In my opinion, freedom of speech ends where someone can be physically harmed by such speech. I am extremely pro-free speech, but Cancer Act 1939 is necessary legislation. If anything, it should be updated to make punishment harsher. Reply
This is great news! I think that we should bear in mind for future the impact that having an MP on side can have! Great work everyone!! Reply
No doubt there will be cries about free speech, but this is not about free speech: it’s about protecting potentially vulnerable people from unproven and disproven miracle cures. I am 100% behind this statement. Reply
It hasn’t been cancelled. The venue has just been moved but the conference will still go ahead. Sorry to burst your bubble, but freedom of speech prevails Reply
Trading Standards have made them remove stuff from their website and they’ve told one of their speakers (the one who believes sodium bicarbonate can treat cancer) not to attend. Nothing to do with freedom of speech; all to do with protecting the public from dangerous and misleading health claims — that’s what Trading Standards and the law are for. Reply
Yes but dangerous and misleading claims should extend to implying that chemotherapy can cure cancer. Where exactly is the evidence for that? It destroys the immune system and the body’s ability to repair itself, so if you are lucky enough to survive in spite of receiving chemotherapy, it is very likely that the cancer will return since your body no longer has its natural defence mechanisms in place to prevent it. Same with radiotherapy. Radiation CAUSES cancer; it doesn’t cure it. The only conventional method that has any merit is an operation to remove a tumour, provided the whole tumour can be removed in one procedure. Removing just a part of it tends to cause metastasis. Reply
Good grief. This is about ‘miracle’ cancer cures being uncritically and potentially illegally promoted to the public. And please do some research about chemotherapy. Here’s something simple to get you started. Reply
Anonymous said: Actually, the majority of laws passed are made to protect corporate interest, not the public. Are they really? Citation needed. Reply
Having read that I still can’t see any concrete proof that those who survive do so BECAUSE of the treatment, and not in spite of it. The sad truth is many researchers will cherry pick studies and random bits of research that happen to back up their claim, so it often seems as though a drug is working when really it isn’t. I’m not saying the same isn’t occasionally true of complementary medicine too, but I’d rather take my chances with a few relatively harmless herbs and vitamins than with a shot of poison whose side effects include vision loss, early dementia, muscle wasting and death. On another note though, if cancer is not related to natural nutrition and lifestyle choices, how do you explain the dramatic surge in cancer cases in the last few decades, when it used to be an extremely rare disease that few people had ever even heard of? Reply
Since it has nothing to do with the subject of this blog post it is therefore off-topic, and I’ll leave it to you to do whatever further research you wish. Reply
Another way of saying you can’t think of an answer I guess. Oh well, it was worth a shot. I suppose I’ll never convince you that alternative treatments work; and years of extensive research and a fully functional brain mean I’ll never believe the crackpot chemotherapy pushers either, so we’ll just have to agree to differ. Reply
Dr Stephen Hopwood Watch – New Age Swindler http://drhopwoodwatch.blogspot.co.uk/ I found this on google and I thought to myself: “Who has written this agressive blog?” There is no name on it. Some one is trying to make Steven look bad but not willing to put his own reputation on the line. If you want to contact me leave your email address here and I will be in touch. Reply