Post by Stephen on May 1, 2008 11:07:25 GMT
Ralph Nimmann contributes to and quite possibly runs a website called Healing and Health Page Cambridge where there are different sections of what we on BP would commonly know as Woo.
It was on this site that I came across a particular link called Cancer Cure? (Note the all important question mark; I’ll come onto that later)
When you first look at this page you see the big disclaimer in a white border, to paraphrase…
’The webmaster (Ralph?) is not a Dr; the information contained is not medical advice but is there to trigger research into prevention and low cost cancer treatments’.
You will also see that there are links to other external disclaimers on the site and direct links back to his disclaimer at the top of the page.
Thanks to the link on website disclaimers www.icthubknowledgebase.org.uk/websitedisclaimers provided by Lucan, it is plain to see that this webmaster has read similar recommendations and is trying to limit any liability/prosecutions/civil claims that may come their way in relation to The Cancer Act 1939 and any other Acts and Regulations .
They have obviously been made aware that making claims for curing cancer is illegal in the UK so in January 2007 they changed the header from the statement ‘The Cure for all Cancers” into a question “Cancer Cure?” and stuck heaps of disclaimers in there. What hasn’t changed though is the contents of the information, it’s the same now as it was wayback in December 1998. web.archive.org/web/*/http:/www.cam.net.uk/home/aaa315/healing/CANCER.HTM
Considering this information, do you think they are complying with the Cancer Act 1939 or are they are sailing perilously close to being in breach of it? Let’s examine Section 4 (1) (a) of The Cancer Act 1939 to find out
S4. (1) No person shall take any part in the publication of any advertisement –
So the question now is will a website disclaimer protect them from prosecution under S4 of The Cancer Act? To quote a note from an article from UK Skeptics
‘In UK law, a disclaimer does not absolve a person or organisation from their responsibility. They can still be prosecuted. An unreasonable or inappropriate disclaimer will not act as a valid defence in a court of law’
Using this information, I have come to the conclusion that despite the lengths the webmaster of this site has gone to circumvent The Cancer Act 1939 by littering the site with disclaimers, the decision to leave the following text:
The book gives instructions how to treat cancer…
Procedure according to this book…
The grape treatment cured lung cancer in two weeks…
Start the treatment like this...
And their subsequent ingredients/methods of use, it is reasonable to suggest that they are in breach of S4 of The Cancer Act 1939 and are open to prosecution.
*edited to put in the reasonable suggestion of a breach
It was on this site that I came across a particular link called Cancer Cure? (Note the all important question mark; I’ll come onto that later)
When you first look at this page you see the big disclaimer in a white border, to paraphrase…
’The webmaster (Ralph?) is not a Dr; the information contained is not medical advice but is there to trigger research into prevention and low cost cancer treatments’.
You will also see that there are links to other external disclaimers on the site and direct links back to his disclaimer at the top of the page.
Thanks to the link on website disclaimers www.icthubknowledgebase.org.uk/websitedisclaimers provided by Lucan, it is plain to see that this webmaster has read similar recommendations and is trying to limit any liability/prosecutions/civil claims that may come their way in relation to The Cancer Act 1939 and any other Acts and Regulations .
They have obviously been made aware that making claims for curing cancer is illegal in the UK so in January 2007 they changed the header from the statement ‘The Cure for all Cancers” into a question “Cancer Cure?” and stuck heaps of disclaimers in there. What hasn’t changed though is the contents of the information, it’s the same now as it was wayback in December 1998. web.archive.org/web/*/http:/www.cam.net.uk/home/aaa315/healing/CANCER.HTM
Considering this information, do you think they are complying with the Cancer Act 1939 or are they are sailing perilously close to being in breach of it? Let’s examine Section 4 (1) (a) of The Cancer Act 1939 to find out
S4. (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;
Are they offering to treat cancer? No
Are they prescribing any remedy? No
Are they giving any advice in the connection with the treatment of cancer? Yes BUT they conveniently have a disclaimer saying ‘All text on this page is not medical advice - for medical advice, consult with your physician’.
So the question now is will a website disclaimer protect them from prosecution under S4 of The Cancer Act? To quote a note from an article from UK Skeptics
‘In UK law, a disclaimer does not absolve a person or organisation from their responsibility. They can still be prosecuted. An unreasonable or inappropriate disclaimer will not act as a valid defence in a court of law’
Using this information, I have come to the conclusion that despite the lengths the webmaster of this site has gone to circumvent The Cancer Act 1939 by littering the site with disclaimers, the decision to leave the following text:
The book gives instructions how to treat cancer…
Procedure according to this book…
The grape treatment cured lung cancer in two weeks…
Start the treatment like this...
And their subsequent ingredients/methods of use, it is reasonable to suggest that they are in breach of S4 of The Cancer Act 1939 and are open to prosecution.
*edited to put in the reasonable suggestion of a breach