——————-
It is well known that from the beginning,this hypothesis was haunted by the possible detrimental effects on cells during isolation and sorting cells for xeno-transplantation studies. In addition the studies by Taussig et al has demonstrated that even in hAML system, which need not use drastic enzymatic digestion to isolate single cells, the simple process of exposing the cells to antibodies will drastically affect the viability of cells in the NOD/SCID mice system. This has been born out by the studies of Quintana et al. Besides, nobody knows about the source of the putative cancer stem cells. In addition, there is not direct proof for the asymmetric division potential of the so called CSCs.
What worries me is the act that there are much better explanations for the process of carcinogenesis. For example, my work on neosis, which nobody seems to care about has offered a perfectly logical explanation for the origin of tumor initiating Raju cells, which are produced repetitively. This will explain the variation in the number of tumor initiating cells. In addition, we have shown that when tumor cells are exposed to current non-surgical treatments, the cells enter senescent phase and undergo neosis which yields Tumor Repopulating Raju cells which are resistant, thus giving rise to the resistant tumor growth. (Ref: R. Rajaraman et al. Cancer Cell Int 2006.6:25) Complete info can be seen in the internet by googling for the words “Neosis + R. Rajaraman”. I would personally welcome your comments on this hypothesis, which is based on video documentation, unlike the CSC hypothesis, which is based on assumptions and circumstantial evidence, which has now turned out to be erroneous.
——————–

please welcome to comment!