The GcMAF Book

Chapter 1

A Cure for Metastatic Cancer?

Can it be true? A cure for early metastatic cancer and HIV that appears to work 100% of the time—that almost nobody knows about? My search for answers. Solving the riddle of GcMAF. Why GcMAF remains obscure. Please don’t be intimidated by cell biology! The war analogy.

On November 19, 2008 something touched my life and changed it forever. I had just completed my second book, Outsmarting The Number One Killer (about how to prevent and reverse atherosclerotically-driven heart attacks and strokes) when I came across three seminal studies published earlier that year by internationally recognized research immunologist and molecular biologist, Nobuto Yamamoto, Ph.D. These pivotal papers—which will, I believe, change the course of medical history—blew me away: Yamamoto had apparently discovered a way to “outsmart” cancer, and was using the body’s own natural healing systems to do it.

“Holy cow!!!” I said to myself (using a word that’s less bovine and more graphic). “This guy has discovered a cure for early metastatic cancer that appears to work 100% of the time!!!” And this was no “black box” model or statistical study (you know, the kind that make observations but don’t address underlying causal mechanisms. Medicine A cures disease B, but nothing about how it actually works). All the basic science, all the necessary molecular biological information—an impressive display of published research studies from a quarter century of work—was right there for all to see. No smoke and mirrors. Anyone who has perused Dr. Yamamoto’s research papers would have to agree he published an impressively extensive series of serious science masterpieces.

As I learned more I became committed to bringing this powerful new set of ideas into public awareness. It became clear to me that we need to find a way to make GcMAF available to all cancer, HIV, and chronic virus patients, and we need to institute routine annual Nagalase testing to find cancers much earlier than imaging now allows.

If all new cancers were detected early by regular Nagalase testing, we could reverse them with GcMAF—long before X-rays could find them—and put cancer out of business once and for all. This may seem like a rash statement, but I believe it is supported by the facts.

Yamamoto’s three studies showed that incredibly small weekly doses (100 billionths of a gram—an amount that is invisible to the naked eye) of GcMAF had cured early metastatic breast, prostate, and colon cancers in 100% of (nonanemic) patients. In a fourth paper, he used the same treatment to cure 100% of nonanemic HIV-infected patients.

For the three cancer studies, Dr. Yamamoto had chosen patients who had recently received the standard mainstream triad of surgery, chemo, and radiation. Despite these treatments, every patient had evidence of metastatic disease, which means that despite the best efforts of conventional medicine, their cancers were out of control and still growing. Their prognoses were poor at best. Nevertheless, this patient group had one thing in common: their tumor mass (also known as tumor burden) had been drastically reduced by the therapies they had received, and this in turn dramatically increased the likelihood that GcMAF would remove the few remaining cancer cells.

These studies underscore the importance of the unique circumstance in which GcMAF is most likely to be effective: very low tumor burden. Low tumor burden occurs in just two situations. The first is the earliest stage of any cancer, when the number of cancer cells is still very small. The second is immediately after a diagnosed tumor has been maximally debulked by standard therapies—i.e., that which prevailed in Dr. Yamamoto’s studies. Conversely, the situation in which GcMAF is least likely to be effective is when there is a large number of tumor cells. Although results will vary greatly from one patient to another and further study is needed, clinical research experience to date suggests that tumors larger than one cm. in diameter are unlikely to respond to GcMAF therapy. (See Chapter 18: ‘The Cancer continuum and the Point of no return’_)

Curing metastatic cancer at all is rare. Until Professor Yamamoto discovered and administered GcMAF, no one had ever cured every single case. These are the patients oncologists give up on, the ones that get “palliative” care. Perhaps another round or two of chemo or radiation in the slim hopes of a long-term reversal or a little extra (probably not very high quality) time—but with metastatic disease there is no serious expectation of an actual cure. The numbers are profoundly dismal.

Granted, all of Yamamoto’s patients were in the earliest phase of metastatic disease and received GcMAF shortly after the Big Three had failed. For these patients (though a sprinkling might have been saved by additional radiation and/or chemo), the assumption would usually be that their cancers would grow and eventually kill them. GcMAF, remarkably, saved every single one. This is an exceptional outcome and deserves greater scrutiny that it has received.

A fourth study, published in January of 2009, showed Yamamoto—using the same treatment protocol—had removed all signs of viral activity in 100% of HIV infected patients. All patients were free of HIV within 18 weeks.

Remarkably, Yamamoto accomplished these cures relatively rapidly. The breast and prostate cancer patients were all cured in less than 6 months of weekly GcMAF injections. The colorectal cancer study took about a year to cure all subjects. Five to seven years of careful followup revealed no recurrences in any of the patients. Anyone who is familiar with cancer research would have to find this remarkable.

This was not a “one off,” a “lucky strike.” Yamamoto’s four papers were the culmination of decades of trailblazing research in which he had already proven—via basic science and animal studies—exactly how GcMAF and Nagalase work. The 2008 human trials were just the frosting on a phenomenal cake that took a quarter century to bake. The breadth and depth of the underlying research is important here because misinformed critics whine about GcMAF being “unproved.” Had these naysayers read the dozens of Yamamoto papers published in peer-reviewed journals between 1979 and 2008 that lay down an unimpeachable foundation for his final proof? I doubt it.

My search for answers

When I first read Yamamoto’s studies, I couldn’t believe it either. A cure for early stage metastatic cancer that’s effective in every single case? Absurd. Published in peer-reviewed journals? No way. I figured there must be some hitch, a mistake, a logical error, a weak link, a fatal flaw, and I was determined to find it, but the deeper I delved the more convinced I became that GcMAF was for real!

Then I started wondering why I seemed to be among the very few who “got it.”

At first, I spent a huge amount of time enhancing my understanding of the relevant molecular biology, genetics, and immunology. I learned a lot more than I ever thought I would about cancer, macrophages, oxidative bursts, adhesion molecules, antibodies, phagocytosis, protein chemistry, cytokines, messenger molecules, receptors, N-acetyl-galactosaminidase (Nagalase), and GcMAF. At times I felt as if I had stuffed so much new information into my head that it was going to explode. I needed to understand exactly how it all worked, how all the pieces fit together. I poured over research articles and molecular genetics texts until I felt I had a reasonable grasp of what Yamamoto was doing and saying. I developed the ability to visualize—in great detail—the workings of macrophages battling cancer cells and viruses in this brutal microscopic cannibalistic war.

The more I learned the more it sunk in: using impeccable science, Yamamoto had found a powerful means of enhancing our bodies’ own anti-cancer, anti-viral weaponry! That’s what cured the cancers.

The more I learned the more I asked the question: why had the medical community—much less the average person—never heard of GcMAF? No article in the print media. No video, no book, no research articles other than Yamamoto’s. No serious scientific web discussions (which is truly extraordinary, because everything is on the internet). No nothing.

Googling on GcMAF does generate some hits, but nothing substantial, no serious science beyond Nobuto Yamamoto’s own original papers. “Hmmm. This is truly remarkable,” I thought.

Next I turned to what I call “human browsers.” I called a bunch of my physician buddies and molecular biology colleagues—good scientists all—but there, too, I drew a blank every single time. Not a single one of them had ever heard of GcMAF.

Not easily dissuaded, I contacted several immunology researchers at major institutions, and again no one had heard of GcMAF. Maybe someone in the government or research establishments, the FDA (Food and Drug Administration), the NCI (National Cancer Institute), the NIH (National Institutes of Health), American Cancer Society (ACS) knew something? Nope. No one there had ever heard of it either. (Or if they had, they sure weren’t talking.)

In those early months, my level of frustration gradually escalated. Proof of a natural cure for advanced (metastatic) cancer (not to mention HIV and other chronic viral infections) and nobody seemed interested? I just couldn’t understand it.

Finally, a sense of surrealism set in. I had spent hundreds of hours on this, with literally nothing to show for it. Nobody knew anything. And when I tried to explain Yamamoto’s work to some of the people I called, I could hear their eyes were glazing over. I could hear them thinking, “C’mon now, doc. A cure for all cancers? Oh, sure. One that works 100% of the time? On metastatic cancer? Give me a break. It sounds like smoke and mirrors to me.” I started questioning my grasp on reality. No Oprah? No Larry King? No New York Times article? No article anywhere? No media coverage of any kind! No scientific recognition? What the heck is going on here?

Solving the riddle of GcMAF

After writing an entire book on the subject, I can still honestly say I don’t know why the average person—not to mention the average physician or the average molecular biologist—has never heard of GcMAF. It seems to me that that should have happened a long time ago. I hope that sharing this information will create the critical mass we need to overcome the obstacles. So: Hello out there! Here’s a cure for cancer and AIDS!!! Even more significantly, here’s a way to rid the planet of the scourge of cancer. I am passing on what I have learned about it to enable you to chip in and work with me to transform GcMAF from a set of abstract concepts to a lifesaving reality. Millions upon millions of lives would be saved if we could make GcMAF—a harmless protein—available to the masses of cancer and HIV patients who desperately need it. And countless cancers would be prevented using Nagalase screening and GcMAF therapy on all adult human populations.

Please help! This is a two-way street. I’ve chosen a reader-editable format (actually, truth be known, my web genius friend and cyberguru, Peter Rowell created it specifically for this book) whereby anyone who is interested can contribute their ideas. The beauty of this approach is that it facilitates collective development of ideas by an organized community. Just scroll over the left vertical green bar, click to open a dialogue box, and share your ideas, edits, corrections, and questions. In doing so, you will have participated in a process that has the potential to help a lot of your fellow humans and to alleviate a huge amount of suffering.

And—as if that weren’t enough of a reward— you’ll also (if you so desire) be listed in the Acknowledgments.

Why GcMAF remains obscure

Here are a few key facts that provide a partial answer to the fascinating question: Why has GcMAF gone unnoticed?

