GcMAF SCAM
With a somewhat heavy feeling, I condemned the GcMAF “cure” for cancer as very flawed, if not actually a scam. While others around the Internet were plauding it as the next best thing, I remained very unconvinced. For decades I have had the cynical maxim: beware of the science from somebody who is trying to sell you something.
Scams abound, even in the “holistic” domain, and the usual response of suckers it to suppose that
The multimillionaire founder of a British company that sold a supposed “wonder drug” containing human plasma proteins that supposedly could cure cancer, among other diseases, has been jailed for 15 months.
David Noakes, of Waldershare, England, was sentenced on November 27 in London after being found guilty of illegally making and globally distributing Gc protein-derived macrophage activating factor (GcMAF).
Noakes’ company, Immuno Biotech, made millions of pounds by manufacturing GcMAF and then selling it online to thousands of people worldwide.
The protein, which is produced by modifying vitamin D-binding protein, has been promoted by the company since the late 2000s as a cure for cancer, HIV, and autism, among other conditions.
The 65-year-old businessman pleaded guilty to manufacturing, supplying, and selling an unlicensed medicine, as well as money laundering.
The court case came after a 3-year investigation by the UK Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
“Our investigation team worked relentlessly to bring David Noakes and his associates to justice, for putting public health at risk through the unlicensed manufacturing and sale of GcMAF products,” said Alastair Jeffrey, the agency’s head of enforcement. “The product was manufactured using blood plasma that was clearly marked as not to be administered to humans or used in any drug products.”
During sentencing, Judge Nicholas Lorraine-Smith was quoted by the BBC as saying that Noakes “firmly” believed that GcMAF would help people but that he showed a “reckless disregard for the regulatory regime.”
The judge also highlighted the fact that the product was being sold to “extremely vulnerable people,” according to a local report in the Mirror. “The very idea that such a material should be freely available for sale over the internet without the most rigorous independent testing and control is horrifying,” the judge said.
Website Discouraged Chemotherapy
During the trial, it emerged that Noakes, who previously worked for ING Bank, had become fixated on GcMAF after attending a conference on the drug at the University of Ghent in 2009.
Although he had no medical qualifications, Noakes set up a lab in Cambridge in 2011 with UK and Italian scientists to produce GcMAF, also registering Immuno Biotech that same year in the English Channel island of Guernsey.
Noakes went on to sell GcMAF products to up to 10,000 patients, and the MHRA estimates that he generated £10 million in sales between 2011 and 2015.
Alarmingly, the company discouraged cancer patients from undergoing chemotherapy and urged them to rely on its product instead.
The Immuno Biotech website claimed that it was a “waste of money” to take chemotherapy and GcMAF together, and that “chemo destroys your immune system while GcMAF rebuilds it.”
According to the company’s website, “Once you have your GcMAF back your immune system will cure you of most cancers. In the liver it will work, providing the war is not too serious.”
After leading charities Cancer Research UK and the National Autistic Society raised concerns about the product, the Cambridgeshire laboratory was raided in January 2015 by MRHA.
The agency seized 10,000 vials of GcMAF and issued a warning to the public that these products may pose a significant health risk.
Immuno Biotech claimed that its GcMAF was “made in highly professional sterile laboratories to standards superior than those required” by the authorities.
The judge pointed out that there were no such standards.
Accomplices Also Jailed
Noakes was sentenced to 12 months for the four charges related to unlicensed medicines and an additional 3 months for money laundering. He was also disqualified as a company director for 8 years.
An Immuno Biotech scientist, Dr Rodney Smith, 55, of Huntingdon, England, was sentenced to 8 months in jail after pleading guilty to the manufacture, possession, and sale and supply of unlicensed medicine.
Another Immuno Biotech scientist, Emma Ward, 44, also of Huntingdon, pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 8 months, suspended for 2 years, and ordered to complete 150 hours of community volunteer work.
Noakes’ estranged wife admitted to two counts of selling or supplying medical products without market authorization. Lorraine Noakes was given a 6-month suspended sentence and ordered to complete 150 hours of community volunteer work.
Among US cancer centers, the vast majority of the top spenders in advertising in 2017 used deceptive marketing that conveyed a false sense of hope, according to the consumer watchdog group, Truth in Advertising (TINA.org).
The cancer centers include such prestigious institutions as MD Anderson in Houston, Memorial Sloan Kettering in New York City, Dana-Farber in Boston, and Moffitt in Tampa, Florida.
Truth in Advertising’s 1-year investigation into the direct-to-consumer television and digital marketing materials showed that 90% (43/48) featured positive patient testimonials about treatment outcomes in cancers with a 5-year survival of less than 50%.
