Follow the money.

It's said that money is the root of all evil. This is not strictly so. It's the love of money that's its root. And once a man has all the money that he can ever spend, what then? Love of money is overtaken by the love of the power that it feeds.

"Chemotherapy began in 1946 when the American Department of Defense funded Dr. Goodman and Gilman at Yale University to find a medical use for mustard gas. They tested it on  rats and reduced tumors. They tested on a patient with lymphoma and all his tumors regressed. He did die within a couple of months, but no-one had ever before seen cancer tumors regress with a drug. That started the whole chemo regimen. They tried it with other forms of cancer, but ironically lymphomas are some of the few cancers that respond to chemo. Because of that single, extraordinary response in a patient for a few weeks, the entire chemo industry came into being." [Nicholas Gonzalez]

'Science' means 'knowledge', and that's all it means. The true scientist performs his experiments in order to simply see what happens, to increase his knowledge. 

Consciousness is a catalyst. Despite what the laboratory researcher might tell you, there is no such thing as an absolutely objective science, because all scientists must include the bias of their own power and sentience in the subject matter of their investigations. 

The pharmaceutical scientist today is further biased in his experiments because of his pharmaceutical agenda. Hired by the company, there will always be some pressure, whether heavy or light, to produce a profit for the power hungry people, who guide the company, which pays him for his work. There will be a tendency to be less exacting, to ignore results which do not fit in with what's looked for, and to highlight what is profitable. 

When one's life is on the line, to put one's faith into such methods is not like just straying too close to crocodile-infested waters, it's more like jumping in and hoping for the best.Neither should you put too much faith in what the oncologist tells you. You don't get a second chance to try something else this time round. A friend of mine was persuaded to take chemo for her leukemia, given the prognosis of 4 months life without chemo, and 10 years of life with it. She accepted and subsequently died only 2 months later. Had this been at the hands of an alternative practitioner, it would have made headline news, as it is she was simply another statistic.

The following is from the Lancet, '... a weekly peer reviewed general medical journal. It is one of the world's oldest and best known general medical journals'. [Wiki]

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(15)60696-1/fulltext?rss%3Dyes

The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness. As one participant put it, “poor methods get results”. The Academy of Medical Sciences, Medical Research Council, and Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council have now put their reputational weight behind an investigation into these questionable research practices. The apparent endemicity of bad research behaviour is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world. Or they retrofit hypotheses to fit their data. Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism too. We aid and abet the worst behaviours. Our acquiescence to the impact factor fuels an unhealthy competition to win a place in a select few journals. Our love of “significance” pollutes the literature with many a statistical fairy-tale. We reject important confirmations. Journals are not the only miscreants. Universities are in a perpetual struggle for money and talent, endpoints that foster reductive metrics, such as high-impact publication. National assessment procedures, such as the Research Excellence Framework, incentivise bad practices. And individual scientists, including their most senior leaders, do little to alter a research culture that occasionally veers close to misconduct..