Research information suggests paw paw will prevent the growth of cancer cells and shrink tumors. I will be glad to discuss this subject further if there is any interest.
There are a lot of foods which, according to some (but not all) research, have shown protection for some (but not all) types of cancer. A sensible, varied, well-balanced diet combined with a healthy life-style offers protection against a lot of nasties. But I wouldn't presume to say that any particular food item is a guarantee against any of them, nor would I presume to claim magical cures from eating any particular food. We still know very little about cancer, all in all. So, eat your pawpaw to your heart's content, in the knowledge that 'every little helps', but don't expect it to build a protective bubble around you!
You missed the point of this posting.
Well, then count me in as miffed by your posting as well.
For those of you who may be interested
Cancer is a devastating disease for which there is yet no absolute cure. Genetic predisposition and mutations (abnormal changes in the nuclei of cells) caused by chemicals, radiation, hormones, and viruses account for 5-10% and 90-95% of all cancers, respectively. Cancer afflicts almost every part of the human body from the skin to the marrows and is indiscriminate of age. The annual U.S. death toll from cancer is over 555, 000 and costs about $156 billion in direct medical, indirect morbidity and mortality expense and losses.
Different approaches are employed in the treatment of cancer, depending on type, site and stage. In situ cancers are surgically removed and followed up with other treatments if metastasized to the lymph nodes and other organs.
Cancer cells grow and multiply rapidly and anticancer drugs (chemotherapy) normally destroy cancer cells by damaging their genetic material, thus stopping their proliferation. Some drugs work better together than alone, hence two or more drugs are often given at the same time. Unfortunately, most anticancer drugs are not selective, thus healthy cells can also be harmed, especially those that divide quickly. Harm to healthy cells causes the side effects. Healthy cells, however, can replicate and re-establish a normal population and size after chemotherapy.
Radiation therapy, also called radiotherapy, is the treatment of cancer and other diseases with ionizing radiation, especially for localized solid tumors, such as cancers of the skin, tongue, brain, breast, or uterine cervix. Radiotherapy can also be used to treat leukemia and lymphoma (cancers of the blood-forming cells and lymphatic system, respectively). Ionizing radiation destroys cells in the area being treated by damaging their genetic material, making it impossible for these cells to continue to grow. Both cancerous and normal cells are also damaged during treatment.
Newer forms of treatment involve angiogenesis inhibition, stimulating the immune system to fight cancer, bone marrow and peripheral stem cell transplantation, and gene and photodynamic therapy.
Possible side effects of cancer treatment include loss of hair, skin irritation, infection, anemia (due to bone marrow depression), temporary change in skin color in the treated area, bleeding (platelet depletion), infections, chemo-induced cancer, and generalized weakness. Other side effects are largely dependent on the area of the body that is treated.
Research information suggests that the bioactive compounds in paw paw will prevent the growth of cancer cells and shrink tumors. Paw paw extract containing standardized mixtures of annonaceous acetogenins from the paw paw (Asimina triloba) tree.
The paw paw tree is native to the eastern U.S. The fruits are banana-like and have been consumed by Native Americans for thousands of years. Eli Lilly and Company sold a liquid extract of its seeds at the end of the 1800s as an emetic. Thus, it has a history of safe human use and consumption.
Annonaceous acetogenins are complex mixtures of long chain fatty acids derivatives from the extracts of the twigs of the paw paw tree. Many of the acetogenins have been isolated and characterized, and their numerous health benefits are being explored. Three, bullatacin, asimicin, and trilobacin, have been identified as the most potent, major, bioactive structural types of acetogenins in the paw paw concentrate. 1-6
Difficulties with most of the chemotherapeutic drugs emanate from their concurrent eradication of normal healthy cells, including those responsible for immunity.
Tumor cells grow and replicate more rapidly than normal cells. This is because they are better equipped to receive glucose, a good source of energy for fast replication. Also, cancer cells quickly develop a network of blood vessels (angiogenesis) to ensure an efficient supply of nutrients and oxygen. This is partly why cancer patients lose weight; the cancer cells rapidly take up nutrients meant for normal cells.
Furthermore, with chemotherapy cancer cells develop resistance to the drugs, rendering chemotherapy useless and futile after a period of remission. The same principle applies to other diseases that have become drug resistant, such as malaria. The organisms and cancer cells smartly find a way of protecting themselves from the damaging effects of drugs. They generate what is called the ABC transporter superfamily, which transports a variety of substrates including amino acids, sugars, inorganic ions, polysaccharides, peptides, and proteins into the cells. In cancer cells, a member of this superfamily, called the multidrug resistant (MDR) protein, is overexpressed and helps to pump drugs out of the cancer cells, making the cancer cells simultaneously resistant to a variety of drugs. Thus, the cancer cells are protected from the toxic effects of drug combinations.
Annonaceous acetogenins may be good chemotherapeutic agents for cancer. These compounds inhibit mitochondrial and cytoplasmic production of adenosine triphosphate (ATP), which is the major source of energy for the cells and also a precursor of the nucleotides needed to produce DNA and RNA. Annonaceous acetogenins inhibit the enzymes of complex I in the electron transport system in mitochondria. 7-12 They also inhibit the NADH oxidases found in the plasma membranes of tumor cells. 13 Their net effect is depletion of ATP levels.
Tumor cells, being typically metabolically more active, are more susceptible than normal cells to the effects of the acetogenins. Angiogenesis requires ATP 14 and angiostatin blocks angiogenesis by inhibiting ATP synthase. 15 Thus, ATP depletion helps to block the growth of new vessels to nourish tumors. Tyrosine kinases, which play roles in tumor progression, are also inhibited by ATP depletion. 16
Annonaceous acetogenins also thwart MDR tumor cells. The protein pumps (p 170 glycoproteins), which extrude the drugs from the tumor cells are energized by ATP.17-24 Thus, by depleting ATP, the glycoproptein pumps become dysfunctional.
Ongoing studies confirm the benefits of paw paw extracts in clinical cancer treatments. Paw paw extracts can be used to inhibit the growth of cancer cells and as effective alternative or supplement to chemotherapeutic agents. Research studies also show that paw paw extracts have anthelmintic (worm controlling) benefits.
It is not advisable to take Paw paw with nutritional supplements like CoQ10 and thyroid stimulators, as these supplements enhance mitochondrial complex 1 activities and energy production, respectively. Likewise, antioxidants block programmed cell deaths (apoptosis) and can reverse the damaging effects of paw paw on the cancer cells.
The acetogenins are not mutagenic. Unlike most antitumor drugs, acetogenins do not exert their effects by poisoning DNA; they selectively inhibit ATP production. These results have been confirmed in a recent publication in which two paw paw acetogenins were found to be antimicrobial but not mutagenic. 25 In other unpublished results (Asta Laboratories), bullatacin was emetic in pigs. This result demonstrated that the acetogenins very likely explain the former use of Eli LillyÂs liquid extract of paw paw seeds as an emetic preparation. Unpublished report shows that vomiting (emesis) prevented toxicity of paw paw capsules in dogs. Emesis is a definite safety factor should someone ingest excessive amounts of this supplement either intentionally or unintentionally. Any potential systemic toxic effects are conveniently thwarted by emesis.
A recent study on the island of Guadeloupe suggested that a higher than usual incidence of atypical Parkinsonism there might be caused by the chronic consumption of herbal teas and fruits from the Annonaceae family (Annona muricata and A. squamosa); some of the benzyltetrahydroisoquinoline alkaloids found therein are believed to be neurotoxic and, thus, may be responsible for the Parkinsonism. 26 Such alkaloids were carefully excluded from the annonaceous extracts during processing of paw paw.
1. Rupprecht, J.K.,C.-J. Chang, J.M. Cassady, J.L. McLaughlin, K.L. Mikolajczak, and D. Weisleder, "Asimicin, a new cytotoxic and pesticidal acetogenin from the paw paw, Asimina triloba (Annonaceae)," Heterocycles, 24, 1197-1201 (1986).
2. Hui, Y,-H., J.K. Rupprecht, J.E. Anderson, Y.M. Liu, D.L. Smith, C.-J. Chang, and J.L. McLaughlin. ÂBullatalicin, a novel bioactive acetogenin from Annona bullata (Annonaceae),Â Tetrahedron, 45, 6941-6948 (1989).
3. Hui, Y,-H., J.K. Rupprecht, Y-M. Liu, J.E. Anderson, D.L. Smith, C.-J. Chang, and J.L. McLaughlin, ÂBullatacin and bullatacinone: two highly potent bioactive acetogenins from Annona bullata,Â Journal of Natural Products, 52, 463-477 (1989).
4. Zhao, G.X., Y.-H. Hui, J.K. Rupprecht, J.L. McLaughlin, and K.V. Wood, ÂAdditional bioactive compounds and trilobacin, a novel highly cytotoxic acetogenin, from the bark of Asimina triloba,Â Journal of Natural Products, 55, 347-356 (1992).
5. Zhao, G.X., Z.-M. Gu, L. Zeng, J.-F. Chao, K.V. Wood, J.F. Kozlowski, and J.L. McLaughlin, ÂThe absolute configuration of trilobacin and trilobin, a novel highly potent acetogenin from the stem bark of Asimina triloba (Annonaceae),Â Tetrahedron 51, 7149-7160 (1995).
6. Rieser, M.J., Y.H. Hui, J.K. Rupprecht, J.F. Kozlowski, K.V. Wood, J.L. McLaughin, T.R. Hoye, P.R. Hanson, and Z.P. Zhuang, ÂDetermination of absolute configuration of stereogenic carbinol centers in annonaceous acetogenins by 1HÂ and 19F- NMR analysis of Mosher ester derivativesÂ, Journal of the American Chemical Society, 114, 10203-10213 (1992).
The studies you cite are chemical analysis studies and over a decade old. I did a search on MedLine and found more recent studies, mostly chemisty and a few in vitro studies. There were no in vivo studies; no studies on living animals with cancer. Given that there were no animal studies, there are obviously no human clinical trials either.
It is very premature to speculate about the role these compounds may have in treating human cancers. Until the animal and human studies are done, we cannot know if they will be effective, and we will not know what toxic side effects they may have.
I apologize for beginning this post regarding paw-paw. It is obvious that the mind set on this forum is both opinionated and narrow in scope. Anyone who really is interested in herbal alternatives would search out recent advancements. There are considerable positive results regarding the subject of this post that are current in nature. Should anyone desire further information they can email me as I will not waste time with those whose only mission is to take issue. This was my first post and will be the last.
you might send me an email as i didn't succeed in sending you one. being from europe i don't know what paw paw really is.
while my best friend died of cancer 7 years ago i read some books on the topic. actually she was slowly treated to death (conventionally) and only wanted to die in honor quite well before the end.
it would be interesting to hear from you.
You know herbalpower, it is prudent and wise to be analylically critical of any RESEARCH claims or "Scientific Information" presented.
Fact: The research you presented is dated from 1986-1995. This is unacceptably old research given the rapid genetic and molecular advances in science and pharmacology these days.
Fact: Questions, healthy skeptecism, and peer review are some of the basics of good science, not narrow mindedness.
Fact: Judy presented an alternate view and crtitcal analysis.
OPINION: Expecting anyone to take one posting or one article on any subect without questions, further research or discussion (blind faith?) smacks of QUACKERY.
An ad hominum attack has no place in this discussion...
Anyone want to take bets whether "herbalpower" is selling this stuff?
Rosa, you've put it rather well. A discussion, such as we've been invited into, is a balance of differing points of view and profferings of information for the purpose of learning, and there is no room for attacks of any kind. I can handle narrow-mindedness in a discussion situation, but I sure have difficulty dealing with closed minds!
i've never seen a disussion where everybody except the poster seems to miss the topic. the question was not wether paw paw is good or not but to discuss it. nobody ever did that so far. i am sorry, but neither herbalism nor esoterics nor medicine (!) are exact sciences so there is no point in acting like they were.
as i pointed out before, my friend was killed conventionally, i don't know what would have happened if she had tried alternative treatment, just she didn't and she din't have a chance to try. i guess it would have been worth while, 'cause she is dead (rotting, you know) for 7 years.
i'm an engineer, thus everything you have an adequate proof for you can discuss with me. but do not try to prove things to me which cannot be proven! they have to be handled some other way.
i don't think that people have little knowledge of cancer, humanity has known it some time. we still know about our eclipses according to the babylonian king saros, so everything that is old is not necessarily bad. maybe there was just no sponsor (money, company, interest) to follow that thread ?
Martina, the poster missed the topic because there wasn't any, only an agenda. Yes I agree lazygardens, most likely a salesperson for the product.
Martina7 I'll try to answer your question about Paw Paws.They are usually a woodland understory bush or tree that is native to North America.They produce this banana like tropical fruit which is actually pretty good when its very ripe.Im not sure about the anti-cancer properties but I think there is research going on in Kentucky about its medical uses.I have even had a slight but noticable reaction to paw paws while just walking thru a patch in the forest.
There are actually two fruits known as Pawpaw.
One is sometimes called papaya in certain parts of America, (Carica papaya). When eaten raw after meals it will prevent indigestion. The flesh is used to tenderise meat, as a skin exfoliate, and to treat bruises. As a face mask, pawpaw flesh is used to treat blackheads. A chewed pawpaw leaf applied to the area will help treat cold sores. A tablespoon of pawpaw seeds eaten after each meal will help eliminate intestinal worms. The sap from a green pawpaw applied frequently will remove warts. Rub the inside of a pawpaw skin over a wound to promote healing. Eating the partially ripe flesh and crushed seeds of pawpaw will promote breast milk in nursing mothers.
The other is Custard Apple, (Annona reticulata), sometimes called pawpaw in limited parts of America. The leaf decoction is given as a vermifuge. Crushed leaves or a paste of the flesh may be poulticed on boils, abscesses and ulcers. The unripe fruit is rich in tannin; is dried, pulverised and employed against diarrhoea and dysentery. The bark is very astringent and the decoction is taken as a tonic and also as a remedy for diarrhoea and dysentery. Fragments of the root bark are packed around the gums to relieve toothache. The root decoction is taken as a febrifuge.
So, you see, before we can discuss whether any herb may or may not be useful for particular conditions, first we must identify that herb! You will note that there is no mention of cancer in the above precis, simply because on that issue the jury is still out as to Carica papaya, and I'm not aware of any research as to Annona reticulata.
