That makes sense.  It's never quite as simple as one would hope.  A
25% lower rate of deaths from the cancer within five years than with
the conventional treatment would surely be sufficient to recommend the
therapy---in fact, even keeping up with conventional therapy would be
enough, since the treatment (glasperlencure?) is so inexpensive and
the side effects are so limited (foot bruising, spinal misalignment,
clumsiness, dry mouth, changes in vision, and occasional mild death).
We'd just need enough to prove we didn't just get lucky by choosing
patients that would have done fine with no treatment.  But point
taken.  The various alternative treatments vary considerably in their
claims of cure rate, as well as other aspects.
What about the other part---non-drug alternative therapies that have
been through rigorous testing?  Whether they proved successful or not
(drugs often fail the tests, so it's only fair to expect setbacks), it
would be interesting to read about someone at least going through the
proper steps, rather than just ranting about the global conspiracy.
When I first was diagnosed, and went through the usual layman research
phase, I read/heard/saw a bit about how hard it was to get
angiogenesis inhibitors accepted.  This was certainly a case of heresy
within the cancer drug church, but now it's canon.  This was
fascinating stuff, but I'm guessing it wasn't the only case of
accepted medical beliefs being proven wrong, and the medical community
adjusting to the new information.  This is science, after all, where
true practitioners are always ready to adjust their model, or discard
it entirely when it proves invalid.

---
CSM