Hidden Cancer Cures

Search Our Site

Powered by FreeFind



home :: FTC Attack Upon this Website

FTC Attack Upon this Website


Subject: Urgent Message from the Federal Trade Commission Regarding Cancer Product Advertising on Your Website




TO: www.hiddencures.com/index.htm

FROM: Federal Trade Commission

RE: Health Claims on Your Website for Cancer Cures and Treatment Products

DATE: August 28, 2007

Deceptive Advertising Claims are Illegal

The staff of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) recently reviewed your website. We are sending you this letter to remind you of your obligations under the law. The FTC protects consumers from unfair or deceptive advertising or marketing practices that raise health or safety concerns.

The FTC Act prohibits deceptive advertising in any medium, including the Internet. Under the FTC Act, advertising claims for products and services must be truthful and not misleading. Health-related claims, like those made about cancer on your website, must be supported by competent and reliable scientific evidence – the kind of evidence scientists who are experts in the field would rely on. It is against the law to make health claims without scientific support, to exaggerate the benefits of products or services, or to misstate the level of scientific support you have for your claims. Please note that consumer testimonials are not proof that your product works. If you make a health claim through a consumer testimonial, you must have competent and reliable scientific evidence that your product will have the same benefit for other users.

If your website makes express claims (literally made in the ad) or claims by implication (made indirectly or by inference) about the benefits of any cancer-related products or services that are not substantiated by competent and reliable scientific evidence, or are otherwise deceptive or fraudulent, you must stop making those claims immediately.
If your website contains any untruthful or unsubstantiated claims, you could face law enforcement action. That could mean:

1. A federal court injunction. Violations of court orders could result in civil penalties or criminal prosecution.
2. An order to pay consumer refunds.
3. Administrative orders with fines up to $11,000 per violation.

Action Requested
We urge you to review all cancer-related claims on your website. If you don’t have competent and reliable scientific evidence to support the claims, please change them immediately or remove them altogether.

FTC investigators have saved your website and will be revisiting it soon. Within 10 business days, please send an email to cancer@ftc.gov describing the actions you’ve taken or plan to take to address these concerns.

To ensure that your website complies with the FTC Act, we suggest reviewing the following guidance from the FTC:

1. Dietary Supplements: An Advertising Guide for Industry

2. Frequently Asked Advertising Questions: A Guide for Small Business

3. Advertising and Marketing on the Internet: The Rules of the Road at

Please remember that you are responsible for complying with laws enforced by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in addition to laws enforced by the FTC. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) defines a drug, in part, as an article intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of a disease, or to affect the structure or any function of the body.(1) Drugs that are not generally recognized by qualified, scientific experts as safe and effective for the uses recommended or suggested in their labeling are considered to be new drugs.(2) It is illegal to market a new drug in the U.S. without obtaining prior FDA approval.(3) Violations of the FDCA may result in seizure of illegal products and an injunction against the manufacturers and distributors. We have contacted the FDA about claims on your website. Remember, too, that unfair or deceptive acts or practices also are illegal under many state laws. The standards under those laws may be different from the FTC Act.

If you are not located in the United States, we have referred the claims on your website to the consumer protection enforcement agency that has jurisdiction in your locale.

We look forward to hearing from you.

1 21 U.S.C. 321(g).

2 21 U.S.C. 321(p).

3 21 U.S.C. 355 and 331(d).


My Reply

Dear FDA,

In the opening paragraphs of my website's home page, I state that government is actively suppressing cures for cancer, based on the power of government to protect you (the reader), and in order to view this information they have to waive their right to said protection, or are asked to leave. Thus, my visitors and audience accept the paradigm or philosophy that government is actively suppressing cures. My audience wants to read what you would construe as false and misleading statements; whether or not they are true is not relevant. They want this information, if for no other reason than that you want to suppress it since government suppression is a marker of a cure. Thus, your power to protect does not apply to my readers because first, they have waived their right to your protection, and second, they want to read it after being informed the information is not approved by government. You have lost the basis of your power, the protection of society, while the 1st amendment freedom of speech and press remain.

The US constitution is a grant of power; the government has no power except what is specifically enumerated, or necessary by implication. The 1st Amendment is a bar against government making any law abridging the freedom of speech or the press. The only way the FDA can get around this bar is through its power to protect society, through its exercise of regulating interstate commerce. My readers, per the terms of use for my site, have waived the protection of government, thereby removing any supposed government jurisdiction.

If my readers were not allowed to waive the protection of government, then contracts which require acceptance of compulsory arbitration in place of a trial would not be allowed, and the paper I signed when buying a house, waiving my rights under the Homestead Act, would be unenforceable contracts. But these contracts are enforceable, which means we have the right to wave our rights. And if we did not have to right to waive the protection of government, then we would be wards of state, subject to whatever protection the government might impose upon us. And that would be tyranny in the guise of protection.

