This is what the 1939 Cancer Act has to to say:
A healer doesn't have to use the words "I can cure cancer" to break the law. The use of deviously worded statements and testimonials such as the ones I mention in my BadPsychics article about Pengelly is enough to merit a warning from Trading Standards, and prosecution if the offence is repeated. Gary Mannion and Nina Knowland, two so-called "healers" well known to regular readers of this forum, received warnings from their local Trading Standards offices for making claims of this kind.No person shall take any part in the publication of any advertisement 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.
Flanders, come on !
The site is directly linked to his own, please stop fluffing this up !
As for Veterinary laws go back to certain posts and l suggest you take a look at other animal healers sites who correctly ask for veterinary referal before treatment, most also have links to the RCVS act and I suggest you read that act !. He clearly claims to be quicker, cheaper and have a better diagnostic rate than vets. When you read that act you will discover it is illegal for anyone other than a vet to make a diagnosis. He is breaking the law.
Mr Pengelly claims somewhere on his site that he has a 95% success rate, success to us normal mere mortals who would seek treatment does mean CURE ! he even claims to be working on the other 5% I would expect from the way he words his pages to have a 95% chance of a cure even if we were talking about cancer !
hey guys, it all very well arguing about the difference between claiming to treat cancer and claiming to cure cancer. However take another look at the cancer act.
So advertising a claim to treat cancer is still a no-no.4. Prohibition of certain advertisements.— (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;
The question you should be asking yourselves is whether his website constitutes an advertisment.
as such I refer you to the Cancer act once more.
(8) In this section the expression “advertisement” includes any notice, circular, label, wrapper or other document, and any announcement made orally or by any means of producing or transmitting sounds.
Last edited by Matt; 6th April 2009 at 11:55 AM. Reason: Disable Smilies for list item 8
Spot on Julia, I hope you are looking forward to Mr Pengelly's replies to Flanders as much as i am. I feel they won't be long !Originally Posted by Julia
Well, if this is the case then all is fair. I'm sure Trading Standards will do their usual adequate job and all references to cancer will be removed. I bow to their authority, mea culpa.
However, at this point I can only express my hope that the diabolical assertions that have taken place over the previous pages of this discussion are replaced with intelligent informed debate. I am still unclear as to how you are aware that Mr Pengelly has a girlfriend, the evidence you have that this lady has bought him a title, the reason you feel this is important and your justification for investigating his academic qualifications.
In light of the information I have received I would strongly suggest that any assertions that are made are backed up with strong evidence to support them. From the information I have gained this morning, It would appear that Mr Pengelly has been the victim of a witch hunt previously, which is the subject of current legal action instigated against an individual responsible for making various assertions about his character. This individual is known for making accusations on various internet sites and forums with claims that they have evidence of a wide range of misdeeds by Mr Pengelly. This individual has been arrested on a number of occasions and has failed to provide the police with any evidence of their claims. From what I understand many of these claims are extremely serious. In light of this - and I am contacting Mr Pengelly's solicitors to confirm this - I would suggest that we are all extremely careful as to the assertions that are made on here. Let us keep them polite, genial and non-offensive. Perhaps Tangleblossom and others you would like to provide your evidence to your local police, I'm sure this individual would value your contribution to her case.
While I support the general intention of the Cancer Act as it applies here, doesn't it rather pre-suppose that cancer is incurable and always will be? What if someone really found a cure for cancer? Would they be prohibited from telling the rest of us about it?
I seem to remember a similar (though obviously rather less crucial) prohibition on advertising any way to restore hair growth, and yet we are now shown adverts for things like Nourkrin and Regaine wherever we go. Was there some point at which the scientific evidence for effective treatment found its way into the law, or (more likely) did a government in thrall to commercial interests simply drop the prohibition without requiring scientific evidence?
Whatever the case, could the same sort of thing happen regarding cancer?
Hi Matt
As cancer act was way before the world wide web I am sure Advertising is Advertising in the eyes of the GMC, Trading Standards and common law. Well one would hope so.
Since when are questions of defamation a matter for the police, or grounds for anyone to be arrested? Surely these are civil matters in which the police have no role.
The hairloss may have been a treatment involving medication so it would have been illegal until tested and approved under NICE guidlines.
The relevant authorities have already been informed so let's wait and see.
Well, I'm only just catching up with this thread but you do have a point.
I'm getting the feeling that there's not just concern about the type and legality of Pengelly's claims here but that there's also a personal element to this.
As skeptics, we'll deal with the claims but we're not here to take sides in interpersonal disputes.
So let's keep things factual and relevant to what's in the public interest - i.e. false and/or illegal claims.
.
Normally, yes Trinoc. But it would seem these accusations are more than defamatory. I am aware of what has been said, and in the interests of fairness I have contacted Mr Pengelly to inform him of the purposes of my earlier email and to notify him of the discussion on this website. Some serious accusations have been made all of which have been disproved so far, but as I understand it the situation is ongoing. Therefore I recommend that all further discussion of Mr Pengelly is limited to his role as a healer.
I once saw this many years ago with a psychic who attracted some unwanted attention from a former girlfriend. The poor man was hounded everywhere he turned with claims of all sorts of horrors. Aside from whether this man was a fraud, a conman or, may I hazard, a genuine psychic, his life was made unbearable due to the attentions of his former partner. His claims of being a psychic made many people believe the unfounded rumours even though the lady admitted them to be false at a later date. This is why I am always suspicous of people who delve into an individual's private life to disprove their paranormal claims. A fraud can be dismissed through study of his work alone, his character should never be the subject of a crusade.
I am able to provide details of Mr Pengelly's solicitors if anybody wishes to pursue this further.
I wouldn't have thought so, because the cure would presumably have been discovered through accredited research procedures, and vetted and validated in peer-reviewed journals. I doubt very much that this would constitute advertising.
Now this is interesting. What would happen if, say, Mr Smith working in his garden shed one day discovered that sticking an almond on his thumb and singing the national anthem backwards instantly cured his long-standing stomach cancer? Mr Smith tries his cure on other cancer victims who are similarly cured. How would Mr Smith prove to the world that his bizarre and outlandish claims were real? Would any institution or body be interested in examining such bizarre work? Would the fact that the solution to this condition is seemingly ridiculous prevent the cure from becoming widely known?
I imagine that of itself, it would then need to be tested and verified by specialist medical researchers who would then go through the process I described. Smith himself would not be in a position to prove anything, not least because he would not be in a position to rule out other possible reasons that were no more than coincidences. Were he to be proven correct, however, he would enjoy the fame of becoming known as an everyman hero, of course.
But would anyone take him seriously enough to investigate his claims? After all, legally he wouldn't be able to say he'd actually cured cancer. So what would he do? Does he contact the Lancet with his report - no doubt complete with sketches of digits and nuts and a music score? Or does he tell his own doctor who may decide that Mr Smith's cure is down to his own good care? I'm just curious as to the power of the major pharmaceutical companies over independent researchers (I'm assuming here that such a thing exists).
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks