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)
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-4787683/American-Cancer-Society-...
“AstaZeneca gives $7M to American Cancer Society” (Dec 22, 2006)
http://www.wickedlocal.com/westborough/news/business/x1343519404
“Drug firms' funding of advocates often escapes government scrutiny—Many patient groups depend on it, raising tricky ethical questions” (Boston Globe, March 18, 2007)
http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2007/03/18/drug_firms_fund...
“Pharmaceutical Firm Pitched Cancer Drug to Boston-Area Support Groups” (Boston Globe, November 12, 2002)
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-120064585/pharmaceutical-firm...
“Anthem donates $550,000 to American Cancer Society Hope Lodges”
http://louisville.bizjournals.com/louisville/stories/2008/05/19/daily10....
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.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/21/health/21cancer.html?_r=1
