Recent claims by Elle Macpherson that she rejected conventional treatment to cure her breast cancer with an “intuitive, heart-led, holistic approach” – involving a staff of more than 30 alternative therapists, including a holistic dentist and naturopath – captured headlines worldwide. The 60-year-old supermodel’s testimonial, which she has been doubling down on in interviews to plug her new memoir, has been hailed by advocates of non-evidence alternative therapies as proof of the power of their wares.
She told the Today show in Australia this week that she was banking on “a really profound wellness protocol and a great attitude to life” to prevent her cancer returning.
But this has been met by an outpouring of concern from oncologists and scientists over her assertions, and wider issues around the impact of “wellness” influencers on our health.
Macpherson’s claim that she rejected surgery, chemotherapy and radiotherapy was heralded by evangelists as a victory for alternative medicine – but a more cautious reading of her account, outlined in her book and subsequent interviews, suggests some selective editing. In fact, her carcinoma would be more accurately described as a precancer, a type of non-invasive growth with the potential to become cancerous. Left untreated, about 5 per cent of such growths will ultimately become cancers, and so the first-line conventional treatment is a surgical removal – precisely the treatment Macpherson underwent.
Hugh Linehan: Cillian Murphy’s Small Things Like These has become a cause celebre of the Make Ireland Great Again brigade
Jennifer O'Connell: Defending Kyle Hayes’s award takes All Star level nerve
What is happening in Ballaghaderreen? Why the Co Roscommon town is back in the headlines
RIP FF-FG-Green Coalition, 2020-2024 - Miriam Lord’s look back at the Government
Chemo and radiotherapy would have been offered as an adjuvant to minimise risk of recurrence. Macpherson’s attribution of her recovery to a team of osteopaths and holistic dentists “and a lot of spiritual work” elides the simple truth: she, like so many others, was a beneficiary of medical science.
The issue goes far beyond one celebrity misrepresenting their experience. Macpherson who, let’s remind ourselves, happens to have a memoir coming out, is just the latest in a long line of influencers pushing their “wellness” brands, championing alternative therapies with enthusiastic personal testimonials in lieu of actual evidence.
It’s easy to see why, for some patients, alternative therapies hold allure – feted by glowing anecdotes and positive recommendations, promising to treat one’s illness without any of the complications of conventional medicine. In contrast to the ostensibly synthetic nature of modern medicine, alternative medicine is seen as natural, invoking legitimacy not from evidence, but from antiquity and nature. This is doubly misguided – were antiquity a basis for validity, bloodletting would still be in vogue. Many supposedly ancient therapies are surprisingly modern, with homeopathy deriving only from the late 1800s. Chinese traditional medicine was codified under Mao in the 1960s as a propaganda drive to foist the illusion of an ancient medical tradition. Nor is “natural”, already a nebulous adjective, synonymous with “healthy” – arsenic, cyanide and uranium are “natural” but it would be foolhardy to supplement one’s breakfast with them.
Still, what are the harms of merely ineffective therapies?
Sadly they’re abundant, especially with cancer. Patients seduced by the complementary route fare objectively worse than those adhering to conventional medicine, dying at a much greater rate. This is because they are far more likely to delay or even refuse conventional therapy, with deleterious consequences for their wellbeing. Steve Jobs of Apple is one example: diagnosed with a treatable cancer, Jobs ignored physician advice and partook in a variety of alternative approaches with no efficacy for cancer, like juicing diets. By the time he realised that this approach was not working, his cancer had progressed beyond being treatable. Such tragedies play out the world over daily to much less fanfare.
Implicit in this too is the demonisation of modern medicine. Thanks to decades of medical science, cancer survival has never been better. And yet, those same highly effective therapies are roundly dismissed as poisons by alternative advocates, their opprobrium often descending into outright conspiracy theory. A 2014 study found a staggering 37 per cent of Americans believed that the FDA was suppressing a natural cure for cancer.
Worldwide, the refrain that natural cures for cancer are being suppressed to maintain big pharma profits is a common mantra in the alternative health community. Yet it crumbles under even cursory inspection – any universal cure for cancer, a family of diseases affecting up to half of us in our lifetime, would be massively profitable, even if sold at a pittance. Contrary to the claims of conspiracy theorists, “natural” agents can absolutely be isolated and patented, with pharmaceutical compounds often derived from this very bioprospecting.
If this grand conspiracy were true, it would require not only evil corporations, but absolute complicity from the millions of cancer researchers, oncologists and medical bodies worldwide. In 2016, I modelled this in a paper showing that, even taking a devil’s advocate approach and presuming all cancer experts were determined to hide a cure, the entire operation would crumble within months simply due to the huge numbers involved.
Nor is cancer a single disease – it is an entire family of maladies with huge variation in prognosis and treatment. To complicate matters further, cancer arises from errors in our very own cells, making each one unique. The idea of a single magic bullet for all cancers underscores a lack of understanding of the intrinsic complexity of cancer.
Celebrity endorsement has a powerful effect on public perception, from Kim Kardashian pushing a pointless, expensive full-body scan this year to the army of dubious influencers peddling expensive supplements, despite decades of data saying they do nothing save create expensive urine.
Misrepresentation of illness and treatment has real potential to harm those with the poorest health literacy. For those with cancer, this can create an additional burden for patients, who may come under immense pressure from loved ones to embrace these non-evidence-based therapies, based on outlandish testimonials. Celebrity assertions often go unchallenged with terrible consequences. Ultimately, our only defence against such medical misinformation is a healthy scepticism.
David Robert Grimes is a scientist and author of The Irrational Ape: Why We Fall for Disinformation, Conspiracy Theory and Propaganda (Simon & Schuster). Grimes is a recipient of the Nature/Sense about Science Maddox Prize and a fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry.
- Listen to our Inside Politics Podcast for the latest analysis and chat
- Sign up for push alerts and have the best news, analysis and comment delivered directly to your phone
- Find The Irish Times on WhatsApp and stay up to date