The most famous case of someone trying to use bunk science to heal their cancer was that of Steve Jobs. He wasn't that young, but like those mentioned in the article, he attempted to use diet and healing crystals to treat cancer that was entirely treatable when first discovered [1]. By the time he realized he was essentially killing himself by refusing treatment, the cancer had spread.
The five-year survival rate for neuroendocrine pancreatic tumors treated with surgery in the earliest stage is 61%. Jobs lived eight years after diagnosis despite postponing surgery.
So I agree with you in spirit, but it's not accurate to say he had a treatable cancer that he allowed to kill him.
Hm, I distinctly recall media coverage that there was consensus among several doctors that Jobs would've had the best treatment possible with the likely outcome of remission had he only engaged with the treatment protocol instead of relying on un-proven, hokey reasoning.
Also I do recall Jobs ended up getting a new liver in 2009, so I'm pretty sure that prolonged his time on the planet by a pretty significant amount. I remember this because I looked into how he was able to get that liver...sort of like how he was being rebellious and clever to get a new Mercedes Benz every 6 months so legally he wouldn't need a license plate on his car, he managed to get himself on multiple lists and set up residency in a place that would be advantageous to get what he wanted...
The real question is: Why not do the surgery, and then the diet and crystals or whatever? Would it really hurt anything to do the diet, too? That way, you have your bases covered with both traditional medicine and the natural approach.
But at least take the 61% option + all your other remedies then? I'm assuming the 39% failure is "the cancer kills you" and not "the surgery or complications thereof kill you."
I would assume the oncologist in OP has less of a problem with people also doing other stuff they believe helps them, vs not including "traditional" (aka scientific) medical procedures that statistically improve their chances of survival.
I agree completely. I'm only pointing out that it's a messier story than the one we want to tell (Jobs signing his own death warrant by refusing prompt treatment).
How is it not a death warrant? 61% vs 0% (or whatever the percentage was by the time he got conventional treatment?) Look, it was his body and he can do what he wanted, but he made the wrong move in a very obvious and predictable way.
Not to mention the elephant in the room: Vegan diets are probably unhealthy. They lack selenium you'd otherwise get from meats. Low selenium and pancreas diseases go hand in hand.
There's also a link between drinking fruit juices and pancreatic cancers. Jobs constantly drank fruit juices as part of his vegan/fruitarian diet. Fructose megadosing is scary stuff. Healthy sugars and still sugars. They still have calories and still need to be processed.
> How is it not a death warrant? 61% vs 0% (or whatever the percentage was by the time he got conventional treatment?) Look, it was his body and he can do what he wanted, but he made the wrong move in a very obvious and predictable way.
61% of survival at five years. He survived longer than five years.
[1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2011/10/24/steve-jo...