American Cancer Society
When reading Colin Campbell’s The China Study, I came across the following statement:
“It all came down to the fact that the AICR (The American Institute for Cancer Research”), like the NAS, was advancing an agenda that connected diet and cancer. The American Cancer Society (ACS) became an especially vigorous detractor. In its eyes, the AICR had two strikes against it: it might compete for the same funding donors, and it was trying to shift the cancer discussion toward diet. The ACS had not yet acknowledged that diet and nutrition were connected to cancer. (It wasn’t until many years later in the early 1990s that it developed dietary recommendations to control cancer when the idea was receiving considerable currency with the public.) It was very much a medically based organization invested in the conventional use of drugs, radiation, and surgery.”
Then I decided to do a little research on the ACS to see if this was still the case. In going to their website I wanted to see their recommendations on using a whole food plant based (WFPB) diet. On this page, I came up with statements such as:
- A diet that is rich in vegetables, fruit, poultry, fish, and low-fat dairy products has also been linked with a lower risk of breast cancer in some studies. But it is not clear if specific vegetables, fruits, or other foods can lower risk.
- Overall, diets that are high in vegetables, fruits, and whole grains (and low in red and processed meats) have been linked with lower colorectal cancer risk, although it’s not exactly clear which factors are important. Many studies have found a link between red meat or processed meat intake and colorectal cancer risk.
- In recent years, some large studies have suggested that fiber intake, especially from whole grains, may lower colorectal cancer risk. Research in this area is still under way.
- Vegetable and fiber intake may lower risk, although some studies have not found this. The evidence for red meat, saturated fat, animal fat, and alcohol raising risk is also conflicting among different studies.
- Studies looking for links between specific parts of the diet and kidney cancer have not shown clear results.
- A diet high in vegetables and fruits may reduce the risk of mouth and esophagus cancers.
- Studies of vegetables, fruits, meat, dairy products, and alcohol have not found clear links.
- Diets high in red and processed meats and low in fruits and vegetables have been linked with increased risk in some studies. More research is needed to confirm these findings.
Are you beginning to see a pattern here? How much research do they need??? Just take a look at what just a few of the world famous medical personnel have to say about what to eat and what not to eat along with how it will affect your health.
On one page with videos was the comment: “You may not realize that diet, exercise, and cancer risk are connected. In fact, many cancer deaths could be prevented with a healthy diet and regular physical activity.” They mention a healthy diet, but (so far) I haven’t found them mentioning what a healthy diet consists of or what not to eat. In The China Study the refers to a site that has such a list, recipes, etc.
The Smoking Gun
I next wanted to find out who their sponsors were which you can see here. There was only one pharmaceutical company…Abbvie…mentioned there. When clicking the “View All Partners Against Cancer” link and looking thru the Visionaries, Groundbreakers, Pioneers, Champions, and Guardians I found more pharmaceutical firms. In addition, the list is also composed of major food, meat, and poultry industry giants who are exposed in The China Study as purveyors of the “Black List” of items that cause or contribute to most all of the major diseases.
However, I thought it strange that they were referred to as “Partners.” Then I Googled ” sponsors and came up with the Cancer Action Network branch of the ACS which showed the companies supporting them. One of them is Abbvie a pharmaceutical company with $32 billion of revenue in 2016.
At the top of the page is the following: “ACS CAN is a unique organization working with partners to energize thousands of advocates committed to making the fight against cancer a higher priority among our elected leaders at all levels of government.” Here the sponsors are also referred to as “Partners.” In the list of Corporate Champions and Allies that reads like a Who’s Who list of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world with revenues over $10 billion. Be sure to take notice of who is #1 on the list…..Johnson & Johnson with revenues in 2018 of $81.6 billion.
The Smoking Gun Connection
The second paragraph reads “Gary Reedy, who retired as worldwide vice president of government affairs and policy with Johnson & Johnson on Friday, will succeed John Seffrin as of April 27. Reedy served as chairman of the charity’s board as recently as 2013, a year in which ACS reorganized from 13 geographic divisions into one entity.
This link ties into my first comment about a ACIR where it said about ACS: It was very much a medically based organization invested in the conventional use of drugs, radiation, and surgery.”
If you read The China Study, it will go into more detail about the adverse influence generated by pharmaceutical companies, along with the meat, dairy, and poultry industry on anything or anyone that will cast aspersions on their products.
In the spirit of neutrality that I try to maintain for this site as moderator, I like to emulate the medical profession in ascribing to evidence-based research. In doing so, rather than pass judgment on these findings, I will present you with several questions and hope you will respond with carefully thought out evidence-based responses to this post with the intent of educating our readers with “All The Truth and Nothing But the Truth” (as Sergeant Friday would always say on Dragnet).
Question #1: If a WFPB diet were to be as effective as The China Study purports it to be and either arrests or reverses disease along with prolonging lives, what effect would this have on pharmaceutical companies, food industry and related entities?
Question #2: How much partiality do you think a person like Mr. Reedy would have toward an inexpensive diet that could affect people who are now relying on expensive surgery and life-long medication to remedy their ailments?
Question #3: What would be the fallout if something as simple and inexpensive as a WFPB diet was as effective as they say and eliminated the need for surgery and medication along with the need for all the associations and societies who are all seeking donations and government grants under the guise of “We need more money for research to find a cure” (and don’t forget the generous salaries and benefits for the officers of said organizations)?
Question #4: What would be the effect if all the people you love, your family, your friends and associates were living longer and disease free and free of surgeries, chemotherapy, medications, and suffering? Can this happen? Is it too much to hope for?
Question #5: Whether you have a disease or not, what have you got to lose by trying this diet to prove to yourself as to its validity? 30-days to a better life sounds like a hellava good deal to me.
Can a simple change in diet be the answer? Can it be too good to be true? IMHO, one can only hope it is. Sometimes the best answer is the simplest answer.
Commentator’s supplemental notes:
Here’s a report that cast further aspersions on the ACS: [READ MORE….]