No one is hiding cures for cancer: many cancer drugs start with natural compounds
Cancer misinformation amplified by medical conspiracism is not only false, it is dangerous.
A quick housekeeping note: I’m currently in India on some much-needed PTO (if you didn’t know, I do have a full-time job outside my science communication work) — so you may only get 1 or 2 newsletters in your inbox over the next few weeks, and that will depend on how exhausted I am after wildlife scouting every day!
This is officially my 100th newsletter - so that means there is a LOT of content that is already written, relevant, and available!
I’ve organized by broad topics: from cancer, infectious diseases and vaccines, pesticides and farming, general pseudoscience and wellness, immunology, chemistry and chemophobia, supplements, and more. I highly encourage everyone to check some of these sections out, especially if you’re a newer reader!
This newsletter is free, but it’s able to sustain itself from support I receive from a small percentage of regular readers. If you value science-based information, consider upgrading to a paid subscription:
Medical conspiracism is the false belief that the government and their affiliates like "Big Pharma" and "Big Food" are suppressing health interventions to harm us—and this is a central tenet of the wellness industry. The goal of the wellness industry in propagating medical conspiracism is to undermine science-based innovations and medicines and position the products it sells as the altruistic, "natural" counterpoint.
And medical conspiracism is rampant in the cancer misinformation space.
Cancer is a term that evokes fear, confusion, and anxiety to so many people who hear it. And with that term comes a flood of misinformation because
Cancer is widely misunderstood by most people.
If you talk to anyone, they know the term cancer. Most people know someone who was diagnosed with cancer: roughly 1 in 3 people will be diagnosed with cancer at some point in their life. Cancer is a huge bucket of hundreds of unique diseases that are widely misunderstood, and this allows health disinformation to spread rapidly.
People misunderstand cancer for many reasons:
Cancers are incredibly complex diseases that are influenced by many factors.
Fear and stigma about cancer, particularly about death due to cancer.
Our understanding of cancers is growing every day, meaning knowledge about diagnosing, treating, and prevention evolves.
Media outlets frequently oversimplify and misrepresent topics related to cancer.
Healthcare providers that aren’t qualified to speak on cancer frequently mischaracterize the biology and current data.
And of course, intentional misinformation spread online is designed to spread fear and target people who are navigating cancer.
Much of this misinformation is spread by those in wellness circles, those who promote medical conspiracism, and yes, the “MAHA” movement of RFK Jr., the incoming Trump administration, and his current nominees for leading health and science leadership roles (written about in the below):
The Trump Administration Could Become The Wellness Industry’s Dangerous Ally
One of the most harmful and persistent myths is that scientists, doctors, and Big Pharma are hiding “natural cures” for cancer to keep patients sick and the cash flowing.
This is 100% objectively false. No one is hiding cures for cancer.
Not only is it wrong, but it demonstrates a lack of scientific understanding. It also undermines trust in science and medicine - which is the goal of medical conspiracism.
And yes, this past week, Joe Rogan and Mel Gibson repeated this exact sentiment on Joe Rogan’s podcast, while Mel Gibson also touted unproven anti-parasitics ivermectin and fenbendazole as effective treatments for cancers - because he knows 3 people who claim that’s what they were cured with.
Unfortunately, this sentiment isn’t new and doesn’t exist in isolation. A 2014 JAMA study found that as belief in medical conspiracies increased, so did “wellness industry” behaviors like buying and consuming herbal supplements and organic foods. The number one medical conspiracy that respondents believed is that the government is hiding “natural cures for cancer.”
Another finding? Those individuals also participated less in evidence-based measures for health: wearing sunscreen, going to the dentist, getting an annual physical, and getting their flu shots. You know, the things that actually improve health outcomes.
The “natural cure” conspiracy is based on the false belief that a miraculous remedy exists in nature—be it a plant, mushroom, or superfood—that can cure all cancers.
