Following are excerpts from the
above document detailing some of the claims made against Trevor Marshall:
'Marshall authorized, directed,
consented to or participated in the acts and omissions set forth herein with
knowledge of their tortious nature and purpose. Marshall further knew or
reasonably should have known that said acts and omission would or could
cause injury to the Plaintiff.'
was, and is used by Marshall:..as a mere shell and a conduit for the
conduct of certain personal and/or business affairs. YARC was
conceived, intended, and used by Marshall, as a device to avoid
individual liability and for the purpose of substituting a financially
insolvent corporation in the place of Marshall. YARC is, and at all
times herein mentioned, was so inadequately capitalized that, compared
to the business to be done by Defendants, and the risk attendant
thereto, its capitalization was illusory or trifling.'
Marshall has stated to third persons, including current YARC employees
and potential employees, that the Plaintiff misappropriated, embezzled
and misused funds or property of YARC, despite knowing such statements
to be false.'
'The Defendants, Marshall and Does 1
through to 20, made representations and promises and concealed and omitted
the true facts knowing such representations, promises and concealments and
omissions to be false. They were made with the intention of deceiving,
defrauding and misleading the plaintiff, and to induce him to act in
The second case of note involved a Danish
company called StanTech,
See Case H930185B - The
Maritime and Commerical Court of Copenhagen 22nd November 1996
Transcript (Translated) Of Danish Case
In this case, YARC was convicted
in the Maritime and Commercial Court of Copenhagen, Denmark of copying and
marketing, as their own, the product of Danish company StanTech. (The
product was originally developed by the Danish Company Stantext A/S and
purchased by one of its directors, Mr.
Flemming Stanley, when StanText went bankrupt. Mr. Stanley later started
a new company called StanTech, which took ownership of this product.)
The Court found against YARC for
an amount in excess of 750,000 Danish Kroner. The judgement of the
court was supported by the testimony of a number of expert witnesses. YARC
has never payed this judgement.
Subsequently, in a libel case against Mr Stanley in the Superior Court of
California, County of Ventura, Trevor Marshall swore to the following
statement under oath: (extracted from Marshall's statement, submitted to the
Court of Ventura)
YARC SYSTEMS CORPORATION VS STANTECH DIGITAL - Case No. CIV136977
Ventura Superior Court 10-20-1993 . Search for case number CIV136977
'On 22 November 1996, the
Danish Maritime and Commercial Court (So-og Handelsretten) convicted Mr.
Stanley of Criminal Libel in the case YARC had lodged during 1993. The
penalties included a fine in lieu of 10 days jail time. I declare under the
penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct."
This is, in fact, untrue, and
these charges of criminal libel were dismissed by the Danish court. (See
transcript of Case H930185B - The Maritime and Commerical Court of
Copenhagen 22nd November 1996 )
Transcript (Translated) Of Danish Case
There is obviously significant
discrepancy between Marshall's statement under oath, and the findings of the
Of particular concern to the
authors of this site is Trevor Marshall's use of the title 'Dr.' on message
boards on which he is providing medical advice to seriously ill patients.
While he will readily explain that he has a Ph.D. and is not a medical
doctor, this point is not made often, and many of his message board members
may not realize that he is not a medical doctor.
In fact, Trevor Marshall obtained a
Bachelor of Electrical Engineering from the University of Adelaide in 1974.
In 1978, hep obtained a Master of Engineering (RF Digital Electronics). He
holds a Ph.D. qualification issued by the University of Western Australia,
Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering
This information was publicly
available on his personal web site at
but has since become unavailble. It has been cached at this
A copy of Marshall's thesis,
entitled 'Modelling and simulation in diabetes care' / by Trevor Gordon
Marshall, can be found on the University of Western Australia's Website,
The authors found its primary
content to be mathematical modelling and the use of computer simulations /
programs to assist in understanding glucose in diabetes care, yet Marshall
sometimes points to his thesis as evidence of his expertise in his current
endeavours, in implied reference if not directly.
When discussing the Marshall
Protocol, Marshall claims that his Ph.D. was earned in Biomedical
Engineering. (See this interview with
Immunesupport.com ) Yet, during his tenure as CEO of Yarc,
Marshall claimed that his doctorate was in Electrical Engineering.
Inconsistencies related to
Marshall's presentations of his credentials and experience have caused a
number of people to question his qualifications to provide medical guidance
to patients with serious chronic illness. He frequently refuses to respond
to inquiries posted by patients to his message boards, some of them
regarding serious health issues related to following his protocol. He often
responds defensively, insisting that people simply respect and trust him,
yet his CV is not posted at either of his message boards.
There is also evidence that
Marshall has misread scientific studies, and subsequently quoted them as
evidence to support his theory. At the British Medical Journal
website, one author has come
out and stated that Trevor misinterpreted his work.
