Tobacco Documents Online

# i t RNI .p... _:,.~. ~R Y 0 G: eter B a ~ U~ r t i7tY L G{ F ~r yLi ° ; '31 ~,rS ~r. .[ rN^t ik ' y t.~f,Ka~f~?tstf ~~~sr ~ i'si ~« -M}\-~ 14 fa~ `F ~f ' ~~~ ~+~ i r-M. ~•" i`d a 4 }~r _ rhree yitrsrallments o help and hope for the cancer victim is a own research. (Tnstead, it 'prefers to ." += ln the first coatinurng 3eries on cancer, bloated, corrupt, • self-perpetuating channel some of its funds, though less eontrtbuting I editor ;'Peter ' Barry public relations machine that may be as than the public is led to believe, to out- "~_ ~'Chowka examined the big busirtess of dangerous as the disease it is pledged to side researchers.) The organization's "~ medicine which 1nvolves $20 billion an- eradicate-an organization, in the real role is to serve as the sole dispenser itually for . orthodox `oancer treat- words of Ralph Moss, Ph.D., who of information about cancer, and to a y;ments; he detailed the faifure of these often dealt with ACS as assistant direc- help sell the government's propaganda ,, standard medica! treatments to cure tor for public affairs of Sloan Ketter- about its "War on Cancer" and en ~'!cancer, and described the National ing Institute, "which has nothing to courage more of the same. ~_ "Cancer Insritute's continuing reItaal to sell except image and ideolo ~ ~ gy, and no Over the years ACS has pcrfected ~put any significant portion of its S1 bil- reward for anyone who contributes." and institutionalized its powerful role ,; Slion yearly budget into nutrition al- The big business. of modern by carefully using the media to reach -' x'though the direct connection between medicine has spawned a number of ;the fund-giving public. Each spring, .' and cancer _ h¢t been ' known gigantic, mutant bureaucracies, with few eaceptions, every newspaper, ;, (through their owiz research) since the especially in the cancer field: the magazine, radio, and te!evision station : 19405 . federal government's sprawling lYa- in the U.S- disseminates-completely ,.' Y"•'Part I of ' Cancer- Metaphor for oonal Cancer Institute (NCI), the free of charge-slick advertising that x ~Tk" Modern Timer" appeared in March, technologically state-0f•the art Cam- has been prepared and provided by the ; ~ i 1977 P II i Ail 1977dhi C C Chiiidih i Pdii e;artnpr,,• an Part preensveancerareenters, te socay to conce wttsunrasng ~IFI in lanuary, 1978 ,~ ;1rt 'well-endowed private hospitals and period. When this campaign began in % ,umversity research facilities, but ACS earnest in tae,1940s, "fear of cancer" '4~ t nce each year; A almost ?every. is unique among them all. With a., was the underlying appeal; today it is ¢~ home in • the nation is visited yearly budget approaching 51 50, '"hope." The ;978 advertisements, ' ~ by one of the 2.5 million people who million, most of it contributed volun-. ' which show a` picture of a check : ~~'volunteer to collect money for the tarly by the public, the society's 2,900 payable to ACS, proclaim in a pun-like ' ,,~ American Cancer Society (f+,CS). This 'salaried employees, working out of marmer, "~Ielp cure cancer write now. '" 1~ktmprecedented peace time mobilizanon 2800 local offices are active in every Thaaks to yaur help the tide is begin ;' _.;,,,- has entrenched the cancer 'soccty state of the union and even in United ning to turn. We now have flrmly in the front lines of the "War on States possessiotu overseas. Almost everything we need to save about half Gncr." It is , a measure of the "everything the public knows or believa the people who get cancer-Please don't organizarion's success that an envelope 'about cancer-the seven warning - quit on us now. We're halfway thre." bearing only the word cancer, when signals, the dangers of cigarettq smok= ' The ACS advertising director explains ' ?•E•mat7ed, is delivered by the.postal sr-: ing, the ne.d for yearly medical check- that "the new ads in the series... point ria to the nearest ACS office. The ups,. the cause for optimism-has 'up the need for support of research, as . publie's identification of cancer with ' originated within or been channeled well as the need to recognize early , ACS has enabled the organization to 'through the American Cancer Socicty. possible indications of cancer." As it ~~ become the richest private charity in . Contrary to the image it portrays, the has for a quarter century. ACS pro- ~, the worid. But behind the cancer society is not really a sevice organiza- motes cancer "cures" which it asserts _, wciety's wellorchestrated facade of tion, nor does it conduct much of its can be hastened