Dosage. Frequency of administration. Route of administration. Duration of treatment. Side effects and toxicity. Contraindications. Possible GcMAF inhibitors.
In his published human studies, Dr. Yamamoto always used the same dose: 100 nanograms (ng) per week in a single injection.
100 nanograms (100 billionths of a gram) is an extremely small amount. You wouldn’t be able to see it without a microscope.
Frequency of administration
Dr. Yamamoto determined that the half-life of the activation effect in an activated macrophage is approximately 6 days. Therefore, he chose a one week interval between GcMAF doses.
More is not better!
It is important not to erroneously assume that if 100 ng/week is good, 200 ng/week must be better. A higher dose would almost certainly be counterproductive, akin to shooting oneself in the foot. It is likewise important not to assume that if once a week is good, twice a week would be better. There is no clinical or research data suggesting that more frequent or more potent dosing would improve outcomes. Higher doses and/or more frequent administrations would probably reduce the effectiveness GcMAF macrophage activation. According to Dr. Yamamoto:
“Since the half-life of the activated macrophages is approximately 6 days [23, 24], weekly administrations of 100 ng GcMAF were found to be the most effective…” (Yamamoto N, Suyama H, Nakazato H, Yamamoto N-Y, Koga Y. 2008c. Immunotherapy of metastatic colorectal cancer with vitamin D binding protein-derived macrophage-activating factor, GcMAF. Cancer Immunol Immunother 57:1007–1016.)
Route of administration
All patients were given intramuscular (IM) injections of pure GcMAF.
IM injections are necessary because oral administration would expose the GcMAF protein molecule to gastric hydrochloric acid and pancreatic protease enzymes, resulting in degradation and deactivation.
Duration of treatment
In Dr. Yamamoto’s studies the duration of treatment varied from patient to patient and disorder to disorder:
Side effects and toxicity
There has never been an adverse reaction, side effect, or toxic reaction to pure GcMAF. Because its molecular structure is identical to GcMAF made by the body (i.e., bioidentical), there is absolutely no reason to expect that pure GcMAF would cause any kind of problem. Our genetic program contains the code for building GcMAF molecules. In normal, healthy bodies, the genes for GcMAF production are “expressed,” and ongoing GcMAF production makes sure our macrophages are continuously activated so that they can effectively address the ongoing onslaught of bacteria, viruses, parasites, and newly forming cancer cells. When viruses and cancer cells obstruct GcMAF production by releasing Nagalase, this finely tuned mechanisms breaks down, GcMAF dwindles, and macrophages slow down and stop. Now the welcome mat is out, the door is open, and the intruders come marching right in. Replacing the deficient GcMAF with exactly the same molecule that is missing guarantees there will be no adverse reactions.
The administration of impure (non-bioidentical or contaminated) GcMAF carries a high potential for side effects and adverse reactions. It also might not work. In Chapter 21 I address the challenging problem of bootlegs, counterfeits, knockoffs, wannabes—and certification to ensure purity. The importance of a establishing a GcMAF certifying authority cannot be overstated; a market flooded with ineffective products would provide authorities with a good reason to shut down all production.
Diseases for which Dr. Yamamoto has indicated he feels GcMAF would be effective:
Potential Obstacles to GcMAF effectiveness
Protease inhibitors - GcMAF might not work for HIV patients taking protease inhibitors. In macrophage phagolysosomes, proteases work to digest cancer cells and viruses. Protease inhibition might interfere with phagolysosomal protease activity, slowing digestion of phagocytized invaders, thus indirectly obstructing the macrophage activating effect of the GcMAF.
Opiates - According to Dr. Yamamoto, opiates (morphine, Demerol, opium, oxycodone, hydrocodone, Percodan, Percocet, Vicodin, Norco, etc.) may block GcMAF’s macrophage activating effect.
Anemia - A lack of sufficient red blood cells may compromise GcMAF effectiveness. Anemic patients were excluded from all of Dr. Yamamoto’s studies.
Insufficient macrophages - If a person doesn’t have enough macrophages or monocytes (the precursor cells that become macrophages), they might not respond as briskly to GcMAF as a person with normal macrophage/monocyte levels. Patients with low white cell counts (or compromised immune functioning) should take hydrolyzed whey protein which will encourage the bone marrow to make more white blood cells. Make sure you purchase cold processed “hydrolyzed” whey protein marketed by a company that specializes in supplying nutritional medicines to physicians (Pure Encapsulations would be an excellent choice). The whey protein found in health food stores is processed differently and would not be effective.
Medical monitoring required
Good intentions coupled with poor training can lead to disaster. Anyone who allows a novice to administer GcMAF is making a big mistake. Once available, GcMAF administration must always be monitored by a physician trained in its use.
Rather than a substitute for conventional cancer therapy, GcMAF is an adjunct to it. GcMAF effectiveness depends on optimum administration of conventional mainstream cancer therapies. Substituting GcMAF for conventional therapies for an imageable cancer could result in a preventable death.
Medically unsupervised administration of GcMAF would be a grave error for the following reasons: