Le site canceractive.com est-il sûr ?

It is very difficult to spend the time required to explain every instance of lies, half-truths and misleading statements on this site because there are so many of them! Just let me warn the cancer-sufferer. Do NOT visit this site if you are in pain and desperate. Go anywhere else but here or the clinics they recommend. They should be ashamed selling all this false hope but I suspect they are no such thing.

This website provides excellent information, both conventional and alternative, on the causes and treatment of cancer. It is being continually updated with the latest in trustworthy and reliable medical research and contains links to the published research and articles about that research. I would recommend it highly to anyone anxious to find out about causes, treatments and possible side-effects relating to cancer of any description. Well researched and informative.I have personally found excellent advice there concerning the treatment of my own Stage III colorectal cancer.

I can't see anything wrong with this site. Giving sites bad ratings because one doesn't agree with the content sets a bad precedent. An atheist could then rate a religious site poorly based on the idea that the information presented was misleading. Why does this site still still have a poor rating when there have been 13 good ratings here against only 3 bad ones?? (14 good ratings now when mine is added.) In my mind this severely decreases the credibility of WOT, and I'm now considering un-installing it.

Several years ago I was fortunate enough to see, by chance, a video interview with Chris Woollams. I was very impressed that I looked up information about him and his website and I subscribed to his newsletters which I have been reading monthly for many years now. I am quite dismayed that this site is flagged because it may sure lose viewers who may be able to read and learn valuable information. I find this site to be very trustworthy and reputable!

I have often wanted to comment on this. Despite open source you seem to have a predisposition to hate any natural website whether there is anything offending or not. I guess it depends on the funding and the amount of persons at the head of our patented drug industry.

I have read Chris Woolams' book. He has a university degree in bio-chemistry. His daughter was diagnosed with with brain cancer. That is why he became vitally interested in fighting cancer with all means possible - conventional and alternative medicine. Wherever possible he gives reference to the scientific research supporting his statements. His website and book are good sources of ideas and, where possible, scientifically researched treatments and preventative products for inhibiting cancer. Sure he promotes his book. I say good for him. It is a book with good information in it. In fact it is the best book I've come across on alternative medicine for cancer prevention or treatment. I haven't seen anything that is bad for children. What's that red negative for children rating about?

I really don't think this site should be in the red - there are no trackers, no wayward scripts, NOTHING bad at all. The information contained within should be held up to some measure of scrutiny because of the lack of research in some home & herbal remedies, but lets not throw out the baby with the bath water shall we?

This site is notionally a charity, but it prominently promotes the commercial interests of the charity's director, and the director is also using it for blatant self-promotion. That is, I believe, illegal under the Charities Act (the body responsible for enforcing this is the Charities Commissioners). Also, despite carrying the "!quack Miranda warning", the site plainly is "taking any part in publication, except under specified conditions, of advertisements that "offer to treat any person for cancer, or to prescribe any remedy therefor, or to give any advice in connection with the treatment thereof" - which is a specific offence under the Cancer Act, 1939 (the body responsible for enforcing this is Buckinghamshire Trading Standards). As an advertisement for the director's products, the site is clearly misleading, carrying content from mad conspiracist sites such as WDDTY. This almost certainly violates the Code of Advertising Practice (the body responsible for enforcing this is the Advertising Standards Authority). If others feel as strongly as I do that this man is a charlatan, perhaps they will be motivated to report him to these authorities.

You may not agree with everything on this site - but as a retired doctor, I know that cancer patients cope with the disease better if they feel able to explore options on therapy. This site doesn't deny orthodox therapies - just asks the quite jusifiable question of whether there are other options in treatment that might influence outcome.

No proof it's a bad site but WOT, in it's supreme wisdom, decides to accept any decision to blackball it. What's next, oh I know, let's burn the books we don't agree with. I'm beginning to regret joining this exclusive club of small minded idiots and the allowing their opinions decide the fate of informative sites. Smarten up WOT.