From The Moss Report:

Home  |  Complementary and Alternative Cancer Treatments  |  Cancer Stem Cells 

Phytochemicals that Block CSCs

Phytochemicals (also called nutriceuticals) comprise several different kinds of agents. Resveratrol, soy isoflavones, sulforaphane, curcumin, and EGCG/green tea are called the “Big Five,” and are the most thoroughly researched blockers of cancer stem cells (CSCs).

The following is a discussion of some of the cell-surface markers (antigens) that identify cancer stem cells. These vary somewhat from cancer type to cancer type. Rather than waiting for science to identify the particular marker or markers characteristic of your particular cancer (also accounting for variations in each individual), it is safer to take a broad spectrum of supplements that block CSC expansion. (This is in line with the thinking of the 180 authors of the “Halifax Project.”)

It does appear that all or almost all cancers, both solid and blood-based cancers, are driven by cancer stem cells. The “Big Five” are characterized not only by their effectiveness but by the large number of cancer types in which they are active. Other agents that appear particularly active are vitamin D, honokiol (Hono Pure®), and crocin, which is the main active ingredient in the spice saffron. This can be taken either as a pill (called Crocin Rich II) that is actually just a concentrated form of the spice.

The equivalent of a pill is a U.S. dime-sized serving of the spice itself, which is made up of crocus flowers (stigma and styles) generally grown and harvested by hand in Iran and Spain. Crocin blocks the stem cells of 16 different cancer types! Here is a typical finding from eleven scientists in Germany, Italy, and the U.S.: crocin from saffron blocked the stem cell marker DCLK1, which contributed to the spread (metastasis) of a number of different cancers. Saffron blocks cells bearing this marker and thereby stops the expansion and movement of cancer stem cells.

• (Güllü N, Kobelt D, Brim H, et al. Saffron Crudes and Compounds Restrict MACC1-Dependent Cell Proliferation and Migration of Colorectal Cancer Cells. Cells. 2020 Aug 3;9(8):1829. doi: 10.3390/cells9081829. PMID: 32756469; PMCID: PMC7463853)

We propose by way of illustration the case of lymphoma (cancer of the lymphatic system, or “glands.”) There was great difficulty finding a CSC marker in lymphoma. But a study then showed a high amount of an enzyme called aldehyde dehydrogenase (abbreviated ALDH+) associated with the aggressiveness of NHL.

ALDH

ALDH is a family of enzymes. As of this writing, 19 ALDH genes have been identified. They participate in a wide variety of normal bodily functions. But a lot of ALDH+ is also associated with the aggressiveness of lymphoma cells.

As an illustration of the danger of CSCs, while it takes 100,000+ ordinary cancer cells to generate a new tumor, this can be accomplished by just 1,500 ALDH+ cells. So cancer stem cells are at least 67 times more dangerous than ordinary cancer cells!

• (Song S, Li Y, Zhang K, et al. Cancer Stem Cells of Diffuse Large B Cell Lymphoma Are Not Enriched in the CD45+CD19- cells but in the ALDHhigh Cells. J Cancer. 2020 Jan 1;11(1):142-152. doi: 10.7150/jca.35000. PMID: 31892981; PMCID: PMC6930399)

So the question is, How does one target ALDH+ cells? The short answer is through nutraceuticals. The following have been shown to counter ALDH+ cells.

1. Curcumin from turmeric root
2. EGCG and other polyphenols from green tea
3. Genistein and other soy isoflavones
4. Resveratrol from red grape skins
5. Sulforaphane from broccoli
6. Medicinal mushrooms including reishi

Look familiar? This is virtually the same list that two CAM-friendly oncologists, Dwight McKee and Cord Naujokat, called the “big five phytochemicals targeting cancer stem cells,”[NOTE: You can click on any of the above links to see representative scientific papers establishing that fact.]

To anyone reading this who is unfamiliar with the naturopathic approach to disease, this list will seem strange, if not bizarre. It is tempting to reject it outright as not based on scientific studies. However, this would be a mistake. In fact, one could argue that conventional therapies tend to be more “traditional” than complementary therapies. Take the case of the mainstay of treatment for sarcoma, which is of course surgery.