by "early detection" ... r._: .;. .r.,.,, .. . . . .. . •. . . , . ,. ~ • . . . an.nnrusrxcrJou~wy a tu R ) r ® t. -.a

~ Q ~ r -71 ~i:EtA~*'i='f~'~.kr'7~'~' . '7 of cancer symptoms and more re- logical treatments. ' In Esquire, that "It would be difficuit'a ;n=::e a• search. In the opinion of science January, 1978, historian David statement that (Cqnnecticut statistics) F~y'writen Daniel Greenberg and Judith Halberstain writes of the early stages represent what is going on nationally." F"y,Randall, published in the Washington of the Vietnam War, "The statistics Demographically, the state is very dif- ~Post, May 1„1977, "This strategy of were all badly inflated-lies, ferentfromtherestofthecountry.The ACS is akin to dealing with aviation really-the war was going badly, the ACS 1950s survival statistics also are in ~~ndisasters 'mainly by seeking to government - was incompetent and "etzor; they are disputed by NCI's most 't;:reconstruct wrecks rather than to pre- "dangerous." Like the generals at the recent Cancer Patient Survival Report, .:•..~~ veat them,~ r+~;. ~it~ ~$ yx'~.;~ Ez.•. Pentagon in the 1960s, the executives"'; which claims only a two percent overall ~~ .:. ACS also uses the med[a to con- of ACS devote much of their highly . improvement in survival rates since k~trol the dissemination of news about "' ,_ 1950 theprogressofcancerresearch. During lyj ~S . s~ Benlamin Byrd M.D then presi- ~1'the last week in Mazch, timed to coin dent of ACS, wrote in the February, ~; dde with its atmual fundraising month 1976, American Legion, "The rate of ° of April, ACS sponsors a week-long long-term survival for early cancers is ieminar for about _ 100 medical and ~4 85;0 99 percent, as against only 53 per- F:ef snencc wntas of the nation's leading cent in the case of advanced tumors." c y.6moulders iof';,=optnton-tts' news These f are blatantly incorrect_ ~r magazines w[re serv[ces newspapers Patients w[th so called "advanced and radio and telev[s[on networks The tumors 'r according to NCI's latest Science Writers Semtnar, as it is called statist[cs and virtually all cancer re- ~`[s always held at an ezclusive vacation searchers, have considerably less than a feaort. Barbara Culliton, a reporter for „~,; - ~ '!., ten percent chance for survival; Byrd's ~ Scrence, nates that the 1973 seminar at 1~x~ 85 to 99 percent figure also is highiy ex- ltte Rio Roco Inn `in Nogales, New ~~ aggerated- Clearly illustrated in this at- Mexico, generated three hundred stor tempt to "; manipulau statistics is fites oa. good news about progress in ACS's ehronicc inconsistency: At the eancer" and that "ACS assumes that if same time president Byrd claims a 53 peopie aie exposed to good news about percent survival rate for patients with 1 ..' :#eancer shortiy° before, a society voluh-. advanced tumors and an 85 to 99 per- teer comes knocking at the door, dona Sualiminal advertestng: Faun Charity cent rate for early cancers, the society tlons will be highest." The society pays ~"maintains that only 33 percent of all r~~-~for the seminar, as well as the expenses paid energy to d[ssembling, that is 'a ` cancer patients--early and advanc-d- ;T°'of some of the reporters who attend. polite way of saying, in the words of survive. The discrepancy between these ws-Joseph Hixson, in The Patchwork Dean Burk, Ph.D., (a founder of NCI) two sets of figures amounts to over ;' Mouse, "explains that the gathering ` that "they lie like scoundrels." The 100,000 people per yeart Taking the Kt'`atsures the ACS "valuable headlines reporter who attempts an- objective broader view of survival statistics, g' hdpful to fundraising and the (science review of ACS assertions first must Donald Austin, Chief of the California V wr[ters) access to leading researchers _ devote considerable-effort to tracking Tumor Registry, warns, ",One of the f',:raC is missing in this process is down and sorting out the real facts and ,biggest potential fallacies is that you ~the vigorous questioning that should the lies so dceply does ACS cover up can improve survival rates through rtSollow any scientific report that breaks realir+ eazlicr detecrion without changing the y~new :ground Most of the science " Se~ c a examp(es from ecurrent efficiency of tteatment. If the death , teportets, mherently unwilIing or ACS ,:rerature are representat[ve rates don't deczease, then, no matter t`unable to independently pursue com- Trom I9~ Cancer Facis and Figures '`'what survival _rates show7 we are not t:plex- or 'far-flung cancer `'research "Inn the 1930s, less `than one-in-five winntng the