Cancertutor

Dear friends,

A question please, Cancertutor is reputable or is it quackery ?
Webster Kehr is a snake oil dealer ?

Kim from Germany

Report post

10 replies. Join the discussion

I think the basic questions are,

1. What is the treatment and are there any published clinical studies that examine or discuss it.

Obviously anyone can say, our treatment of xxx is tremendously effective, patients who were deteriorating with conventional treatment had their tumors dramatically reduced and eliminated with only 1 months treatment of xxx. However, because of their entrenched financial interest in conventional treatment, pharmaceutical companies and others have attacked xxx, and ignored the pharmacological rationale for the treatment.

Report post

Howian1 really puts it out there with the two good questions to ask. Check out the article at
http://www.quackwatch.org/00AboutQuackwatch/altseek.html

Courage

Chum

Report post

Nice ... a Quackwatch citation!

Just going on logic, any site that claims to know something that the entire rest of the medical establishment doesn't know, or is withholding from you, is probably blowing sunshine up your skirt, and usually in the pursuit of money.

Report post

Both CancerTutor and Quackwatch post extremely subjective information based on their research. However, I would give more credit to CancerTutor than Quackwatch. Quackwatch categorically post all natural remedies as quackery. The site is a shame. It is published by a controversial, troublesome, arrogant Stephen Barrett. CancerTutor was able to come up on top in search engine. With the "authoritative" protocols clearly layout for each cancer type, it has become the commonly used cancer treatments. Unfortunately the success stories are hard to find with some of the treatments in the protocols. It has introduced extra burden to some cancer patients and families with no benefits or even side track the effective treatments. I have contacted two of the 4 directors who operated cancertutor. I believe they have good intentions to help people. However, most cancer patients and families have no time to do further research themselves under such a short time frame to find a cure. Dam with internet and dam without internet! That's life.

Report post

Oh! when I contacted cancertutor for success stories on Cellect Budwig protocol. They pointed me to Dr. Kelley's website instead of ncrf.org. I would not have know ncrf if I didn't call the office about Cellect and had suspicious mind. Dr. Kelly's treatment has nothing to do with Cellect or Budwig.

Report post

"Quackwatch categorically post all natural remedies as quackery."

Which doesn't prove that they aren't quackery. Note that in this case, quackery doesn't necessarily mean something bad; it just means something that hasn't been shown to work.

Or so I would think.

Report post

FYI, I feel anything less than the actual published research study cannot be trusted. I especially don't believe promotional sites; in contrast I find most of the quack reports (from whatever sites they might be on) to be pretty logical. In either case, though, they can be useful to identify what logic people are using and to find useful research citations so you can see if they were just dubious research or something credible.

Never settle for criticism of sites or authors. It's sort of the Lance Armstrong approach -- if you attack the reputation of people who are trying to tell the truth, people might be distracted from the truth. Focus on the true facts and logic, not who said them.

Best hopes,

Report post

Having criticized alternative treatments, consider the other side. For a company, creating a clinical trial is expensive and one would not ordinarily do it without patent protection. So the alternative practictioners have a disadvantage.

We can be skeptical about the companies charging large amounts of money, making bold representations of prior success, but providing no way of assessing them. The more modest natural treatments can be considered.

One problem is that logic does not translate to success. Identifying a target for treatment and an rationale for treatment sadly does not mean it will work. There have been a number of promising cell studies, and stage 1 trials which did not succeed in later randomized trials. So stating the alleged cause of lung cancer and how a target will be addressed is not sufficient.

The patient does need to make some choices, and if existing treatments do not provide sufficient promise, others can be considered, but expensive unverified treatments must be evaluated with proper skepticism.

Report post

I did a search for Webster
Kehr and, at http://ziononmymind.blogspot.com/2009_10_01_archive.html, found the following:

There is a man in Kansas,who claims that Einstein, Darwin, and most every other scientist since the turn of the 19th century, is a fool. This man, of course, is NOT a scientist, himself. He has two degrees: one in mathematics, and the other in accounting; yet, he claims to be an expert in physics, medicine, and the life sciences. In fact, he has even proposed alternative hypotheses to Einstein's theory of general, and special relativity, the origins of and "cure" for cancer, and the unifying theory of life science, evolution. What's more, all of these "theories" work conveniently well with the creationist world view. It would seem that Isaac Newton has been reborn, and brought back "natural theology" to the modern world! But, as you know, looks can be deceiving, and in this case they certainly are.

What we have here is no inspired genius, no scientific revolution, no evidence, no workable, peer reviewed, tested hypothesis for anything useful. No, what we have here is a self-styled "intellectual," who understands just enough about science to be dangerous-- the kind of person you wouldn't want to be chemistry partners with. He knows just enough about science to misconstrue it, and mislead those who know even less than he does. A true quack.

That said, you may ask, "why do I care? I mean, if this guy is just another quack, then he's harmless, right? Let him quack away!" I wish it were that simple. You see, this man, R. Webster Kehr, happens to be a member of my church, and he publishes his works with the line "An LDS Perspective" in the title, as if he speaks not only for the church as a whole, but even to the church as a whole. He's one of those people I spoke about before, who want to draw battle lines between science and religion, even if those lines should put members of his own church on the outside.

I have not read these works in detail, nor do I encourage it. I don't intend to meticulously debunk his "theories," as Ken Miller does the assertions of Intelligent Design in his books. To do so, I would need the experience and resources of a real scientists, which I am not, yet. And I will not pretend that I am, as does this man. But, in my short time as a student of these sciences, I have learned enough about the method employed by scientists, and the scientific community, to know that if it can't be reproduced; if it can't be supported by evidence; if it can't be tested; if it lies in the face of other accepted and supported hypotheses, and makes not attempt to reconcile and explain these disparities, then it is not science: it is speculation. Men are free to speculate, but science is not like politics or religion: science need not give equal time and consideration to the musings and whims of anybody and everybody.

This man claims that the reason why his ideas remain in obscurity, is because the scientific community is biased and narrow-minded, and will not seriously consider his claims. To me, this is like a mediocre high school athlete whining that the NFL or the Olympics won't let him in, because there are 'qualifications' he doesn't meet. How bureaucratic and pedantic of them!

Courage

Chum

Report post

"This man claims that the reason why his ideas remain in obscurity, is because the scientific community is biased and narrow-minded, and will not seriously consider his claims."

This is the aspect of these sorts of people (and theories) that fails any test of logic, and I don't know how thinking people can fall for it.

Do you really believe that the balance of fame, fortune, sainthood, or whatever good thing you want to name tilts in the direction of keeping secret something that could help millions of people? Yeah, I think I'll bypass money, glory, the Nobel, canonization by the world at large for all time, the opportunity to save the health care system billions of dollars per year, and curing all my patients, just so I can maintain the insular status quo of the pharma-owned scientific community.

I don't care what you think of egomaniacs who stop just a hair short of proclaiming themselves infallible, the great conspiracy theory just does not hold up to scrutiny.

Report post

This discussion is closed to replies. We close all discussions after 90 days.

If there's something you'd like to discuss, click below to start a new discussion.

Photo of Dave Grant

The Lung Cancer Survivors Support Community has provided support for patients, caregivers, families and friends since 2006. We welcome over 600 new members every month in the fight against lung cancer.

ALK mutations and lung cancer

Join the discussion about ALK mutations and lung cancer

Things you can do

Discussion topics

Community leaders