Alternative cancer clinics' use of Google listings and reviews to mislead potential patients

BACKGROUND: Alternative cancer clinics, who provide treatment associated with earlier time to death, actively seek to create favorable views of their services online. An unexplored means where alternative cancer clinics can shape their appeal is their Google search results. METHODS: We retrieved the Google listing and Google reviews of 47 prominent alternative cancer clinics on August 22, 2022. We then conducted a content analysis to assess the information cancer patients are faced with online. RESULTS: Google listings of alternative treatment providers rarely declared the clinic was an alternative clinic versus a conventional primary cancer treatment provider (12.8% declared; 83.0% undeclared). The clinics were highly rated (median, 4.5 stars of 5). Reasons for positive reviews included treatment quality (n = 519), care (n = 420), and outcomes (n = 316). 288 reviews presented the clinics to cure or improve cancer. Negative reviews presented alternative clinics to financially exploit patients with ineffective treatment (n = 98), worsen patients' condition (n = 72), provide poor care (n = 41), and misrepresent outcomes (n = 23). CONCLUSIONS: The favorable Google listing and reviews of alternative clinics contribute to harmful online ecosystems. Reviews provide compelling narratives but are an ineffective indicator of treatment outcomes. Google lacks safeguards for truthful reviews and should not be used for medical decision-making.

Marco Zenone, Jeremy Snyder, May van Schalkwyk, Jean-Christophe Bélisle-Pipon, Greg Hartwell, Timothy Caulfield, Nason Maani