Lenny The Not Doctor has been very quiet of late as far as I can tell... Or maybe I've just read too much of his shit and my brain is filtering out his drivel... As he still seems to have his penchant for posting idiotic links on Facebook... Just as long as they relate to some old alt.med baloney or conspiracy theory bollocks that is... Even if they contradict each other... I've been a bit short of new material and I can't currently face listening to his comedy accent or seeing his piggy face on YouTube... But this is a classic bit of Loony Lenny crap which proves that he either doesn't follow his own advice about using Google or, more likely, doesn't give a f**k whether what he posts is true or not as his rapidly dwindling audience will believe any old shite he spouts.
Anyhoo... There IS a Cancer Act 1939 but unfortunately for Tubby Coldwell everything else in his inane post is a load of old f**king bollocks.
The Cancer Act 1939 is an act of parliament in Britain and applies ONLY to England, Wales and Scotland (but not Northern Ireland curiously enough... Dunno why)... In common with every other piece of British legislation... Or British legislation since we generously allowed America to have its independence at any rate... And some still say that was a bad move... It doesn't actually apply to the good old these
So there you have it as far as jurisdiction goes... No doctor in the USA has ever been jailed under The Cancer Act 1939 for curing cancer for the simple reason that it doesn't apply there... So spot on the money as always there then Lenny... You putz!
Moving on to the actual act itself... Does it really stop medical practitioners advising their patients on treatment and is it really "a criminal act to cure cancer" over here in the UK?.. Of course it f**king isn't and never f**king has been... As always the good fake doctor is talking out of his big, fat, lazy f**king arse...
This is what section 4 of The Cancer \Act 1939 says... And section 4 is the only substantial part still in force...
(Note... The spaces and ..................... bits are not my selective editing... Would I do a thing like that? Well... Yeah I would but I haven't here.... They are bits that have been repealed over the years)(1)No person shall take any part in the publication of any advertisement—(a)containing an offer to treat any person for cancer, or to prescribe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(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 level 3 on the standard scale], and, in the case of a subsequent conviction, to a fine not exceeding Level 3 on the standard scale or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to both such a fine and such imprisonment.(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;(iii)registered medical practitioners;(iv)registered nurses;(v)registered pharmacists and persons lawfully conducting a retail pharmacy business in accordance with section 69 of the Medicines Act 1968;(vi)persons undergoing training with a view to becoming registered medical practitioners, registered nurses or registered pharmacists;(vii). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(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.
Now can you see anything in there which prevents REAL doctors treating their patients for cancer or advising them on treatment? No.. Because it's not there...
The act exists to deal with quacks, charlatans and snake-oil salesmen making money by selling worthless treatments to their victims... Now if Clodwell was actually based here in the UK he would be in very serious trouble as his nefarious activities would be clear breach of the act not to mention various other charges he'd face for false advertising, false representations and god knows what else... But he's not he lives in the US which is far more tolerant of quackery than it should be in my opinion.
For your edification and amusement here's a C+P from wikipedia...
According to an answer given in the House of Commons on 12 June 2014 there were 21 convictions under the Act between 1984 and 2013, since that date there have been another three.
- Steven Cook, fined £750 with costs of £1,500 in September 2014 for implying that colloidal silver could cure for cancer - the case was brought by Essex Trading Standards
- Stephen Ferguson, fined £1,750 with £2,500 costs and £120 victim surcharge in May 2014 for claiming that protein shakes and vitamin supplements had cured cancer in two of his patients - case brought by Westminster Trading Standards
- Errol Denton, fined £1,000 for each of 9 offences, with costs of £9,821 and a victim surcharge of £100 in March 2014 for claiming that live blood analysis, lifestyle changes and herbs could cure cancer - case brought by Westminster Trading Standards
- Adrian Pengelly, fined £600 with £2,000 costs and £15 victim surcharge in March 2010 for offering distance healing to cure cancer - case brought by Hereford Trading Standards
- Donna Sims, given a two-year conditional discharge with costs of £1,100 in August 2009 for offering herbal remedies for cancer - case brought by Gloucestershire Trading Standards
- Healthwize UK, fined £2,000 with £2,235 costs in March 2009 for selling ellagic acid with claims that it could inhibit the growth of cancer cells - case brought by Derbyshire Trading Standards
- Andrew Harris, who sold Triamazon via the Internet, received a two-year conditional discharge with £350 costs in September 2008 - case brought by Trafford Trading Standard
So there you have it... Another monumental display of fractal wrongness from everybody's favourite, fat, lying, ignorant fraud.
Oh... Here's a grab of the post in case he deletes it...