It depends. If you look at the peer-reviewed research, you'll see that pharmaceuticals and surgery are not the only option (depending on the disease, of course).
I started http://www.reddit.com/r/altmed/ (non-pharmaceutical medicine based on peer-reviewed research) because in the cancer lab I work in we review this stuff all the time but it doesn't seem to have sunk in to the mainstream yet. Based on my understanding of the research, there are some things everybody with cancer should be doing which research suggests may raise survival rates (eg. proper vitamin D levels, high magnesium intake, lots of antioxidants, etc).
"Non-pharmaceuticals" and "alternative medicine" are distinct but overlapping sets. In any case, to quote Tim Minchin: "Do you know what they call 'alternative medicine' that's been proven to work? Medicine."
And peer-reviewed research is great and all, but it's unrealistic to expect things to sink into the mainstream when research can only currently suggest rather than actively recommend. Antioxidants are one of the most mainstream "cancer-protectors" in the UK, but among positive studies you will also find negative studies; particular antioxidants that are good, and some that actually lower survival rates![0] Certainly they're easy steps that people can take which are unlikely to have a negative impact, but it is not an option on the same footing as pharmaceuticals and surgery. Not even close.
From what I understand, your main point is that there is no need to call it "alternative" medicine because something is either medicine or it is not.
I agree with your sentiment. The problem lies with our current crop of medical professionals. Many doctors do not continue learning after residency. They tend to get stuck in their habits and stay there. Those that do continue to learn often will not look at anything unless it is a traditional pharmaceutical drug.
To give you an example, if a woman presents with menstruation issues most doctors will prescribe a progesterone product of some sort. This will jump-start a woman's cycle. On the surface, the problem is solved.
Dig deeper, and you find studies like this one (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0039128X99...) which present clear evidence that simply getting vitamin D levels normalized might solve the deeper problem, with essentially zero side effects, and restore the menstrual cycle.
Many doctors would never think to do this, because it simply doesn't fit into the current traditional-medicine paradigm. This paradigm is basically, "Find symptoms, diagnose, prescribe pharmaceutical drug." Even if non-pharmaceutical drugs (such as vitamin D) exist for the disease, doctors won't use them.
AFAIK, Europe and Japan are light years ahead on this front. They act more according to your philosophy, "If it's medicine, we will use it." But in the US, almost all traditional doctors fit into the pharmaceutical mold.
This, in my opinion, is what is meant by "alternative" in alternative medicine. It is an alternative to the paradigm of "pharmaceuticals only," and not what you imply, an "alternative to medicine."
The next thing you said is "but it's unrealistic to expect things to sink into the mainstream when research can only currently suggest rather than actively recommend."
All drugs (pharmaceutical or otherwise) fit into this category. The research comes out, which suggests a certain outcome. Doctors look at the research (or in many cases they read pamphlets or marketing material from pharmaceutical companies or follow recommendations from their hospital employer), and if they find the research compelling they will recommend the drug based on that. This is true of all medicine, and peer-reviewed research is the best way to get a good picture of what the science currently says. You seem to suggest that peer-reviewed research only carries a small amount of weight, and I respectfully disagree.
Finally, hand-picking antioxidants and setting it up against surgery and pharmaceuticals is a straw-man. For every disease, you will find a variety of potential treatments. You will find treatments from the world of surgery, from pharmaceutical medicine, and from non-pharmaceutical medicine. A good doctor (or a motivated and intelligent patient) has the task of sifting through the research to find out which option is best, or if a variety of options should be combined.
To use your example on cancer, popping some antioxidants isn't the alternative to pharmaceuticals and surgery. A complete solution that takes into account the whole picture is the reasonable answer.
That will probably include things like the following:
* Surgery if it is the type of cancer that can be treated with surgery
* Pharmaceutical drugs that have shown promise in treating that particular cancer
* Checking and maximizing vitamin D blood levels (helps the cells express p53, among other things, which helps cancer cells begin apoptosis aka suicide)
* Checking and maximizing intracellular magnesium levels (very important co-factor for vitamin D)
* Ensuring powerful anti-cancer antioxidants are in the diet (spirulina, chlorella, resveratrol, etc.)
Anyway, that's my 2 cents. :-) I'm pre-med, and I feel quite strongly about the subject. Sorry for the essay!
Except he was told by any sane, rational doctor that waiting 9 months is the equivalent of rolling nothing. You can't let a tumor sit around for 9 months hoping bamboo shoots and green tea enemas cure your cancer. I can't see how this is remotely rational.
Those are our odds. His odds, considering his vast wealthy, would be potentially better (better doctors, hospitals, etc). So in other words he chose a the best high-risk naturopath approach over the best low-risk surgical approach. He found the best woo merchants out there and he paid for it with his life. I'm not sure why so many are defending him. Yes, he made consumer goods slightly better than his competition, but he's still human and made a pretty terrible mistake. If anything, we should publicize this so other people don't make this mistake.
I've known a few people, close friends parents and a family member die of cancer. You can struggle on through chemo and radiation therapy for 4-5 years or you can go in 6 months. I'm not sure I can say which one is best. The ops are by no means magic cures, if you survive the op you are in a lot of pain from chemo and radio therapy. Example, Morphine sickness is pretty horrific. Quite common for people to reject it and take the pain because you feel so bad on it.
Having seen that and if I knew that I had a cancer which was very unlikely to be cured I would definitely consider not going through with the surgery. Better to die quickly than live in constant pain for another 5 years?
Its easy to make the stretch to trying a bit of alt medicine. It's is not going to make things any worse than they are, if anything the placebo effect of feeling you are in control is probably quite strong.
I don't think it's easy for a healthy person to understand what's going through someones mind when they're faced with this.
Green tea actually does have cancer-fighting properties, it's anti-angiogenic. It's also involved in preventing and/or reversing the methylation of epigeneteic cancer genes.
That sounds nice, but is there good evidence that this actually happens, or that if it happens that it improves outcomes or quality of life? A bit of time on Google finds http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/cam/green-tea-review, which at least found that it probably wouldn’t make things any worse.
