Is This What Censorship Looks Like?

OK, get a load of this pile of…road apples.

We recently began investing in advertising on Amazon to promote our book, “90 Days to Live,” and it was getting results. Not huge numbers, but definitely selling decent numbers of books, even hitting bestseller status in numerous categories. In fact, at the time of this blog post we are #1 in Oncology and Cancer Nursing. And then, in late May, Amazon dropped a bombshell on us with this email:

The following ads are rejected and will not be served:

Your ad with Ad Id _____, titled “90 Days to Live: Beating Cancer When Modern Medicine Offers No Hope” is no longer compliant for the following reasons:

Your ad is not appropriate for all audiences. To ensure a good customer experience, we reserve the right to restrict ads that contain elements that may not be appropriate for all audiences. This may include erotica, content on sexual preferences such as BDSM, incestuous relationships, sexual contact with person(s) under the age of 18, or self-help content (such as dating, get-rich-quick, or weight-loss books) or content that promotes, endorses, or incites potentially dangerous or harmful activity.

Hmmmmm. Okay, so our book’s title clearly isn’t racy enough to fit any of the above sex-related categories, so the issue must fall into the final “self-help content” category. But what is it about our book’s title that could be considered promoting, endorsing or inciting “potentially dangerous or harmful activity”?

Well, we asked them: “What specifically about our book title is causing our ads to be rejected?” After asking multiple times, they finally replied only to say that it was the title and subtitle of our book (90 Days to Live: Beating Cancer When Modern Medicine Offers No Hope). That’s helpful (not). But that’s all they’d tell us. And repeated inquiries for more clarification went unanswered.

Just to be clear, they haven’t banned our book, just our ads for the book.

Why Is Our Ad Being Banned?

While we certainly don’t like to dwell on negatives, could it actually be because we use the words “beating cancer”? That’s the only thing that makes any sense. After all, there’s nothing controversial about “90 Days to Live” or “When Modern Medicine Offers No Hope,” right?

But why should we have to play guessing games? Amazon should tell us flat out what doesn’t work, so at least we’d know what needs to change—if we decide to do so.

We’re trying to not be paranoid here, and given Amazon’s legendary reputation for obtuseness in email communications, I’d love to chalk this up simply to inefficiency. Yet, that innocent explanation only works for so long…

More Bans?

Last week, we learned that Amazon’s banning other videos and books on alternative treatments.  What’s going on here? What’s the banning all about? What are they afraid of? Why won’t they give us a straight answer as to why they’re banning our ads? Cancer sufferers want as much information as we can get our hands on, to make an informed decision, and yet, Amazon’s decided that some information shouldn’t be shared. 

A Sad Irony…

If indeed they’re banning our ads because we don’t have “clinical-trial” proof of the efficacy of the enzyme protocol I used to send my cancer packing (though, rest assured, there’s a mountain of actual scientific evidence that enzyme therapy works), consider this…

Yes, people should be protected from “scam treatments,” but the overwhelming majority of those “garbage cures” are simply ineffective, not dangerous. So, the person loses some money, but isn’t damaged beyond that.

Contrast this with traditional chemo and radiation—the “acceptable,” societally-and medically-approved approaches. These treatments will absolutely do enormous harm to the body, in EVERY case, while ultimately NOT curing cancer in a high percentage of cases (as high as 97% long-term failure rate for chemo, according to some, but even if it’s only 80%, is that much better? Especially when you factor in the horrific damage to the body?).

So, which is worse? Shouldn’t people be able to choose for themselves, determine, after their own research, which paths to take, as opposed to having someone else decide what they’ll have access to, and what they won’t? We’re earnestly trying not to go down the conspiracy-theory road here, but it’s tough to view the actions of Amazon, YouTube and others, in even a neutral light, and not see other forces at work.

Amazon’s making it clear where they stand on sharing info that could help those suffering with cancer.

Get our book here:

Up Next…