Alternative Treatment

Radiation is also very effective in preventing cancer recurrence. It ALSO has some rather serious potential side effects. It is not harmless. Why do you consider it so controversial for someone to pint this out. You are, of course, also right about the apricot kernels. The active ingredient is most likely cyanide, and that stuff can poison you.

The sad fact seems to be that whatever will harm the cancer is also likely to harm us. That is the basic conundrum with this stupid disease. 

Graviola (Annona muricata) APPROVED by Health Canada and classified as:

Medicinal

Rationale: Classified as an NHP under Schedule 1 item 1 (plant or plant material) of the NHP Regulations.

http://webprod.hc-sc.gc.ca/nhpid-bdipsn/ingredReq.do?id=13253&lang=eng 

______

Apricot Kernels: What does Health Canada Recommend?

It is the opinion of Health Canada that apricot kernels should not be consumed for medicinal or natural health purpose

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/pubs/securit/2009-apricots-abricots/index-eng.php 

A total of 18 warnings at

http://recherche-search.gc.ca/s_r?t3mpl1t34d=1&s5t34d=health&l7c1l3=eng&S_08D4T.1ct57n=search&S_S20RCH.p1r1m3tr5cF53lds=hcyear,hcsubject,hctype,hcsource,hccollection&S_S20RCH.p1r1m3tr5cS7rt=ReverseAlphabetical&S_08D4T.s3rv5c3=basic&S_m5m3typ3.sp3c5f53r=INDEX&S_m5m3typ3.t3xt6p3r1t7r=OR&S_m5m3typ3.v1l93=html/xhtml&S_S20RCH.d7csP3rP1g3=20&S_F8LLT2XT=apricot+kernel&submit=Search&S_S20RCH.l1ng91g3=eng

Sorry, but I posted about graviola and its benefits and studies FIRST and you 'debated' by posting your risk studies.  Please....

Sorry, but your position is evidently and firmly contradicted by Health Canada 

 Sweet dreams about your apricot orchard Joy 

ETA - you are taking Tamoxifen right ??  don't bother telling me about its risks - I just quit after two years.  No more, too risky !!

Thanks Sue, but I'm not concerned with anyone else's choices as long as they have the facts. I want to be sure that if anyone searches Graviola they will know that the leaves of Graviola have been found to cause damage to mice brains similar to Parkinson's in people who have ingested the fruit which contains the same active ingredient. Then they can decide for themselves what risk they're prepared to take.

I'm no more concerned with Canada's ruling on Graviola than I am about Standard of Care when deciding whether to take Tamoxifen, Bisphosphonates or Docetaxol.   Everyone has their own bottom line and that's no one else's business.

I find it strange that anyone would try to make this about my personal choices rather than trying to find out facts to help save anyone from the dreadful suffering caused by untreatable Parkinson's.

Wow! I do understand the defensiveness that some of us may feel as alternative therapy seekers. But again wow! I really wish you would calm down Maud. Nobody is suggesting you should do anything other than what you want to do. They are simply providing information that is important for other people who might be considering graviola.

As a firm proponent of B17 I hear you putting out information that counters the information that Joy and I have. We aren't jumping all over you for it. People should have as much information as possible in order to make informed decisions.

It really is not about one person being right and another person being wrong. Not here.

Joy,

You never come across too harshly! You are the most diplomatic, fairest and reasonable poster on this thread. No defensiveness, no rhetoric and no desire to "be right".

Caryn

re:  I didn't do notheng, of course:  before I visited my mother I bought a lot of fresh halucinogenic cactus, I'd clean some & eat bits with hersheys cocoa, unsweetenedd, in water like a tea.  the cactus is illegal, a srychnine plant, no way to get any now, & havn't eaten any chocolate since my friend told me his lung cancer was caused by mars bars every day, that was in '83, but the cactus anyway could be of help.......by the way, saguero cactus, endangered, has the most l dopa of any plant.

In alternative choices, the transition from one to another is important.  Also to be certain what you mix is not contraindicated. 

I prefer the American paw paw over the graviola.  But everytime I do kinesiology testinng etc, I get a no, not now on that choice.  

