I read thru WP:MEDRS. I think the point of it is to use unquestionable sources for the posts, if you can find them. The first introductory statement says, "Biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources, and must accurately reflect current knowledge. The fact that a Phase 1 Clinical Trial on GcMAF was completed and published on the National Library of Medicine maintained by the NIH is undisputable. This is an unimpeachable third party published secondary source. Who in their right mind would say this is untrue? Next, a representative from the Sheba Hospital was invited to the AACR-NCI-EORTC International Conference on Molecular Targets and Cancer Therapeutics, held November 5-9, 2015 in Boston, Massachusetts. This is an annual international conference to announce advancements in treating cancer. Look at the sponsors: AACR (American Association for Cancer Research, NCI (our National Cancer Institute), EORTC (European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer). Experts in the field of cancer from all over the world were there and any presenter would have to know their facts. So, the conference secretary condensed the presentation to all reverent facts and published the meat of this presentation in the meeting proceedings. A copy is on-line which I reference. Since the secretary had to edit and gain approval on what to publish, I think this is reliable 3rd party reporting on this FDA registered Phase 1 Clinical Trial. It is only reasonable that if a phase 1 Clinical Trial is posted on the GcMAF page that readers would want to know some of the results. The current GcMAF page deals mainly in the twisted history of personalities and not on the true science of GcMAF. If the cancer industry and dependent sycophants were not boycotting GcMAF because it is a threat to their agenda (not a pharmaceutical) and profits (cheap to make and unpatentable). The medical profession would be using supplemental human GcMAF now to cure a host of diseases, including cancers. If the B and T Cells of the immune system make it, GcMAF serves some major purpose. The true story of GcMAF is yet to be told. Will you back me if I update the GcMAF page? 2600:1700:C670:BB90:AD8F:52D2:486:B4A3 (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maproom - I appreciate you bearing with me regarding a needed update to the GcMAF page. In the interests of science this update needs to be made. And there is very little science on this page about a scientific fact that the immune system makes and uses GcMAF. The way that GcMAF activates macrophages seems to be epigenetically via the ZEB2 gene so the indication that surface molecules are used for GcMAF activation on the GcMAF page is wrong. (GcMAF activated macrophages should be classed in a new anti-cancer M3 phenotype.) The GcMAF proteins must be swallowed. A biolab can safely and efficiently make identical GcMAF for supplementation from powdered Vitamin D Binding Proteins. It's a cold hard undisputable fact that the Sheba Hospital in Israel (their NIH) completed an FDA registered Phase 1 Clinical Trial on GcMAF. It's also a cold hard undisputable fact that a representative from the Sheba Hospital was invited to present results from this trial at the AACR-NCI-EORTC International Conference on Molecular Targets and Cancer Therapeutics, held November 5-9, 2015 in Boston, Massachusetts. This is an annual gathering of cancer experts to learn about promising advancements in cancer research. The AACR secretary condensed this presentation, and had it reviewed and approved by the 10 attendees listed at the bottom of the presentation summary that's included in the proceedings. So, the write-up on this trial published in the conference proceedings were peer reviewed. These conference proceedings are widely available to those involved in the cancer industry. These proceedings just add context to the fact that a Phase 1 Study was conducted and what happened. This reference is just as valid as several of the references already included on the GcMAF page. Both references that I propose are factual unimpeachable GcMAF scientific events and are published by neutral 3rd parties. Since it has been so long since I posted, would you update the GcMAF page with this information for me in your own words? I understand you have a science background and should want to advance a scientific subject (GcMAF) hung up on a distorted, misleading past. Science did not know that GcMAF existed in the body until Dr. Nobuto Yamamoto published his studies. (He did this on a shoestring budget because GcMAF was a threat (cures are bad for business) and was being boycotted.) The prostate study is still in the scientific literature as a cure to prostate cancer and validated by a U.S. Department of Defense study which is why the publisher refused to retract this study even though it contained the same so-called deficiencies as his other retracted studies. Why is it not being used for prostate cancer? No one tried to validate the true science of his other cancer studies. Why? I think we know why! PageMaster (talk) 23:43, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maproom - Have I convinced you that the GcMAF page needs to be updated with some actual science, like a completed Phase 1 study and the strong indication in this study of relevance to cancer (8 weekly injections of GcMAF stopped terminal cancer in 5 difference cancer patients until the effect of these injections wore off. It also altered the M1/M2 ration during this time.) What you don't know is that shortly after completion of this Phase 1 study a major pharmaceutical entity (told it was Genentech) bought out and quickly closed the little Israeli start-up (Efranat Ltd) whose only purpose for existence was to complete clinical trials and market a legal GcMAF product. This sale and closure was kept secret from the public and kept GcMAF from becoming available under RIGHT TO TRY. It appears that Genentech insisted on a controlling interest in Efranat Ltd for a promise to cover the cost of further clinical trials, securing FDA approval and bringing GcMAF to market. Once attaining control of this small privately owned biolab, Genetech reneged and closed the biolab to kill further GcMAF development. I'm sure that Genetech was upset that a Sheba Hospital representative gave an overview of the amazing potential of