None of the testimonials mentioned that the responses were not typical for that particular cancer type, as legally required by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
Almost half of the exceptional response testimonials involved patients with stage 4 cancer, and 17% attributed treatment success to participation in a clinical trial, without disclosing the inherent limitations or risks, the investigation revealed.
The investigative report, entitled “US Cancer Centers: Deceptive Marketing of Hope,” was published online October 22.
“Exploiting False Hope”
Cancer patients and their families face “devastating odds of survival and have a right to know the truth,” said Bonnie Patten, executive director of TINA.org, in a statement. “To sway this uniquely susceptible population’s decisions as to where they should seek treatment by exploiting false hope is simply not acceptable.”
While overall cancer mortality rates have declined, US cancer centers are spending record amounts on direct-to-consumer marketing. Annual spending on advertising has shot up by 320% over a 9-year period, from $54 million in 2005 to $173 million in 2014, according to the report. Today, the National Cancer Institute estimates that more than 1200 cancer centers compete for the $150 billion consumers spend on healthcare annually.
As a result of its findings, TINA.org has filed a misleading advertising complaint with the FTC against Cancer Treatment Centers of America (CTCA), based in Boca Raton, Florida. According to the watchdog group, CTCA ranked highest on its list of cancer centers that spent money on advertising in 2017, doling out $69 million of the $140 million spent that year by US cancer centers to produce more than 130 exceptional patient testimonials that were circulated in 2018.
In addition, TINA.org has put the 42 other cancer centers on notice with letters seeking removal of “deceptive testimonials from its marketing materials.”
“TINA.org hopes that these cancer centers will do the right thing and either correct the deceptive ads or do away with them completely,” Patten told Medscape Medical News. In 2019, the organization will audit its findings to see how many cancer centers have voluntarily complied with truth in advertising laws by either remediating or removing testimonials.
“At that time, a determination will be made as to whether we will file a complaint against any of the cancer centers with the appropriate governmental authorities,” Patten explained.
She expects that the FTC will take action against CTCA since the for-profit center is “a repeat offender with the agency.” Although prior legal action brought by the FTC against CTCA was settled in 1996, the agreement to stop using deceptive testimonials in marketing materials ended in in 2016.
This is the first time that TINA.org has investigated marketing practices for US cancer centers, Patten noted, adding that “it won’t be our last…”
Cancer Centers Respond
Kim Polacek, spokesperson for strategic communications at Moffitt Cancer Center, told Medscape Medical News that their patient testimonials “provide an outlet for our patients and their loved ones to share their cancer journey in a transparent and authentic way, regardless of the outcome.”
Importantly, Polacek added that Moffitt treatment teams discuss personalized treatment options and a range of potential outcomes with all patients prior to the start of any plan.
At Memorial Sloan Kettering, Caitlin Hool, senior manager in the department of communications, said they “stand by the integrity of our communications and the importance of enabling our patients to share their experience.”
Hool pointed out that nearly half of the items flagged by TINA.org as “deceptive” were actually newsletter articles written by survivors who wanted to share “…stories of inspiration, hope and challenge.” The balance of the marketing materials called into question were made up of unscripted patient videos and educational articles, Hool said.
“Memorial Sloan Kettering holds itself to a high standard in communicating accurate and timely information about cancer and cancer treatment to the general public, patients and their families, and cancer survivors,” said Hool.
Laura Sussman, program director for communications in public relations at MD Anderson, said they are “committed to truthful advertising.” She added that “MD Anderson takes great care to ensure our messages are accurate, appropriate and responsible.”
Sussman noted that the TINA report suggests that editorial content, including information on MD Anderson’s website blog, is an example of advertising.
“This blog content focuses on the patients’ cancer journey,” she said. “It is often written by the patients themselves and includes information on side effects and loss of loved ones, in addition to stories about survivorship. Our blog also includes information from our doctors, nurses, and researchers and others involved in the patient experience.”
Ellen Berlin, director of media relations at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, said they are committed to providing accurate and trustworthy advertising.
“Many patients appreciate the opportunity to share their individual journey and hear about the experiences of others. As with any medical treatment, every patient is unique and specific treatment options are developed and provided by clinicians working directly with patients and their families.”
In an NBC News story, big spender CTCA stated that “to ensure clinical accuracy and tell our story in an informative and responsible manner, all of our advertising undergoes meticulous review prior to publication.”
The organization noted that all of the patients volunteered to share their stories to help others who receive a similar diagnosis, and that they received no compensation.
2005 Study Shows the Problem Is Not New
The use of patient testimonials to help health care consumers decide where to get a second opinion or go for treatment is not new.
Results from a 2005 survey of the advertising used by 17 top US medical centers showed that consumers were more likely to trust first-person testimonials that came from a medical institution than another source. The survey also revealed that while the medical centers had a rigorous review process for the advertising they used to attract research subjects, none of them had anything comparable for reviewing the marketing materials aimed at patients.