HC Deb 29 May 1952 vol 501 cc1647-50
52. Mr. Peter Freeman

asked the Minister of Health whether he is now in a position to make a statement on the results of the inquiry into the Rees Evans cancer cure.

Mr. Iain Macleod

Yes, Sir. A committee was appointed by my predecessor in October, 1950, consisting of Sir Robert Robinson, as Chairman, Sir Ernest Rock Carling, Sir Alexander Fleming and Harold Himsworth, to consider the claims made by Mr. Rees Evans to have discovered a treatment for cancer, and to advise whether they warranted further investigation and if so the way in which any investigation should proceed. The report has now been received, and in the normal way I should have proposed to publish it; but as it contains information supplied to the committee in confidence by Mr. Rees Evans and by patients and their relatives, I cannot do so. I can, however, say that the committee have advised me that the claims made do not warrant further investigation, and I have accepted that advice; and I will, with permission, circulate a fuller statement of the committee's conclusions in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Freeman

In view of the fact that this investigation and inquiry did not disclose either the cause or the cure of this scourge, which is now claiming the largest number of victims of any single factor of mortality in this country, which has increased during the whole of the 50 years and every year, both in percentage and numbers during that period, and which is responsible in this country for the largest percentage of deaths of any country of the world, does not the Minister think the time is ripe for a full and independent inquiry into the cause of cancer?

Mr. Macleod

The right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale appointed this committee, as I understand it, to report whether there was anything to investigate. He appointed a committee that is absolutely unequalled in its standing. That committee has advised me in the sense that I have told the House, and I really think there is nothing I can add to what I have said.

Mr. Bevan

Will not the right hon. Gentleman agree that there was something peculiarly offensive and hurtful to the emotions of large numbers of people in giving such publicity to these claims before they had been properly investigated, and that all that has been done could have been done by sending a letter to the Ministry of Health without arousing the hopes unnecessarily of so many sick people?

Mr. Macleod

Yes, I entirely agree with every word the right hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Hastings

Is it not a fact that today there is a higher proportion of cures of cancer than at any time in the history of this country?

Mr. Freeman

Could I ask if this committee was not entirely a medical committee, and in view of the fact that this is possibly an industrial problem as well, due to modern civilisation and modern development, there is a case for investigation along other lines? Would he not consider such investigation desirable?

Mr. Macleod

I have read the names of the committee to the House. I will read them again—Sir Robert Robinson, Sir Ernest Rock Carling, Sir Alexander Fleming and Sir Harold Himsworth. One could not conceivably set up another committee with anything like that prestige.

Mr. Bevan

Is not the hon. Member doing a great disservice now in attempting to suggest that those claims have not been properly examined? It will merely give rise to a large number of people believing that further investigation is necessary when, as a matter of fact, the claims in the first instance were completely without foundation.

Following is the statement:

The committee examined the histories of British and American patients treated by Mr. Rees Evans, and also investigated the materials used by him in his work, as well as receiving oral and written evidence from him. It did not examine patients under treatment, since it considered that, in most forms of cancer, assessment of the results of treatment is not possible until the patient has remained well for at least five years after treatment has ended, and also since the technical details of applying any particular treatment are irrelevant to the assessment of its value in treating cancer.

Examination of the histories of 22 British patients treated by Mr. Rees Evans between 1931 and 1945 who could be traced from 34 names supplied led the committee to the following conclusions:

Insufficient information for diagnosis 5
Judged not to have suffered from cancer 7
No convincing evidence of cancer at time of treatment 3
Dead from or seriously ill from recurrence of cancer after treatment 2
Rodent ulcer 5

Inquiries were not pursued in the cases of rodent ulcer on the grounds that it is a form of skin cancer of slight malignancy; that it has been known for many decades that it can be successfully treated by several methods which remove the locally affected tissue; and that evidence of success in healing rodent ulcers throws no light on whether the same method will be useful in the treatment of cancers in general.

Examination of the histories of 16 American cases treated by Mr. Rees Evans in 1949-50 was also made, and the condition of these patients in July, 1951, was as follows:

Dead from cancer 8
Seriously ill from cancer 1
No convincing evidence of cancer 2
Condition doubtful 1
No recurrence of cancer, but also treated surgically or with X-rays 2
Rodent ulcer 2

On their inquiries into these British and American cases the committee came to the conclusion that they provided no evidence that the Rees Evans treatment of cancer is of any value, though it may have an effect on rodent ulcers. Samples of the materials used by Mr. Rees Evans in treatment were analysed, and tested in experiments on animals. The committee were advised by a leading expert that the results obtained did not provide any indication for recommending further experiments.

On the basis of their inquiries into case histories and into the materials used, the committee have accordingly advised that the claims made by Mr. Rees Evans to have discovered a treatment for cancer do not warrant further investigation