Why are we fighting? Isn't this a forum to discuss new ideas and old and new remedies? Personally I think that all suggestions should be tried and honored, unless, of course they are deadly in some way. If I had cancerI would try practically anything other than "conventional" treatment which I believe to be harmful and counteraproductive. Everyone should be allowed to do what they think is best in any given situation. There is also an intuitivaness about herbal and homeopathic remedies that does not lend itself to "double blind" studies. If someone has tried pawpaw and it works, that is good enough for me. One persons remedy my be another person's poision. Let's not disrespect anyone's suggstions since it may actually be very helpful and beneficial. Remember that herbaists were once considered "witches" and burned at the stake for their healing powers. Conventional medicine has made us believe that we need all of these "studies" and double blind trials. Those are not necessarily needed. For thousands of years people have used herbs and the "common" wisdom for me suffices. Look to the Chinese, they have thousands of years of results. So do we. Look to the "common wisdom" and forget about "studies" which can be skewed to whatever point he reseacher is trying to make. Andlet's respect every posting put on here and no denegrate what this forum is really supposed to be about.
"Look to the Chinese, they have thousands of years of results." Yes, and the results were that they had a horrendous death rate, according to my books written by the Chinese, missionaries ot the Chinese, diplomats in China, etc.
Herbs are useful, but they need to be held to the same standard of proof as any other medical technique.
*scratching my head* What happened while I was gone? Did yall go bonkers? LOLOLOL!!!
"Conventional medicine has made us believe that we need all of these "studies" and double blind trials. Those are not necessarily needed."
and also said:
"I think that all suggestions should be tried and honored, unless, of course they are deadly in some way."
You have answered your own query! We can't know if treatments have bad side effects or are deadly in some way unless we do the studies and double blind trials.
You said, "Let's not disrespect anyone's suggstions since it may actually be very helpful and beneficial."
And, "Isn't this a forum to discuss new ideas and old and new remedies?"
There was no disrespect in any comment until the original poster attacked everyone here with, "the mind set on this forum is both opinionated and narrow in scope."
No one is fighting, just offering their opinions and observations.
And, it is abundantly clear that herbalpower was not interested in a discussion of any sort.
You said there are two fruits that go by the name pawpaw. You missed the biggest one, asimina triloba. It is the one that is being discussed in the article that herbalpower cited.
I am sorry for your loss. Losing a loved one is always dificult. I am not sure what you mean by saying that your friend was killed conventionally or "treated to death". I am sure you meant to say that the disease killed her not the treatment. I work in a cancer center and see the results (good and bad) of what we accomplish everyday. There is no certainty that a treatment regime will work but I would take my chances with a well researched course of treatment over that of a non-proven method. Being a scientist yourself, I am surprised that you would abandon the institution that you have studied.
As far as discussing the potential of pawpaws as an anticancer drug, I am all for it. Anything that has the potential to save lives is worth investigating. Hopefully further research will prove it to be effective.
Is this thread back again? Isn't Paw Paw called Soursop?
The perils of common names .... "paw-paw" may be any of three or more totally different species. And "soursop" is another name applied to several species, which may or may not be the same as those called "paw-paw".
And the original postre failed to specify the genus and species of what he/she was calling "paw-paw".
If you read the information I posted above you would know which paw paw I was referring to. It does not grow where you live so you would not be familiar with it as most are who live east of the Mississippi. This is a wonderful compound and is working well for many. I would trust myself to natural therapies above others. I watched my mother die of lung cancer because the doctor's knew nothing to do for her. This paw paw could have made a great difference for her.
Herbal power, a friend of mine is al mesed up with lymphoma, can you tell me whee i can find paw paw extract or what is it that he needs and some lads maybe? Can you let me know asap? thanks
Before getting too excited about paw-paw, read my earlier post about the available research on paw paw -- there have been NO HUMAN STUDIES DONE! The effectiveness, and more important, the bad side effects of paw paw are not known.
Herbal Power, I lost my grandmother and father to lung cancer and my mother in law to emphysema. Both nasty diseases with few effective treatments and the disease is far progressed before detection. Having read about paw paw, I doubt it would have been of much benefit.
Lung cancer is a preventable disease if only we could convince people to not start smoking.
If you are trying to get a reaction from me, you just pushed the right button. I am continually amazed at the high level of arrogance expressed in this forum by a few people who think they know it all about herbs. Your opinion certainly is yours to express but you do not know of the people who have been helped by paw paw who are alive today because they dared not listen to such twaddle as yours. Yes lung cancer is a disease that could be lessened in the number of victims, however you forget that when my mother and your parents started smoking not much was known about the effects. How dare you be so insensitive and judgemental about something which you obviously know nothing about? What more testing is needed than the successful results many have had using something God put here on earth that has worked for them. You need to realize that people come to this forum looking for answers, and yes wisdom and knowledge is needed to reveal the validity of any herbal or alternative treatment, but opinions like I see expressed here so often do little to encourage and are just that, opinions. Take into consideration that there may be some who know some things that have validity beyond your level of experience. Once again I have grown weary of this forum because of the constant contentiousness of a few.
Nothing is out of the cell culture stage - if you read the research, they are talking about activity on cancer "cell lines", which means cells in a glass bottle. Many substances that are really great in vitro fail to make the transfer to in vivo because they are too toxic, or the body metabolizes them too fast.
"Though further studies are needed to pinpoint exactly how the pawpaw compounds work within the cancer cell, McLaughlin says their effect is to pull the plug on the energy-producing mechanisms in the cell.
McLaughlin notes, however, that the effect on drug-resistant cells has been studied only in laboratory cultures and will require additional study in animals before it can be tested in humans."
I hold hrebal medicine to the same standard of proof as I would any other ... show me the research and the clinical studies and I'll believe you.
That article is 6 years old, much has been done since.
Generally speaking, You won't get your research and clinical studies for herbals/plants. It's my understanding that drug corporations won't reveal the plant or herb being tested for a drug they're developing.. If this is true, you'll be given the chemical name for it's drug. There's no money in testing/clinical trials for herbs. They can't patent it.
"That article is 6 years old, much has been done since."
OK. Citations please?
so what? whatever works!
PROOF that it works is what I'm asking for.
It's not true that drug companies won't fund plant research, a great many drugs currently in use, including cancer drugs like tamoxifen, are derived from plants. Drug companies can and do patent a specific method of preparation, concentration etc of herb.
Paw Paw may or may not work, but testimonial evidence is not reliable, one needs clinical studies. I did a Medline search on Asimina triloba when this thread started (published studies up to this month) and only in vitro studies have been done, not a single study with a living animal. There is a lot unknown about it.
Are the active agents destroyed by stomach acid so that IV administration is needed? What dose to use? Is there a limit to how long it can be taken? Does it lose effectiveness after a certain time period of use? Does it interfere with or enhance the effects of other cancer therapies? What side effects does it have? Are there cancers it is more effective against? Are there cancers it makes worse instead of better? Does it damage non cancer cells? Are there drugs or foods it should not be used with? Are there other diseases it makes worse, so that a person with cancer and the other disease shouldn't take it? Are there certain blood types or ethnic groups that will have a bad reaction to it? Is it safe for nursing or pregnant women? Can it cause damage to future fetuses if a woman takes it at any point in her life? Will children of men taking it have more birth defects? and so on and so on.
Kfgeq, these are the kinds of questions that a clinical trial will answer and why trials are needed.
I have the current information with results from 130 patients. This information is so very encouraging. I cannot at this time post it on this forum but will send it to those who want to know more about paw paw. Those of you who want to analyize with your allopathic mindsets can do so among yourselves. Send me an email.
Herbal-derived medications have long had a place in conventional medicine and anti-cancer therapy (taxol, made from the Pacific yew tree is one of the most recent examples). Some of these drugs, like colchicine (for gout) and digitalis (for heart failure) have been highly beneficial, yet ineffective, toxic or fatal when administered improperly. That's what controlled studies are for.
Sharing information is a goal of this forum. It is correct to question claims made only on the basis of testimonials, which can't be documented and are a favorite device used by drug manufacturers operating on the edges of FDA scrutiny.
Cancer is not a single disease. No drug has ever been found to work on all tumors, and claims that any substance is a cure-all should be viewed with suspicion.
I just planted a paw paw tree (A. triloba) by the way. I am looking forward to fruit - but do I really need another tree as a pollinator?
Thank you for the bravo reguarding my previous statement but I must say I disagree with your impression of those questioning you. Many people have been sold on "snake oil" with outrageous claims. Claims alone are worthless. We NEED proof. If you do have proof then why not show it to all. After all you are talking about a disease that effects so many. It is clear to me that what you are attempting is wrong. I believe you are trying to gain (possibly financially???) from fear alone. You are the one who is fueling the fire in this case, not those who are skeptical.
EVERYONE wants a cure for cancer. EVERYONE!!! even those who are questioning the advocation of a drug/herb that has never been tested scientifically. Why is this so difficult to understand.
For those of you who believe every outrageous claim you read without requiring proof, I have these magical marigold seeds that will make you lose weight, regain hairgrowth, improve memory and reverse the aging process. I have 200 testimonials and a money back guarantee. If you order now I will include at no cost this amazing knife set that never needs sharpening and can cut through a tank.
Eric: A. triloba is not self pollinating and you do need two, unrelated shrubs for fruit. If you buy the second plant from the same nursery as the first, make sure that all their paw paws are not clones of the same plant.
I have two small ones in my woodland garden, too small to flower yet. The rabbits love them and I need to put 3 ft high hardware cloth cages around them for the winter, otherwise the bunnies eat them to the ground.
I see you are in Ohio; the Holden Arboretum just east of Cleveland has a wonderful Ohio native plant woodland garden with dozens of mature paw paw.
See link below for info on cultivation.
Enjoying the discussion I did a quick web search and found the following. Just thought I'd put it out here its (slightly) more recent.
Davimi, knock off the financial gain stuff, it seems to me that herbal power is trying to offer a remedy that may not be fully tested but that she believes in. Many people on this forum offer their opinions and advice which is all very worthwhile and offered, I hope, with joy and abandon. Not ewverything will work but it is worth a try. Keep your nasty comments to yourself and take the advice. Use it if you want and don't if you do not think it is good advice. But do not denegrate or accuse the offers.
texfinn: thanks for the link
You'll note the paw paw research was conducted, funded and published by traditional medicine and a patent is involved; so much for claims that traditional medicine won't study plant based remedies due to lack of patents. The researcher himself says it is very early, no animal studies have been done and the compounds will not be used in humans until proven effective.
For those who didn't read the link, some quotes below:
"McLaughlin notes, however, that the effect on drug-resistant cells has been studied only in laboratory cultures and will require additional study in animals before it can be tested in humans."
"McLaughlin and his group then did a follow-up study to test a series of 14 structurally similar pawpaw compounds to determine the structural features that maximize this biological activity in multidrug-resistant cancer cells. The results were published in the June issue of the Journal of Medicinal Chemistry"
"If proven effective in animals and humans, McLaughlin says, the compounds may be used to treat multidrug resistance in a variety of cancers"
"The studies were funded by National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute, the Indiana Elks Cancer Research Fund and Purdue Research Foundation. Purdue has filed a patent on the use of the pawpaw compounds."
you don't get it
davimi, i'm sorry to say that i did mean treated to death. my friend was the type of person who always was poor but nobody believed it. and then she had the proof she was really poor.
she was not a very lucky person, had the nastiest boyfriends i ever met, was 10+ older than me, unhappy that men looked at me and not at her (we had never been fighting, but she envied me as the "my men" were about 10 years younger than "her men" which makes sense) and always looking for attention. by being really sick she got it. and what she had to endure while treated was more than i could have carried i think. she had radio therapy wherever you can imagine and if he had lived through it she would have developed another type of cancer for sure.
i think the problem is to a certain extent that there are too little doctors and to many scientists around. right now i'm a little bit involved in therapy with magnetic pulse. they get mad at me because i tend to say that it sounds like modern voodoo. (maybe voodoo is not bad ?...)
by the way, double blind test in this field are illegal in austria - you are not allowed too keep treatment off a patient.
Paw paw is not soursop, but is the only related species which thrives in North America....other related plants are custard apple and cherimoya.
I believe the source of the hostility regarding this topic is a misunderstanding of the posters intent. I (and I believe others) saw it as avocation of an unproven treatment not as an all else has failed and I'm desperate to try anything approach. This upsets me because there are people who ignore traditional medicine altogether and throw away a good chance at life. Again, cancer is not something to try to cure by trial and error. If you try something and it doesn't work you DIE. This is not like trying to cure a wart or athletes foot. I would take my chances with provable odds over a treatment that has no odds (because it has never been proven). I certainly would try an herbal cure if traditional medicine has nothing to offer or has failed.
I hope you can understand why I got upset when people say, "well its worth a try" or "I don't need clinical studies". I agree its "worth a try" only if it is a last attempt at life.
If paw paw or any compound is to fall out of the category of "last ditch effort" it will only be through scientifically proven clinical testing. I am sure that those that believe strongly in herbal/nontraditional treatments would support research that can PROVE what they already believe in.
Paw paw as the Papaya is farmed here in Hawaii. The latex is used in cancer research. There are supposedly some promising leads towards inhibiting/destroying cancer cells but no specific type of cancer is mentioned. I'm not going to drag out the books for this. (Not being mean, it is just late, and the books are everywhere and yes, my Dad is dying of cancer so I know how it feels) Papaya is also a great fruit to eat but from what I gather it's primary benefit is if you have constipation and as a meat tenderizer. The seeds are often used in "fusion" types of salad dressings sold in supermarkets. They also are notorious for not being true to seed so if you throw some seed into the ground, expect surprises. Growing seeds from packets are better but also require careful watch. You cannot tell the males, females, hermaphrodites until mature.
Since this is a gardening forum I thought I would check out this posting about paw paws. MERCY!!! What a bunch of childish bickering! Let's wish everyone concerned, good luck, and get back to growing things.
It was an interesting discussion several months ago.
We've long since moved on to other things. I see no point in reviving this thread only to scold.
I have wanted to taste a paw paw since I was a little girl.
We planted paw paw trees when we moved into our present house in 1999 but they still haven't matured enough to fruit.
Finally this year I decided to stop wishing and find wild pawpaws. So far I have located several places around here where they grow wild, and picked a couple dozen. They do taste a lot like bananas. The seeds are quite large, so there really isn't much fruit per paw paw. They aren't the best wild fruit I've ever had - that would be blackberries and wild persimmons. But they aren't the worst - that would probably be elderberries. On the other hand, they're free.
No, I won't tell you where I got them because the raccoons eat them. I saw lots of adorable raccoon footprints in the dirt when I was picking them.
If you want them bad enough, find them yourself.
Will they prevent cancer? Who knows? Just getting out in the sunshine and fresh air did me a world of good.
Lots of good opinions but not much from anybody with the actual experience of coming out of the disease process.
There are studies on humans and beagles that Paw Paw has the simple and effective action of attacking cell abnormalities. For a cancer patient with tumors, that means shrinkage or obliteration, depending on the patient.
And Paw Paw is a plant, so it has its place in the garden forum of course. Studies are done on plants for medicinal purposes. Just not enough due to the simple fact that they cannot be patented. Thus drug companies cannot make much money on natural compounds. An example being Prilosec, once patented, now not, over the counter, and cheap. Replaced by Nexium, same drug with a molecule changed, a new patent, and a higher price. It's a logical business.
That is not to say that traditional medicine is rubbish, but it is to say you as a patient have the upper hand in your treatment process and that perhaps a combination of alternative and chemical means can provide the ultimate benefits. And I'm speaking from experience. I am still around today because of alternative medicine and things like Astragalus, Chinese Medicine, and herbs.
I have also proven efficacy by stopping chemical treatment and doing natural only. Doing labs, seeing results, then telling my physician I have not been taking what you told me to. So spank me.
Have an open mind, do your own research when you doubt something, and don't be so hard on us herb mongers. Many of us are still here due to things that come from the garden.
And this IS a gardening forum. So go plant something already why don't you anyway anyhow.
"Studies are done on plants for medicinal purposes. Just not enough due to the simple fact that they cannot be patented. Thus drug companies cannot make much money on natural compounds."
Taxol and vinca alkaloids are just two examples of widely prescribed anticancer drugs developed through research into natural (plant) compounds. If paw paw extracts prove successful in clinical trials there will be one or more drug companies developing standardized, pure drugs for cancer treatment - rather than the current overhyped offerings by supplement manufacturers that "have not been evaluated by the FDA" and "are not intended to diagnose, treat or prevent any disease".
". Just not enough due to the simple fact that they cannot be patented. "
Your assumption is false: Aspirin can't be patented ... look at all the research funded on it!
What I don't understand is, this information has been around for awhile...why are people still dying of cancer? I have known people will terminal illnesses who have tried every single alternative therapy that has purported to have curing abilities...unfortunately, all it did was cause more disappointment...so, to me, people with these unproven cures tend to just offer a hand only to jerk it away...and before you attack my alternative medicine beliefs, think again...because you will be wrong...I highly believe in alternative meds...I just don't believe in miracle cures..... I believe in CO-therapies...Western in conjunction with alternative...
But I tell you, with my terminal illness I get a LOT of hokum emails purporting cures...always looking to make a buck off the dying...
I don't know much about Paw Paw and when my Dad had inoperable lung cancer I had ZERO knowledge of herbs or homeopathic treatments. I wish I knew then what I know now. My Dad was "basically killed" by the modern cancer treatment. You see, my dad went to the hospital with intestinal problems that was diagnosed as diverticulitous (spell?), at this time they found the cancer that has already spread. NO options, only chemo and radiation. Now I know that diverticulitous is a serious and potentially lethal infection, now I know that chemo kills all of the anti infection/bacteria killing cells! Within 48 hrs of his chemo therapy he came down with a horrible infection from the diverticulitous, antibiotics were pumped through his blood stream, he had no ability in his own body to fight the infection, to no avail, he was dead 24hrs later. He had a life insurance policy specifically against cancer that my mother paid on for over 30yrs...she received no payment due to the cause of death being DIVERTICULITIS not cancer...thanks modern medicine!
I am new to this forum, tho been around GW for a little bit.
I am not going to enter into the argument. I just wanted to point out that the original poster joined GW less than 24 hours before making the post offering possible hope to people who are always looking for hope. That should send up a red flag, don't you think?
My mum has bile duct cancer on top of the liver. cannot be operated. Size approx. 3 to 4 cm. Seems to be localized. She discovered 2 weeks ago. She got plastic ducts inserted in the bile ducts to the interstine and to outside bags, to have the bile out of the liver. She had reached 30 of bilirubine in the blood. She had 16 when she left the hospital 1 week ago, but bilirubine level was going up and down. She had got candida infection during the surgery so she had fever up to 38.
When she arrived home, she started taking 3-4 pills of Paw Paw per day. After one week, now she has 9 of bilirubine, liver functions as a normal person, no fever. She is not yellow anymore, eats normally and sleeps normally (she was eating ans sleeping almost nothing in the hospital). Of course she is still weak, but walks (slowly - she has two bags for the bile to carry) and talks loud and clear.
When she left hospital, they suggested that in a week time she should undergo radiotherapy.
I will keep you posted on further developments. Of course I am trying paw paw in desperation, however it seems to me the most reliable and professionally explained / tested simila anti cancer herb available. For example, if you search info on graviola, much less is available. I bought graviola, too, while waiting for paw paw.
Please write me if you want further info.
Hope someone else will give some more input.
There are many studies about anti-oxidants, i think thats what herbal power might of needed to focus on. Many different fruits/vegetables & herbs contain anti-oxidants, and some affect different parts of the human body to prevent cancers.
Lycopene found in tomatoes has proven to prevent prostate cancer, Silymarin found in Milk thistle has proven to protect as well as regenerate liver cells...etc.
Im not sure if there is one herb or fruit that will prevent all cancers, but i would say my best bet is drinking tea.
Tea is proven to decrease the risk of heart disease, breast cancer....etc..etc..etc.
Of course taking synthetics isnt going to help anything since they are foreign substance and irritants. Synthetics are for idiot americans.
Germany, the UK..etc use herbs unlike money hungry doctors in the US who gain from prescribing manmade drugs that do more harm than good.
I take a lycopene supplement because some preliminary studies have shown that it may lessen one's chances of developing prostate cancer. I am under no illusion that it has been "proven to prevent prostate cancer".
Other claims made in this thread are more poorly substantiated.
Most of us are well aware that a wide variety of plants/herbals are toxic and/or deadly if consumed, while "synthetic" versions are far safer and more consistently effective (digitalis is one such example).
The following (from a Canadian site on ethics in sport) applies as well to the general supplement industry in the United States:
"Supplements can contain prohibited substances.
Many supplement manufacturers make claims about their products that are not backed by valid third-party scientific research.
As a result of an inadequate regulatory environment, content and accurate labeling of supplements cannot be guaranteed. The contents of particular products may change from batch to batch. Labels do not always indicate all of the ingredients, nor do they always do so in a way that identifies prohibited substances.
The supplement industry is a for-profit multi-billion dollar industry." (bolding mine).
Spending your money wisely when it comes to supplements not only saves you money, it can save your life.
Posted by: Eric_OH 6a (My Page) on Sun, Dec 26, 04 at 16:28
Most of us are well aware that a wide variety of plants/herbals are toxic and/or deadly if consumed, while "synthetic" versions are far safer
You sure about that? The 6th leading cause of death in the US is adverse reactions to prescription drugs.
drugwarfacts.org or something will tell u those statistics if u dont believe me.
It is true that digitalis, vinblastine, atropine..etc are too toxic in the plant form because dosage is so close to medicinal dose vs toxic dose, but they arnt at all synthetic such as completely manmade, just extracted is all.
As to causes of death, the Centers for Disease Control states:
"In 2000, the most common actual causes of death in the United States were tobacco (435,000), poor diet and physical inactivity (400,000), alcohol consumption (85,000), microbial agents (e.g., influenza and pneumonia, 75,000), toxic agents (e.g., pollutants and asbestos, 55,000), motor vehicle accidents (43,000), firearms (29,000), sexual behavior (20,000) and illicit use of drugs (17,000)."
Many of our modern drugs provide cures or extend the lives of patients whose illnesses stem from the above-listed causes. With the partial exception of the poor diet and inactivity category, over-the-counter herbals and supplements do very little to save patients in these categories.
As to plant-derived drugs, the manufacturing process is far more complicated than the phrase "just extracted is all" would indicate. For instance, digoxin (used to treat heart failure) is quite different from the raw mix of pharmacologically active and inactive compounds found in the plant. And again, the reason that consuming certain plants or raw extracts of same is risky is not only because of potential toxicity, but because activity varies from batch to batch and presence of active compounds (some beneficial, some inert and some dangerous) cannot be guaranteed.
I've read this whole thread, don't ask me why, and I only have one thing to add. NOTHING not even radiation and chemotherapy will cure EVERY cancer (proven in real life by how many people die of cancer every day). Clinical trials only prove that a drug is EFFECTIVE in TREATING cancer. Never has ANY drug company said that their drug cures cancer. They would be sued immediately when the first person died.
I'd say taking pawpaw isn't any worse than taking four coffee enemas a day, what do you say?
Having read this thread, I am bewildered at the lack of respect given to the original poster. Having studied native medicinal plants for many years now, I know that all the clinical studies and scientific testing will NOT account for results gained by individuals. There are so many plants that have not been studied or studied properly that all information should be welcomed. Many plants have vast numbers of compounds that we are just beginning to understand. Goldenseal, ginseng, bloodroot, cannibus and many others have compounds that need much more research than can be done by our universities or government scientists. We all need to study these plants and post our own findings. The days of the yarb doctor should return if only for our own individual health. I have several large asimia triloba trees in my backyard and have always enjoyed the fruits although the seeds are toxic and you must be careful when sharing them with children. Aside from the mild toxicity of the seeds, paw paws can cause skin allergies as can many of our native plants. Use caution with all plants but by all means use them when you can!!
Clinical studies are not infallible, but when properly conducted and repeated by different researchers with the same result, there can be relatively high confidence in the outcome (and in the case of a drug, reason to believe that it works for the stated condition).
Personal testimonials on the other hand, even if someone genuinely believes a treatment was helpful (and is not a supplement seller pretending to be something he is not) do not provide a reliable basis on which to risk our health and money.
The following is not specific commentary on paw paw, but explains the unreliability of testimonials in general.
There is also danger in confusing testimonials of relatively new unproven therapies with herbs that have been used for hundreds of years by herbalists, backed by anecdotal evidence, but as yet lacking gold standard (clinical studies) testing because modern science has not yet been applied to them for whatever reason.
Rip off health scamers and reputable herbalists are not in the same boat. Herbalists welcome the rigors of scientific tests on our herbs, shonky scam merchants do not.
Prior to the 19th century testimonials were the only to means propagate knowledge about specific plants. Much of the knowledge about medicinal plants has already faded into the mists of time and many more will pass unless we as herbalists continue to do research on our own and pass our findings on. Perhaps our personal findings may spur universities to further investigate and document what we have painstakingly learned. It is very true that many "snake oil" salesman are still around and it is also true that many testimonials are flawed but without those of out here digging in the dirt and taking calculated risks, nothing will ever get accomplished unless the drug companies can figure out how squeeze a gozillion dollars out of something you can dig up out of your own backyard.
I myself will not use any herb or doctor prescribed medicine without doing my homework. And just for a reminder, clinical studies are NOT always infallible. Remember Thalidimide? How about Vioxx? There is no sure means to test any drug or compound or plant for any affliction without taking some personal risk. Our bodies are too complex and our genes too diversified for clinical studies to do anything more than act as guidline for us to make an educated decision on what risks we are willing to personally accept. I am afraid that as long as the holy dollar god is the primary motivation for curing cancer the organizations with the means will not try to put themselves out of work by researching a cure that is readily available from something as simple as a garden plant or an easily overlooked lichen or even asiminia triloba!
Do we really want to take a "calculated risk" and accept the word of an unknown person we encounter online, over something as critical as cancer therapy?
Conspiracy theorists are likely never to be convinced, but medical practitioners and researchers constantly try to "put themselves out of work" through developing and promoting effective treatments and via prevention. One simple example is the campaign to reduce smoking and promote responsible behavior by the tobacco industry, led by groups like the American Cancer Society.
I came to this forum, in search of intellegent give and take on subjects related to medical herbalism. I have read this entire thread.
The only persons posting here who would seem to even know what that term means,would be the origional poster herbalpower and currentriverdenny.
What could have been a very informitive and rewarding thread was squelched immediately by Daizy. who snidely attacked the origional poster.
Things went from bad to worse, and ended up in defamation of the posters intent and motives.
Is this how you keep true herbalists and people truely interested in herbal medicne off this forum. I have watched several weeks, and This seems to be a recurring pattern, when an important or meaningful thread is started.
You ALL really need to start another forum called "scratch each others ego" seoe (pronounced as in hog calling),(seoeee!!!)and take your crap over there.
You are rude,ignorant of the subject matter,and off topic.
Since you know absolutely nothing about the subject of the forum, HERBALISM; why don't you try to learn something here, instead of trying to ram your ignorance down the throats of those who do, using a few catch phrases and code words, lifted from another disipline, to make yourselves feel superior at the expence of others.
Now Now Lyla. It is by their catch phrases and their code words that we can recognize them.Twenty years ago these
pathetic creatures were the mainsteam and now they are but whimpering cliches of days gone by.
Heres is a link too Paw Paws from the university of Kentucky
I'd just like to say that Herbalpower was treated badly here.
Who cares if he is researching or even if he's thinking about selling something?
I posted immediatly after I joined this place too. But they didn't treat me like I was a threat to the community.
I sure hope I don't get treated like he did.
I suggest cannibis for the peace pipe around here.
Who cares...even if he's thinking about selling something?"
The people who run GW do.
Ads are supposed to be paid for and approved by the management, not disguised as posts.
I have no knowledge that the original poster was trying to sell anything, but it's not uncommon for distributors of various remedies to post here, sometimes under false pretenses. Most people want the forum to be a place to share ideas and information, not a marketplace for supplement sellers.
Eric you are fighting a losing battle by trying to educate those who refuse to accept the scientific method. I do however applaud your efforts. Johnyb said "Herbalists welcome the rigors of scientific tests on our herbs, shonky scam merchants do not". Well said John.
It is clear to me that some are allowing emotions to overwhelm their intelligence. No one is attacking Paw paws or herbs of any kind. We all would like to find a cure. All herbalist should be advocating RESEARCH and questioning those that don't.
Extraordinary claims require Extraordinary proof.
I just happened to be trolling around for information on anona reticulata, sometimes known as a paw-paw or custard apple. I am new to your forum, but I have to say I was shocked by the unfriendliness shown herbalpower. I admit that the posting was a little nebulous and I am still unsure as to which plant herbalpower is referring to. The confusion of using common names rather than botanical can lead to spectacular misunderstandings in my experience. I decided to provide a supporting link. Though it does not support anona reticulata as an anti-cancer drug it does support the idea that medical research is being done on one plant sometimes called the paw-paw.
