Let me point out the logical flaws in your post: 1. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc - "he tried a controversial holistic treatment, therefore he was cured" - My fat

Let me point out the logical flaws in your post: 1. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc - "he tried a controversial holistic treatment, therefore he was cured" - My father was cured of prostate cancer just after he quit smoking. Therefore I advocate quitting smoking as a cure for prostate cancer. 2. Fallacy of the single cause - "he believes he was largely cured by" - it's unlikely that any single cause is responsible for something as large as being successfully treated for cancer. Many prostate cancers are simply left untreated with no harm. 3. Hasty generalization - "his family, his employees, and everyone he knows" - We can know nothing about the effect on the general population from anecdotal evidence. 4. Red herring, subtype appeal to authority - "However, he is the Director of Pediatric Neurosurgery" - entirely irrelevant to prostate cancer treatment. 5. Ad populum, in reverse - "None of this information [...] is widely known" - whether it is widely known or not, it should stand up to scrutiny on it's own. And of course, my post itself suffers from 'argument from fallacy' - something need not be false just because it is argued for in a fallacious manner. That said, you can roll your quackery up and take it with you.