Talk:GcMAF: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 05:26, 9 November 2017

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the GcMAF article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Medicine: Hematology-oncology Start‑class Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Hematology-oncology task force.

Pharmacology Start‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Alternative medicine Start‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Skepticism Start‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comments

The scientific terminology regarding Gc-MAF is not known to the public. People do not search on "macrophages" or "innate immunity" and they are being mislead by parties who provide them wrong information.

This page is created to direct people from the product name Gc-MAF to the more scientific pages explaining this part of the immune system and their role in disease process.

Ultimately this page will be like for instance the page about Interferons. It will take time and effort to build on this page.

I am a victim of the misinformation on the web and have the desire to structure information so that other people will have the correct information --Gcmafexpert (talk) 15:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE TO MODERATORS: i have detected an error in the way references are written, i will correct them one by one.--Gcmafexpert (talk) 15:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This page needs to be updated to reflect the new research. http://www.gcmaf.eu/gcmaf-science/our-scientific-presentations/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.134.138.161 (talk) 05:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See this list of research items that need to be incorporated in this item. Help is welcome : http://www.bgli.nl/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&id=6&Itemid=17 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gcmafexpert (talk • contribs) 17:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe from the scientific papers I've read that there is a key fact that is not understood widely. All cancers that oncologists see emit high levels of nagalase. When you understand the aneuploid nature of all cancers, that they have extra and missing whole chromosomes, the nagalase fact implies that all the cancers that did not make excess nagalase died at the hands of activated macrophages and their allies among the white blood cells. That is unless accidental production of nagalase prevents formation of GcMAF, as it does, each cancer is killed by activated macrophages and their friends before it gets large enough to be detected.

Now that Immuno Biotech Ltd. has found that adding oleic acid greatly increases the effectiveness of GcMAF, this treatment is a threat to the entire cancer, pharma, oncology industry which gets enormous funding while the cancer cure rates improve very little. Thus there are economic interests which motivate suppressing any treatment which can cure almost all cancers in a month or two at very low cost. Please do not let them succeed. Read the six hits Google Scholar returns for GcMAF oleic acid and incorporate that data into the main page for GcMAF. Nitpicker77 (talk) 02:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cheney ref

The Cheney ref isn't really appropriate for the first paragraph...it really needs to be something in a peer-reviewed journal. Searching through google scholar I see various better references, but as I know nothing about Gc-MAF I can't really suggest any changes. --sciencewatcher (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History section

I am moving this section here, as it is based only on primary sources and the claims about the chronology of the initial studies involving humans would appear to be at least partially contradicted by PMID 8665521 from 1996.

==History==
In 1999 Nobuto Yamamoto published his first report mentioning the use of Gc-MAF on tumor bearing mice.^[1]
The first report of the application of Gc-MAF in research on humans dates back to the same year by another research group.^{[citation needed]}
Yamamoto has used Gc-MAF as a purported treatment for prostate cancer.^[2]

31.48.175.145 (talk) 22:54, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Yoshihiko Koga, Venkateswara R. Naraparaju and Nobuto Yamamoto (January 1999). "Antitumor Effect of Vitamin D-Binding Protein-Derived Macrophage Activating Factor on Ehrlich Ascites Tumor-Bearing Mice". Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine. 220 (1): 20–26. doi:10.1046/j.1525-1373.1999.d01-3.x.
^ Yamamoto N, Suyama H, Yamamoto N (2008). "Immunotherapy for Prostate Cancer with Gc Protein-Derived Macrophage-Activating Factor, GcMAF" (PDF). Translational Oncology. 1 (2): 65–72. PMC 2510818. PMID 18633461.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Disclaimer

Re the recently added COI / expert-subject tags [1]: This page was recently cleaned up by myself (as 31.48.175.145) and ChemNerd in response to posts on the Medicine project talkpage by The Anome. Speaking for myself, I have no relevant COI here (see disclaimer at User talk:31.48.175.145), and I do indeed have a professional background in evidence-based medicine.

In the current version (as of 22:22, 2 September 2014), I am confident that the page does not contain any COI content. 86.134.200.29 (talk) 23:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

COI apparently means Conflict Of Interest. The entire article is misleading since understanding GcMAF and nagalase is central to how we usually cure our own cancers and why we ever fail at that. Who would want to suppress information about how our cancers protect themselves from activated macrophages? The Conflict Of Interest is with the income stream to big pharma and hospitals and oncologists which would dry up if it were easy to cure virtually all cancers. In the article proper, the word misleadingly is applied to the measurement of effectiveness of a treatment by observing the nagalase level in the blood. Where is there ANY support for the claim that any misleading is going on? I don't see it. 75.101.93.75 (talk) 15:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC) Nitpicker77 (talk) 16:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Direct cites of retractions now available

I'm removing the RetractionWatch citations from the article, as we now have direct links to each of the retraction notices. Just for reference, here are the RetractionWatch articles that were cited:

Oransky, Ivan (25 July 2014). "Paper about widely touted but unapproved "cure" for cancer, autism retracted". Retraction Watch. Retrieved 2014-07-26.
http://retractionwatch.com/2014/10/10/yet-another-study-of-widely-touted-cancer-cure-retracted/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
http://retractionwatch.com/2014/08/21/second-study-of-widely-touted-cancer-and-hiv-cure-retracted/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