I am months behind in posting a reply to Eric, but here goes. First of all, let me say that I was very much of Eric's mindset for most of my life. So I do not feel that his approach has no merit. In fact, I think his skepticism is just fine.
Now for some fine points.
Eric wrote this.
"Richard, in the "quick answers" portion of your website, you say that drug companies wouldn't take on the expense of researching paw paw extract as a cancer treatment, because it wasn't patentable."
Purdue University obtained eight patents on specific acetogenins in paw paw and other related plants. Dr. McLaughlin shares a small share of the license fee paid to Purdue from the natural products company that sells the extract. He does not receive any royalties from product sales, including the lice shampoo. The idea that it was not patentable must have come from someone else's writing. The patents exist and can be read. (You might look for "bullaticin" or "asimicin.")
The decision to not license and develop paw paw from Purdue was an economic one. Current costs for drug development after discovery of a substance are one billion dollars. Taxol took 22 years from the publication of the original paper to the first approved human use as a drug. So drug companies don't buy much.
Eric wrote the following:
"Yet you compare paw paw extract to taxol, another plant-derived drug which was developed and successfully marketed as an anticancer drug. If drug companies really were biased against plant-based cures, why did they develop taxol?"
Research typically uses a standard, such as taxol or cytoxan, when evaluating new substances. These are "controls" which have known outcomes. The drug companies that evaluated Dr. McLaughlin's acetogenins did this research. For instance, Upjohn (now Pfizer) did the work with nude mice that is mentioned in the online lecture by McLaughlin. So that is why taxol is mentioned. About 70% of current anti-cancer drugs (at least those before the last couple years) are derived from plants.
"And why would they be spending money screening thousands of plant-derived compounds for possible use as drugs, if their intent wasn't to select the most promising for clinical trials?
Most of the money spent to screen plants is government money because almost all of the major drug companies, with the exception of Bayer, do not have natural products research divisions. Bristol was handed Taxol from the US government. I have in my library an excellent book called "The Story of Taxol." It details the development and discovery of taxol from the taxus bush. It is sort of funny that the word Taxol® is now a trademark and the researchers must use the word paclitaxel to refer to the substance. Originally it was not so. I had the pleasure of meeting Mansukh Wani last summer at the American Society of Pharmacognosy meeting in Phoenix. He is currently at the Research Triangle Institute in NC. He was one of the two who first published the paper on taxol.
During the heyday of plant screening, 10,000 substances were discovered every year in plant screenings. Of those, five made it to human testing.
"Could it be that paw paw extract is just one of many compounds that show activity in tissue cultures, but haven't panned out yet in further research?
The only published scientific paper on paw paw by Dr. McLaughlin that I can find from the last few years has to do with development of a shampoo for head lice (he is apparently connected to the company marketing it)."
I mentioned his lack of income from the shampoo already. It is necessary to support any claims for a natural product that does not come by mouth. A lice shampoo is topically applied, so the company was forced to do the research and publish in order to name the product Paw Paw Lice Shampoo. Any substance with claims that does not come by mouth is legally a drug.
The process of discovery has reached the human trial. The result of the trial just can't be read because of the journals turning it down. Remember that journal editors are currently involved in research of their own. All research requires money and that funding must be obtained annually in most cases. One man who worked with Dr. McLaughlin as a grad student consented to being interviewed by me with the understanding that he is still in need of grant money, so he does not want to say anything too controversial. Another man, an editor of a major journal and who has a distinguished chair at a major midwestern university, reminded me that the acetogenins are toxic. So there is another reason to attack Dr. McLaughlin's work.
"According to your website, a study on clinical trials of paw paw extract in humans was supposed to be published last year. Do you have any further information on it?"
As I said earlier, four journals (Cancer Letters and Planta Medica are two) have turned it down for publication. So, while it is true that there are no peer-reviewed journal articles about the human trial, there was a human trial with 93 people.
There is another forum conducted by Dr. Steven Martin of Grouppe Kurosawa, an immunologist, that discusses a complex protocol that uses paw paw along with several other natural products, for cancer treatment. I have spoken to the subject identified as "Anna." She successfully reduced a ten centimeter breast cancer tumor with the protocol. That is pretty remarkable, in my opinion.
The lecture that Dr. McLaughlin gave in October of 2003 is still available for free on the pawpaw.tv website. You can hear him for yourself. Or you can just pick his work apart.
As time has transpired, I have seen some respond to paw paw and others die. So it is not a cure, but for some who I know personally, it has brought some stability. The hoped-for trial in Detroit will not happen. I have been a go between to try to set something up in China. Maybe in another year or two we will have something else to talk about. In the meantime, we remain divided in conviction, some presenting hope and some warning of deceit and greed. It is fine to hear both sides. Let's hope that we can have an ear to hear each other.
I appreciate the reply, but much remains unanswered.
So it turns out according to you that four separate scientific journals, including one specializing in plant-based medicine, did not feel the paw paw research was of sufficient quality to merit publication (your hints of some sort of vendetta against Dr. McLaughlin notwithstanding).
As you know, it is easy to find testimonial evidence of a substance's effect on cancer, but these reports are unreliable due to numerous factors, including misdiagnosis, use of other concurrent therapies, chance or placebo effect etc. There just isn't a substitute for a well-conducted research trial when evaluating drugs to treat cancer.
As for Taxol (produced in a semi-synthetic form using material from the tree Taxus baccata, not the "Taxus bush"), you really haven't answered the question of why drug companies would be biased against paw paw extracts, when taxol has been such a success story. Even now, many plant extracts continued to be tested and developed in hopes of coming up with additional effective drugs. If paw paw extracts were so promising, there's no reason why a drug company wouldn't jump at the chance to work with them (by the way, where did you get the idea that it takes a billion dollars to develop every new drug?).
Thank for clarifying that Dr. McLaughlin does in fact receive income from a "natural products" company, and that his extracts have indeed been patented.
One of the more common statements we hear from alt med advocates is that drug companies won't work with plant-based remedies because they are not patentable. Your response helps to debunk this fallacy.
I would say that the main reason that I feel that the journals have not published Dr. McLaughlin's paper is that it is controversial or that it is far reaching. It is the report of what are called 10 "best case studies." It is done in this form because that is how one does it when one is seeking a phase one human trial from National Cancer Institute. Dr. McLaughlin has had a meeting with Dr. Jeffrey White.
I certainly would like to see publication so that people can discuss its merits. McLaughlin has published about 200 peer-reviewed papers in his career. So he is a respected researcher. The proposed trial in China will be more of a phase one trial, I believe. I don't really have the details yet.
Regarding Taxol®, it was discovered from the Taxus brevifolia. The phrase I used referred only to the nature of how it was growing as an understory tree in the Pacific Northwest. You are correct about current manufacture. There are more developments under way for newer approaches to manufacture. One interesting thing is the discovery of the molecule in a common nut tree- this minute the variety escapes my poor memory. There is a researcher in Montana who is advocating that position, I believe. The thinking is that there may be a fungus which is actually the producer.
The real hot ticket in drug discovery is in sponges this season. Plant screening, although continuing to be done, is not the target of the big research budgets currently. But my point is mainly that many promising substances are discovered and very few are tested in people.
I used to hear Dr. McLaughlin say that drug development now costs $900 million dollars. I thought he was exaggerating. But then I heard Mark McClellan, who at the time of speaking was the head of the FDA, say that it now costs one billion dollars.
You can hear his talk for yourself at videocast.nih.gov. Look under Past Events. The title information is this:
Confronting Cancer through Collaboration, Innovation and e-Health
Monday, February 02, 2004
Mark McClellan, M.D., Ph.D., Commissioner of Food and Drugs, FDA
Seven major drug companies seriously looked at paw paw in the 1990's. They included Upjohn (now Pfizer) and Abbott. In some cases, the companies ran tests. They just did not buy.
This past year, I got a paper from the guys at Scripps Institute. They had synthesized one of McLaughlin's acetogenins. This week I read an article in the newspaper about a lady who manages a unit of Pfizer located near Scripps. She mentioned that she goes surfing with their researchers. Maybe something will develop there in the next few years. Who knows?
Dr. McLauglin no longer works for the natural products company and receives no royalties based on sales. Natural compound patents are tricky. They must be filed usually within a year of discovery, must be really new molecules, and must have an unexpected effect. So many known substances do not qualify. But there are use patents that could be filed, of course.
"...my point is mainly that many promising substances are discovered and very few are tested in people."
I think we're in agreement on this basic statement, though you apparently believe the reason that few such drugs reach the testing phase is because of bias (an odd belief, since many drugs currently or originally derived from plants are in use). The more logical explanation is that test tube results seldom translate into an effective and non-toxic drug in the human body.
Controversial study results are published frequently - if they are based on well-conducted research.
I find that the billion-dollar figure for new drug development may not be that far off - one study pegged it at about 800 million dollars, so I'll concede that point to you.
I believe that few molecules, from whatever source, reach human testing and drug development because of the high cost, not bias. Obviously the people who make the decisions to invest in a certain molecule over others will make a decision and that decision is based on their own rationale, so I suppose they end up having a bias, but not one just arbitrarily placed. But they are people, not computers. They receive proposals from people, not just from journal articles. And people have qualities that sometimes repel and sometimes attract.
I don't know if you have any experience in making these types of proposals for drug development, since I don't know what you do for a living. But I have talked with Dr. McLaughlin about his experiences in "selling" the Annonaceoius acetogenins to Big Pharma. And I have heard of his work to raise research money from National Cancer Institute. He did receive 13 years of funding with RO1 grants from them, so he has been successful in getting the most difficult type of funding, the research originator type.(My source for these statements is private conversation, so don't ask me to prove that he said these words, please!)
You said "Controversial study results are published frequently - if they are based on well-conducted research." Perhaps you might think back on the prion theory or on Linus Pauling's work with Vitamin C. Did they always find easy reception in the journals? You don't know how they struggled to be heard.
Dr. McLaughlin has published many times in peer-reviewed journals. So his ideas have been received well. It is just this one paper on the human trial that has not been well received. I think you should let us know your publishing history before you attack his credibility for research. I have tried to explain the state of affairs this is. You seem bent on slamming a decent man. I don't like it. You may feel that I lack experience or credibility. That is okay, I am no Einstein. But don't think that you have the inside story about Annonaceous acetogenins.
This paper was just published this year in the Journal of Natural Products, an American Chemical Society publication.
J Nat Prod. 2005 Feb;68(2):194-7.
Asimitrin and 4-hydroxytrilobin, new bioactive annonaceous acetogenins from the seeds of Asimina triloba possessing a bis-tetrahydrofuran ring.
Kim EJ, Suh KM, Kim DH, Jung EJ, Seo CS, Son JK, Woo MH, McLaughlin JL.
Narcotic & Neuropharmacological Drug Division, Drug Evaluation Department, Korea Food and Drug Administration, Seoul 122-020, Korea.
Bioactivity-directed fractionation of the seeds of Asimina triloba resulted in the isolation of asimitrin (1) and 4-hydroxytrilobin (2). Compound 1 represents an adjacent ring-hydroxylated bis-tetrahydrofuran (THF) acetogenin. Compound 2 has an adjacent bis-THF ring with two flanking hydroxyl groups and a alpha,beta-unsaturated gamma-lactone with a 4-hydroxyl group. Compounds 1 and 2 showed cytotoxic selectivity, with 100-10 000 times the potency of adriamycin against prostate adenocarcinoma (PC-3) and colon adenocarcinoma (HT-29) cell lines.
Let us see your publication history before you attack Dr. McLaughlin. Have you found any molecules that are 10,000 times more potent than adriamycin?
You may see the current listing of his papers by entering "McLaughlin annonaceous acetogenins" in the search window of pubmed.org.
This is another paper showing anti-cancer activity in a cell line (test tube). Not even an animal study, much less one showing efficacy and safety in human beings.
I am not attacking Dr. Laughlin's credibility. What is questionable in my view is when some draw unwarranted conclusions from very limited evidence, and raise false hopes that a miracle cancer cure is right around the corner. And currently, according to your own information, there is only unpublished data from a small clinical trial, that was rejected by four scientific journals. This doesn't necessarily mean that the reviewers for these journals are "attacking Dr. Laughlin's credibility" - but it does seem reasonable to conclude that the work did not meet their standards for publication.
It would be great if a paw paw extract eventually proved to be an effective anticancer agent. Making unsupported claims and darkly hinting about conspiracies against paw paw will only hurt its chances of getting serious attention in the cancer research community.
I make no unsupported claims about paw paw. The facts that I know I know by private conversations with the world's leading authority on Annonaceous acetogenins.
In the last few days I found another reason to honor Dr. McLaughlin. He is listed by a website that only invites people who have been cited frequently in peer-reviewed journals.
This is what they say about those that they include in their Highly Cited category.
"With ISIHighlyCited.com, ISI has now identified the most highly cited researchers of our time -- the top influential researchers from 21 broad subject categories in life sciences, medicine, physical sciences, engineering and social sciences who have contributed to the progress of science through their insight and accomplishments. ISIHighlyCited.com is the first online community composed of and designed completely for highly cited scientific researchers."
I have invited you and others to actually listen to what Dr. McLaughlin said in a public lecture. It is available free online. Go to www.pawpaw.tv and look for the button labeled "Science and Health." Of course, those who are close-minded highly intelligent, who do not want to listen to a world-class cancer reearcher will prefer to take pot shots about lack of evidence. But for others, you can actually hear him talk about the human trial. I think that you will be pleasantly surprised to find him a reasonable, careful man. I did.
It's worth repeating some statements made previously in this discussion:
lazygardens: "Herbs are useful, but they need to be held to the same standard of proof as any other medical technique."
Judy B: "Are the active agents (in paw paw extracts) destroyed by stomach acid so that IV administration is needed? What dose to use? Is there a limit to how long it can be taken? Does it lose effectiveness after a certain time period of use? Does it interfere with or enhance the effects of other cancer therapies? What side effects does it have? Are there cancers it is more effective against? Are there cancers it makes worse instead of better? Does it damage non cancer cells? Are there drugs or foods it should not be used with? Are there other diseases it makes worse, so that a person with cancer and the other disease shouldn't take it? Are there certain blood types or ethnic groups that will have a bad reaction to it? Is it safe for nursing or pregnant women? Can it cause damage to future fetuses if a woman takes it at any point in her life? Will children of men taking it have more birth defects? and so on and so on.
...these are the kinds of questions that a clinical trial will answer and why trials are needed."
davimi: "It is clear to me that some are allowing emotions to overwhelm their intelligence. No one is attacking Paw paws or herbs of any kind. We all would like to find a cure. All herbalist should be advocating RESEARCH and questioning those that don't.
