If a group of people were denied rental of a private venue based on race, religion, age, sex, disability or sexual orientation, you can be sure the venue owners would be hauled into court in short order.
Without a doubt, there would also be vocal public outcry and a media backlash against such improper and distasteful behavior.
Apparently, however, discrimination by public officials and denial of use of a Civic Hall based on the medical beliefs of the conference speakers is allowed with nary a whimper from the surrounding community.
The Totnes Town Council in the UK withdrew its permission to use the local Civic Hall after learning that one of the Conference speakers would be Italian oncologist Tullio Simoncini, author of Cancer is a Fungus: A Revolution in Tumor Therapy.
Dr. Simoncini advocates the use of sodium bicarbonate instead of chemotherapy to combat the tumor growth of some cancers. Not surprisingly, like other doctors who have had the courage to challenge the chemotherapy standard of care, Dr. Simoncini has had his medical license revoked.
Troubles for the conference began when Local Member of Parliament (MP) Dr. Sarah Wollaston raised “concerns” about the Conference and the alternative health clinic sponsoring the event, Arcturus Clinic.
Arcturus Clinic, which offers complementary help to cancer patients, is run by General Practicioner, Dr. Stephen Hopwood who said,
“Trading Standards said I was in possible breach of regulations and I was asked to change a couple of things on my website.
“I was given seven days and I did it in seven hours, but as far as I know nobody’s bothered to check it.”
Trading Standards is the regulating body that enforces the Cancer Act of 1939 and the Consumer Protection From Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 which strive to shield vulnerable people from false and misleading advertising.
Dr. Hopwood went on to say that if Dr. Simoncini’s attendance at the Conference was the main sticking point, he would be happy to cancel his invitation to speak.
“He’s just one of 10 speakers, so I’m fine with that, but I haven’t been given that opportunity.”
Dr. Hopwood also denied that the Conference was breaking any law stating that:
“We are not promoting any therapy for the prevention or treatment of cancer…we are administering a range of healthcare modalities that are known to help support the body in a diseased state, particularly when affected by cancer.
There was never intended to be any goods or services sold or advertised at the conference. Additionally no advice was intended to be given that related to the treatment of cancer…The conference itself represents merely an exchange of information and views, albeit related to the theme of cancer.”
The Disturbing Rise of Medical Fascism
In response to Dr. Hopwood’s request as to whether the conference was now compliant with legislation after removing Dr. Simoncini from the conference lineup and making the requested changes to the clinic website, the Trading Standards responded with the following:
“The Cancer Act 1939 creates a criminal offense to take any part in the publication of any advertisement [for cancer treatment]. Your website and the conference itself does not fall into any of these exempt categories. Even the title of the conference and the title of your clinic, in our view, are likely to breach the legislation because of their promotion of cancer treatment.”
After Trading Standards asked for the booking to be cancelled and the conference banned, the Totnes Town Council caved to the pressure with the majority of councilors siding with the regulating body.
Totnes mayor Judy Westacott said,
“It’s regrettable to cancel any booking, but in the circumstances we took the advice of the trading standards.”
Regrettable? A mild word indeed.
How about unconscionable?
Medical Fascism has clearly taken root in the UK, even at a local level where authorities should be defending their citizens’ freedom of speech and assembly rather than cowering in the face of bullying by an overzealous state crazed with its own power and interpreting legislation in a manner which impinges on the basic rights of a free society.
Following the shocking action by Trading Standards and the shameful Totnes Town Council rubber stamp, the Alternative Cancer Conference apparently went underground where it took place on schedule at a private location for invited guests only.
Who won World War II again? Sir Winston Churchill is no doubt rolling over in his grave.
Sarah, The Healthy Home Economist
Source: Totnes Cancer Conference Venue Withdrawn
The Trials of the Totnes Cancer Health Care Conference
they will (maybe live to) regret this when they all get cancer and only have chemicals to put into their own bodies and suffer the consequences of those… serve them right…
i dont know but i would bet that the people at the top have access to different treatment than everyday citizens do.. its amazing what money can buy.. not to say that everyone doesnt die but ive always thought it was funny how magic johnson got hiv forever ago and appears happier and healthier than ever.. ive got to imagine this wouldnt be the case for john or jane doe..my understanding is that he still has the virus but has kept it under control with special treatment.. wonder if bluecross would cover the same treatment..
