You assume that we (meaning traditional practitioners) read the term “alternative” or “herbal” and automatically dismiss the stuff out of hand? NOT SO. However, we DO require that things be thoroughly studied, tested in rigorously designed trials before “we” will adopt a treatment and administer it to our patients. The problem with most of the “alternative” remedies is that they have NOT been tested to our satisfaction, or they have been tested and found lacking. Otherwise (tada!) they would be MAINSTREAM therapies, and not alternative. The only difference between the two, particularly when you are talking about herbs and plant-based remedies, is that the “mainstream” stuff has been scrutinized, tested, and proven to be worth using. Note that I didn’t say “perfect”, “without risk”, or “superior to every other treatment”! 
What we have, and what we use, is FAR from perfect, but (this is the key point) IT BEATS THE HELL OUT OF DOING NOTHING most of the time.
You use the case of chemotherapy as “poisoning a patient on purpose in violation of the Hippocratic Oath”. While that is an interesting way of looking at it, I prefer to look at it this way: take a person with a disease that has a known, or at least very, very predictable, mortality/morbidity rate over time if left alone. Let’s use cancer as an example, it could also be tuberculosis, diabetes, clogged carotids, whatever. Each of these diseases has a number of treatments available. NO CURES, except maybe in the case of TB and some particular forms of cancer. But let’s agree there are many treatments. WHERE on earth do you begin? Certainly NOT by handing over a bottle of pills or sending the patient to the hospital for their IV. What, then? Why, you find out as much as you can about that person, his/her desires, expectations, and perceptions of the disease, its treatment, the options, and what may happen with each possible modality. Including doing nothing. You spend sometimes HOURS educating them on the disease they have, the various options, the pros and cons, the potential risks AND benefits. Then and ONLY then do you come up with a “plan”.
Let’s say that plan involves chemo, or “deliberate poisoning” as you prefer to call it. What if that plan seems by far the best option in the opinion of the patient? Would you still call it a violation of the Hippocratic oath? Well, it’s “poisoning the patient”! Even if the patient, fully informed, WISHES for the treatment, should I withhold it for fear of something bad happening? When the odds of “something bad happening” are TEN TIMES HIGHER if I don’t do it? How is that ethical?
Here’s another scenario. Ever been told by a doctor to take Tylenol? Ever done it on your own? The therapeutic window for Tylenol is QUITE narrow, and unintentional overdose is fairly common, particularly if one is fond of drinking alcohol. Is it, then, a violation of the Hippocratic oath to recommend Tylenol, knowing the patient could be POISONED by it? In fact it IS negligent to do so if you know the patient is a heavy drinker, or to do so without even asking the question.
I could come up with a hundred examples, but the point is that EVERY TIME a practitioner makes a recommendation, that practitioner is taking a risk. Sometimes it’s a small risk, sometimes it’s a BIG risk. Always, always, always, the goal is for the potential or perceived benefit to outweigh the potential or perceived risk. Otherwise you are a butcher. Amazingly, when they are well informed and educated, people often can make their OWN assessment of what is and is not “too risky”. Amazingly, they will often choose the risky treatment freely and without reservations. Should they not have this option, if little else is available to them? Or should we simply write off the “sick ones” and withhold ANY potentially risky therapy out of fear of “doing harm”?
It ain’t for sissies, medicine. If you can’t assume responsibility for making some heavy, heavy decisions, for bad things happening, for sometimes being WRONG, you don’t belong in this kind of field. But ahhh, I’m not trying to sound like it’s some sort of superhero thing. Having wandered away from my original point, let me say simply that chemo, although it is a terrifying word, is one aspect of medicine (among many) that is getting a little “kinder and gentler” over time, for one thing, and has (really!) more benefits than risks in the grand scheme of things. Considering the opponent, it is not hard to fathom why the ammunition needs to be so powerful. 
Or, in other words, consider the alternative. :no:
If I were diagnosed with cancer I’d put my money (and my life) on things that have a track record, scientific research to back it up. Just saying something is miraculous doesn’t make it so, unless you’re God. If the “miracle cures” work, where is the proof? [Cue the chirping crickets}
ML, anecdotes and case studies are the same thing, I’ve never said any different. Stories about individuals. We call them what they are, but we do NOT substitute them for scientific research, where large numbers of individuals in controlled circumstances are purposely followed with the precise intention of testing a particular treatment or intervention.
And I sincerely and honestly hope NOBODY here ever, ever has need of my services. My patients are rarely “healthy” and I am never happier than when I can tell someone they have no professional need of me. But it wasn’t me who said “I don’t consider you a reliable source”. So aim your barbs with more precision, please.
And only your’s has antitumor properties.
