Is the American Cancer Society more interested in cancer profit than cancer prev

[Guest guest]

http://www.newstarget.com/010244.html

 

 

 

Thursday, September 08, 2005

Is the American Cancer Society more interested in cancer profit than

cancer prevention?

 

 

A staggering 1.37 million new cases of cancer will be diagnosed in

calendar 2005. That statistic was taken straight from the American

Cancer Society's own reports. Given the crushing impact of cancer on

public health, coupled with the ineffectiveness of measures like

chemotherapy and radiation, you'd think that agencies like the

American Cancer Society (ACS) would clamor for the chance to

investigate new methods for preventing and combating the disease.

Unfortunately, you might be wrong.

 

In this article, we'll explore how agencies like the ACS have an eye

for their own financial interests. Why does the ACS reportedly put far

greater financial emphasis on chemotherapy and radiation research than

on life-saving prevention techniques? Why does the ACS appear to

discredit physicians researching and practicing effective alternative

cancer-fighting techniques? A closer look at the American Cancer

Society reveals the agency's ties to the cancer industry.

 

Conflicts of Interest: Why the ACS stresses treatment and screening

over prevention

So what are the American Cancer Society's strategies for fighting

cancer? Innocent Casualties author Elaine Feuer comments that the ACS

is more intent on developing cancer treatments than preventing the

disease. Feuer argues, " Instead of allotting money towards the

prevention of cancer, the medical establishment prescribes

chemotherapy and radiation (which can be very expensive and even toxic). "

 

Also contentious is the agency's emphasis on screening. Samuel S.

Epstein, author of The Politics of Cancer, argues that the society's

" priorities remain fixated on damage control -- screening, diagnosis,

and treatment. " Sure enough, the ACS' 2005 Cancer Prevention and Early

Detection Facts and Figures report focuses primarily on screening.

While screenings are valuable in helping people fight cancer, they do

not prevent the disease. If decreasing the number of cancer fatalities

is the first priority, why not prevent the disease before it starts?

 

Many critics of the American Cancer Society are quick to suggest its

" vested interest " in the cancer industry, especially in chemotherapy

and pharmaceutical treatments. Dr. Samuel Epstein, former head of a

Congressional committee on cancer, has accused the ACS of foul play

for years. Epstein claims that the ACS' " longstanding conflicts of

interest with a wide range of industries, coupled with a systematic

discrediting of evidence of avoidable causes of cancer " preclude many

powerful life-saving initiatives.

 

In a debate this year, Dr. Michael Thun of the American Cancer Society

did not deny the agency's connection to corporate interests. " The

American Cancer Society views relationships with corporations as a

source of revenue for cancer prevention, " said Dr. Thun. " That can be

construed as an inherent conflict of interest, or it can be construed

as a pragmatic way to get funding to support cancer control. "

 

So it is in fact true that the ACS' 22-member board was created in

1990 to solicit corporate contributions. It's also true that board

members include Gordon Binder, who is the CEO of Amgen, a

biotechnology company that sells chemotherapy products. Another board

member, David R. Bethune, is president of Lederle Laboratories, a

multinational pharmaceutical company and a division of American

Cyanamid Company. In fact, many board members seemingly stand to make

more money by treating cancer than preventing it.

 

But as Thun said, these relationships are " pragmatic " ways to garner

funding. Money, according to The Chronicle of Philanthropy, is the

name of the ACS' game. The Chronicle of Philanthropy is a watchdog

organization that monitors major charities. After analyzing the ACS'

budgets and programs, they concluded the agency is " more interested in

accumulating wealth than saving lives. "

 

Epstein argues that the ACS's financial ties with industry also skew

its policies pertaining to environmental causes of cancer. In his new

book, Cancer-Gate: How to Win the Losing War Against Cancer, Epstein

claims the agency is willfully suppressing information about the

environmental causes of cancer. Carcinogens can be found in

pesticides, industrial pollution, materials used in plastic or

reconstructive surgery, the water supply and many other everyday

materials.

