Honest Health
In my last column I wrote about the overwhelming amount of research that shows how soy, especially fermented soy, protects against breast cancer. As I did this research, I noticed that the American Cancer Society, in its brochures and website, seemed stuck on the opposite idea; that soy is dangerous, or is at best useless in preventing breast cancer.
Where did their way out thinking come from? What is the basis for their anti-soy policy stance? I wondered.
Hundreds of millions of women around the world eat soy, (considered a phytoestrogen or a very weak form of plant-based estrogen), instead of using breast cancer drugs such as tamoxifen or aimidex . Like soy, these drugs sometimes can block or lower the body's strong estrogen levels; both are therefore used to help prevent a recurrence of estrogen positive cancer. For women, considered "high risk" tamoxifen, like soy, is sometimes used to prevent an initial breast cancer diagnosis.
In defending their "soy-is-dangerous" policy, the American Cancer Society's or ACS' Fact Sheets and web pages always quote something called, Implications of Phytoestrogen Intake for Breast Cancer, a review article written in 2002 and published in the American Cancer Society's Journal, Cancer , that looks at 180 studies on the subject of using soy or other phytoestrogens, such as flax seed, as a way to reduce or prevent breast cancer incidence.
So I decided I had better read this article, line by line, and find out specifically why the ACS remains so anti-soy.
The major thing I discovered, with this reading, is that the article misleads the reader in the initial summary by filling it with negative- sounding, hollow statements about existing soy research. "Interpretation of research studies regarding phtoestrogen intake and breast cancer risk is hampered by differences in dietary measurements, lack of standardization of supplemental sources, differences in metabolism amongst individuals, and the retrospective nature of much of the research in this area." Huh?
Meanwhile, the article itself supports the concept that soy is a good way for women to lower breast cancer risk levels!
In the last few pages of the article, another strange thing happens; out of the blue, the article begins to talk about the benefits of using tamoxifen or arimidex instead of soy, to help prevent breast cancer!
At this point a light bulb finally went on in my brain. " Implications of Phytoestrogen Intake for Breast Cancer" is not a review article about the known links between eating soy and breast cancer risk levels, but a staged commercial that trys to dismisses soy and promotes the use of tamoxifen and arimadex.
Why would the American Cancer Society, a non profit educational organization, want to mislead women about the natural benefits of eating soy or promote the possibly unnecessary use of specific breast cancer drugs?
My answer to this question arrived a few weeks ago when I opened up the New York Times to the front page article, "Medical Papers by Ghostwriters Pushed Therapy." It began, "Newly unveiled court documents show that ghostwriters paid by a pharmaceutical company played a major role in producing 26 scientific papers backing the use of hormone replacement therapy in women, suggesting that the level of hidden industry influence on medical literature is broader than previously known."
Is it possible that AstraZeneca, the manufacturer of arimidex, with sales of $1.8 billion in 2008 from this one drug alone, is concerned that women and their doctors may stop using arimadex and their earlier drug tamoxifen? Is it possible that AstraZeneca and the ACS are working together to promote these breast cancer drugs with false advertising?
If true, why in the world would our motherhood and apple pie organization, the American Cancer Society, want to mislead women and medical doctors about the documented benefits of eating soy?
I guess the answer to this question is probably "money."
With annual revenues of $1.1 billion, and net assets of $1.5 billion, the ACS looks more like a privately owned successful corporation rather than a non profit organization.
Tax documents also show that in 2008, AstraZeneca gave the American Cancer Society a $10 million grant, the largest annual donation to a non profit by a corporation in U.S. history.
Are the pieces of this puzzle falling together? Is it possible that the ACS, instead of being our largest cancer education and research organization is merely a paid public relations firm for AstraZeneca and possibly for other cancer related corporations?
I guess the morals of this story are many: Don't judge a book by its cover or an article by its abstract ; don't automatically trust an organization that you have grown up with;
Instead: follow the money and read the fine print; the life you save may be your own or your patient's.
Oh ... and eat fermented soy if you want to reduce your risk of breast cancer, because soy is good for you!
Susan Wadia-Ells, a wellness advocate, with graduate degrees in politics, energy economics and women studies, is founding director of the national nonprofit organization, Know Breast Cancer, www.knowbreastcancer.net. She also writes the blog www.thetruthaboutbreastcancer.com.
