"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At best that "evidence" is unpublished, unverified human trial data, rejected by four separate scientific journals (including at least one which is devoted to plant-based therapies).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).

Eric,
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

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.

Hi Eric,
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.

Richard

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).

"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."

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.

Well Eric,
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.

This statement appears in the terms of use at the educational site about paw paw that I have.

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.

"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."

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.

Richard

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).

Eric,
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?

Richard

Eric,
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 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.)

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?

Richard

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.,

Becky

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.

Hi everyone,

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.

http://www.mnwelldir.org/docs/cancer1/pawpaw.htm

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.

FataMorgana

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.

FataMorgana

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?
And b17
Credence enzyme megazyme forte plus,
Curcumin 95percent
Swanson cordyceps 4-60 mg
Super artemisinin 3 per day
Quercetin900
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
Wheatgrasss shot
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????

hahahahhahahahahaha

woohoo!

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.

Eric:

You mention allopathy and homeopathy. But you left out the third one; herbology. Proper herbal applications are not allopathic nor homeopathic.

HerbDoctor

"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.

HerbDoctor

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.

HerbDoctor

Eric;
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.

Sumatra:

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."

HerbDoctor

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.

HerbDoctor

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.

HerbDoctor

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.

FataMorgana

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.