by Fritz Springmeier
September 2003
from ConspiracyTheories Website
recovered through WayBackMachine Website
Rather than having an article this time about an individual family-and we will retu
Full transcripts include:*Opening statement of Chairman "The Genz" Gary Gensler*Opening statement of "Huggy Bear" Bart Chilton*Opening statement of Jill Sommers *Opening statement of Scott O'Malia *Statement in support of position limits by Chairman Gensler*Statement in opposition to position limits by O'Malia*FINAL REGULATIONS ON POSITION LIMITS FOR FUTURES AND SWAPS*Full PDF file of the FINAL REGULATIONS ON POSITION LIMITS FOR FUTURES AND SWAPS can be found at the CFTC's site:http://www.cftc.gov/ucm/groups/public/@newsroom/documents/file/pl_factsheet_final.pdf
Chairman Gary Gensler
October 18, 2011IntroductionGood morning. This meeting will come to order. This is a public meeting of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) to consider proposed rules under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act). I’d like to welcome members of the public, market participants and members of the media, as well as those listening to the meeting on the phone or watching the webcast.I would like to thank Commissioners Dunn, Sommers, Chilton and O’Malia for their significant contributions to the rule-writing process. I also want to thank the CFTC’s hardworking staff – they are working day, night and weekends to complete these rules.During today’s meeting, the first final rule that we will consider relates to position limits. A position limits regime in the commodity futures and swaps markets is a critical component of comprehensive regulatory reform of the derivatives markets.The second final rule that we will consider today relates to core principles for derivative clearing organizations.Lastly, we will consider staff recommendations providing further exemptive relief – consistent with the CFTC’s July 14th Exemptive Order – from certain provisions of Dodd-Frank’s Title VII requirements.Importance of ReformToday is our 20th meeting to implement Dodd-Frank rules. As we continue our work to complete the rulemaking process under Dodd-Frank, it is critical to remember why we are here in the first place. Though it has been three years since the financial crisis, we cannot forget the weaknesses that it exposed in both our financial system and our financial regulatory system.We cannot forget the millions of Americans who had no connection to derivatives or other exotic financial contracts but still lost their jobs due to a poorly regulated industry. We cannot forget the millions more who lost their homes or whose homes are now worth less than their mortgages, in part because of how the financial system – including the unregulated swaps market – brought the economy to the edge of the cliff. The package of reforms included in the Dodd-Frank Act will help address the contributing factors to the 2008 crisis to protect those Americans. They are concrete measures that will bring transparency, openness and competition to the swaps markets while lowering the risk they pose to the American public.There are those who might like to roll the Dodd-Frank Act’s reforms back and put us back in the same regulatory environment that preceded the crisis three years ago. But that regulatory system failed to protect the American public. We must not forget about the 8 million lost jobs – the majority of which were lost by people who have never used derivatives. We must not forget what the nation went through three years ago – and what the nation continues to recover from now.Some have raised cost considerations about our rulemakings. We are going through those comments and they have been very helpful. But the greatest cost is having a public that is not protected from the risks of the swaps market and that does not get the benefits of transparent markets. That is why it is so essential that we finish implementing the Dodd-Frank reforms.Before we hear from the staff on the rulemakings that we will consider today, I will recognize my fellow Commissioners for their opening statements.
“Huggy Bear and Position Limits”
Statement of Commissioner Bart Chilton Before the CFTC Public Meeting
October 18, 2011This will date me. I don’t know how many of you remember the television series Starsky and Hutch. Huggy Bear was the informant, the narc, who provided tips to the detectives. What Huggy Bear said to Starsky and Hutch was, “I’ll lay it out so you can play it out.”Well, that’s sort of like what Congress does when it passes a law—it lays it out. As regulators, we take the law, and we play it out. Our role is to put meat on the bones of the law and do what Congress told us to do. It is a serious responsibility. Congress mandated these position limits and, finally and belatedly, we are putting them in place. I also want to note that we have been very careful to stay within the four corners of the law as Congress has laid it out. I’m convinced we are on solid legal footing with this rule.This is an uncommon rule and there is no way it will please everyone. Not all of it pleases me. For example, I still want to ensure that appropriate anticipatory hedging is allowed for certain bona fide hedgers. While I'd have an even tougher rule in many respects if I were the only author, this is nonetheless a very strong, needed and imperative rule to ensure more efficient and effective markets devoid of fraud, abuse and importantly, manipulation. This rule balances the needs of consumers and market participants alike.Here are the key take-aways: first, the rule sets federally enforced limits, for the first time ever, on the amount of concentration anyone may control in energies and metals. It mirrors similar limits that we’ve had in some agricultural markets for decades. In these other markets, we have seen cases where one trader holds 30, 35 and even 40-plus percent of a market. That can be, and I believe has been at times, manipulative. This rule will put a stop to that.Second—and one of the most important aspects of this rule for me—the “Wild, Wild West” of exempting traders from any concentration levels whatsoever ends now. Exemptions to limits will from here on out be approved by the Agency, not the exchanges, and under strict guidelines. A bona fide hedge will truly be a bona fide hedge. Traders will have to continually prove their business need to this agency to receive an exemption, and—significantly—if we see that there is a deviation from a bona fide hedging strategy, we can immediately close that down.Third, this rule will bring all derivatives within the Commission’s jurisdiction—futures and swaps—the formerly dark OTC markets—under the same position limits. This brings needed transparency and accountability to markets that were part and parcel to the economic meltdown in 2008.While I would have preferred tighter limits for certain contracts—particularly precious metals—simply establishing a position limit regime is critically important. Initially, the limit levels will be identical. The Commission will, however, be required to periodically reassess those levels to ensure more appropriate recalibration as necessary.So Congress laid this out in July 2010. We’ve been playing it out since then. I’m hopeful that we’ll finally pass the rule today. I thank the Chairman. I thank the staff, and I thank my colleagues. Most importantly, I thank all of those individuals who have taken the time to give us their views about what we should do as we “Play It Out.” Thank you.
Commissioner Jill E. Sommers
Tuesday, October 18, 2011Good morning. Thank you Mr. Chairman and thank you to the teams that have worked so hard on the final rules before us today and on the amendments to the Commission’s July 14, 2011 Order relating to the Effective Date for Swap Regulation. The current Order expires on December 31, 2011, and I am glad we are addressing the necessary amendments to that Order now instead of waiting until the last minute to provide certainty to market participants.Today we will first be voting on final rules for DCO’s. In my opinion, these rules are needlessly prescriptive and go beyond what is required by the statute. Our registered DCOs have a fantastic track record of protecting their own financial safety and soundness and have proven themselves, even during the financial crisis, to be excellent at managing margin and risk. We should allow them to continue to do so without imposing unnecessary and inflexible rules, regulations, and restrictions upon them.It appears that these rules, and many others we have proposed and finalized, are largely colored by the perception that swaps are inherently riskier than futures and options and as a result require a more prescriptive regulatory oversight regime.To that I say, futures and options are, and always have, been risky. Swaps that are exchange traded and cleared will likely have a similar risk profile as exchange traded futures and options. We should not be creating a separate regulatory regime for economically equivalent products. I believe this approach will not stand the test of time and will have to be re-thought as the market evolves.The fact that we are allowing letters of credit to be used as initial margin for futures and not for swaps is an example of this thinking – and is a distinction that is not legally or factually justifiable. We should treat them the same way unless there is a compelling reason not to. This is especially the case given the fact that today, there are end-users that voluntarily clear swaps using letters of credit as initial margin. Once we ban that practice, voluntary clearing will become more expensive for these end-users, and therefore less attractive to them. If we want to encourage clearing, which I think was one of our goals, we should not be taking steps to make clearing less attractive to those that are not required to do it.It has been nearly two years since the Commission issued its January 2010 proposal to impose position limits on a small group of energy contracts. Since then, Commission staff and the Commission have spent an enormous amount of time on the issue of imposing speculative limits.For me, this vote today on position limits today is no doubt the single most significant vote I have taken since becoming a Commissioner. It is not because imposing position limits will fundamentally change the way the U.S. markets operate, but because I believe this agency is setting itself up for an enormous failure.As I have said in the past, position limits can be an important tool for regulators. I have been clear that I am not philosophically opposed to limits. After all, this agency has set limits in certain markets for many years. However, I have had concerns all along about the particular application of the limits in this rule, compounded by the unnecessary narrowing of the bona-fide hedging exemptions, beyond what was required by the Dodd-Frank Act.Over the last four years, many have argued for position limits with such fervor and zeal, believing them to be a panacea for everything. Just this past week, the Commission has been bombarded by a letter-writing campaign suggesting that the five of us have the power to end world hunger by imposing position limits on agricultural commodities.This latest campaign exemplifies my ongoing concern and may result in damaging the credibility of this agency. I do not believe position limits will control prices or market volatility, and I fear that this Commission will be blamed when this final rule does not lower food and energy costs. I am disappointed at this unfortunate circumstance because, while the Commission’s mission is to protect market users and the public from fraud, manipulation, abusive practices and systemic risk related to derivatives that are subject to the Commodity Exchange Act, and to foster open, competitive, and financially sound markets, nowhere in our mission is the responsibility or mandate to control prices.When analyzing the potential impact this final rule will have on market participants, I am most concerned about the effect on bona fide hedgers – that is, the producers, processers, manufacturers, handlers and users of physical commodities. This rule will make hedging more difficult, more costly, and less efficient, all of which, ironically, can result in increased costs for consumers.Currently, the Commission sets and administers position limits