If you do a PubMed search of the terms surgery + “soft tissue sarcoma” you retrieve (as of this writing) 4,196 results. But how many of those papers refer to randomized controlled trials (RCTs), the so-called “gold standard” of research. Just 68, or 1.62%. As a rough estimate, one could say that about 98% of the discussion of surgery for STS is about refinements in long-standing (traditional) techniques. Very little of it rises to the level of the high standard of proof demanded of most new medical treatments.

Complementary medicine for cancer is increasingly scientific and sophisticated in its reliance on scientific testing and concepts. In particular, it is increasingly concerned with three areas that are barely touched on by surgery, radiation, or classical (cytotoxic) chemotherapy. These three areas are:

1. Cancer stem cells and other molecular targets of natural therapies.
2. Modulation of the immune system to bring about proper immune surveillance of tumors.
3. The “Warburg Effect,” which is the disordered metabolism of most cancers, centered on cancer’s disruption of normal metabolism (called oxidative phosphorylation, or “OxPhos” for short) and reliance on “aerobic glycolysis.” The latter is characterized by an avidity for blood glucose, fermentation, and the harmful production of lactic acid (lactate) by the tumor.

Almost day-by-day one can watch as medicine gropes its way towards rational treatments based on these three principles. For instance, barely a day goes by that a new scientific paper does not appear expounding on the effectiveness of one or another preparation of curcumin (from turmeric root) in the treatment of cancer. There are presently 6,148 such references in PubMed, appearing at a rate of 643 new papers per year! Since 2009, there have been over 129 papers published just on the topic of “cancer stem cells” + curcumin.

“Few Empirical Data”?

A group of academic researchers started a paper with this astonishing statement:

“Despite the reported widespread use of dietary supplements during cancer treatment, few empirical data with regard to their safety or efficacy exist.”

• (Ambrosone CB, Zirpoli GR, Hutson AD, et al. Dietary Supplement Use During Chemotherapy and Survival Outcomes of Patients With Breast Cancer Enrolled in a Cooperative Group Clinical Trial (SWOG S0221). J Clin Oncol. 2020 Mar 10;38(8):804-814. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.01203. Epub 2019 Dec 19. PMID: 31855498; PMCID: PMC7062457)

As we have shown, this is completely wrong. There is a considerable amount of “empirical data” on the topic of cancer treatment and complementary medicine. Anyone ignorant of this fact should begin by consulting numerous online resources, including impartial information at the Linus Pauling Institute of Oregon State University.

They could then look at the Textbook of Naturopathic Oncology, edited by Gurdev Parmar, ND, of British Columbia, and Tina Kaczor, ND, of Portland, Oregon, and Naturopathic Oncology: An Encyclopedic Guide For Patients & Physicians (4th edition) by Neil McKinney, BSc, ND of Victoria, BC.

Extent of Research

There is in fact a considerable amount of research on the topic of cancer and complementary medicine. Nor is this all laboratory research. If you bring up the topic of CAM treatment with a conventional American oncologist you might hear that such treatments are only based on anecdotal evidence, or else only on laboratory studies. But this is not exactly true. To test this idea, we did an analysis of the evidence listed in the Textbook of Naturopathic Oncology for a major form of cancer. There were 34 such papers.

It is conventionally agreed that the evidence for treatment can be arranged in a pyramid of significance, ranging from laboratory studies at the bottom to the systematic analysis of clinical trials at the top. Here is a typical pyramid:

What we found was that 82.4% of the papers supporting CAM recommendations in the naturopathic textbook were based on studies in humans. 17.6% were of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 11.8% were based on meta-analyses (MAs) of such trials, which are among the highest levels of proof in evidence-based medicine (EBM). Meta-analyses and systematic reviews represent the highest level of proof in evidence-based medicine (EBM), because they review and analyze the results of previous clinical trials. Together RCTs and MAs represented 29.4% of the total papers. By contrast, just 6/34 or 17.6% of the studies were based on animal (AS) or test tube (TT) studies.