Extraordinary claims require Extraordinary proof."
Instead, what we have are no published animal trials, a small-scale human trial that has been rejected by four separate scientific journals, and a resort to insults by believers who cannot accept this.
You summarize "no published animal trials." Did you actually review the material in pubmed.org or on his lecture, or do you just assert things, hoping that no one will check facts?
This is the citation on one animal trial.
Life Sci. 1993;53(14):1113-20.
Mode of action of bullatacin: a potent antitumor and pesticidal annonaceous acetogenin.
Ahammadsahib KI, Hollingworth RM, McGovren JP, Hui YH, McLaughlin JL.
Pesticide Research Center, Michigan State University, East Lansing 48824.
Bullatacin, a compound isolated from plants of the Annonaceae, and its analogues show in vivo potential as antitumor agents based on their efficacy in normal mice bearing L1210 murine leukemia and athymic mice bearing A2780 conventional ovarian cancer xenografts. These compounds also have interesting potential as insecticides and inhibit respiration in insect-derived Sf9 cells with high potency. Their toxicity in both cases probably arises from their strong inhibition of mitochondrial electron transport with a specific action at complex I.
JP McGovren at the time was employed by Upjohn. They paid for the trial. He is now working for Pfizer. He declined an interview due to company policies about research, but acknowledged this paper and his working with Dr. McLaughlin on it.
Proprietary safety studies were conducted on the paw paw extract prior to giving it to people. The lecture also talks about this.
Why not actually listen to the lecture? It would help your credibility and accuracy.
As to Judy B's questions, they are worthy of answers. I will tell you what I know at present.
Judy B: "Are the active agents (in paw paw extracts) destroyed by stomach acid so that IV administration is needed?
No. They do survive the stomach's acid environment and have a biological effect. We do not recommend IV administration or administration through suppositories. Oral administration allows a protective emesis if a person overdoses. The acending toxicity study in Beagle dogs reached 32 capsules 4 times daily with the result of a little watery diarrhea, but continued weight gain. Previously in the 1890's Eli Lilly made paw paw extract from seeds that was used as an emetic. There is no history of problems from that time.
What dose to use?
Bottle directions say to take one capsule four times daily with food.
Is there a limit to how long it can be taken?
We do not believe long term use is harmful. Of course, as more time passes, we will know more. Animals and humans have consumed paw paw as food for many years.
Does it lose effectiveness after a certain time period of use?
This is a good question that will have to be explored in use. Obviously a controlled study would be appropriate.
Does it interfere with or enhance the effects of other cancer therapies?
It has no known negative effects on chemotherapy, radiation, or surgery. It is an ATPase inhibitor. This is a new mode of action in dealing with cancer. Cyanide in apricot pits inhibits complex four of the electron tranport chain, the Annonaceous acetogenins inhibit complex one. So it is possible that they may act in synergy. Cyanide is considered harmful and is restricted in the US.
In consideration of its effect on the p-glycoprotein pump in the cell membrane (it reduces the power supply to this pump, making it less effective), this effect may help the chemotherapy drugs pass into the cells, so that they may actually be more effective with multidrug resistant cells. This is not considered a bad thing, of course.
What side effects does it have?
It does not have side effects. The emetic effect is a direct effect and is a safety mechanism. The vast majority of adverse events reported relate to nausea and vomiting. This affects less than one percent of users.
Are there cancers it is more effective against?
In the human trial paper yet unpublished, the larger share of those discussed were in breast cancer. The mode of action is broad, so it may be helpful in several types. Research is needed, of course, to illuminate this area.
Are there cancers it makes worse instead of better?
So far there is no evidence of this. I imagine the question has in mind the types of cancers that are hormonally driven. We don't think that paw paw has any effects on hormones. The preclinical studies are very strong on the mode of action.
Does it damage non cancer cells?
There is no evidence from cell culture studies that this happens. Certainly it is far less harmful than the other cytotoxic agents studied as controls.
Are there drugs or foods it should not be used with?
There is some concern about use with certain antioxidants. There is no concern of harm, but more of the anti-oxidants rendering the effects of paw paw to be less powerful. Recent cell culture studies reveal that green tea extract and grape skin extract do not inhibit paw paw. This has led us to believe that this issue is of lower importance.
Are there other diseases it makes worse, so that a person with cancer and the other disease shouldn't take it?
There is no evidence of negative effects with other diseases. I suppose that a person who had mitochondrial disease issues would be wise to ask their doctor for permission to use it.
Are there certain blood types or ethnic groups that will have a bad reaction to it?
We have no evidence that ligands in blood types cause differences in tolerance. This could be studied, of course.
Is it safe for nursing or pregnant women?
Currently, the bottle instructions say this: Do not take this product if you are pregnant, think you may become pregnant, or if you are breastfeeding.
Can it cause damage to future fetuses if a woman takes it at any point in her life? Will children of men taking it have more birth defects? and so on and so on.
These are reasonable questions that can only be answered by historical use over decades. Large quantities of people and animals have consumed paw paw for many generations. The American Indians have reported some use of the tea made from plant parts. Other peoples have wide use of other Annonaceous plants and fruits. There is no current evidence linking paw paw to long term problems.
...these are the kinds of questions that a clinical trial will answer and why trials are needed."
I support further research on the safety and effectiveness of the Annonaceous acetogenins found in paw paw. Some of these issues will need generations of study for definitive answers.
"You summarize "no published animal trials." Did you actually review the material in pubmed.org or on his lecture, or do you just assert things, hoping that no one will check facts?"
What I try to do is carefully read what others have posted and not misquote them (as well as avoiding gratuitous personal insults).
For instance, I can't find anything in this entire discussion where I asserted that no animal trials existed. I responded to your citation of a test tube-type study by noting that it was not even an animal study, much less one documenting anti-cancer activity in humans. Please do not misquote me in future.
As to the mouse study you now mention, involving such esoterica as ovarian tumors grafted onto immune-compromised mice - sounds interesting, but hard to judge based on a short abstract. Anything else published in the intervening 12 years (as noted by a previous poster, this is getting to be ancient history in a dynamic field like oncology research)?
Regarding the answers to Judy B - is this your personal knowledge, or are you quoting Dr. Laughlin? When you say "We", it sounds like you're involved in the research. Is this the case? What's your connection to the world of paw paw?
After all the ballyhoo about how paw paw extracts are extremely powerful anti-cancer agents with absolutely no side effects, it's refreshing to hear the admission that at least one such compound made people throw up (denying that nausea and vomiting are a side effect is rather bizarre). And of course, many side effects are not manifested until drugs reach large scale trials and later upon general use - so we're a long way from knowing whether paw paw extracts will turn out to be better or worse than existing antitumor drugs in this regard.
After all that's been discussed, I hope you don't believe that assertions in an interview make up for a lack of published clinical trials in human beings.
Before you go taking any more of this personally and lashing out, please remember that I and others in this thread who have questioned the claims made for paw paw would love to see an effective class of cancer drugs developed from this plant. We also think that it's wrong to raise false hopes based on insufficient evidence.
Here is what you actually said, unless I don't understand the structure of this forum.
"Extraordinary claims require Extraordinary proof."
"What I try to do is carefully read what others have posted and not misquote them."
"For instance, I can't find anything in this entire discussion where I asserted that no animal trials existed."
"I responded to your citation of a test tube-type study by noting that it was not even an animal study, much less one documenting anti-cancer activity in humans. Please do not misquote me in future."
Did I miss something here? Ordinary mortals, such as myself, would think that you asserted that no animal trials have been done. Of course, you only said that no one had printed the abstact of one in the forum. How stupid of me! Can't you see how I just don't get it? Thanks for forebearing with me, a man with poor logic.
"As to the mouse study you now mention, involving such esoterica as ovarian tumors grafted onto immune-compromised mice - sounds interesting, but hard to judge based on a short abstract."
The only fact needed to be seen is that it is a study in animals. The purpose of using athymic mice is so that HUMAN tumors can be transplanted and tested. These types of tests are expensive because of the mice needing to be raised in sterile environments. The word murine here refers to tumors that are mouse tumors. So both natural mouse tumors and human tumors were tested.
"Anything else published in the intervening 12 years (as noted by a previous poster, this is getting to be ancient history in a dynamic field like oncology research)?"
Of course, when I mention a recent study in China, it is a cell culture study, so therefore it is worthless. When I mention an animal study, it is worthless because it is so last century. I tried to send you to a citation site to see that there is substantial investigation, but it is too hard to read, so it is not regarded as relevant. I read a paper from a researcher in China last year who ran more mouse tumor studies on KB and KB200 tumors. Something about being from a foreign country will now be your reason to disregard it, right? Or maybe because it was from a foreign mouse?
The Scripps Institute synthetic acetogenin paper is also recent. But you will find some reason to disregard it, I am sure. Maybe no one in California is to be trusted. Or the shaking ground of California makes people believe funny things.
Regarding the answers to Judy B - is this your personal knowledge, or are you quoting Dr. Laughlin?
I spent about one month with Dr. McLaughlin in 2004 interviewing him. I suppose that I write from what I personally believe. But much of my information has come from Dr. McLaughlin, published research, and personal interviews with other researchers involved, as well as some interviews with people who have taken it.
"After all the ballyhoo about how paw paw extracts are extremely powerful anti-cancer agents with absolutely no side effects, it's refreshing to hear the admission that at least one such compound made people throw up (denying that nausea and vomiting are a side effect is rather bizarre)."
I find your comment curious. I make a distinction between unexpected and unrelated effects, such as the hair falling out in a cancer patient taking taxol, to the direct effect of someone vomiting when taking a known emetic like acetogenins. It is a protective effect. If a person can safely vomit, they can safely take paw paw (with the exceptions that I previously noted.) If they cannot vomit safely, such as in the case of blocked esophagus, they should not take it.
Energy production is essential to life. Interfering with it is potentially dangerous. The reason that paw paw's acetogenins have a benefit, if indeed they do, is because of the metabolic differences between cancer cells and normal cells. Breast cancer cells, for example, have been noted to have up to 17 times the insulin receptors and insulin-like growth factor receptors as normal breast cellls, So, by inference, they can metabolize sugar at a much higher rate than normal cells. The reports of people who say that they notice an increase in energy after taking paw paw extract may be related to the larger amount of glucose that becomes available since the uptake from the cancer cells is reduced.
When we take enough acetogenins to affect normal cells, we throw up. This is a direct effect. We expect it. It is a brain response. So this also indicates that acetogenins cross the blood-brain barrier. I can see that you were mystified by my use of the word "direct."
"And of course, many side effects are not manifested until drugs reach large scale trials and later upon general use - so we're a long way from knowing whether paw paw extracts will turn out to be better or worse than existing antitumor drugs in this regard."
On this point you and I agree.
"After all that's been discussed, I hope you don't believe that assertions in an interview make up for a lack of published clinical trials in human beings."
I do feel that interested parties could listen to a public lecture from a prominent researcher in the field, albeit a professor emeritus from Purdue. We do receive facts in our modern world through many forms. Lectures are one form. I have noticed that in other threads mention was made of news releases at science meetings about findings being presented. That is a public lecture, isn't it? Publication of a lecture is a form of communication that we trust in other areas of life. Certainly we decide many things based on Television News. We elect presidents that way. Why not at least listen to the man talk before making little of his ideas?
"Before you go taking any more of this personally and lashing out, please remember that I and others in this thread who have questioned the claims made for paw paw would love to see an effective class of cancer drugs developed from this plant. We also think that it's wrong to raise false hopes based on insufficient evidence."
I do not wish to raise anyone's hopes based on faulty facts. Everything I have said I believe to be true. However, if you have facts that prove contrary positions, then present them.
Some people who have cancer in the US seek complementary treatments to the known conventional therapies. The main reason that they do that, in my opinion, is because the main treatments are not usually cures. Life is extended, but not saved. I have attempted to present what I believe, based on what I have learned in the last two years. I am sure that I do not have all the facts. And I support the furtherance of research in these molecules and others.
I have taken offense by the attacks on Dr. McLaughlin because he is a careful researcher who has given his life's work to study and discovery. He has trained hundreds of competent researchers in the field of natural products research. He has published extensively. He has worked to make an available product at a reasonable cost that is available to people now. He takes no royalties from sales. I tried to defend him because he is worth defending.
For the remarks critical of me, I accept them. I probably do not help my readers to understand well enough. I am sure that I do not explain everything perfectly. I may leave out important details or not go into sufficient detail. So I keep working on it. It is you, my readers, who must forebear. Thanks for your kindnesses.
And I find those who currently do not accept what I say to be hard to take at times. I need to improve my patience with you. But I also ask you to open your eyes and ears to new ideas. I seriously doubt that most of the members of this forum read journals as our primary source of medical information. By inviting you to listen to a video lecture, I wish to ask you to expose yourself to one man's story. At least it is a primary source.
The question remains, "Does the administration of an extract of acetogenins from the Asimina triloba twigs, by inhibiting ATP production in cells, have an positive effect on human carcinoma?"
I have seen evidence that it does in some cases. You may doubt. I did at first. You are free to doubt, but do you want to keep those who will die from their diseases waiting until we can get 5000 people from the upper west side of Manhattan to test it in a placebo-controlled, double blind, cross-over study?
For me, who has watched loved ones die of cancer, the answer is no. Feel free to answer this question your own way, but do not regard the telling of the stories of those who have been helped as an evil act.
It is not a cure for cancer. It has helped some live longer and better lives, from what I have seen. It may be worth trying. That is all I assert.
After almost 2 years now since I originally posted about paw paw, I am amazed to see the continuation of this discussion. Then again I am not.
During this time, while some are intent on argument, two things have occured. Untold thousands have succumbed to the very disease discussed herein, using conventional means with all of its' reasearch and clinical tests, and there are many, who have refused the status quo, and remain among us because of their courage to take less conventional steps, more often criticized than not, because it is their health and body and their right to choose their treatment.
If this forum and this question in particular were all that were available for me to make an intelligent choice about such treatment, I would be hardpressed to know what to do, not because of insufficient information, but due to the constant twaddle of having to have the last word.
To those who are serious about herbs and alternatives, you will learn more elsewhere.
To those who are intent on the defending the conventional, which at best has a very poor track record, I for one leave you here to dribble on.
There are many who are once again whole today because they did not let analytical minds and opinions deter them from utilizing what has been purposefully placed here on this planet for the benefit of us all.
Knowing this won't be the last word, it is truly mine.