and exemptions for nine agricultural commodities. Pursuant to this final rule, the Commission will set and administer position limits and exemptions for 28 reference contracts. Along with the 19 new reference contracts comes the new responsibility to administer bona-fide hedging exemptions for the transactions of massive, global corporate conglomerates that on a daily basis produce, process, handle, store, transport, and use physical commodities in their extremely complex logistical operations. Their hedging strategies are no doubt equally complex.At the very time the Commission is taking on this new responsibility, the Commission is eliminating a valuable source of flexibility that has been a part of regulation 1.3(z) for decades – that is, the ability to recognize non-enumerated hedge transactions and positions. This final rule abandons important and long-standing Commission precedent without justification or reasoned explanation, by merely stating “the Commission has . . . expanded the list of enumerated hedges.” The Commission also seems to be saying that we no longer need the flexibility to allow for non-enumerated hedge transactions and positions because one can seek interpretative guidance pursuant to Commission Regulation 140.99 on whether a transaction or class of transactions qualifies as a bona-fide hedge, or can petition the Commission to amend the list of enumerated transactions.These processes are cold comfort. There is no way to tell how long interpretative guidance will take. Moreover, if a market participant petitions the Commission to amend the list of enumerated transactions, if the Commission chooses to do so, it must formally propose the amendment pursuant to APA notice and comment. As we know all too well, that is a time consuming process fraught with delay and uncertainty. In the end, neither of these processes is flexible or useful to the needs of hedgers in a complex global marketplace.When the Commission first recognized the need to allow for non-enumerated hedges in 1977, the Commission stated “The purpose of the proposed provision was to provide flexibility in application of the general definition and to avoid an extensive specialized listing of enumerated bona fide hedging transactions and positions. . . .” Today the global marketplace is much more complex than it was in 1977, as are complex hedging strategies. I am not comfortable with notion that a list of eight bona-fide hedging transactions in this rule is sufficiently extensive and specialized to cover the complex needs of today’s bona-fide hedgers. Repealing the ability to recognize non-enumerated hedge transactions and positions is a mistake and the statute does not require it.For decades, the Act has allowed the Commission to define bona-fide hedging transactions and positions “to permit producers, purchasers, sellers, middlemen, and users of a commodity or a product derived therefrom to hedge their legitimate anticipated business needs….” This provision is Section 4a(c)(1). In addition, Section 4a(c)(2) clearly recognizes the need for anticipatory hedging by using the word “anticipates” in three places. Nonetheless, without defining what constitutes “merchandising” the Commission has limited “Anticipated Merchandising Hedging” to transactions not larger than “current or anticipated unfilled storage capacity.” It appears then that merchandising does not include the varying activities of “producers, purchasers, sellers, middlemen, and users of a commodity” as contemplated by Section 4a(c)(1), but merely consists of storing a commodity. This limited approach is needlessly at odds with the statute and with the legitimate needs of hedgers.I have always believed that there was a right way and a wrong way for us to move forward on position limits. Unfortunately I believe we have chosen to go way beyond what is in the statute and have created a very complicated regulation that has the potential to irreparably harm these markets.Thank you again to both of the teams who are presenting today and have worked tirelessly…for many, many months on these very important rules.
“Does the Commission Always Know Best?”
Opening Statement by Commissioner Scott D. O’Malia: Open Meeting on Position Limits for Futures and Swaps; Derivatives Clearing Organizations; Effective Date for Swap Regulation
October 18, 2011Today, the Commission is voting on final rulemakings on position limits and the operation of derivatives clearing organizations (“DCOs”). Further, the Commission is voting on a proposed order that would extend needed exemptive relief to market participants during the pendency of Commission rulemaking. Before we begin, I would like to join my colleagues in thanking the three teams responsible for the final rulemakings and the proposed order. Their hard work has resulted in comprehensive documents totaling nearly 800 pages. Their perseverance over the one-and-a-half-year rulemaking process has been truly inspiring.The position limits rulemaking will form the foundation for Commission surveillance of the physical commodity markets, whereas the DCO rulemaking will form the foundation for Commission oversight of the financial integrity of market transactions. That is why I am particularly disappointed with both rulemakings. Both rulemakings rely on one fundamentally flawed assumption – namely, that the Commission, in nearly all circumstances, knows best and can substitute its judgment for that of exchanges and DCOs, despite the complexities of the futures - and now swaps - markets. As I will further explain, such assumption leads to regulations with substantial costs and little corresponding benefits. Such assumption is also difficult to justify from an evidentiary and statutory perspective. First, both rulemakings will have a substantial economic impact on market participants, who for legitimate commercial reasons, use futures and swaps markets for hedging purposes. Both rulemakings have been confirmed by the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) to be “major rules” under the Congressional Review Act. This means that OMB has determined that each rule will have an annual effect on the economy of more than $100 million. This determination is unsurprising given that the position limits rulemaking alone will force commercial hedgers to invest multiple millions of dollars in developing compliance systems to justify and account for their legitimate hedging strategies. Despite the above, neither the position limits rulemaking nor the DCO rulemaking fully describes its costs, even qualitatively, in its cost-benefit analysis. Further, neither rulemaking attempts meaningful quantification of its costs. Thus, both rulemakings deprive the public of transparency into their impact, in direct contradiction of two Executive Orders.1 Finally, both rulemakings again render themselves vulnerable to legal challenge.2 The two quotes that best capture my views on cost-benefit analyses come from President Barack Obama himself. They are: “Wise regulatory decisions depend on public participation and on careful analysis of the likely consequences of regulation. Such decisions are informed and improved by allowing interested members of the public to have a meaningful opportunity to participate in rulemaking. To the extent permitted by law, such decisions should be made only after consideration of their costs and benefits (both quantitative and qualitative).” 3“I have continued to underscore the importance of reducing regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty, particularly as our economy continues to recover.” 4Obviously, it is a challenge to balance the regulatory objectives of the Dodd-Frank Act with economic growth, but as President Obama has urged in these two quotes, the Commission has an obligation to not lose sight of the impact our rulemakings will have on our economy. By not providing meaningful quantification – especially when we can easily do so – our cost-benefit analyses are inadequate by President Obama’s own standards.Second, in addition to failing to detail costs, the two final rulemakings fail to articulate a convincing rationale for eliminating our current regime of principles-based regulation and substituting in its stead a prescriptive “government-knows-best” regime. After all, our current regime has served the Commission well both prior to and during the 2008 financial crisis. Specifically, the two final rulemakings fail to root their prescriptive requirements in fact-based evidence. As a result, both rulemakings contain multiple provisions that appear arbitrary. Consequently, the two final rulemakings again render themselves vulnerable to legal challenge.5 Whereas Congress may have mandated that the Commission promulgate certain rulemakings under the Dodd-Frank Act, the Commission retains the discretion to determine the best manner to meet such mandate. I believe that both of the abovementioned points highlight themes that will be replicated in forthcoming rulemakings. Therefore, it is important to emphasize the deficiencies with these themes now. I recently celebrated my second anniversary serving as a Commissioner at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Like my colleagues, I take this responsibility very seriously and am honored to serve. I recognize there are passionate views on both sides, especially with regard to position limits, but our role is to make decisions on policy in a dispassionate manner that is rooted in facts. I hope that we continue to examine the facts and ask tough questions as to the implications of each and every rulemaking. I have several concerns with both the position limits rulemaking and the DCO rulemaking. I have articulated my concerns in comprehensive separate dissents, which will be available on the Commission website after our vote and which will be published in the Federal Register. I will briefly describe herein my concerns with each rulemaking in turn.Position Limits – CFTC Checks A BoxToday’s rule represents the Commission’s desire to “check the box” as to position limits. Unfortunately, in its exuberance and attempt to justify doing so, the Commission has overreached in interpreting its statutory mandate to set position limits. While I do not disagree that the Commission has been directed to impose position limits, as appropriate, the Commission cannot provide a legally sound, comprehensible rationale based on empirical evidence for the final rule we will likely pass today. For commercial hedgers this rule puts them on the defense immediately and will keep them scrambling to (i) justify, and perhaps to alter, their hedging strategies and (ii) comply with the extraordinarily complex aggregation and hedging limitations. If the commercial entities who use futures and swaps markets for hedging commercial risk feel like we are waging war on them, I don’t blame them. According to the Commission’s cost-benefit analysis, legitimate hedgers will pay close to 1/3 of the total annual $100 million cost of this proposal for reporting alone. These are the market participants to which Congress extended specific protection, yet this rulemaking will increase the cost of hedging and managing risk. Now there are some market players that will probably find the new regulatory regime challenging, but full of gaps. I don’t believe this will diminish their ability to find exposure in commodity markets, but it may change the way they access these markets. I have no doubt that index investors and other passive long investors will continue to be able to secure their commodity exposure through new regulatory loopholes, including possibly expanding their investments in physical stocks, which are assets outside the Commission’s regulatory authority. This result is not what Congress intended. DCO Core PrinciplesThe DCO final rulemaking6 is among the most important Dodd-Frank rulemakings that the Commission has undertaken. I have been a strong proponent of clearing ever since the Enron crisis, when I witnessed the effectiveness of ClearPort in ameliorating counterparty credit fears and restoring liquidity to the energy merchant markets. I am certain that clearing will similarly benefit the swaps market,7particularly by significantly expanding execution on electronic platforms and by ensuring that swaps counterparties – and not the hardworking American taxpayer – post collateral to support their exposures. The main goal