canc r war.' 4. x- 4- stories, seem satisfie ded with the ACS (cancer patients)'were alive at least five ' seminar. In one b+eek the ACS presents, ~ years after treatment. In the 195,7s the he ACS sees its two m ain func- rcF inaterial--eaough.for a year's worth of ration was -one-in-four. Now, the rat[o °T Lions as sponsoring research (to be Tytstories-conveniently prepackaged,' is one-in-three." The current ratio of examined later) and educating the pub- ~ but also prescreened and conforming 'one-in three may be accurate, although lic'about cancez:'The society's litera- to the society's outlook and outline for ' there is considerable debate that the ; ture intended for public education, the continuation of the cancer war. ' • survival rate actually is that high. The . however, is'virtually devoid of infor- FF~?r~tis^t~~~'~~~rt^4~~`^ '-^ +''1930s rate; however, is unsupported mation or advice concerning the causa- Cancer is one oj ttie most eJrable of by any facts, because there are co na- `tion and prevention of cancer, aside ~ the major diseases in this country. "' tional statistics on which to base such a~from counseling against cigarette -The Hopeful Side of Cancer, claim. 'Only a single state-Connec- smoking and excessive exposure to ~5~1976~1CSbooklet ticut-kept cancer survival statistics 'sunlight (which together account for r~ .q 4r '~ X:~r ',. 'during the 1930s. ;Undaun[ed; the wabout 20 percent of alI cancer ~he basES oC ACS propoganda is ' ACS uses' Connetticut's figures, zx fatalities). t~'1 provided' by statistics which are "trapolated to the nation as a whole to `In rare, cand[d' moments, the' :"`cited in an attempt to show impressive obtain its overall one-in-f[ve 1930s sur- _.leaders of ACS speak forcefully about .~improvemen[s in cancer survival rates vival rate. The.only problem, cautions ,'prevention. Frank Rauscher, Ph.D., ~'due to the intervention of expensive, ' John Flannery, tI[e present direaor of Senior Vice-President for ACS Re- ~rymptomatic chemical and techno- the Connecticut Tumor Registry, u'3eazch: "We estimate that between 60 ? 'T31 [LlTWFST:OyKKLL/JUlY1f74 vr PNOTOGRAPMS 'G,^`UAT SYOFPEfcri aP.FF1YCHOwKA ~.~ . .-. ~.1~:~.' ' -..ae ... ..-. .. . . . . ... - . a. . ... ..... . . .. . . . _. r1 E r 9 I}T r . ® ,9V

t xv . ,..~`z"fm.,--; t?~bad 90 percent'of`;ttan s cancers are`( banks,-7 are members of investment delegation of ACS executives and e . aisociated with externat factors. ': :' `Tirtns, 13 are business or industrial ex- volunteers that visited Russia in 1976. ~Prevention of cancer will be a major``-ecutives, while others are drawn from In addition, a member of the ACS ~:challenge. ., because it is the'iiltimate communications, advertising, media, Commission on Smoking and Public . hope for the control of cancer." Mean- manufacturing, insurance, and even Policy is a vice-president of Pepsico, 'while; in its current, widely-distributed phazmaceuticals. The governing group which also supports the Calorie Con- "' 1+'>=.pamphlet "Answering Your Questions is " hardly representative of-, the trot Council and uses saccharin in iu- i!' -::About Cancer;" ACS responds to the American public. . soft drinks. -3' r,question, "Why does cancer startT" by The conduct of ACS in the recent x-Z,;,'saying, "No'one knowi. In facc,;ihe ` saccharin case shows how it typically A n internal :ACS memo from the basic . causes for most cancers 'are ° reflects and protects the interests of unknown." Aside from cigarettes and these directors: A year ago, the Food rstmlight,' there is no `mention of the and Drug Administration announced ~" =;,=eonsiderable existing knowledge of that it was banning the artificial ''`~?{ ~',how one can avoid cancer. Nothing'is sweetener'saccharin after 'tests un- ~~ 4 ~ r}sa3d of dietary`Imbalances'('implicated `equivocally showed that the chemical "' a'.by official research in as many as one-" tilate 1950s reads,"The single tan- gible object which appeared to synthe- size the (ACS) organization was fund- raising. In a substantial number of counties, fundraising was virtually the only undertaking...An (ACS) division ,`:-shalf of all canceis): industrial processei ~cT 3ia,oi producu saceharm or other food ~ t ,additives; au "viater and"other en- f '`14~'1uYv'uonmental pollution drugs;' and the ~A ~ ' many other known causes of canc t. X(T i ns i k m re I dl ACS I , ~ ~ 6, r m the long struggle for Congresstonal ~~ ;. o b " ' ~'passage of ihe :Toxic Contro[ Substances Act=a landmark law aimed. at eliminating hazardous, }?;' especially , cancer~ausing,` chemicals "Get well soon. "(signec/ Joirn Dough. P.S.