Treating Cancer -- With Herbs


Many of the chemotherapies used to fight cancer in modern medicine were developed from natural substances.

For instance:

Taxanes used to treat prostate and breast cancer came from yew trees.

Vinca alkaloids, which are used to treat malignant lymphomas, are made from periwinkle plants.

The anti-cancer drugs topotecan and irinotecan come from a component of the Chinese Happy Tree.

Scientists are increasingly focusing on plants used in traditional medicine in their search for new compounds. About three-quarters of the pharmaceutical compounds used today came from plants used in traditional medicine.

Professor Dr. Thomas Efferth from Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum in Heidelberg, for example, has begun analyzing 76 Chinese medicinal plants that are believed to treat malignant tumors and other growths. Extracts from 18 of the plants were found to significantly suppress the growth of cancer cells.

“With this success rate of about 24 percent, we are way above the results that could be expected from searching through large chemical substance libraries,” Efferth said.

Sources:
Eurekalert March 4, 2008
Molecular Cancer Therapeutics January 1, 2008, 7, 152-161
www.mercola.com

Maybe this is why your mother always tells you to eat your fruits and vegetables!

This is one of the reasons why it is a crime to allow a species to go extinct - it might just have one of the cures of cancer.

The hurbs aren't necessary proven to work nor do they have the potency of a drug extract.

Many possibilties and healing agents can be there but:

How to try and take a chance from not yet fully proven healing agents nothing is left with Conventional system?

Are cancer cells not alike our first/pure children, who are made-mad by us due our mistakes?

Are cancer cells not alike our first/pure children, who are made-mad by us due our mistakes?

No, cancer is a disease of probability, caused by huge list of factors, many of which are natural and beyond our control: Live long enough and you will get cancer, get the wrong genes and you will get cancer, get hit by back ground radiation in the wrong way and you will get cancer, etc

EF that is almost certain because the very substance that alows people to live longer increases the risk of cancer.

This is because as cells devide they are more likly to screw up and bingo cancer, this substance stops cells from deviding more than a set number of times is lessened in some people and these people have an increased risk of cancer (and also living longer than average)

Personally i will take a nice quick heart atack over cancer and a long life

EF that is almost certain because the very substance that alows people to live longer increases the risk of cancer.

This is because as cells devide they are more likly to screw up and bingo cancer, this substance stops cells from deviding more than a set number of times is lessened in some people and these people have an increased risk of cancer (and also living longer than average)

Personally i will take a nice quick heart atack over cancer and a long life

No i don't think that peoples telomeres have gotten longer or that they produce less telomerase, rather people are living longer mainly because they don't get eating by wild animals, aren't riddle with parasites and don't have to work hard for food. Take the lives of cats and dogs: doubled when they live in captivity, same with people.

yes, your right. If you get hit by a car it doesnt matter how long it is but still a long telomeres (taking your word for this because i cant rember what the thing was) predisposes you to cancer and a short one predisposes you do dying of old age (multiple organ falure) younger

yes, your right. If you get hit by a car it doesnt matter how long it is but still a long telomeres (taking your word for this because i cant remeber what the thing was) predisposes you to cancer and a short one predisposes you do dying of old age (multiple organ failure) younger

Then the rate of testicular cancer would be off the chart, as testicles produce Telomerase by the cumbucket load. True over production of telomerase is one step towards cancer but there are at least 6 others to go. Rather it should be noted that most people have the same telomere lengths through life, those with shorter ones have congenital conditions like Werner Syndrome, there is no evidence for a middle ground yet.

No, cancer is a disease of probability, caused by huge list of factors, many of which are natural and beyond our control: Live long enough and you will get cancer, get the wrong genes and you will get cancer, get hit by back ground radiation in the wrong way and you will get cancer, etc

Whether this disorder/disease is bit new or persisting since older times with similar magnitude?

Btw, whether such factors resulting cancer, do that directly or by alterning our normal physiology, say for example by changed transcapilary movements--either decreased or inreased nutrients exposure to cells?

EF that is almost certain because the very substance that alows people to live longer increases the risk of cancer.

