry Le Monde

Trevor. I can't make head or tail of that but there are plenty of peers out there who can and their support is conspicuous by its absence. What I do know is that HIV is not AIDS. If this was as clear cut as you suggest then every country in the world would be supporting the development of this- on the other hand perhaps Durex are suppressing it. As for do some research, that's the whole point here. There's more reliable evidence about pile cream than there is for this.

Lesley

Terry

I will try to put the article that Trevor posted ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19031451 ) into plainer English. Having studied the terms over the past year, I feel I may have a better idea of the terms than many, although I admit to having no medical training.

GcMAF is made in the body from the Gc protein. The ability of the body to convert Gc protein to GcMAF is lost or reduced because Gc protein is stripped of its sugars by nagalase which is secreted by HIV infected calls. Because macrophages need GcMAF to be activated, they are not activated leading to immunosuppression.

He then goes on to explain where nagalase is made and explain in brief terms the steps needed to convert Gc protein to GcMAF, the most potent macrophage activating factor (GcMAF) which produces no side effects in humans.

Macrophages activated by GcMAF are able to recognise the virus and intercept the virions, resulting in a depletion of the infection, resulting in eradication after 18 weeks of HIV infection. No recurrence occurred and their healthy CD counts were maintained for 7 years.

I hope this helps. You are right in stating that AIDs is not HIV. My understanding is that HIV is the precursor to AIDs. AIDs would not occur without HIV, but HIV infection does not necessarily mean that it will develop into AIDs

Trevor

Thank you Lesley

OccupyTauCeti

Hi Lesley,

I do often wonder why many "revolutionary" treatments seem to get bogged down in clinical trial after clinical trial, perhaps this is the same reason that technological advances such as the infamous Russian "Sellotape X-ray" generator get rubbished by Western scientists and a few decades later reinvented.

Call me a paranoid conspiracy junkie if you like :-) but I believe even room temperature superconductivity was actually discovered in the early 1950's and promptly filed away under "interesting" in some drawer in a US Army warehouse.

Lesley

Hi Occupy, paranoid conspiracy junkie you are not, eyes wide open you are! Too many people think Coronation Street is true, and reality TV is their only form of education.

We are now in a world where millions die from pharmaceuticals (drug related deaths are recorded as the 3rd leading cause of death in the US), yet natural remedies are on the verge of being banned, thanks to Codex Alimentarius (could this be because many, and more effective cures can be found in nature?)

We have our cousins in America to thank for many of our food and drug laws, so the FDA's influence is extremely important to be aware of. The FDA started life as the Division of Chemistry, later changed to the Bureau of Chemistry and then, in 1913, to the FDA, to hide its chemical industry agenda. However, it continues to be run by, and for, the chemical industry, as show by the revolving door appointments between it and the industries, notably Monsanto (Michael Taylor, Margaret Miller, Suzanne Sechen etc). This is not a regulatory body to protect the consumers, this is a regulatory body to protect the chemical industry. And the UK (and Guernsey, it would appear) follow slavishly all its recommendations.

Anyhow, we digress, but it is important to be aware that all is not what it seems. The title conspiracy theorist, to me, means someone who is not as gullible as the rest.

David Noakes

J: How do you define an unproven product?

The Guernsey Press rubbished GcMAF by misrepresenting my presentation, and by painting me as central to GcMAF, when I am wholly irrelevant to it.

GcMAF is in all 5 billion healthy people, so J, you yourself are one of its manufacturers.

GcMAF is a vital part of the human immune system, all healthy people have. it. So it has already been trialled by 5 billion people.

Is that a big enough number for you?

I said there are 59 scientific research papers in the US Library of Medicine alone, by 142 eminent scientists, who state, inter alia, GcMAF eradicates cancer up to stage 2 in 90% of cases.

I did not state my company could cure cancer. That is a lie by the Guernsey Press.

Do you really feel you know better than 142 biomedical scientists, professors of molecular biology, biochemists etc etc?

If yes, I suggest you tell them so, and see what their reaction is. I know many of them, 15 work with us, we employ PHD and BScs ourselves, and I can reassure you they will be polite.