of this final rulemaking is to ensure that clearing contributes to the integrity of the United States financial system. I fully support this goal. However, I disagree with the prescriptive approach of this final rulemaking, because it leaves DCOs with insufficient discretion to take legitimate actions to manage the risks that they confront. Moreover, such an approach may result in substantial costs to the futures and swaps market, which are not detailed or explored. If the costs of this final rulemaking discourage market participants from prudently hedging their risks or from clearing on a voluntary basis, then such rulemaking may undermine the Dodd-Frank Act, which seeks to move risk from our financial and commercial entities into a regulated framework. Two provisions in particular best highlight my concerns. $50 Million Capital RequirementThis final rulemaking prohibits a DCO from requiring more than $50 million in capital from any entity seeking to become a swaps clearing member. This number makes a great headline. Unfortunately, it appears to lack an evidentiary basis. Moreover, whereas the $50 million threshold may prevent a DCO from engaging in anticompetitive behavior, it may also prohibit a DCO from taking a range of legitimate, risk-reducing actions (e.g., increasing capital requirements in proportion to risk). This final rulemaking provides little to no insight on the manner in which the Commission intends to distinguish between the former and the latter. Finally, this final rulemaking may impose costs on DCOs, which are likely to be passed on to commercial and financial end-users. Such costs may include: (i) the costs that a DCO would incur to ensure access to entities that have no ability to clear any significant volume of transactions in certain asset classes, for themselves or for customers; (ii) increased margin requirements; and (iii) increased guaranty fund contributions. Given the magnitude of such potential costs, it is at least likely that they would deter market participants from hedging or voluntarily clearing. The cost-benefit analysis of the final rulemaking, however, neither qualitatively nor quantitatively explores such costs.Let me be plain. I am against anticompetitive behavior. However, an entity with $50 million in capitalization may not be an appropriate clearing member for every DCO. Rather than setting forth a prescriptive requirement that may scourge both the guilty and the innocent alike, the Commission should have provided principles-based guidance to DCOs on the other components of fair and open access, such as the standard for less restrictive participation requirements.8By taking such an approach, the Commission would have been in greater accord with international regulators (one of which explicitly cautioned against the $50 million threshold),9 current international standards,10 and proposed revisions of such standards.11Minimum Liquidation TimeThis final rulemaking requires a DCO to calculate margin using different minimum liquidation times for different products. Specifically, a DCO must calculate margin for (i) futures based on a one-day minimum liquidation time, (ii) agricultural, energy, and metals swaps based on a one-day minimum liquidation time, and (iii) all other swaps based on a five-day minimum liquidation time.12As a preliminary matter, such minimum liquidation times appear to lack an evidentiary basis. More importantly, when these requirements are juxtaposed against our proposal interpreting core principle 9 for designated contract markets (“DCMs”),13 it becomes clear that these requirements have the potential to severely disrupt already established futures markets. In the proposal, which is entitled Core Principles and Other Requirements for Designated Contract Markets, the Commission proposed, in a departure from previous interpretations of DCM core principle 9, to prohibit a DCM from listing any contract for trading unless an average of 85 percent or greater of the total volume of such contract is traded on the centralized market, as calculated over a twelve (12) month period.14 If the Commission finalizes such proposal, then DCMs may need to delist hundreds of futures contracts.15 Financial contracts may be affected, along with contracts in agricultural commodities, energy commodities, and metals. According to the proposal, DCMs may convert delisted futures contracts to swap contracts.16 However, if the futures contracts reference financial commodities, then this final rulemaking would require that a DCO margin such swap contracts using a minimum liquidation time of five days instead of one day for futures. If nothing substantive about the contracts change other than their characterization (i.e., futures to swaps), then how can the Commission justify such a substantial increase in minimum liquidation time and margin? An increase of this magnitude may well result in a chilling of activity in the affected contracts. Such chilling would be an example of the type of market disruption that the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”) was intended to avoid.I believe this has severe implications for competition. As commenters to the DCM proposal noted, market participants generally execute new futures contracts outside the DCM centralized market until the contracts attract sufficient liquidity. Attracting such liquidity may take years.17 Let us assume that an established DCM already lists a commercially viable futures contract on a financial commodity that meets the 85 percent threshold. Even without the DCM proposal and this final rulemaking, a DCM seeking to compete by listing a futures contract with the same terms and conditions already faces an uphill battle. Now with the DCM proposal, the competitor DCM would have to also face the constant threat of being required to convert the futures contract into a swap contract. With this final rulemaking, the competitor DCM (or a competitor swap execution facility (SEF)) faces the additional threat that, by virtue of such conversion, the contract would be margined using a five-day minimum liquidation time. It is difficult to imagine a DCM (or a competitor SEF) willing to compete given the twin Swords of Damocles that it would need to confront. By dissuading such competition, this final rulemaking and the DCM proposal undermine the “responsible innovation and fair competition among boards of trade” that the CEA was intended to promote.18What should the Commission have done to avoid market disruption and a curtailment in competition? Again, the Commission should have retained a principles-based regime, and should have permitted each DCO to determine the appropriate minimum liquidation time for its products. Determining appropriate margin requirements involves quantitative and qualitative expertise. Such expertise resides in the DCOs and not in the Commission. In its cost-benefit analysis, the final rulemaking admits as much.19 Returning to a principles-based regime would have also better aligned with current international standards on CCP regulation,20 as well as the revisions to such standards.21Amendment to the Effective Date OrderAs Yogi Berra famously proclaimed: “It is déjà vu all over again.” Yogi perfectly encapsulates my feelings today. I support the proposal, as I did last time, because it is important for the Commission to provide market participants and the public with the form of relief the exemptive order is contemplating, but I would have preferred that this rule, like its predecessor, not select an arbitrary end date. Mr. Chairman, I again renew my call for a comprehensive rulemaking schedule and implementation plan, that provides greater insight on reporting requirements to swap data repositories as well as separate rulemaking on real-time and block rules. The Commission must also provide some certainty on the clearing and trading mandate including clarification of “made available for trading” and guidance on swap clearing. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Statements of Support by Chairman Gary Gensler
Position LimitsI support the final rulemaking to establish position limits for physical commodity derivatives. The CFTC does not set or regulate prices. Rather, the Commission is charged with a significant responsibility to ensure the fair, open and efficient functioning of derivatives markets. Our duty is to protect both market participants and the American public from fraud, manipulation and other abuses.Position limits have served since the Commodity Exchange Act passed in 1936 as a tool to curb or prevent excessive speculation that may burden interstate commerce.When the CFTC set position limits in the past, the agency sought to ensure that the markets were made up of a broad group of market participants with no one speculator having an outsize position. At the core of our obligations is promoting market integrity, which the agency has historically interpreted to include ensuring that markets do not become too concentrated.Position limits help to protect the markets both in times of clear skies and when there is a storm on the horizon. In 1981, the Commission said that “the capacity of any contract market to absorb the establishment and liquidation of large speculative positions in an orderly manner is related to the relative size of such positions, i.e., the capacity of the market is not unlimited.”In the Dodd-Frank Act, Congress mandated that the CFTC set aggregate position limits for certain physical commodity derivatives. The Dodd-Frank Act broadened the CFTC’s position limits authority to include aggregate position limits on certain swaps and certain linked contracts traded on foreign boards of trade in addition to U.S. futures and options on futures. Congress also narrowed the exemptions traditionally available from position limits by modifying the definition of bona fide hedge transaction, which particularly would affect swap dealers.Today’s final rule implements these important new provisions. The final rule fulfills the Congressional mandate that we set aggregate position limits that, for the first time, apply to both futures and economically equivalent swaps, as well as linked contracts on foreign boards of trade. The final rule establishes federal position limits in 28 referenced commodities in agricultural, energy and metals markets.Per Congress’s direction, the rule implements one position limits regime for the spot month and another for single-month and all-months combined limits. It implements spot-month limits, which are currently set in agriculture, energy and metals markets, sooner than the single-month or all-months-combined limits. Spot-month limits are set for futures contracts that can by physically settled as well as those swaps and futures that can only be cash-settled. We are seeking additional comment as part of an interim final rule on these spot month limits with regard to cash-settled contracts.Single-month and all-months-combined limits, which currently are only set for certain agricultural contracts, will be re-established in the energy and metals markets and be extended to certain swaps. These limits will be set using a formula that is consistent with that which the CFTC has used to set position limits for decades. The limits will be set by a Commission order based upon data on the total size of the swaps and futures market collected through the position reporting rule the Commission finalized in July. It is only with the passage and implementation of the Dodd-Frank Act that the Commission now has broad authority to collect data in the swaps market.The final rule also implements Congress’s direction to narrow exemptions while also ensuring that bona fide hedge exemptions are available for producers and merchants.The final position limits rulemaking builds on more than two years of significant public input. The Commission benefited from more than 15,100 comments received in response to the January 2011proposal. We first held three public meetings on this issue in the summer of 2009 and got a great deal of input from market participants and the broader public. We also benefited from the more than 8,200 comments we received in response to the January 2010 proposed rulemaking to re-establish position limits in the energy markets. We further benefited from input received from the public after a March 2010 meeting on the metals markets.Clearinghouse Core PrinciplesI