 

Corporations – some of which contribute to the American Cancer Society

– profit handsomely while they pollute the air, water, and food with a

wide range of carcinogens, endangering the lives of millions of

people. Why is the ACS silent? Epstein says they are more interested

in inflating their budget than waging war against industrial pollution.

 

See the video: We've made available a short segment (3 minutes) from a

must-see DVD called The Corporation, in which Dr. Epstein explains

much more about the American Cancer Society and the cancer

establishment in general. It's a large download (37MB), and it's a

Windows .avi file format, compressed in a .zip archive. To download

it, right-click here, then save the file to your computer. Once the

download is complete, double-click the file on your computer to view it.

 

Full credit for this video belongs to The Corporation film, which is

strongly recommended. This short segment from the supplementary

interviews is used under Fair Use as a commentary on the film and the

cancer industry. Special thanks to Dr. Epstein for his courage and

dedication in standing up to the cancer industry.

 

Preventing Smoking: The ACS' unidirectional attack

After heavy criticism in the 1980s, the American Cancer Society did

step up some of its preventative measures. To date, the ACS'

anti-smoking campaign is the most effective action ever taken by the

agency. With states like New York prohibiting smoking in all

businesses – bars and restaurants included – and a decrease in adult

and adolescent smoking, the fight against Big Tobacco appears to be

paying off. Even in this case, however, the American Cancer Society

nevertheless stands to gain in some fashion from its unidirectional

preventative action against smoking.

 

In the past few years the ACS has taken corporate " sponsorship " money.

Here's how it works: Sponsors pay the ACS to have the society's logo

donned on certain products. SmithKline Beecham, producer of NicoDerm

CQ and Nicorette anti-smoking aids, paid the ACS $1 million for the

right to use the American Cancer Society name.

 

But does taking money from these companies decrease the number of

cancer fatalities caused by smoking? Given the already exorbitant

price of anti-smoking aids in addition to the amount Beecham pays for

the rights to the ACS logo, few smokers (who are statically

lower-income) are enticed to quit smoking. These sponsorships also

create an even more startling question: Does the ACS endorse these

products? The American Cancer Society says no, claiming that the use

of their logo represents a " partnership, " although representatives of

the ACS seem slow to articulate just what a partnership is. No extra

ACS money goes into research for these products, nor are Beecham's

products part of a long-term anti-smoking initiative.

 

Conservative Medicine: The ACS' Committee on Unproven Methods of

Cancer Management

Many alternative health doctors and providers charge the American

Cancer Society with blackballing effective, albeit non-traditional,

treatments. Critics claim the ACS attacks non-patentable, natural

treatments in an effort to protect the interests of pharmaceutical

companies. The main target of criticism: The ACS' controversial

" Committee on Unproven Methods of Cancer Management. " This Committee

reviews unorthodox or alternative therapies, putting many of these

treatments on the " Unproven Methods " list. Appearing on this list can

mean literal ruin to any health practitioner. Dr. Stanislaw R.

Burzynski, M.D., Ph.D., felt the full weight of just such an

appearance. He was refused research money and raided by the FDA, which

seized 200,000 documents from his clinic. But Dr. Burzynski stands by

his method of treating cancer with antineoplastons, treating hundreds

of patients a year with a relatively high success rate.

 

In Alternative Medicine, Burton Goldberg claims many of the treatments

on the " Unproven Methods " list have never been demonstrated

ineffective or dangerous. In fact, Goldberg states, " [These

treatments] may not have been subjected to any tests at all -- neither

by the American Cancer Society nor by any other agency, public or

private. They merely seem ineffective in the light of prevailing

theories of cancer etiology and therapy. " Unfortunately, any

practitioner assigned to this list is automatically considered a

dangerous quack. Funding usually vanishes and the treatment fails

before it has even undergone rigorous testing.

 

In fact, more than 100 promising alternative non-patented and nontoxic

therapies have already been identified and discredited by the American

Cancer Society in this way. Included among these are Tumor Necrosis

Factor (originally called Coleys' Toxin), hydrazine sulfate, laetrile,

Gersons therapy and Burzynski's antineoplastons. Practitioners,

activists and cancer survivors are likening the " Unproven Methods "

tactic to witch hunts that unfairly target natural therapies over

toxic chemical therapies. Many have even called for a boycott of the ACS.