Not only that, but “Big Pharma” and the government are suppressing that in order to keep people sick and make money off selling medications that only address symptoms — not the root cause (root cause is a major red flag for wellness disinformation, btw). This claim resonates because it is easy to vilify a faceless company instead of discussing really complex science and sociopolitical challenges.
But when it’s positioned at greedy corporations vs. benevolent Mother Nature, you can understand why some people might be drawn into this persistent myth.
The problem? This ignores basic cancer biology, how drug development works, and how medicine is implemented.
Cancer is not a single disease. It is hundreds of distinct illnesses. Every single person’s cancer is unique.
Cancer is a huge bucket of hundreds of unique diseases that are widely misunderstood. Cancers occur when our cells stop behaving normally. This happens when genes that are required to regulate cellular processes become mutated. Gene mutations occur randomly as a result of errors during DNA replication. The more cell divisions, the higher the likelihood of an error occurring, leading to a mutation.
These mutations are also multifactorial—some are completely random and occur as our bodies age, some are inherited, some are as a result of exposure to things that can increase the likelihood of mutations (like alcohol, tobacco, UV radiation). About 40% of cancers are linked to modifiable risk factors.
And of course, every cancer type is different. Breast cancers are not the same as pancreatic cancers. Acute lymphoblastic leukemia is different from chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Melanoma is different from basal cell carcinoma. And so on.
But every single cancer, even within types, is different too. If you had a group of patients with stage 2 breast cancer, every single one of them would be different. They may have different originating mutations—some in the tumor suppressor gene p53 perhaps, others in the DNA repair gene BRCA1, some may have overexpression of the oncogene HER2. (read more details below)
The complexity and diversity of this group of hundreds of unique diseases makes the idea of a single “cure” biologically implausible.
When targeting cancer for treatment, we also have to target the underlying aberrant cell types. So a cancer that is a result of epithelial cells growing uncontrollably would be targeted differently than one characterized by B cells growing uncontrollably.
Spoiler: many of our effective cancer chemotherapeutics are derived from natural sources.
If there were natural chemicals that showed potential for cancer treatments, scientists would (and have) studied it. And guess what: we have. A common tactic we use when studying cancers is doing high throughput screens (I say we because this is a large part of what I do in my actual full-time job).
A high-throughput screen involves taking a large library of various compounds to see if they have any potential effect on cancer cells in vitro. If someone has some sort of positive result, then follow-up in vitro studies assessing dose response, different cancer cell culture models, toxicity, and more would be conducted to further explore the mechanism of the substance in cells growing on a piece of plastic. If that looked promising, then animal studies would be conducted, and so on.
There are lots of chemical in nature that can have pharmacological effects—many of these are substances isolated from plants, because plants produce things to deter predators: animals, insects, and pathogens that would otherwise destroy them.
However, what might exist in nature and show promise for cancer doesn’t mean it is going to be perfect. Often, natural compounds need to be chemically - synthetically - altered for optimization.
That includes improving the stability of the chemical, so it doesn’t degrade too quickly, or improving their solubility so they can actually be formulated into a version that is deliverable to people, or increasing their efficacy by modifying small functional groups on the chemical structure.
Docetaxel is a synthetic derivative of a natural chemical that is more effective as a cancer treatment.
Docetaxel is a derivative of the natural chemical paclitaxel (taxol). Paclitaxel is a chemical produced by the Pacific yew tree (Taxus brevifolia).
Paclitaxel, and other taxane chemicals, interfere with critical structural proteins in cells called microtubules. Microtubules are essential for many things, including the ability of a cell to divide through mitosis. Paclitaxel inhibits the function of a subunit called beta-tubulin. This prevents cells from dividing, causing cell cycle arrest and death. As a result, this can be harnessed to target cancer cells, which are growing and dividing incredibly quickly.
A common misconception about natural versus synthetic substances is that they are more eco-friendly, but paclitaxel is a stark reminder that the opposite is often the case.
For years, paclitaxel was harvested and isolated from yew trees - to the point that overharvesting for paclitaxel led to the addition of the Himalayan yew, Taxus contorta, to the IUCN endangered species list. The Pacific yew, Taxus brevifolia is on the near threatened list.