support the final rulemaking on core principles for derivatives clearing organizations (DCOs). Centralized clearing has been a feature of the U.S. futures markets since the late-19th century. Clearinghouses have functioned both in clear skies and during stormy times – through the Great Depression, numerous bank failures, two world wars, and the 2008 financial crisis – to lower risk to the economy. Importantly, centralized clearing protects banks and their customers from the risk of either party failing.When customers don’t clear their transactions, they take on their dealer’s credit risk. We have seen over many decades, however, that banks do fail. Centralized clearing protects all market participants by requiring daily mark to market valuations and requiring collateral to be posted by both parties so that both the swap dealer and its customers are protected if either fails. It lowers the interconnectedness between financial entities that helped spread risk throughout the economy when banks began to fail in 2008.Today’s rulemaking will establish certain regulatory requirements for DCOs to implement important core principles that were revised by the Dodd-Frank Act. We recognize the need for very robust risk management standards, particularly as more swaps are moved into central clearinghouses. We have incorporated the newest draft Committee on Payment and Settlement Systems (CPSS)-International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) standards for central counterparties into our final rules.First, the financial resources and risk management requirements will strengthen financial integrity and enhance legal certainty for clearinghouses. We’re adopting a requirement that DCOs collect initial margin on a gross basis for its clearing member’s customer accounts For interest rates and financial index swaps, such as credit default swaps, we are maintaining, as proposed, a minimum margin for a five-day liquidation period. This is consistent with current market practice, and many commenters recommended this as a minimum. For the clearing of physical commodity swaps, such as on energy, metals and agricultural products, we are requiring margin that is risk-based but consistent with current market practice – a minimum of one day.Maintaining a minimum five day liquidation period for interest rates and credit default swaps is appropriate not only as it is consistent with current market practice, but also as these markets are the most systemically relevant for the interconnected financial system. History shows that, in 2008, it took five days after the failure of Lehman Brothers for the clearinghouse to transfer Lehman’s interest rate swaps positions to other clearing members. These financial resource requirements, and particularly the margin requirements, are critical for safety and soundness as more swaps are moved into central clearing.Second, the rulemaking implements the Dodd-Frank Act’s requirement for open access to DCOs. The participant eligibility requirements promote fair and open access to clearing. Importantly, the rule addresses how a futures commission merchant can become a member of a DCO. The rule promotes more inclusiveness while allowing DCO to scale a member’s participation and risk based upon its capital. This improves competition that will benefit end-users of swaps, while protecting DCOs’ ability manage risk.Third, the reporting requirements will ensure that the Commission has the information it needs to monitor DCO compliance with the Commodity Exchange Act and Commission regulations.Fourth, the rules formalize the DCO application procedures to bring about greater uniformity and transparency in the application process and facilitate greater efficiency and consistency in processing applications.These reforms will both lower risk in the financial system and strengthen the market by making many of the processes more efficient and consistent.Proposed Amendment to Dodd-Frank Rulemaking Effective DatesI support the proposed amendment to the July 14th Exemptive Order regarding the effective dates of certain Dodd-Frank Act provisions.The July 14th order provided relief until December 31, 2011, or when the definitional rulemakings become effective, whichever is sooner, from certain provisions that would otherwise apply to swaps or swap dealers on July 16. This includes provisions that do not directly rely on a rule to be promulgated, but do refer to terms that must be further defined by the CFTC and SEC, such as “swap” and “swap dealer.”Commission staff is working very closely with Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) staff on rules relating to entity and product definitions. Staff is making great progress, and we anticipate taking up the further definition of entities in the near term and product definitions shortly thereafter.As these definitional rulemakings have yet to be finalized or become effective, today’s proposed amendment would provide relief through July 16, 2012, or when the definitional rulemakings become effective – whichever is sooner.The order also provided relief through no later than December 31, 2011, from certain CEA requirements that may apply as the result of the repeal, effective on July 16, 2011, of CEA sections 2(d), 2(e), 2(g), 2(h) and 5d. The proposed amendment also extends this relief to July 16, 2012, or until a date the Commission may otherwise determine with respect to a particular requirement under the CEA.In addition, today’s proposed amendment also tailors the July 14threlief in light of the Commission’s actions finalizing the agricultural swap rules.
more
…
Gene Testing
Gene Therapy
Privacy
Patenting
Forensics
Human Migration
Behavior
Genetics and Patenting
Basic Information FAQs Glossary Acronyms Links Genetics 101 Publications Media Guide
About the Project What is it? Goals Landmark Papers Sequence Databases Timeline History Ethical Issues Benefits Genetics 101 FAQs
Medicine &the New Genetics Home Gene Testing Gene Therapy Pharmacogenomics Disease Information Genetic Counseling
Ethical, Legal,Social Issues Home Privacy Legislation Gene Testing Gene Therapy Patenting Forensics Genetically Modified Food Behavioral Genetics Minorities, Race, Genetics Human Migration
Education Teachers Students Careers Webcasts Images Videos Chromosome Poster Presentations Genetics 101 Genética Websites en Español
Research Home Sequence Databases Landmark Papers Insights
Publications Chromosome Poster Primer Molecular Genetics List of All Publications
Search This Site
Contact Us Privacy Statement Site Stats and Credits Site Map
Quick Links to this Page
What are patents, and how do they work?
Patenting Gene Fragments, SNPS, Proteins, Genes, Gene Tests, and Stem Cells
Why patent?
What are some of the potential arguments in favor of gene patenting?
What are some of the potential arguments against gene patenting?
What laws govern gene patenting?
How does genome information placed in the public domain work? Who can use it?
What are patents, and how do they work?
The patentability of inventions under U.S. law is determined by the Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in the Department of Commerce. A patent application is judged on four criteria. The invention must be "useful" in a practical sense (the inventor must identify some useful purpose for it), "novel" (i.e., not known or used before the filing), and "nonobvious" (i.e., not an improvement easily made by someone trained in the relevant area). The invention also must be described in sufficient detail to enable one skilled in the field to use it for the stated purpose (sometimes called the "enablement" criterion).
In general, raw products of nature are not patentable. DNA products usually become patentable when they have been isolated, purified, or modified to produce a unique form not found in nature.
The USPTO has 3 years to issue a patent. In Europe, the timeframe is 18 months. The USPTO is adopting a similar system. Patents are good for 20 years from filing date.
In the United States, patent priority is based on the "first to invent" principle: whoever made the invention first (and can prove it) is awarded property rights for the 20-year period. Inventors have a one-year grace period to file after they publish. All other countries except the Philippines, however, follow a "first inventor to file" rule in establishing priority when granting patents.
Many biotech patents have been applied for as provisional patents. This means that persons or companies filing the provisional patent application have up to one year to file their actual patent claim. The provisional patent must contain a written description of said invention and the names of the inventors. This one-year grace period does not count as one of the 20 years that the patent is issued for.
When a biotechnology patent involving an altered product of nature is issued, the patent holder is required to deposit a sample of the new invention into one of the 26 worldwide culture depositories. Most DNA-related patents are issued by the USPTO, the European Patent Office, or the Japanese Patent Office.
Currently over three million genome-related patent applications have been filed. U.S. patent applications are confidential until a patent is issued, so determining which sequences are the subject of patent applications is impossible. Those who use sequences from public databases today risk facing a future injunction if those sequences turn out to be patented by a private company on the basis of previously filed patent applications.
Patenting Genes, Gene Fragments, SNPS, Gene Tests, Proteins, and Stem Cells
In terms of genetics, inventors must (1) identify novel genetic sequences, (2) specify the sequence's product, (3) specify how the product functions in nature --ie, its use (4) enable one skilled in the field to use the sequence for its stated purpose
Genes and Gene Fragments USPTO has issued a few patents for gene fragments. Full sequence and function often are not known for gene fragments. On pending applications, their utility has been identified by such vague definitions as providing scientific probes to help find a gene or another EST or to help map a chromosome. Questions have arisen over the issue of when, from discovery to development into useful products, exclusive right to genes could be claimed.
The 300- to 500-base gene fragments, called expressed sequence tags (ESTs), represent only 10 to 30% of the average cDNA, and the genomic genes are often 10 to 20 times larger than the cDNA. A cDNA molecule is a laboratory-made version of a gene that contains only its information-rich (exon) regions; these molecules provide a way for genome researchers to fast-forward through the genome to biologically important areas. The original chromosomal locations and biological functions of the full genes identified by ESTs are unknown in most cases.
Patent applications for such gene fragments have sparked controversy among scientists, many of whom have urged the USPTO not to grant broad patents in this early stage of human genome research to applicants who have neither characterized the genes nor determined their functions and uses.
In December 1999, the USPTO issued stiffer interim guidelines (made final in January 2001) stating that more usefulness—specifically how the product functions in nature—must now be shown before gene fragments are considered patentable. The new rules call for "specific and substantial utility that is credible," but some still feel the rules are too lax.
The patenting of gene fragments is controversial. Some say that patenting such discoveries is inappropriate because the effort to find any given EST is small compared with the work of isolating and characterizing a gene and gene product, finding out what it does, and developing a commercial product. They feel that allowing holders of such "gatekeeper" patents to exercise undue control over the commercial fruits of genome research would be unfair. Similarly, allowing multiple patents on different parts of the same genome sequence --say on a gene fragment, the gene, and the protein-- adds undue costs to the researcher who wants to examine the sequence. Not only does the researcher have to pay each patent holder via licensing for the opportunity to study the sequence, he also has to pay his own staff to research the different patents and determine which are applicable to the area of the genome he wants to study.
