/** */


So apparently this is indeed not something new… While looking up the domain information for our friendly RCH4 website (which expired yesterday, July 5, 2016) to see if it would be updated, I stumbled across an older version (2011) of the site from the same person. This time he called himself “Michael Curram” of “Rixbiotech”. The address is exactly the same as “Michael Richards” who put up the RCH4 website, and the contact email given on this older website is the same – “alsnewdrug@aol.com”.

You can see the front page of the older website which was named “als-amyotrophic-lateral-sclerosis-a-new-drug.com” (history provided by Web Archive’s Internet Wayback Machine). Unfortunately none of the other pages were picked up from the site. But the substance described by this site is different from that of RCH4, apparently being some kind of way to correct a suspected autoimmune disorder that would be applicable to a variety of conditions.

The language sounds suspiciously like that of the substance “TDI-846” which was developed by the ALS Therapy Development Institute and successfully treated the SOD1G93A mice. It’s an antibody specifically for rodents and is available on the market for testing purposes only – NOT for human consumption. ALSTDI has more recently developed a human version which they are putting into human trials, but whatever this website was promoting isn’t it. The website promoting RCH4 made it sound to me like a knock-off of GM6, the peptide manufactured by Genervon. Michael Curram/Richards might well be trying to create a treatment for ALS, but he is clearly an amateur and is not going about it the right way. This makes me extremely wary and I urge all PALS to stay far away from anything this guy is promoting.

Domain information is:
Updated Date: 2013-11-29 12:27:20
Creation Date: 2008-12-29 17:12:46
Registrar Registration Expiration Date: 2014-12-29 17:12:46
Registry Registrant ID:
Registrant Name: Michael Curram
Registrant Organization: Rixbiotech
Registrant Street: 56 Amanda Close
Registrant City: Chigwell
Registrant State/Province: Essex
Registrant Postal Code: IG7 5JG
Registrant Country: GB

11 thoughts on “ALS-New-Drug-OLD-Scam”

  1. Why stay away….anything that may remotely be close to being approved by FDA will not happen in the lives of those in advanced stages of ALS. Like my husband who will more than likely die before any allowable drug is approved…. unless he agrees to being vented thru a trach. And being locked in, with only eye movement. If he doesn’t die from pneumonia first. What other o0tions are available….. at least this person is trying to help those that are dying, while others wait it out. I don’t understand why take away the hope that we have… .it is all we have, is a right to try!

    1. “Help” from quacks and charlatans is worse than no help. This person has no qualifications and refuses to even identify himself let alone what’s in the ampoules he is sending patients with instructions to inject it into their bodies. He may indeed sincerely want to help but until he identifies what he is promoting my recommendation is that PALS avoid it.

      If some stranger walked up to you on the street with a syringe full of liquid saying “inject this and it will cure whatever is ailing you”, would you immediately just inject yourself? This is no different.

    2. And BTW: I am living with ALS, fully paralyzed with only eye movement, breathing only via trache and vent. I have been this way since 2008. My life is great.

  2. It\’s your life and your opinion. I want to live a different life. In fact, I think that you envy those who have yet to move. You\’re a bad man who wants to impact others just like you. There is nothing different in that. Only envy. You do not have any authority to assess what should everybody try. It is my business what I do myself smarts. I am RCH4 user and I believe it helps me. Nobody in my illness helped more than RCgroup. You only harm. Your opinion confirms you are pretty selfish. You gossip people who save my life. I can not let it be without comment.

    1. Indeed it’s my opinion – my expert opinion. I have been in the ALS game for 11 years now and in that time have gathered a lot of knowledge about the disease and how research is properly done. I engage in actual research and other projects which create real benefit for all PALS. You are free to ignore my warning to your own possible peril. But calling me names will not change my analysis. Only the RCH4 entity can do that by releasing information that can be independently verified.

  3. For explanation:

    I have never been asked for, and never paid any money !!!

    If people cannot afford to buy the medical instruments required for the monthly monitoring reports the RC Charity people pay for the equipment and have it delivered to the PALS homes.

    My ALS score decline has slowed from 2.2 points per month to 1.0 per month since starting on RCH4 . I’m now 4 months on it.

    Based on your accusation. Irresponsible accusation! RC group loses its sponsors. Are you kill me, in fact, Eric !!!

    1. If my single opinion was enough for the RCH4 entity to lose its “charitable funding” then there obviously wasn’t very much faith in the entity to begin with. If you want to inject some anonymous liquid some anonymous chap brews up in his basement, then I wish you much luck. But until he reveals information about RCH4 that can be independently verified (like real scientists do), my expert recommendation will remain that everybody avoid it. It would be irresponsible of me to do otherwise.

  4. Eric, the very eminent Dr. Richard Bedlack has asked you to take the ‘SCAM’ wording off your blog regarding RCH4. He is more qualified than you to make the judgement that it is not a scam so why haven’t you done what he asks?

    1. Not true. He told me he had received information that there may have been an earlier attempt to put RCH4 into a normal clinical trial but he has not been able to verify that with any credible source. Additionally, neither he nor I have been supplied with any credible information that the substance has any efficacy, or even any credible scientific information supporting its MOA. RCH4 has only unsupported claims. Until I am supplied with credible, objective, verifiable FACTS to support the claims made on the website, my initial assessment – based on all of the currently-available facts – will remain. If you don’t like it, urge the website owner to fulfill his duty to prove his claims.

    1. What difference does that make? At the end of our discussion he did ask if it would be easier to drop that word. I said because of the obstinance of the owner and disciples that I will be keeping it until the requested information is delivered. Obviously there’s something that the owner desperately wants to keep hidden.

      I guess I will have to be insanely verbose with you people even though I am doing this all with one eye. And be warned: I am not going to allow this to descend into some type of semantic pissing contest.

      If my opinion is so damned sacred then comply with the same rules of science everyone else has observed for some 400 years.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *