Unholy Alliance: Part II

[Guest guest]

http://www.cancercoverup.com/newsletter/08-2004/

 

Unholy Alliance: Part II

Monthly Newsletter | www.cancer-coverup.com | August

2004

 

BY KATHLEEN B. DEOUL

 

The evidence suggesting a link between toxic chemicals

and the nation's cancer epidemic seems impossible to

ignore.

 

A study of female chemists found they had a 65% higher

chance of dying from breast cancer.

 

A study comparing U.S. counties with two or more

active waste sites with counties that had no such

facilities found women living in the areas with waste

sites had a 6.5 times higher likelihood of dying from

breast cancer.

 

A study of counties with two or more instances of

chemical pollution found women died from breast cancer

at twice the rate of unpolluted counties.

 

You would think that these findings are just too

compelling to ignore - but that's exactly what the

cancer establishment, including the American Cancer

Society (ACS) is doing.

THE ACS TURNS A BLIND EYE

 

In the section " Unproven Risks " on the ACS website the

organization states:

 

" Public concern about environmental cancer risks often

focuses on risks for which no carcinogenicity has been

proven or on situations where known carcinogen

exposures are at such low levels that risks are

negligible. "

 

The site goes on to dismiss cancer risks from

pesticides, toxic wastes, DDT and a host of other

sources. Even where the ACS does acknowledge the

existence of data suggesting an increased risk, it

quickly dismisses the findings. For example,

concerning the documented link between DDT and breast

cancer, the organization says:

 

" Environmental pollution by pesticides such as DDT,

which is now banned, but was used in agriculture in

the past, degrade slowly and can lead to accumulation

in body fat. These residues have been suggested as a

possible risk factor for breast cancer, although study

results have been largely negative. "

 

Yet, the ACS must know that their assertion is flatly

untrue! In fact, most studies have suggested a link,

and there is only one, funded by chemical companies,

that suggests otherwise.

 

But this isn't the only example from the ACS' own

website.

 

The ACS devotes the first half (over 7 pages) of a

lengthy article on the possible link between the

Vietnam War defoliant Agent Orange and cancer to

various studies debunking a connection. Buried in the

middle of the article are the results of the

authoritative National Institutes of Health, Institute

of Medicine (IOM) study of Agent Orange that found

" Sufficient Evidence of an Association " between the

chemical defoliant and several forms of cancer

including Soft Tissue Sarcoma, Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma,

Hodgkin's Disease and Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia

(CLL). The IOM report also found at least limited or

suggestive evidence of a link between the chemical and

respiratory cancers of the lung, trachea, bronchus and

larynx, Prostate Cancer and Multiple Myeolma. Also

buried far down in the ACS article is the fact that

the National Toxicology Program has designated phenoxy

herbicides such as Agent Orange " possibly carcinogenic

to humans " and that the same institution also found

one of the constituent elements of Agent Orange,

dioxin, a " known human carcinogen. "

 

But even that isn't all.

 

Buried near the end of the article is one critical bit

of information: the Department of Veterans Affairs

considers Vietnam Veterans suffering from any of seven

forms of cancer to have a service connected disability

and therefore eligible for compensation because of a

presumed link between these cancers and Agent Orange

exposure!

 

Even as it discounts the link between environmental

pollution and cancer, the ACS is just as quick to

dismiss most alternative medicine as " unproven " (more

on that later).

 

But why would the American Cancer Society cavalierly

dismiss evidence that might point to the underlying

causes of so many types of cancer? Why would it also

discount most alternative medical therapies

out-of-hand? To answer these questions you have to

follow the money.

 

The ACS is the oldest and unquestionably wealthiest

member of the anticancer establishment. With an annual

income exceeding $325 million and assets in excess of

$1 billion it dwarfs most charitable organizations.

But it's not just cancer research that benefits from

this huge revenue stream. According to the ACS' most

recent public filing, nearly two-thirds (63.3%) of its

budget goes to overhead. This figure includes 19.6%

for salaries (with almost $2.1 million in salaries and

benefits to the top 5 employees) and another 19.1% for

accounting and professional fees. Taken together this

means that 38.7% of the money average citizens have

donated for what they believed was cancer research

went into the pockets of individuals!

 

In short, there are a lot of people associated with

the ACS who have a strong vested interest in not

alienating donors. But what does chemical pollution

have to do with the ACS donor base? More than you

might imagine, but to understand the connection, you

first have to understand the connection between the

pharmaceutical and chemical industries.

THE CHEMICAL/PHARMACEUTICAL NEXUS

 

Today, the global drug market is controlled by about a

dozen mega-companies that came into existence through

a series of mergers at the end of the 1990s. Conceived

as so-called " life sciences companies " these firms

frequently were involved in manufacturing across a

wide range of areas related to chemistry, often

including both pharmaceuticals and agricultural

products. These huge new companies including firms

such as Pfizer, Bristol-Myers, Bayer, Pharmacia,

Novartis, Aventis and GlaxoSmithKline exercise a

degree of control over virtually all aspects of

pharmaceutical markets that is unprecedented in

history.

