GcMAF vs imuno
https://www.thetruthbehindcancerstore.com/blog/
COMPARISON BETWEEN THE EFFECTS OF GCMAFFORTE AND IMUNOON RECOGNIZED CANCER MARKERS. THE GREATER EFFICACY OF IMUNOIN DECREASING A SPECIFIC CANCER MARKER IN A MUCH SHORTER TIME (7 VS 15 MONTHS) IS EVIDENT.
Change of serum CEA levels in a patent with metastatic colorectal carcinoma during the immunotherapy with GcMAF Forte and HT Thymus. Data from: KlokolD, TepponeM J Clin Cell Immunol 2016. DOI:10.4172/2155-9899.1000449
Change of serum free Kappa/Lambda chain ratio in a patient with multiple myeloma during immunotherapy with imuno. Data from: AntonucciN et al. Am J of Immunol2019. DOI: 10.3844/ajisp.2019
LEGEND TO THE FIGURE
• This figure compares the descending trend of two cancer markers following immunotherapy with GcMAF Forte or imuno.
• GcMAF Forte was used together with thymus peptide extracts for about 15 months (March 2015 –May 2016) in a patient with metastatic colorectal carcinoma.
• The examined cancer marker was CEA (serum carcinoembryonic antigen) a recognized cancer marker that, however, is not specific for colorectal carcinoma.
• The final value for CEA was about 36% of the initial value with a decrease of about 65%.
• Imuno was used for about 7 months (October 2018-May 2019) in a patient with multiple myeloma.
• The examined cancer marker was the ratio of serum free Kappa and Lambda light chains, a marker highly specific for the disease.
• The final value was about 1.68% of the initial value with a decrease of about 98%.
• In short, GcMAFForte decreased a cancer marker by 65% in 15 months; imunoby 98% in 7 months.
• The original values for each cancer marker are reported in the figure; the graphs are drawn considering the initial value for each cancer marker, i.e. the value before treatment, as 100%.
• All the data used to draw this figure are in the open access public domain.
Comparison between the effects of GcMAF forte and imuno on recognized cancer markers. Left panel; decrease of cancer markers after two months of treatment for GcMAF Forte, and three months for imuno. Blue columns, values before treatment, in percentage on the y axis, and actual values on the columns. Orange columns, values after treatment. Right panel: results after eight months of treatment for GcMAF Forte and seven months for imuno. Data from Klokol D, Teppone M J Clin Cell Immunol 2016. DOI:10.4172/2155-9899.1000449 (GcMAF Forte), and Antonucci N et al. Am J of Immunol 2019. DOI: 10.3844/ajisp.2019 (imuno). The greater efficiency of imuno is evident.
LEGEND TO THE FIGURE
• This figure compares the descending trend of two cancer markers following immunotherapy with GcMAF Forte or imuno.
• This figure refers to the same patients described in the previous figure
• In this figure, the comparison between two month treatment with GcMAFForte and three month treatment with imunois drawn in the left panel.
• The comparison between eight month treatment with GcMAF Forte and seven month treatment with imunois drawn in the right panel.
• In both cases, the greater efficiency of imuno in lowering a specific cancer marker is evident.
• The original values for each cancer marker are reported in the figure; the histograms are drawn considering the initial value for each cancer marker, i.e. the value before treatment, as 100%.
• All the data used to draw this figure are in the open access public domain.
Comparison between the effects of second generation GcMAFand imuno on recognized cancer markers. Decrease of cancer markers after four months of treatment for second generation GcMAF, and three months for imuno. Blue columns, values before treatment, in percentage on the y axis, and actual values on the columns. Orange columns, values after treatment. Data from Inui et al. Anti cancer Res 2016. 36: 3767-3770 (second generation GcMAF), and AntonucciN et al. Am J of Immunol 2019. DOI: 10.3844/ajisp.2019 (imuno). The greater efficiency of imuno is evident.