Zuvart, I applaud those who are game to risk such possibly harmful treatments and wish there was a central register that required validation, where we could all enter our validated diagnosis, treatments, supplements etc and then the statistics could be done to see what helped and what risks were involved.  It may not be definitive but would lead to further studies.

What studies show that comparison with chemo? 10,000 times???  Please put up a link to the studies, not someone's opinion. Many in vitro studies have shown good results for many substances, even complete mouse cures, but then nothing good in humans. Our digestive systems, enzymes and dilution in the blood stream, (if substances ever get that far), removes or alters most ingested substances.  There are no studies using Graviola on humans, only testimonials which sadly don't prove anything.

You say Graviola is without the side effects, yet the studies I printed above clearly show harm. What we do know from mouse studies and human population records is that it crosses the blood brain barrier and damages the brain irretrievably in grotesque ways. (Atypical Parlinson's, Dementia, Lou Gehrig's and more.)

The question which needs answering is, how long does one need to take the herb, in what form and in what dosage to stay safe or be permanently harmed?  There are no answers yet and it's unlikely there will be due to the risks.

Dunesleeper, his opening paragraph is brilliant.  Proof, evidence, established protocols, these need a total rethink.  I can't vouch for the accuracy of his statistics, and the six feet or so of papers are now handled easily by computers, but the final paragraph is key.  We need better ways to assess therapies and less bias from academics who scorn anyone who doesn't conform to their "superior" methods.  Considering that a million or more die of cancer alone every year around the world, the sad fact is that established medicine doesn't have many answers. Most conditions are managed, not cured.  Infections, traumatic injuries and some surgical procedures are the notable and wonderful exceptions.  I should also acknowledge that without surgery, the death rate from BC would be considerably higher, and sadly, it's likely that many alternative claims may turn out to be no better than their medical equivalents, thus damaging the alternative cause and feeding closed minded skeptics.

Yet we need a proper cure where we don't have to lose body parts or risk surgery and other damaging treatments including potentially harmful "unproven" (using the above definition) or illegal alternatives.  That's why I'm keen on a central registry, where all those with a terminal illness (at least) are required to be be on it just the same as all deadly infections are recorded now.  I'm sure with our powerful computer systems we can be assigned an anonymous code for privacy and have all our details entered.   Diagnoses, conventional and alternative treatments including potential side effects, lifestyle habits, food preferences, minor illnesses, blood results, metabolic differences, liver efficiency etc could all play a part in understanding what causes illnesses, medical conditions, cancer recurrence or promotes wellness and longevity. 

Most importantly, we need to be able to compare those who genuinely recover from a terminal illness with those who succumb.  What factors made the difference?  Without sufficient data these miracle cures are just ignored or worse, denied by those with reputations to protect.  A massive resource is being ignored to the detriment of everyone including those who are doing the ignoring.

Isn't this just blatantly obvious?  Why have I never heard others suggest the same idea?

I've been planning a new thread about this for some time but needed to get my thoughts in order.  I have started a tentative OP on my computer, but I would need a wordsmith to express it a lot more eloquently and persuasively for it to go viral.  Why bother with occupying some vague 'something', or throwing money into awareness of something they are already aware of?  We need positive action and empowerment.

If our friend who is starting an alternative salve to treat an "untreatable" fungating tumour should succeed, I wonder how long her MO would continue to support her, or if there would be any knowledge of this in the medical community?  Usually these results just melt into the past as there is no provision to document them.

Imagine if all the people in the Caribbean had records of their Graviola and Soursop usage over their lifetime? It would be a simple matter to decide how much, in what form and for how long Graviola was safe, and if they suffered less cancer than those who didn't use the plant in any form.

I believe this will happen one day but want to see if people power could speed it up.  Someone with passion and influence could really make a difference.

dunesleeper:  Good post about the theory of "proof".  Puts it in perspective.

