Study attacking alternative medicine proves little more than industry bias
This week, a new study
was published comparing the survival of cancer patients who underwent
conventional treatment verses those who chose only alternative
treatment. And the media had a field day with headlines like these:
“Alternative cancer therapy linked to earlier death”
“Alternative medicine for cancer more than doubles death risk”
“Cancer is way more likely to kill you if you rely on alternative therapies”
And my personal favorite…
“Alternative medicine’s toll on cancer patients: Death rate up to 5X higher”
I’m sure that last one got boatloads of clicks.
On the surface, these headlines may be concerning if you are in the natural/alternative health world, but rest assured, I read the entire study and the results are not at all what they claim.
I actually LOVE this study. Because it gives me a beautiful opportunity to show you how agenda-biased science works.
Science is fun. And funny. Because the conclusion of a study is really all about how the authors choose to interpret the results.
For example, here’s an “alternative” title for the study based on the exact same data:
“Conventional treatment of prostate cancer no better than alternative medicine”
I’ll get to those conclusions in a minute, but first let’s set the stage:
The cancer industry has a real PR problem.
The overall death rate for cancer has only improved 5% in the last 60 years.
And while most people don’t know that shocking statistic exists (you’re welcome), what they do know (including you, dear reader) is that cancer treatments have failed to save the lives of people they love.
This is why, today, doctors are bombarded with questions from new patients about alternative therapies. I even asked my doctor about alternative options in 2004, to which he said,
“There are none. If you don’t do chemotherapy, you’re INSANE.”
While that was a highly effective, fear-inducing sales tactic that almost worked on me, that type of approach also tends to run patients off. Doctors needed a friendlier, more science-y comeback.
They need a headline and talking point that can be quickly disseminated throughout all of Cancerdom; a quick response to shoot down patients who may be skeptical of the effectiveness and wary of the risks of conventional treatment, and who may be looking into alternatives.
And now they’ve got one. That’s the intention of this study.
Here’s what the study concluded:
“Alternative cancer therapy linked to earlier death”
“Alternative medicine for cancer more than doubles death risk”
“Cancer is way more likely to kill you if you rely on alternative therapies”
And my personal favorite…
“Alternative medicine’s toll on cancer patients: Death rate up to 5X higher”
I’m sure that last one got boatloads of clicks.
On the surface, these headlines may be concerning if you are in the natural/alternative health world, but rest assured, I read the entire study and the results are not at all what they claim.
I actually LOVE this study. Because it gives me a beautiful opportunity to show you how agenda-biased science works.
Science is fun. And funny. Because the conclusion of a study is really all about how the authors choose to interpret the results.
For example, here’s an “alternative” title for the study based on the exact same data:
“Conventional treatment of prostate cancer no better than alternative medicine”
I’ll get to those conclusions in a minute, but first let’s set the stage:
The cancer industry has a real PR problem.
The overall death rate for cancer has only improved 5% in the last 60 years.
And while most people don’t know that shocking statistic exists (you’re welcome), what they do know (including you, dear reader) is that cancer treatments have failed to save the lives of people they love.
This is why, today, doctors are bombarded with questions from new patients about alternative therapies. I even asked my doctor about alternative options in 2004, to which he said,
“There are none. If you don’t do chemotherapy, you’re INSANE.”
While that was a highly effective, fear-inducing sales tactic that almost worked on me, that type of approach also tends to run patients off. Doctors needed a friendlier, more science-y comeback.
They need a headline and talking point that can be quickly disseminated throughout all of Cancerdom; a quick response to shoot down patients who may be skeptical of the effectiveness and wary of the risks of conventional treatment, and who may be looking into alternatives.
And now they’ve got one. That’s the intention of this study.
Here’s what the study concluded:
“Patients who initially chose AM for treatment of curable cancer in
lieu of CCT were rare and had statistically significantly worse
survival. After controlling for sociodemographic and clinical factors,
the magnitude of difference was largest for breast cancer because women
who used AM as initial treatment without CCT had more than a fivefold
increased risk of death. Patients with colorectal and lung cancer had a
more than fourfold and twofold increase in risk of death, respectively.