-jason and lisa-
I understand your line of thinking, but there’s Steve Jobs. He had pancreatic cancer, and was extremely wealthy (as I’m sure you know). He tried the alternative route, then the conventional route, then he died. No special life saving treatment for him, despite his wealth and celebrity.
Wow. I live in the UK, I was surprised to hear this a FEW weeks ago–esp in a progressive town like Totnes. That being said, something much worse happened to Dr. Burzynski and his work with Antineoplastons in the US.
Yes, any doctor who has success with an alternative treatment to the barbaric chemo/radiation approach is completely crucified by the Big Pharma dogs in the Federal bureaucracy.
Chemo is a very profitable line item on the balance sheet of the pharmaceutical industry. Mess with that and you are toast if you are a doctor.
Yes, it is always about the money for the big companies. The life, suffering and death of the ‘patients” means nothing to our government “protectors”.
The director of drug testing for the FDA was quoted recently as to why he allowed a type two diabetes drug to be approved despite safety objections from some of his staff. His answer was about how drug company executives were under great pressure to get new drugs approved, especially in a competitive area like diabetes.
This is what we have sunk to, where the pressure on drug company executives to produce results is more important than human lives and suffering. Sick.
Just saw this slogan the other day:
“PROFITS OVER PEOPLE”
Morally bankrupt…..can we get any lower?
i was hoping someone would mention dr. burzynski.. for anyone who doesnt know who he is, mercola has a free video on his website you can watch..
-jason and lisa-
What happened to Dr. Burzynski is truly horrible, but I view what happened in Totnes as even worse as it prohibits even a free discussion of ideas regarding alternative or complementary cancer therapies in a public forum that is outside of the cut/poison/burn approach of surgery/chemo/radiation.
agree.. not only are you not allowed to choose a method outside the box; you aren’t even allowed to talk about one.. soon we wont even be allowed to think about one.. my family urges me to join the medical field but i cant help but see it for what it has become.. i try explaining the corruption but i end up barking so far up the wrong tree i cant see straight.. trying to convince most people over the age of 60 that 20 pills a day isn’t normal is like pushing a truck to the top of a mountain.. the truck of course being the truth and the mountain being the trillions of dollars and decades spent brainwashing the “dumbed down masses..” we all know though with enough people, the truck can be pushed.. each attack on this movement gets a little more bizarre and extreme than the one before.. i believe it’s because people are waking up.. one by one people are finding the truth and this makes the billion dollar industry very very nervous..
-jason and lisa-
Sorry to be off topic guys but I need you’lls help. We’re about to start the GAPS diet and Im not sure if I was understanding her in the book…do we start taking the probiotic during the intro stage or when we get on full GAPS? Do you know Sarah or anyone else? Just dont wanna start this thing off wrong. Any help would be great thanks.
I never did intro .. just dived in to the whole thing from the get go and did the BioKult from the very start.
Per the 2010 revised edition of the GAPS book, the first form of probiotic is the liquid or brine from homemade sauerkraut, starting with the very first stage of the Intro diet and taken initially in very small amounts (1-2 tsp) and then slowly increasing. Fermented dairy can also be started very early in the Intro. See the sections on Intro and chapters on Probiotics and Dairy for more about this process.
As for commercial probiotics, per the gapsguide.com book update, take NO supplements prior to intro, and introduce GAPS supplements one at a time beginning at the end of stage 3. Alternate adding 1 supplement and 1-2 new foods, wait 4 days between new introductions. You want to increase slowly and reach a therapeutic level and continue that for 6 months, according to the GAPS book, and then drop down to a maintenance dose (again, see the chapter on Probiotics).
That’s my understanding anyway. If others know differently, please comment.
Thank you so much for responding guys! I have read the whole book but I was still left a bit confused. I thought she was saying to take the probiotic right away…a therapeutic one…but then I thought I read somewhere to wait. I think Im gonna buy the GAPS Guide book too. SOOO much to do to prepare! Thanks again!
