Sirsak Bisa Obati Kanker
Kompas, Kamis, 25 November 2010 | 16:00 WIB

JAKARTA, KOMPAS.com — Kanker bisa diobati dengan mengonsumsi herbal atau buah-buahan. Dari banyak herbal tersebut, sirsak punya keunggulan dibandingkan buah lain.

Sirsak diketahui bisa mencegah dan juga ampuh untuk mengobati beberapa jenis kanker. "Untuk sirsak sendiri telah diteliti dapat mengobati kanker usus besar (kolon), kanker paru-paru, kanker pankreas, kanker prostat, dan juga kanker buah dada (payudara)," ucap dr Hardhi Pranata, SpS, selaku Ketua Umum Perhimpunan Dokter Herbal Medik Indonesia (PDHMI).

Bagian sirsak yang bermanfaat untuk obat kanker adalah batang, daun, dan juga buahnya atau dalam bentuk jus. Buahnya bisa dimakan langsung, dibikin jus, atau daunnya direbus kemudian hasil rebusannya diminum.

"Bisa dengan cara minum jus buah sirsak atau dengan cara merebus 9 lembar daun sirsak dan minum air rebusan tersebut lalu dimonitor keadaannya. Biasanya nafsu makan akan meningkat dan pertumbuhan sel-sel kankernya akan terhambat," ungkap dr Hardhi.

Dia juga menjelaskan, sirsak mengandung senyawa saponin, polifenol, dan juga bioflavonoid yang memiliki khasiat sebagai antioksidan. Nah, cara membunuh sel kanker oleh sirsak inilah yang berbeda dengan herbal lainnya. Sirsak hanya membunuh sel-sel yang tumbuhnya abnormal atau sel-sel spesifik seperti radikal bebas yang ada sel-sel kankernya. Tapi sirsak tidak merusak sel-sel yang sehat.

Selain memiliki rasa yang enak, buah sirsak ini juga membantu memelihara kesehatan, mencegah penyakit, dan mengobati penyakit. Hal ini karena buah sirsak juga bisa menurunkan tekanan darah, anti-parasit, obat penenang yang berfungsi meningkatkan kekebalan tubuh serta mengatasi depresi, radang sendi, dan juga untuk asam urat.

"Konsumsi buah sirsak ini harus digalakkan lagi agar tidak punah karena banyak manfaat yang bisa didapatkan dengan mengonsumsi buah ini," ujar dokter yang praktik di RSPAD Gatot Subroto ini.

Untuk di Indonesia, penelitian mengenai khasiat sirsak dan tanaman obat lainnya ini akan dilakukan dalam waktu dekat. Dalam studi ini, RS Kanker Dharmais akan bekerja sama dengan Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine yang difasilitasi PDHMI. Dalam penelitian ini akan dilakukan terapi kombinasi antara obat-obatan dan juga herbal.

"MoU kerja sama ini sudah ditandatangani dan diperkirakan mulai bulan Desember sudah mulai dilakukan penelitian di Indonesia," imbuh dr Hardhi.

Dia menuturkan bahwa di Nanjing University, terapi kombinasi ini sudah dilakukan. Pasien-pasien kanker di sana tidak mengalami mual, rambut rontok, berat badan menurun, dan bisa tetap berjalan-jalan seperti biasa.

Terapi kombinasi ini diharapkan bisa mengurangi efek samping dari terapi standar kanker yang dilakukan, seperti kemoterapi, radiasi atau operasi, serta dapat mengurangi jumlah kemoterapi yang seharusnya dilakukan oleh si pasien.

Tumbuhan dan buah-buahan yang diketahui memiliki efek anti-kanker, seperti:

1. Tomat diketahui dapat mengobati kanker prostat, dengan cara mengonsumsi tomat yang sudah direbus.
2. Cabe merah diketahui dapat mencegah kanker usus besar jika dikonsumsi dalam jangka waktu lama.
3. Biji anggur juga diketahui memiliki senyawa anti-kanker. Oleh karenanya, kalau mengonsumsi anggur, cari yang memiliki biji dan makan bersama kulitnya.
4. Daun sirih merah diketahui sebagai anti-kanker payudara dengan cara direbus.
5. Temulawak diketahui memiliki zat aktif cursil yang bersifat sebagai anti-inflamasi dan juga anti-kanker.