First of all, in going over this lengthy thread late last night, I missed a single comment I had made about no published animal trials. I apologize for saying you had misquoted me.
This single remote trial you cite is still a very shaky foundation on which to base one's conclusions.
About raising false hopes in cancer patients: I don't doubt you are sincere in thinking paw paw extracts are wonderful, but by only stressing the scant positives, the impression is given that a great cancer cure is just around the corner. This is the kind of thing the supermarket tabloids do, based on some interview or preliminary study. When things don't pan out, they've already moved on to their next headlines, leaving many disappointed and bewildered people to wonder what happened to their miracle cure.
In the research community, giving lectures, presenting testimonials and inspiring followers is more akin to religion than science. Meeting standards for clinical trials is critical, before we can trust our health to untried drugs.
" The reason that paw paw's acetogenins have a benefit, if indeed they do, is because of the metabolic differences between cancer cells and normal cells."
This is also the basis for many standard anti-cancer drugs - taking advantage of the fact that cancer cells divide more rapidly, and so are more susceptible to certain drugs than normal cells. It is also the basis for some toxic side effects.
But when those side effects (nausea and vomiting) occur with paw paw extract due to toxicity at the cellular level), you say they are not really side effects, but are "protective". ???
"do you want to keep those who will die from their diseases waiting until we can get 5000 people from the upper west side of Manhattan to test it in a placebo-controlled, double blind, cross-over study?"
I and numerous others who have posted here hope that cancer patients use the best available therapies, to prolong and save lives. If I feel strongly on this subject (and I do), it is because there have been many pie-in-the-sky and outright quack therapies and supplements hustled on the Internet (and in this forum), promoted via unreliable testimonials and accompanied by scare stories and insults directed at health professionals who care for these patients, to cover up the fact that their products have not been shown to be effective and safe.
Just a quick note. The "protective" effect is evacuating the stomach by vomiting. If a person takes too much of the acetogenin, a reaction is triggered in the brain which causes the vomiting.
Perhaps you are old enough to remember Ipecac syrup. We used to have some at home to give to someone if they accidentally swallowed something poisonous. It causes vomiting. This would be a protection to the body by removing via the mouth the poison.
Many years ago physicians used to prescribe emetics because of the warming of the body (known as diaphoresis) which occurs just before we throw up. The Eli Lilly paw paw seed extract was used for that purpose. This product was made in the 1890's.
Of course, I am not making any claims about the current product in relation to diaphoresis. I am just explaining why I used the term protective. You may wish to be even more protective by not taking paw paw in the first place, right?
Chemotherapy started circa World War 2. Nitrogen mustard gas had been found to cross link DNA and thereby fight cancer. Many analogs of that have been developed. Until recent genomic and proteomic research, most chemotherapy was directed at interfering with division of the DNA strands. (tubulin inhibitors) Some mimicked folates like methotrexate, inhibiting metabolism that way.
The closest effect to the one of the acetogenins is the aforementioned cyanide inhibition of complex four of the electron transport system in the inner membrane of the mitochondria. Acetogenins inhibit complex one, as you may recall.
Please remember that I have not used words like "wonderful" or "miraculous" to describe paw paw's acetogenins. Peer-reviewed journal articles do use words like "potent inhibitor" or "cytotoxic" or have compared the effectiveness in killing cells in culture or in increasing life span of lab animals to conventional drugs. This is because it is appropriate based on the presented evidence. Lay readers and tabloid editors and sometime forum posters like myself should not extrapolate too far.
We must recognize that oral administration of any herb or medicine may be rendered ineffective by the complex chemical reactions in the body. Since there is some human use and has been for two years and three months since being offered to the public for sale, we may learn something from that human use. It is not the "gold standard" of proof. But do we need to completely disregard it?
"The "protective" effect is evacuating the stomach by vomiting. If a person takes too much of the acetogenin, a reaction is triggered in the brain which causes the vomiting."
What you're describing is common to all drugs that cause nausea and vomiting. See this reference.
The bottom line seems to be that paw paw extract can make you sick to your stomach and has caused diarrhea in animals, same as established chemotherapy drugs (it does sound nicer to call it a "protective effect", but this probably won't impress the patient who is throwing up).
"Since there is some human use and has been for two years and three months since being offered to the public for sale, we may learn something from that human use. It is not the "gold standard" of proof. But do we need to completely disregard it?"
At best that "evidence" is unpublished, unverified human trial data, rejected by four separate scientific journals (including at least one which is devoted to plant-based therapies). At worst it's nothing more than testimonials, which can never constitute proof of effectiveness and are easily made up or manipulated to create a false impression. While the practice of using testimonials is most common among sellers of dubious and quack remedies, it is not unique to them. For instance, the drugmaker Hoffman-LaRoche was warned by the FDA for making a patient video in which one woman said that the cancer drug Xeloda didn't make her too tired or sick for daily activities, unlike other chemotherapy drugs. But the FDA said there were numerous reports of vomiting, diarrhea and fatigue with Xeloda; as a result Roche stopped sending out the video and sent letters of correction to 10,000 U.S. oncologists (source: the 5/31 edition of USA Today).
For clarity, the adverse events reported are less than 1/2 percent of users and the most severe is nausea or vomiting. No bone marrow depression, no white cell depression (leukopenia), no bleeding, or hair loss, or loss of appetite, or loss of libido are reported.
I know that you have not had access to the information that I have had access to, so I would not expect you to know the percentages or the report specifics. That is my reason for detailing that here.
A recent successful chemotherapy drug, Gleevec, has also had some reported adverse events. It caused bleeding in more than half of those using it for a certain type of stomach cancer. In fact, the literature provided by the manufacturer seemed to draw a distinction between ordinary bleeding and severe bleeding. For the former, it was considered to be expected. For the latter, it was a reason to call your doctor.
I am glad that Gleevec is available. I am sure that it has kept some people alive and done good in this world. I just wanted to clarify the difference between the type and level of adverse events reported with paw paw and those with current chemotherapy drugs.
I am sure that you did not understand the relevance about the removal of paw paw by vomiting. The suggested use of one capsule four times a day does not produce any adverse events in more than 99 percent of those using it. But it is biologically active at that concentration level in the body. At that level it does something to cells that are using sugar at a high rate. We will call these abnormal cells. The stability of these abnormal cells in the elecron transport system process is affected by the acetogenin inhibiting at the PSST subunit of complex one, NADH ubiquinone oxidoreductase. Current thinking is that there are more than one hundred subunits in this structure. Dr. John Casida at Berkeley is Dr. McLaughlin's go-to guy on this subject. So the mode of action is related to energy production inhibition. Most other chemotherapy agents target cell division, in particular in interfering with DNA. This is why some chemotherapy ultimately causes DNA damage and in about 10-15 % of cases can cause cancer later on.
Normally, this targeted energy production pathway where the acetogenins work contributes to a build up of hydrogens in the intermembrane region inside the mitochondria. With sufficient buildup, a mechanism in complex four unites oxygen with available hydrogens to form water. Stress caused by inhibition of complex one causes a lack of control of the oxygen by the heme groups in complex four, allowing formation of superoxide and hydrogen peroxide. These molecules are reactive oxygen species and cause damage, leading to the release of cytochrome c, initiating the steps to programmed cell death or apoptosis. This happens through the p53 pathway.
These statements are well supported in the preclinical papers that have been published in peer reviewed journals and by unpublished data from other scientists. I explain these ideas so that you can see that paw paw's mode of action is different.
To recap, in the situation of overdose with paw paw, which could have a potential of affecting normal tissue and could theoretically trigger fatigue thereby, is not likely because the vomiting reflex takes over before the amount of overdose can be reached. This is why I talk about a protective effect.
The watery diarrhea in the beagle dog study was at 32 capsules four times a day. This is substantially higher than people use, of course. It is possible that a human could experience diarrhea when using paw paw because it has some antiparasitic qualities as an herb. Should a person have parasites present when he or she begins using paw paw, this could trigger loose bowels.
I do not suggest using paw paw casually or for a cancer preventive. There are probably many good choices of foods and supplements that could be used to reduce cancer risk. That is for another thread, I am sure. But for a person with a serious, deadly disease, it presents no known serious risk and can be used in conjunction with all known cancer treatment modalities. It is inexpensive and does not require foreign travel to obtain it.
Richard - whatever your role in following research on or promoting paw paw extracts, what you should realize is that without a large trial of such drugs, the full impact of the side effects and interactions with other medications will not come to light. And with drugs claimed to be so powerful in their effects on metabolically hyperactive cancer cells, it is common sense to expect toxic effects on normal metabolically active cells - in the G.I. tract (as already seen), hair follicles, liver etc. Speculation that the negative effects will fall only on "bad" or "abnormal" cells is akin to the sort of magical thinking that a drug cannot be toxic because it is plant-derived. And we have seen this proved wrong in the case of many helpful but toxic plant-based drugs, such as digitalis, colchicine and taxol.
Your comparison of paw paw extracts with Gleevec does not hold, because Gleevec has been extensively studied, shown in clinical trials to have significant anti-cancer activity, and its positives and negatives (including side effects) are documented in published clinical trials, which is not the case for paw paw extracts.
"But for a person with a serious, deadly disease, it presents no known serious risk and can be used in conjunction with all known cancer treatment modalities."
Neither you nor anyone else can make this kind of sweeping statement based on the extremely scanty information known to date. Until the enthusiasts settle down and do the kind of hard science necessary to prove their claims, users will be guinea pigs for the benefit of supplement marketers.
The comments that I have made are based on the research done to date and on anecdotal reports. About three thousand people per month are using paw paw in the US and it is also seeing some use outside the US. These numbers are informal, but I feel that they are reasonable.
In the United States, a manufacturer of a dietary supplement is allowed to sell it without government approval. They are responsible to label it accurately and to insure that it is safe when taken as directed. The leading manufacturer of paw paw extract has complied with this situation.
Based on interviews and access to propriety information, I can say that there were significant, meaningful safety tests made before humans were given the product. I have alluded to the beagle dog study, but there were others done as well. Based on two year and three month history of use, so far there are no significant adverse events reported. The only reported ones, at under 1percent of users, were nausea or vomiting and a couple of people reported allergic reactions. Historical literature indicated that the rate of allergy to paw paw is approximately equal to that of strawberries. There was the Eli Lilly product made in the late 19th Century and there is safe human and animal consumption of the fruit, as well as anecdotal Native American use of plant parts for herbal treatment.
So the evidence collected so far is positive. No amount of worrying will alter the facts. Only other facts can do that.
I tried to explain to you that the concentrations of paw paw's acetogenins are extremely low in the body when taken as directed. Remember that the capsule contains only 12.5 mg of active material. And that this content is a mixture of acetogenins. So any one molecule's concentration will be really low. We believe that the molecule does have a biological effect of energy production in cells. If all cells had the same rate of uptake of sugar and operated at the same metabolic rate, paw paw would just make a person tired or sleepy.
The news is that there is a significant difference in insulin receptors in cancerous cells and normal cells. Dr. Steven Ayres presented evidence that breast cancer cells have 17 times the capacity to take in sugar than the wild type normal cells. So there is a metabolic difference. And paw paw's acetogenins exploit that difference.
One of the things about the preclinical papers that are abundant on acetogenins is that we know the mode of action well. That is the scientific evidenciary basis for Dr. McLaughlin to state publicly that it does not interfere with any known western medical treatment for cancer. Dr. McLaughlin, as a trained pharmacist with a doctorate in pharmacy and twenty-eight years of drug discovery cancer research, is well aware of interactions with chemotherapy drugs. At least you should grant him the right to make a sweeping statement about the interactions of paw paw's acetogenins with chemotherapy drugs. And if you disagree, fine. But you should be able to name the interference and support it with your well-beloved peer-reviewed journal evidence.
Dr. McLaughlin publicly stated that about six hundred thousand people die a year of cancer. He reminded his hearers that President Nixon declared war on cancer in 1971. He further stated that one woman in two and one man in three will get cancer in her or his lifetime. Then he asked this question, "Where's the urgency?"
Based on my relationships, I have tried to facilitate further human trials for paw paw with people. I do not know yet if these will go forward, but I hope so. Currently, there is no federal funding for paw paw research in anti-cancer. There is funding at KYSU_Frankfort for alternative crop development to give the tobacco farmers an alternative.
If you would take the time to look at the Developmental Therapeutics Site (DTP site), you could find the presentation of the past testing of the individual molecules on the cell culture lines at NCI. You could look for bullatacin, asimicin, or trilobacin. You could see the kinds of concentrations used to kill cancer cells.
It is a small world. Tom McCloud, who was at Purdue working with Dr. Cassady, a colleague of McLaughlin, and who was involved in the acetogenin research, now is at NCI Frederick doing grind and find prep for the cell culture lab. He is a member of the American Society of Pharmacognosy, as am I. (I will keep all other comments about myself or my work apart from this forum, as it is not meant for commercial promotion, as you are aware.)
Remember, that I was comparing the reported adverse events in human use with Gleevec and paw paw, nothing else.
So, we again part. Me, waiting for more testing and trying to learn from the experiences of people who would try it. You, ready to attack any positive statements that I make as untrue, untrustworthy, unkind, unfair, or just not smart.
I have not positioned myself as an enthusiast or evangelist. I have defended my friend from your criticism. I have told you what I know and why I think the way that I do. I have shared some information that I have learned through interviews and reading. I hoped to bring accurate historical facts to the discussion. I am sure that I have not succeeded, but I also feel that I have not entirely failed.
I hope that for you, Eric, that you have good success in funding the kind of research in which you believe. I guess it is necessary for me to have hope before I will write a check for research. Perhaps you have a more lofty, altruistic approach, not caring whether something will work when you put down your money. So if I have expressed hope, it is just my weakness talking.
The unreliability of testimonials and "anecdotal reports" in providing a basis to take a drug has already been explained, along with the difference between questioning an idea and attacking the person holding the idea. I hope you will take these distinctions to heart in the future.
"Dr. McLaughlin publicly stated that about six hundred thousand people die a year of cancer. He reminded his hearers that President Nixon declared war on cancer in 1971. He further stated that one woman in two and one man in three will get cancer in her or his lifetime. Then he asked this question, "Where's the urgency?"
Billions of dollars and the efforts of thousands of dedicated scientists and laboratory workers are being poured into the effort to prevent and cure cancer. Dr. McLaughlin's work forms a tiny fraction of this. We might well be asking, "Why the urgency to rush acetogenin drugs into use before they have been adequately tested for safety and efficacy in humans?"