I do not claim that the cures stated on my website are proven to the level of competent and reliable scientific evidence, but the evidence is sufficient that any reasonable man would accept that suppression has occurred, and the potential cures are worth pursuing. You cannot require me to adopt government's standard of proof, for to do so violates my right to freedom of speech, and the community's right to know. The government's standard of proof is based on its intention to suppress, in collusion with the medical industry, and not on any basis of protection of society. If government was really interested in suppressing false or mid-leading statements, the law would not be limited to cures for diseases, but would apply to all aspects of society.

All those on my website who have discovered a potential cancer cure met with harassment at the hands of government. Does that show any interest by government for finding a cure? Indeed, I consider harassment to be a marker of a cure lurking nearby. Neither the government nor the medical industry wants research done to find a cure; they want to treat disease, which is where the profit is. If a cure was found, the medical industry's multi-billion dollar profit center would dry up over night, which is why it will never happen. The government has suppressed these cures by setting the bar of proof so high that only large research companies can afford to undertake such research, and made it illegal to speak or write about it, based on protection of society.

In order for the 1st Amendment to have any efficacy, I must determine the standard of proof and not the government. I may choose to be casual, anecdotal, or scientifically rigorous, but that has to be my choice. Otherwise the level of proof can be set high enough so that no statement can ever be made. All political dissent can be stifled if government can require and set the level of proof, as is being done in the case of cancer cures.

Natural law is the law of the universe that governs all of creation from the smallest particle to the largest galaxy, and does so while harmonizing diverse interests. Government under natural law should be attempting to harmonize diverse interests. The method I have chosen perfectly harmonizes government's interest to protect, while providing un-approved information to those who want it. I did this through the method of waiver of one's right to protection of government.

While government can pass laws to protect society from harm, it cannot protect individuals from harm against their will. Free will is a gift of the Creator, given to us for the purpose of learning life's lessons. Government cannot intervene in these lessons, except to protect the morals, health, safety, and general welfare of society and third persons. When individuals give informed consent to a moral act such as providing and receiving health care, and it causes no harm to society or third persons, then government cannot intervene. Even if the government considers the act to be quackery, that decision must be between the individuals involved. Otherwise, the will of government will replace individual will, converting the people into wards of the state, violating the intent of the Creator that we learn from our decisions. The Supreme Court of Ohio said:

"Our constitutions are founded upon individualism, and they make prominent the theory that to the individual should be granted all the rights consistent with public safety; and our development is chiefly attributable to the firm establishment and maintenance of those rights by an authorized resort to the courts for their protection against all hostile legislation which is not required by considerations of the public health or safety. In the absence of such considerations those rights are alike immutable; in their presence they must alike yield." [State v. Gravett, 62 NE 325, 326 (1901)]

Nor can government convert an entire society into wards of the state in order to protect the incompetent. The law already provides for the care of incompetents; if you are one, the state will gladly take care of you if you ask. Some people have rejected the medical paradigm, and pursue alternative approaches. By suppressing alternative information, government is not protecting these people but is causing them harm. Those are the type of people interested in my website; they have a right to read the information, and I have a right to provide it.

There will never be scientific research sufficient to satisfy government's level of proof for the potential cures I have presented on my website. This is because it costs millions of dollars to bring a new drug to market. No medical research company will spend money on a product that cannot be patented. As a hypothetical example, what if the cure for cancer involved a simple herb? Since an herb is not patentable, no research company will spend the many millions of dollars required to produce the level of scientific research the government requires for "proof". Without such proof, your law will not allow the public to be informed of this cure, even though anecdotal and similar evidence would suggest to any reasonable man that it is a potential cure worthy to pursue. This simple example demonstrates that the law is wrong, and therefore void. No one in society is required to follow laws in violation of natural law. Your law needs to be rewritten to accommodate natural cures that are not provable to your standards.

One court said:
"[A]ll acts of legislature apparently contrary to natural right and justice are, in our laws and must be in the nature of things, considered as void. The laws of nature are the laws of God; whose authority can be superseded by no power on earth. A legislature must not obstruct our obedience to him from whose punishments they cannot protect us. All human constitutions which contradict his laws, we are in conscience bound to disobey. Such have been the adjudications of our courts of justice." [Robin v. Hardaway, 1 Jefferson 109, 114 (1772)]

Your power to prevent false and misleading statements is based on protecting society from harm. Since the medical establishment claims that there is no cure for cancer, they have given up any supposed jurisdiction over the disease. The alternative approaches then become a source of hope and potential cure which government would take away, in violation of our right to pursue safety and happiness.

Do you run a site that should be listed here? Link to this site and then tell us about it.


Site Resources

Share this site by pasting this code on your site.

Read our terms of use and privacy statements.

Visit our partner listings.

For quick browsing of our site visit our site map

Contact us

Site map.