Cancer Convention comes under fire! Read On!

If we think we live in a land of free speech and information, we are truly wrong, or perhaps it depends what you want to speak about.

It seems that unfair, misleading and down right untruths are allowed and that these can be delivered by a person/persons hiding behind a pseudonym.

They can call for information to be removed or seek to have views and opinions squashed, which in turn prevents information and choice being available to the public and still not identify themselves.

In October 2012, Cichealth has planned a convention that will bring together various therapies and techniques that are currently being used and developed that may be able to help support healthy tissue

Clearly according to the 1939 Cancer Act, we are not allowed to say that any therapy can treat a person for cancer or provide a cure, but no one can promise a cure, be it allopathic medicine or a more complementary/naturopathic approach.

Our speakers at the convention have attracted the attention of a most insidious website that calls itself the Quackometer. I will give you the full route to find it as we at Cichealth have nothing to hide and are more than happy for any reader to view the ridiculous writings of the 'Le canard noir'
www.quackometer.net

The convention would welcome the participation of a representative from the Quackometer site if they could offer something constructive and agree to appear as themselves or may be they choose to hide.

I find it ludicrous that any one should want to hide behind a pseudonym, let alone one as ridiculous as 'Le canard noir' oh please!!

Still, some seem to have free speech and can write whatever without revealing who they are. They can slate professionals and never reveal themselves, yet the public are not allowed to have anyone aim treatments at them, with any indication that those treatments may help in the treatment of cancer.

Are we to assume the public are too stupid to discern a path way for themselves or perhaps seek to further their own knowledge on treatments that are available. Interesting appraisal on the public in general.

Does a law protect and if so who? Is it the 'stupid' public or the interests of the NHS and all that it entails, drug companies and other vested financial interests.

Cancer is a vast industry world wide, So many jobs depend on it and it alone! From those that have specialised in it as a career, the drug companies with there new patents on yet another drug for it all the way to the huge charity organisations that fund raise for the research and supporting of the sufferers.

It must bring in the highest amount of money from charity than any other illness and that is because it is an illness with such fear around it. That is a fact that is played on to extract money from the public to help in the research into cancer, yet where are the results for the vast sums that the public so generously poor into it?

The cancer act is obviously there to protect the public at vulnerable times, if we are to assume that the public at large can not be objective, yet there are no laws that say you can not prey on people for their money with such emotive tactics.


I found it disgusting that while my sister was in hospital on a cancer ward, that one of the cancer charities box came round. For a donation, you could have a daffodil pin or pink ribbon etc etc.

If you are not allowed to inform the public what is available that may help in the treatment of disease, then should it be allowed that money tins are rattled under the noses of those suffering with the very disease you are collecting for or play on the emotions of the relatives at that time?


The answer to the 'cure' of cancer is not singular. It could be assumed that is is as different as there are people that contract it.
Is the word 'cure' too positive? Aiming for a cure? Far too positive it seems. We are only allowed to aim for remission!  Well that's great!  I like to think if I was struck with this problem, I would be aiming for a cure and not a remission, but then there is no money in curing cancer or any disease.  Money in ill health but not in health!

Who makes the most money in this?  Well we don't need to look beyond drug companies for the answer to that and we all know how desperate they can be.

Great play is made of the money that the so called 'alternative' treatments charge, but is that true? I know many excellent therapists that most certainly do not charge excessively for their skills and very often in treating cancer either charge less or give their time voluntarily.

I don't think drug companies are handing over free drugs or oncologists not taking their salaries.

In life we should be allowed to be informed of what ever is available and as long as nothing is deemed as a cure then let the information be out there and debated/discussed and questioned by the public.

I just happen to believe that we the public are not silly and can be informed of things and then make considered judgements. Better to know what may be available and how it may benefit before a problem in the health arises, they may even discover how to prevent illness such as potentially serious ones in the first place.

Why is cancer so different to other ills in terms of the law. Perhaps its because the NHS make it so fear based that they themselves make the sufferer vulnerable rather than empowered. It is easier to get a patient to comply if they are coming from a base of fear rather than one of taking control.

It does seem that the public are denied choice under this act though, as how would your everyday person in the street know what is out there if other methods are not allowed to be given an opportunity to be heard

Cichealth make no claim that any of the treatments being discussed are a cure for treating any person for cancer as the act states, neither do we say they are a cure in themselves.
It is an opportunity to hear and debate the treatments and nothing more.
That must surely be allowed in a country that prides itself on free speech and education.

The speakers are of the highest calibre and all professionals, so lets respect that and give all the opportunity to hear views.

If you can be bothered to visit the Quackometer site, and I do urge you to, as you will no doubt see the ridiculous way information can become misinformation by what I'm sure the author considers himself to be skilful in.

Patricia Peat has given an invitation to her critics to go and speak with her, but of course that may reveal the truth and clearly Quackometer are not so keen on that.

Bill Bradford has most certainly never claimed that Meditherm's thermal imaging is a replacement for mammography and I would like to see where Le canard noir can prove otherwise from Bill.

Re Steve Hickey, It is easy to throw suspicion on to a speaker by claiming that there is no record of that person working at a particular organisation...pity they don't add that they did, but have moved on to other areas as we all do in our work.  Some how it doesn't have the same sinister 'suggesting of a lie' about it.

I could go through all our speakers and correct the misinformation that this Quackometer site has deemed to write, but given all our speakers are of the utmost professional being, they really do not need me to do that. Their work speaks for them.

