services to patients. This is likely due to both patient
demand and integrative therapy practitioners “push”
for inclusion. I would argue that the majority of such
advocates of integrative therapy and leaders in cancer
centers allowing such therapies to be promoted or
practiced in their settings are well-intentioned and car-
ing professionals. They most often genuinely want to
help patients in their struggle with cancer. Unfortu-
nately, there has been little patience to gather the data
to support this decision. We have allowed “service” to
arrive before we have solid evidence to indicate that
the interventions help or that they provide the most
benefit compared to other interventions. This has oc-
curred in part because the “costs” do not include death
or increased morbidity, as might occur if we rushed to
judgment with surgery or radiation or chemotherapy
treatments. I echo Marcia Angell’s plea years ago as ed-
itor of the New England Journal of Medicinethat “it is
time for the scientific community to stop giving alter-
native medicine a free ride...there is only medicine
that has been tested and medicine that has not...alter-
native treatments should be subjected to scientific test-
ing no less rigorous than that required for conventional
treatment.”^21
It is the responsibility of each major cancer cen-
ter to decide if they are an evidence-based institution
and if patient interventions—promoted or directly
provided—are effective in providing “whole person
care.” There should not be two standards of evidence
—one used only when disease cure or physical mor-
bidity is involved and one used when the outcomes
are more focused on quality of life and emotional dis-
tress. I think we would all agree that the latter out-
comes are critically important ones to patients, family,
and friends faced with what continues to be one of our
most feared diseases: cancer. Patients facing this diag-
nosis deserve treatment that has demonstrated benefit
and can reasonably be considered science-based. Ho-
listic care rings hollow if such care is below the bar of
science.volume 25 number 1 2020 W W W. S K E P T I C. C O M 3 9- Zhou, D. H. 2003. Clinical oncol-
ogy of Chinese medicine. Beijing:
People’s Health Publishing
House. - Cousins, N. 1979. Anatomy of an
Illness As Perceived by the Pa-
tient. New York: Norton and Co. - Siegel, B. 1986. Love, Medicine
and Miracles.New York: Harper
and Row. - Simonton, C. 1978. Getting Well
Again: A Step-by-Step, Self-Help
Guide to Overcoming Cancer for
Patients and Their Families. New
York: Bantam Books. - Underground Health Reporter,
Ancient Chinese Healing, Qigong
Dissolves Cancer Tumors, Ac-
cessed 10/29/2019, https://
undergroundhealthreporter.com/
quigong-ancient-chinese-healing/ - Lerner, I.J. 1981. “Laetrile: a les-
son in cancer quackery.” CA Can-
cer J Clin., Mar-Apr. 31(2):91-5. - Gavura, Scott. July 11, 2013 Sci-
ence Based Medicine website,
Ask the (Science-Based) Pharma-
cist: What are the benefits of cof-
fee enemas? https://science
basedmedicine.org/ask-the-sci-
ence-based-pharmacist-what-are-
the-benefits-of-coffee-enemas/ - Office of Cancer Complementary
and Alternative Medicine
(OCCAM), National Cancer Insti-
tute, National Institutes of
Health: https://cam.cancer.gov/ - National Center for Complemen-
tary and Integrative Health
(NCCIH): https://nccih.nih.gov/- Society of Integrative Oncology
(SIO): https://integrativeonc.org/ - Witt, C.M., Balneaves, L.G., Car-
doso, M.J., Cohen, L., Greenlee,
H., Johnstone, P., Kucuk, O.,
Mailman, J., Mao, J. 2017. “A
Comprehensive Definition for In-
tegrative Oncology.” J Natl Can-
cer Inst Monogr(52), 3-8. - Yun, H., Sun, L., Mao, J. 2017.
“Growth of Integrative Medicine
at Leading Cancer Centers Be-
tween 2009 and 2016: A system-
atic Analysis of NCI-Designated
Comprehensive Cancer Center
Websites.”J Natl Cancer Inst
Monogr(52): 29-32. - Brauer, J.A., El Sehamy, A., Mertz,
J.M. et al. 2010. “Complemen-
tary and Alternative Medicine and
Supportive Care at Leading Can-
cer Centers: A Systematic Analysis
of Websites.” J. Altern Comple-
ment Med16(2); 183-186. - Ayurveda is a form of alternative
medicine that is the traditional
system of medicine of India and
seeks to treat and integrate body,
mind, and spirit using a “holistic”
approach by emphasizing diet,
herbal remedies, exercise, medi-
tation, breathing, and physical
therapy. Deepak Chopra notes
that Ayurveda teaches that good
health is dependent upon our ca-
pability to fully metabolize the nu-
tritional, emotional, and sensory
information that we ingest.
15. Lyman, G.H., Greenlee, H.,
Bohlke, K., et al. 2018. “Integra-
tive Therapies During and After
Breast Cancer Treatment: ASCO
Endorsement of the SIO Clinical
Practice Guideline.” J Clin Concol
36: 2647-2655.
16. McTiernan, A., Friedenreich, C.M.,
Katzmarzyk, P.T., Powell, K.E.
2019. “Physical Activity in Cancer
Prevention and Survival: A Sys-
tematic Review.” Med Sci Sports
Exerc51 (6) 1252-1261.
17. Zeng, Y., Xie, X., Cheng, A. 2019.
“Qigong or Tai Chi in Cancer Care:
an Updated Systematic Review
and Meta-analysis.” Curr Oncol
Rep21 (6).
18. Shin, E.S., Seo, K.H., Jang, J.E.,
Jung, Y.M. 2016. “Massage With
or Without Aromatherapy for
Symptom Relief in People With
Cancer.” Cochrane Database of
Systematic Review, Issue 6.
19. Hoyce, J., Herbison, G.P. 2015.
“Reiki for Depression and Anxi-
ety.” Cochrane Database of Sys-
tematic ReviewsIssue 4.
20. FDA page regarding warning let-
ters, along with link to companies
in receipt of such letters: https://
http://www.fda.gov/consumers/health-
fraud-scams/illegally-sold-cancer-
treatments
21. Angell, M., Kassirer, J.P. Septem-
ber 1998. “Alternative medi-
cine—the risks of untested and
unregulated remedies.”N. Engl.
J. Med.339 (12): 839.
R E F E R E N C E S