CANCER ACT 1939 Advertising Standards Authority (ASA)
The Stranglehold that the UK 1939 Cancer Act Exerts in Great Britain
by Madeline C. Hickey-Smith
http://orthomolecular.org
Most citizens of Great Britain are totally unaware of the 1939 Cancer Act which
effectively prevents them from finding out about different treatments for
cancer.
Excerpts from the UK 1939 Cancer Act:
"4 - (1) No person shall take any part in the publication of any advertisement -
(a) containing an offer to treat any person for cancer, or to prescribe any remedy therefor, or to give any advice in connection with the treatment thereof; or
(b) referring to any article, or articles of any description, in terms which are calculated to lead to the use of that article, or articles of that description, in the treatment of cancer.
In this section the expression "advertisement" includes
any "notice, circular, label, wrapper or other document, and any announcement
made orally or by any means of producing or transmitting sounds". [1]
Publication of such advertisements is permitted to a very restrictive group
comprising members of either House of Parliament, local authority, governing
bodies of voluntary hospitals, registered or training to become registered
medical practitioners, nurses or pharmacists, and persons involved in the sale
or supply of surgical appliances. A very tight grip, therefore, is exercised on
information that is fed to citizens of Great Britain; interestingly, the Act
does not apply to Northern Ireland.
That pretty much wraps it up, and wraps us (in Britain) up in the legal
stranglehold that this outdated Act still exerts. Was this enacted to protect
the citizens from charlatans and "quacks" or to safeguard the interests of the
National Radium Trust, to whom the British Government lent money? If no one is
allowed to tell us, how can we, the general public, ever find out what
alternatives there are to those offered by mainstream medicine, mainly surgery,
chemotherapy and radiotherapy?
No Freedom of Therapy, Information, or Assembly
My colleague, Sarah Ling, and I unwittingly found ourselves in a maelstrom when
we decided to hold a convention in Birmingham, later this year, to do just that
- inform the general public about some of the other ways to tackle this hideous
disease than those generally doled out to their mostly trusting, but fear-filled
patients. A well-justified fear of the actual treatments as well as the disease
prevails.
Last year, Sarah's sister was diagnosed with an aggressive form of cancer.
Chemotherapy was the only treatment offered, which she accepted out of fear. She
nearly died within hours of having it, and very sadly died days afterwards.
Sarah was determined to help prevent others from enduring such trauma and so,
under the umbrella of our Institute (The Cambridge Institute of Complementary
Health), we organised a convention to educate people - conventional/
We quickly drew up a short list of speakers that we felt would have much to
contribute, including Dr Stanislaw Burzynski who agreed to come and talk about
his pioneering work on antineoplastins.
After posting our speakers on our web-site, one, an oncologist, pulled out due
to a malevolent e-mail she had received, questioning her wisdom at sharing a
platform with Dr Burzynski. She didn't want to cause her team any controversy.
We then discovered that we had attracted a lot of adverse attention that was
derogatory, critical of our speakers, casting aspersions on them and on us as an
organisation. Unfortunately Dr Burzynski decided not to come - so as not to
expose us to the sort of attacks that he has suffered. Regrettably, the public
lost an opportunity to hear first-hand of his pioneering treatments in tackling
cancers, including inoperable brain tumours.
Two speakers down, we then found ourselves possibly contravening the archaic
Cancer Act. We've had to be extremely careful in how we word any publications
relating to the convention so that the Advertising Standards Agency doesn't come
down on us like a ton of bricks and prevent us from holding it at all. Britain
cherishes its long-held tradition of freedom of speech, but in recent years that
seems questionable. However, we can still hold debates, and that is what we are
doing.
We are aware that efforts will be made to stop us, from those who are not
seekers of truth. If they were truly interested in the welfare of people, they
would be advocating most of the alternative/complementary approaches instead of
deriding them and trying to close down clinics and individuals who practise
them, via the Advertising Standards Agency. This ridiculous Act affords them the
guise of protecting the public and gives them ammunition that they can use
against persons advocating alternatives.
We can't hold an open day of education on treating cancer in this country: how
bizarre is that? How much longer can this information be contained?
The Cost of Ignorance
The UK National Health Service is overstretched and, as more and more people
contract cancer (one in three presently), the rising costs of expensive and
often ineffective treatments will surely mean they have to look at alternatives.
Conventional healthcare professionals are too often ignorant of the enormous
value of unconventional treatments. How can they be otherwise, as those outside
of their profession are prohibited from alluding to the fact that they can help
treat cancer? Shockingly, even nutrition is most often totally overlooked during
orthodox cancer treatment, and the very foods that promote cancers are given to
patients in our hospitals sometimes in order to maintain calorie intake. There
is frequently no advice on diet, that most crucial aspect of our health. [2]
Thankfully, some oncologists do recognise the benefits that
alternative/complementary treatments offer. [3] Hopefully more and more will
come to accept that integrating the best of conventional and
complementary/alternative methods is the way forward.
It is our opinion that a reform of the 1939 Cancer Act is long overdue. The
tenacious grip that it holds on treating cancer must be relinquished, so that
patients and their healthcare providers can make an informed choice as to what
approach may be best for their individual needs.
(Madeline C. Hickey-Smith has an honours degree in biology and is cofounder of
the Cambridge Institute of Complementary Health
http://cichealth.org.uk/ . The direct link to the convention page is
http://cichealth.org.uk/#/
References:
1. The 1939 UK Cancer Act:
http://
2. What UK cancer patients are officially told:
http://
3. Intravenous Vitamin C as cancer therapy: Free access to twenty-one expert
video lectures online. Orthomolecular Medicine News Service, April 14, 2011.
http://orthomolecular.org/
Those who have had quite enough of government censorship of alternative cancer
treatments may also wish to look at the following:
Straus H. Censorship, sports and the power of one word. Orthomolecular Medicine
News Service, May 21, 2012.
http://orthomolecular.org/
Saul AW. Half-truth is no truth at all: Overcoming bias against nutritional
medicine. Orthomolecular Medicine News Service, Oct 7, 2011.
http://orthomolecular.org/
Smith RG. Vitamins decrease lung cancer risk by 50%. Orthomolecular Medicine
News Service, Nov 18, 2011.
http://orthomolecular.org/
http://orthomolecular.org/