This is because as cells devide they are more likly to screw up and bingo cancer, this substance stops cells from deviding more than a set number of times is lessened in some people and these people have an increased risk of cancer (and also living longer than average)

Personally i will take a nice quick heart atack over cancer and a long life

Good thought. Does it mean cells dividing more than naturally happening divisions due to our intervntions, become weaker and tends to become cancerous due to our interventions?

Then the rate of testicular cancer would be off the chart, as testicles produce Telomerase by the cumbucket load. True over production of telomerase is one step towards cancer but there are at least 6 others to go. Rather it should be noted that most people have the same telomere lengths through life, those with shorter ones have congenital conditions like Werner Syndrome, there is no evidence for a middle ground yet.

Is it due to that, survival of fittest is affected due to intervntions.

We may get early medical aid by car and live longer but can also die due to pollutions & congestions caused by it. "Nature balances itself" may prevail ultimately. We may just be selfish to think about ourselves instead of our next generations.

Is it due to that, survival of fittest is affected due to intervntions.

We may get early medical aid by car and live longer but can also die due to pollutions & congestions caused by it. "Nature balances itself" may prevail ultimately. We may just be selfish to think about ourselves instead of our next generations.

What next generation? What happens when medical technology advances to the point that cancer is cured, organs are replaceable, brain tissue is regenerated, bodies are a commodity, do you think people that can live for hundreds of years would want to add more to an over populated world? The trend has been ever increasing life span despite the "pollution & congestions" this is because some factors like medical science is growing faster then others like the toxin levels of the world.

What next generation? What happens when medical technology advances to the point that cancer is cured, organs are replaceable, brain tissue is regenerated, bodies are a commodity, do you think people that can live for hundreds of years would want to add more to an over populated world? The trend has been ever increasing life span despite the "pollution & congestions" this is because some factors like medical science is growing faster then others like the toxin levels of the world.

Prefering killing of childeren even though they have made/become mad, may be a slight relief but can't be a cure unless we cure their maddness. Nature/God may not support killing of childern as this can interfere in natural progression.

Anyway, are we increasing quantity at the cost of quality by interfering in survival of fittest?

Prefering killing of childeren even though they have made/become mad, may be a slight relief but can't be a cure unless we cure their maddness. Nature/God may not support killing of childern as this can interfere in natural progression.

Anyway, are we increasing quantity at the cost of quality by interfering in survival of fittest?

So for there is no proof nature/god has conscious will/ability to stop us. Besides its not a matter of killing children then not having them. Look at the birth rate of first world countries (very low - neutral - negative), then look at the birth rate of third world countries (very high), now compare how they treat children: 1st world children are love incredibly with free educations and usually free medical care, 3rd world children are enslaved, turned into child soldiers or killed outright! Humans don't evolve naturally anymore our present population and technology allow us to de-evolve with most people now to genetically sickly (if you need eye glasses you would be dead already in nature) or even to stupid to survive in the wild (idiocracy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upyewL0oaWA)) thankfully technology could take over were our failing bodies and mind leave off, de-evolution is nowhere near as fast as technological progress.

So for there is no proof nature/god has conscious will/ability to stop us. Besides its not a matter of killing children then not having them. Look at the birth rate of first world countries (very low - neutral - negative), then look at the birth rate of third world countries (very high), now compare how they treat children: 1st world children are love incredibly with free educations and usually free medical care, 3rd world children are enslaved, turned into child soldiers or killed outright! Humans don't evolve naturally anymore our present population and technology allow us to de-evolve with most people now to genetically sickly (if you need eye glasses you would be dead already in nature) or even to stupid to survive in the wild (idiocracy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upyewL0oaWA)) thankfully technology could take over were our failing bodies and mind leave off, de-evolution is nowhere near as fast as technological progress.

Inspite of all these glamourous looking things, are we supporting or opposing "survival of fittest"? Shall we remain fittest to add fittest in long run?

Anyway, many herbs and alternative systems claim cancer treatments. In view of mutations and genetic changes in cancer cells, how such alternative healing claims can treat and cure cancer?

