You may have already heard about Sally Roberts plea for the National Health Service to use ‘safer alternatives’ to treat her son (Neon’s) brain cancer.  But this and many other important factors were never fully explained in the news or interviews reporting the case.  Instead, Sally was ridiculed and portrayed as an irresponsible, unstable parent; who was putting her son’s life at risk.

The truth is, 7 year old Neon was diagnosed with Medulloblastoma (brain cancer) in October 2012, which was surgically removed. The National Health Service (NHS) and Neon’s oncologist advised that he needed a course of XRAY Radiation and Chemotherapy to ensure the cancer was completely destroyed. However, the treatment offered was an unproven – trial treatment programme called (PNET Trial – Packer Cystplaton, ccnu, vincrustine) which is extremely aggressive and could damage Neon beyond repair, or even lead to premature death.  Sally who raised both her children (Neon and twin sister) on healthy ‘organic’ foods and alternative therapies, was extremely concerned about their proposal because it was evident that in the process, Neon would be used for testing experimental drugs.  She therefore, requested that safer ‘Alternatives treatments’, less invasive ‘Orthodox treatments’ or a combination of both, be used instead to help improve his long term chances of survival.   Questioning why Neon should undergo aggressive trial treatments, when many known, tried, tested, safe and effective Orthodox & Natural treatments exist; the NHS remained adamant that he must be put on their ‘trial treatment programme.’ With her concerns being ignored, her motherly instincts took over and Sally fled (with Neon) to a safe place, to protect him. From then onwards, her life was turned into a living hell.

The NHS sought to control the situation by obtaining a High Court Order to initiate a nationwide police hunt; to gain legal custody of her son and to enforce the treatment.  However, they did not expect Sally to legally challenge their decision.   She struggled in Court because her initial lawyer was not equipped to handle the case, therefore Human Rights lawyer – Imran Khan came to her defense on the eleventh hour.  The High Court gave Sally a seemingly impossible task to find an acceptable ‘alternative treatment’ proven suitable for childhood brain cancer, within a two week period. In a race against time and against all the odds, this determined and dedicated mother managed to uncover unprecedented evidence on a wide range of ‘safer, less-invasive and painless treatments’ that could not only save but also secure a better quality of life for Neon; yet all were rejected by the NHS and High Court. Sadly, against her wishes, Neon commenced the trail treatment programme on Thursday 10 January 2013, consisting of 6 weeks XRAY Radiation and Chemotherapy

However, having contacted numerous Health Professionals (around the world) in the field of ‘orthodox and alternative cancer treatments’; Sally was supplied with a wealth of safe & effective treatments, which strengthened the case and left her even more determined to mount a second High Court appeal.

One treatment in particular called Proton Beam Therapy (carried out in America), is said to be a less aggressive form of Radiotherapy, non-invasive, painless and causes minimal damage to surrounding tissue.  It is considered one of the most precise and advanced orthodox treatments for cancer available today. Yet to her complete surprise, two days before the NHS were due to start treatment, Sally learnt that Proton Beam Therapy was well known to the NHS, who not only funds it but also pays for patients ‘travel & accommodation’ to clinics around the world. Sally was never told, nor was it ever offered to Neon.  She also learnt that the NHS was actively making sure the public is kept unaware of this less invasive treatment and service, primarily because it is more expensive than XRAY Radiation. However, this treatment is available not only in America but in China, France and Switzerland.  Understandably, Sally would like Neon to receive the Proton Beam Therapy, which would also entail using a milder form of chemotherapy; plus incorporate alternative natural treatments – to give him a much better chance of long term survival and reduce overall damage.  But the NHS blocked her every step of the way to ensure she cannot take him to America. All in all, Sally was never against orthodox treatments, but simply wanted the opportunity to exercise her right to choose safer and more effective options.

It has gradually become clear to Sally that she has been caught in a web of procedures, rather than true unimpeded scientific assessment of the potential benefits of these approaches… and feels she is fighting bureaucrats, instead of working alongside scientists to evaluate the best choice of treatments, which should produce the most favourable outcome for Neon.

Sally says –
“When cancer enters your life, you can never control what the outcome will be, but we should at least be able to control the amount of pain and suffering, especially where children are concerned. As with life, it is the journey and quality of life that is important. As a mother my responsibility is to shield my son from any immediate or potential harm; this is all I have tried to do… and will continue to do.