Comparison between the amount needed per week of GcMAF Forte, second generation GcMAF and imunoto obtain decrease of cancer markers. Values on the y axis indicate mL per week. Data from Klokol D, Teppone M JClin Cell Immunol 2016. DOI:10.4172/2155-9899.1000449 (GcMAF Forte); Inui et al. Anti cancer Res 2016. 36: 3767-3770 (second generation GcMAF); and Antonucci N et al. Am J of Immunol 2019. DOI: 10.3844/ajisp.2019 (imuno). The greater efficiency of imuno is evident.
LEGEND TO THE FIGURE
• This figure compares the descending trend of two cancer markers following immuno therapy with second generation GcMAF or imuno.
• Second generation GcMAFwas used together with sonodynamictherapy and tumor treating fields patient for about 4 months (November 2014 –March 2016) in a patient with non-small cell lung cancer .
• The examined cancer marker was neuron specific enolase (NSE), a recognized cancer marker that, however, is considered to show low sensitivity in non-small cell lung cancer (Lung Cancer. Vol 31, Issues 2–3,March 2001, pp 221-231).
• The final value for NSEwasabout 77% of the initial value with a decrease of about 23%.
• imuno was used for about 3 months (October 2018-January 2019) in a patient with multiple myeloma.
• The examined cancer marker was the ratio of serum free Kappa and Lambda light chains, a marker highly specific for the disease.
• The final value was about 5.93% of the initial value with a decrease of about 94%.
• The original values for each cancer marker are reported in the figure; the histograms are drawn considering the initial value for each cancer marker, i.e. the value before treatment, as 100%.
• All the data used to draw this figure are in the open access public domain.
Comparison between the amount needed per week of GcMAF Forte, second generation GcMAF and imunoto obtain decrease of cancer markers. Values on the y axis indicate mL per week. Data from Klokol D, Teppone M JClin Cell Immunol 2016. DOI:10.4172/2155-9899.1000449 (GcMAF Forte); Inui et al. Anti cancer Res 2016. 36: 3767-3770 (second generation GcMAF); and Antonucci N et al. Am J of Immunol 2019. DOI: 10.3844/ajisp.2019 (imuno). The greater efficiency of imuno is evident.
Comparison between the amount needed per week of GcMAF Forte, second generation GcMAF and imunoto obtain decrease of cancer markers. Values on the y axis indicate mL per week. Data from Klokol D, Teppone M JClin Cell Immunol 2016. DOI:10.4172/2155-9899.1000449 (GcMAF Forte); Inui et al. Anti cancer Res 2016. 36: 3767-3770 (second generation GcMAF); and Antonucci N et al. Am J of Immunol 2019. DOI: 10.3844/ajisp.2019 (imuno). The greater efficiency of imuno is evident.
Change of CA 19 – 9 in a patient with thyroid cancer treated with GcMAF, extracted from peptide from human vitamin D receptor protein.
Change of serum free Kappa / Lambda chain ration in a patient with multiple myeloma during immuno therapy with imuno
Comparison between the number of days required to observe clinical improvement in autism. Data from Bradstreet et al., Autism Insights 2012:4 31–38. DOI: 10.4137/AUI.S10485 (GcMAF) and Antonucci et al., Madridge J Vaccines. 2019; 3(1): 71-76. DOI: 10.18689/mjv-1000116. Clinical improvement was assessed by in-house modified version of the Clinical Global Impression of Improvement(CGI-I) scale (Bradstre etet al.) and Autism Treatment Evaluation Checklist (ATEC, Antonucci et al.). The avera ge number of days to observe results with GcMAFwas 99.63; with imuno, 60. The greater efficiency of imunois evident.
When GcMAFForte does not decrease cancer markers; the honesty of the German Authors
• …The PET scan and the cancer markers (CEA and CA 15-3) showed stable disease. …
• That is, cancer markers did not decrease.
Women's Health
Brain Support
Brain Support