I suggest a campaign about ...

Repeal the Cancer Act 1939 completely - repeal Clause 4.

The Cancer Act 1939 was an Act that originally made it the duty of all councils to secure facilities for the diagnosis and treatment of cancer and to pay for travelling expenses for patients to these facilities where necessary. It lays out how the government will pay local councils to provide such treatments. And it also banned the discussion of alternative treatments, making it an offence to even suggest that something other than radioactivity and ionising radiation could possibly cure cancer. The first couple of readings of the bill in 1938-39 even forgot to include exemptions for further research into cancer.

All of the good clauses that makes it a duty for cancer to be caught early and treated have been removed in the last 70 years - replaced by the NHS acts and other acts.

ALL that is left in the act now is Section 4 which continues to turn citizens into criminals for even mentioning cancer and cure in the same sentence... forget racial abuse in twitter... just saying turmeric (there is much scientific research into this and phase I and II trials in other countries - but it is a crime for me to suggest anyone takes part in the trial), vitamin C or baking soda... in the same sentence can get you a fine or a 3 months prison sentence.

It is our human right to free speech ... to free discussion about current research that can complement current treatments. Open discussion about other treatments available around the world.

We need the final Section of this Act and remove it entirely - thus promoting the open discussion by survivors of cancer, non-medical individuals with a good track record of alleviation of suffering and the public about methods that we can implement to prevent or alleviate the pain and suffering caused by cancer.

The Cancer Act as it stands (the original can be read in PDF format linked from the page below)

152 votes
Sign in
or sign in with
  • facebook
  • google
    Password icon
    I agree to the terms of service
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Oliver SlayOliver Slay shared this idea  ·   ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →


    Sign in
    or sign in with
    • facebook
    • google
      Password icon
      I agree to the terms of service
      Signed in as (Sign out)
      • Brian SteereBrian Steere commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        I note the particular pattern of 'cancer' as being one that hides in sheep's clothing - that is - it is cloaked by a device that calls upon protection instead of correction and elimination.
        Like the thief who steals a kingdom, and receives revenue and commands institutional loyalties of force majeure and legislative powers to protect and hide the imposture within the systems of thought, identity and governance.

        This can be seen in the bilogical mechanism, and the social mechanism, and no less in the consciousness itself.

        The usurpation of consciousness works to maintain the conditions in which such 'consciousness' can persist as substitute for true consciousness appreciation and participation, at the cost of the sacrifice of a true communion, communication and community, to feed the compulsive appetites of a private, segregative 'identity'.

        Everything that embodies or communicates the qualities of Life has a substitutional corruption in the identifiction of sacrificing Life to feed a personal private agenda. Any form of intent, appearance or achievement can be used to deceive - and inevitably will be - by the mentality of seeking private fulfilment, validation or power - at cost of all else.

        To seek to open perspective on our own mind is to meet the same devices of obfuscation, coercion and deceit that operate to keep us in such a crab barrel 'mind' and world.

        The very structure of our thought and language tends to operate as a reinforcement of the hidden predicate. It is difficult to communicate about because it is already in place as a corruption of communication. That is - it is taken to be reality, oneself, the way things are, the human condition.

        Awakening of Consciousness is a living contrast with what passed off as conscious and is now seen to be conditioned reaction - and indeed a conditioning that can be observed, and discerned such that what is true of you is purified and magnified, and what is without belonging in you or untrue of you falls off as meaninglessness that does not have a basis to be chosen, reacted from or identified within.

        I felt to offer this consideration here because I believe it is foundational to a more direct intimacy with the Life that truly Lives us as it does All Things.

        Not merely hopeful belief in a good that triumphs over evil, but the releasing of the patterning of belief and conditioning that has identified us in who we are NOT - at expense of awareness of integrity and wholeness.

        "Thankyou for showing me who I am NOT. You can leave now I have the message, and attend wholly within who I feel and know and love myself to be, as integrally part of and one with Life - and not as its killer or corrupter, victim or avenger".