-h-ealrh is something you buy. '`' fFOm the envrronment, the ACS was a' :~ [ate and perfunctory supporter, caused cancer ' in Cab animals. •In director bluntly put the issue: 'Pubiic . ?.";-`•~+Science writer Dan Greenberg com- ~response, according to an account in education may not save tives, but it_ t~mented "Its look-theother-way at-' Science magazine, ACS President R. sure raises money.' " s sa =4 , ti. rhetoric of Its leaders. 1 he society has Fl~fi~~ ti*r~ ti~ p ~ ~~ than' the occasional "preventton" ' " act o pea o ou y eons'idezabie intluence in Congress,but u,, .. ,. t,~K' ~ ' _-"~titude closely 'resembles that of the Lee Clark, M.D., announced that the drug and chemical industries, with society was "taking a pro-saccharin :k,~aewhich many of its directors are directly - stand." Clark asserted that saccharin is "br indtrectly associated of great medical value (actually a con- '~?''ii Policy atACS-in the national of- troversial conclusion even among ex- tly controls the local perts on diabetes and weight control), ~'~~r which tigh ts-is set by a 116 member Board of and added, "There is no evidence it Diteetors that is drawn from a 194 causes cances in humans." While this ber House of Delegates. The _ last assertion is technically correct, it -~_g.-~t?House of Delegates is divided almost overlooks the fact that the use of ~~tevenly between medical-scientific and laboratory animals remains the stand- ~YFns 1ay people. (The president of the soci- ard procedure for decermining a chem- what does ACS actually do? When I% ?!='ety is always an M.D. and, in at least ical's potential safety in humans. put that question to several non-man- . ~ >< l ~~~ lao aid est twcases,' professor of MIT microbiologst an Nobel laureate agement employees at the local ACS t surgery as well. The other executive of- David Baltimore responded to Clark office in Washington, D.C., they , ~fieen, who are paid betwten 550 000 bycharging publicly, "The ACS has `stared at me in bemused silence an , , _ t "Aand 575,000 per year, and most of the done the American people'a really indication perhaps that the question is n~ seienn'sts on the board of directors are ` great disservice,""adding, "ACS has one simply "not to be asked," ,.: ~`M.D.'s or Ph.D.'s who- represent been playing into the Calorie Control ~ In fiscal 1976, the American .' t` F'surgery'; radiology, ' or virology.) Council's hands." The diet drink in- Cancer Society spent SI 14 millionM Its t+~Among the"194 members of the House dustry which supports the Calorie Con- assets, however; totaled S181 million- ~i%21-y of Delegates is one black and one labor trol Council uses 75 percent of the U.S. 'including 522.5 million in cash, S156 ' •~?;-representative- The rest are white, saccharin supply. ACS has admitted a million in cash investments, and over ' '!'SG " middle-aged, professional, and mosily close financial relationship with Coca- ' S6 million in earned interest-not in- r~ ' i, male-in Dan Greenberg's-•view, "A Cola, the n3anufactnrer of saccharui -rui- cluding SIO, million worth of land, who's who. of the American estab- sweetened Tab and a pilfaaz of the buildings, and office equipment that tr.; ~hment." The House of Delegates {i ; I serves without salary. By profession, then, among the lay members, IS delegates are officers or directors of 1r~y. . .'., .. Y ~~,.~ ~ . Calorie Control Council. In its 1976 the society owns. As these figures at- Annua/ Report, ACS acknowledged "a test, ACS, contrary to its claim, in no generous grant from Coca-Cola sup- sense is a non-profit corporation. Each ported transportation" for a large year ACS makes a hefty profit that , . .. • L _ . ' '.' . .'.. JUty +sn/4srwESPJOURNAL tS ~. : g .. jF. ACS continues to see fundraisingd and public education as symbiotic: the ".'education" provides a convenient,- credible reason to knock on doors at ftmdraising time, and the money col- lected in turn supports even more "ed- ucation." But beyond the dubious val- ue of that "educacion"-limited to en-- eouraging people to memorize cancer's seven warning signals, check for symp- -toms, and patronize their doctors- A r :.f <c- ss w r © ;; 0 !P~ tt