If these can improve self immunty, how immunity can treat or cure?

Inspite of all these glamourous looking things, are we supporting or opposing "survival of fittest"? Shall we remain fittest to add fittest in long run?

Anyway, many herbs and alternative systems claim cancer treatments. In view of mutations and genetic changes in cancer cells, how such alternative healing claims can treat and cure cancer?

If these can improve self immunty, how immunity can treat or cure?

In the long run it will always be "survival of the fittest", humans are just a stage in evolution less we think we are all that there is to be, if so we are more foolish then would be expected for talking monkeys.

Herbs that are claimed to cure cancer does not mean they actually do, if they do work they work like any other chemical works, via biochemistry.

I never heard of a herb that could induce autoimmunity against a cancer, there are several cancer treatments in development that do just that but they are quite synthetic in operation, not at all "natural".

I never heard of a herb that could induce autoimmunity against a cancer, there are several cancer treatments in development that do just that but they are quite synthetic in operation, not at all "natural".

Herbs as in food supplement can provide optimal health that prevents Cancer. Since it takes 3 to 6 years for the Cancer to develop and spread, I do not think there is any herb that can cure Cancer. It is like, once your engine starts burning oil (and smoke is spewing out) because you never changed oil - it is too late. You may have to operate on the engine....

Herbs as in food supplement can provide optimal health that prevents Cancer. Since it takes 3 to 6 years for the Cancer to develop and spread, I do not think there is any herb that can cure Cancer. It is like, once your engine starts burning oil (and smoke is spewing out) because you never changed oil - it is too late. You may have to operate on the engine....

Its a nice idea, but there is limited evidence for that (aside or antioxidants), might be better off just eating right.

Its a nice idea, but there is limited evidence for that (aside or antioxidants), might be better off just eating right.

That is eating right...

In the long run it will always be "survival of the fittest", humans are just a stage in evolution less we think we are all that there is to be, if so we are more foolish then would be expected for talking monkeys.

Interventions may need to be synchronized with nature or natural progression. In todays form, we may be more/most by nature lesser or least by synthetic. It may be inapprpriate to think thar evolved natural mechanisms in us, can't keep us survived in good and enjoying health furthur but synthetic man made new mechanisms only can.

Look this perspective, how nature or our natural defence may be working on naturally on cancer, TB etc.

Iron Loading and Disease Surveillance
Eugene D. Weinberg
Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, USA


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Iron is an oxidant as well as a nutrient for invading microbial and neoplastic cells. Excessive iron in specific tissues and cells (iron loading) promotes development of infection, neoplasia, cardiomyopathy, arthropathy, and various endocrine and possibly neurodegenerative disorders. To contain and detoxify the metal, hosts have evolved an iron withholding defense system, but the system can be compromised by numerous factors. An array of behavioral, medical, and immunologic methods are in place or in development to strengthen iron withholding. Routine screening for iron loading could provide valuable information in epidemiologic, diagnostic, prophylactic, and therapeutic studies of emerging infectious diseases.
http://www.cdc.gov/Ncidod/EID/vol5no3/weinberg.htm

On this, our undue intervention can be to provide iron supplements, increasing iron and other nutrients uptake etc. on finding these are defficient in body, but host defence may be thinking something else, to cure/treat or delay naturally(fasting and inactivities) at some cost but in nett benefit for survival.


Herbs that are claimed to cure cancer does not mean they actually do, if they do work they work like any other chemical works, via biochemistry.

I never heard of a herb that could induce autoimmunity against a cancer, there are several cancer treatments in development that do just that but they are quite synthetic in operation, not at all "natural".

Natural mean, to which we have inherant sense of right or wrong, means to which we are evolved or habituated by previous prolonged exposures/interactions. Means, as or system can well recognize these, it can better process/handle these as not to cause any strange or shocking affect. That may or may not be in their natural form. Sooner or later, probably we shall also be evolved/habituated with modern introductions, then these may also be onsidered as natural to us.

Still, I am not clear, how herbs or other CAMs can handle cancer etc.? Is it just by increasing host immune defence strength?

