Cancer has touched many of us in some way. Whether we know of or have overcome cancer ourselves, or know someone who has passed from it, we can all draw some form of intimate connection to the disease. The subject of cures and treatment has been of great debate within the industry as the generally accepted methods of chemotherapy and radiation come with moderately effective results and incredibly tough side effects. The search for alternative cures and treatments has been ongoing for many years. While many claim they have come up with effective ways to treat the disease, very little seriousness is put towards these claims by mainstream medicine.
While we can argue the obvious financial implications to dominant pharmaceutical companies should a more natural and alternative cure be brought forth, it is still important to realize that many claims are made about alternative cures that may not truly work or work in every case. Since many cases of cancer are unique, it’s important to not generalize treatment methods. While mainstream medicine would like to have us believe that alternative cures never work and often lead to death, the truth is current mainstream methods of treatment for cancer often kill a patient faster than if they were not used. While this article isn’t geared towards explaining why, this information can be found quite easily using some credible sources around the internet or medical publications. You can also refer to this article about research fraud.
One alternative treatment of cancer that has been used in the past, especially in countries where it grows well, is Soursop. A flowering evergreen tree native to tropical regions, this fruit is said to kill cancer more effectively than chemotherapy drugs and does not produce the same undesirable side effects, but may not be fully clear of any adverse effects.
The active ingredient in Soursop that is proving to be effective is called Annona muricata or Graviola. Currently it exists on the market under the brand name of Triamazon but licensing of the product is not generally accepted in all countries due to the potential profit loss for pharmaceutical companies. Graviola is not just a cancer treatment, it has also displayed anti-parasitic, antimicrobial, anti-inflammatory, antirheumatic and cytotoxic properties, according to Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. In some cases, Graviola has also been used as a pain killer and the results were positive.
In an assessment of Graviola, published in the December 2008 issue of the “Journal of Dietary Supplements” by U.S. researchers Lana Dvorkin-Camiel and Julia S. Whelan, multiple in-vitro studies determined that Graviola is effective against various microbial and parasitic agents. Graviola displayed specific effectiveness on parasites Leishmania braziliensis, Leishmania panamensis, Nippostrongylus braziliensis, Artemia salina and Trichomonas vaginalis, as well as against the Herpes simplex virus.
As it relates directly to cancer, test-tube and animal research demonstrates that Graviola may be an anti-cancer agent. However, no human clinical trials have been performed as of yet. According to the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, MSKCC, Graviola extract proved to be effective against liver cancer and breast cancer cells. Naturopath Leslie Taylor, author of “The Healing Power of Rainforest Herbs,” notes that studies show Graviola has an inhibitory effect on enzyme processes in some cancer cell membranes. Graviola only affected cancer cell membranes and not those of healthy cells. This research may lend support to the herb’s traditional use against cancer.
Research done over 20 laboratory tests by one of America’s largest drug manufacturers suggests that the extracts were able to demonstrate the following:
- Effectively target and kill malignant cells in 12 types of cancer, including colon, breast, prostate, lung and pancreatic cancer.
- The tree compounds proved to be up to 10,000 times stronger in slowing the growth of cancer cells than Adriamycin, a commonly used chemotherapeutic drug
- What’s more, unlike chemotherapy, the compound extracted from the Graviola tree selectively hunts down and kills only cancer cells. It does not harm healthy cells
Potential Side Effects
With any product, whether it be natural or chemically derived, we must always look at the side effects. A study published January 2002 in the journal “Movement Disorders” suggests that the high incidence of West Indians with Parkinson’s-type motor problems could be related to a high consumption of Graviola fruit. Researchers performed experiments using neurons in culture, not human subjects, to perform their investigation. While the results are not conclusive, it certainly is something we must take into consideration. More extensive testing has not been done involving humans at this time and the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center further cautions that more human research is necessary for the medical community to inform the public on Graviola’s risks as well as its benefits.
While some side effects may exist, eating the fruit and taking supplements is not considered to be unsafe if you are within the limits of the recommended dosages. We are not doctors so please remember to consult a physician if you decide to take Graviola supplements. Although research is lacking and no conclusions have yet to be drawn, you may want to avoid the supplement if you have Parkinson’s disease or another disorder that affects your movements. The same goes if you are pregnant or nursing. While doctors and scientists have not issued a standard dose for Graviola, one manufacturer recommends one 500 mg capsule “a few times a week” with dinner.
At the end of the day the verdict is still out as to whether or not Soursop is in fact effective for human use. While initial studies show it’s effectiveness, including some personal experiences of others who are not featured in this article, there simply has not been enough medical testing done to definitively suggest anything at this point. Strictly in my opinion, I still would rather try out alternative cures like this vs chemotherapy. My number one choice at this point would be a hemp treatment.
“Journal of Dietary Supplements”; Tropical American Plants in the Treatment of Infectious Diseases; Lana Dvorkin-Camiel and Julia S. Whelan; December 2008
“African Journal of Traditional, Complementary and Alternative Medicines”; Anti-hyperglycemic Activities of Annona Muricata (Linn); D.O. Adeyemi, et al.; October 2008
Cancer Industry Exposed as Fraud “The Science is False”
Major studies within cancer research have been proven to be false which suggests that the mainstream treatments we use are based on fraudulent findings and false science.
Recent news has shown that the majority of studies geared towards cancer research are inaccurate and likely fraudulent by nature. Findings published in the journal Nature show that 88% of major studies on cancer that have been published in reputable journals over the years can not be reproduced to show their accuracy. This means that the research findings published are not based on accurate results.
Author of the review and former head of cancer research at Amgen C. Glenn Begley was unable to replicate the results of 47 of the 53 studies he examined. This suggests that researchers are fabricating their findings simply to create the illusion of positive findings instead of publishing their actual results. This ensures the continuation of their steady stream of funding and grants.
Begley stated: “These are the studies the pharmaceutical industry relies on to identify new targets for drug development, but if you’re going to place a $1 million or $2 million or $5 million bet on an observation, you need to be sure it’s true. As we tried to reproduce these papers we became convinced you can’t take anything at face value.”
Although Begley was unable to publish the names of those who published the false findings, this recent development shows that the vast majority or modern cancer treatment approaches are invalid given they have been built off of a poor base.
The University of Michigan’s Comprehensive Cancer Center published an analysis in 2009, that revealed popular cancer studies to be false. Unsurprisingly the primary cause of fabricated results was determined to be conflicts of interest that created results that work out best for drug companies rather than for the people.
Personally I have always felt the cancer industry to be transparent when it came to their research and treatments. In many ways it is common sense. If someone said to you “This body is sick and we need to some how make it better.” Would you think to completely poison and destroy every healthy cell in it in order to make it better? While it can show results in minimal cases, it isn’t the most ideal approach. We are using highly carcinogenic treatments to cure a disease who’s development is sped up through carcinogens.
The very fact that incredible amounts of money have been funnelled into cancer research by people over the years and yet no cure has been found should be a tell tale sign things aren’t what they seem. This reveals in itself that the money is not going where we might think it is and there is not a complete effort to find a cure. While many people are aware of this and more are continuing to learn about it, the vast majority of us continue to believe in what we are told from government, education and the media about their findings that have been proven false time and time again.
University of Michigan report – http://www.uofmhealth.org/news/1147cancer-studies-report-conflict-of-interest
Yahoo Cancer Article: http://news.yahoo.com/cancer-science-many-discoveries-dont-hold-174216262.html