so you are saying that it is a BIG deal that some patients died from
cancer.
I read that every day in the papers.
Many of them ONLY relied on chemo.

Investigative reporters do not have access to records in that or any company.
(they got their written information, tests, MRI's,  from the loved ones of the
3 who had died).
They did send in a "patient" and husband (who claimed she had lung cancer) and
the owner (who is really a computer technician (not even a doctor) said "never
lost a patient yet", but he did not know that he was being taped.

When approached later, by same investigators, on camera, he refused to discuss
nor view his previous "on-tape" comments.
Since 1993, they've been scamming patients (cancer or other) to the tune of
$40,000 or more and providing false hope.

Don't let purveyors of unproven theories do that to you out there.
Proven means it is (or was, by clicking on "no longer recruiting" box) at
least in Phase III clinical trials.  http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/

FDA Historian Wallace F. Janssen has noted that in every decade since 1940, a
questionable cancer remedy has attracted a large following and become a
national issue. It was Koch Antitoxins in the 1940s, Hoxsey treatment in the
1950s, Krebiozen in the 1960s, laetrile in the 1970s, and immuno-augmentative
therapy in the 1980s. Today's questionable methods include corrosive agents,
plant products, bloodletting, special diets and "dietary supplements," drugs,
correction of "imbalances," biologic methods, devices, miscellaneous
concoctions, psychological approaches, and worthless diagnostic tests. Many
promoters combine methods to make themselves more marketable. A 1987 ACS
investigation found that 452 (9%) of 5,047 cancer patients identified through
a telephone survey had used questionable treatments. Of these, 49% had used
"mind therapies" (mental imagery, hypnosis, or psychic therapy) and 38% had
used diets. The dangers of using questionable treatments include delay in
getting appropriate treatment, decreased quality of life, direct physical
harm, interference with proven treatment, waste of valuable time, financial
harm, and psychological damage.

Proponents of questionable methods typically claim that marketplace demand and
testimonials from satisfied customers are proof that their remedies work.
However, proponents almost never keep score or reveal what percentage of their
cases end in failure. Cancer cures attributed to questionable methods usually
fall into one or more of five categories:

1. The patient never had cancer.
2. A cancer was cured or put into remission by proven therapy, but
questionable therapy was also used and erroneously credited for the beneficial
result
3. The cancer is progressing but is erroneously represented as slowed or
cured.
4. The patient has died as a result of the cancer (or is lost to follow-up)
but is represented as cured.
5. The patient had a spontaneous remission (very rare) or slow-growing cancer
that is publicized as a cure.  6. Patients or loved ones who do not understand
their own or loved ones cancer (and how the prognosis can vary).

Promoters of questionable methods often misrepresent their methods as
"alternatives."
Genuine alternatives are comparable methods that have met the criteria for
safety and effectiveness.
Experimental alternatives are unproven but have a plausible rationale and are
undergoing responsible investigation. http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ Phase III
clinical trials. (there are also some listed there, under Phase I or II for
advance or metastaic cancer). That's the only place to check for valid
clinical trials.

Questionable "alternatives" are unproven and lack a scientifically plausible
rationale. When referring to the latter, we use quotation marks because they
are not true alternatives. Some promoters of "alternative" methods are
physicians or other highly educated scientists who have strayed from
scientific thought.

The factors that motivate them can include delusional thinking,
misinterpretation of personal experience, financial considerations ($$$$), and
pleasure derived from notoriety and/or patient adulation.