Herbs as in food supplement can provide optimal health that prevents Cancer. Since it takes 3 to 6 years for the Cancer to develop and spread, I do not think there is any herb that can cure Cancer. It is like, once your engine starts burning oil (and smoke is spewing out) because you never changed oil - it is too late. You may have to operate on the engine....

Does it mean, just intoxication and improving host immune defence response? Do you say, a person in nomal health can treat and cure cancer naturally?

Its a nice idea, but there is limited evidence for that (aside or antioxidants), might be better off just eating right.

Oxidative stress can be for a purpose to increase transcapillary movements & killing of disease causing agents. Whether antioxidants oppose such actions of oxidants?

If yes, how such reversal can benefit and treat cancer?

i don't think all the good eating can prevent you getting cancer! I think if your going to get it, then you do!

i unerstand that there are herbs in the treatments for cancer, but there are also things we don't understand!

Natural mean, to which we have inherant sense of right or wrong, means to which we are evolved or habituated by previous prolonged exposures/interactions. Means, as or system can well recognize these, it can better process/handle these as not to cause any strange or shocking affect. That may or may not be in their natural form. Sooner or later, probably we shall also be evolved/habituated with modern introductions, then these may also be onsidered as natural to us.

Still, I am not clear, how herbs or other CAMs can handle cancer etc.? Is it just by increasing host immune defence strength?

Your use of natural is theoretical even theological, you believe that if its is natural humans most have evolved to handle it? Like lactose (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactose_intolerance)? and if humans can vary by something as common as milk do you honestly think that some rare plant, with some rare chemical, from a region of the world your ancestors never lived, you will have evolved a habitual tolerance for? Natural is never right nor wrong, dieing of old age (which is natural) is neither right or wrong, it simple is a fact with no morality to it, see appeal to nature:
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adnature.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

Does it mean, just intoxication and improving host immune defence response? Do you say, a person in nomal health can treat and cure cancer naturally?

I say optimal health. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that body does make mistakes in DNA replication process and there is also mechanism to fix those mistakes. So in fact, cancers occur in one in a hundred thousand million times in one in three individuals in seventy years, which is very very rare. Ingest the right chemicals the body needs for the life style you chose.

Gerard - That's a bit of a mystery actually because as I've said, cancer cells are really only doing what normal cells are doing. You've got all these mechanisms that prevent cancer but how do they tell what's a cancer cell and what's a normal cell. This is actually a deep mystery and we don't really understand that. What we do understand though is when the DNA in the cell gets damaged, there are immediate repair mechanisms that come in and fix the damage - at least as best they can. The problem is that sometimes they make mistakes and that's when you get a mutation. So in some ways you could say that mending the damage is what causes the cancer because that's what's causing the mutations. We also have another response to DNA damage in many cells which is to just trash the cell. That's actually the best way of preventing cancer, but unfortunately if you did that every time you wouldn't have a body left. http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/content/interviews/interview/598/

I say optimal health. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that body does make mistakes in DNA replication process and there is also mechanism to fix those mistakes. So in fact, cancers occur in one in a hundred thousand million times in one in three individuals in seventy years, which is very very rare. Ingest the right chemicals the body needs for the life style you chose.

DNA repair mechanism are not perfect, even if you eat perfectly right, background radiation, background radicals, even normal metabolic products will damage your DNA, chances of cancer is 1 out of 2 over ~80 years, that means a half-life of 80 years, I doubt there is anything you can do to get the half life below 160.

DNA repair mechanism are not perfect, even if you eat perfectly right, background radiation, background radicals, even normal metabolic products will damage your DNA, chances of cancer is 1 out of 2 over ~80 years, that means a half-life of 80 years, I doubt there is anything you can do to get the half life below 160.

Only God is perfect, so we say....So you die....big deal...until then...it does not make sense to be irresponsible for yourself and your family....

Only God is perfect, so we say....So you die....big deal...until then...it does not make sense to be irresponsible for yourself and your family....

irresponsible in what why?