SNPsSingle nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are DNA sequence variations that occur when a single nucleotide (A,T,C,or G) in the genome sequence is altered. For example a SNP might change the DNA sequence AAGGCTAA to ATGGCTAA. SNPs occur every 100 to 1000 bases along the 3-billion-base human genome. SNPs can occur in both coding (gene) and noncoding regions of the genome. Many SNPs have no effect on cell function, but scientists believe others could predispose people to disease or influence their response to a drug.
Variations in DNA sequence can have a major impact on how humans respond to disease; environmental insults such as bacteria, viruses, toxins, and chemicals; and drugs and other therapies. This makes SNPs of great value for biomedical research and for developing pharmaceutical products or medical diagnostics. Scientists believe SNP maps will help them identify the multiple genes associated with such complex diseases as cancer, diabetes, vascular disease, and some forms of mental illness. These associations are difficult to establish with conventional gene-hunting methods because a single altered gene may make only a small contribution to the disease.
In April 1999, ten large pharmaceutical companies and the U.K. Wellcome Trust philanthropy announced the establishment of a non-profit foundation to find and map 300,000 common SNPs (they found 1.8 million). Their goal was to generate a widely accepted, high-quality, extensive, publicly available map using SNPs as markers evenly distributed throughout the human genome. The consortium planned to patent all the SNPs found but to enforce the patents only to prevent others from patenting the same information. Information found by the consortium is freely available.
Gene TestsAs disease genes are found, complementary gene tests are developed to screen for the gene in humans who suspect they may be at risk for developing the disease. These tests are usually patented and licensed by the owners of the disease gene patent. Royalties are due the patent holder each time the tests are administered, and only licensed entities can conduct the tests.
ProteinsProteins do the work of the cell. A complete set of genetic information is contained in each cell. This information provides a specific set of instructions to the body. The body carries out these instructions via proteins. Genes encode proteins.
All living organisms are composed largely of proteins, which have three main cellular functions: to provide cell structure and be involved in cell signaling and cell communication functions. Enzymes are proteins.
Proteins are important to researchers because they are the links between genes and pharmaceutical development. They indicate which genes are expressed or are being used. Important for understanding gene function, proteins also have unique shapes or structures. Understanding these structures and how potential pharmaceuticals will bind to them is a key element in drug design.
Stem CellsTherapeutic cloning, also called "embryo cloning" or "cloning for biomedical research," is the production of human embryos for use in research. The goal of this process is not to create cloned human beings but rather to harvest stem cells that can be used to study human development and treat disease. Stem cells are important to biomedical researchers because they can be used to generate virtually any type of specialized cell in the human body. See the Cloning page for more information on therapeutic and other types of cloning.
Cell lines and genetically modified single-cell organisms are considered patentable material. One of the earliest cases involving the patentability of single-cell organisms was Diamond v. Chakrabarty in 1980, in which the Supreme Court ruled that genetically modified bacteria were patentable.
Patents for stem cells from monkeys and other organisms already have been issued. Therefore, based on past court rulings, human embryonic stem cells are technically patentable. A lot of social and legal controversy has developed in response to the potential patentability of human stem cells. A major concern is that patents for human stem cells and human cloning techniques violate the principle against the ownership of human beings. In the U.S. patent system, patents are granted based on existing technical patent criteria. Ethical concerns have not influenced this process in the past, but, the stem cell debate may change this. It will be interesting to see how patent law regarding stem cell research will play out.(1)
Why patent?
Research scientists who work in public institutions often are troubled by the concept of intellectual property because their norms tell them that science will advance more rapidly if researchers enjoy free access to knowledge. By contrast, the law of intellectual property rests on an assumption that, without exclusive rights, no one will be willing to invest in research and development (R&D).
Patenting provides a strategy for protecting inventions without secrecy. A patent grants the right to exclude others from making, using, and selling the invention for a limited term, 20 years from application filing date in most of the world. To get a patent, an inventor must disclose the invention fully so as to enable others to make and use it. Within the realm of industrial research, the patent system promotes more disclosure than would occur if secrecy were the only means of excluding competitors. This is less clear in the case of public-sector research, which typically is published with or without patent protection.
The argument for patenting public-sector inventions is a variation on the standard justification for patents in commercial settings. The argument is that postinvention development costs typically far exceed preinvention research outlays, and firms are unwilling to make this substantial investment without protection from competition. Patents thus facilitate transfer of technology to the private sector by providing exclusive rights to preserve the profit incentives of innovating firms. Patents are generally considered to be very positive. In the case of genetic patenting, it is the scope and number of claims that has generated controversy.
What are some of the potential arguments for gene patenting?
Researchers are rewarded for their discoveries and can use monies gained from patenting to further their research
The investment of resources is encouraged by providing a monopoly to the inventor and prohibiting competitors from making, using, or selling the invention without a license.
Wasteful duplication of effort is prevented.
Research is forced into new, unexplored areas.
Secrecy is reduced and all researchers are ensured access to the new invention.
What are some of the potential arguments against gene patenting?
Patents of partial and uncharacterized cDNA sequences will reward those who make routine discoveries but penalize those who determine biological function or application (inappropriate reward given to the easiest step in the process).
Patents could impede the development of diagnostics and therapeutics by third parties because of the costs associated with using patented research data.
Patent stacking (allowing a single genomic sequence to be patented in several ways such as an EST, a gene, and a SNP) may discourage product development because of high royalty costs owed to all patent owners of that sequence; these are costs that will likely be passed on to the consumer.
Because patent applications remain secret until granted, companies may work on developing a product only to find that new patents have been granted along the way, with unexpected licensing costs and possible infringement penalties.
Costs increase not only for paying for patent licensing but also for determining what patents apply and who has rights to downstream products.
Patent holders are being allowed to patent a part of nature --a basic constituent of life; this allows one organism to own all or part of another organism.
Private biotechs who own certain patents can monopolize certain gene test markets.
Patent filings are replacing journal articles as places for public disclosure --reducing the body of knowledge in the literature.
What does U.S. patent policy say about gene patenting?
1980 Diamond v. Chakrabarty Prior to 1980, life forms were considered a part of nature and were not patentable. Diamond v. Chakrabarty changed this with the 5 to 4 U.S. Supreme Court decision that genetically engineered (modified) bacteria were patentable because they did not occur naturally in nature. In this case, Chakrabarty had modified a bacteria to create an oil-dissolving bioengineered microbe.
Since Diamond v. Chakrabarty, patents have been issued on whole genes whose function is known. More recently, inventors began to seek patents on sequences of DNA that were less than a whole gene. The Patent Office has developed guidelines on how to deal with these fragments since they often do not have a known function.
Some patents have been granted for fragments of DNA. That presents the problem of someone trying to patent a larger fragment or gene that contains the already patented sequence. Questions have been raised as to whether the second inventor will need to obtain a license from the first or whether he can obtain the patent without the first patent holder's permission. These types of questions are likely to arise in the near future and will most likely be resolved in courts designated to hear patent actions.
Patents have been prohibited by Congress in only a few cases where the issuance of a patent was contrary to the public interest. An example of this was the prohibition of patents on nuclear weapons. The American Medical Association has made a similar request against the patenting of medical and surgical procedures.
U.S. House of Representatives Oversight Hearing on "Gene Patents and Other Genomic Inventions" Thursday, July 13, 2000. Related HGN article.
How does genome information placed in the public domain work? Who can use it?
All genome sequence generated by the Human Genome Project has been deposited into GenBank, a public database freely accessible by anyone with a connection to the Internet. For an introduction on how to search GenBank and other nucleotide databases at the National Center of Biotechnology Information, see the Gene and Protein Database Guide and a related tutorial available at Gene Gateway, an online guide to learning about genes, proteins, and disorders.
Disseminating information in the public domain encourages widespread use of information, minimizes transaction costs, and makes R&D cheaper and faster. Of particular relevance to research science, a vigorous public domain can supply a meeting place for people, information, and ideas that might not find each other in the course of more organized, licensed encounters. Information in the public domain is accessible to users who otherwise would be priced out of the market.
Related Links
Patent and Intellectual Property Organizations
US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) - Search patent databases.
European Patent Office
World Intellectual Property Organization
General Patent Information
General Information Concerning Patents - From US Patent and Trademark Office.
Frequently Asked Questions about Patents - From US Patent and Trademark Office.
How Patents Work - From the Howstuffworks Web site.
Patent Law for Non-lawyers - Tutorial from DNAPatent.com.
Gene Patenting
Government Resources
An Introduction to Issues Underlying Patent Policy for the Emerging Genetic Information and Medical Treatment Industry - Joint Institute for Energy and the Environment report by David J. Bjornstad (Oak Ridge National Laboratory) and Christine Dümmer (Hull, Dümmer, and Garland), August 2002.
Gene Patent Guidelines - From the USPTO, January 5, 2001.
Web Sites
Gene Patenting - From the American Medical Association.
A Primer on Gene Patents --From the American Medical Student Association, 2001.
Primer: Genome and Genetic Research, Patent Protection and 21st Century Medicine - From the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), July 2000.
Biotechnology and Gene Patents - Collection of gene patent information from the Consumer Project on Technology.
Statements and Position Papers
The Human Genome Organisation (HUGO) Statement on the Patenting of DNA Sequences - April 2000.
The Human Genome Organisation (HUGO) Statement on the Patenting of DNA Sequences - January 1995.
Educator Resources
To Own or Not to Own DNA - Two lessons targeted to high school students from actionbioscience.org, March 2002.
