2

CancerTutor.com claims to be a website for "alternative" cancer treatments, denouncing standard treatments like chemotherapy or radiation.

From the first glance, it seems like your typical quackery website, with all the telltale signs like "Big Pharma" conspiracies and two or more exclamation points after every sentence. And while its website looks polished enough, it's affiliated with the Independent Cancer Research Foundation, whose website doesn't look nearly as legitimate.

What's strange is the following:

  1. I can't find anything online discrediting the site, and

  2. It appears very high in Google Search rankings to be just another medical fraud. Search "chemotherapy risks," and you should find the website near the very top.

So, the question is this: is CancerTutor.com reliable?

Improve this question
4
  • 3
    Pick a claim that CancerTutor make, and we can address that, but tackling a whole source is poisoning the well/ad hominem. The signals you have picked up are reasons for your skepticism to be heightened, but it doesn't address whether a particular claim is true or false.
    – Oddthinking ♦
    May 13, 2015 at 3:31
  • 1
    @Oddthinking But questions like skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/1976/is-wikipedia-reliable are acceptable?
    – user3932000
    May 13, 2015 at 4:30
  • 1
    were acceptable. This is one of the very early questions before or rules were all in place. Additionally, it had a notable claim. It was common to hear warnings against Wikipedia, especially 5-10 years ago.
    – Oddthinking ♦
    May 13, 2015 at 6:57
  • @Oddthinking, maybe better to lock the wikipedia question as having historical significance but not considered a good question?
    – George Chalhoub
    May 14, 2015 at 23:41

0

Reset to default

Browse other questions tagged .