The American Cancer Society is a Scam

READ BEFORE ENTERING; This website is for information purposes only; we are not diagnosing, treating, curing, mitigating, or preventing any disease or medical condition by providing the information contained herein. Before beginning any natural, integrative or conventional treatment regimen, it is advisable to seek the advice of a licensed healthcare professional.

The American Cancer Society is a Scam

Experts in the Art of Deception

Please read some of this factual information before you consider donating to this organization. Boycott the ACS.  If this information angers you as it should, please donate instead to the public interest and environmental groups involved in cancer prevention. But let’s get to the facts first, then you can decide.

The American Cancer Society is as corrupt as the FDA and the CDC, and The World Health Organization. They are all in bed together, making billions of dollars off of our sicknesses.  We will summarize this 100+ page report for you and add in some factual scientific studies to back up what they are telling you.

More Interested In Accumulating Wealth Than Saving Lives

Samuel S. Epstein, M.D.

Emeritus professor of Environmental and Occupational Medicine

University of Illinois School of Public Health and

Chairman, The Cancer Prevention Coalition

In 1993, The Chronicle of Philanthropy published a statement that the ACS was “more interested in accumulating wealth than in saving lives.”

Fund-raising appeals routinely stated that the ACS needed more funds to support its cancer programs, all the while holding more than $750 million in cash and real estate assets.

The ACS – More Interested in Accumulating Wealth than Saving Lives

Right off the bat, what they say they do is not what they do. How dare they use the word prevention?

“The American Cancer Society is a nationwide community-based voluntary health organization 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.”

They do not in any way promote the prevention of cancer. Cancer is a big business. The sicker we are the more money they make. 95% of all cancers are preventable and they do not “run for prevention” and there is already supressed cures they hide from you.

Cancer can be cured naturally and in other ways, and they are in no way attempting to eliminate cancer. The 200 billion dollars a year cancer care industry is big business. They do not want to cure this disease. The GDP will fall as the economy crashes if they allow the cure for cancer to get out.  This organization is just another cog in the wheel of the pharma industries’ massive propaganda campaign. Pharma has pummeled in billions of dollars into this brainwashing belief that they have your best interest in mind when — they absolutely do not. They pretend to look for a cure while profiting billions of dollars.

The typical ACS affiliate, which helps raise the money for the national office, spent more than 52 percent of its budget on salaries, pensions, fringe benefits, and overhead for its employees. As of 1998, the ACS budget was $380 million, with cash reserves approaching $1 billion.

The ACS had a cash reserve of one billion dollars in 1998 yet our society still kept giving based on propaganda and lies.

Yet its aggressive fund-raising campaign continued and continues to plead poverty and lament the lack of available money for cancer research. Meanwhile, efforts to prevent cancer by phasing out avoidable exposures to environmental and occupational carcinogens remained ignored. The ACS also remained silent about its intricate relationships with the wealthy cancer drug, chemical, and other industries.

The ACS and Lobbying

Linda Hay Crawford admitted in 1998; The ACS used ten of its senior employees on direct lobbying. They hired the lobbying firm of Hogan & Hartson.  The lobbying included a $30,000 donation to Democratic and Republican governors’ associations. These contributions could be illegal, as charities are not allowed to make political donations. They say that they still disregard this to this day.

“The ACS bears a major decades-long responsibility for losing the winnable war against cancer”

Boycott the ACS. If this information angers you, as it should, please donate instead to the public interest and environmental groups involved in cancer prevention.

In 1992, the American Cancer Society Foundation was created to allow the ACS to solicit contributions of more than $100,000

A close look at the heavy-hitters on the Foundation’s board made it clear what conflicts of interests were at play, and from where the Foundation expected its significant contributions.

David R. Bethune is the president of Lederle Laboratories, a multinational pharmaceutical company and a division of American Cyanamid Company. Bethune was also vice president of American Cyanamid, which made chemical fertilizers and herbicides while transforming itself into a full-fledged pharmaceutical company. In 1988, American Cyanamid introduced Novantrone, an anti-cancer drug, and subsequently announced that it would buy a majority of shares of Immunex, a cancer drug industry.