t _ ` ~ c tura) doubled-from 8.5 perr_nt of its;vo.lunteezs, and driving them towap . broadcasters to,provida equal air time ~' ~total income to `I7.S percent. During `'pointments with a doctor :`. tifi ± to ahti-smoking advertisements• ~z ±these same three years, ACS' amount Referring to its teseaich budget D4ore recently," _the 1977, Nutrition ' CS w di ` ` l i i h r' C of incame in excess of xpen tures to- A c a ms t ' e ~ "no spends t e majo ,b tc on summary notes, ' ti ' former (IiS) ~ : tho thc dye dustry whos e. ' E"da ar in ` y ial poa soft tissue tumo fman c cts of its tha fa 1ed by s~-tion•" In other words, ACS is hoa a_ ~~`"~ :exposure to chemicals is far greater ing and investing for proft many mil- ''~ t` the mtd 1950s, the ACS tden- ihan tltat`of the general pubic." In lions of dollars contributed by the pub- $:ilied cigarettes as'the major cause `faa, a decade later, the Cancer Atlas ~ aic to fight cancer, while the socie,ry of lung cancer- Since then, the society . published by NCI in 1976 contz rac3 4 s¢ c` claims that vital research is'going beg has attacked cigarettes as the number . that.Salem County, New Jersey, which p P- q ging for funds: The society boosts tu`''one public enemY: cigarettes and, to a'has the hi Bhest ratio of eo I_ M ,_ n aanua] income by appealing to the pub lesser extent, sunlight are the only two employed in chemical and dye plants of "~~ ` lic to contribute more for cancer re "' things ACS specifically watns people any county in the U.S-, also has the t ~J?.'seazch. Using this technique, between "about. Some have charged that the ` highest cancer rate 1970 and 1973 ACS increased its an' Cancer' Society's preoccupation with - Dr. Hueper duputed itie condu-~ ( ~~c nua] income by S24 tmllton Not one cigarette smoking shields the organtza ston that dgarettes are virtually the ~~ *ir.:ernt of this extra income was actually ,_tion's unwillingness to confront other ~ sole cause of lung cancer. .[n a 1966 spent on cancer research, which actu= environmental carcinogens that are t book; according to a review published ally declined in this period by 596,000• byproducts of profitable industnes in July 19, 1967, in the Britizh,.Nedical r,The NIB audit revealed that the per--:;which its directors have financial tnter ;lournal, Dr. Hueper "a5sembied an ?#~ L~-Y :eentage of ACS' budget allocated for esu. impressive body of -evidence which research has declined from 36.5 per- ;'' j`Moreover, ACS identifcattan'rshows that the occupational and en- nc'bent in 1967 to 27.1 percent in 1975, iv'tth ..ihe anti-smoking campaign is',_ vironmental causes arc of oqua] if not ~ sn ~',pewldle the share given to management largely public relations posturing; in `etora importance" than cigarettes in ; t !~Ye,'and fundraising has increased•,Of the •the arena where action counu, the so-. -the genesis of lung cancer• Other ~ sciea- ~y st money ACS spends to "fight cancer " ciety has failed to initiate or support . tists have postulated other . en- ~~ percent goes for~staff salaries eY-` government regulatory action to lumt,Yvironmental links to the disease. In a =~ e *~Secutive's travel, office supplies; and cigarette sales or ban their advernsing: paper presented to the American ,< trr ~ ~ ~ other ezpenses less than 5 percent is A 1977 investigation by the Washtng ' Chemical Society in 1962 (when that : 4 ~. { 7ti9ASTwtttJouPtMalJUtr,try . -• ;F• ~ - .. a , ~ . ., A-~ ~ u~"~. , . , . . w, ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , i.- . . r . . ' , ... - ' . - . . • ' .. > - Y-; x AW f 0 0 _ •.~.~:.. :+... I_ . '-x~most profit-maktng corporations allocated to aazsisting patients. Gener-. ton, D.C. consumer interest group Nu- ' ' z 3 ~ `would envy.' Between 1970 and 1913, ally, ACS aid to cancer patients is ltm- _ trition Action concludes that "ACS re- for example, the"society's net annual ited to lending them wheelchairs giv- 1fused to support" at every level the ~proft (income in excess of expend]- ing them surgical bandages made by: campaign a decade aga to requiie ~ ~, , , ~~ taled $37.6 million. Three quarters of portion in probing the causas and pre - Senator Moss wrote to the ACS com- r ~.thit amount was frank profit-not re 'vention of cancer." Its list of "current current , plaining of their past inaction seeking ~i~tyded into cancer-refated programs ' researchers" whom it funds shows that ;increased activism in the fight against 'but used instead to increase the socte- ` most are involved in early detection of;yjc~garette smoking•' try's enormous capital assets of invest -symptoms, treatment, virology (vtrtts) ,. After two decades of,,,CS tnstst- meau and ittterest beanng bank ac or genetics. Heading the list is Dr, i ently advising people to quit smoking, y it eounu '?