"Sebagian tumbuhan obat di Indonesia mengandung obat anti-kanker, seperti sitotoksin yang memiliki kemampuan untuk membunuh dan mendeteksi sel-sel yang tumbuhnya tidak normal. Senyawa-senyawa di dalam tumbuhan ini bisa berfungsi dalam bentuk gabungan, tapi ada juga yang single," ujarnya.
Sumber : Tribunnews

Happy New Year and new Federal Civil Procedure Rules Year

Hello Readers,
Since I last so optimistically posted that I would resume blogging in 2010 I had no idea what the first year of a child's life meant for a new parent. I am making a commitment in 2011 to begin regularly posting again and I hope you will believe me and choose to follow along.

In 2010 news I did speak at HTCIA 2010 in Atlanta this year on forensic cases studies from some of G-C's greatest civil cases.

In 2011 news I will be speaking at CEIC 2011 http://www.ceicconference.com on outlook web access forensic analysis. I've been asked to make it a lab so if you are going to CEIC I hope you sign up and learn about what I've learned about OWA analysis in 2010 as it relates to Exchange 2003/2007/2010.

I plan to try to speak more often in 2011 so if your conference is looking for a speaker let me know.

In civil expert witness news I am very happy to join the chorus of other legal commentators to praise the change in the federal rules of civil procedure for expert disclosures. The rule took effect December 1, 2010.

You can read more about it here and here but the jist of it is that emails and drafts of documents exchanged between lawyers and experts is no longer discoverable unless it contains information regarding compensation or information that leads to an opinion. This will make mine my life considerably easier and I hope yours as well.

Fashion Tips, Part I

I have recently been asked by several people to provide fashion suggestions for how to dress in professional settings. This is going to be a multipart essay - there is much to cover, and I'll make some more specific suggestions in future posts. 

When in professional settings, it is good to dress professionally. Professional settings are defined as one's workplace, a conference, a job interview, giving a talk, etc.

However, defining "professional dress" can be tricky, and selecting the right attire for the organization can be tricky. I have worked for some organizations where professional attire means jeans and T-shirts. But usually professional dress falls somewhere between "business casual" (button-down shirts, nice looking pants, non-boots/non-sneakers*) and "formal" (suit, dress shoes).

The most important aspect of picking the appropriate level of professional attire is this: If you are inside the organization (i.e., employee), dress exactly as everyone else dresses, but if you are outside the organization (i.e., job candidate), dress one level up from what everyone else is wearing.

For example, if you work at an company where all the other employees wear a suit to work every day,  you should wear a suit to work every day too. If they wear jeans, you wear jeans. It's all about blending in. You don't want to be noticed for your clothes - you want your clothes to be background noise to your brains.

Now there is one exception here - if you want to get promoted, or seen as able to fulfill a role "higher" than where you currently are, dress a level up. So if you want to be promoted to be a project leader, dress like all the project leaders do. If you want to be hired as a professor, don't dress like a graduate student at conferences. You want to be seen as a peer.

If you are outside an organization, for example, as a job candidate, you want to dress slightly better than what everyone in the organization wears. If they're all wearing jeans and sneakers, go one level up to "business casual". You probably don't want to wear a suit - especially if you're interviewing in Cupertino! If the employees wear a mix of business casual and jeans, then it's reasonable to wear a suit. Once you are employed you can figure out what to wear, but if you're an outsider trying to get in, dress slightly better than everyone.

If you don't know in advance what the standard attire is for the organization, err on the side of formal dress. People (including you!) take you more seriously when you are dressed up - there's peer-reviewed articles on this. :). I know some Computer Scientists who fiercely debate this, and argue that the scruffy person in flip flops and torn jeans is always the smartest person in the room, but take my word - don't be scruffy as an outsider.