So Le canard noir, cheap tricks in your writings are just that and our far from stupid members of the public see right through them.

For more information on the convention www.cichealth.org.uk  click on 'Cancer Convention'

Please visit the Quackometer site and as you do keep a large pinch of salt handy!

HPV - To Vaccine or not to Vaccine

Is this vaccine, be it Gardasil or Cervarix, just one vaccine that is really not essential?
Its results are still to come of course. At this stage, we do not know if the vaccination programme in the long term is either safe or effective.

Having just attended a talk on the Human Papilloma Virus, HPV, it was enlightening to say the least. Interesting that it is agreed that the vaccination is ineffective in women who are already sexually active, so therefore needs to be given to young girls, very young girls in fact! but it is not known if the vaccine is 'protective' for life.

We could well be allowing young girls to be vaccinated for something that hopefully they will not contract due to their age and not sexually active, yet when they finally reach that stage of their lives, the vaccine could well have lost any protective quality it may have had.
By this time they will be sexually active and the vaccine is then considered ineffective!!......

Doesn't this seem ironic?

But what if it is decided that the vaccine would be offered to all women? Well a study shows that where the vaccine was used for sexually active women, they had a greater chance of developing cervical cancer! some increase of 44%

The issue of vaccination is a whole debating subject on its own, but if we just look at the Gardasil and Cervarix vaccines, both of these are set to protect against only 4 or 2 strands of the HPV and genital warts in the case of Gardasil, respectively, we see that we are spending money on a drug that is barely effective at all given the number of strains of HPV that could be problematic.
Yes, i'm sure they feel that they have selected the most likely strands, but what if it is one of the many other strands that causes a problem, then the vaccine is likely to give a false sense of protection.

Let us hope that they never do away with regular smear tests, just in case it is one of the other strands causing a problem, or we discover that the vaccine has a short protection or like many vaccines, none at all or very insignificant.

Our speaker informed us that from June this year in the UK, when a smear test is given, if any abnormal cells are found, then a test for HPV will be carried out. If this is also present then those women will be referred to the Colcoscopy Clinic.

I can see more women being fearful, to then come under a hospital department for what is very likely the innocent development of a virus that due to its transient nature will naturally be dealt with by the bodies immune system.

As my previous blog stated, the presence of HPV is not always there for cervical cancer to develop and equally we can have the virus and never develop cancer.
Our expert speaker agreed that it is a transient virus and so by its very nature comes and goes, so why do some develop cancer and others not?
When i asked her this question, her answer was immunity! When i asked how that might be rectified, her answer was diet, eat more veg!, stop smoking etc, but it was said with a certain flippancy as if no one would do that, so lets vaccinate instead.

Well are we really that stupid that we think a vaccine will then allow us to not look after our own immunity?
If that is the case, what a sad indictment on society. We want the state to stick a needle in us so we don't have to bother.

Surely we should be looking at what is causing the problem ie why do some develop cancer and others don't and if that is falling on poor immunity, then lets fix that problem. A vaccine will put pressure on the immune system in a way that is alien to the body, therefore weakening it and not strengthening it. Going for the real cause and addressing that, has got to be better than ignoring that and working on the next stage that allows the HPV to develop.

Wouldn't it be great for our doctors to be knowledgeable on natures medicine - Food!  We may all start to live healthier for longer without the need for vaccinations and other immunorepressant medicines.

If you have daughters being offered the vaccination, don't let ignorance or peer pressure affect your decision. There is no rush to ever having something like a vaccine done - check all the facts first and all the known side effects and remember your child doesn't have to be an acceptable statistic if they fall ill or worse - die,

The US has been using Gardasil and its track record is far from right, so why has the UK opted for this?

Think not of what your doctor can vaccinate you for, but what lifestyle changes you can easily make to improve your chances of remaining well and healthy.

Gardasil - A vaccine to far with a GM element!

To the parents or guardians of all young girls and if MERCK get their way, boys as well, view the Gardasil vaccine as highly suspicious. A vaccine with a GM element, fast tracked and MERCK wanting to almost give it away to poorer nations.....Its track record in the states is one with too many horror stories...just remember that if the horror story is your child, is that an acceptable risk?? This vaccine is due to replace the GSK vaccine of Cervarix  in September in the UK, why are we not making a fuss about this, why does it have such a low profile in the media??

It is a costly vaccine and does it have proven effectiveness over a good old fashioned smear test? I doubt it! It doesn't cover all forms of HPV by any means and you can carry this and never develop cancer or not carry it and develop it! Let’s stick with a smear test and not put the health of our young people at risk.

We don't know the effect of GM ingredients on our systems through food, never mind in a vaccine! If ever there is something to avoid, it has to be GM and this vaccine in particular.

As parents, our fear for our children gets played on by the health service who have the might of the drug companies breathing down them, let’s not be at the bottom of a fear based chain that has nothing to do with health.

HPV vaccines may well be one step too far, check the evidence from the US, ignore the statistics that can never prove or disprove a negative anyway and don't let your child be the 'acceptable risk'

If we are to have vaccines - make them safe - just check what else goes into that vaccine - you probably wouldn't want it then!  We don't want them fast tracked and we don't need them with any connection to GM

Lastly remember that drug companies have shareholders, they are businesses and desperate to make their money, after all that is what we expect businesses to do, do we not?  Let it not be to the detriment of our children!