If you bothered to check things you'd find that Chris Wark had a 2 out of 3 chance of surviving without doing anything at all so the best bet is that his survival is due to chance and nothing at all to do with his so-called "treatment".
He survived because he had surgery. That is the lesson to learn here.
Then he pushes his "treatment" and consults for big bucks. In doing so he encourages others to skip chemo which will result in a number of deaths for those less lucky.
This is what the facts tell us.
Enough of them going in the same direction over time should have some persuasive power though.
And over and over again it has been shown that this direction leads to wrong answers. If we get a bunch and then do properly designed studies to test these ideas
then we get reliable answers.
Since we expect 2/3 of people in Wark position to recover with no chemo we expect to get lots of testimonies. But if you make decisions based on them we expect people to die unnecessarily.
And you are contributing (as best you can) to that.
™ Version 4.2