We made a video of the talk, and so we can prove just how much the Guernsey Press deceived the public. And there were 51 people present, many of whom told me the talk was excellent, and who can attest to its authenticity.

We have treated 1,500 autistic children through 4 excellent doctors who have first class documentation, a 15% full recovery rate, and an 85% response rate.

We supply 4000 patients via 300 doctors and clinics around the world in thirty nations with good medicines laws.

The UK has appalling medicines laws, which Guernsey always slavishly copies, no matter how bad they are. Even the British government is considering lifting them in 2014, if Lord Saatchi doesn't get his bill through the House of Lords first and wipe them out himself.

The above was concealed by the Guernsey Press, in the most slovenly piece of destructive journalism I have read in a very long time.

It is obvious that, as a part of the human body and a vital part of the human immune system, GcMAF will eventually be in general use around the world.

Its seems the Guernsey Press, with HSSD, is determined to make Guernsey the last nation in the world to receive GcMAF, instead of the first. I remind you there are now already 30 nations ahead of Guernsey.

I am asking the Guernsey Press for a full apology, and to print the corrections I have sent them.

Best wishes

David Noakes 07781 411737

Dot Comma

Hmmmm, no apology from the GEP then. Read in to that what you will, and I'm sure you will!!!

Rosie

So... excellent! It would appear that we are all in agreement. Clinical trials are needed to verify the benefits or not of gcMAF. That is also what Immuno Biotec want.

Let’s hope that Guernsey’s innate conservatism does not prevent us from being the place to hold those trials. As far as I can see, the downsides in our holding the trials would be zero but the possible up-side could be considerable.

koira koira

I hear Immuno Biotech will hold a convention on GcMAF in Frankfurt 20-21 April with illustrious speakers from Italy, Germany and USA. Let's wait for the outcome. Something new might come up.

rosie

Sadly, I suspect Guernsey will be too late by then to benefit from any positive outcome. I heard yesterday that they were in Dubai last week where apparently there was a great deal of interest shown in the concept. I can't imagine that Immuno Biotec will hang around to see if Guernsey will change it's mind to hold clinical trials if somewhere else offers to do so first.

koira

Sorry. not seeing my post appear I just repeated it. Pls ignore if you see it again.

koira

Interesting to know that Immuno Biotech has organized the world's first ever GcMAF conference in Frankfurt on 20-21 April. Here is the link: http://gcmafconference.org/

Curious to read any articles in the press about it.

OccupyTauCeti

Thanks for posting this link, sounds interesting.

What we need in Guernsey is a proper industrial park just for business startups, otherwise how are people supposed to start up when Housing and the IDC nuke them from orbit?

Its impossible to even get them to approve change of use for a greenhouse, when there are hundreds standing idle that could be growing hemp for biofuel and other natural products.

I ran into a similar problem with my chemistry research, even though it is not specifically prohibited.

"change of use, blah blah".. have a few goodies here but dare not build anything useful in case the rent-a-cops come knocking.

Felix Shmidel

It is unfortunate that gcmaf.eu tells the story of GcMaf one-sidedly and not objectively. For example, I have read the story of the prostate cancer patient who found that the GcMaf had not cured his cancer (though he thinks it benefited him). Still his nagalase has dropped from high to healthy level. Why gcmaf.eu does not tell that the GcMaf may not cure the cancer, but nevertheless is beneficial, since it always reduces the activity of Nagalese? Patients still could buy it for that reason.

Koira

C'mon, why should they tell you this? Do you know how many potential patients would be put-off by telling you this?

In case you haven't realised, although GcMAF might indeed work, Immuno Biotech is absolutely a 'for-profit' business, not a charity; and David Noakes is neither a philanthropist nor the Maria Theresa of Calcutta he paints himself as. He is in fact owner or director of 33 companies, from printers to publishers, from marine salvage to tug boats and from web-design to civil engineering. What any of this has to do with medicine or saving lives I don't know. So why the hell should he miss a chance to make a 'few' quid by not telling you the whole truth on what GcMAF can and can't do?

As Trevor says, "David has never said GcMAF cures cancer."

So what is all this fuss about then? It's time you all woke up.