Unless you have been living under a rock you will have come across the media storm raised by the news that former Supermodel Elle MacPherson had declined chemotherapy against her doctor’s advice after she was diagnosed with breast cancer seven years ago. My newsfeed has run hot with outcries of “irresponsible”, “dangerous influencers”, “money-grabbing wellness entrepreneur”, “entitled multi-millionaire”. To be honest, I am shocked and disturbed by the vitriol spewed at Elle not only by media click baits but by serious health commentators.
I don’t follow Elle MacPherson and I have no intention of reading her new book setting out her cancer story. I cannot make any informed comment about her choice of treatment. But I know one thing, cancer as well as its contributing factors and treatment options are incredibly complex and vary for every individual.
I follow Dr Liz O’Riordan, the breast cancer surgeon turned breast cancer patient who, together with GP Professor Trisha Greenhalgh, has published The Complete Guide to Breast Cancer. It’s a fantastic book of level-headed evidence-based advice to help patients navigate the overwhelming warren of information, options, and decisions after a breast cancer diagnosis. Dr Liz’s aim is to educate patients about what works and what doesn’t work and to debunk myths. I highly recommend it. Yet, in her quest to protect cancer patients from dangerous influencers like Elle I feel she ‘s pouring the baby out with the bath water. How so?
Apart from daily reels on her Instagram feed, Dr Liz has commented in the Daily Mail and on Lorraine on Elle’s decisions: “don’t take your advice from the internet!”; “women who opt for alternative over mainstream treatment are 6 times more likely to die!”; “there is no evidence that holistic alternative treatments can cure cancer”; “chemotherapy saves lives” ; and “there’s no guarantee that she’s cured”.
I applaud Liz’s indefatigable quest to protect vulnerable cancer patients from dangerous quacks who sell them false hopes for big money. But let’s look at some of the statements above:
To start with, Elle didn’t choose or recommend alternative over mainstream treatment; she had a lumpectomy removing the tumour, which was one of the recommended mainstream treatments.
Liz is of course right that there’s no guarantee that Elle is cured. But that’s true for absolutely every cancer treatment available. We all have heard stories of someone being declared clear of cancer only to be diagnosed with stage four terminal cancer months later. No serious health care provider, whether mainstream, integrative, or even alternative will ever guarantee a cure because that is impossible. My advice for cancer patients researching alternative treatments would be to treat any person or clinic making promises about healing cancer with extreme scepticism. What I mean is, run a mile!
I’m sure it’s also true that chemotherapy saves lives; otherwise, Oncologists wouldn’t recommend it as standard treatment. I have enough faith in the medical profession to trust that, on the whole, they are committed to keeping patients alive, not to killing them. What we don’t know precisely, and I am not much wiser after having done my research, is what “saving lives” actually means.
Oncologists deal in statistics and, to the best of my knowledge, Oncologists will recommend chemotherapy if it increases the chance for the patient to be alive in 5 years’ times by at least 5%. I’m happy to stand corrected on the details but I understand that “saves lives” is measured in months and sometimes weeks rather than years. Surely it is understandable and wise that a patient might want to weigh up quality of life under chemo treatment against a couple more months living with horrible side effects?
Dr Liz would probably agree that this is a decision every patient must make for themselves with their families and friends. I do know from experience though how much pressure cancer patients are under to agree to chemotherapy; from their doctors, from their families, and from their own guilty conscience. It can be a very difficult decision to make. One important aspect that Dr Liz, in her quest to protect patients from everything not evidence-based, misses, is that complementary therapies can actually help patients to choose chemotherapy in the first place and help with any side effects they may experience.
I know this is true for acupuncture, reflexology, aromatherapy and others but let me talk about EFT because that’s what I know and use with my clients. I have worked with many clients on a variation of; “This treatment is going to kill me, but my family wants me to go for it!” I always begin by reminding the client that it is their decision, and they have the right to say No. If they choose to go for it, they can change their mind at any time and stop. Surprisingly, this is not obvious to many cancer patients who tend to be infantilised by the medical profession.
Once the possibility of choice has sunk in, we begin tapping on the fears associated with chemotherapy, on memories of previous chemotherapy experiences, we practise how to tap for side effects, and visualise the drug working in harmony with the body’s healthy cells. Yes, there are trillions of healthy cells in your body even if you have cancer! So far, not one of the clients I have supported in this way has chosen to turn down chemotherapy. And I know for a fact that the decision to undergo treatment has saved some lives.
Dr Liz’s standard argument against any complementary or alternative therapy that has helped cancer patients is that it’s “not evidence-based”. Trust me Dr Liz, professional EFT bodies worldwide are working hard on collecting scientific data of how and why EFT works and have made huge progress in the past 20 years. Often these trials are relatively small scale, and the outcome is that EFT is “highly effective but we need more studies”. The problem with large scale scientific trials is that no pharmaceutical company – and they are the ones with the money – is interested in running trials that might prove that a complementary therapy might be as effective as the pill they manufacture. I concur with oncologist Professor Robert Thomas who suggested at a BSIO conference a few years ago, that the threshold for the use of complementary therapies in cancer treatments could be lower than for new drugs, as long as those treatments are safe and non-invasive.
What I want to say to Dr Liz is; don’t throw in complementary therapies with alternative treatments; they are not the same. Have a look at patient reports to understand the massive difference complementary therapies have made to their quality of life while dealing with cancer. Look at the work of integrative cancer specialists who combine traditional treatments with holistic therapies and lifestyle modifications; for instance, Dr Wafaa Abdel-Hadi of the Aware Clinic.
Sadly, this approach is still only available to patients who can afford to pay privately as the established medical profession together with pharmaceutical companies is desperately guarding access to national health care providers and insurance systems.
Dr Liz’s work in cancer education is incredibly important and I am very grateful for it. Statements like the ones she made following Elle MacPherson’s news, however, are at least partially misleading, incorrect, and therefore not doing patients a service. Instead, they just harden the fronts between the medical profession and those who don’t trust them. My hope is simply that at some point Dr Liz will take a more nuanced approach to complementary therapies and therapists and appreciate that perhaps together we are stronger.