I have a BMW, and I'm a poor skeptic. How does that figure into his calculations?
I don't doubt that CAM is widely used by the affluent; they can afford it, for one, and they don't rely so much on the NHS (who don't use CAM as much as real medicine), for two. But it's not exclusively used by the affluent by any stretch of the imagination.
I could find a correlation between any two sets of sales figures for any industry. Playing with data does not a causation make.
He's made a rather silly mistake. New car sales are driven by new model releases, new registration periods, and depreciation windows, not just periods of economic stability (my two biggest clients are automotive, I know the market well). He is saying that people are getting richer, and so can afford luxury cars, and if the population is getting richer, they can therefore also afford CAM? And that therefore CAM is a luxury item?
Well, I can fully believe that, in the same way that Organic food is largely for those who can afford it. But his data poking does not prove it one iota. He needs source data for that, namely information from the CAM market itself. For example, surveying CAM buyers and ascertaining their disposable income levels. Duh.