About this time someone will bring up Vioxx. At least some of that drug's side effects were made known through human testing before release. Do we really want to make cancer patients complete guinea pigs for paw paw extracts, without any meaningful safety data?
"In the United States, a manufacturer of a dietary supplement is allowed to sell it without government approval. They are responsible to label it accurately and to insure that it is safe when taken as directed."
This is incorrect. Under current law, the government must prove that a supplement on the market is unsafe. The result is that a certain number of people must die and be injured before the FDA gets the power to act (as with ephedra supplements).
Richard, do you recognize this quote: "We...are not doctors, so we cannot dispense medical advice."? You are quoted as saying this on an alt med site. Do you still believe it, or have you changed your mind?
"I will keep all other comments about myself or my work apart from this forum, as it is not meant for commercial promotion, as you are aware."
Finally, after a number of requests to clarify your position in all this, we get an indication that you have a commercial interest in promoting paw paw extracts. Those of us who do not stand to make money from the sale of paw paw or any other drug purported to fight cancer, may have a different perspective on the ethics of rushing a drug into promotion before its safety and value can be known.
I thought you might be questioning my intentions before long, as you question Dr. McLaughlin's here.
Dr. McLaughlin had one sister Janean. She fought cancer during the early 1990's. She did everything that medical science had to offer, including taxol at $7000 a dose. And she did not survive. During the last year of her life, she broke her arm and it never healed. During 1993 Dr. McLaughlin did his presentations and sales pitch to Big Pharma. They passed on the acetogenins, as I have previously related. After she died, Dr. McLaughlin said that he purposed in his heart to make the acetogenins into a product so that they could be tried with people. I am sure that it was an emotional decision. It also was the culmination of his work in drug discovery. During his life of work, he had isolated 350 candidates. Paw paw was his best candidate. So that is his personal urgency.
I deeply resent your implication that he or I are involved in explaining paw paw to the world in order to make money from the suffering of others. And I also resent you impugning my ethics.
The introduction to this forum has this sentence.
"This forum is for the discussion of herbalism, the use of herbs for medicinal purposes. Any advice given here is that of other users and GardenWeb makes no warrant as to its appropriateness. "
You know already that we are going to discuss the medicinal use of herbs. Legally none of us except licensed physicians and other similar medical professionals can dispense medical advice.
No statements or assertions herein are to be construed as medical advice or treatment. Richard XXXX is not a doctor and has no medical training. Please see a qualified health care professional to diagnose and treat diseases. We do try to educate. All points of view are those of the presenters. Any substances referred to have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. They are not intended to diagnose, treat, or prevent disease.
This statement is current and self-explanatory.
What is your disclaimer, Eric? Or maybe you are a doctor. Why not tell us where you work, what stocks you own, who pays for your life? Or do you wish to contribute your ideas freely, without your motives being questioned?'
Everyone here who says to take or not to take any herb for any disease state could be attacked as giving medical advice. The presence of a forum such as this one, is for the purpose of discussion. The outcome of the discussion ought to be the enlightenment of the readers, either in admonitions, warnings, or suggestions. The reader must judge for herself what the meaning of the ideas will be for her life. She must be the one to discuss those implications with her doctor or other health professional for their advice. Then she will decide how to live. She still has the freedom to act wisely or foolishly, to choose one approach or another. That freedom may scare you. It scares me. But that freedom is better than an all-knowing bureaucracy making all the plans, at least in my opinion.
You seem to have a hard time with my statement.
You respond, "This is incorrect." I agree with what you state, but not with this assessing statement. If the FDA wishes to withdraw a dietary supplement from the market on safety issues, it must prove it is unsafe. But spend a little more time on what I said. Maybe because I live in California, I am aware of a function of our society that you may not see where you live. It is civil litigation. Any manufacturer is responsible for product safety. There are four pages of text describing the labelling requirements for the dietary supplements published by the FDA and FTC. So when I say that manufacturers are required to label their products correctly, I believe that I am right. Do you agree with this point?
Further, the fear of civil litigation from wrongful death and injury, helps to regulate the safety of dietary supplements sold in the US. Just recently we had the case of the finger in the chili of a famous fast food restaurant. It turned out to be an attempt at extortion, but it hurt the company very much financially. So you might consider market experience and legal costs to be controls placed by our society on dietary supplement manufacturers. At least I think so.
There is another method by which a manufacturer can be controlled or even put out of business. That is in the area of the charge of mislabeling and misbranding. Basically, it means that if a bottle contains something more than its label states, it can be removed from sale. Straight to the landfill it goes. PC-SPES is an example. The manufacturer saw that the addition of a prescription drug would increase its effectiveness, so they put it in. Then, because of side effects from the first drug, they added warfarin. It took a while, but it is gone.
Look at the products called red yeast rice. A few years ago they were readily available in a standardized concentrate. Then a drug company pushed the FDA into putting them out of sale because the molecule was similar in form to the patented molecule in their "Statin" drug. So now we see a weaker form in supplements. The real problem was in the patent application. The Chinese had it first.
Anyway, I resist identifying myself. By the description of what I have said, you may draw any inference you wish, including your nefarious one, Eric. If you live in America, you know my work, although you do not know me.
I already made my disclaimer: "Those of us who do not stand to make money from the sale of paw paw or any other drug purported to fight cancer, may have a different perspective on the ethics of rushing a drug into promotion before its safety and value can be known."
I've posted on GW since '96, and in this forum since its inception. I'm an MD with an interest in herbal medicine, as many here know. I do not write prescriptions in my practice, and have no affiliations or investments in the pharmaceutical or supplement industries.
You on the other hand said "I will keep all other comments about myself or my work apart from this forum, as it is not meant for commercial promotion, as you are aware."
So after posting here for over three months on paw paw, and running your website for however long it's been up without ever mentioning any business affiliations, you let drop that you have such interests, but are indignant that anyone would refer to this fact.
It is commonplace in research for scientists publishing papers or presenting at conferences to reveal any commercial links, so that others are aware of any potential conflicts of interest. I would expect that Dr. McLaughlin and other researchers he's worked with have followed this practice. Why isn't there an "About Us" section on your website to indicate where you're coming from and what your business interests are?
"Anyway, I resist identifying myself...If you live in America, you know my work, although you do not know me."
Why the mystery?
One could get the idea reading this thread that paw paw extracts are the leading, or only contender among plant-based cancer treatments, and that the pharmaceutical industry is ignoring plant-derived remedies.
Among the various botanical derivatives being investigated, artemisinin (originally found in Artemisia annua, a wormwood plant) may be the most promising.
As the linked article shows, this compound when combined with another molecule may be both potent and relatively selective in its anti-tumor action.
And while there seem to be attempts to exploit doubtfully effective forms of wormwood by the supplement industry, the actual researchers acknowledge the importance of adequate animal and human trials before artemisinin can be added to the cancer therapy arsenal (there's already cooperative action between humanitarian agencies and drug companies to get cheap forms of the drug to Third World countries, where its effectiveness against malaria has been demonstrated).
Thanks for your candor.
I really do care to follow the rules on this forum. I read that a business person could post under certain conditions, one of which was that I could not mention any dot.com name, could not link to any site selling anything or having links to selling anything. If I choose not to follow those rules, I can be permanently barred and have any referred to sites also barred. I am not trying to be obfuscating, but trying to operate within the rules of the forum.
I do have businsess interests. Without trying to make it obvious and thereby get put off, I will generally describe myself as an artist who has done business in the media for the last 25 years. This is why I say that you have seen my work. I am almost never credited by name, so you don't know my name. (Of course, you, Eric, probably know my name.)
I do not presume that my success in one field gives me any credence in another.
I have been working on a book, my first one. This is the reason that I have conducted interviews. I am sure that your comment will be that I am trying to stir up interest is a dead horse product to sell books. So I did not wish to sound like I was promoting anything. But you seemed to want to know.
I am a member of ASP, as I have revealed previously. I joined in order to further my knowledge of Natural Products and to foster interesting professional relationships. I plan to attend the annual conference this summer in Corvallis, OR.
I have a BS degree in Biology from a small, religious-based college from many years ago.
I have started a natural products company. It is here that I have learned about FDA and FTC regulation. I have three natural products that I will be selling by year's end.
I have agency agreements with two Chinese based manufacturers.
I own stock in a publicly traded company that sells acetogenin extracts. Nine large institutional investors have taken positions in that company's stock, so you better check your retirement plan or mutual funds for conflicts of interest.
I actually sell natural products. I have avoided mentioning this in order to avoid the view that I am trying for a free ad. I do buy ads in my work and Garden Web sounds like a nice company, but I was trying to discuss herbs, not sell them.
Like you, I have followed the work of Drs. Singh and Lai on the anti-cancer properties of artemisinin. I am aware through personal correspondence that they have lectured publicly on their research, have made comments about how humans may use it for cancer, and have corresponded privately with cancer patients about using it. I do not find any of those things offensive, but kind.
I see that Bill Gates has made a significant investment is a company developing a technology for bacterial manufacture of artemisinin. This would drop the manufacturing cost even more. The MDR aspect of acetogenins might be an interesting thing to study with the artemisinin in the treatment of drug resistant malaria.
As I understand it, the iron receptors in cancer cells are about five times more prevalent in the cell membranes than in wild type cells. This may account for the biological selectivity as I believe it does in the sugar uptake in relation to the NADH Q oxidoreductase inhibitors. What is your opinion?
I also have investigated other promising products. Some have human trials reported, although not in English language. This thread is about paw paw, so I have made only scant reference. Ginsenoside Rh2 is one of these. The dammarane saponins have been implicated in anti-tumor, brain ischemia, and sexual dysfunction as possibly valuable treatments. Patents have been filed in such functions.
Another pair of researchers from Purdue, D. James and Dorothy Morre have advanced the role of EGCG from green tea in fighting cancer. There seem to be human trials in both the preventive and treatment side here.
I have introduced researchers off shore who may be able to conduct human trials with the acetogenins to the company that makes the paw paw product. I mentioned this previously.
I spent about a month with Dr. McLaughlin after he retired from the natural products company in order to conduct interviews about his work. We also did some fishing together. He taught me a lot about chemistry and seems to know almost every plant by botanical name that we saw as we travelled to Canada and Alaska. I bet you would enjoy him as a person who loves plants.
In case others can't tell, I do not think presently that paw paw is a cure for cancer. I do not think it is a leader among competing natural plant sources in fighting cancer, although it is possible that some day we can rank it. It is Dr. McLaughlin's best candidate.
Others that need investigation and funding that I have seen in these past two years are a complex formula from Siddha medicine for prostate cancer called Rasagenthi lehyam, betulinic acid for melanoma, and the tannins from green tea and cat's claw, (Verro Tyler, Dr. McLaughlin's mentor, said that the TOA free variety, is the best.)
I am sure that you have many others in your list of possibles. Perhaps in another thread, you could share more of what you thinking is about possibles. I value your experience and perspective, even though I argue with you.
I imagine that your assessment of me will only grow more negative now that I have opened up. Maybe I will pleasantly surprised. Who knows?
I do have business interests. Without trying to make it obvious and thereby get put off, I will generally describe myself as an artist who has done business in the media for the last 25 years. This is why I say that you have seen my work. I am almost never credited by name, so you don't know my name. (Of course, you, Eric, probably know my name.)
For those of you who has never watched someone die or seen the suffering they go through from the chemo, only to be told it does not work. I put my friend on Paw Paw who was told she had six months to live, she had liver cancer. She has been on Paw Paw for 4 months now taking it everyday 4 a day. She recently got her test results back from her liver and quess what ir is now in remission!!!!!!!!!! Even though no case studies are realy out there does not mean it does not work. I do believe it does I have seen the results from it. If I had to choose Paw over Chemo hell my wager is on Paw Paw less side effects and a much better outcome.
I have seen people dying of cancer, including close family members.
We all have individual choices to make about treatment. If someone has a terminal illness and has no good remaining options, I don't see a problem with someone trying a herbal rememdy if it is not going to make their last days more miserable, and if it is not part of a quackery scam intended to drain their last savings and impoverish their family.
What does concern me are blanket statements that anticancer drugs validated by clinical trials do not work, but that we should believe anonymous testimonials for an herbal rememdy. The end result of statements like this is that patients who do have an expectation of longer life or even cure, are scared away from valid treatments and urged to try unproven ones. When the magic remissions on herbal remedies don't appear, it may be too late for mainstream therapies to do much good.
I think that more people are dying from cancer than being cured by conventional methods. Too many people have taken the word of conventional doctors without question with dire results. I myself have had some experience down that road with family members. There are some western medical doctors who embrace alternative medicine and who are willing to keep an open mind as far as treatment, but the onus as always is on the patient to investigate and inform him/herself as to the best form of treatment for their ailment. It is ultimately in our hands. Good luck to all of you who maybe dealing with some cancer issues or otherwise. I wish you well!! Keep an open mind and never give up and trust yourself that you will make the right decision for you.
Bravo Arlene! I concur. Each of has to choose what is best for our individual selves. In conventional western medicine my uncle was diagnosed with lung cancer, told to have surgery, chemo and radiation and that he might live 6 months. He explored alternatives, eventually going to a clinic in Mexico for treatments he could not get here. His health program was based on diet, nutrition and herbals. While he has since crossed over, he remained with us for some 7 years.
I hope I will always be able to live by the last sentence of your post.,
Does anyone have a paw paw tree that they can send frozen fruit? How about some paw paw seeds? Just a thought. My hubby has been taking paw paw pills and I would like to get some fruit for him.
What happened to THIS herbalism forum?
And why do people think that personal choice is more important than evidence? Post-modernism brought to its very extreme is that we cannot know for certain much of anything, not that just guessing is a viable alternative.
I was reading this thread trying to find out which varieties are the best. Didn't enjoy the conversations much and stopped reading about 1/5 of the way through. Anyway, I bumped into a link that supports what herbalpower was saying. I didn't bother to verify anything, but there are links and names of individuals who have done some research in case anyone's is interested.
Sorry, I guess I should give everyone that link.
Sorry that brotherjake didn't read more than a fraction of the thread. It's a lot easier to get through than his linked article, which goes into voluminous detail about metabolic reactions.
The rest of the article recycles the findings about paw paw extracts on cells in test tubes and mentions supposedly beneficial effects on cancer patients in what sounds like an uncontrolled trial where one-third of the patients promptly died. Without knowing the details of how patients were selected, what other treatments they may have gotten, and without comparisons to other therapies (or no therapy at all) it's impossible to judge whether the paw paw had any effect at all. And it seems that paw paw is not without significant side effects. The one that's mentioned (vomiting) is excused as "natural", whereas if you become nauseated from mainstream chemo that must be worse because it's not "natural", though I doubt that makes much difference to cancer patients.
