Updates on the CCRG and C-51

We received the following email from a reader, updating us on some goings-on with respect to Bill O'Neill and the Canadian Cancer Research Group as well as Bill C-51. [Links added]

Hi, Bayblab . . .
I took an interest in Bayblab as soon as I learned that Bill O'Neill (CCRG, ISM) threatened to sue you. That put you in very distinguished company.

Here are some fairly recent developments on the CCRG, ISM scene, most of which you likely already know about:

-- Immune System Management, ISM, has been granted 'corporate membership' in OCRI.

-- Bill seems to be switching the emphasis from his CCRG to his ISM: The directory board inside the Fifth Avenue Court building still lists the CCRG as a tenant, but the sign swinging above the entrance to Bill's offices that once read "CCRG" has been replaced with one reading "Immune System Management."

-- He still hasn't replaced Dr. Eoghan O'Shea but his websites still say he has at least one "medical doctor" on staff.

-- The CCRG website began proclaiming that it had launched a lawsuit again CTV and W-Five more than 2 years ago but it has never come to court.

-- With the words "swindling people living with cancer is one of most despicable forms of fraud" the Competition Bureau launched "Project False Hope" last March to coincide with Fraud Awareness Month. It comprises 2 clever features meant to steer the unwary away from phony "cancer clinic." The Bureau grumbles that it has the power to do more. Don't hold your breath.

-- The Ottawa Citizen reported the other day that Tony Clement has folded under the intense pressure brought against his Bill C-51 by the Natural Food Products manufacturers. The original bill had enough power to force the CCRGs and ISMs to submit medical claims to scientific rigor. What with Parliament set to adjourn for the summer, it now appears certain Bill C-51 will go to the Standing Committee on Health for review and revision.

Regards . . .

Quickly checking some of those sites, Project False Hope seems like a nice idea, but as our reader points out, is largely toothless. What it does have is a dummy natural product site and quiz to help identify health fraud, but little else (and no mention of particular companies or groups that should be avoided). I wasn't able to find specific details about the proposed changes to C-51, but it sounds like the revised bill will create a separate category for natural health products (the current version has them grouped with prescription drugs as 'therapeutic products') which takes acknowledges "that natural health products are generally of lower risk and that their long history of use has some value." [Globe and Mail] I'll be interested to see if the proposed changes alter any of C-51's language dealing with standards of evidence and marketing for natural products which I thought was one of the major benefits of the original bill.