 

What most people do not realize is that the advent of

these mega-corporations also meant that many of these

companies are cashing in on cancer in two ways: making

the products that may cause cancer, and then providing

the pharmaceutical products and services that are used

to fight it!

 

And that's not the end of the outrage!

 

Through an incestuous series of relationships between

the private, non-profit and government sectors, the

Cancer Establishment makes sure that nothing is done

to threaten its profit machine.

 

For example, Aventis, the pharmaceutical giant

resulting from the merger of Hoechst AG and

Rhone-Poulenc produces drugs ranging from the

antihistamine Allegra to the chemotherapy agent

Taxotere. But it's not just drugs that Aventis

manufactures. Its subsidiary, Aventis Agriculture,

also manufactures pesticides and herbicides whose

overuse may be a major factor in the current cancer

epidemic.

 

Dow Chemical, which manufactures the organophosphate

pesticide Dursban that was banned from yard and garden

use due to its toxic effects on the brain, is also a

major producer of radiopharmaceuticals used to treat

cancer.

 

GlaxoSmithKline has a dozen anticancer drugs already

approved and some 145 in various stages of testing.

But the company also owns and operates dozens of

chemical plants around the world. The GlaxoSmithKline

chemical plant in Ulverston, UK is considered one of

the worst polluters in Great Britain.

 

Bayer, the company most people associate with aspirin

actually is among the largest of the pharmaceutical

behemoths and the manufacturer of Taxene, among the

most widely used breast cancer drugs. But Bayer is

also the manufacturer of a wide range of insecticides;

weed and disease control products for food and fiber

crops.

 

In some cases, however, drug companies have tried to

camouflage.

 

For example, in November of 2000 after Novartis and

AstraZeneca merged, they elected to spin off their

agricultural products divisions to create a new

entity, Syngenta. Of course, that doesn't mean that

AstraZeneca is through contributing to the cancer

epidemic. The firm also manufacturers Tamoxifen, one

of the most widely prescribed breast cancer drugs,

which itself, is a known carcinogen!

 

In April of 2000, Pharmacia/Upjohn acquired Monsanto

chemical's Searle pharmaceutical unit, nominally

spinning off the chemical products division. But

Pharmacia retained an 85% controlling interest making

the separation little more than a ruse to hide the

connection between the drug giant and one of the most

notorious industrial polluters in history. In the

1970s and 1980s, Monsanto had been a major

manufacturer of phenoxy herbicides and has numerous

toxic waste sites on its properties around the nation.

It has also been accused of exposing its workers to

high levels of the cancer causing compound dioxin. By

2002, Pharmacia decided it had to divest its interest

in Monsanto completely, but it chose a unique method

of accomplishing this objective. It divested the

company by distributing its shares to Pharmacia's

stockholders - in other words, the same people owned

both companies! So while there was no longer a direct

connection between the two manufacturers, there really

was no change in ownership! So the same people could

continue to benefit from the sale of cancer-causing

pesticides and the sale of drugs to treat cancer!

 

But what does the chemical/pharmaceutical link have to

do with groups like the American Cancer Society and

the Susan G. Komen Foundation, and with events like

the " Race for the Cure " or " Breast Cancer Awareness

Month? "

 

As it turns out, more than you might think! It also

explains the mindless opposition to alternative

therapies that has characterized the establishment

nonprofit cancer organizations for so long.

DON'T BITE THE HAND THAT FEEDS YOU

 

As noted, the American Cancer Society has had a long

history of downplaying the role of environmental

pollution in causing cancer. It also has had a similar

history of resistance to the use of alternative

therapies. On its website the ACS quotes Barrie

Cassileth's view of alternatives:

 

" Alternative therapies are unproven methods that are

generally invasive and harmful and have a major

physiologic effect … Avoid any regimen or product that

is offered as a cancer cure outside of mainstream

medicine … "

 

At the end of the section the ACS quotes former JAMA

editor Dr. George D. Lundberg:

 

" Until solid evidence is available that demonstrates

the safety, efficacy, and effectiveness of specific

alternative medicine interventions, uncritical

evidence of untested and unproven alternative medicine

therapies must stop. "

 

Why would the ACS be so adamant in it's condemnation

of alternatives? One answer might be the composition

of its board.

 

Roughly half of the American Cancer Society's board of

directors is comprised of oncologists and other

medical practitioners with a vested interest in the

continued use of conventional medicine to treat cancer

- but that's not all.