~+~5 ~'~tx ' µ :"~ , `Char[as Heidelbarger, who synthestzed'uthe situation is a stand off-ACS pre- mtlltons of dolIazs di With so man tabl , with a >l~t ill fl i h ~ s•. ; y c gre s y t our , st rants s w~mvested and deposited in checking and 'Of the money ACS spends against c~gatte consumption byblam- ~ _ 9P , savmgs accounts ACS is a prune bank= <i „ smoker. This tactic rng the individual t ~ g customer. ~t `teast _ eighteen 't0 . flah caneer, 61 per _reinforces; the erroneous impression" ~rimembers of the ACS Board of Direc-. CCnt goes for staff saIarles, that the society actually is doing some- `tors,and House of Delegates are ex '"ezeeutives' traVel, office ~i'?~g.about„cancer's myriad causes. ectitive officers or'diiectors of banks. Cigazettes, meanwhile (with the advent ` *: ` = rAs of August 31,.t976, 42 percent of Su(]plies, 3nd other ex- ~}`of?ow tar, "safer" cigarettes and well- AC5' cash and investments, totaling penses; less than 5 percent ,.Ftnanced promotion by. the cigarette ~ ~ t ~575 mt7lton, were maintained in banks .: = to assisiina patients S* companies) continue to be, sold widely r r~ ~ th which these eighteen meti were af '- _ a j: and vrofitablv •-; ~c~{t»~frtc{ ~' 3 ~ ~ ated ~~~~~.~~ + In its curious preoccupation with "~amce 1918; t~e National Informa 2rthe toxic chemotherapy drug S-FLJ, 4ei8arettes as,the majonccalth hazard, tion Bureau (NIB) has been the recog which ACS describes as "one of the ACS has ignored the findings of a f sy ~ tiized independent'overseer of charities '.major agents' for treatment of (a varie- .-variery of scientists who believe that ~and other non-profit organizattons ty of) cancers."-ACS neglects to men- other factors-of environmental, and After auditing ACS in 1976-77, NIB tion that the society owrts at least a principally industrial, origin-are in- ~~y"eoncluded, "Questions arise with re- -' one[]uarter share in the patent rights volved in the increase in lung cancer. ' ry peet to ACS' accumulation of assets •to 5-FU. Other typical "current re- One of these researchers, Dr. Wiihelm - beyond the amount required for its" searchers" include Dr. Joseph Bertino, Hueper, , retired chief of_ NCI's ea- . r t;' `ncxt year's budget .::>ACS has repeat "who is studying how to increase the vironmental cancer section, prophesied : 4 .~~~ed]y claimed over the past several years'° 'tolerance of patients to methotrexate- - in the early 1960s that "Chemical that it would have made more re-' a valuable but toxic drug," and Dr. technology is biological dynamite." In ?~bf3yn'"search grants had sufficient funds been ' Earle Gregg, "who is developing radio- " 1964 he predicted that .'°I'he workers b a statement c methods for detectmg t o n d e ~ n *. . 0 K{; x

• x F '. u ~?.; . M~~wY°r-> ~~;.group gave_him tts htghest awazd), , In 1913, a group of medical doctors milling process. "With Charles 'Boss' -, Eugene Houdry blamed air pollution ' and laymen-most of them industrial- Kettering of General Motors and other t resulting ' from increased use of Lsts-gathered at the Harvard Club in business and professional people," "~~gasoline-powered engines foi "much of " New York to found the Society for the Bobst set up the Tom Spies Committee y=~ ~?ahe {ung cancer yepidemic. Houdry's Control of Cancer (its name was for Clinical Research, with an unprece- ~•,, . paper includes a graph that shows a" changed in the mid-1940sto the Amer- dented annual budget of 5150,000, to II {~ciose corr elation between increases in .,'ican Cancer Society). Described in its study vitamins. "Soon," wrote Bobst, ~~s ~; ~~ . gassoline consumption and deaths from literature as "an emergency, tempor- "there was no • doubt about the need hing cancer. A on's emotional ary organization," the society was in- ' for the mass consumption of ) * P~ ~~state and response to suess, according corporated as a non proCit charity in vttamins.' s~ t s1 - yto a 1966 report in the Annals of the 1922. ;,' a -'. tw .-, . Next, Bobst "sold" his concept of jrt "gNew York Academy of Science, may Ralph Moss Ph D, a student of adding chemical 'vitamins to bleached n: predispose one to lung cancer• Most in- this period of medical history, reminds flour-so called "enriching"-to Gen- b ~~",terestingly of all, studies of the Vilca- us-that the tendency during the fust_.eral Mills president Donald Davis, one bamba people in Ecuador-who smoke part of' this century, until the mid- oE Bobst's country club acquaint- ~ 1'~Jazge numbers of cigarettes but suffer ' ances. Another significant customer ~ ~~ lung cancer infrequently-indicate that ); for enriched flour was the U.S. armed Its look-the-other-way farces,interested then in anything that ofk dietary factors may be the significant ~5 4~ factor in incidence of the disease. .athtllde closely resembles might help guarantee a strong "fight- < ~J'~~; yACS' concentration on cigarettes that of the drug and chem- ing man." (Apparently; the thought of " ~~ ;as the only factor related to lung - not refining whole grain flour to begin ical industries - with whsch j :~t c~ iancez worthy o( attention ignores ' with, thus retaining a1l the vitamins L same crticial facts. For example, per ' many of its directorS are and other micronutrients in their nat- ~, ~.fi~tapita consumption of tobacco in the directly or IIIdirettly ~+ .