(*) Dear CS Men: I beg of you, from the bottom of my heart, please do not wear those sinfully awful black sneakers (c.f. this). I don't know which uber-geek started this trend, but he was wrong to do it - they are a fashion abomination. Go buy yourself a nice pair of Rockports, or something from the Walking Company. If you absolutely must wear sneakers, get a pair of Converse or some trendy Adidas or something. 

Paleolithic Diet Clinical Trials, Part V

Dr. Staffan Lindeberg's group has published a new paleolithic diet paper in the journal Nutrition and Metabolism, titled "A Paleolithic Diet is More Satiating per Calorie than a Mediterranean-like Diet in Individuals with Ischemic Heart Disease" (1).

The data in this paper are from the same intervention as his group's 2007 paper in Diabetologia (2). To review the results of this paper, 12 weeks of a Paleolithic-style diet caused impressive fat loss and improvement in glucose tolerance, compared to 12 weeks of a Mediterranean-style diet, in volunteers with pre-diabetes or diabetes and ischemic heart disease. Participants who started off with diabetes ended up without it. A Paleolithic diet excludes grains, dairy, legumes and any other category of food that was not a major human food source prior to agriculture. I commented on this study a while back (3, 4).

One of the most intriguing findings in his 2007 study was the low calorie intake of the Paleolithic group. Despite receiving no instruction to reduce calorie intake, the Paleolithic group only ate 1,388 calories per day, compared to 1,823 calories per day for the Mediterranean group*. That's a remarkably low ad libitum calorie intake in the former (and a fairly low intake in the latter as well).

With such a low calorie intake over 12 weeks, you might think the Paleolithic group was starving. Fortunately, the authors had the foresight to measure satiety, or fullness, in both groups during the intervention. They found that satiety was almost identical in the two groups, despite the 24% lower calorie intake of the Paleolithic group. In other words, the Paleolithic group was just as full as the Mediterranean group, despite a considerably lower intake of calories. This implies to me that the body fat "set point" decreased, allowing a reduced calorie intake while body fat stores were burned to make up the calorie deficit. I suspect it also decreased somewhat in the Mediterranean group, although we can't know for sure because we don't have baseline satiety data for comparison.

There are a few possible explanations for this result. The first is that the Paleolithic group was eating more protein, a highly satiating macronutrient. However, given the fact that absolute protein intake was scarcely different between groups, I think this is unlikely to explain the reduced calorie intake.

A second possibility is that certain potentially damaging Neolithic foods (e.g., wheat and refined sugar) interfere with leptin signaling**, and removing them lowers fat mass by allowing leptin to function correctly. Dr. Lindeberg and colleagues authored a hypothesis paper on this topic in 2005 (5).

A third possibility is that a major dietary change of any kind lowers the body fat setpoint and reduces calorie intake for a certain period of time. In support of this hypothesis, both low-carbohydrate and low-fat diet trials show that overweight people spontaneously eat fewer calories when instructed to modify their diets in either direction (6, 7). More extreme changes may cause a larger decrease in calorie intake and fat mass, as evidenced by the results of low-fat vegan diet trials (8, 9). Chris Voigt's potato diet also falls into this category (10, 11). I think there may be something about changing food-related sensory cues that alters the defended level of fat mass. A similar idea is the basis of Seth Roberts' book The Shangri-La Diet.

If I had to guess, I would think the second and third possibilities contributed to the finding that Paleolithic dieters lost more fat without feeling hungry over the 12 week diet period.


*Intakes were determined using 4-day weighed food records.

**Leptin is a hormone produced by body fat that reduces food intake and increases energy expenditure by acting in the brain. The more fat a person carries, the more leptin they produce, and hypothetically this should keep body fat in a narrow window by this form of "negative feedback". Clearly, that's not the whole story, otherwise obesity wouldn't exist. A leading hypothesis is that resistance to the hormone leptin causes this feedback loop to defend a higher level of fat mass.

please forgive me....

for my absence....
i have lots of packing to do and little access to a computer for next two weeks.
but i promise, mid january, i'm back to my old self again. 
xoxo, pink wallpaper