Hi Zuvart, wasn't planning on coming back to this thread for the obvious reasons - I have a full plate and cannot deal with this kind of grief and arrogance.  I'll have the courtesy of replying to your post though 

Yup, off the tamox trainwreck and, in replacement, taking a combo supp including DIM, I3C, calciumDglucarate, etc. (BTW, I don't think DIM will be taken off the shelves, I wonder why calciumD was) and many other supps including Boswelia and of course Graviola.  I am more than ever convinced of the power of herbs.  As I posted on another thread:

"just had MRI for extreme shoulder pain, thought it could have been mets...turns out, it's bursitis with some torn tissue, most likely caused by my overusing my right side as opposed to my left surgery side. Don't want to get lymphedema !!

I never knew I had the above until I ran out of Boswelia, that's when the extreme pain began (nothing worked, Advil NO, Flexeril No, etc. etc), a few days after replenishing, pain gone !! I mean, the onco was referring me to rheumatology for steroid injections for God's sake....I told him: no thanks, as long as the boswelia is doing the job, am sticking to it.

Turns out boswelia is great for BC as well, what a bonus and a gift this boswelia, definitely reduces inflammation !!"

To answer your question about graviola dosage, I found this (I take a 500 mg add it to my smoothie or make tea). I alternate the herbal extracts, found some genuine bio boswelia gum, also take ashwaganda and others

'The therapeutic dosage of graviola leaf, (which offers just as high of an amount of acetogenins as the root and almost as much as the seed) is reported to be 2-3 grams taken 3 or 4 times daily. Traditional Preparation: A standard infusion (one cup 3 times daily) or a 4:1 standard tincture (2-4 ml three times daily) can be substituted if desired. Graviola products (capsules and tinctures) are becoming more widely available in the U.S. market, and now offered under several different manufacturer's labels in health food stores. As one of graviola's mechanisms of action is to deplete ATP energy to cancer cells, combining it with other supplements and natural products which increase or enhance cellular ATP may reduce the effect of graviola. The main supplement which increases ATP is a common antioxidant called Coenzyme Q10 and for this reason, it should be avoided when taking graviola' 

Here's the source you were asked to provide:

"Here is what Dr. X.X. Liu and colleagues stated
in 1999: "Annoglacins A and B were selectively 1000 and 10,000 times,
respectively, more potent than Adriamycin against the human breast
carcinoma (MCF-7) and pancreatic carcinoma (PACA-2) cell lines in our
panel of six human solid tumor cell lines."

Off to look into bindweed and wheat germ oil - Ciao 

_______________________ 

PAW-PAW

Taxol (paclitaxel) gives 39% T/C at 15 000 µg/kg against L-1210, so bullatacin (6) was
300 times as potent as taxol in this in vivo test system. Also, the mice treated with taxol lost 10% of their body weight during the 10-day test period, while the bullatacinone-treated mice gained 5%, suggesting, potentially, less toxicity than taxol.

Paw Paw and Cancer: Annonaceous Acetogenins from Discovery to Commercial Products

One wonders why atypical Parkinsonism has never been reported in people who eat paw paws. Perhaps the bis-THF acetogenins (which predominate in paw paw) are better emetics, and neurotoxic levels are not achievable due to emesis with overconsumption of paw paw. There seem to be no reports of emesis caused by the suspect tropical species. Perhaps the limited consumption of paw paw, which is primarily a short-term seasonal event, avoids the
toxicity, which seems to be a cumulative, chronic, problem caused by day to day consumption of the tropical species over a period of several years.

Perhaps the neurotoxicity is caused by a synergism between the neurotoxic benzyltetrahydroisoquinoline alkaloids and the mono-THF acetogenins that are peculiar to A. muricata.

Perhaps there are genetic factors that predispose some people to atypical Parkinsonism. It is interesting that not everyone is susceptible to the condition; a high percentage (60%) of the Parkinsonism patients in Guadeloupe who consume the suspect foods do not display
atypical Parkinsonism.

Whether it is the vanillin in our ice cream, the allyl isothiocyanate and allyl cyanide in our cole slaw, the lycopene and tomatine from the tomatoes on our pizzas, the solanine in our French fried potatoes, the cyanogenic glycosides in our apple seeds, the prussic acid in our tapioca, the acetogenins in our annonaceous fruits, or whatever, our bodies must, each day, detoxify and excrete a whole host of undesirable food chemicals.

