Truth and Consequences for the American Cancer Society Regarding Controversial Cancer Screens

submitted by: admin on 05/19/2024

Sometimes, in those rare moments—before the spin takes over—the unvarnished truth can escape from the mouths of genuine scientists who are otherwise ensconced in politicized medical bureaucracies. To his great credit, Dr. Otis Brawley, chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society (ACS), made one of those refreshing slips in a conversation with the New York Times that was published on October 21. Brawley admitted that certain screening practices formerly endorsed by the ACS actually create more cancer patients than there needs to be. Almost out of the blue, Brawley bucked conventional wisdom by declaring that screening for breast and prostate cancer and certain other cancers “can come with a real risk of overtreating many small cancers while missing cancers that are deadly.” (See the NYT link below.) Oddly, he later seemed to recant this courageous declaration in a confusing statement posted at the website of the American Cancer Sociey, on the very same day! A little research reveals what may be behind the motivations of the ACS in putting the kabosh on Dr. Brawley's honest science: a pattern of conflict of interest involving—yup, you guessed it—Big Pharma. A quick search on our part turned up these headlines:

“American Cancer Society Acknowledges AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals for $2 Million Gift to Support Cancer Patients at Hope Lodge” (Oct 10, 2005)

“AstaZeneca gives $7M to American Cancer Society” (Dec 22, 2006)

“Drug firms' funding of advocates often escapes government scrutiny—Many patient groups depend on it, raising tricky ethical questions” (Boston Globe, March 18, 2007)

“Pharmaceutical Firm Pitched Cancer Drug to Boston-Area Support Groups” (Boston Globe, November 12, 2002)

“Anthem donates $550,000 to American Cancer Society Hope Lodges”

It’s been noted by many that nonprofits promoting public health, like the ACS, will end up compromised—not only by direct funding from corporations like Pfizer and AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals—but by adopting the mentality and belief structure of the dominant medical paradigm.

Nevertheless, let’s turn to (and revel in) Dr. Brawley’s original point, well-made before the spin doctors at ACS regained control: Screens for breast and prostate cancer—paradoxically—don’t really help nearly as much as is represented. They all too often reveal cancers that do not need to be found. That’s because, according to recent studies cited by Brawley, these minor cancers “would never spread and kill or even be noticed if left alone.” The current practice “has led to a huge increase in cancer diagnoses because, without screening, a considerable number of those innocuous cancers would go undetected.” At the same time, he explained, both screens are not making much of a dent in the number of cancers that are deadly. For example, that may be because “many lethal breast cancers grow so fast they spring up between such screens as mammograms.” Brawley concludes: “I’m admitting that American medicine has overpromised when it comes to screening. The advantages to screening have been exaggerated.”

Please see: Gina Kolata, “Cancer Society, in Shift, Has Concerns on Screenings” (October 20, 2009) The New York Times.

The audio below talks about conflicts of interest with the American Cancer Society...

Most people think that "Pink Ribbon" leaders are doing a great job in helping prevent the breast cancer epidemic. However, they are sponsored by cosmetic companies that include products that cause cancer; this includes Estee Lauder, Avon, and Revlon. Breast Cancer Awareness Month was started by a drug company, Astra Zenica, that sells chemotherapy drugs. These companies are promoting a cure for cancer but do nothing for prevention. Companies such as the American Cancer Society also have a conflict of interest because they accept money from the drug companies that manufacture chemotherapy. The cosmetic industry is targeting women of childbearing age to use their unsafe products. There are 300 known toxic chemicals found in umbilical cord blood.

Conflicts of Interest With Pink Ribbon Leaders (Audio)

The audio below talks about Cancer screening vs Prevention.....



Cancer is on the rise and cancer screening is being promoted. Early detection is not as important as you'd think. The pap smear, mammograms, colonoscopy, and PSA testing have major problems that lead to over or underdiagnosis and unnecessary treatment. Screens over the age of 70 has not been shown to be warranted

Cancer Screening vs Prevention (Audio)

Part of...
Program Figures
3688 Members
7 Wellness Coaches
2639 Articles
0 Blog posts
0 Blog comments

Keywords for this Article

Why Become a Member of

  • Membership is always free at
  • Member Assessment Results are securely archived
  • All Archived Member Data is accessible 24/7
  • Members can Track Progress over time
  • Members receive Dr. Saputo's Monthly Newsletter


Strategic Partners

Dr. Len's health clinic

Immune system boosting meditations and Qigong exercises