Trevor Marshall Info

*Information About Trevor Marshall, Ph.D*


The objective of this site is to present background information about Trevor Marshall Ph.D. which is not provided at the Marshall Protocol (www.marshallprotocol.com) or Sarcinfo (www.sarcinfo.com ) message boards.

This information is intended to assist patients suffering from chronic illness to make a more fully informed decision before embarking on the Marshall Protocol by providing additional information about its creator.

All information contained on this site is available in the public domain. This site provides a compilation of factual information uncovered by its creators that is not readily found in simple web searches. All relevant sources contained herein retain copyright ownership and are published under the “Fair Use” Provisions of the Copyright Act. Relevant source material are provided.

[Unfortunately, and against the creator's will, the last version of this site was removed after a short period. The new version of this page may very well suffer a similar fate. If you are interested in the information on this site, then it may prove worthwhile to save a copy. Despite allegations that the information contained herein is libellous, at no time has evidence been provided by any parties disputing the information discussed below. To re-emphasise what is stated above, all information contained within is factual, and backed by relevant third party sources. Links are provided to all of these sources. The site creators have gone to great effort to ensure its accuracy, and if any errors or omissions exist, please email us and they will be corrected, and an apology will be published. Additionally, the site creator also welcomes any comments, suggestions or additional information. An email address has been provided at the bottom of the page]


*Marshall's Background*


YARC Systems Corporation Inc., Trevor G. Marshall, Ph.D, CEO


Trevor Marshall was the CEO and principle shareholder of YARC Systems Corporation Inc. YARC was incorporated in the State of California (USA) and primarily involved in the production of printer technology.

Marshall ran this company from the time it started in 1988 until its bankruptcy in December, 2000, and subsequent liquidation.

The company’s SEC report of the bankruptcy filing is found on the Securities and Exchange Commission Website here.

Records of YARC’s litigation history can be found on the web site of the Superior Court of California (USA), County of Ventura. Enter “yarc" in the “Business” text box, at this link. YARC, represented by Trevor Marshall, has been present in the Superior Court of California (USA) County of Ventura on a significant number of occasions.

Two cases are of particular interest. The first case, brought by a former employee, arose as a result of his tenure as President of YARC, and was settled in favour of the employee for $50,000.

See Joseph La Bruna v. Trevor G. Marshall, YARC Systems Corporation, and Does 1 through 20 at this link.

And in alternative format on Pinksheets, at this link


Following are excerpts from the above document detailing some of the claims made against 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.”

“YARC 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.”

“Defendant 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.”

And, finally:


“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 reliance thereon.”

The second case 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)

See YARC SYSTEMS CORPORATION VS STANTECH DIGITAL – Case No. CIV136977 Ventura Superior Court 10-20-1993

“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 Danish Court.

*Marshall's Qualifications*


Of particular concern to the authors of this site is 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, Marshall obtained a Bachelor of Electrical Engineering from the University of Adelaide in 1974. In 1978, he 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 is publicly available on his personal web site at http://www.trevormarshall.com/resume.htm
or in case his personal page becomes unavailable, his resume can also be found in pdf format at this link.

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, here.

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. See here.

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.

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/326/7379/12/b#88124



Peter Vanlandschoot,
Group leader
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's Research*


Marshall repeatedly states that he has published a number of papers on his findings regarding the immune system and sarcoidosis.

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, and concedes here.

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) [Full Text]

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."

*The 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 Research."

Marshall also serves on the advisory panel of this journal 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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review


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 Protocol*

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:

"Yes, 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 year.

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 marshallprotocol.com here

In another example of Marshall’s grandiose but seemingly unfounded assertions, he states:

"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 a year. She describes a life that is still very much restricted to her bed and computer. (See http://www.marshallprotocol.com/forum30/1237-24.html
)

While 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 Protocol.

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.

*The 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 be added.

*Marshall's Litigious Nature*


In 2004, 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 action.

*Summary and Conclusions*


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 uncertain.

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 does.

Before 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 mailto:mpinvestigator@xxxxxxxxxx
.

http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.med.diseases.lyme/2005-08/msg01695.html
Tweet