GcMAF -Promise & Pitfalls -ME/CFS

[Guest guest]

http://bit.ly/hReUuz

Rutts tankespinn og ME-nyheter

Det meste av det siste innen biomedisinsk forskning

pD ME

GcMAF – The promise

and the pitfalls

By Rutt

21.01.11

*Gcmaf is one of the most promising, if not the

most promising drug for ME/CFS this side of

ampligen and far cheaper than ampligen.

Dr. Cheney, Dr. Kenny de Meirleir and others are

running small-scale studies with this compound

which was found by its proprietor, Dr. Yamamoto to

eradicate HIV.

Dr. De Meirleir recently announced that the combo of

gcmaf and nexavir (an immune modulator) converted

a patient from XMRV sero-positive to -negative.

I have been in contact with multiple patients,

including one XMRV-pos whom has improved

significantly from this natural compound which

stimulates macrophage activity.

The questions that remain are:

1) which source out of the three (Yamamoto, Dr De

Meirleir, BGLI in the Netherlands) has the most

potency and contains 100% human derived material

– this question can only be answered by a truly

independent lab.

2) what is the true role of VDR status in predicting

treatment outcome and which lab has the accurate

results (currently redlabs Belgium seems to produce

conflicting results with Amy Yasko's lab)

3) what role will the FDA play? Currently shipments

of BGLI gcmaf are being held up at customs, yet

patients are biting the bullet and ordering in hopes

their shipment will slip through the cracks. As if

patients haven't been skewered financially enough.

In my own opinion, this drug holds so much promise

not only in terms of results but in terms of method

of action.

It triggers innate immunity so it is unlikely to lead to

viral resistance, superbugs, or the viral biofilms that

were announced in sciencedaily this morning.

Bacterial biofilms developed theoretically due to

rampant antibiotic use. Life will find a way, and

therapeutically we have a choice to try to beat the

bug into submission with WMDs like ARVs or bolster

our own immunity.

However, the caveat is, Ampligen theoretically was

supposed to stimulate our immunity to enable us to

win the war, and patients inevitably always relapsed

once they stopped the drug.

With that said, perhaps a combination of both routes

can cover the gamut, which may be why some

high-profile XMRV researchers are discussing testing

terrain therapies such as peptide T, gcmaf, nexavir,

and even stem cells in combination with HAART.

With XMRV, it is far more likely than with HIV, that

reservoirs are a primary issue because it is

slow-replicating.

Therapies such as interleukins have been used to

draw HIV out of latency with varying success.

XMRV researchers will likely need to consider the

problem of drawing virus out of latency (ie stem cells

since stem cell division equals viral replication) as

well as cutting the provirus (the viral DNA integrated

into our human DNA) with methods that mimic

restriction enzyme systems which remove foreign

viral DNA from our own DNA.

Leave the provirus in there and it may trigger

oncogenes, which may be why XMRV has been found

in prostate and breast cancer.

A somewhat overlooked risk with gcmaf is that XMRV

and HIV have been found in macrophages, so taking

a macrophage-stimulator is in theory a bit like giving

your crippled bodyguard steroids to take on the guy

that did the crippling. A logical fallacy if you will, but

results speak louder than funny-looking bodyguards.

Another thing is macrophages have been found in the

temporal lobes, so triggering latent retroviruses in

the brain may be a recipe for disaster.

In the end, gcmaf is but one way to attack the virus.

I just hope we get to find out what it can really do

before the powers that be decide to intervene

because its an unpatentable substance that happens

to achieve what billions of dollars of research into

HIV drugs has failed to achieve.*