By eating junk, exposing oneself to pesticides and herbicides, and air pollution, making policies that allow children to play on chemlawns, by making policies that exposes oneself to EM radiation, creating a stressful environment where divorce rate is over 55%, making policies to move jobs overseas thus causing extreme stress in a lot of familieis., getting involved in wars every few years since WWII causing stress on the population....

American is the most stressful nation from the amount of antianxiety/antidepression pill use. If that is not irresponsibility then what is?

Have you read as quoted in my previous post:

Iron is an oxidant as well as a nutrient for invading microbial and neoplastic cells. Excessive iron in specific tissues and cells (iron loading) promotes development of infection, neoplasia, cardiomyopathy, arthropathy, and various endocrine and possibly neurodegenerative disorders. To contain and detoxify the metal, hosts have evolved an iron withholding defense system, but the system can be compromised by numerous factors. An array of behavioral, medical, and immunologic methods are in place or in development to strengthen iron withholding. Routine screening for iron loading could provide valuable information in epidemiologic, diagnostic, prophylactic, and therapeutic studies of emerging infectious diseases.
http://www.cdc.gov/Ncidod/EID/vol5no3/weinberg.htm

Though convention therapies looks to be mre valid now, but we can also check some other host immune defence mediated possibilities. Due to fight between, host defence and disease agent(cancer cells here) during primary, dormant(tumor) & active(metastsis) states , stronger one may win. We have to know, how and when host immune defence is working in all these states. ??

By eating junk, exposing oneself to pesticides and herbicides, and air pollution, making policies that allow children to play on chemlawns, by making policies that exposes oneself to EM radiation, creating a stressful environment where divorce rate is over 55%, making policies to move jobs overseas thus causing extreme stress in a lot of familieis., getting involved in wars every few years since WWII causing stress on the population....

American is the most stressful nation from the amount of antianxiety/antidepression pill use. If that is not irresponsibility then what is?

Well sure most of those things are likely to extend your life, if not extend the quality of life, but I don't see eating hurbs on that list. and by the way what are doing near a computer if your worried about EM radiation?

I read the article and though it may be possible if not likely that iron plays a role in immunity, it is not the sole factor.

I read the article and though it may be possible if not likely that iron plays a role in immunity, it is not the sole factor.

May be few other nutrients who are also digested & absorbed with some similarity to iron(may be gastric acid and nature of intestinal mucus based). But excess Iron is not easily excreted whereas other can.

In view of article about iron, I quoted, whether fasting or loss of hunger or aversion to few foods, can be relevant to such idea?

http://www.cdc.gov/Ncidod/EID/vol5no3/weinberg.htm

Kumar can you provide a source for that?
Because i think your wrong, i do know there are CONDITIONS where iron is retained in to large quanities by the body but i dont think your right that in all cases iron is retained above the required levels

Where I mentioned that "in all cases iron is retained above the required levels"?

Importance of iron regulation....
The human body needs iron for oxygen transport. That oxygen is required for the production and survival of all cells in our bodies. So human bodies tightly regulate iron absorption and recycling. Iron is such an essential element of human life, in fact, that humans have no physiologic regulatory mechanism for excreting iron. Most humans prevent iron overload solely by regulating iron absorption. Those who can't regulate absorption well enough get disorders of iron overload. In these diseases, the toxicity of iron starts overwhelming the body's ability to bind and store it. [2]


[edit] Bacterial protection
A proper iron metabolism protects against bacterial infection. If bacteria are to survive, then they must get iron from the environment. Disease-causing bacteria do this in many ways, including releasing iron-binding molecules called siderophores and then reabsorbing them to recover iron, or scavenging iron from hemoglobin and transferrin. But the harder they have to work to get iron, the greater a metabolic price they must pay. That means that iron-deprived bacteria reproduce more slowly. So our control of iron levels appears to be an important defense against bacterial infection. And people with increased amounts of iron, like people with hemochromatosis, are more susceptible to bacterial infection. [3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_iron_metabolism

Where

herbs improve your general health..

and if your healthy you live longer.. even if you have cancer..

:P