GcMAF at the 2015 AACR conference. The pharmaceutical industry is trying to hide and suppress the potential Of GcMAF to cure diseases by their industry wide boycott. This industry has the power to do this in the west but not in Asia where it is being advanced. You can see the effect of this boycott by the slant of the current GcMAF page on Wikipedia. This page needs to be update or deleted. How do we go about getting this page deleted since it is short on science and heavy on innuendo. (There is no real science that proves that GcMAF is not effective against solid cancers. The actual science points in the other direction. But the power and influence of pharmaceutical industry in the West is preventing GcMAF from being tested against cancer because they are invested in chemo and CAR-T.) PageMaster (talk) 04:23, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By ignoring GcMAF the cancer industry has created a dangerous, fundamental, neglected vulnerability in all solid cancer patients. It is common knowledge that TAMs in the cancer microenvironment generally support the growth and spread of cancer. What little opposition there is from classical M1s is mostly ineffective and only slows cancer progression. This neglect of what is happening in the cancer microenvironment with TAMs is a MAJOR FLAW in current cancer treatment therapies. Currently, cancer uses the cell digestive enzyme Nagalase as a countermeasure to practically eliminate immune system produced GcMAF from reaching the microenvironment. The purpose of GcMAF is to convert receptive pro-cancer TAMs into anti-cancer TAMs. The only way to overcome this countermeasure prevalent in advanced cancers is with biolab identical, supplement human GcMAF. Cancer has no defense against pre-formed GcMAF. (Nagalase destroys the GcMAF precursor VDBPs which prevents the immune system [B and T Cells] from making GcMAF in the microenvironment.) When a TAM swallows a pre-formed GcMAF protein, an epigenetic change occurs which switches the affected macrophage's ZEB2 gene OFF. This master programming gene then converts the affected TAM (M0. M1 or M2 state) to a new phenotype which becomes strongly anti-cancer, immune to all of cancer's countermeasures. So, the amount of pre-formed GcMAF reaching the microenvironment is critical to change this environment to anti-cancer. Currently, this potential, fatal flaw in solid cancer therapies is ignored. This outlines the current gap in cancer therapies which makes cancer extremely difficult, and in some cases impossible, to cure. This treatment gap needs to be addressed immediately with biolab identical, pre-formed GcMAF. PageMaster (talk) 22:35, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Maproom for allowing this deeper insight into the true purpose and function of GcMAF as used by the human immune system in fighting cancer and other diseases. If supplemental human GcMAF were used to address this current blatant omission in cancer therapies, many more cancer cures would be possible. Embryonic and very early-stage solid cancers could be detected via the Nagalase Blood Test and cured with supplemental GcMAF at the family doctor's office. Oncologists could also add it as an adjunct therapy to close this treatment gap. The use of supplemental human GcMAF has no adverse side or after-effects. It is compatible with all current cancer therapies that do not intentionally suppress the immune system since it boosts the immune system. The immune system recognizes biolab identical GcMAF as its own and knows how to effectively use it. I need to point out a current mistake in the Field of Biology which is misrepresenting the important of GcMAF. It was recently discovered that the ZEB2 gene is the master program switch in macrophages that influences the macrophage phenotype. For M0, true M1s and M2 macrophages, this gene is always ON allowing environmental factors and cancer countermeasures to determine their characteristics and phenotype. Only in the case of GcMAF polarized macrophages is the ZEB2 gene OFF which makes these macrophages immune to these bad influences. This creates a new unique unrecognized macrophage phenotype which is currently mistakenly included in the M1 phenotype with macrophages with the ZEB2 gene ON. This is a mistake since only GcMAF polarized, anti-cancer macrophages have their ZEB2 gene OFF. When in sufficient quantity in the cancer microenvironment, GcMAF proteins when internalized can turn OFF the ZEB2 gene and convert all receptive macrophages from their pro-cancer inclination to solidly anti-cancer. GcMAF polarized, anti-cancer macrophages (ZEB2 OFF) should not be included in the same phenotype as waffling M1s (ZEB2 ON). With the ZEB2 gene ON there are other genes which come into play based on the environment to determine if the macrophage will be a M0, true M1 or M2. GcMAF polarized macrophages should be in a separate phenotype, like M3. Due to cancer's Nagalase countermeasure, there will always be a severe natural GcMAF deficiency (GcMAF produced by the immune B and T Cells) in the cancer microenvironment without adequate supplementation with biolab produced identical human GcMAF. Those in Western society who direct cancer research and approve therapies are boycotting the use of unpatentable GcMAF in curing human diseases. PageMaster (talk) 20:14, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to keep bugging you about GcMAF, but I think we have a solution and can update the GcMAF page with some science related information without quoting any primary sources. You know the National Library of Medicine is maintained by the NIH and not posted directly by primary sources and is referenced validly by other editors on Wikipedia for their postings. So the fact as an event that a completed FDA registered Phase 1 Clinical Trial was completed at the Sheba Hospital in May 2017 can be posted without any further detail. (Posted like the Japanese patent information is currently posted on the GcMAF page as events.) The same is true for the other information that a GcMAF presentation was made at the AACR conference in 2015. Just stating these finite, unimpeachable facts as events would be valid since there is no discussion of what these events mean and no primary research details mentioned. This would be event history and fall within posting guidelines for Wikipedia.