My ordeal, plus losing custody of Neon was absolutely devastating and unnecessary, however some good has come out of it.  It made me have to question, if in 2 weeks whilst under extreme stress and no sleep, I was able to find a wide range of safer & less invasive cancer treatments, why didn’t the NHS and UK Oncologists, who have this information on file, not come forward or support my case?  The answer can be found in the 1939 Cancer Act’ which even the Court tried to avoid addressing.  But how can we successfully beat cancer, if this Act prevents proven safe and effective alternatives from being used, researched, explored, promoted or funded.

I would like to urge everyone to please read about this Act and the horrendous side-effects of XRAY Radiotherapy & Chemotherapy, then consider… what you would do, if you were in my position and Neon was your child?”  

In her lone quest, Sally uncovered a huge range of successful cancer treatments which uses *minimum levels of either radiotherapy & chemotherapy plus alternatives, or just alternatives, which she wants to make known to the general public, especially cancer sufferers.  With cancer now at pandemic levels; effecting 1 in 2 people; this means the majority of us could face the same dilemma at least once in our lifetime.  She also feels it is vital for people to understand, the crucial role the 1939 Cancer Act plays in preventing promising life-saving information reaching the public. The Act was passed solely for the purpose of supporting ‘scientific methodologies’ for experimental cancer drug-treatments and not for research into prevention of the disease.  Therefore, the Act specifically prohibits and makes it illegal to promote or advertise any effective natural product or therapy proven to heal, prevent or control cancer. Consequently, only radiotherapy, chemotherapy, surgery or new trial-drugs are offered to UK sufferers.

Sally also learnt that prior to the Act, (73 years ago) cancer was considerably rare; affecting only 1 in 50 people… proving that science is no closer to finding ‘a cure’. Despite the reported huge advances in technology, scientific know-how, annual medical breakthroughs, plus enormous promotions and funds raised for cancer research, nothing has changed to-date, except for the escalation of the disease and increasing deaths.  The 1939 Cancer Act ensures that most parents and sufferers are led to believe there is no other choice which is simply not true.  Independent scientists, oncologists and doctors have confirmed that more people die from surgery, radiotherapy & chemotherapy than the cancer itself. These frightening facts strengthened Sally’s resolve to find the safest, best and most humane treatments for Neon, but can do nothing until she wins a High Court Appeal to  regain ‘legal custody’. She then suffered a further setback when her application for Legal Aid was denied.  In shear desperation Sally was forced to initiate an EMERGENCY FUNDRAISING APPEAL in an effort to raise £250,000 to cover the legal costs and ongoing treatments abroad. On 25 January 2013, the NHS brought in Social Services to enforce ‘limited’ supervised visits, at a critical time when Neon has verbalized that he wants and needs his mum; and no long wanted to wear the XRAY Radiation mask.   In absolute despair, Sally wrote a heartbreaking letter to the Prime Minister (David Cameron), pleading with him to intervene.

Sally’s experience, not only shows how easily this can happen to parents, but also opens up the Pandora’s Box on ‘the cancer business’ in Medical Institutions, Legal Establishments and the Media; questioning matters of transparency, accountability, medical ethics, vested interests, collusion and corruption. In Sally’s case, it is evident that she suffered a blatant miscarriage-of-justice, gross negligence, violation of Human & Parental Rights, Freedom of Choice, and confirms that Corporate abuse is widespread within our Health Institutions.

No doubt her brave stance and love for Neon will be far reaching. Apart from creating greater public awareness, she will surely make a huge difference to cancer sufferers, by bringing to light safer treatments and encouraging integration within the general healthcare system.

When Neon DONATE-NOW-BUTTON_FBis in better health and her ordeal is over, Sally plans to set up a website to share the amazing life-saving information she has received, which she hopes will help other cancer sufferers and parents.  If you would like to join her mailing list and receive News updates on Neon’s progress, please follow this blog; ‘Like’ Neon on Facebook andFollow him’ on Twitter.   In the meantime, as every second counts, she is calling on everyone to please donate to Neon’s Emergency Appeal today.




Sally says –  “PARENTS BE WARNED –
this could happen to you too, as Parental Rights in the UK no longer exists!

Sally’s case is a brutal reminder of the importance of petitions THE NATION SPEAKS & GLOBAL VOICES UNITE. If you haven’t already, we are encouraging everyone across the globe to watch this 5 minute video ‘Why Are We Dying To Be Healthy?’ – SIGN the petition and SHARE. Remember the power is in your hands to safeguard your rights, plus protect yourself, loved-ones & future generations from Corporate Abuse. To sign or learn more please visithttp://joininghandsinhealth.com/petition/global/spread_the_word.php



  1. Read the vast list of side effects of Neon’s current treatment
  2. Read the list of less invasive and more effective Cancer treatments
  3. Letter to Prime Minister (David Cameron).
  4. Cancer Act 1939 – Reform Application.