…
is research facility to seize a breakthrough cancer treatment called GcMAFMonday, July 27, 2015 by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
<a href="http://ox-d.beforeitsnews.com/w/1.0/rc?cs=5125e7a33c8bf&cb=INSERT_RANDOM_NUMBER_HERE" ><img src="http://ox-d.beforeitsnews.com/w/1.0/ai?auid=326914&cs=5125e7a33c8bf&cb=INSERT_RANDOM_NUMBER_HERE" border="0" alt=""></a>
(NaturalNews) The history of the suppression of medical science in America is a long one, filled with true accounts of pioneering doctors and clinicians being threatened, intimidated and even assassinated in order to bury emerging cures and keep the “sick care” industry in control. (The American Medical Association, for example, has been found guilty by the U.S. federal courts of a conspiracy to destroy the chiropractic industry, by the way.)
Over the last few days, we’ve learned that before being found shot in the chest and floating in the river, pioneering medical researcher Dr. Bradstreet was working with a little-known molecule that occurs naturally in the human body. Called, “GcMAF”, this molecule has the potential to be a universal cancer cure for many people. It has also been shown to reverse signs of autism in the vast majority of patients receiving the treatment.
While GcMAF is perfectly legal as a treatment in dozens of advanced nations around the world, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has outlawed it, calling it an “unapproved drug.” It is with this designation — an effort to suppress the forward progress of medical science — that the U.S. government conducted a raid on Dr. Bradstreet’s clinic, specifically seeking to confiscate GcMAF in order to shut down his research and halt his treatment of patients. Meanwhile, Big Pharma gets special permission to unleash untested, experimental drugs on the public as long as those drugs earn sufficient profits.
In this article, I summarize the videos, articles and documents covering GcMAF and the mysterious death of Dr. Bradstreet. An exhaustive investigation needs to be pursued on this matter, possibly involving private investigators. The timing and manner of Dr. Bradstreet’s death seems highly suspicious, especially in light of the many other holistic doctors who have recently been found dead under mysterious circumstances. (Dr. Nicholas Gonzalez died just days ago…)
Is there a motive for the murder of pioneering cancer researchers working on a possible universal cancer cure? Of course there is… it’s the most common motive in the world: MONEY A universal cancer cure would destroy the profitability of the highly lucrative cancer industry and collapse the American Cancer Society, hospitals, oncology clinics and pharmaceutical companies that depend on chemotherapy revenues to stay profitable. Key to their profitability is the inescapable fact that conventional cancer treatments simply don’t work most of the time, creating a reliable profit stream of repeat business from patients who are never cured (by design).
Would the cancer industry murder doctors to protect its profits? Of course it would. The industry kills patients as a routine part of its business operations! For example, an oncologist named Farid Fata was recently sentenced to 56 years in prison for falsely diagnosing patients with cancer so that he could sell them chemotherapy treatments they didn’t need. See the article Cancer doctors ‘fess up to making false diagnoses just to make more money.
Click here to search for “cancer false diagnosis” at GoodGopher.com, the search engine for truth seekers.
INVESTIGATION: Here’s what we know so farMultiple hat tips to all the outstanding citizen journalists, video creators and bloggers who have created the items cited below:
U.S. govt. search warrant document served against Dr. Jeffrey Bradstreet to confiscate GcMAF from his research facility.
Video that connects the dots between Dr. Bradstreet, GcMAF, cancer cures and the suppression of medical science by the U.S. government.
Video detailing the Dr. Bradstreet search warrant, served June 30, during which the U.S. government seized GcMAF from Dr. Bradstreet’s research clinic:
EzekielDiet.com story that covers the apparent series of murders of holistic doctors, many of whom are working on advanced treatment protocols that render high-profit sectors of conventional medicine OBSOLETE:Yet another doctor was just found murdered inside his home here on the East Coast of Florida. This makes six doctors to be found dead in the last month just from this region of the country alone. Four out of the six were found dead here in Florida. We lost the holistic Dr. Teresa Sievers, MD, who was found murdered in her Florida home just weeks ago. We’ve also lost the alternative Dr. Jeff Bradstreet, MD, who was found in a river with a gunshot to his chest. He’d recently moved to Georgia from Florida. We’ve also lost the Osteopath. Dr. Riley, who was found in Georgia at her home; just a few hours from the Florida border. She was found with a gunshot wound to her head. Now we’ve lost Dr. Schwartz MD, who was found murdered in his home, on Sunday, July 19th, 2015. This was four weeks to the day after the death of the first physician: (Dr. Bradstreet MD) who I broke the story on a month ago. His family is still seeking answers as to what happened to him and they’re some of the kindest people I know. The latest MD, Dr. Schwartz, in the picture above, lived just north of the fit, healthy, holistic Dr. Hedendal; who was the second doctor to be found dead this past Father’s Day, in Boca Raton. This was the same day that Dr. Holt died at the age of 33. Both were fathers; and again, both men died here in Florida on June 21st, 2015.
SCIENCE.NaturalNews.com entry describing the extraordinary benefits of GcMAF in a published study:
Stepwise incubation of purified Gc protein with immobilized beta-galactosidase and sialidase generated probably the most potent macrophage activating factor (termed GcMAF) ever discovered, which produces no adverse effect in humans…
After about 16-22 administrations (approximately 3.5-5 months) of GcMAF, these patients had insignificantly low serum enzyme levels equivalent to healthy control enzyme levels, ranging from 0.38 to 0.63 nmole/min/mg protein, indicating eradication of the tumors. This therapeutic procedure resulted in no recurrence for more than 4 years.
In other words, the administration of GcMAF eradicated tumors and left patients cancer-free for 4+ years with no additional treatment!
BOTH USA AND UK ‘GOVERNMENTS’ DESPERATELY SEIZING ALL SUPPLY, SHUTTING DOWN CLINICS, EVEN AS MILLIONS DIE FROM CANCER EVERY DECADE….
UK govt. admission that GcMAF was on track to being commercialized as a pioneering cancer treatment, so they had to confiscate it!
GcMAF (Globulin component Macrophage Activating Factor), a blood product, claims to treat a range of conditions including cancer, HIV and autism…
More than 10,000 vials were seized at this site and production of this unlicensed medicine has now ceased. These products were sold through various European websites and UK patients may have bought it from one of these websites. We are working with colleagues in other countries to alert them to the potential risks. Our investigations are ongoing and we have received no reports to date of side effects caused by this product.
That same page lists some of the websites where GcMAF had been available for purchase:
www.GcMAF.eu www.immunobiotech.eu www.immunocentre.eu www.petgcmaf.com www.firstimmune.fr www.firstimmune.de www.firstimmune.it www.gcmaf.gr www.gcmaf.se www.gcmaf.es www.gcmaf.ru www.gcmaf.pl
GcMAF is readily available as a medical treatment in Japan. This site explains:
GcMAF (Gc Protein derived Macrophage Activating Factor) – Gc MAF treatment is a highly effective macrophage activating therapy, used to stimulate the immune system and activate macrophages so that they can destroy cancer cells and other abnormal cells in the body.
From the FAQ page of the treatment clinic:
What exactly is Second Generation GcMAF? High Dose Second Generation Gc-MAF is produced using our new Patent Pending process which was developed here in Japan by Saisei Mirai in collaboration with Dr Hitoshi Hori and Dr Yoshihiro Uto at the University of Tokushima who have been studying GcMAF for over 20 years. Studies on GcMAF began at the University of Tokushima in 1992, after they were introduced to Dr Nobuto Yamamoto’s work and a collaboration began…
Second Generation GcMAF is made using a new and improved 2nd generation method of Gc-MAF production which is 10-20 times more concentrated and is more active and stable than other GcMAF that is currently available. Importantly, this much higher concentration GcMAF has been clinically demonstrated to be largely free of any side effects in the great majority of patients and is much more stable because it is resistant to oxidation.
That same site describes Oral GcMAF as follows: “Oral GcMAF is a form of GcMAF produced from bovine colostrum by Saisei Mirai which was developed in collaboration with Tokushima University.”
It also lists the following health conditions as being treatable with GcMAF, potentially a “universal cancer cure” substance:
Gc-MAF and/or oral Colostrum MAF macrophage activation therapy is indicated in the treatment of any diseases where there is immune dysfunction or where the immune system is compromised, such as:
Cancer Autoimmune diseases Epstein-Barr Virus (EBV) Hepatitis B virus (HBV) Herpes Simplex virus (HSV) Cystitis Hepatitis C virus (HCV) Multiple sclerosis (MS) Urinary tract infection (UTI) Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD) Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) Endometriosis Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) Lyme disease (Lyme borreliosis) IgA deficiency disorder Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME) Mycobacteria infections Parkinson’s disease Tuberculosis Fibromyalgia Human papillomavirus (HPV) Lupus (Systemic lupus erythematosus, SLE) HIV AIDS Dengue fever Pneumonia infection Warts caused by viral infection Norovirus Malaria Influenza virus (flu) Herpes simplex virus (HSV) Q fever (Coxiella burnetii) Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) Chicken pox (varicella zoster virus) Psoriasis Respiratory tract infections Ulcerative colitis, Crohn’s disease Type 1 diabetes (T1DM), insulin-dependent diabetes (IDDM) Type 1.5 diabetes, Latent autoimmune diabetes of adults (LADA)
Do you see yet why the medical establishment must SUPPRESS GcMAF and destroy all knowledge of its clinical applications? This one substance holds the potential to render numerous vaccines and pharmaceuticals utterly obsolete.