Notably, there was no statistically significant association between AM
use and survival for patients with prostate cancer.”
Major media outlets summarized the findings like this:
Major media outlets summarized the findings like this:
Enter the Straw Man.
In the world of ideas and debate, a “straw man” is a logical fallacy in which you intentionally misrepresent someone’s position to make it easier to attack and defeat them.
And what we have here is essentially a “straw man study.”
The study authors identified (possibly cherry-picked) 281 patients from the National Cancer Database between 2003-2014, who were coded as undergoing “other-unproven: cancer treatments administered by non-medical personnel.”
Not only have the researchers NEVER MET these patients, they have NO IDEA what alternative treatments they did, if any! And they admit it right in the conclusion of the study:
“We lack information regarding the type of alternative therapies delivered…”
This makes for an arguably worthless statistical pool.
Conventional medicine rarely cures cancer and the same goes for alternative medicine.
I’ve never been an advocate for “alternative medicine” because the term is far too broad. It means everything and nothing.
“Alternative medicine” includes anything that isn’t surgery, chemo, radiation, or hormone therapy.
It includes the things I did: whole food plant-based nutrition, juicing, exercise, optimal sleep, stress reduction, vitamin C IV therapy, and loads of herbal and nutraceutical supplements.
But it also includes things I didn’t do, like crystals, alkaline water, ayahuasca, witchcraft, drinking camel urine, drinking your own urine, the raw meat diet, the ketogenic diet, “miracle cure” concoctions, etc.
When someone tells me they are doing alternative therapies I have no idea what that means. And I often encounter people looking for a quick fix and chasing after an alternative cure without addressing the many obvious problems and cancer-causers in their life.
So defending alternative medicine is pointless.
Here’s the simple truth…
It includes the things I did: whole food plant-based nutrition, juicing, exercise, optimal sleep, stress reduction, vitamin C IV therapy, and loads of herbal and nutraceutical supplements.
But it also includes things I didn’t do, like crystals, alkaline water, ayahuasca, witchcraft, drinking camel urine, drinking your own urine, the raw meat diet, the ketogenic diet, “miracle cure” concoctions, etc.
When someone tells me they are doing alternative therapies I have no idea what that means. And I often encounter people looking for a quick fix and chasing after an alternative cure without addressing the many obvious problems and cancer-causers in their life.
So defending alternative medicine is pointless.
Here’s the simple truth…
Healing cancer isn’t about treatments or therapies – although they may be involved – it’s about a total life change. Removing everything in your life that may be contributing to your disease and replacing those harmful things with an evidence-based (plant-based) anti-cancer diet, exercise and lifestyle habits that promote health and healing, stress reduction… It’s about healing your life.
I’ve interviewed over 50 people who’ve healed all types and stages of cancer (real names and faces and everything!) right here.
Some of them healed without any conventional treatment. Others healed even after conventional therapy failed them.
There are common threads in their “alternative” approaches to healing, but none of them did the same thing. So you can’t lump them all together as if they are all the same.
There are common threads in their “alternative” approaches to healing, but none of them did the same thing. So you can’t lump them all together as if they are all the same.
But that’s exactly what the study authors did.
They propped up a straw man study group that was easy to knock over.
They propped up a straw man study group that was easy to knock over.
Let’s take a closer look at the Alternative Medicine group in the study
Compared to the Conventional Medicine group, the 281 patients in the Alternative Medicine group were more likely to be younger and female, living on the Pacific side of the US, with a higher eduction and income, AND a higher cancer stage (stage II or III), stage IV patients were excluded.
Wait a second. So they’re comparing the survival of a group with higher stage cancers to a group with lower stage cancers? Yes they are.
And the study authors have no idea what alternative therapies any of these patients did? That is correct.
It’s worth mentioning that sometimes patients tell their doctors they are doing “alternative therapies” just so the doctors will leave them alone.
And others choose alternative options because conventional treatment is ridiculously expensive and they can’t afford it.
CTL019, the latest CAR T-cell leukemia treatment from Novartis is expected to cost $649,000 for ONE treatment. “Honey, I guess we’re gonna have to sell the Lamborghini…”
But I digress.
