The raw data are stark. 40% of US adults in a recent poll believe that “cancer can be solely cured through alternative remedies.” Of young people aged 18-35, the percentage pushes up to nearly half, at 47%. Remarkably, 38% of family members and other caregivers to people with cancer agree. And 22% of cancer survivors do. These beliefs – a shocking contrast to a 2017 study that found that choosing alternatives increases risk of death 2.5 times – are a central reason that the cancer establishment needs integrative and naturopathic oncologists.
Multiple integrative oncologists question whether JAMA Oncology did the public a huge disservice in publishing the controversial data-mining, population-based research led by Skyler Johnson, MD and James Yu, MD, MHS. The study concluded that use of complementary therapies leads to shorter life spans. The New York Times was among the major media that posted the scare.
The media had a feeding frenzy when a data-mining report from Yale researchers published in JAMA Oncology suggested a causal relationship between use of “complementary medicine” and shortened life span among cancer patients. A New York Times subheading was representative: “People who used herbs, acupuncture and other complementary treatments tended to die earlier than those who didn’t.”