DONATE-NOW-BUTTON_FBDonate to Save Neon Roberts

  • Please Spread the Word : We are asking everyone to please circulate this article to family, friends and social networks and encourage them to donate.
  • Add a Widget to your website : Click on ‘Embed’ to access code on Neon’s donations page.

15 thoughts on “AGAINST ALL ODDS : The Sally Roberts Story

  1. Hi
    I have been studying this for some time… and as a part-time student of Cancers and Health Sciences, I became aware of the limitations that the Cancer Act 1939 puts on the discussion of new cancer treatments and alternative treatments. What is important to know about this act, is that it was put in place initially as a pre-NHS Public Health Initiative which made it clear the government’s commitment to detect new cases of cancer and treat them. Patients were to be funded under the Cancer Act 1939 to travel to receive their treatment. It also dictated to the medical profession the means to treat cancer. By radiotherapy at that time.. and it stipulated that the government would purchase all the radium required for this purpose. The last part of the Cancer Act 1939 was an initiative to curtail the sale of fake treatments that were being advertised everywhere. The government gave councils the power to fine or jail anyone who advertised or discussed cancer treatments – except for council members and GPs – and students of medicine.

    The Royal Society of Medical Practitioners held a meeting in 1939 to condemn the new act – stating that radiotherapy was in its infancy as a treatment and had not been fully tested… They complained that this Act was a political move with no scientific evidence and that it would prevent advances in treatment. Since then everyone has forgotten this and now believe it is the best treatment… forgetting the science for the politics.

    The Imperial Cancer Research and the Cancer Research Campaign (now both merged into UK Cancer Research) in response to the Act, said that they would probably be in breach of the Act since they discuss cancer treatment all the time. However because they pushed through £millions per year in funding of research they were going to ignore the consequences – which have never been pressed…

    Over the next 30 years or so, with the introduction of the NHS, the government’s responsibilities under the Cancer Act 1939 were replaced. The majority of the Act’s clauses were replaced. Finally the only clause left was one that prevented open discussion of treatments by interested lay people. What was originally an Act in the name of Public Health and with the intention of curing people… now is only used to shut people up…

    As a student of health sciences and cancer studies, I want to be able to take part in an open discussion about cancer… It’s no longer just up to the medical professions to discuss… But people are attempting to break through this barrier.. Open Source Medicine, Medicine 2.0, Health 2.0, crowd-funding – these are and will be applied to cancer studies… the Act needs to be repealed completely:


    http://icancer.org.uk/ – (who are perhaps not aware of the Act)

    The Act is meaningless in the advent of the internet, because it only applies to England, Wales and Northern Ireland – not Scotland or any other country (although some countries have their own version.) There are plenty of non-UK based websites talking about this or that being preventative of cancer…

    We also have the MHRA these days who regulate the sale of medicines in the UK… so why do we need this Act?

    I raised this on 38Degrees some time ago… you provide yet another good reason for voting for it:


    Best regards

  2. Sorry to hear this news.
    In the search for treatment one must also look at the causes. Dr Alice Stewart said that all cancers in children under 10 are radiation induced. Although she was thinking of xrays her statements still stand. Today most people are being exposed to unprecedented levels of microwave radiation constantly emitted from cordless landlines (the base) and wifi transmitters. These exposures are similar to living in the main beam of a phone mast. Cancers can develop in as little as 5 years depending on the exposures or dose. The German government warned its citizens about cordless landlines in 2006 and wifi in 2007. Cable up all wireless devices. There are 1000’s of studies pointing to harm and the WHO have already classified the microwave radiation as a class 2b carcinogen in May 2011. You can buy detectors to measure your own exposures.
    Other causes can be geopathic stress, chemicals metals, etc.
    The body needs to be detoxed and strengthened not destroyed as in allopathic thinking.
    Canceractive is a good site for information. Heomapthy can be a very powerful help in strengthening the immune system.

    • Thank you Sam,
      We listed Dr Simoncini’s work in this blog; please section ‘A BRIEF LIST OF LESS-INVASIVE ORTHODOX, PLUS SAFE & EFFECTIVE ALTERNATIVE TREATMENTS’.

