Hidden Cancer Cures

Search Our Site

Powered by FreeFind

home :: Cancer Cure Article

What If You Had a Cure for Cancer?

My friends in the alternate health field tell me that there are cures for cancer and AIDS, but the medical establishment has subverted the strong arm of the law to keep these cures from the public and protect their multi-billion dollar profit centers. Those of you who have cures for cancer, AIDS, and other "incurable" diseases, take heart; the law cannot prevent you from promoting your cures.

Natural Law, the law that governs all of creation, expresses itself through your heart, mind, and actions; it gives you a sense of right and wrong. You can get government out of your life by learning and practicing Natural Law. Whenever statutory law conflicts with Natural Law, you have the right and duty recognized by government to follow Natural Law. 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 The laws of nature are the laws of God; whose authority can be superseded by no power on earth.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)]


The states have what are called police powers (I do not mean the powers of the police), which is the power to pass any law in order to protect the morals, health, safety, and general welfare of society and third persons, but every law must be limited to remedy the harm. One court said:

... [N]o trade can be subjected to police regulation of any kind unless its prosecution involves some harm or injury to the public or third persons, and in any case the regulation cannot extend beyond the evil which is to be restrained. ... It [the government] can never encroach upon the liberty of the citizen or invade the rights of property protected by the constitution. ... The state constitution and the national constitution have placed around the rights of the citizen safeguards that protect them from invasion by legislative action. [State v. Scougal, 51 N.W. 858, 862-3 (1892)]

In contrast, the federal government can only regulate in areas specifically enumerated in the federal constitution, or necessary by implication. It cannot regulate food, drugs, doctors, prices, wages, working conditions or hours, speed limits, education, police, or guns; these are not listed in the constitution, and such powers are reserved to the states and the people (however, it has wormed it's way into these areas by regulating interstate commerce, a power given to it). And it can tax and spend to promote the general welfare, and set conditions for receiving the welfare. Both federal and state governments are limited in the extent they can exercise their powers. The regulation cannot extend beyond protecting society from harm, otherwise it would violate unalienable rights, and the powers granted by the constitution cannot conflict with rights and protections. The constitution does not conflict with itself.


The Declaration of Independence proclaims that we have certain unalienable rights, among these being the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; this law has not been repealed. When government can choose between several alternatives, our right to the pursuit of happiness mandates that government choose the alternative that harmonizes all interests. What makes us a free country is not that we are a democracy. In a democracy, the majority can impose its will upon the minority; the majority (or their representatives) can choose oppressive methods, or forbid the minority from curing cancer. In a free country, government is forbidden from exercising power in certain areas: the majority cannot act. Government cannot prevent you from practicing the healing arts, but it can regulate you to the extent of protecting society from harm. The Supreme Court of North Carolina said:

Some MD's doubtless believe that all treatment of disease, except by their own system, is quackery. Is this point to be decided by the MD's themselves, through an examining committee of five of their own number, or is the public the tribunal to decide, by employing whom each man prefers, whether allopath, homeopath, osteopath, or the defendant? ... they cannot decide for mankind that their own system of healing is now and ever shall be the only correct one, and that all others are to be repressed by the strong arm of the law. This is a free country, and any man has a right to be treated by any system he chooses. The law cannot decide that any one system shall be the system he shall use. [State v. Biggs, 46 SE 401 (1903)]


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 or dangerous, 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.


Government recognizes God as a sovereign power to Whom our duty is superior. This duty is protected by the 1st Amendment religious free exercise clause, by Statute 96-1211 whereby Congress asks us to voluntarily apply the teachings of the Bible and the Holy Scriptures, by state constitutions, and affirmed by various court decisions. Because God cannot be seen by most people, He is not accorded His true status of lawmaker, and people (and the state) will act as if He doesn't exist. Nevertheless, when you violate the laws of the lawmaker (whether God or man), you incur a penalty. Since God is the sovereign of both the state and the people, the state cannot prevent people from following God's Will, Natural Law. I doubt you will find a government official who will assert that government is sovereign over God, and this fact can be used as a legal basis to prevent government from prohibiting that which is right, or compelling that which is wrong. Gods Will expresses itself in your heart, mind, and actions. When you follow His will, you experience happiness; when you oppose it, you feel suffering. If government regulation makes you suffer, you violate your duty to God if you comply. The Supreme Court has said:

"[B]oth morals and sound policy require that the state should not violate the conscience of the individual. All our history gives confirmation to the view that liberty of conscience has a moral and social value which makes it worthy of preservation at the hands of the state. So deep in its significance and vital, indeed, is it to the integrity of man's moral and spiritual nature that nothing short of the self-preservation of the state should warrant its violation; and it may well be questioned whether the state which preserves its life by a settled policy of violation of the conscience of the individual will not in fact ultimately lose it by the process." [Harlan Fiske Stone, later to become Chief Justice, quoted from U.S. v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163, 170]


Freedom is the rule, restraint the exception, and any restraint must be limited to correct the harm. You have the right to practice your healing art, even if the medical establishment doesn't like it. Besides that, the medical establishment has labeled AIDS, some forms of cancer, and many other diseases as incurable Why would anyone want to go to a medical doctor who, by his own admission, has no cure for the disease? When a person is dying from a disease, no potential cure can be said to be unsafe, thereby precluding the exercise of government power to protect anyone from harm. By labeling a disease as incurable, the medical establishment has given up its supposed jurisdiction over the disease.




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.