  • Understanding Yamamoto’s work requires a firm grasp of some pretty advanced molecular biology, which most people—even most doctors and researchers—don’t possess. It’s kind of a language problem: if someone shouts “Cancer Cure!!! Cancer Cure!!! Cancer Cure!!!” in Swahili, it is quite possible that earthshatteringness of it all won’t get through, and everyone will go on about their business as if nothing happened. (In this book I have translated these ideas into everyday language. It’s not that complicated.)
  • To a stodgy medical community that’s resistant to change, GcMAF is just another “unproved therapy.” And an “alternative” one at that. Unproved therapies are not to be trusted. (Even if they’re harmless and bioidentical.)
  • “Proving” this discovery the conventional way would involve developing and promoting a lucrative drug. Doing that takes about a decade and costs over 100 million dollars. Beyond time and money, it requires a lot of biochemical know-how and some sophisticated equipment. Brewing it up in your basement lab with a chemistry set and a bunch of buddies is not an option. However, a motivated pharmaceutical company could do it overnight.
  • Big Pharma isn’t interested because there’s no cash cow at the end of this rainbow. GcMAF—like all chemicals our body is programmed to make—can’t be patented because it fits the FDA’s definition of “natural” (translation: “unpatentable”). We are thus confronted with the supreme pickle: is it possible to conduct open-minded, non-profit driven research in an era of corporatized and politicized medical science? I yearn for the olden days when science was done for the sake of science. It wasn’t that long ago.)
  • The cancer industry does not really want cancer to go away. This may seem harsh, but it’s true. Many incomes would be interrupted if cancer and HIV suddenly ceased to exist. Government agencies would have to be closed, oncologists would have to be retrained, researchers redirected, cancer treatment centers shut down or converted to screening and prevention facilities—and that’s just the tip of the iceberg. We’re talking profound social upheaval here. Cancer is entrenched and institutionalized, and vanquishing it would cause major fireworks. These fears are largely unfounded, however. For optimum effectiveness, GcMAF and Nagalase testing will need to be integrated into the existing cancer care system, so we need the system.
  • To understand GcMAF and Nagalase we must embrace an entirely new model—a completely different approach to cancer and chronic viral infections. There is no super drug, no magic bullet. Our bodies already know how to cure cancer and viral infections; we simply need to enhance these systems using natural medicines. That’s how GcMAF works. The scientific community, however, is deeply resistant to the idea of natural medicines bolstering the immune system.
  • If we are going to commit to stopping these epidemics our new direction must be annual screening (with Nagalase or AMAS testing) for early detection, then nipping cancer in the bud with GcMAF. The old “wait until its gotten so big we can see it on imaging and then slash and burn it out” approach has really got to go.

A couple “brief asides” here, and then—in the next chapter—we’ll get into how GcMAF works.

Brief aside I:

Please don’t be intimidated by cell biology!

To the outsider, the world of molecular biology and biochemistry may seem bewildering and the language we use to describe cellular events often appears foreign and incomprehensible. Just because we use inscrutably complex words like glycoprotein macrophage activating factor (GcMAF) or alpha-N-acetylgalactosaminidase (Nagalase) doesn’t mean the concepts are inaccessible. They aren’t. Please don’t be intimidated: this material is not as complicated as it might seem. My self-imposed job description has been to translate this arcane, esoteric, imposing, and highly technical science into concepts that are easily understood by the lay person—and, in the process, to bring it to life. If you find the material hard to understand, I have failed at that task.

Brief aside II:

The war analogy: I use it because it works

For the same reason that language is the most popular and appropriate analogy for describing DNA and genetics, I have chosen the war analogy to depict the nano-scale drama that unfolds on the immunological battlefield: it works.

Please don’t think that this means I am pro-war. Quite the opposite. I think most wars are bad and stupid, and I detest them. Though I believe that some wars have been justified (a recent example would be World War II, in which control of the planet by despots was at stake), I am one who is hopeful that members of the human race can learn to work things out without resorting to needless slaughter. We will have reached a high point in our evolution when we learn to put war behind us once and for all.

Speaking as a humanoid member of a cell-based life form, however, it is crucial to acknowledge the necessity of this inner war against cancer and microbes, those evil forces that are out to destroy us. Pacifism won’t work here; we really have no choice but to fight back or die.

Copyright © 2010 Timothy J. Smith, M.D.
Comments X

Posting of comments is disabled unless you are logged in.

      About this comment system

      This site is using a contextual comment system to help us gather targeted feedback about the book. Instead of commenting on an entire chapter, you can leave comments on any indivdual "block" in the chapter. A "block" with comments looks like this:

      A "block" is a paragraph, list item, code sample, or other small chunk of content. It'll get highlighted when you select it:

      To post a comment on a block, just click in the gutter next to the bit you want to comment on:

      As we edit the book, we'll review everyone's comments and roll them into a future version of the book. We'll mark reviewed comments with a little checkmark:

      Please make sure to leave a full name (and not a nickname or screenname) if you'd like your contributions acknowledged in print.

      Many, many thanks to Jack Slocum; the inspiration and much of the code for the comment system comes from Jack's blog, and this site couldn't have been built without his wonderful YAHOO.ext library. Thanks also to Yahoo for YUI itself.