 

The American Cancer Society's mission statement says it is " dedicated

to eliminating cancer as a major health problem by preventing cancer,

saving lives, and diminishing suffering from cancer, through research,

education, advocacy, and service. " Unfortunately, the ACS' corporate

entanglements, slippery priorities, and lack of vision may constrict

this public agency from making any meaningful strides in the war

against cancer.

 

The experts speak on The American Cancer Society

The American Medical Association (AMA), Food and Drug Administration

(FDA), National Cancer Institute (NCI), and American Cancer Society

(ACS), as well as certain large corporations profit from the cancer

industry. It is important to emphasize that this confederation of

interests known as organized medicine consists principally of medical

politicians and business interests, not practicing doctors. Physicians

themselves have often objected to the unscientific rejection of

alternative therapies and to restrictions on their own freedom to

research or administer them.

When Healing Becomes A Crime by Kenny Ausubel, page 445

 

Having made his decision, Burzynski proceeded to experience, as his

Baylor department chairman had predicted he would, the full-scale

legal and regulatory terror of county, state, and national

authorities. He was investigated by the Board of Ethics of the Harris

County Medical Society on the charge of using unapproved medications;

he was refused research money by mainstream funders who had previously

funded him. Subsequently, he was to have his offices raided by the

FDA, which seized 200,000 medical files and documents, and he was

placed on the American Cancer Society's " unproven methods " list. He

was sued by an insurance company and investigated by a Federal grand jury.

Choices In Healing by Michael Lerner, page 614

 

Corporate sponsors currently have formed " partnerships " with a number

of leading nonprofit organizations, which allows them to pay for the

right to use the organizations' names and logos in advertisements. The

American Cancer Society reeled in $1 million from SmithKline Beecham

for the right to use its logo in ads for Beecham's NicoDerm CQ and

Nicorette anti-smoking aids.

Ephedra Fact And Fiction by Mike Fillon, page 149

 

In spite of the almost universal experience of physicians to the

contrary, the American Cancer Society still prattles to the public

that their statistics show a higher recovery rate for treated patients

as compared to untreated patients. After all, if this were not the

case, why would anyone spend the money or accept the pain and

disfigurement associated with these orthodox treatments? But how can

they get away with such outright lies?

World Without Cancer by G Edward Griffin, page 146

 

Corporate sponsors have formed " partnerships " with a number of leading

nonprofit organizations in which they pay for the right to use the

organizations' names and logos in advertisements. Bristol-Myers

Squibb, for example, paid $600,000 to the American Heart Association

for the right to display the AHA's name and logo in ads for its

cholesterol-lowering drug Pravachol. The American Cancer Society

reeled in $ 1 million from SmithKline Beecham for the right to use its

logo in ads for Beecham's NicoDerm CQ and Nicorette anti-smoking aids.

Although the nonprofit organizations involved in these deals deny that

the use of their names and logos constitutes an endorsement, the

corporate sponsors have no such illusions. " PR pros view those

third-party endorsements as invaluable ways to build goodwill among

consumers for a client's product line, " notes O'Dwyer's PR Services

Report. For propriety's sake, however, a bit of discretion is

necessary. " Don't use the word 'endorse' when speaking to executives

from non-profits about their relationships with the private sector, "

O'Dwyer's advised. " The preferred non-profit vernacular is:

recommended, sponsorship, approved, or partnership. "

Trust Us We Are Experts by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber, page 16

 

It is natural for the careerist to gravitate into such apparently

humanitarian organizations as the American Cancer Society. Not only

does this provide him with the aura of status among his approving

friends, but it also provides some pretty nice employment in a

low-pressure field devoid of competition or of the economic necessity

to show either a profit or even tangible results. In fact, it is the

very lack of results that adds stature to his position and importance

to his work.