•Gordon Binder, CEO of Amgen, the world’s foremost biotechnology company, with over $1 billion in product sales in 1992. Amgen’s success rested almost exclusively on one product, Neupogen, administered to chemotherapy patients to stimulate the production of their white blood cells. •Multimillionaire Irwin Beck, whose father, William Henry Beck, founded Beck’s Stores, the nation’s largest family-owned retail chain, which brought in revenues of $1.7 billion in 1993.

•Sumner M. Redstone, chairman of Viacom International Inc., broadcasting, telecommunications, entertainment, and cable television corporation.


(Page 9)

The launching of President Nixon’s 1971 war against cancer provided the ACS with a well-exploited opportunity to pursue its own myopic and self-interested agenda.

ACS conflicts of interest are extensive and still largely unrecognized by the public. Meanwhile, the ACS continues to ignore a wide range of industrial carcinogens in water, air, food, the workplace, and in mainstream household, cosmetics and personal care products.

The ACS completely ignores the fact that your household is filled with toxic cancer-causing chemicals that you buy at the store regularly. They turn away from the fact that personal care products that you use on your body cause cancer. They completely ignore the fact that sunscreen is a cancer causer and a significant cause of skin cancer.  They tell you to use sunscreen to promote the industry’s profits and hide the truth from you, so they fuel the profits of big business while making you sick. Then send you off to pharma to get poisoned some more with toxic chemotherapy and promote the cog in the wheel of profits.

Mammography and a Huge Conflict of Interest

(Page 10) – 1. MammographyThe ACS has close connections to the mammography industry. As detailed in the author’s 1998 The Politics of Cancer Revisited, five radiologists have served as ACS presidents, and in its every move, the ACS reflects the interests of the major manufacturers of mammogram machines and films. These include Siemens, DuPont, General Electric, Eastman Kodak, and Piker. If every woman followed ACS and NCI mammography guidelines, the annual revenue to health care facilities would be a staggering $5 billion.

The ACS spends billions of dollars on advertising to lure women to get a mammography study.  They falsely make them believe that mammography is their best hope against breast cancer, and it is not. Mammography promotes breast cancer. They even put out false information in their advertising using misleading statistics. They are experts in the art of deception.

When questioned about a very deceptive advertisement by the ACS, their communications director responded to the allegation of false advertising by basically admitting to the deception. She said,

“The ad isn’t based on a study. When you make an advertisement, you just say what you can to get women in the door. You exaggerate a point. Mammography today is a lucrative highly competitive business.”  -The American Cancer Society’s Communications Director

(Page 10)

In addition, the mammography industry conducts research for the ACS and its grantees, serves on advisory boards, and donates considerable funds. DuPont is a substantial backer of the ACS Breast Health Awareness Program; sponsors television shows and other media productions touting mammography; produces advertising, promotional, and educational literature and films for hospitals, clinics, medical organizations, and doctors; and lobbies Congress for legislation promoting the availability of mammography services.

Here is why Dupont spends so much money promoting mammograms. They make billions of dollars in profits while ignoring the science that they are not beneficial.

Effect of Three Decades of Screening Mammography on Breast-Cancer Incidence

Our study raises serious questions about the value of screening mammography. It clarifies that the benefit of mortality reduction is probably smaller, and the harm of overdiagnosis probably larger than has been previously recognized.

And although no one can say with certainty which women have cancers that are overdiagnosed, there is certainty about what happens to them: they undergo surgery, radiation therapy, hormonal therapy for 5 years or more, chemotherapy, or (usually) a combination of these treatments for abnormalities that otherwise would not have caused illness.

These are salaries for NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS

15th Highest Salary: Stephen Prescott, Okla. Medical Research Foundation

Compensation (2008): $806,150

14th Highest Salary: Edward J. Benz, Jr, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute

Compensation (2008): $848,802

Boston’s Dana-Farber Cancer Institute is a leader in both the research and clinical sides of the cancer problem, focusing its efforts through The Jimmy Fund, the group’s flagship fundraising arm that organizes charity bike rides, golf tournaments, walk-a-thons and more.

This website is for information purposes only; we are not diagnosing, treating, curing, mitigating, or preventing any disease or medical condition by providing the information contained herein. Before beginning any natural, integrative or conventional treatment regimen, it is advisable to seek the advice of a licensed healthcare professional.