Center for Vaccinology, Ghent
University, 9000 Ghent, Belgium
I noticed that Trevor G
Marshall refers to a paper I published (Vanlandschoot P, Van Houtte F,
Roobrouck A, Farhoudi A, Leroux-Roels G: Hepatitis B virus surface antigen
suppresses the activation of monocytes through interaction with a serum
protein and a monocyte-specific receptor. Journal of General Virology
(2002), 83, 1281-1289).
According to Trevor Marshall I
provided in this paper an excellent explanation of how the non- infectious
surface antigen of Hepatitis B (HBsAg) works to directly oppose the
differentiation activity of 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin-D. I wish to point out
that in my paper I do not demonstrate such activity of hepatitis B surface
antigen. I only used 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin-D to induce expression of CD14 on
THP-1 pre-monocytic cells and such more matured cells were subsequently used
to demonstrate that Hepatitis B surface antigen inhibited
lipopolysaccharide-induced activation of the cells.
Marshall repeatedly states that he
has published a number of papers on his findings regarding the immune system
While two of these papers were
indexed at PubMed, the majority of the papers on these topics, including the
three listed below, have never been accepted for official publication, a
fact that Marshall himself has admitted with some frustration,
The three papers below were
explicitly rejected for publication.
1. Marshall TG, Marshall FE: New
Treatments Emerge as Sarcoidosis Yields Up its Secrets. clinmed 2003 Jan
27;2003010001. clinmed.netprints.org/cgi/content/full/2003010001 (accessed
27 Jan 2003) [Full Text]
2. Marshall TG, Marshall FE:
Remission in Sarcoidosis. clinmed 2002 Aug 22;2002080004.
clinmed.netprints.org/cgi/content/full/2002080004 (accessed 27 Jan 2003)
3. Marshall TG, Marshall FE:
Valsartan Dosing Regime Modulates Psychotic Events in Two Sarcoidosis
Patients. clinmed 2002 Aug 29;2002080006. clinmed.netprints.org/cgi/content/full/2002080006
(accessed 27 Jan 2003) [Full Text]
These papers are annotated with
the following advisory:
'This article has not yet been
accepted for publication by a peer reviewed journal. It is presented here
mainly for the benefit of fellow researchers. Casual readers should not
act on its findings, and journalists should be wary of reporting them.'
Despite this fact, Marshall
continues to point to the contents of these papers as 'proven science."
Journal of Independent Medical Research
Trevor Marshall created, and is the
registered owner for the website
domain, of a non-print, web-based journal
called "The Journal of Independent Medical
Marshall also serves on the
advisory panel of
and publishes papers in it.
None of the publications made in
this online journal have ever been accepted for publication to the
officially recognised PubMed database.
To understand what exactly is
meant by the term 'peer review', see this article from
Marshall does have two papers
published on the topic of sarcoidosis. One paper is indexed on PubMed; the
other is published in a Russian Medical Journal.
Marshall's Assertions about the Safety and Effectiveness of the Marshall
Marshall has repeatedly claimed
that the Marshall Protocol is safe and effective, both for adults and
children. As described elsewhere in this document, when patients raise
questions about these issues, they are belittled and sometimes banned from
the message board for doing so.
One issue of particular concern is
his claim that the Marshall Protocol is safe for young children without
stating any of the specifics of the cases which may make it an acceptable
risk for one child but not for another.
See this FAQ:
http://www.marshallprotocol.com/forum32/1140.html which reads as follows
as of 18 July 2005:
children can be treated with the MP. The youngest child on the protocol is
nine years old. And one child who is 13 years old has been on the MP for one
It may be more difficult to find a supportive doctor who is willing to work
with a new treatment plan and a child. Your doctor can find support online
in our medical professionals only forum and from Trevor Marshall.
The MP safe for children. When compared to other protocols or medications
that children have been given for their Th1 inflammatory disases, the choice
should be easy."