        Whenever I think I can 'go it alone' as a private independent power unto myself, I invoke the feedback of dissonance that NOW re-Minds me to pause and check in and let the Movement of Life be my re-Membering. A movement of unfolding experience of communication and relationship in which I am never alone, isolated, inadequate, and lacking guidance, support and direction. For such a belief is the pain and burden of the attempt to live within the idea of separation from - and competition with - our very Being.
        Fear and hatred only feeds the belief-identity within evil that reverses the natural order of what it is to live - even in the name of atonement, protection and overcoming of illegitimacy does it hide.

        The yielding of what we think we are or what we think is going on, to what is then revealed beyond thought at a greater perspective, is a recognizing and releasing of blocks to love's awareness - in their moment of noticing.
        The capacity to notice what is out of true is innate to us in our joy. Instead of devotion to sacrifice as the limiter of loss, an aligning in joy - a true intimacy of self that naturally extends to our relationships.

        I have nothing to sell here. Ideas may resonate with that which is your own knowing. Use what truly works for you and grow willingness within a mind that has forgotten who it truly is and be's.

        Absence of coercion opens to unconflicted being. A true foundation. All follows automatically from its foundation, and the fruits reveal the nature of our choosing. I cannot make another's choice - nor would I. But I can be wholly in my own and let it communicate itself as the presence of Life which 'communicates itself' in ways that occur freely and naturally, without coercion or persuasion or deceits of presentation seeking to secure a fixed agenda.
        I might say this is an invitation to repeal the beliefs that underlie the decision to hide fear while hiding in fear - as if to gain a personal salvation from a totality you could not feel or rest as.
        All in good timing.

      • Anonymous commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        How many of the parties up for election would repeal the cancer act 1939 ? Answer =None .they are ALL scumbags .

      • AlanAlan commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        I sell vitamins and supplements on eBay in the USA. The UK Trading Standards is riding eBay hard about the "claims" our ads make about products, and accompanies all that with a pile of threats. So your tax dollars are being spent for workers to hunt down us criminals. My only choice is to ban sales to the UK.

      • Oliver SlayOliver Slay commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        anyway.. the fact they advertise the question to the public would create the discussion amongst the public that the public is not allowed to have under this law...

        the grey areas of the Cancer Act are complicated... which is why it should be removed..

      • Oliver SlayOliver Slay commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Hi Anaris

        It's not illegal for doctors and politicians to discuss non-medical treatments for cancer. It is illegal for everyone else. Cancer Research UK is a merger between Imperial Cancer Research and Cancer Research Campaign in 2002. In 1939 when the law was put in place, Imperial Cancer Research had a massive amount of money going through the system for cancer research... as they do now under Cancer Research... they stated outright that they should be exempt from this law and would continue to research into cancer treatments. So they are exempt because they make a big contribution...

      • Oliver SlayOliver Slay commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        The main problem is that research is looking for the cure... the money needs to be spent on early diagnosis and prophylaxis... the outcomes are always a lot better when cancer is caught early... or prevented altogether.

        Once you perfect the art of catching the cancer early on... then fewer people will suffer the short- and long-term consequences of painful expensive treatments. The majority of cancers could then be treated with surgery alone. (Well they are already... but then the dangerous treatments are thrown in on top)

      • John DewarJohn Dewar commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate


        Cut Poison Burn is a searing film that illuminates the grim truth about America's so-called War on Cancer. This thought-provoking documentary takes on the forces that have conspired to thwart meaningful advances in cancer research and treatment over the past century. These forces include the federal government (in its effort to label and persecute innovators as quacks), drug companies eager to suppress alternative treatments and powerful industry organizations that place profit over human lives. The story centers on the Navarros, a family struggling to keep their young son alive. The war between the Navarro Family and the FDA is perhaps this country's greatest evidence as to why there should be medical freedom. As the personal meets the political, we see how the FDA holds a vise-like grip on treatment options. Heart-wrenching and informative, the film ultimately expresses hope that we can create a new paradigm of prevention, medical freedom and acceptance of highly-tailored therapies to usher in a more enlightened era. Over 12 years, 150 hours of footage and interviews with top oncologists, researchers, policy-makers, homeopaths and patients carry the story and reveal that we are on the brink of disaster and in desperate need of reform.