Would you do the honors for me and post these two unimpeachable validated outsider published events for me? This would greatly improve the character of the GcMAF page with more current history and help explain why the Japanese are rushing to patent their GcMAF production processes. Of course, the original 20-year GcMAF patent filed by Dr. Yamamoto back in the 1990's has expired and any biolab that wants too, can still make supplemental human GcMAF the way he made it. There is a case to be made that supplemental human GcMAF made from powdered VDBPs obtained from another reputable biolab that specializes in marketing blood products from Red Cross Blood could be marketed as a natural supplement without FDA review and approval. The fact that a Phase 1 Clinical Trial was successfully completed is just another feather in GcMAF's cap. .

You don't know this, but the FDA has an exception to their review process. The FDA says a product that is sold without review must "not be more than minimally manipulated," processed or enhanced. The product must also perform the same functions in the recipient as in the body it came from and not be combined with other materials. This perfectly describes supplement human GcMAF when made initially from powdered Vitamin D Binding proteins as the starting point for a GcMAF biolab. This is why bloods products do not have to go through Trials or be reviewed. But GMP's have to be followed.

But anyway, would you contribute to science (as a man of science) and post the two events I pointed out to you on the GcMAF page? Those of us who think supplemental human GcMAF has merit and should be medically used for diseases will be very appreciative. Thank you! PageMaster (talk) 20:46, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maproom - I condensed the fact that a FDA registered Phase 1 Clinical Trial completed for GcMAF and a presentation was made about this at the November 2015 AACR conference to the following event only information. Do you think this will be OK to post on the GcMAF page. If so, would you post or, if you don't want to get involved, I will try to post to update this page with some actual scientific information. I know there are editors at Wikipedia that watch this page and want to keep it negative. It was a battle back a few years ago when I finally succeeded in getting one of these editors to post on the GcMAF Page that Efranat Ltd was conducting a Phase 1 study, including the proper reference. I don't see how they can oppose a validated historical event. Here is what I propose. Any suggestion? Will you post in your own words if it needs improvement? Thank you for your time and help!

The Sheba Hospital in Israel completed a FDA registered Phase 1 Clinical Trial on EF-022 (GcMAF) in May 2017.

Reference

ClinicalTrials.gov; A Phase I, Open Label, Dose-escalation Trial Evaluating the Safety and Tolerability of EF-022 (Modified Vitamin D Binding Protein Activator) in Subjects with Advanced Solid Malignancies. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT02052492

-----------------

A Sheba Hospital study coordinator gave a presentation at the AACR-NCI-EORTC International Conference: Molecular Targets and Cancer Therapeutics; November 5-9, 2015; Boston, MA on Part 1 of the 2-Part Phase 1 Clinical Trial on EF-022 (GcMAF).

Reference

Dr. Talia Golan, Proceedings of the AACR-NCI-EORTC International Conference: Molecular Targets and Cancer Therapeutics; 2015 Nov 5-9; Boston, MA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Mol Cancer Ther 2015;14(12 Suppl 2):Abstract nr B30. https://mct.aacrjournals.org/content/14/12_Supplement_2/B30 PageMaster (talk) 17:43, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]