  3. It was ten years before Dr Alice Stewart produced research which showed that there was no safe level of X-rays, and even then few listened. In fact she was almost outcast from the medical establishment, and it was about another twenty years before the real danger from medical X-rays was acknowledged. Now, in the late 1990s the U.K. National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) is trying to persuade hospitals to minimise patient X-ray exposure, and leading Medical Research Council researchers admit that there is no icompletely safei level of ionising radiation. The 1998 Royal College of Radiologists guidelines sets out the current rationale for restricting X-ray doses.

    In 1950, H.C. March showed that radiologists were nine times as likely as other physicians to die of leukemia. In 1956, Alice Stewart showed that a single X-ray of a fetus in the womb would double the likelihood of childhood leukemia. The subject of excessive medical exposure was a no-no with ICRP because ICRP was founded under the auspices of the International Congress of Radiology (ICR), and radiologists did not want any restraints or interference in their use of diagnostic X-rays. There was a serious conflict of interest with ICR sponsorship of ICRP.


  4. Pingback: AGAINST ALL ODDS : The Sally Roberts Story | Home-Body Alice

  5. How can we trust a Cancer Research Industry where it is alleged as little as 2p in any donated £ actually goes to research and where there is anecdotal evidence of drug breakthroughs being buried as they do not produce large enough profits! How can we have a system where an industry self regulates and is the driver and advisor on issues to the government..How can we trust a system where many of the “experts are or have been in the pockets of the Big Pharma Companies?. Where is the independence and where is the true efficacy and testing of the data produced.

    It seems that the big companies have too much to lose in finding effective treatments for Cancers as effective cures would dam their guaranteed flow of funds which increase day by day as the fear of Cancer is marketed.

    ;Your strength Sally will give potential for effective and safe treatments to come to the fore and for more and more people to begin to question the ethics of Big C and its affiliate organisations.

  6. Sally, your bravery and courage are astounding and truly inspirational. I am at the beginning of trying to find suitable alternative treatments for my mantle cell lymphoma and I was only just made aware of the clause in the 1939 Cancer Act. It seems to me that most of the people making these decisions and commenting with some arrogance on various blogs are not the ones going through the horrible treatment. I have now had two cycles of intensive chemotherapy which have filled my body with poison and created side effects which have to of course be treated with more drugs. Major side effects could include heart failure, brain damage, major organ failure…..the list goes on, as you know, so I completely relate to your concerns. I am furious that this route is presented as the only possible treatment due to the protectionist stance of Big Pharma and more specifically in the UK this Act. This is clearly not the case and I am joining the 38 Degrees move to get the Act repealed. We are supposed to live in an age of ‘free speech’. It strikes me that open dialogue is only possible in areas that are not politically or financially sensitive and that is blatantly wrong. I am with you all the way.

  7. Pingback: 17. Changes Afoot | Margaret Cahill


  9. Briefly, I understand this mother’s concerns for her child and her feelings about Radiotherapy. A friend of mine had cancer twice, the first time she bounced back well, 10 yrs later, when cancer occurred again, she had radiotherapy that time and died of a heart attack related to the radiotherapy.
    I had breast cancer 20 yrs ago and declined radiotherapy, not only due to my observations of the effect on my friend, but because I was told quite casually, that I would probably lose one of my lungs, as if it were a small price to pay.
    My surgeon was furious at my refusal to accept radiotherapy, but as you can see, I’m still here 20 yrs later and have not had a recurrence.
    Another friend’s 12 yr old daughter had brain cancer, she underwent radiotherapy and chemotherapy, the mother was told, her daughter would have recurring tumours, due to radiotherapy!!! She did, another tumour at 21yrs old on her neck, and yes, her mother supported her treatment with alternative medicines, she is now in her 30’s and a mother herself.
    It’s personal choice, I would hate to be put in a position to make this choice for my child and be mocked. This mother is attempting to do the very best for her child.
    Good luck to her, Kats.

  10. Great to see someone standing up against a corrupt system. Well done Sally, you have helped awaken so many that were sleeping. You showed love and compassion for your son and stood tall above those that would much prefer you too keep quiet. You entered the media and was blasted with negative questions and accused of being a bad mother live on tv yet you kept your nerve and answered each question with balance and honesty. This world will only become a better place to exist within when more like you stand up and make up the numbers. I hope your son is doing well and that you never give up the fight. Matt

  11. Pingback: Parent Rights Now Mean Nothing! | The Liberty Beacon

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s