Scientists developed a more sustainable method to produce paclitaxel that didn’t require killing and harvesting trees. Guess what? It’s technically a synthetic compound. In fact, most “natural” substances are now produced synthetically, because it is more sustainable, cost-effective, and has been quality control.
However, while paclitaxel is effective as a cancer treatment - and is used today - it still has limitations. Paclitaxel is hydrophobic, meaning it does not dissolve in water. As a result, it cannot be mixed into an easily delivered solution for medication purposes.
To create a version of paclitaxel that can be administered to people, it needs to be mixed with an oil (hydrophobic things need to be dissolved in other hydrophobic things).
Think of oil and vinegar: oil is hydrophobic (water-hating) and vinegar is hydrophilic (water-loving). The two don’t mix together because of their different chemical groups.
For paclitaxel, a solvent called Cremophor EL is used. While this allows paclitaxel to be administered, Cremophor EL can increase the risk of allergic hypersensitivity reactions.
Enter: docetaxel—a derivative of the natural paclitaxel.
Docetaxel was created by chemically modifying the structure of paclitaxel. Paclitaxel was tweaked to improve solubility by altering certain functional groups: a benzoyl to a tert-butoxycarbonyl group, and a hydroxyacetyl replaced with a hydroxyl group. (The main takeaway for you is just referring to the areas in red boxes below to visualize the differences).
These alterations improve the efficacy, safety, and solubility of docetaxel compared to paclitaxel.
These synthetic alterations offer some advatanges:
Docetaxel has higher binding affinity to those cellular proteins, which means it can exert an anti-cancer effect at lower dosages.
Docetaxel has a lower risk of neuropathy, a side effect caused by many chemotherapeutics, which can be particularly important for patients needed long-term treatments or are already at risk of neurological complications.
Docetaxel is metabolized by different cytochrome P450 enzymes, which allows it to accumulate in tumor tissues. This can improve response in more aggressive tumors, and it means that patients can receive doses every 3 weeks, compared to weekly with paclitaxel.
Docetaxel has fewer side effects that have been associated with allergies to the castor-oil based solvent in paclitaxel, including flushing and difficulty breathing.
Docetaxel has superior effectiveness in certain cancers including prostate cancers, breast cancers, and non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC).
While paclitaxel is often used successfully in many cancer treatments, docetaxel is a prime example of the fact that not only are we not hiding “natural” cures, we are using nature and improving on it.
Nature doesn’t always have a solution—that’s why we use science, and our accumulated knowledge, to continue to innovate and improve health.
For another example, watch this clip from my recent appearance on part 2 of WIRED Tech Support:
Synthetic substances aren’t inherently “bad” —altering natural chemicals can improve them for our use
Chemically altering natural compounds doesn’t make them “bad,” but these claims are based on chemophobia and the appeal to nature fallacy (written about here and here).
Many chemicals that are identified in nature are produced by plants to deter predators—animals, insects, parasites, and more. They are intended to be toxic to those organisms. This is why pesticides used in organic farming exist: most are chemicals produced by plants. Several I’ve already discussed, including abrin, one of the most toxic chemicals, that is produced by the rosary pea.
Many of these natural chemicals need refining, chemical alteration, and purification to improve their safety profile. Another anti-cancer compound isolated from nature is camptothecin, from the Chinese happy tree. However, the mechanism in which camptothecin works can kill our healthy cells just as quickly as cancer cells. So it was chemically altered into alternatives like topotecan, which is safer, more bioavailable, has reduced side effects, and can target a broader range of cancers including ovarian cancer, small cell lung carcinoma (SCLC), cervical cancer, and others.
These modifications of natural chemicals don’t make their synthetic derivations “bad,” in many cases it means they can actually be used therapeutically. Many of these natural compounds degrade rapidly, are reactive, aren’t soluble, and can’t get to the body location they need to. Chemical modifications address these challenges, improving therapeutic use, safety, and effectiveness.
