Snake oil: False promise for curing cancer

Transcript of the video “Cancer Cure”

Health misinformation is an increasingly large threat, especially as society more commonly turns to online resources to try to get health information (Wang and Cohen, 2023). Under that umbrella, cancer misinformation is prevalent, and has been an increasing focus of health misinformation research.

Here we analyzed a video called “Cancer Cure, ” posted to TikTok on February 5, 2022, that includes many pieces of misinformation about both the causes of and treatments for cancer. Unfortunately, cancer treatment is a health topic about which a large amount of online misinformation exists (Johnson et al, 2021). It’s a particularly brutal condition that has a high cost: monetarily, physically, emotionally, and psychologically. It leaves people in vulnerable positions where they’re at increased risk of both exposure to and influence from cancer misinformation (Lazard et al, 2023).

This becomes an increasingly relevant concern as interest in Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) grows. Although these two terms are referred to under the same umbrella, there’s an important distinction to make. Complementary therapy involves treatment taken alongside traditional medicine, whereas alternative medicine is taken instead of traditional medicine. Neither term implies evidence of efficacy, but the approach of rejecting traditional medicine entirely is far more harmful. Therefore, we’ll refer to CAM for the entire economy industry of both (as that’s primarily how it’s been researched), but we’ll say “alternative medicine” when referring to claims where the implication is that traditional medicine should be eschewed.

Lastly, while we don’t know to what degree the creator of the video actually believes in what he’s saying, it’s worth noting that the creator’s TikTok profile has a link to their personal commerce website. Here, the creator of the video sells a variety of alternative medicines and services, including private consultations for $150/hour. Whether or not the creator has any genuine intentions, though, does nothing to mitigate the potential harm of the video. The harsh reality is that cancer patients who use alternative forms of treatment are more likely to refuse at least some forms of traditional medical treatment, and as a result, they’re more likely to die (Johnson, Park, & Gross, 2018).

Below, we’ll talk about a primary strategy that makes the video effective.

Section 1.1: Lifestyle Advice Method

The lifestyle advice method is a misinformation strategy that relies heavily on the tactics of anecdotal evidence and an appeal to samaritanism.

Anecdotal evidence is information collected only through individual experience, and often retained and shared only through word-of-mouth. While it has very weak scientific or empirical value, anecdotal evidence can still be incredibly persuasive (Freling et al, 2020). You can see examples of this in the video with statements like:

• “And I’ve seen it work. I’ve seen many people with stage four, stage three cancer on a home, on hospice, curative cancer, taking black seed oil and powdered black seeds.”
• “…there’s a lot of uh, testimony of this thing getting rid of cancer.”
• “And I do know people who are home on hospice who just juice the whole lemon and cured themselves of cancer.”
• “But I’ve had people tell me they’ve cured themselves of skin cancer and colon cancer, stage four colon
  cancer, just taking fresh water, food, grade, diet earth.”
• “I’ve read numerous articles and I’ve read AFO testimony of people saying that it cured themselves or the
  pets of cancer just using oil of vire.”

Part of this use of anecdotal evidence in the video is out of necessity, as scientific research that supports these specific claims doesn’t exist. But it also serves another purpose, which is to support an appeal to samaritanism. In this tactic, the author specifically tries to distance themselves from claims of authority, and instead engages as a “good samaritan,” or average person, just looking to help. In the video, this can be seen in statements like:

• “[There’s] very little of research on it by design ’cause they don’t want you to find out about it.”
• “I don’t know how many cancers, but there’s a lot of research”
• “Not really sure how this works other than it goes into your intestine.”

Now, as you may have already spotted, this tactic can often create a lot of objective contradiction. This stems from the tension between trying to distance yourself from authority while also having to speak authoritatively. In the video you can hear statements like “it has to be” in reference to specific products, and despite the initial claim that there is “very little research… by design,” the speaker often makes vague references to the “thousand plus articles on Google Scholar.”

These contradictions may actually contribute to the strategy’s effectiveness, as it appeals to the often very contradictory concerns and desires people have. With the lifestyle advice method, trust is developed not through authority but through a sense of (false) friendship. In an era where a majority of Americans have a negative view of pharmaceutical companies, anecdotal evidence and plain speaking tell the audience “I’m not one of them.” Meanwhile, casually alluding to research (without every being specific) tells the audience “but I don’t just believe anything.”

Unfortunately, there is a particular irony to videos and strategies like this. Although the author is seeking to cultivate an image of someone who would have no reason to lie, there is quite often a very good incentive to lie: money. As mentioned in the introduction, at the end of the video the creator tells the audience to “go to my blog” and gives the website address. The website, however, isn’t a blog at all – it’s a website that not only sells the specific ingredients mentioned in the video, but also sells private consultations with the creator himself. Again, we can’t know to what degree the author genuinely believes or doesn’t believe what he’s saying. But it certainly raises questions (e.g. why would you hide the fact that it’s an online store?) and provides a clear motivation to spread misinformation.

Misinformation can be incredibly profitable to certain industries, not least of which is the CAM industry. Interest and spending in CAM has been growing steadily larger over the last few decades: in America it’s an over $40 billion industry, and by the end of the decade the global CAM industry is expected to be over $350 billion (Maximize Market Research, 2024). This is all despite only about a third of those treatments having any testing behind them (Szabo, 2013).

The essential fault in logic is a type of false dichotomy – that because one entity (the pharmaceutical industry) is perceived as negative, any alternative must be positive; when in fact, it’s very possible for more than one entity to have negative motivations at the same time. There’s good, evidence-based debate to be had about the greed and harmful practices of the pharmaceutical industry. But that doesn’t inherently preclude alternative medicine from also being profit-motivated and conducting harmful practices.

Medical misinformation certainly isn’t the only type of misinformation that’s profitable. Everything from social media influencers (Gottfried, 2024) to anti-vax nonprofits (Weber & Beard, 2024) directly financially benefit from misinformation. But medical misinformation provides possibly the most transparent example of profitable misinformation.

The reality is that some research has indeed shown products like black seed oil have potentially anticancerous effects, and it’s probably worth researching further. But none of the research on these products supports the exaggerate claims in the video. In particular, the two most troubling assertions are:

1. These products are equally effective as sole treatment as they are as supplemental treatment
2. These products will “cure” cancer

Not only is there no evidence that these products alone can cure cancer, but according to the American Cancer Society (2021), doctors prefer to speak in terms of remission, not cure. While research into anything that shows promise in treating cancer should be encouraged, currently traditional medicine is still by far the most effective treatment for cancer (Cancer Research UK, 2022).