While cricket turns an emotional pink at the SCG, the NSW Wales Parliament has launched an inquiry into “THE PROMOTION OF FALSE OR MISLEADING HEALTH-RELATED INFORMATION OR PRACTICES”. As cancer has deeply affected me personally, I wonder what might have saved my brother. Surgery did not. – DMcL.
I post this article below by Mary W Maxwell, PhD, LLB
The Concept of Quackery Regarding Cancer Cures, and a Call for Submissions by the NSW Parliament.
When one is reading about cancer cures, one has to be alert to the strategies used by disinformation artists – on both sides! Applying the term “quack” to an innovative doctor is one of the most effective strategies of the orthodox side.
Is it really likely that a trained practitioner of medicine would indulge in quackery? Maybe it happens occasionally, but I find it hard to picture a doctor who had already enjoyed the prestige of the profession delving subsequently into unscientific nonsense.
Consider the possibility that well-publicized instances of quackery are psy-ops. The alleged cancer cure would create a cult of followers, then later be exposed as fraudulent or embarrassingly foolish. This would help create a “tradition of quacks” that can be referred to when someone wants to suppress a genuine cure.
Scamming, for financial gain, should be considered to be a separate matter from quacking. The snake oil salesmen you have always with you, so to speak. It’s fair to assume that anyone who can make a killing by selling a bottle of a “cancer cure,” or a magic machine, will do so. In fact, skepticism should come into play whenever a cure looks over-priced.
How about testimonials that swear to a cancer cure? Youtube has some earnest-sounding ones (and I believe many of them). They can’t be solidly relied on, however, unless the full name is given, and even where it is given you might not have a way to contact the person. Why place faith in a testimonial-giver unless you can talk to her? After all, she is purporting to talk to you, so she should be willing to be questioned.
When conducting investigations for my book “Consider the Lilies: A Review of 18 Cures for Cancer and Their Legal Status,” I became persuaded that most of the criticism of the cancer-cure doctors was maliciously motivated. Here are some of the conclusions I reached, offered now for anyone who cares to challenge them or add to them:
1. In the early 20th century, general practitioners had many good cures, or at least helpful treatments, for cancer.
2. Someone (whom I call The Powerful, I don’t know the names) decided that folks were not supposed to be cured of cancer. Therefore the various cancer cures had to be suppressed, and they were indeed ruthlessly kept off, or taken off, the market. (Radiation treatment and chemotherapy became the approved orthodox methods.)
3. Even now most doctors remain unaware of the cures developed by well-qualified MDs such as Emanuel Revici, Max Gerson, George Miley, Virginia Livingston, William Coley, Thomas Glover, Ryke Hamer, and Bjorn Nordenstrom.
4. They also seem unaware that physicians had used, with great success, the ideas of non-MD’s, such as Johanna Budwig (a biochemist), John Beard (a zoologist), John Ott (a botany photographer), Dinshah Ghadiali (an inventor), and Georges Lakhovsky (an engineer).
5. Trying to control tens of thousands of doctors was not easy but intermediary authorities contributed to the effort. These included: editors of medical journals who decided what information should be held back, state legislators who passed laws insisting that only certain cancer treatments be legally allowed, and the staff of Foundations who allocated research funding.
6. In the US, federal agencies such as the CDC and FDA claim a right to control medicine for the public good. Oh dear. Then there’s the American Medical Association, which poses as a guardian of science, but which anyone can see is an ordinary trade union. Allied with media these groups can do anything!
7. The largest obstruction to recognition of the many effective cancer cures is the fear by the doctors themselves. The social disgrace and financial ruin of having one’s medical licence withdrawn is an ever-present threat. Indeed, it’s worse than that; physicians are at least subconsciously aware that going against The Powerful may result in physical violence.
8. Annoyingly, both the doctors and the public seem unwilling to talk about the rough play of politics in medicine, and refuse to notice that The Powerful take delight in genocide.
In the “Consider the Lilies” book, I tried to identify doctors who may be participating in some way in the game played by the higher-ups. I cannot know if my hunches are correct. (And I should say that if correct it still may be that the doctor made the right decision.) Stanislaw Burzynski, MD, has been famously persecuted; I sense that he in some way agreed to be persecuted. William Coley, MD, seems to me to have held back on his 1890s work voluntarily. So did George Crile, Sr, MD, who saw the electric aspect of cancer. Perhaps the government asked Crile to refrain from giving away “military secrets”; that would have been a hard request to turn down, circa 1928.
I vaguely suspect Evangelos Michelakis, MD, in Canada, of condoning the delays in the (God-almighty) clinical trials of his recently-discovered dichloroacetate antidote to cancer. Maybe he is just a mild-mannered person, but if it were me with a new cure and the authorities frustrated my work I would throw a fit. Definitely I would go tropo and insist that the cure be tested without the orthodox “trialling” that costs a billion $. (Like when did the human species stop being reasonable?)
Luckily, Australians have a chance to go tropo, officially! The Parliament of New South Wales is calling for submissions on a legislative proposal that would make it illegal for people to dissuade anyone from seeking (orthodox) medical advice. The theme here is that the public needs protection from quacks.
While it’s wise to oppose quackery, quackdom, and quacko prosperity, surely the way to put an end to quacks is not by encumbering citizens’ freedom of speech or freedom of thought. Crikey. We have hardly any “thought” left these days. To erode it further would really snuff the lights out.
The following is an invitation for anyone to help guide NSW:
PARLIAMENT OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMITTEE ON THE HEALTH CARE COMPLAINTS COMMISSION
‘INQUIRY INTO THE PROMOTION OF FALSE OR MISLEADING HEALTH-RELATED INFORMATION OR PRACTICES.’ [Note: Deadline for submissions is Feb 7, 2014]
TERMS OF REFERENCE – That the Committee on the Health Care Complaints Commission inquire into and report on possible measures to address the promotion of unscientific health-related information or practices which may be detrimental [SAYS WHO?] to individual or public health. – The Inquiry will focus on individuals who are not recognised health practitioners…
The Committee will have particular regard to: –
. (a) – The publication and/or dissemination of false or misleading health-related information that may cause general community mistrust of, or anxiety toward, accepted medical practice; [CRINGE, CRINGE]
. (b) – The publication and/or dissemination of information that encourages individuals… to unsafely refuse preventative health measures, medical treatments, or cures; [SERIOUSLY!!!]
. (c) – The promotion of health-related activities and/or provision of treatment that departs from accepted medical practice which may be harmful to individual or public health; …
. (e) – The capacity, appropriateness, and effectiveness of the Health Care Complaints Commission to take enforcement action against such organisations or individuals; and
. (f) – Any other related matter. [HELLO?]
Mary Maxwell, PhD, LLB, lives in Adelaide. Please contact her at her website, ProsecutionForTreason.com, if you’d like to work on an outside-the-box submission to NSW re the above.
The NSW website says:
“It is preferable that a submission is written and in electronic format, although this is not essential. Other formats such as video and audiotape are acceptable.” (Note: You need Parliament’s permission to publicize your submission.)