Fake Banner
    Chemo + Herbo (CHerbotherapy) as Cancer treatment
    By Anirudha Lakshm... | October 4th 2010 08:04 AM | 8 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    More Articles
    All Articles
    About Anirudha

    Hello, I am a PhD graduate from molecular genetics laboratory, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Bombay. I am presently working for a Biotech...

    View Anirudha's Profile

    Cancer chemotherapy has been successful in delaying cancer progression but the flip side has been its side effects. Kinases have gained popularity as drug targets but achieving target specificity has been a major bottleneck in the development of anti-cancer drugs.  In fact the reason why most of the drugs are being shelved during clinical trials is because of their poor therapeutic index.  The potential benefits of alternative therapy in the treatment of cancer cannot be ruled out, though this field has not been extensively researched. A recent article by Lam and colleagues describes the administration of herbal medicine for toxicity induced by chemotherapy. This herb when administered with the drug stimulates the recovery of intestinal cells, damaged by chemotherapy.  Therefore, manmade synthetic drugs along with natural Herbs can be an effective combination therapy to combat cancer.

    Ref:_Lam, W. et al. The four-herb Chinese medicine PHY906 reduces chemotherapy-induced gastrointestinal toxicity. Sci. Transl. Med. 2, (2010)

    Comments

    Aitch
    Many years ago, I refused conventional 'treatment' including chemo because of bad reports I believe there are natural herbs which are far more beneficial than just dealing with the intestinal effects of chemo However, sadly the 'Cancer Industry' makes a small fortune from a stream of new customers, resulting in any claims of natural cures being ridiculed Aitch
    Henry Cox | 10/05/10 | 17:42 PM
    galactokinase
    Thanks for the comment Henry. You say that "claims of natural cures being ridiculed". The only way natural herbs can be made to be a part of treatment regimen is to generate experimental data proving its worth.  
    Anirudha Lakshm... | 10/05/10 | 21:25 PM
    Aitch
    Sadly, of several published books detailing natural therapies and documented cures of cancer, the reason they will not be included in treatment regimes, or mainstream media, is because the major drug companies make no profit, and are supported in current thinking by the AMA/BMA and FDA, and the mainstream media, who lead the 'quackery argument' every time someone asserts an alternative treatment

    To say there is no data, or no proof, is either naive, or a falsehood [whether knowingly or otherwise is not being asserted] It is available for those who have the need to find it

    Ultimately, it is up to the individual to do their own research on the web....many good search engines give multiple hits....but selecting a treatment that works for you may require much more than just 'taking the medicine'.....often requiring a far deeper look into general health/diet/attitudes/stress and meditation/and understanding true 'well being'
    Each and every one of us carry the cancer cells in our bodies, but only in some do they become active....it is not believed possible to de-activate cancer cells....yet it is, and people have not only survived, but improved their lives hugely through self awareness and lifestyle and diet changes

    I don't see the current practices changing any time soon...unfortunately

    Aitch
    Henry Cox | 10/05/10 | 21:59 PM
    Hank
    the reason they will not be included in treatment regimes, or mainstream media, is because the major drug companies make no profit, and are supported in current thinking by the AMA/BMA and FDA, and the mainstream media, who lead the 'quackery argument' every time someone asserts an alternative treatment
    Is there any conspiracy theory you don't latch onto?  Perhaps you don't know any scientists so I will tell you a secret - most of them hate each other.  And nothing is more fun than tripping up one of those other people, the more prominent the better.  So if these "documented cures of cancer" using natural whatever you claim actually existed, the line of researchers writing about it would be so long it could be seen from space.

    The fact remains that if it doesn't work better than a placebo, it isn't a therapy.    Sure, there are  occasional efforts by drug companies to get research ghost-written but you know about it because they get caught.  And that's because other researchers - you know, the ones you think are in the pockets of big drug companies and have no ethics and like seeing children die using lousy medicine rather than some AWESOME natural therapy you read about on the Internet - ring the alarm bell over unethical behavior.
    —
    Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind
    Hank Campbell | 10/13/10 | 11:09 AM
    Aitch
    Sometimes Science makes some people blind

    I think they fail to 'look outside the box'

    Aitch
    Henry Cox | 10/13/10 | 13:19 PM
    Hank
    Boxes aren't always bad - they also exist so good stuff doesn't get mixed in with junk.  Anecdotal evidence is not scientific evidence and when people's lives are at stake, what they do on a personal level versus what should be endorsed as 'just as good' despite an evidence basis is dangerous to people who aren't as well read as you.
    —
    Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind
    Hank Campbell | 10/13/10 | 13:46 PM
    Henry,

    Speaking of boxes, how do you know the herb you buy from your local health food store is any better than that on the shelf at Walmart? Their potency and ingredients are based on where and how they are grown and how they are processed. The chinese herb is a mixture of 4 different plants. If you went to China and requested this mixture, you'd get a different formulation depending on where in the country you asked. Without properly controlled scientific studies, there is no way to validate the observed results and repeat them again ( and just because something is on the web and cited 100 times does not make it valid or real).

    Also, keep in mind that it's hard for the FDA to approve an herb for medicinal use in which the active ingredient isn't known. There are thousands of chemicals in one plant alone. Which one is active? From what I've read, each batch of the herb mixture discussed above is chemically fingerprinted. They don't know what all the chemicals are or do, but they know whether one batch is similar to another which gives them quality control.

    Go to any research university and talk to a real scientist about what he/she does and why. We don't go into science for the money. There are much easier ways to make money than research. As for drug companies, it requires close to $1billion and 15 years to bring a drug to market. Which drug/herb would you bet your money on? One that will make $10million/year (take 100 years to break even) or $1billion/year (one year)?

    John Schmitz (not verified) | 10/19/10 | 15:18 PM
    galactokinase
    I take Ayurvedic  medicines for Minor Chronic Ailments. Ayurveda is a Sanskrit term meaning 'Science of Life'. Ayurveda is a traditional Indian medication employing Plant based products. Around 1500 BC Ayurveda was delineated into two distinct Ayurveda schools: Atreya—The School of Physicians, and Dhanvantari—The School of Surgeons. A lot has been written in the anciant Indian scripture, Charaka shastra. 

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


    Ayurveda has medicines for all kinds of diseases. Although, in this case too the active ingredient is not identified, many people in India believe in this traditional medicine.  
    Anirudha Lakshm... | 10/19/10 | 21:56 PM