World Without Cancer by G Edward Griffin, page 331

 

These are the best examples the American Cancer Society spokesman can

come up with as proof that there is no suppression of innovation by

the medical establishment! Nothing in the history of these

innovations, nor of any of the other examples cited in this book,

contradicts the view that new ideas often have a difficult time

getting established and must face the indifference—and even the

hostility—of vested interests.

The Cancer Industry by Ralph W Moss, page 438

 

…a 60 percent five-year survival rate, but Hodgkin's disease

represents only about 1 percent of all cancers. Table 1.4 reflects the

best available data on historical trends in cancer patient survival

from the NCI Cancer Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)

program.8 (Results are much less encouraging than those claimed by the

American Cancer Society on the basis of the same NCI Data.) This is

the case despite the vast sums of money spent over the last 30 years,

despite the high priorities for cancer research set by Congress,

despite devotion of an entire federal agency (the National Cancer

Institute) to the cancer problem, and in the face of continuing

misleading and optimistic reassurances by the American Cancer Society.

The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 15

 

Each year, thousands of Americans travel to Mexico and Germany to

receive Laetrile therapy. They do this because it has been suppressed

in the United States. Most of these patients have been told that their

cancer is terminal and they have but a few months to live. Yet, an

incredible percentage of them have recovered and are living normal

lives. However, the FDA, the AMA, the American Cancer Society, and the

cancer research centers continue to pronounce that Laetrile is

quackery. The recovered patients, they say, either had " spontaneous

remissions " or never had cancer in the first place.

World Without Cancer by G Edward Griffin, page 22

 

It is clear that the American Cancer Society—or at least someone very

high within it—is trying to give the American people a good

old-fashioned snow job. The truth of the matter is—ACS statistics

notwithstanding—orthodox medicine does not have " proven cancer cures, "

and what it does have is pitifully inadequate considering the prestige

it enjoys, the money it collects, and the snobbish scorn it heaps upon

those who do not wish to to its treatments.

World Without Cancer by G Edward Griffin, page 152

 

" The ordinary observer might assume that the treatments on this list

have been demonstrated to be ineffective, " continues Dr. Coulter.

" That is not the case: they have not been subjected to any testing at

all—neither by the American Cancer Society nor by any other agency,

public or private. They merely seem ineffective in the light of

prevailing theories of cancer etiology and therapy. " Dr. Coulter

doubts that any procedure on the " Unproven Methods " list will ever

obtain the financing or bureaucratic approval needed to establish its

therapeutic value. " Hence, " he says, " characterizing a cancer therapy

as 'unproven' is a self-fulfilling prophecy in the truest sense of the

word. Competition by maverick researchers is effectively suppressed. "

Alternative Medicine by Burton Goldberg, page 51

 

Predictably, spokesmen for the cancer establishment deny that the

suppression of new ideas even takes place. " As a result of the medical

profession's insistence upon reliable standards of proof of cure, "

according to the American Cancer Society's book Unproven Methods, " the

proponents of unproven remedies are prone to charge that they are

being persecuted by the 'medical trust' or 'organized medicine' "

(ACS, I97ib:i8).

The Cancer Industry by Ralph W Moss, page 435

 

Another propaganda film with a similar approach was produced by the

American Cancer Society and is called Journey Into Darkness. Featuring

guest star Robert Ryan as the host, the film is a masterpiece of

scripting and acting. Weaving several stories into one, it portrays

the mental torture experienced by several cancer victims as they

grapple with having to decide whether they should take the advice of

their wise and kindly doctor and pursue proven orthodox treatments, or

allow their fears and doubts to overcome their judgment and seek the

unproven treatments of a medically untrained quack who promises

miracle cures but whose only real interest is in how much money the

patient can afford to pay. In the end, some make the " right " choice

and resolve to follow the guidance of their doctor. Others make the

" wrong " choice and begin their long and tragic journey into darkness.

World Without Cancer by G Edward Griffin, page 300

 

Overview:

 

* Is the American Cancer Society more interested in cancer profit

than cancer prevention?

 

Source: http://www.newstarget.com/010243.html