The wellness industry profits from lying about cancer treatments
Ironically, the people who peddle the “natural cures for cancer” myth often have something to sell: unregulated supplements, miracle teas, or detox regimens.
Unlike approved medicines, these products aren’t required to prove their safety or efficacy, thanks to the 1994 Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA). Not only do these products lack evidence for cancer treatments, they can be harmful, especially to cancer patients, and always lead people to forgo proven treatments. People who seek unproven cancer alternatives have increased risk of poor outcomes: premature death, reduced 5-year survival, and quality of life impacts.
These products and the celebrities that endorse them profit off distrust in medicine while causing people real harm.
Science-based medicine is the way toward innovation, progress, and improving cancer outcomes.
If we want to reduce the burden of cancer, the answer isn’t to enable disinformation propagated by celebrities and social media influencers—it’s in standing up for science.
The idea that we’re hiding natural cancer cures isn’t just wrong—it’s harmful. It distracts from ACTUAL progress being made in cancer treatment and prevention. It undermines scientists and healthcare providers who dedicate their lives to saving others.
Worse still: it preys on vulnerable patients seeking hope.
The next time someone tells you about a hidden cure or claims Big Pharma just wants to keep us sick, ask them:
What evidence do they have? Where did that evidence come from? Was it someone selling them some alternative? Who is really profiting from that narrative?
Cancer misinformation is a threat to public health.
It’s long past the time for “politeness” on these topics. Health misinformation is a tangible danger to society. That’s incredibly evident in the cancer space, a category of diseases that are already poorly understood and incredibly difficult to treat. Endorsing, elevating, and legitimizing falsehoods is harmful. Collective effort is needed to combat it. In the case of cancer, truth is a matter of life and death.
We all must join in the fight for science.
Thank you for supporting evidence-based science communication. With outbreaks of preventable diseases, refusal of evidence-based medical interventions, propagation of pseudoscience by prominent public “personalities”, it’s needed now more than ever.
More science education, less disinformation.
- Andrea
ImmunoLogic is written by Dr. Andrea Love, PhD - immunologist and microbiologist. She works full-time in life sciences biotech and has had a lifelong passion for closing the science literacy gap and combating pseudoscience and health misinformation as far back as her childhood. This newsletter and her science communication on her social media pages are born from that passion. Follow on Instagram, Threads, Twitter, and Facebook, or support the newsletter by subscribing below:
As always, thank you for your willingness to be a public health communicator. Earlier today, I read Katelyn Jetelina's article on the "appeal to nature fallacy," which is a frequent issue she highlights. Great minds...! The attempt of influencers to "dumb down" complex scientific information places us all in jeopardy, unless we know how to source.
Speaking of over-simplifying complex information, I do have a request, should you ever have time to write about it: there are an increasing number of apps that enable people to scan bar codes or enter the product information of items in their home, ranging from personal care products to food. A friend recently recommended the "Yuka" app, and it took only seconds for me to question the information. It warns consumers of ingredients that are allegedly a cancer risk (phenoxyethanol, for instance, which is in most of my shampoos and skin care products) and ingredients such as BHT (in anti-perspirant) that are allegedly very high risk for endocrine disruption. They offer alternative suggestions, which aren't necessarily an alternative (e.g., deodorant is NOT antiperspirant). They do claim they aren't paid for endorsing other products.
I'm not a chemist or a scientist of any kind, but I recalled all of your articles on "chemophobia," as well as information along those lines from other scientists I trust, and I became skeptical. I checked it out and discovered that the app's founders are an engineer, an accountant and an entrepreneur. No scientists appear to be on board, so I don't know where they are getting their information. This is one of many such apps. I would be utterly thrilled if you would someday review at least some of the major apps in this category, offering guidance about what is crap and what is not. (Or, perhaps they all are.)
Well written and informative. Thank you. I have a friend who sees a conspiracy under every rock. My theory is that conspiracy theories are a form of Gnosticism. Adherents of conspiracy theories have a special knowledge that the rest of us lemmings don’t possess. They are therefore intellectually superior.