I've been out of the loop with gcmaf for awhile, so I wanted to check in with a very important question that no one seems to be asking:
Is gcmaf.eu still the only gcmaf product that is independently validated? (and let's put aside judgment about David Noakes when answering this question)
Earlier, one of my main concerns was seeing a number of patients on our public spreadsheet reporting excess inflammation that correlated with relapse or regression. Oviously this is not something I would expect KDM to report because it's difficult to verify (and he didn't in his Ottawa presentation). I never expected him to present the dramatic rises in c4a anyway because it's not conclusively bad and it's a broad immune marker (even though patients that follow Shoemaker would say otherwise).
On the flipside, Klinghardt reported only 5% of his patients on gcmaf.eu are experiencing this level of adverse inflammation. Note: in an earlier presentation, his main caveat about gcmaf was that it could cause adverse inflammation, so he already is keen on the issue that we're discussing here. Then, in this latest presentation, he also said he would not give out gcmaf unless mold issues were resolved first,which may have had something to do with the rise in c4a in some patients. Clearly he is trying to keep this effect in check. Combining his many caveats, logic train, and his use of an indepedently-validated product, I am inclined to take his reports on gcmaf very seriously.
It's still early stages, but if that number holds up, the discrepancy between products might become something to pay closer attention to.
