1)Any medical product worth anything will have some evidence to back up its claims. Extensive research is expensive, but pilot studies that provide plausibility (and therefore funding for further study) are not particularly expensive, especially considering the profits that would come from an effective treatment. Medical products that make claims without research probably don’t have any interest in doing honest research as it would invalidate their claims.

2)The default position should be to not use an unproven treatment. My mom had cancer (and fortunately it was breast cancer, which is relatively treatable and survivable) and she was offered reiki, german new medicine, and other treatments from her friends. She declined (or in the case of reiki, patiently went through it to make her friend feel better) because it’s crap. Your hypothetical situation of which box to check leaves two choices for an unproven and implausible treatment: check the “no” box and rely only on proven or plausible treatments, or check the yes box and try every single alternative modality until you are broke and still dying. The former is the correct answer because we NEED to have standards for what we will buy and treat ourselves with, though I would never fault a terminally ill person for choosing the latter.

The whole point of this article is that you can reject a treatment without disproving it personally. I would imagine that would be liberating for the person you describe, aleviating some of the “what if I had done X?” guilt. You may not be getting the answer you want, but the claim that he’s leaving you without an answer is total bunk.

Perhaps you could write Brian and get your money back.