Cohort studyindependent cross-checkabstract only checked★ key study I-CHM-03 in-depth review
Patients who used only alternative medicine for curable cancer died more often
Use of Alternative Medicine for Cancer and Its Impact on Survival.
Overview
Johnson SB et al.. J Natl Cancer Inst 2018 · PMID 28922780 · DOI 10.1093/jnci/djx145
Risk of death was 2.5 times higher overall and 5.7 times higher for breast cancer.
Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: moderate
Plain-language summary
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Compare AM-only vs conventional treatment.
- How was the study done?
Matched registry cohort.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
840 matched patients.
- What was actually found?
HR 2.50 for death.
- How large was the observed effect?
HR 5.68 breast cancer.
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Replacing cancer treatment with alternatives is dangerous.
- What are the study's limitations?
Observational.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Contradicts refusing therapy.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Moderate.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Effects of complementary approaches used alongside treatment.
Scientific in-depth review
1. Full reference
- Authors
- Johnson SB et al.
- Journal
- J Natl Cancer Inst
- Year
- 2018
- Identifier
- PMID 28922780 DOI 10.1093/jnci/djx145
- Verification
- verified – PubMed esummary + efetch 2026-10-25
- Retracted
- no
- Corrections
- none
- Extent checked
- abstract only
- Conflicts of interest and funding
not stated in abstract
2. Research question
Survival of patients choosing alternative medicine as sole treatment vs conventional treatment.
3. Study design and population
- Study design
- Cohort study – Retrospective matched cohort (National Cancer Database)
- Population
Nonmetastatic breast, prostate, lung or colorectal cancer
- Country
USA
- Period
not stated in abstract
- Sample size
281 AM patients; matched 280 AM vs 560 CCT
- Inclusion and exclusion criteria
AM as sole anticancer treatment without CCT
4. Methods and endpoints
- Exposure / intervention
Alternative medicine only
- Comparator
Conventional cancer treatment
- Endpoints
Overall survival
- Statistical methods
2:1 matching; Cox regression
5. Actual results
- Results
AM associated with greater risk of death: overall HR 2.50 (95% CI 1.88-3.27); breast HR 5.68 (3.22-10.04); lung 2.17 (1.42-3.32); colorectal 4.57 (1.66-12.61).
- Absolute risks
not reported in abstract
- Authors' conclusion
Although rare, AM use for curable cancer without conventional treatment is associated with greater risk of death.
6. Strengths
- National registry
- Matching on key factors
7. Weaknesses
- Small AM group
- Observational; residual confounding
- AM category heterogeneous
8. Risk of bias
- Orienting tool
- ROBINS-E
- Type of assessment
- simplified assessment (abstract only)
- Full formal assessment
- no
- Overall risk of bias
- some concerns
- Rationale
Confounding and misclassification possible; effect large and consistent.
9. Assessment of the statistical interpretation
Large hazard ratios across cancer types; not a trial, but randomisation would be unethical.
10. Relevance to the specific claim
Direct evidence on survival when conventional treatment is replaced by non-medical alternatives such as diet-only approaches.
11. Independent contrary findings
12. Transferability to Germany and Europe
Moderate (US registry).
13. Overall methodological judgement
Key safety evidence against replacing cancer treatment.
| Multidimensional assessment | |
|---|---|
| Authenticity of the source | verified |
| Methodological quality | moderate |
| Risk of bias | some concerns |
| Precision of results | moderate |
| Directness | direct |
| Reproducibility | partly replicated |
| Consistency with the overall evidence | consistent |
| Regional transferability | moderate |
| Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive) | not applicable |
14. Open questions
Data on specific diet-only approaches.
15. Linked fact checks
- The archive's 19 chemo/radiation studies are presented on the homepage as 'scientific studies confirming what Dr. Diaa proposed'; the harm-only study selection implies that the harms of chemotherapy and radiotherapy outweigh their benefits. – Studies contradicting or limiting the claim
- Chemotherapy and tumour-removal surgery do not address root causes; the body will reactivate its 'defensive plan' elsewhere, so these treatments should be avoided. – Studies contradicting or limiting the claim
- Cancer patients should not take chemotherapy, radiotherapy or biological therapy (or should stop them) and follow the Tayebat system instead; 'we are against the word medicine'. – Studies contradicting or limiting the claim
- Cancer will respond to the Tayebat system; a patient with a malignant tumour should start the system now (diet as cancer treatment). – Studies contradicting or limiting the claim
- The body heals itself if left alone: the human body was created healthy and has an unlimited capacity for self-healing unless burdened by harmful inputs. – Studies contradicting or limiting the claim
- The system's life method is 'zero medicine': a life without any medicines at all. – Studies contradicting or limiting the claim
- In his practice he treats cancer with fasting (fasting every other day) and by reducing solid foods; he himself can go for days without food, on sugar-cane juice only. – Studies contradicting or limiting the claim
- Surgical oncologists do not understand what tumours are: they remove the tumour and 'clean out' the lymph nodes, which he regards as wrong. – Studies contradicting or limiting the claim