Cancer Act of 1939 - Prohibits Advertising Treatment or Cure of Cancer

I saw a quick mention of this act and wanted to find out more about it. The Cancer Act of 1939 prohibits advertising the treatment or cure of cancer.

From what I gather, it was part of the Minister of Health to effectively promote chemotherapy and radiation therapy for the National Radium Trust which was replaced with National Health Services.

Since 1984, there have been 24 convictions under the Cancer Act.

Wiki Link

The Cancer Act 1939 is an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom passed in 1939 to make further provision for the treatment of cancer, to authorise the Minister of Health to lend money to the National Radium Trust, to prohibit certain advertisements relating to cancer, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid. The Act does not apply in Northern Ireland.

As of December 2014, the sole remaining provision is in respect of advertising to treat or cure cancer, all other provisions having been repealed or subsumed into other legislation.

The National Radium Trust was a British organisation, set up on 25 July 1929, and abolished with the introduction of the NHS in 1948. It was intended to collect funding from the general public, and use it for supplying radium and other radiotherapeutic devices, to treat sick people in Great Britain.

While the supposed purpose was such an act may be to keep the snake oil sales people and frauds at bay, it has also limited individuals in both researching and discussing alternatives in the UK.

Take this lady for example who wanted to find alternative ways to heal her cancer:
blog link

I pledged that when I recovered from my disease that I would do everything in my power to help others to recover too.

I decided that a six week evening course looking at the main therapies which helped me to recover on a week by week basis, would be a great way to reach those that needed my help

I planned my course, advertised it and was all set to go, very excited about getting out there and helping people with education and information about how they could give themselves the very best chance of recovering from cancer.

That was until the very nice man from trading standards sent me a not-so-nice letter telling me that the course was illegal!

Has anyone else heard of this act? I'm sure the big corporations are in love with a legal safety net like this. What better way to guarantee profits than limit free speech?!


Ghost

a reply to: ghostrager
Here in the US, we are bombarded every day with television ads selling pharmaceuticals to cure everything from erectile dysfunction to diabetes.

a reply to: butcherguy

A majority of the people in the UK do not pay for pharmaceuticals, it's funded by the NHS.
So there is little revenue to be made in advertising the treatments here because it's not based on insurance profits.
Other than little things like Paracetamol & Cough Medicine, there is no benefit to ads over here.


As to the OP, no I had never heard of such an Act and will look into it further.

It comes as no surprise though, not just because of the snake oil salesmen aspect, but because of the for profit long term treatments to the disease as well.

a reply to: ghostrager

When did people lose the ability to understand conflict of interest?

Allopathic Dr.s need sick helpless people. They are also joined at the hip with the Pharma pill mills. Of course they don't want you to know how well your body works on it's own with the right support.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: ghostrager
Here in the US, we are bombarded every day with television ads selling pharmaceuticals to cure everything from erectile dysfunction to diabetes.

That is a false statement. According the FDA we can't say that a treatment will cure anything. All we can do is "manage the symptoms". And this is one of the things wrong with our world today; when the disease is more profitable then the cure.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs



If the following article is correct. I was wrong. Apparently, if you've been indoctrinated by the medical establishment, the laws don't apply to you:

"Nothing in this section shall apply in respect of any advertisement published by a local authority or by the governing body of a voluntary hospital or by any person acting with the sanction of the Minister."

The Act does however allow cancer treatments to be advertised to registered doctors, registered nurses, registered pharmacists and students training in these professions. This allows the medical establishment to maintain its indoctrination on its conventional cancer treatments.

There's other good reading in this article too: linky

Butcherguy, I'm stateside so I'm all to familiar with the overload in pharmaceutical advertising. I remember reading sometime back about how companies use to spend more on research and little on advertising. Now it's flip flopped to where there is little on research and a lot on advertising. Those annoying commercials are part of the reason I don't watch TV anymore haha

Ghost

(4)In any proceedings for a contravention of subsection (1) of this section, it shall be a defence for the person charged to prove—

(a)that the advertisement to which the proceedings relate was published only so far as was reasonably necessary to bring it to the notice of persons of the following classes or of one or some of them, that is to say,—

(i)members of either House of Parliament or of a local authority or of a governing body of a voluntary hospital;

(ii). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F6

(iii)registered medical practitioners;

(iv)registered nurses;

(v)registered pharmacists and [F7persons lawfully conducting a retail pharmacy business in accordance with section 69 of the M1Medicines Act 1968];

(vi)persons undergoing training with a view to becoming registered medical practitioners, registered nurses or registered pharmacists;

Deciphering the legalese took a couple of readings, but on the basis of telling the bolded parties about such treatments, advertising, or raising awareness of such treatment is perfectly legal.

