American Cancer Society (ACS)Posted 1 year ago under Uncategorized
For one hundred years, the American Cancer Society has said they are dedicated to eliminating cancer, though cancer was barely an issue for America a century ago, and cancer cases and statistics have never been worse than they are right now. The “ACS” society was founded in 1913 by businessmen and a handful of physicians in New York City, but back then it was called American Society for the Control of Cancer, or “ASCC.” The new name ACS wasn’t adopted until after WWII. This is when processed food became staple diet for Americans living in cities and near factories especially. Groceries would now be boxed and canned and loaded with preservatives. Also, in the 1950s, vaccines and pharmaceuticals began their reign of terror, and the ACS would soon be a mighty force in the “voice” for the “war on cancer” that doesn’t really work. Then, in the 1980s came GMO, genetically modified food, and the ACS cancer movement won’t even promote organic food as a cancer prevention tool or cure for cancer, still today. (1) Dial it back to the early days, when ASCC published propaganda to “educate” doctors, nurses and patients about cancer. Articles were specifically written for popular magazines and for the “professional” journals, like monthly bulletins, for example. The ASCC began “recruiting” doctors (shills) to back their new “cancer education.” Then, in 1936, ASCC declared their “war on cancer” and created a network of new “volunteers” who would now be involved in cancer “control” as the new work force involved about 150,000 people. The sword symbol of the ASCC (ACS) is supposed to represent the scientific and medical focus for the “crusading spirit of the cancer control movement.”
ACS provides grants to researchers for discovering links between smoking and cancer, although those facts were covered up for decades while the AMA (3) and JAMA, the Journal of the American Medical Association, advertised cigarettes via thousands of doctor endorsements saying cigarettes were good for health, digestion and relaxation. (2)
Nearly 30% of ACS money goes in pockets of CEO, Administration and Management
Cancer is big business, and currently ACS has over 3,000 offices in the USA and they run public health advertising campaigns, such as Relay For Life and the Great American Smokeout. (4) ACS also runs many thrift stores and participates in relays, runs, walks and cycling for cancer awareness fundraisers and drives. Nearly thirty percent of all funds raised go to pay for management and general administration of ACS. In 2012 alone, ACS raised nearly $100 million. Former CEO, John R. Seffrin, received $2.4 million salary/compensation from the “charity” for 2009-2010 fiscal year. That’s the second highest amount of money given by any charity to the head of that charity according to Charity Watch. This is much like the Komen “For the Cure” Foundation (6) and NCI, the National Cancer Institute, when it comes to paying the “heads” a ton of money and barely using any for cancer research. These big organizations, non-profit or not, seem to be ponzi schemes set up to look like a “war on cancer” when in fact they have corporate sponsors who manufacture, process, distribute and sell cancer-causing foods, and many of these foods are even sold at “charity” and “fundraising” events. (5)
In 1995, the Arizona chapter of ACS was exposed for using 95% of its donations for paying salaries and “overhead” costs. Plus, they grossly misrepresented the money they spent on patient services, inflating it for public relations purposes. Then, ACS found themselves back in the news for disputing findings of the President’s Cancer Panel on the role of toxins that cause cancer, as found in thousands of food, beverage and personal care products across America. The ACS went “out of its way” to attack the report and downplay how much toxins really weigh into the equation of chemical consumption leading to human cell mutation and suffocation.
War or Fiction? Which is this “War on Cancer?”
Critics right and left have questioned ACS’s apparent “conflicts of interest” since they have so many ties to chemical industries and those industry DONATIONS that come streaming in on a consistent basis. This is NOT in the public’s interest that this business takes place and is labeled “non-profit” and declares a hundred-year-war on something that just keeps getting worse and more common – cancer. One in three Americans get cancer in their life and about fifty percent of those survive. To top it off, ACS continues to support mammograms, which have been called into question time and time again for their safety and efficacy, with cases and research warning us, dating back into the 1970’s. False readings are also a common nightmare for the patients of this chronic care industry that rakes in billions every year – and that being the “war on cancer” that’s waged on the wrong front. The true war on cancer is won by consuming organic food, non-fluoridated water and pursuing natural remedies that work holistically to heal, prevent disease and cell disorder, and keep chemicals and known carcinogens OUT of the body. (6)
Last year the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) reported that mammograms increased “the burden of low-risk cancers without significantly reducing the burden of more aggressively growing cancers and therefore not resulting in the anticipated reduction in cancer mortality”.