        In 1971, US President Richard Nixon declared war on cancer; the National Cancer Act was enacted and the national cancer program was born. An impressive $1.6 billion dollars were allocated to the program for the first three years alone, and its director even reported directly to the President.

        So, after 40 years, how has the war on cancer fared?

        One would think that after four decades of fervent research and countless billions of dollars spent, we would have this dreadful disease under control. Just think of the rapid explosion of ideas and innovations within other technology areas. Your cell phone is now more powerful than the largest supercomputers of that time, for example.

        Alas, the war on cancer has been a MASSIVE failure, and the reasons for this failure are clearly explained in the featured documentary Cut, Poison, Burn.

        Greed bordering on the grotesque has been allowed to rule the game here, and the primary beneficiaries of this 40-year long “war” are pharmaceutical companies and the tremendously profitable cancer industry as a whole, including so-called “non-profit” organizations like the American Cancer Society.

        Rather than decreasing, cancer rates have increased during the last 40 years, and now surpass heart disease as the number one killer of Americans between the ages of 45 to 74. According to statistics detailed in the film, one in three women, and one in two men will now get some form of cancer in their lifetime!




      • John DewarJohn Dewar commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate


        Picking up where the first internationally award-winning documentary left off, “Burzynski: Cancer is Serious Business, Chapter 2″ explores the the current status of clinical testing of Antineoplastons sanctioned by the Food & Drug Administration—as well as a modern story of patients being treated today at the Burzynski Clinic in Houston, Texas.

        For most patients being treated by the Burzynski Clinic today—their advanced cancer itself runs secondary to the constant barrage of skepticism coming not only from their local oncologists—who simply do not understand Burzynski’s therapy—but also from their own friends and family who feel their loved ones are not making the correct treatment decisions—even though mainstream oncology has already left many of them for dead.

        As this story unfolds, the audience will witness a real-time change of hearts and minds from many doctors and families.

        Unlike the first documentary, we have interviewed board-certified oncologists, surgeons, and neurosurgeons for this film who witnessed their patients leave their care to return in great health, after opting for the Burzynski Clinic.

        Since the mapping of the Cancer Genome, Burzynski has pioneered an expansion of his therapy that he calls, “Personalized Gene-Targeted Cancer Therapy”, where each patient’s Genomic Cancer Atlas is mapped, and a treatment regimen is personally tailored for each individual patient—vs. the conveyor belt, “one size fits all” approach that current oncology adheres to. This part of the film will likely be the first time most of the audience will become aware of this new direction.

        Due to the slow-moving bureaucratic obstacles of Antineoplastons by the FDA, this new expanded “personalized gene-targeted” direction has allowed more patients who are denied access to Antineoplastons by the FDA to benefit from Burzynski’s practice in ways never before thought possible.

        This new personalized gene-targeted therapy isn’t without similar resistance and controversy that Antineoplaston therapy has since endured.

        Sign up for the mailing list at: http://burzynskimovie.com/to be notified of its release.
        Watch first part of this documentary here:http://truththeory.com/2012/10/31/burzynski-cancer-is-serious-business-movie/
        Read more about Dr. Burzynski:http://truththeory.com/2012/12/10/burzynski-victory-cancer-doctor-battles-texas-medical-board-and-comes-out-on-top/


      • John DewarJohn Dewar commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate


        BURZYNSKI THE MOVIE – CANCER IS SERIOUS BUSINESS (2011) is the story of a medical doctor and Ph.D biochemist named Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski who won the largest, and possibly the most convoluted and intriguing legal battle against the Food & Drug Administration in American history.
        His victorious battles with the United States government were centered around Dr. Burzynski’s gene-targeted cancer medicines he discovered in the 1970′s called Antineoplastons, which have currently completed Phase II FDA-supervised clinical trials in 2009 and could begin the final phase of FDA testing in 2011–barring the ability to raise the required $300 million to fund the final phase of FDA clinical trials.
        When Antineoplastons are approved, it will mark the first time in history a single scientist, not a pharmaceutical company, will hold the exclusive patent and distribution rights on a paradigm-shifting medical breakthrough.
        Antineoplastons are responsible for curing some of the most incurable forms of terminal cancer. Various cancer survivors are presented in the film who chose these medicines instead of surgery, chemotherapy or radiation – with full disclosure of medical records to support their diagnosis and recovery – as well as systematic (non-anecdotal) FDA-supervised clinical trial data comparing Antineoplastons to other available treatments—which is published within the peer-reviewed medical literature.
        This documentary takes the audience through the treacherous, yet victorious, 14-year journey both Dr. Burzynski and his patients have had to endure in order to obtain FDA-approved clinical trials of Antineoplastons.

        For more information: burzynskimovie.com
        Go here to get the DVD: burzynskimovie.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=107&Itemid=88


      • Oliver SlayOliver Slay commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        However Celgene will pay for your treatment beyond your 26th cycle... so .. once you've forked out a bit of over $350,000 for the first 2 yrs...

      • Oliver SlayOliver Slay commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        No-one says that it prevents new research into treatments. Aggressive patents by large pharmaceuticals do that well enough on their own.

        It prevents gatherings of people who wish to discuss treatments that are offered...

        The CA might prevent people from selling 'cures' as in America or elsewhere .. but it is the job of the MHRA to do that. So the CA should be obsolete. No?


        Finally I don't know what you are comparing Burzynski's treatment with... This is what I managed to dig up...

        Burzynski's treatment is 'antineoplastin' the active ingredient found to be 3-phenylacetylamino-2,6-piperidinedione - which is pictured here:


        That formula is only one or two reductions away from Thalidomide (pictured via link below) which is being re-targeted to treating cancers:


        Or Lenalidomide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenalidomide) or Pomalidomide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomalidomide) which Pharmaceutical company Celgene received FDA approval for in 2005 and 2013 respectively for treating cancers.

        All of these are somewhat toxic to the human body, so no-one should think that Burzynski's won't be either... they are all chemotherapy and chemotherapy is necessarily toxic as it is targeting fast growing cells - in the hope that it kills off cancer cells. Like napalming a village to catch a crook...

        Cost of treatment...

        Burzysnki manufacturers, produces and pays for clinical trials - like any other pharmaceutical except probably has to pay for it with little subsidisation. The cost of treatment is

        "Treatment can cost from $7,000 to $9,500 per month or more, depending on the type of treatment, number of consultations, and the need for surgery to implant a catheter for drug delivery."

        Is that expensive? let's compare with the newly FDA-approved pomalidomide - sold as Pomalyst by Celgene:

        "Celgene has said it expects to launch Pomalyst in the US within the next couple of weeks, and has set a price of $10,450 per 28-day treatment cycle, with patients expected to receive between five and eight cycles."

        and Lenalidomide:
        "Lenalidomide has significantly improved overall survival in myeloma (which generally carries a poor prognosis), although toxicity remains an issue for users. It costs $163,381 per year for the average patient." [ from Wikipedia]

        I don't see much difference between Burzynski's treatment and these other drugs... although it appears to be cheaper.

      • Guinea PigletGuinea Piglet commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        ignore the idiots claiming that the Cancer Act prevents new research into treatments, that's a lie. Clinical trials of new treatments and off-label therapies are ongoing constantly.

        What the CA does is prevent UK patients ending up like their American compatriots, being bombarded by "cures" like Gerson, Rife, Burzynski's toxic nonsense etc., whose peddlers prey on the hopes and bank accounts of the desperately ill.

