The trouble with the NET (Part 2) – Alternative Therapies – what’s the harm?

• Facebook
• X
• Bluesky
• Pinterest
• Threads
• WhatsApp
• Mail

“But it works… I read it on the internet!”

You may remember my article entitled The trouble with the NET (Part 1) which was a light-hearted but still serious discussion about the dangers of self-treatment on the internet. Linked to that blog was a very popular article written by the scientists at Cancer Research UK debunking some cancer myths which seem to regularly patrol the NET and social media.

Many well meaning people will send you articles they saw on the ‘NET’ about this and that treatment which claims to cure cancer.  They also post them on social media increasing the reach to thousands of people, some of whom are not in the right frame of mind to see the risks.  The vast majority of these ‘suggestions’ will be lacking in any proper and formal scientific research and there is normally a product or book for sale attached to the link.  In some instances, these ‘miracle cures’ can actually be dangerous for some.

In a follow on article, Cancer Research UK warns of the risks in Alternative Therapies which is written in a similar vein.  I pay great attention to what these guys say.  I know from my association with their research capability, that they take an evidence based approach and do not publish these things lightly.  Please note Alternative Therapy is not the same as Complementary Therapy. Alternative therapy is something used instead of conventional approved treatment, complementary therapy is something used in addition to conventional approved treatment.  Nonetheless, any therapy which is not approved can be dangerous to cancer patients.

One bonus and very interesting aspect of their article is that they discuss the Steve Jobs issue of initially opting for alternative treatment rather than conventional, excellently making the point that he did not have Pancreatic Cancer, rather he had a Neuroendocrine Tumour (NET).  We all know this, but many newspapers, magazines, TV commentators and bloggers frequently get this wrong.

One of the big selling points advocates of alternative therapies use is to claim that conventional treatments are ’toxic’ while their favoured treatment is ‘natural’, implying that natural is somehow better.  In analysis, that is a fallacy.  It’s easy to get sucked into promises of ‘cures’ and ‘remission’ by using herbal remedies, diets, potent supplement, etc (the list of endless).  However, if these things really worked, all Oncologists, specialists and major cancer centres would be advising this too.

“But it works… I read it in the news!”

Stories in the news about alternative therapies are usually framed in the words of a single patient talking about their own cancer journey. But this is neither scientific proof nor any kind of guarantee that a treatment is effective or safe. People pushing alternative therapies frequently wheel out stories from ‘survivors’ who are apparently alive due to their treatments, yet without providing solid evidence to prove it is true, solid evidence that the actual ‘miracle’ drug was the reason for the improvement rather than something else of a previous or concurrent conventional treatment. This raises false hope and unrealistic expectations that there is a hidden miracle cure that can be unlocked for the right price, or by eating exactly the right foods.

A UK newspaper ran a story of what can happen if you forego conventional treatment and try alternative instead.  This is one example but there are clearly many more and ASCO touched on this above.

“Britton-Jordan was an intelligent woman with a long-standing interest in alternative therapies, who made a decision based on her beliefs. But doctors are becoming increasingly concerned at the targeting of vulnerable cancer patients by charlatans peddling well-meaning but useless therapies– a problem that is gathering pace thanks to the use of social media and drawing parallels with the newly emboldened anti-vaccination movement“.

Those selling and promoting alternative treatments rarely discuss the risks, especially the biggest risk of all – missing that small window of opportunity to hit a cancer with the best conventional (and proven) treatment possible.

Other posts in the “Trouble with the NET” series are given below

“Certain popular ideas about how cancer starts and spreads – though scientifically wrong, can seem to make sense, especially when those ideas are rooted in old theories. To a certain extent, it can be the case with treatment too. But wrong ideas about cancer can lead to needless worry and even hinder good prevention and treatment decisions”

Part 1 – Cancer Myths – click here

“But it works… a friend of a friend put it on Facebook”

Part 3 – Miracle Cures – click here

“Hope is great, false hope is not”

Part 4 – Cancer Kills but so can Fake Cures – click here

In here I have provided links to trustworthy sources on some of the comments I see in patient groups.

Part 5 – Cancer Food Myths – click here

The ‘NET’ can spread ……..  false hope

Part 6 – The trouble with the NET is that it can spread ……. false hope – click here

Disclaimer

I am not a doctor or any form of medical professional, practitioner or counsellor. None of the information on my website, or linked to my website(s), or conveyed by me on any social media or presentation, should be interpreted as medical advice given or advised by me.

Neither should any post or comment made by a follower or member of my private group be assumed to be medical advice, even if that person is a healthcare professional.

Please also note that mention of a clinical service, trial/study or therapy does not constitute an endorsement of that service, trial/study or therapy by Ronny Allan, the information is provided for education and awareness purposes and/or related to Ronny Allan’s own patient experience. This element of the disclaimer includes any complementary medicine, non-prescription over the counter drugs and supplements such as vitamins and minerals.

Click here and answer all questions to join my private Facebook group

Check out my Glossary of Terms – click here

Please Share this post for Neuroendocrine Cancer awareness and to help another patient

All you need to know about Peptide Receptor Radionuclide Therapy (PRRT)May 8, 2017Ronny AllanClinical Trials and Research

Understanding your Somatostatin Receptor (SSTR) PET/CT Scan ResultsJuly 9, 2024Ronny AllanPatient Advocacy

Neuroendocrine Tumours (NET) – Vitamin B12 (Cobalamin)February 27, 2026Ronny AllanDiet and Nutrition

Road ahead closed – Bowel ObstructionsJuly 13, 2024Ronny AllanDiet and Nutrition

Neuroendocrine Tumours (NETs) – Vitamin D (Cholecalciferol / Ergocalciferol)March 17, 2026Ronny AllanDiet and Nutrition

CAR-T clinical trials for Neuroendocrine Cancer (plus bonus section on CAR-NK)August 31, 2024Ronny AllanClinical Trials and Research

Cancer: Words are important but so is contextMarch 11, 2026Ronny AllanInspiration

Neuroendocrine Cancer – normally slow but always sneaky – an awareness post from Ronny AllanOctober 30, 2017Ronny AllanAwareness

The Cancer Legacy of Steve Jobs?August 5, 2023Ronny AllanAwareness

The Classification, Grading and Staging of Neuroendocrine Neoplasms (incorporating WHO 2022 classification changes)March 11, 2024Ronny AllanPatient Advocacy