Still, the ACS stonewalls science, like they did with Tobacco (their best friends). ACS is still pro-mammogram today. They don’t want to make light of the inadequacies of what alternative health news enthusiasts call “scam-o-grams” because they are all one huge scam to send woman down a dangerous path that makes the cancer industry that much more profitable to those who “invest” in it.
American Cancer Society takes in more money than any other US charity.
American Cancer Society has massive cash reserves
American Cancer Society owns huge amounts of property
American Cancer Society has many assets.
American Cancer Society is not heard by Congress or Regulatory Agencies
American Cancer Society makes no attempt to influence legislation to protect US citizens from a WIDE range of occupational and environmental KNOWN CARCINOGENS such as the following: Scientific and Statistical Facts Testicular cancer has increased nearly 50 percent due to pesticides, harmful ingredients in personal care products and estrogen residues in meat.
Breast cancer has increased 17 percent due to a wide range of factors including birth control pills, estrogen replacement therapy, ingredients in cosmetics and personal care products, and mammogram and other diagnostic radiation.
Childhood leukemia has increased by 55 percent due to ionizing radiation, domestic pesticides, nitrite preservatives in meats and parental exposures to occupational carcinogens. Malignant melanoma has increased by 168 percent due to the use of toxic sunscreen products that fail to block long wave ultraviolet light. Thyroid cancer has increased by 124 percent due in large part to ionizing radiation. Ovarian cancer (mortality) for women over the age of 65 has increased by 47 percent in African American women and 13 percent in Caucasian women due largely to genital use of talc powder. Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma has increased 76 percent mostly due to phenoxy herbicides and phenylenediamine hair dyes.
ACS Needs to Wake up and Smell the Chemicals
People need to realize these huge corporations in sheep’s clothing are not seeking the cure for cancer, but rather running a cut-throat business that’s riding the coat-tails of a great idea – which is rallying innocent women and men around a cause they believe in enough to donate their time, energy, resources, money to, and to whom they will dedicate their medical decision-making process to, which usually leads to death by chemotherapy. In fact, 1.5 million NEW cases of cancer will be diagnosed in 2016. Yet chemotherapy and radiation yield dismal results for cure rates, and they’re no good for prevention. It appears ACS has only eyes for their own financial interests. If they were really about prevention, they would support organic companies, organic food, organic personal care products and the organizations that sponsor them at events would actually be ones that manufacture products that DO NOT cause cancer if you consume them or put them on your body. Eating Kentucky Fried Chicken and drinking Mike’s Hard Lemonade (alcoholic beverage) at a well known cancer drive (Komen) is not helping the “cause.”
Why stress treatment and screening over prevention?
Instead of allotting money for cancer prevention, the “war on cancer” that the ACS is “fighting” advises Americans to get expensive and toxic chemotherapy and radiation. Damage control is not enough. Though screenings do help some people fight cancer, they don’t prevent cell disorder. Critics suggest vested interest in the cancer industry drives ACS “initiatives.” ACS claims all their corporate connections are so they can continue to control cancer, but cancer is very far from being controlled, especially when we’re talking about chemical treatments for a disorder of the cells that comes from consuming chemicals. If all America does is treat, treat, screen and treat, and there’s no prevention going on, then the statistics stay the same or worsen, and the hospitals and oncologists continue banging their heads against the same proverbial wall.