•-ura( balance, never occurred to these y U.S. has remained stable since 1945, ~~ ' ~-men•) Finally, Bobst lobbied, again associated ;rr„while deaths from lung cancer have suctessfully, for individual state laws ~.,.-;~je,tripled during the same period „ to require chemical enriching of white a~'t:;;r.'rmterestiagly, gasoline consumption 1940s, was against 'govetnment in- flour. - `; also tripled during this period). In ad- 'volvement in public health. Rather, n 1945, Bobst, by then a self-made 7 K: dition, because of consumer accep- , broad decisions affecting medical pol- l millionaue, became active in ACS. z; tance of cigarettes lower in tar and icy were left to private trusts and foun- His expertise as a drug salesman made ;nicotine (two of the caacer-causing in- dations, many of them-like Cargegie, him one of the three pillars in the ~`":^ gredienu in tobacco), U.S. per capita Rockefeller, Ely Lily-funded by in- phenomenal growth of ACS; the other :4- cotuumption of those two chemicals dustrial empires (for further explana- two were Albert Lasker, representing today is half the level in 1950. ' tion see "Probing the Medical-Phar- advertising, and Mary Lasker, Albert's ;s,~ ~$'i:+At the very least, it appears that maceutical Complex," EWJ, March, third wife, whose specialty,was poli- ~Yx 'eoasiderable evidence exists to im- 1977). Moss sees the industrialists' in- tics: At first, Bobst was not impressed plicate a variety of environmental fac- terest in medicine as hardly altruistic. with ACS: it was, he wrote, "run like a : ~4s:tors-including diet and str.ss-in the The career of Elmer Holmes small mom and pop business ... I de- {'.~ {"'twentieth : centurp Iung cancer Bobst, one of the three leading figures cided to apply (my) philosophy to the arid that cigarettes are by no in ACS from the 1940s to the present, cancer society program: run it like a ` means the sole cause of this devastating is typical of most "philanthropists.", business with a well-planned 'sales' and fatal disease. But ACS still insists "Bobst is the father of the modern drug campaign•" Initially placed in charge f that if people simply stopped smoking, industry and is known most widely as of New Jersey fundraising, Bobst in- _• lung cancer would almost completely an intimate of Richard Nixon. (Bobst's creased the state's contributions ten- o is revealed in his ingenuous Auto- fold. Very quickly he attracted the a[- ~ . disappeazA. stry ~ ; biography of a Pharmaceutical Pio- tention of Albert Lasker, the real-al- ~: _, It he mfluence of the American Can, neer, published in 1973; the quotations though latent-force behind ACS, who ~ J x,~r fT cer society is enormous and well - that follow are taken from this book.) -helped in an ensuing power struggle to beyond ihat usually conferred by a In conjunction with Morris Fishbein, elevate Bobst to chairman of the ACS $150 million annual budget. One indi- _ longtime president of the American executive committee, the top admini- A t r, - ,eauon is the society's success in mani- Medical Association, Bobst "worked strative and policy position. Bobst's E r.; pulating the tax-supported Breast Can- to make the pharmaceutical industry "right hand man" became Jim Adams, eer Demonstration Project, which New, what it has become, the handmaiden of "involved with pharmaceuticals at ~~,:York Daily News science writer Judith the medical profession." As head of Standard Brands and a promorion ex- +r Randall cites as a classic example of the U.S. arm of the international Hoff- pert." Also joining the team were top t•the tail-dog relationship that exists man-La Roche drug company during executives of Manufacturers Trust between the relatively small but power- the 1930s, Bobst also "worked to bank, the president of American Ex• : y" ful ACS and the timid but affluent make the nation vitamin conscious." press, and Howard Pew, whom Bobst t NCI that is su osed to be in In 1938, Bobst scored a "cou" b describes onl as "the Fhiladel hia oil 4 rlDr} gtan PP P Y Y P ? ~ sr ~ tharge of the government's campaign , suggesting that thiamine (vitamin BI), man." s' . f » t~t f a;ainst cancer." manufactured tiy his company, be add- As the head of the prestigious ad- ~ a t ! t-.To understand the growth of ed to refined flour, in an attempt to re- vertising agency Lord and Thomas, AI- ~k_%:.,•,~ACS' unprecedented power and influ- store by chemical means some of the bert Lasker, in Bobst's view, was "the ence, it is useful to examine its history. essential B-vitamins lost during the father of modern advertising." Lasker ,,; . . ,_. _ :. Jylt 1171rfASTwCSTJoUPN.L v ' .~~... . - ~: ._ -dy :. .. . ... :......... -~. .: ,.- F -. ~ -. : - 0

