Hvala ti za ovaj link, ni ja nisam imala pojma za ovo paw-paw...posebno mi je zanimljivo ovo istrazivanje...
By MommyOf4Babies
Reply 586019
October 17, 2009 at 10:52 pm
Report post
I don't have lung cancer or any type of cancer for that matter, but someone near and dear to me has another form of cancer, which is how I came to be on this site, and I have some information which I believe will help answer your question. I posted the (admittedly lengthy) answer below to another question about Paw Paw, and I'll repost it here and elsewhere - if pertinent - in the hope that it will help someone else. I didn't mean to make the post so long, but I didn't want to risk leaving out anything important - treating cancer is a life-and-death situation, and our best weapon against it is knowledge. I hope this helps!:
I know this is kind of an old post, but I just wanted to say that I've done some pretty intensive and extensive internet research on the scientific studies of annonaceous acetogenins found in asimina triloba (American Paw Paw), and it is extremely effective and useful. It targets cells which use high levels of energy - cancer cells use 10 to 17 times the amount of energy of normal cells - and shuts down most of their energy production by decreasing ATP, which is an energy-producing nucleotide created in the mitochondria of all cells in your body (including cancerous ones). Healthy cells experience only a slight drop in ATP, which still puts them within normal functioning range, so they are almost completely unaffected. Cancer cells begin to starve to death, often in a matter of weeks. However, they should never be taken while pregnant, because the acetogenins could potentially see the developing baby as a high-energy user. There are several other treatments or medications which should not be used with Paw Paw because they can cancel out its effects.
Paw Paw's South American cousin, Graviola (also known as the Brazilian Paw Paw, which can cause some confusion), is also effective in fighting cancer, but Paw Paw is significantly more powerful. The concentration of acetogenins varies widely from grove to grove, and is at its highest (and most potent) during May and June. Nature's Sunshine, which worked closely with Dr. McLaughlin until his retirement a few years ago, is the only company which standardizes the concentration of acetogenins in each Paw Paw extract pill. Other companies also sell Paw Paw extract, but the amount of acetogenins in each pill can differ tremendously. I ordered a four-month supply of Paw Paw Cell Reg from this company after learning recently that my father-in-law was diagnosed with terminal metastatic colon cancer which has spread to his liver and stomach. All of the research I've done on alternative cancer treatments has been in an attempt to find something that will save the life of someone who has been like a second father to me, so I've made every effort to check and double-check and triple-check my information on every treatment I've looked into; he doesn't have enough time left for me to make a mistake, so I've read practically every available article, journal, and study done on Paw Paw. (I just realized that I sound like I'm boasting, but I promise I'm not, I'm just offering my humble „credentials” of knowledge on the subject.) He has only been taking Paw Paw for two weeks, but just informed me yesterday evening that he has already had two of his more minor symptoms abruptly disappear.
The National Institute of Health (NIH) began funding research by Dr. Jerry McLaughlin into the active agents in Paw Paw back in 1976. The findings were extraordinary - one acetogenin alone was discovered to be 10,000 times (yes, that's the correct number of zeroes) more effective than a commonly-used chemotherapy drug. Numerous other tests have been conducted into Paw Paw since then, and, although it has no known side effects aside from nausea (if taken without food), vomiting (if you take too much), and itching or rash (in less than 1% of cases), it has never been permitted in clinical trials. In the 1990's, the NIH ended up spending several years and countless dollars trying to find a way to make a synthetic version of Paw Paw (you cannot patent natural products, only synthetic ones), but were unsuccessful. Unable to produce a man-made version (for which they then could have charged exorbitant prices; the natural product is very cheap and easy to obtain), they gave up, published an internal report (i.e. never released to the public), and closed their Research and Development into PawPaw. Somebody developed a conscience though, and later leaked the information. It has been researched by various countries ever since, and there is currently a project under way in China to do the same thing the NIH was trying to do here in the U.S. fifteen years ago - synthesize Paw Paw. You can view the report here: Recent progress on the total synthesis of acetogenins from Annonaceae
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2633664/
Something to consider when searching for treatments or cures for cancer - In 1994, 7.51 billion dollars were spent on chemotherapy, but I have no idea of what the figure is nowadays because that information was very difficult to locate. I'd imagine it's a lot more now. Studies on the efficacy of chemotherapy also show an approximate cure rate (not „go into remission and come back out in a few years” rate, but actual cure rate) of 7% (yes, seven, not seventeen, not seventy, just seven). However, chemotherapy and radiation are the only treatments with the FDA's stamp of approval, regardless of the fact that a number of other treatments have been shown to have a much higher success rate (without the side effects of chemo). Chemotherapy is a multi-billion dollar earner for the pharmaceutical companies. What do you think would happen to all that money if someone were to come up with a cure (or even a cheap, effective treatment) for cancer? I'm not a conspiracy theorist by any means, but I believe in logic and facts and reality, and I think that anyone with any illness, including cancer, should keep in mind that pharmaceutical companies do not make money off of healthy people. They are in the business of treating sick people. Incidentally, people keep getting sicker every year. Cancer rates are through the roof - approximately one in every four Americans will develop cancer at some point in his or her life, and the number continues to rise. In 1930, that number was something like one in one thousand. In 2000, the U.S. was #9 in the world for cancer deaths, compared to #20 in the early 1980's. It's not a coincidence, people.
As far as being afraid to do anything your doctor doesn't approve of, I understand the concern, but here's something else to consider: Doctors (including oncologists) who practice conventional medicine are not allowed to recommend or prescribe a treatment that is not approved by the FDA. If they do, and someone finds out, they could potentially loše their medical license. Not to mention that, despite their years of training and education and, often, advanced intellects, they are still human, and, like most of us, generally believe what they are told. If they are told all through medical school and beyond that there is no other viable treatment for cancer, they will not hesitate to pass that information along as fact, nor to disregard as quackery any potential treatment that does not have the approval of the FDA, no matter how effective it has been proven to be or how well-documented its studies are. A third consideration is that oncologists, like the pharmaceutical companies, are in the business of treating sick people, and their main tool is chemotherapy. They aren't exactly making minimum wage, and would stand to loše a great deal of money if they started advising their patients to forgo chemotherapy and try elsewhere for something cheaper and more effective. It would be financially counterintuitive. Also, according to a 1997 survey, approximately one-third of medical personnel (including oncologists) would not take chemotherapy themselves if they were diagnosed with cancer. The survey details can be viewed here:
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/11782740/Would-Oncologists-Want-Chemotherapy-If -They-Had-Non-Small-Cell Although that number is down from the 84% who would refuse chemotherapy back in 1985 and the 73% who would decline it in 1987, it's still pretty significant and says something about individuals who will make it their life's work to treat sick people with a therapy so dangerous that they themselves would not use it.
If anyone would like any additional information (I have lots more info on various alternative treatments, as well as other topics regarding cancer, multiple sclerosis, and hypothyroidism, but I decided to cut it short to spare those who were getting sick of reading this post) or would like to share information of their own, please feel free to email me at
[email protected]. My name is Megan and I would be very happy to talk t
Da li se debljate zbog partnera?
Utiče li karakter na to kako se borite sa bolešću?
Kako da „pregurate“ poslepodnevni umor
Vodite računa o noževima
Kako da uklonite mrlje od toplote sa drvenog nameštaja