GcMAF protein described at NaturalHealth365.com:
Researchers and practitioners have demonstrated that GcMAF can reverse diseases that attack the immune system such as: chronic inflammation, bacterial and viral infections, chronic herpes, chronic acne, Lyme disease, fibromyalgia osteoporosis, Hodgkin’s, Lupus, MS, Parkinson’s and remarkably – autism.
A clinical study out of Italy on 94 children with autism showed that 83 of them made considerable progress while on GcMAF. The most common reported improvements involve:
• Cognitive abilities including attention and focus, learning and understanding, receptiveness and awareness of the environment and both receptive and expressive language gains.
• Social Skills including willingness to interact and communicate with peers.
• Behavior including less hyperactivity, less stereotypical behaviors and improved cooperation and compliance.
In another study of 1500 children with autism, 85% had high levels of viruses and a compromised immune system. All 1500 received weekly GcMAF injections and 70% of the children responded to the treatment with reduced symptoms and another 15% made full recoveries. The other 15% did not respond.
It was stated that the reduction of autistic symptoms is permanent provided that GcMAF has been taken long enough for the body to produce its own GcMAF which typically takes 24 weeks.
THE SYSTEMATIC SUPPRESSION OF MEDICAL SCIENCE TO PROTECT THE LUCRATIVE CANCER TREATMENT INDUSTRY (chemotherapy, oncology, radiotherapy, etc.)ANH-EUROPE.org covers the systematic suppression of advanced cancer treatments and cures:
Back in 1993, Nobuto Yamamoto, then working at Temple University School of Medicine in Philadelphia, PA, USA, first described a remarkable molecule. His paper reported the conversion of vitamin D3 binding protein (DBP, known in humans as Gc) into a potent macrophage-activating factor (MAF), known as Gc-MAF. Macrophages are a key part of the human immune system with two roles: to engulf and destroy pathogens and cellular debris, and to recruit other immune cells to respond to the pathogen.
Gc-MAF hasn’t had the benefit of a single patent owner – as a natural molecule, it cannot be patented without being modified – with the will and resources to push it under the noses of the public and health authorities. Dr Yamamoto has run small human trials in breast, prostate and colorectal cancers, with promising results.
David Noakes might just be the person to bring Gc-MAF into the mainstream. He’s the CEO of Immuno Biotech Ltd. and spokesperson for First Immune Gc-MAF, a project he describes as, “PhD and BSc biochemists and biomedical scientists… with external doctors, oncologists and scientists who kindly provide advice, committed to bringing some of the increasing number of published but relatively unused medical cures to as many people as we can.” At the moment, Noakes and his colleagues are supplying Gc-MAF to 30 countries where it is legal, via a network of “around 300″ doctors. Their Gc-MAF is made to extremely high standards, and is being used in ongoing clinical research by Noakes’ collaborators and others. Their ultimate goal is to, “Build the case that GcMAF is effective for various illnesses, which will help to make it available to the public”. GcMAF suppliers fighting for survival against a global medical monopoly that profits from disease
MUST-SEE website: http://gcmaf.se/
From the site:
The medical laws have been changed over the last 40 years so that all the brilliant breakthroughs in cancer are denied to the British public. Lord Maurice Saatchi had to watch his wife die, while his doctor told him the only thing he was allowed to prescribe her was chemotherapy, which would shorten her life. He hopes to bring the Medical Innovation Bill to Parliament, so instead of obeying a destructive government law, a doctor will be able to prescribe whatever treatment is best for the patient…
Bad law kills, and Britain has the worst medical laws in Europe. The 1939 Cancer Act makes it illegal to discuss the possibility cancer can be cured, which is partly why 160,000 people die unnecessarily of cancer in Britain every year. Science and treatments are decades ahead of where the medical industry is today. The MHRA’s job is to get life saving treatments like GcMAF out to people as quickly as possible. Instead they block them to protect billion dollar Big Pharma monopolies, who also fund the MHRA. Over a hundred thousand lives could be saved every year if the 1939 Cancer Act were repealed, and the MHRA were closed down.
There are 142 eminent scientists who have published GcMAF research papers on the US National Library of Medicine alone.
From the how GcMAF works page:
Your GcMAF empowers your body to cure itself. In a healthy person your own GcMAF has 11 actions discovered so far, including two on cells, three excellent effects on the brain, and 6 on cancer. Amongst these it acts as a “director” of your immune system. But viruses and malignant cells like cancer send out an enzyme called Nagalase that prevents production of your GcMAF: that stops its 11 beneficial effects, and neutralises your immune system. So diseases become chronic, and cancer cells grow unchecked.
Minutes after a receiving a dose, 10 of the body’s actions restart. In three weeks of two GcMAF 0.25ml doses a week, your immune system is rebuilt to above normal strength. You need two doses a week for typically 24 weeks for many diseases and early cancers, up to seven one ml doses a week and a year for stage 4 cancers. Your body then takes the disease down without side effects, and successfully in 80% of cases -depending upon how well you follow the protocol under “Treatment Protocol” on this website.
What is GcMAF? It is a human protein. One week’s GcMAF looks like a small raindrop. If properly produced it is perfectly sterile, and a most ethical course for doctors.
GcMAF is therefore a replacement therapy for those who can’t make their own. Taking GcMAF replaces the missing part of the immune system, and also acts as the body’s own internal medicine.
GcMAF is extracted and isolated; its a 24 step process, and at the end it must have tests to prove its sterility and activity. (If it does not come with published tests, its probably not GcMAF.) One GcMAF has been tested in universities, laboratories and clinics, where, as a result of the testing, consistent activity and sterility have always been found, and been the subject of 40 scientific research papers.
What does GcMAF do? The GcMAF Conference 2013 showed GcMAF is a far more powerful molecule than thought, both in terms of the science, and doctors’ results. In stage 4 cancer, some doctors who use the full protocol, listed on “Treatment Strategies,” are saving every patient (if they have not had chemotherapy.) Success can be achieved with all tumour cancers including breast, lung, prostate, pancreatic and melanoma.
GcMAF can eradicate chronic inflammation and viral infections. It is better than antibiotics in many areas, and 25% successful with Autism, 50% or more with Chronic Herpes, Chronic Acne, Chronic cirrhosis of the liver, Chronic kidney disease, Chronic depression, Colitis, Crohn’s, Fibromyalgia, Hepatitis, Herpes, LMBBS, ME/CFS, Osteoporosis, Periodontal disease, Psoriasis and various types of Immune dysfunction including allergies. Research shows GcMAF can halt deterioration in Parkinsons, multiple sclerosis (MS), dementia and ALS, and in its role of immune system regulator, can reverse diseases that attack the immune system like Lupus and Arthritis. And is effective with wound healing. Its successful with tumour cancers, and some others.
In addition to rebuilding a depressed immune system, GcMAF: Inhibits angiogenesis – stops blood supply to tumours Activates macrophages – phagocytosis and destruction of cancer cells Apoptosis – suicide of cancer cells Reverts the cancer cell phenotype to normal (Turns cancer cells into healthy cells) Reduces the metastatic potential of human cancer cells in culture. Increases energy production at the mitochondrial level – ME/CFS Improves human neuronal metabolic activity through cAMP signaling – autism, ME/CFS, MS, ALS Counters toxic effects including cadmium – ME/CFS
It abolishes neuropathic pain due to neuro-oxidative stress (stress due to the anti-cancer drug oxaliplatin) in the lab. (neurodegenerative diseases and autism that have oxidative stress as a pathogenetic mechanism) It increases neuronal connectivity by promoting differentiation and the formation of dendrites and neuritis (autism and ME/CFS, where there is a lack of connectivity between neurons).
See the 31 research papers published, particularly Brescia, and the 60 published by others listed under “The science”.
80% of terminal stage four tumour cancers cases can be saved (40% if they’ve had chemo), but usually when they are closely monitored, which is why residential Treatment Centres are being run in Switzerland. If they have three months to live and have not had chemo, almost no one needs to be lost.
The 180 scientists who have published papers on trials of GcMAF selected those in the early stages of cancer and HIV, and reported nearly 100 percent success, with no recurrence after many years. They did not attempt trials on people with large tumours.
Our trials are quite different: many people are over 50, some over 80, with advanced or terminal cancers, with significant tumour mass. Most come to us when their doctors tell them they can do no more.
The life of GcMAF is only six days – you have to keep taking it until your disease has gone (ie your nagalase is under 0.65 nmol/min/mg) then a further 8 weeks, or the immune system gets shut down again.
How long should you take GcMAF for? 8 weeks for chronic herpes/acne, fibromyalgia, inflammation. Allow 24 weeks plus of GcMAF for: Autism (85% improve, 25% eradication), CFS (70% eradication), HIV, Lyme (8% respond, most appear to have the VDR gene blocked and the viruses conceal themselves with biofilms) and stage 1 to 2 cancer, (80% respond). Late stage cancer, if you follow “Treatment Protocol” again has 80% responders, but it takes a year to 18 months to become cancer free. Cirrhosis of the liver: 16 months
Remember everyone responds differently. We can’t say how you will respond.
The more minor the disease, the easier it is for GcMAF to eradicate. GcMAF needs normal levels of vitamin D to function strongly (take 10,000iu a day). in low responders, larger doses are required.
We have probably proved GcMAF can work for people up to age 90, and can destroy large tumour mass. See “Participants experiences”.
If you have your blood taken for monocyte counts, relevant markers and vitamin D levels, and again for a nagalase test at the beginning, you should see on your next test after three weeks that your immune system is back to full strength, and after 8 weeks significantly falling nagalase will indicate the disease is losing its grip. Don’t stop the GcMAF until your nagalase gets below 0.65 nmol/min/mg, when it loses the ability to prevent your body producing your own GcMAF, and then you no longer need ours. Even better, get scans.
Autism children can improve at five weeks with substantial improvements at 8 weeks. See “Participants experiences.” But everyone is different.
The beauty of using your own immune system to attack disease or cancer is that it remembers how to defeat it for the rest of your life: it doesn’t come back. And unlike chemotherapy, the side effects are trivial.
The only way you can tell if GcMAF is genuine and active is to test with living cells in a laboratory. See “Quality and Tests of our GcMAF.” To recap:
We put live macrophages cells and MCF7 breast cancer cells together; nothing happens. Then we add GcMAF; in 72 hours the macrophages eat all the MCF7 cancer cells. We then put only GcMAF and MCF7 together, and the GcMAF turns the cancer cells back into healthy cells.
We have GcMAF available for preclinical trials. See “Buy GcMAF”.
You must read at least all of “Buy GcMAF” and “Treatment strategies” on the left if you want to take this further. And you must be prepared to give us feedback. Patent document on GcMAFSee the Yamamoto patent involving GcMAF:
Cancerous cells and HIV-infected cells secrete -N-acetylgalactosaminidase into the blood stream, resulting in deglycosylation of serum Gc protein. This inactivates the MAF precursor activity of Gc protein, leading to immunosuppression… When peripheral blood monocytes/macrophages of 175 cancer patients bearing various types of cancer were treated in vitro with 100 pg GcMAF/ml, monocytes/macrophages (phagocytes) of all cancer patients were activated for phagocytic and superoxide generating capacity. This observation indicates that patient phagocytes are capable of being activated…
Also see BetterHealthGuy.com coverage on GcMAF:
first heard about GcMAF almost a year ago. At the same time, I had first learned about “nagalase”, a blood test that is used to in part determine whether or not one might be a candidate for GcMAF therapy. Nagalase is an enzyme that prevents Vitamin D receptors (VDR) from being activated on the surface of the macrophage. As a result, macrophages are not “activated” and our immune systems are not able to properly respond to invaders.
Here are some points that I have learned thus far on GcMAF:
- GcMAF has reportedly been tested more for safety, purity, etc. than other human blood products. - Macrophages are cultured, destroyed, and the GcMAF receptors are purified. - Treatment is via injection 1x/week for 8-20 weeks. Dose is titrated initially to avoid exacerbation or Herx responses as much as possible. - A commonly used dose is .25ml once weekly (a 2.2 ml vial should last 8 injections). - The primary test used in looking at whether or not GcMAF may be a reasonable intervention is nagalase. - Nagalase inactivates macrophages. - I personally would NEVER consider this option without having a baseline nagalase test. Normal is < 0.95. Mine was 2.9.
The practitioner I worked with suggested that 2.9 was in the range of someone with HIV or cancer in terms of the impact on the immune system. I’d like to hear from others in the Lyme community as you get test results as well to see if there is a pattern of elevated nagalase in those with Lyme disease. Whether or not Lyme itself has anything to do with nagalase elevation is something I have not been able to find anything on. We certainly all have underlying viral co-factors that are likely in play as well, but I suspect that Borrelia may also play a role in nagalase elevation.
- In healthy college students, a nagalase 0.4 is not uncommon (the lower the better).
- At 2.9, my practitioner was surprised that I did not have more cognitive deficits such as memory loss and other cognitive issues.
- It has been suggested that ongoing antimicrobial therapy without a working immune system is like leaving the house with the door wide open inviting burglars in. By using GcMAF to activate macrophages, nagalase drops, and one may regain a functional immune system. The door is then closed to further invaders and we may no longer serve as a microbe hotel.
- Maintenance therapy should not be needed once the immune system is once again properly functioning.
- Activated macrophages only remain active for 7 days so any negative responses are generally short-lived. That said, some people do have strong inflammatory responses that are not believed to be typical die-off reactions.
- It has been indicated that in some cases, other medications may be needed in order to manage the inflammatory response. This is another reason that one needs to be working closely with a knowledgeable practitioner before considering GcMAF in my opinion. In the CFS and GcMAF world, this more severe form of a die-off reaction is called IRIS.
- VDR genetics do not seem to play a role in predicting response as earlier thought according to one practitioner that I have spoken with. That said, Vitamin D levels do correlate with the positive response rate of GcMAF. Thus, Vitamin D supplementation may be required in order to optimize outcome.
- Other than die-off reactions or activation of symptoms (inflammation), no other side effects are generally expected.
- Nagalase should be monitored every 1-2 months while on treatment to determine the required duration of the therapy. Target nagalase after treatment would be 0.4 to 0.6.
- Elevated nagalase has a profound detrimental effect on the immune system. Elevated nagalase is often presumed to be related to microbes of viral origin or cancer. Viruses that are nagalase producers open the door to chronic infections.
- Hemagglutinin contains nagalase and is also found in flagella of some bacteria so it could also be the case that some bacteria may produce nagalase.
- Parents with ASD children also often have elevated nagalase.
- A practitioner I spoke with likened Lyme disease to a “peat moss fire” burning below the surface. Activating macrophages should help to deal with the fire.
- GcMAF should be helpful in dealing with other infections that are not of viral origin; for example, Borrelia, Bartonella, and other infections commonly associated with Tick-Borne Infections (TBIs). GcMAF is active against many cancers and many different kinds of microbes.
- Neopterin is another test that is sometimes used as an indicator of immune suppression. As macrophages become activated, neopterin may rise and later fall. If one is in the normal range for neopterin and has an immune-related illness, this could be an indication that the immune system is suppressed and not responding appropriately.
- People with autoimmune conditions can generally use GcMAF. However, GcMAF may be contraindicated in people with Multiple Sclerosis.
- Reduction in nagalase is generally seen early in the course of treatment; within the first 3-6 weeks. In some studies, nagalase dropped by over 50% in less than six weeks.
- Cancer patients may initially feel as bad on GcMAF as they do on chemotherapy, but often feel much better after the first month.
- Anti-inflammatories may limited the effect of GcMAF.
- Enzymes and biofilm-reducing supplements may have a negative impact on GcMAF therapy and may be best avoided. It is still too early to know what the impact may be, but one practitioner I spoke with feels that it is best to avoid these.
- One should not be on any immune-suppressing agents while on GcMAF as the immune system must be partially functional in order to respond appropriately to the treatment.
- A common pattern is to see elevated lymphocytes, high nagalase, and low NK cells. Once nagalase drops, it may be the case that NK cell function could be positively impacted. CD57 is a type of NK cell. It is too early to know if this proves to be true, but it is one of the things I’m quite interested in.
Watch this video presentation on GcMAF therapy to learn more.
Read about GcMAF from Alternative-Health-Group.org.
Read The GcMAF Book at this link.
Open the “Stop Fighting Cancer” PDF document and search it for “GcMAF” to read some intriguing passages:
Researchers testing GcMAF stated it, “works 100% of the time to eradicate cancer completely, and cancer does not recur even years later.” (This was stated based on the tested group of patients -nothing works 100% for everyone) The weekly injection GcMAF, a harmless glyco-protein activates the human immune system which then can kill the growing cancer. Studies among breast cancer and colon cancer patients produced complete remissions lasting 4 and 7 years respectively. This glyco-protein ‘cure’ is totally without side effect but currently goes unused and completely ignored by cancer doctors. Why? Maybe it is because there is little money to be made in selling it. For less than $2000USD a cancer patient can obtain an adequate amount of GcMAC.
See the National Library of Medicine page Immunotherapy for Prostate Cancer with Gc Protein-Derived Macrophage-Activating Factor, GcMAF:
When human macrophages were treated in vitro with 100 pg GcMAF/ml for 3 hours and a prostate cancer cell line LNCaP was added with an effector/target ratio of 1.5, approximately 51% and 82% of LNCaP cells were killed by 4 and 18 hours of incubation, respectively [14,15]. This in vitro tumoricidal capacity of macrophages activated by GcMAF led us to investigate the therapeutic efficacy of GcMAF for prostate cancer. GcMAF therapy as a single remedy modality can eradicate metastatic breast and colorectal cancers most effectively…
Click here to search for “GcMAF” on GoodGopher.com, the new search engine for truth seekers.
Read this article from The Telegraph on how scientists are being assassinated because of what they know.
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/050553_Dr_Bradstreet_GcMAF_cancer_therapy.html#ixzz3h8gtv92E
More news on Dr. Bradstreet
Learn these simple tips for preventing cancer naturally
Monsanto: The world’s poster child for corporate manipulation and deceit
Extreme bias at Wikipedia on homeopathic medicine
Guatemalan STD medical experiments were just one crime in a long history of medical-government collusion to use humans as guinea pigs
Vicious vaccine culture war now being waged against informed, intelligent Americans who seek to protect their children from deadly side effects
131 Ways for an Infant to Die: Vaccines and Sudden Death
Magnesium crucial to prevent congestive heart failure
http://www.naturalnews.com/050553_Dr_Bradstreet_GcMAF_cancer_therapy.html
NESARA- Restore America – Galactic News
Source: http://nesaranews.blogspot.com/2015/07/breakthrough-cancer-treatment-called.html…
✅ Subscribe to my channel: @StefanBurns 🙏🥇 Become a special member and enjoy access to the Sól Tribe private Telegram channel, ad-free pre-release video...