One of ACS’ board members is the CEO of a biotechnology company that sells chemotherapy products
Another board member of ACS is president of a multinational pharmaceutical company. Any way to “garner funding” right? Solicit money from the very companies that manufacture toxic drugs and from the companies that sell quack medicine to the people who get cancer from THOSE drugs. The ACS, according to Chronicle of Philanthropy, a charity watchdog organization, is “more interested in accumulating wealth than saving lives.” (7)
The ACS has criticized over one hundred promising alternative, non-patented and nontoxic therapies for cancer because there’s no money in that game. Many natural remedies diminish suffering and help with quality of life for cancer patients, but ACS will have no part in revealing prevention and cure techniques if there’s no corporate-sized donations crossing the table to their pockets. Organized medicine seems to have a strangle-hold on the ACS, NCI, Komen Foundation, and several other large organizations and even regulatory agencies like CDC and AMA. One hundred years of fraud, manipulation, miseducation and propaganda have served these organizations well, with corporate and political, lobby-style contributions to tune of millions and maybe billions of dollars. ACS raked in a million dollars from SmithKline Beecham paying for the ASC logo use in their ads for their “NicoDerm” nicotine patch (a scam) and Nicorette gum (another scam) as seen in their anti-smoking advertisements. Neither cessation method yields much success for smokers trying to quit. Most smokers go back to smoking within six months, according to research.
Questionable ethics and motives of ACS
Is ACS making valid effort to inform smokers of the best methods for quitting cigarettes and quitting them for good? Critics of ACS want to know if its just a marketing ploy that wastes donation money on hokey gimmicks and CEO salaries. ACS claims it’s not an endorsement of these products to have their logo on nicotine patches and packs of nicotine-laced gum. Nowhere in the ACS “company book” is there mention of smokers seeking nutritional advice from a Naturopathic physician and heavy metal detoxification programs. Nutritionists can suggest programs for smokers that involve building back up their immunity with natural herbs, tinctures, mineral supplements and the like. ACS is missing the whole “holistic” point. (8) Thousands of smokers have quit smoking using natural herb mucuna as recommended by natural health enthusiasts and nutrition experts around the world. Of course, ACS makes no mention of any natural method for quitting smoking.
Even regarding the mammography “push” by Western medicine, the US Preventive Service Task Force revised its breast cancer screening guidelines to recommend fewer mammograms due to radiation exposure overload. According to research, after 10 years of mammograms (5 rads of radiation exposure), a woman has received the equivalent exposure to a woman standing one mile from the detonation of a nuclear weapon. Plus, mammograms aren’t so great at detecting the more threatening types of cancer, anyway. Prevention is the key, but that’s not what ACS is teaching with all its mission-friendly, heart-felt, donated funds and corporate-sponsored events. The communications directors at ACS are just aiming to get more women “in the door.” That business leads them down a dark path of long-term health negligence and probably chemotherapy. Obviously, ACS is more into the business of accumulating wealth. (9)
ACS Maintains a Cozy Relationship with the Cancer-Drug Industry
One way to help the cancer drug industry remain in “control” of chemical cancer treatments as the mainstream method for treating cancer is to aggressively attack any competition they may have, including holistic and natural treatments for cancer that really work and have for decades, and some for centuries. ACS has a track record of keeping records of alternative cancer therapies they criticize. They even created a committee to focus on this, called “Committee on Unproven Methods of Cancer Management.” This is like Mitt Romney keeping “Binders full of women,” there’s just something inherently wrong with it. And these people, ACS refers to as “volunteer health care professionals.” It may be that they work for pharmaceutical companies and have “skin in the game” regarding who buys and sells their products.
Several organizations, non-profits and regulatory agencies across America are suspect of being corporate “sell outs” whose mission statements are not reflections of their true intentions, including ACS, NCI, Komen for the Cure, American Council on Science and Health (ACSH), CDC, FDA, AMA, ADA, and the list goes on. (10) (11)
In the 1980s, forty members of Congress requested evaluation of alternative innovative therapies for cancer. In 1990, the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), published a report that identified some 200 promising studies on alternative therapies. The National Cancer Institute (NCI) and of course, ACS ignored it. There are hundreds of plants and plant substances that are completely natural, chemical-free, non-GMO, and are of marked therapeutic value. Most Americans fully appreciate non-invasive and effective cancer treatments and quit smoking programs that have zero side effects. (12)