 

More than a decade ago, the ACS established a

subsidiary, the American Cancer Society Foundation as

a means of attracting large grants from corporate

donors. According to the Foundation's official report

to the U.S. government, federal form 990, its

directors include Mr. Robert A. Ingram, Vice Chairman

of GlaxoSmithKline, Ms. Karen Katen, President of

Pfizer Global Pharmaceuticals and Executive Vice

President of Pfizer Inc. Gary M. Reedy, Worldwide Vice

President for Pharmaceutical Policy of Johnson &

Johnson and Martin J. Murphy, Founder and CEO of

AlphaMed Consulting LLC.

 

In its 2002 form 990, the ACS Foundation lists major

gifts from Eastman Kodak, Aventis Pharmaceuticals,

Pharmacia, Merck and Company, AstraZeneca, and Ortho

Biotech. The fact that at least half of the firms,

Eastman Kodak, Aventis Pharmaceuticals, and

AstraZeneca have been major producers of the toxic

chemicals that are contributing to the current cancer

epidemic doesn't seem to bother the ACS Foundation. Of

course, the Foundation is not alone among the

non-profit members of the cancer establishment in its

willingness to accept money from questionable sources.

THE SUSAN G. KOMEN BREAST CANCER FOUNDATION

 

The Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, best

known for its " Race for the Cure " events proudly lists

among its sponsors, Occidental Chemical Corporation, a

division of Occidental Petroleum. Occidental, was the

company responsible for one of the most notorious

instances of environmental contamination: Love Canal.

 

Then New York Governor Hugh Carey said in a special

report on Love Canal presented to the State

Legislature in 1978:

" The profound and devastating effects of the Love

Canal tragedy, in terms of human health and suffering

and environmental damage, cannot and probably will

never be fully measured. "

 

Some of the damage has, however, been assessed.

 

*

 

The risk of having a miscarriage, or having an

infant suffer from " crib death " was three times higher

for Love Canal residents.

*

 

Birth defects among children born near Love

Canal were 56% higher than normal.

*

 

The incidence of urinary tract disorders was 2.8

times higher than normal.

*

 

The incidence of nervous breakdowns and other

serious mental health problems was over six times as

high in areas with a high concentration of the

pollutants from Love Canal than in areas where the

concentration was minimal.

*

 

The likelihood of dying from cancer was three

times the national average.

 

Of course, Occidental is a member of the Komen

Foundation's " Million Dollar Council, " firms that

contribute more than a million dollars to the

organization. A million dollars apparently covers a

multitude of sins. But Occidental isn't the only firm

supporting the Race for the Cure that has a

questionable history or a conflict of interest. An

examination of sponsors for a representative sample of

local Race for the Cure events makes this more than

evident.

 

In the nation's Capital, Bristol-Meyers, Astra Zeneca

and Eastman Kodak all are listed as sponsors, as is

the American Society of Clinical Oncology and GE

Healthcare. AstraZeneca is also listed as a sponsor of

events in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. Pharmacia

sponsors the Race for the Cure in Southwest Michigan,

and Bristol-Meyers is a Tulsa Sponsor.

 

The success that Big Pharma has achieved in polishing

its image by sponsorship of events like Race for the

Cure has inspired at least one company to develop

nearly a dozen copy-cat events. In its annual report,

AstraZeneca boasts of its role in a variety of

" awareness " events including National Breast Cancer

Awareness Month and Prostate Cancer Awareness Month,

Minority Health Month. That their chemical products

may have contributed to the spread of these diseases,

of course, is no barrier to accepting their funding.

THE IMPACT

 

While on the surface it may appear that the largesse

of Big Pharma is based in nothing more than a desire

to be good corporate citizens, the reality is much

more sinister. Establishment nonprofit organizations

like the American Cancer Society and Susan G. Komen

Breast Cancer Foundation exercise an enormous

influence over opinion leaders both inside and outside

official circles. This is in part due to the

perception that they have no financial stake in

established cancer treatments and pharmaceuticals.

This perception is false. But that doesn't diminish

their influence.

 

In myriad ways, large and small, the cancer

establishment's nonprofit sector exercises an enormous

influence over legislation before Congress. They are

listened to on issues of treatment, research funding

and prevention - all because legislators believe they

have no vested financial interest.

 

The truth is that with a national board whose

membership is substantially comprised of oncologists,

radiologists and others who derive their income from

conventional therapies to treat cancer, these

organizations have a vested financial interest in

maintaining the status quo. For organizations like the

American Cancer Society Foundation whose board

includes senior executives of major

pharmaceutical/chemical firms, the conflict is even

more evident.

 

The impact of their influence is apparent. Why else

would the established anticancer organizations only

advocate the therapies that benefit Big Pharma and

Organized Medicine while attacking alternatives? Why

else would these same groups ignore the increasingly

apparent link between environmental contamination and

cancer? Why else would they virtually ignore

prevention? The simple truth is that they don't want

to jeopardize their power, position and privilege. Of

course, with salary and benefit packages in excess of

half a million dollars, like the one the president of

the American Cancer Society has, there's a pretty

large personal stake in the status quo.