And where is that promised paper about the cancer trial? The article mentions it was supposed to be out in 2004 but was delayed, noting (wink wink) that the topic is "controversial". If you can't get a paper published for whatever reason (defects in you study, possibly?), you can always toss out conspiracy theories as an explanation.
There is in fact a 2008 paper published by the researcher, Jerry McLaughlin, in the Journal of Natural Products. The PubMed abstract of this article talks vaguely about cancer treatment, but spends more time touting paw paw extracts for things like head lice and pesticide spraying. McLaughlin reportedly has been involved in marketing paw paw products (the linked article has him working for a supplement company) and one person you're urged to write to for information appears to be our old friend from this forum, Richard Lund (a paw paw promoter who posted for a long time before revealing that he's involved in marketing supplements).
Thanks, but most cancer patients will figure that if they're going to take a drug that could make them sick, they'd want it tested sufficiently to actually make sure that it has proven anticancer activity in human beings.
OK, so is the "custard apple" the paw paw discussed in here?
I had a strange experience with (custard apple) paw paw. After eating several, the whole world smelled like paw paw to me for weeks afterward.
I think I read something about it being able to get through the brain's barrier.
The common name "custard apple" is used for the cherimoya, the fruit of the Annona reticulata tree as well as the fruit of the paw paw or Asimina triloba tree. It is the problem with using common names and not botanical ones.
If you bought the fruit, I would suspect it was a cherimoya.
I'm still waiting to taste the first fruits from my young paw paw (Asimina triloba) trees. The first season they produced fruit there was a severe late summer windstorm and the fruit dropped off the trees prematurely. This summer I suspect that woodchucks got to the fruit before I could pick it. Maybe in 2011...
There are a couple of GW forums dealing with fruit trees. Tropical Fruits has a number of postings on cherimoyas, including this one which might be of interest to eibren.
I bought it at a local farmer's market from a woman who mainly sold apples but kept a bag of pawpaws grown at the back of her property to sell to people who specifically asked for them. Therefore, it was not the tropical fruit, since I am in Zone 6.
They have one or two young paw paw trees growing in the Hershey Gardens as well-my DH volunteers there and pointed one out to me.
I would like to go out to a shop a few counties away to get a couple of young plants for our back garden. My understanding is that there are several recognized strains now and that the flavor varies markedly.
Eric, where did you get your plants, and are they a named variety?
I've tried to grow them but they are touchy to transplanting - a known issue with paw paw. I got mine from a local nursery that mail orders. They have 3 varieties. Here's their link: Miller Nurseries
Raintree nursery also has 2 named and 1 unnamed varieties. Raintree is westcoast so shipping adds up but they offer nice stock as well. Millers is in the Finger Lakes region of Western NY State and is very drivable from PA.
I think my two trees are unnamed seedlings obtained from different sources (one from an out-of-town nursery, one bought locally). It's recommended that at least two genetically different trees be planted to assure fruit production.
Can Paw Paw, be taken with tamoxifin?
Credence enzyme megazyme forte plus,
Swanson cordyceps 4-60 mg
Super artemisinin 3 per day
Peak. K2 vit k
Wormwood 3 capsules daily 500 mg capsules
Vitamin d3 5000 iu 3 daily
Antarctic krill 2 capsules
Supermag plus,magnesium and minerals 5 daily
Zinc and celenium
Indole 3 carbinol
Asprin 75 mg
Green veg juice
40z essiac tea
Have you talked to your physician about taking all these things together?
Anti-cancer drugs and supplements can interact to cause decreased effectiveness or worsen side effects.
Wormwood can cause a variety of problems, especially in large doses over a period of time. And "B17" (laetrile) is not only potentially toxic but has long been known to be useless in treating cancer.
Definitely consult your oncologist on what it is safe to take along with prescribed medications.
so there are two arrogant and condescending arses on this forum????
herbal power has left the house, hopefully for good.
now if that other one would leave this could be a really cool forum. no need to mention his name cuz we all know who he is.
It is saddening to hear Herbalpower has left the forum. After scanning through the contents of this thread it seems like he did indeed have valuable information to offer. Unfortunately not much about the use of pawpaws seem to be discussed on this thread, only names, papers, other plants, arguments over clinical trials, whether or he is selling something, searching for proof that only one man bothered to do, and therefore was discredited, etc.
It does seem like the allopathic mindset has entered this forum to a large extent which can both be helpful as in the case of using coriolus versicolor in conjunction with chemotherapy to aid someone, or the use of apricot and apple seeds where many debate the usefulness or toxicity of such a cure.
The only person here who seems to actually be adding to the information is juliajuliajulia which I must congratulate for seeking out alternative remedies.
Obviously nobody here is interested in doing their own studies on pawpaws- only looking their information up online. This is understandable due to the lack of necessary funds and facilities, but nonetheless, disputing it for such want of information is absurd.
Also, before anybody goes flying off the handle about me just joining and that raising raising red flags to me being a troll or somesuch- calm your rocker. Yes, this thread was why I registered, but there's nothing in the rules about new members being unable to post their opinion.
"It does seem like the allopathic mindset has entered this forum to a large extent"
The vast majority of herbalism relies on "allopathic" principles - using herbal medications to alleviate distressing symptoms. Relatively few herbalists employ discredited homeopathic drugs (homeopathy is the opposite of allopathy).
"the use of apricot and apple seeds where many debate the usefulness or toxicity of such a cure."
The "debate" on laetrile (which seems to be what you're referring to) ended long ago, since it's ineffective against cancer and can cause serious toxicity (it's a mystery why some of the same people who rail against "toxins" in everyday life think it's fine to put cyanide into their bodies).
"Obviously nobody here is interested in doing their own studies on pawpaws"
Still waiting for the people selling pawpaw remedies to pony up some of their profits to organize a proper clinical trial, instead of just feeding us dubious anecdotes.
You mention allopathy and homeopathy. But you left out the third one; herbology. Proper herbal applications are not allopathic nor homeopathic.
"The vast majority of herbalism relies on "allopathic" principles - using herbal medications to alleviate distressing symptoms. Relatively few herbalists employ discredited homeopathic drugs (homeopathy is the opposite of allopathy). "
I should think that it would be the other way around, herbal principles having been here long before any such allopathic ones. This said, your definition of this form of medicine may be different from mine. It being that allopathic medicine is another name for the "Western" or "Modern" medicine. Not being the opposite of poison against poison, Unconventional medicine, or Homeotherapy.
"The "debate" on laetrile (which seems to be what you're referring to) ended long ago, since it's ineffective against cancer and can cause serious toxicity (it's a mystery why some of the same people who rail against "toxins" in everyday life think it's fine to put cyanide into their bodies). "
The debate may have ended long ago on his forum, but it is still being mentioned, and opposing opinions still go on. Furthermore, there is a difference between man-made toxins, perhaps heavy metals, and those found naturally by eating a seed. Not to mention such cyanide being only taken in small amounts and in a diluted form.
And please do call Vitamin B 17 what it is. Laetrile makes just about as much sense as calling Vitamin H, Biotin.
"Still waiting for the people selling pawpaw remedies to pony up some of their profits to organize a proper clinical trial, instead of just feeding us dubious anecdotes."
Since you seem to know so much about pawpaw remedies, do you mind linking to some company selling such a product?
Laetrile is not a vitamin. And "natural" cyanide is no safer than the man-made version.
How ironic that people who cite chemotherapy's toxicity think it's just dandy to have people suffering toxicity from cyanide in Laetrile (or side effects from other herbal cancer treatments like the home remedies made from oleander, which similarly have no proven efficacy against cancer but cause nausea, vomiting and other deleterious symptoms).
Speaking of irony, the previous poster claims that laetrile involves "cyanide being only taken in small amounts and in a diluted form." This is the same poster who in another current thread is fulminating against "toxins" in vaccines (substances that, if they're present at all, are in an extremely diluted form and have no effect on health). If you're going to claim that cyanide is unimportant if the dosage is small enough, then you have to accept that vaccine "toxins" are similarly unimportant.
Of course, the major difference here is that vaccines are highly effective in preventing dangerous diseases. Laetrile is worthless against cancer.
Oh, and just google "paw paw supplement" to find numerous companies hawking paw paw remedies for various ills including cancer. Never mind that it's unproven against human cancer and other indications claimed for it, they'll gladly take your money.
You're both talking of herbs in the allopathic context. You're trying to treat a symptom (cancer). No, no, no. Don't go there.
You've already "been there" when suggesting herbs to alleviate disease. Here's the accepted definition of allopathy:
"a system of medical practice that aims to combat disease by use of remedies (as drugs or surgery) producing effects different from or incompatible with those produced by the disease being treated"
For example: a drug/herb that relieves pain, alleviates constipation by causing proper bowel function, helps insomnia by promoting sleepiness etc.
Conversely, here's the definition of homeopathy:
"a system of medical practice that treats a disease especially by the administration of minute doses of a remedy that would in healthy persons produce symptoms similar to those of the disease"
Your posts in this forum have consistently revolved around herbal medications that supposedly produce effects in the body to counter those produced by disease - so you're a supporter or allopathic medicine.
This might sound strange to someone accustomed to using "allopathic" as an all-purpose term to put down mainstream medicine - but that's an inaccurate use of the word.
Ya, that's why herbalism is neither allopathic nor homeopathic.
By the way, herbs are not used to alleviate disease. See my other post which states that herbs are for human consumption whereby the nutritional value of herbs gives the body the building blocks it needs to heal itself.
Homeopathy and allopathic, neither one do according to the definition for herbalism.
Do not confuse the toxins in vaccines, with those in plants. They are not only different toxins, but also come from vastly different sources.
And speaking the toxicity of chemotherapy, I did mention I didn't have anything against chemotherapy, so long as used with certain other remedies. But as you're going that far off topic to not only include it but vaccines, would you like to discuss the differences between the cyanide in apple seeds, bamboo, and bird's foot trefoil?
Lastly, this conversation seems to be going nowhere as we're both of differing opinions of the efficacy of vaccines and Laetrile.
"You're both talking of herbs in the allopathic context. You're trying to treat a symptom (cancer). No, no, no. Don't go there. "
Cancer is not merely a symptom, but a disease, which should be treated as such.
Cancer is a symptom of a far greater complexity of problems in the body. To treat cancer is to merely treat a specific symptom. For instance, people who have colon cancer get the colon cancer treated. However, the Kidney, Spleen and Liver networks are all involved with their own peculiar conditions that contributed to colon cancer.
I'm not saying that just treating the colon is a bad thing. However, when you enter into herbology, there's a scientific way to feed the various systems of the body in a way with herbs whereby the body will be strengthened and will heal itself. Thus, you have a "healing art."
Charlie, you seem to be saying that it's alright to treat colon cancer, but that paying attention to "Kidney, Spleen and Liver networks" is just as good and that the body "will heal itself".
Do you really think it's a good idea for people with colon cancer to ignore potentially curable evidence-based therapy in favor of your Chinese herb potions?
If you're claiming success with such treatments, have you at least published a case series so that herbalists and other practitioners can evaluate and learn from your described experiences?
Eric, I don't have any experience with cancer. But the principles of herbology apply no matter what state of health a person is in.
See, you just can't get it past your narrow thinking that there is a better alternative than to cut out someone's guts.
As you acknowledge that you have no experience with cancer, it would be wise to refrain from advising posters (and potential customers) that curative surgery is "narrow thinking" and that your methods will cause the body to "heal itself".
Eric, the reason I say I don't do cancer is because it's a symptom and I don't treat symptoms.
Why do you say "potential customers?" I'm not taking on new clients at this time, so my motives are not to make money off these people on this forum.
Remember, be more upbuilding, Eric.
We love you.
hi i bought my mum paw paw twig extract when she had cancer,but i think it was too late for her as when they found out she had it it was in her colon and had spread to her pelvis, liver, lungs and brain,she had had no change in her bowel movements,just that she had been doing less,but that was down to eating less,(the only symptom she had)
her lower abdomen had been making really loud noises for sometime though,sometimes it sounded like someone had just pulled a plug out out and you could here water gushing,but after taking the paw paw for about a month this all stopped,the one i got you were meant to take 2x3 a day,but they were quite big and my mum has always found it hard to swallow,so i was just giving her 1x3 a day,she was 83 the doc gave her weeks but she lasted 10,but in all that time she had no pain what so ever,i would have loved to know if the paw paw had made any difference,but we ll never know,but the doctor and nurses could nt get over the fact she had no pain,she went very pieceabley,as she slept the last 2 days...but what id really like to know can you take the extract if you dont have cancer,on the website i first found out about it,it said not to take unless you have cancer as if you hav nt got it,it attacts the fastest mutating cells,which are your diagestive system as they re the next fastest to cancer,yet it says nothing about this on the supplement page,if anyone knows more please let me know,as theres still half a bottle left,thanks cathie
1. Herbalism is a commercial enterprise selling nostrums.
2. There is no reason to believe that paw paws will cure cancer, malaria, measles, or the heebie jeebies.
3. I am the retired executive director of an established, mainstream, scientific organization, name of the organization omitted to avoid retaliation.
4. I have three, fruiting paw paw trees. The fruit is delicious. You eat them as you would an avocado. Slice them lengthwise and cut through. There will be 2 rows of lima bean sized seeds. Spit them out and eat the pulp. Some people are allergic to paw paws. Those people might experience non-life threatening stomach disorder. Best to try a spoonful before you gobble up the rest of the fruit. Incidentally, paw paws are very high in protein, unlike most other fruits.
The fruit truly is delicious (if you wait until it has ripened to roughly the consistency of custard).
Any recommendations for named varieties?
I grow Shenandoah and Susquehanna and love the taste of both varieties.
Thanks for the suggestions.
This has been a very good fall for pawpaw color (nice even golden yellow tones on my two trees).
I've not had a lot of luck in growing pawpaw here. I suspect the conditions I have just aren't quite to the pawpaw's liking. But I would get the plants from Miller's Nurseries here in Western NY State. Their stock was always very cold hardy and well suited to our mid-atlantic climates. But unfortunately Millers sold off their business (and stock) last year to Stark Brothers. One of the varieties Millers stocked was "Sunflower." It would probably do well in your zone 6a Ohio location. Link included to Starks.
My zone 5 location is fine for pawpaws. It is very important to buy trees with very large root balls. Request a fast shipping method and plant as soon as they arrive. Be sure to water well and continue to do so. Pawpaw trees do not do well in dry soil and need to recover from the stress of transplanting.