The ignorant reliance on govt has been mass brainwashed into generations via the public schools & medical field..all ran by the govt..wake the hell up people..THAT IS the source and that IS what the schools were created to do
Let’s get out our crystal ball and gaze into it Dorothy!
Oh my freakin’ gosh…..
Yet I saw a pediatric center here in Texas yesterday that has a Little Ceasaers built into it. Ya.
Our local children’s hospital has several types of fast food restaurants in their “food court” :/
It’s getting ridiculouser and ridiculouser.
Unfortunately, the Medical Fascism you have exposed in the UK has existed in the US for a long time, especially around the treatment of cancer. A number of US researchers have come up with cures and successful treatments for various kinds of cancer. In most cases, under the guise of “protecting the public from fraud”, the FDA and various medical organizations have outlawed, banned and prevented the use of these cures and alternate treatments, often driving the researchers out of the country under threat of jail and fines. In the meantime, nobody protects the public from many dangerous, deadly, and extremely ineffective cancer treatments approved by the medical profession and the FDA.
Cancer treatment is huge money, and the money flow would end if cancer was cured. The real purpose of laws like the British Cancer Act is to protect the profits of the medical profession and drug companies. In a free nation, anyone faced with a terminal disease would have the right to try ANYTHING that might cure them. The decision should belong to the individual, not to a government that is influenced by powerful special interests.
The ancient Sumerians, who lived thousands of years ago, had a law that no doctor could be paid until the patient was cured. If the doctor did not cure the patient, the doctor would not get paid. If only we had such a law.
I would even say: In a free nation, anyone faced with a terminal disease would have the right to try ANYTHING that might that they wanted try out as a cure or treatment regardless of government decisions about efficacy or anything else. It simply should not be regarded as the proper job of government to decide for us what to believe whether speaking of religion or evaluation of scientific evidence. Individual need to retain the right to do that for themselves.
In such a case I can decide that baking soda treatment is awesome, or quackery or even dangerous for myself and my family. And anyone who chooses differently is free to do so as well.
I know the question was asked in an old blog post about whether or not a person would choose to undergo radiation or chemo. My husband and I discussed this after my mother’s cancer battle was finally over. And what place can the government rightly be said to have to jump in there and tell us what our answer is?
Sheril, I could not agree more.
Yes, in fact, the very nutritionist/Phd who practiced in partnership with a DO who RECOMMENDED and introduced me to raw milk for the first time was a gifted alternative cancer healer and was harassed and threatened by the FDA on numerous occasions including going through his trash out the back of his office after hours.
That is just crazy! I am thankful for the internet now because many of these stories would not be made available and we need to know! The news media is the slowest source for anything as was proved by your story regarding the Hershey Medical Center couple! I am so disgusted with the greed in medicine. So much so that I decided to do something about it and am studying alternative medicine myself so I can truly help people to heal. I wish more people would pick up the baton and do that. I also wish I knew what to do about government crimes.
Makes me wonder how Dr. Nicolas Gonzalez can practice. Maybe because of his media presence. Do you know of him? My sister knows someone who was cured by him.
http://www.dr-gonzalez.com/index.htm
Don’t you know, we’re not allowed to cure cancer, only manage and treat it and profit mightily in doing so.
“Trading Standards is the regulating body that enforces the Cancer Act of 1939 and the Consumer Protection From Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 which strive to shield vulnerable people from false and misleading advertising.”
And therein lies the crux of the matter: “vulnerable people”
The controversy in all of this is the problem of how many people are willing to trade freedom for protection. Just why are we willing to say that we are vulnerable rather than empowered? And why are those who are saying it about themselves so unjust as to be ready to make that decision for others? in fact, for every single other person effected by the oppression they create when they abdicate freedom and responsibility?
WELL SAID SHERIL!!!! I am a 28 yr. veteran of the medical community and I still am absolutely shocked by the audacity of people to try to CONTROL others in their personal decisions! WAKE UP FOLKS! Dig a little and find out the truth of every situation! THINK!