      • Oliver SlayOliver Slay commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Well Rhys... I think highlighting one contentious point out of a long discussion and then shouting "quack" at the top of your voice... is just as un-scientific as the suggestion that Baking Soda will cure cancer. I guess you might be expecting a group mentality to all follow suit and shout "quack" along with you, rather than think for themselves. (which the Baking Soda story caused too on the other side of the fence from you.)

        To join 'Baking Soda' and 'quackery' without scientific question is misleading. Because there are specific points at which sodium bicarbonate is important in the biological pathways of cell metabolism. Why should one have to justify researching an important biological reactant such as bicarbonate ions just because a group of people shout 'quack'? : one example where bicarbonate ions are researched in respect to tumour cells ...

        That is but one example of respected science.. investigating the actual mechanisms of cancer... It is, of course, incorrect to infer from this that Baking Soda is curing cancer... but it is certainly involved in the cell pathways...

        The MHRA was given powers under new laws to deal with people selling fake medicines and potions for various diseases. They can perfectly well take over from the Cancer Act. I do not see how repealing the act suddenly makes unscrupulous people think there's a green light... most people do not even know there is a Cancer Act but they do not act in the way you suggest without that knowledge. (well some do.. but they get caught, because I see it happening in the HPA Alerts for Drug misuse.

      • Anonymous commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Repealing the Cancer Act would be a green light for quacks to prey on desperate people.

        This kind of thing brings 38 degrees into disrepute.

        Strengthen the Cancer Act - keep quacks away from the pockets of vulnerable people

      • RhysRhys commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Baking soda? Really? The Cancer Act exists to protect the public from precisely this kind of dangerous, exploitative & lucrative quackery.

      • Oliver SlayOliver Slay commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Hi anon
        There is a slow and steady movement to begin to talk... but to be able to talk about cancer without being a doctor you have to have a LOT of money like the Imperial Cancer Research fund did back in 1939 when the law came out.. They ignored the law because they put enough money into research that no one could touch them. They combined with the other large cancer charity, Cancer Research Campaign in 2002 and are now Cancer Research UK.

        The other way is to simply ignore the rules ..

        www.icancer.org.uk - recently set up in the new Health/Medicine 2.0 (a play on Web 2.0) to crowd-source on healthcare and treatments... where the public can pitch into cancer research where it is needed... on treatments that won't make big pharma any big profits. The main one for now being Anti-cancer viruses - see the previous website about it or http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/04/2013-new-approach-fighting-cancer

        Then there's the story of Salvatore Iaconesi who was diagnosed with brain cancer at the age of 39. He hacked his records and released them to the internet - open source - and requested that anyone could look at them and send him comments - the 200,000+ answers ranged from orthodox medicine through to art and poetry - http://artisopensource.net/cure/ (in Italy, not the UK)

        And there's always many interesting ideas on TED.com as well as hundreds of other websites...

        Given all that... it's crazy that such a law could still exist - but mostly it should be ignored (with care). And a lot of Health 2.0 will end up being a USA/European thing.

      • Anonymous commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        What a pity this has such a small number of people voting for it, little do people know just what this means to them, until it is too late.
        It hampers research into far better and proven effective methods that are on offer in other countries and what we have isn't working but it won't allow anything else. It prevents Dr's from trying other things or suggesting other methods also.
        It started off protecting the radiologists but now the drug industry benefits from it very nicely and there's a bill we can't keep affording. yet many other methods are so much cheaper.
        If chemo raises your chances of survival by 5% greater than doing nothing, then surely we can investigate other methods
        The continual barracking of both sides, is ridiculous. There are many reasons why cancer develops and we need many ways to treat it. This term quackery is so offensive to people who very often are as well trained and educated in their field of medicine as Dr's are. In fact many started as medics.
        This is a big health problem that will not be solved by closed minds, nor does it benefit the patients to be fear driven in their route and be given no choice and often no hope

      ← Previous 1

      Feedback and Knowledge Base