How far the natural compounds are better than synthetic compounds in cancer research?

'Natural' compounds are not strictly better than synthetic ones in cancer research, or in any other drug development. And there is no difference between a molecule coming from natural source, and the same molecule coming from a synthetic process. That was elucidated years ago with the advent of organic chemistry (first synthesis of urea, a natural compound that can be found in urine).





As for compounds of strictly synthetic origin, ie those which do not exist in nature, well, some of them are even better, as for efficiency, toxicity, side-effects, than their natural counterparts. An example: aspirin. The raw stuff extracted from tree bark is awful for the stomach, and will make visible holes in it if used for more than one week. With a minor modification (a reaction called esterification), this molecule can and is used as an everyday drug without major problems.





Nature does NOT produce compounds for us; each organism produces them for THEMSELVES, for their own survival. Humans are just very clever monkeys whom have learn to use them as tools. And tools can be refined. Thus drug design.





Of course nature has had millions of years to develop these biologically active compounds, compared to our mere decades. This makes it the main source of inspiration to the medicinal chemist. That's why many pharmaceutical companies have branches which do prospection in different ecosystems. Very often natural compounds found during these searches are used as starting points for the design of a new drug.

How far the natural compounds are better than synthetic compounds in cancer research?
This is a natural process. Try Vitamin C therapy. A few years ago a cancer specialist came out with a paper that said the best cancer/infection fighter found to date was Interferon. At the time it was $15,000 a gram. The paper also said that Interferon was a by-product of the natural breakdown of Vitamin C in your body. Shortly after that the FDA tried to make Vitamin C by prescription only. Guess why? The FDA has the RDA for Vitamin C set at 64 mg a day, just enough to ward off scurvy. Linus Pauling, who got a Nobel Prize for his work with Vitamin C and a second Nobel Prize for Organic Chemistry, said that 1000 mg a day should be the minimum and 2000 mg a day if you are sick or smoke. He played tennis almost daily until the day he died at 96. Personally, I got sick twice a year for 2 weeks at a time, for more than 20 years, with something to this day the doctors have no idea what it was, but for a week in the middle of those 2 weeks I was flat on my back. I started Vitamin C therapy once I gave up on the doctors. I took enough to be asymptomatic for those 2 weeks. Too much and I got diarrhea and too little and I got sick. Within a narrow range, and it followed a bell curve over those 2 weeks, I was not sick. At the height I was taking 40,000 mg a day and 300,000 over the 2 weeks. After 2 years of that I have not been sick since – more than 15 years. Vitamin C acts as a natural diuretic so you need to drink a lot of water and watch your body in total, but my kidneys did not dissolve as the doctors predicted, or get massive kidney stones as other predicted. I did not dissolve my bones as some predicted or completely calcify my joints as others predicted. I had no side effects at all. It might be something to consider.
Reply:You are badly misinformed