It's about going through the "proper channels" and removes the chances of snake oil salesmen fooling an important demographic.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

It's a double edged sword. You don't pay for pharmaceuticals and they can't buy ads on TV, but that also cripples innovation of new drugs and treatments.

originally posted by: Skada

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: ghostrager
Here in the US, we are bombarded every day with television ads selling pharmaceuticals to cure everything from erectile dysfunction to diabetes.

That is a false statement. According the FDA we can't say that a treatment will cure anything. All we can do is "manage the symptoms". And this is one of the things wrong with our world today; when the disease is more profitable then the cure.

Thank you!
You are correct, of course.

I think the UK has it right about how they dont met pharma advertise like they do here in the states.

Sounds like this is jut another example of it. Can't throw up some flash commercial saying this is the wonder drug and better then the rest.

a reply to: avgguy

Is that why all drug companies out here do is rebrand the same medication and make it cost more to the consumer?

Once something goes generic, after like 5 years they just come out with the new 'better' one.

Have a talk with a pharmacist about it one day.

a reply to: Skada

Your premise is completely wrong. The FDA says that you can't say that you can "cure" something because we have a nation full of idiots that will sue at the drop of a dime. For example, there are millions of Americans that could get their diabetes completely resolved by changing their lifestyle and taking metformin, but most choose to take metformin and eat a dozen donuts for breakfast anyways, thus making the disease worse.

a reply to: Sremmos80

So that proves what exactly?

The Act is meant to stop quacks and frauds offering unproven cures to people who (because they have cancer) are ripe to be exploited. It prohibits people advertising "cures" that that sound legitimate.

Here's the Act, which make sense to me.

www.legislation.gov.uk...

a reply to: ghostrager

There really is no 'cure' for cancer, and as you and many have mentioned it's to keep people from scamming others.

I am sure if there was a definitive for sure cure, and someone wants to come public with it like polio vaccine, doctors would not keep it from their patients and there would be no need to advertise the old fashion way, word of mouth and news articles would get the word out.

You want to market a cure for cancer?

Fine, jump through the hoops. Perform medical trials, publish your results and respond to the criticism of the wider scientific community.

Not anecdotes, not youtube videos, not flashy websites, just cold, hard science.

The unscrupulous leeches that market these BS cures for cancer by purchasing some magic beans make me sick.

a reply to: avgguy

Wasn't saying it proved anything, just asking why if the advertising drives the breakthroughs then why is it the same stuff is getting rehashed.

The answer is that they just want to make money treating the symptoms sure.

But I don't the causation that no ads equals no breakthroughs.

originally posted by: GetHyped
Perform medical trials, publish your results and respond to the criticism of the wider scientific community.

That would work if the wider scientific community for pharmaceutical trials weren't owned by big pharma. If a doctor or researcher came up with a drug that would cut into a pharma company's margins, or cure something, they'd do everything in their power to suppress it.

Cures aren't wanted. Dependency on medication is.

a reply to: EternalSolace

There's lots of public research into cancer treatments. All this "suppression" nonsense is very much an Americo-centric perspective. Most civilized countries have nationalized healthcare, Big Pharma doesn't have anywhere near the sway you think it does. And no, a cure for cancer would not only be a massive PR coup for a company but a licence to print money. Your logic is flawed and simplistic.

a reply to: GetHyped

If I'm not mistaken, all the research and treatments in the US must be approved by the FDA. So it's really not far fetched to think that pharmaceutical companies have a lot to lose should the FDA approve a medication or treatment that would sink them. The FDA even has authority over the advertising of drugs. So even if a public research team did find a cure for cancer, or anything for that matter, the FDA could potentially make sure it never sees the light of day. And if a researcher did go public, too many people have their trust placed in the FDA that will surely claim it's bogus.

It's hardly flawed logic. They're not as honest and forthcoming as you'd like to make them out to be.

Is The FDA Being Compromised By Pharma Payments?

“The forthcoming article in JLME also presents systematic, quantitative evidence that since the industry started making large contributions to the FDA for reviewing its drugs, as it makes large contributions to Congressmen who have promoted this substitution for publicly funded regulations, the FDA has sped up the review process with the result that drugs approved are significantly more likely to cause serious harm, hospitalizations, and deaths.”