Even though this study is a sloppy mess and the Alternative Medicine pool is nearly statistically worthless, let’s look at the 5-year survival numbers anyway.
For breast cancer, about 86% of CCT patients were alive at 5 years versus 58% of AM patients.
For lung cancer, about 51% of CCT patients were alive at 5 years versus 20% of AM patients.
For colorectal cancer, about 79% of CCT patients were alive at 5 years versus 32% of AM patients.
Compared to the Conventional Medicine group, the 281 patients in the Alternative Medicine group were more likely to be younger and female, living on the Pacific side of the US, with a higher eduction and income, AND a higher cancer stage (stage II or III), stage IV patients were excluded.
Wait a second. So they’re comparing the survival of a group with higher stage cancers to a group with lower stage cancers? Yes they are.
And the study authors have no idea what alternative therapies any of these patients did? That is correct.
It’s worth mentioning that sometimes patients tell their doctors they are doing “alternative therapies” just so the doctors will leave them alone.
And others choose alternative options because conventional treatment is ridiculously expensive and they can’t afford it.
CTL019, the latest CAR T-cell leukemia treatment from Novartis is expected to cost $649,000 for ONE treatment. “Honey, I guess we’re gonna have to sell the Lamborghini…”
But I digress.
Even though this study is a sloppy mess and the Alternative Medicine pool is nearly statistically worthless, let’s look at the 5-year survival numbers anyway.
For breast cancer, about 86% of CCT patients were alive at 5 years versus 58% of AM patients.
For lung cancer, about 51% of CCT patients were alive at 5 years versus 20% of AM patients.
For colorectal cancer, about 79% of CCT patients were alive at 5 years versus 32% of AM patients.
And again, the alternative medicine patients were more likely to have higher stage cancer and we have no idea what alternative therapies any of them did. So this really proves nothing.
Except for the Prostate Cancer results
94% of CCT patients were alive at 5 years versus 86% of AM patients. This difference is not considered statistically significant.
So according to this study, for prostate cancer, apparently anything you do is as good as conventional treatment. This brings me to my alternate study headline:
“Conventional therapy is no better than alternative therapy for prostate cancer survival.”
Maybe those crystals worked after all!
But seriously, in 2005, Dr. Dean Ornish MD conducted an interventional study with 93 patients PROVING that you can reverse the progression of early stage prostate cancer with a plant-based diet, exercise, and stress reduction. That’s the kind of study that matters and that everyone should be talking about.
94% of CCT patients were alive at 5 years versus 86% of AM patients. This difference is not considered statistically significant.
So according to this study, for prostate cancer, apparently anything you do is as good as conventional treatment. This brings me to my alternate study headline:
“Conventional therapy is no better than alternative therapy for prostate cancer survival.”
Maybe those crystals worked after all!
But seriously, in 2005, Dr. Dean Ornish MD conducted an interventional study with 93 patients PROVING that you can reverse the progression of early stage prostate cancer with a plant-based diet, exercise, and stress reduction. That’s the kind of study that matters and that everyone should be talking about.
“There’s no point in investigating them. They were just lucky.”
But wait, it gets better (and worse)…
This study was not conducted by unbiased researchers, like Cochrane, for example. The authors are all cancer industry professionals.
Two of the study authors have received funding from 21st Century Oncology, a company that is now in bankruptcy, which may have something to due with having to pay $54 million to settle two federal lawsuits for Medicare billing fraud. 21st Century Oncology has also been accused of gender bias and unsafe practices.
According to a 50-page federal whistleblower lawsuit filed in 2016, Florida Cancer Specialists and 21st Century Oncology paid “millions of dollars to each other in the form of exclusive patient referrals in order to secure their individual monopolies in Southwest Florida of medical oncology (Florida Cancer Specialists) and radiation oncology (21st Century Oncology).”
Speaking of, if you still think this study is worth the paper it’s printed on, I’ve got some swamp land in Florida I think you’ll be very interested in…
(((c)))
Please LIKE and Share. Add your thoughts below!
7 Reasons To Subscribe To This Blog
If you’ve found my work helpful, please donate to show your support. Thanks!
No comments:
Post a Comment