-- Impsswoon (talk) 17:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Poor source

Recently editors insisted that a link to a talk by Marco Ruggiero, hosted at a German private website is sufficient to include here. a) A private talk is a very poor source, especially for inclusion in a controversy section, at a medicine article. b) Further is the person who held the talk involved in another controversy about HIV/AIDS, Inquiry launched over AIDS contrarian's teaching. I suggest the editor Skyfall revert the addition and reads WP:RS and WP:MEDRS.prokaryotes (talk) 11:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to revert my edit, but from my point of view this change of mind is very interesting. I'll wait until the primary source (the private talk of one of the main authors of these controversial studies) will be included in a secondary source more reliable than this. --Skyfall (talk) 13:33, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OR

Recently editor MeisterEckart added his own original research (WP:OR) to the article, about journal publications, the source does not include anything about GcMAF, hence this is his own research. I suggest the editor reverts his addition. prokaryotes (talk) 11:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a very profitable scam right now, this is not a big surprise. Guy (Help!) 21:57, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Predatory journals

While there's clearly a lot of misinformation about this out there, what exactly defines these journals as "predatory"? One source is from a leading cancer research journal, which clearly represents conflict of interest. The other just calls it "questionable". Can we call it "questionable" rather than "predatory", and use less-inflammatory language? -- By editor Wikimeonetwo

Here: Predatory open access publishing. --Skyfall (talk) 09:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Content changes

User:169.1.210.115 you are adding unsourced content and removing sourced content, and not using edit notes. Would you please explain what you are doing? Thx Jytdog (talk) 03:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the Article to be misleading! We should Approach this topic with caution and rather be true to our prospective growth as collective beings. We have been researching GcMAF for quite some time and the positive results are promising. To completely deny the research as a hoax and to refer to the anticancer results- which have been attempting to find a cure for cancer for almost 100 years, where has the research gone? we should rather open all avenues and make claims which should lead the way for more research.. Peace to the world... And Love Unconditionally — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.1.210.115 (talk) 03:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for posting here. You are about to blocked for edit warring, so I suggest that you stop reverting. What an editor believes is not relevant in WP. Content must be based on reliable sources per the policy WP:VERIFY; please read WP:MEDRS, which defines what a "reliable source" is for content about health. You cannot remove reliably sourced content and add unsourced content in Wikipedia. That is not OK. Jytdog (talk) 03:49, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Efranat edits

User:PageMaster, the content you have added:

here at 02:53, 8 November 2017
here at 18:24, 8 November 2017
here at 19:20, 8 November 2017
here at 19:41, 8 November 2017
here at 00:14, 9 November 2017

are blatantly promotional and unacceptably sourced, which is why they kept getting reverted. If you don't understand the problem please ask. But please respond to my inquiry on your Talk page first. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please also clarify if you are the same person who did the following?

diff at 05:35, 1 November 2017
diff at 02:53, 2 November 2017
diff at 03:11, 2 November 2017
diff at 03:23, 2 November 2017
diff at 05:42, 2 November 2017
diff at 13:23, 2 November 2017
diff at 13:32, 2 November 2017

(noting that in this diff the page was protected, at 14:04, 2 November 2017 until Nov 6)

Do tell Jytdog (talk) 01:02, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GcMAF in Israel

There is definitely progress being made at Efranat Ltd in Israel in developing GcMAF. The old post misleads people to think that GcMAF is a dead subject. This is hugely misleading. Efranat Ltd is the only world entity advancing the cause for GcMAF. So it is not possible to discuss GcMAF without bringing up Efranat Ltd. They are at the forefront of GcMAF reseach and this fact is not intended to promote Efranat Ltd. They do not have a product on the market yet to promote. Efranat Ltd just completed a FDA registered Phase 1 Clinical Trial on their GcMAF product (EF-022). This product is produced using Dr. Yamamoto's original GcMAF production patents. GcMAF itself cannot be patented. It is just common sense that everyone would want to know the results of the Phase 1 Trial. (Your post insinuates that GcMAF has never gone through any formal clinical trials. This is wrong now.) This Phase 1 proves that GcMAF is safe and effective. Look at what Efranat Ltd posted on their Linkedin web page. I standby the references I used to support my comments. They are all reputable.

I don't understand the opposition I have received to posting the truth. I am a newbie to Wikipedia and seems there are one or two old timers who want to jump on me and oppose me without adequate discussion.

You should know that the last undue to restore my post was made by ScienceWatcher. So maybe this editor is on my side. I welcome a review by the board because I know my information is correct and the old post is misleading and out of date. But it can be left in place to show the evolution of GcMAF as an up and coming medical advancement.

PageMaster (talk) 05:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Yoshihiko Koga, Venkateswara R. Naraparaju and Nobuto Yamamoto (January 1999). "Antitumor Effect of Vitamin D-Binding Protein-Derived Macrophage Activating Factor on Ehrlich Ascites Tumor-Bearing Mice". Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine. 220 (1): 20–26. doi:10.1046/j.1525-1373.1999.d01-3.x.

[2] Yamamoto N, Suyama H, Yamamoto N (2008). "Immunotherapy for Prostate Cancer with Gc Protein-Derived Macrophage-Activating Factor, GcMAF" (PDF). Translational Oncology. 1 (2): 65–72. PMC 2510818. PMID 18633461.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

[1]

[2]