One 15 year old boy who was on the
Marshall protocol suffered extreme ill effects. His Kidney's became
dysfunctional and he was eventually admitted to the hospital for the
administration of IV fluids. The Drs reviewing the child believed that his
kidney problems were related to Benicar and the antibiotics, since they
cleared up a few days after stopping it. They felt that his Kidney numbers
were too high to be explained by dehydration alone and were indicative of
more serious kidney dysfunction. The board staff refused to acknowledge the
problem was anything more than 'herxheimer response' to the protocol and
were to be expected. See this link to thread about the child's progress on
another example of Marshall's grandiose but seemingly unfounded assertions,
"I think you need to understand that
everybody [emphasis added] gets their life back by about 12-18 months,
and they stop worrying about anything at that point. It is just plain
sailing from there on. The amount of herx you get beyond that point doesn't
cramp your style in any way. Similarly, at that point nobody cares too much
about having to take the ARB and antibiotics for another year or two - they
have their lives back, and nothing matters any more"
Yet there are patients who have
been on the protocol for over 12 months, with no improvement. Indeed,
some are seemingly worse. Even one of the board staff members, Aussie Barb,
is far from having her life back despite being on the protocol for nearly 4 years, and infact was recently hospitalised for a lengthy period. She describes a life that is still very much restricted to her bed
and computer and you can read here story here . (See
http://www.marshallprotocol.com/forum30/1237-24.html ) Barb
Marshall has now changed his
assertions and claimed that it takes 2 years for patients to get back their
health. This claim appears to have been made in response to patients who
have not seen much progress on the MP, or got their lives back at the
previously stated one year mark. The site authors wonder if Marshall will
extend this to three years in the near future. To quote Marshall 'I do
think it is important that CFS and Lyme patients do face up to the extent of their illness,
however. Think about this - it takes 2 years or more for the bacteria to be
killed, at the fastest rate your body can kill them. It is absolutely
amazing what that quantity of bacteria must have been doing while they were
living in your tissues'. You can read Marshall's
some patients are clearly having success on the protocol, many people who
have discontinued the protocol, including some due to severe adverse
reactions, have not been tracked. Because of this, it is impossible to make
an accurate assessment of either the success rate or safety of the Marshall
You will come across numerous
examples of Marshall's claims as you read his message boards. Other
examples of his assertions that the protocol is completely safe and
effective will be added to this document as time permits.
Autoimmunity Research 'Foundation'
The organisation that refers to
itself as the 'Autoimmunity Research Foundation' is actually registered as
Autoimmunity Research Incorporated. It was registered and established by
Trevor Marshall in 2004. The address of record for this organisation is
Marshall's home address.
You can find the detail of its
registration at the
California Secretary of State Webpage
Additionally, the authors at this
time were unable to uncover any document detailing how donated funds are
spent. If Marshall provides the site creators with these details, they will
Many have also stated that the
fact that Trevor Marshall has been working so hard to help people for non
financial gain is evidence of his pure intentions. This is, however, not
technically the case. Trevor Marshall recently applied for a grant of
$225,000 to collate and survey the results of the Marshall Protocol on
sarcoidosis patients. The application for this grant was rejected by the
NIH, one of the reasons stated being that he sought far too much funding.
You can find a copy of the rejection. The third reviewer, in his rejection
of the grant stated "the budget appears quite inflated for a review of only
50 patient records". You can read the rejection documents at
Marshall instigated a legal action against Penny Houle, the board moderator
of the now defunct yahoo group, Infection and Inflammation. See
this link Marshall then also used threats of legal action against
Yahoo to have them close the message board. He claimed that messages on that
board defamed his character. Marshall was also able to have the original
version of this site taken down by lycos, through similar threats of legal
For fifteen years, Marshall ran a
high-tech company that was the subject of substantial litigation and
ultimately went bankrupt. Some of the allegations in litigation against YARC
and Marshall accused Marshall of lying, deception and misleading conduct. A
number of his (former) message board members are concerned that this pattern
of behaviour continues with his latest project, the Marshall Protocol, and
that he may be putting lives at risk in the process.
Trevor Marshall has widely and
publicly claimed that his treatment represents a cure for a wide variety of
so-called Th-1/autoimmune diseases. He claims that it will cure these
illnesses despite the fact that there have been no formal studies with
objective oversight, and that few, if any, people, other than sarcoidosis
patients, have been on the Marshall Protocol for the two to three years that
Marshall says it takes to achieve a cure. Indeed, few if any patients,
including Marshall and his board staff, have discontinued medications, so
the end result of treatment, even for sarcoidosis patients, remains
Additionally, many questions exist
regarding the protocol's safety and long term effectiveness, especially in
regards to long term use of high dose Benicar and long term deprivation of
Vitamin D. Neither of his web sites provides a list of the potential risks
of the protocol. Indeed, Marshall refuses to allow any open or reasonable
debate of the theory or science behind the protocol, and often closes
threads that involve too much questioning. Additionally, many members who
have had difficulties with the protocol and sought for more in depth
answers, have been banned.
We don't mean to imply that the
protocol is ineffective or unsafe, only to point out that there has been
insufficient study and time to state these as facts, as Marshall frequently
making a decision to follow the Marshall Protocol, we recommend that
you consider all factors of this experimental protocol, including potential
benefits, unknown risks, and treatment alternatives, as well as the
background and claims
of its creator, and discuss them with your health care provider.
Contact us: Do you have any comments
or wish to provide additional information? Or do you believe that any of the
above information is incorrect or inaccurate? If so, please contact us at