Individuals differ from each other in their capacities to do this. In the meantime, in 2006, Kentucky State University asked the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for an opinion on this topic, and their conclusion was that paw paw has a long history of food use and the FDA does not currently have any evidence that paw paw is unsafe to eat.

There is an old adage that toxicology is simply pharmacology at a higher dose. The relationship between the desired effects and the undesired effects of a drug is defined as the therapeutic index, which, consequently, attempts to quantitate the margin of safety. All drugs are two-edged swords, and few drugs are completely selective at eliciting only the desired effects. If the neurotoxicity studies discussed above are accepted as valid, it can be concluded that the energy requirements for certain neurons in the brain are higher than those of other somatic cells and, perhaps, may be as high as those of cancer cells.

If the annonaceous acetogenins are to be useful systemically against cancerous cells, their therapeutic indexes must be favorable. The data currently available are limited, but still some comparisons can be presented. The work cited above using iv infusions of annonacin (3) in rats showed neurotoxic effects at 3.8 and 7.6 mg/kg/day for 28 days. In the 3PS assay using mice, 3 was active (124% T/C) at 0.95 mg/kg/day for 10 days.

Thus, disregarding the difference in species, the therapeutic index for 3 would be between 4 and 8. Asimicin (1) in the murine IPS assay was active (124% T/C) at 0.025 mg/kg/day for 10 days
but toxic at 0.22 mg/kg/day. Accordingly, the therapeutic index for 1 in mice is about 10. These numbers are tolerable for anticancer agents, although, especially for long-term therapy, it might be wise to monitor the patient for adverse neurological effects.

The observation that the neurologic symptoms improve and stabilize after stopping daily consumption suggests that the condition need not be life-threatening. Given the choice between dying of cancer and experiencing some symptoms of Parkinsonism after years of effective treatment with acetogenins, most cancer patients would choose the latter.

After determining that the standardized paw paw extract was apparently safe acutely due to emesis upon overdosage, we prepared it for oral administration in capsular form (12.5 mg/capsule to be administered qid) for human testing. The centuries-old tradition of human consumption as an edible fruit, the fact that the fruits contain appreciable levels of the acetogenins and are, apparently, eaten with impunity, the previous marketing by Eli Lilly and Company of the extract as an emetic, and the lack of any adverse reports about paw
paw at the FDA provided compelling evidence that this plant has an historical record of being generally recognized as being safe. FDA consultants assured us that, for development as a dietary supplement, testing in human subjects could proceed. A law in Nevada permits terminal cancer patients, under the direction of their physician, to try new treatments. James Forsythe, M.D., Director of the Cancer Screening and Treatment Center of Nevada, in Reno, agreed to
recruit test subjects for us among his stage 4 cancer patients.

Dr. Forsythe found that the paw paw capsules, named Paw Paw Cell-Reg, when given one capsule qid, stabilized a number of patients with advanced breast, lung, prostate, lymphatic, and
colorectal cancers as well as with Waldenstrom's macroglobulinemia; furthermore, the patients showed no abnormalities in liver, kidney, electrolyte, blood sugar, or bone marrow functions.
The product was effective whether used alone or as an adjuvant with other treatments including IGF-I and insulin-potentiation.

Evidence of effectiveness included reductions in the blood levels of tumor antigens, measurable decreases in tumor sizes, inhibition of further metastases, weight gain, increased mobility, enhanced energy, and increased duration of survival. We expanded the number of case studies, with similar encouraging results, and introduced the product to the market, as a dietary supplement, in the spring of 2003. The small number (26) of adverse events reported, through March 2008, and the success of the product suggest that the inhibition of cellular energy (ATP) with the mixture of annonaceous acetogenins from paw paw offers a novel, safe, and effective mechanism for the alleviation of cancer.

As a dietary supplement, however, the paw paw product cannot be advertised as a treatment in the United States, and the company (NSP) makes no such claims for the product. A U.S. patent, assigned to NSP, is pending and protects the extract and its antitumor use in animals and humans

http://www.medicinabiomolecular.com.br/biblioteca/pdfs/Cancer/ca-2347.pdf

Sticks and stones?  Nobody said anything mean.