Cancer Act 1939

[copwatch]

The law passed In 1939 by the uk government making it illegal for anybody to advertise or promote a cure for cancer , I wonder how many people still think this conspiracy about pharma, cannabis and cancer is is still a theory now!!!!



Cancer Act 1939

1939 CHAPTER 13 2 and 3 Geo 6

An Act 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.

4 Prohibition of certain advertisements..

(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). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F3 .
(2)If any person contravenes any of the provisions of the foregoing subsection, he shall be liable on summary conviction, in the case of a first conviction, to a fine not exceeding [F4fifty pounds][F4level 3 on the standard scale], and, in the case of a subsequent conviction, to a fine not exceeding [F4one hundred pounds][F4level 3 on the standard scale] or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to both such a fine and such imprisonment. .
(3). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F5 .
(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; .
(vii). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F8 .
(b)that the said advertisement was published only in a publication of a technical character intended for circulation mainly amongst persons of the classes mentioned in the last preceding paragraph or one of some of those classes; or .
(c)that the said advertisement was published in such circumstances that he did not know and had no reason to believe that he was taking part in the publication thereof. .
(5)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. .
(6)A prosecution for an offence under this section shall not be instituted in England or Wales without the consent of the Attorney-General F9. . .. .
(7)Subject to the provisions of the last foregoing subsection, it shall be the duty of the council of every county and county borough to institute proceedings under this section. .
(8)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.

[damage inc 153]

heres link
[url]
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6/2-3/13[/url]

[bodge]

Dont have to advertise it, just "advise" about the qualities of certain natural medications such as the cannabis plant which has been proven time and time again to have far better results against cancer than chemo. Truth is of course the establishment must make money at your expense and life which they cant do if people heal themselves.

[Freeman Stephen]

Funny how marie curie died of cancer - an exotic illness back then -after farting about with radioactive chemicals. Marie curie was the virtually the discoverer of radiation and with scientific research we have managed to discover that it causes cancer. The funniest thing of all is that the treatment for cancer is to give people radioactive chemicals or as technology has allowed to give people doses of radiation emitted by some other means. It reminds me of how aids is treated with the use of immunosuppressants and i find it bizarre how with such techniques that the homeopathic technique is often shunned by those convinced in the efficacy of their textbook medicines from courses which are often funded by large pharmaceutical corporations. The homeopathic technique, i have been advised involves the idea of breaking someone's pinkie in order to heal their broken hand. Now i'm no doctor but surely the observant scientist must admit that the whole scenario seems like quackery upon initial observation and it does nothing to build confidence in such techniques when the response to questions regarding their effectiveness seems to involve anything from pejoraty to "i dont want that to be true therefore it isn't" but not any explanation that anyone can relate in common language which does not involve "i know big medical words that you will have to spend ages learning what they mean, therefor im right because i know more jargon than you". Can someone explain the apparent paradox in the radiation cancer link its treatment and the sudden rise in cancer rates as medical know how has improved?Can you do the same in regard to hiv and treatments which involve immune system suppressing drugs. Please dont tell me the medical community would never be so incompetent as its not so long ago they were feeding everyone leeches as recommended by the biggest leech farms in europe and if you consider my questioning to be impudent, i consider your lack of questioning to be unscientific. I accept that these are just initial observations if you accept the challenge of explaining the paradoxes with reason rather than rhetoric.

[vanilla]

Can someone explain the apparent paradox in the radiation cancer link its treatment and the sudden rise in cancer rates as medical know how has improved?Can you do the same in regard to hiv and treatments which involve immune system suppressing drugs. Please dont tell me the medical community would never be so incompetent as its not so long ago they were feeding everyone leeches as recommended by the biggest leech farms in europe and if you consider my questioning to be impudent, i consider your lack of questioning to be unscientific. I accept that these are just initial observations if you accept the challenge of explaining the paradoxes with reason rather than rhetoric.

Although cancer is more prevalent today, it's been found in people who died thousands of years ago. I think the main reason that cancer rates have risen as medical knowledge improved is because that medical knowledge has resulted in longer lifespans, and cancer is predominantly a disease of old age. When Marie Curie was born the average life expectancy was less than 50 if I remember correctly.

It's going to seem like a paradox to you if radioactivity is just something that causes cancer. An analogy might be that because knives cause injury and death, we should ban surgeons from using them as they're obviously doing harm. Radioactivity can stop a cell from functioning properly, and if you focus it on cancer cells it will stop them from functioning properly.

[p_devlin]

With successful radiation treatment the patient doesn't necessarily have to survive for the treatment to be recorded statistically as a success does it!

[vanilla]

With successful radiation treatment the patient doesn't necessarily have to survive for the treatment to be recorded statistically as a success does it!

I don't know, why don't you tell us who decides what a successful treatment is, and what the criteria are?

[p_devlin]

it wasn't a question!

Why are you here? you self admitted prick

[varana]

Well, it is so helpful to meet people who have healed their cancer, it is inspiring beyond belief.

[grant33]

Funny how marie curie died of cancer - an exotic illness back then -after farting about with radioactive chemicals. Marie curie was the virtually the discoverer of radiation and with scientific research we have managed to discover that it causes cancer. The funniest thing of all is cohiba robustos price that the treatment for cancer is to give people radioactive chemicals or as technology has allowed to give people doses of radiation emitted by some other means. It reminds me of how aids is treated with the use of immunosuppressants and i find it bizarre how with such techniques that the homeopathic technique is often shunned by those convinced in the efficacy of their textbook medicines from courses which are often funded by large pharmaceutical corporations. The homeopathic technique, i have been advised involves the idea of breaking someone's pinkie in order to heal their broken hand. Now i'm no doctor but surely the observant scientist must admit that the whole scenario seems like quackery upon initial observation and it does nothing to build confidence in such techniques when the response to questions regarding their effectiveness seems to involve anything from pejoraty to "i dont want that to be true therefore it isn't" but not any explanation that anyone can relate in common language which does not involve "i know big medical words that you will have to spend ages learning what they mean, therefor im right because i know more jargon than you". Can someone explain the apparent paradox in the radiation cancer link its treatment and the sudden rise in cancer rates as medical know how has improved?Can you do the same in regard to hiv and treatments which involve immune system suppressing drugs. Please dont tell me the medical community would never be so incompetent as its not so long ago they were feeding everyone leeches as recommended by the biggest leech farms in europe and if you consider my questioning to be impudent, i consider your Cialis Online lack of questioning to be unscientific. I accept that these are just initial observations if you accept the challenge of explaining the paradoxes with reason rather than rhetoric.

I totally agree!