We do not completely understand the cause of cancer, thus we do not have adequate prevention nor cures.
Yes, I do remember Leatrile. Knowing two examples where it worked tells very little. Did they completely eschew then-modern treatment in favor of it? If so, how do you know that they would not have recovered had they had no treatment at all? If not, how do you know what really helped?
Alternative treatments are often sold via testimonial only, for good reason: they do not withstand scientific scrutiny.
Humans are so complex that we don't know what will work, and sometimes the body does cure itself without intervention. I can take homeopathic "drugs" for a cold, and when the cold naturally subsides, did the potions make any difference?
However, we aren't completely in the dark about many treatments, cancer treatment included.
Both refused modern treatment for Laetrile. But, you're so ready to dismiss it because they did recover. Anecdotal. Yeah. No scientific basis. Yeah. These are all the classic points made. But a real trial with real cancer patients was, indeed, done. Dr. Doug Heihnson (sic), the man who distributed extract of apricot pits (Vitamin B17 or Laetrile) cited such a 'study' The study was given train wrecks. In medical limbo, that's patients who had no hope for recovery, had been burned to the gills with radiation and chemo, then handed over in such a state of bad health. No real medical trial would have been handled this way. But, as usual, no scientific basis was found supporting the use of Laetrile as an effective cancer therapy. Numerous other 'alternatives' followed the same path. *Note* Dr. Heihnson's wife, Poloma, succumbed to cancer in 1979, a full 8 years after her 3-6 month death sentence.
We find other treatments such as Essiac Tea, Parasite Therapy, Entelev, etc. that were also debunked as myths, in spite of 'anecdotal' successes of patients written off by mainstream medicine. A person who is given a death sentence and lives for several more years through the aid of 'alternative therapy' will never be convinced their treatment(s) was a sham.
There's a lot we do know about cancer, though. Cancer feeds on sugar, thrives in bodies ladened with toxic chemicals (this gives weight that it's these varying toxins that 'cause' cancer, instead of these toxins weakening the immune system to a breaking point) and reproduces with a series of self produced growth hormones.
The general public has to quit being the lambs led to slaughter and needs to start answering some tough questions regarding cancer research. After 80 years and trillions of dollars of research, there should be more progress than there is. I think medical research dollars should be based on incentive packages. Who can show the most promise? Who is the closest? Then, give them a time limit. When they realize their money will go away and never return for other research projects, they will do something. But, it's not going to happen. There will never be a cure. Just treatments. I'm 100% certain.