Ma s 0 tt, r %& _ - . .. . . . .y . . S ' ~ 1. Eo ~ personally designed the campaigns that slogan .was ' reach for a Lucky instead seve~n warning signals which he quick- made Kleenex, Kotex, and Lucky .; of a sweet." Guenther: "No campaign Iy scrawled on a inenti. Ever since, the k''. .t),r:Sttike household words. According to in the entire history of advertising has , signals have provided the ACS with an' e•~idr°his biographer John Guenther (in Tak- , had such an impact." ('Tltere is consid- ' easily remembered focal point for its '.4.:en at the Flood) Lasker's phifosophy erable irony here considering ACS' appeals to the public ("Learn cancer's was simple: "Let us think of (business) preoccupation, after Lasker's death,. `seven w'artting signals and watch for a pie in three slices. One-third of our ~ with cigarEttes as a cause of canc r) ~ them.") All the while, Bobst, again ~' imoney goes to manufacturing, one- ,. .- Another of Lasker's mottos was, quoting his autobiography, "was out ~~; third goes to advertising, and one-third '•`The products that I like to advertise ` making speeches from coast to coast, gaes to profit." Lasker masterminded are those that are only used once .., generating 'sales' enthusiasm among "f+ e campaign in the 1940s to convince Once you can afford to waste a pro-"`cancer society volunteers or making women, who seldom used tobacco, to ;duct, it's bound to be a successl" His 'pleas for funds." The first nation- oke Lucky Strikes; the commanding campaign for selling Kotex became the ` al ACS fundraising campaign with 5~dtiefGi..irlF. r> . ttit~+ilixr .' -• .. model for ACS' later advertising of its -Bobst in command netted 55 million in anti-cancer crusade. In the mid-1940s one month, ten times the amount of menstruation and feminine hygiene, 'the last pre-Bobst effort. like cancer, weie not topics of polite ~''This amount also was almost ten ri g~=~ls~ ;~ ~?i~ ['~',~ conversation; mention of them in news times greater than the entire 1946 bud- "aecouats, and even advertising, was get of the government's National Can- forbidden. Lasker's tahnique for cer Institute. With the enhanced power overcoaiing this taboo included first that these funds=and the important convincing popular magazines (whose personalities who were joining the editors were his friends) to print stories cause-brought to ACS, Albert Lasker a~ t ~ on menstruation, and then, once the began to persuade the federal govern- ~~~~ barriers were broken down somewhat, ment to increase spending on cancer re- offering offering the publications enormous ~ search. In this task Lasker relied on the xpcrtisezxpcrtise of his wife :btary, who is we l sums of money to advertise Kotex. '~ 'e :;,' Before Lasker tapped Bobst to connected to the political and social manage ACS, the advertising genius ' eGce. Since 1947, representatives of had despaired about the possibility of ACS regularly have testifed in Con- , , making the cancer society truly a gras and lobbied for more money for making modern, effective organization. To be NCI. Guenther notes "Their testimony ^`- x i~ ~:=p f sure, Lasker had the necessary ideas, has had a profound effect on Con- ~~ but he lacked Bobst's Horatio Alger- gress." NCI's budget of 560O,0CA m s~'t4 brcd, "can do" style to eaact his plans. 19,16 grew to 5i9 million in 1950, srtd Once installed as chairman of the ex- S92 million in 1960. After Albert's ecutive commiuee, Bobst wasted no death in 1957, Mary Lasker and Bobst time in pushing aside the remns of effectively controlled the ACS through an ~ N_ any opposition to Lasker-most of it the early 1970s. To this day, Mrs. ~ from ACS medical doctors who, Bobst Lasker and Bobst are Honorary Life Y claimed, "didn't understand fundrais- Members of ACS, and Mary Lasker _in8, or promorion, or even money.", also is Honorary Chatrman of the ACS ~ Unbridled at last, and assisted by an- Board of Directors. ~~` , Emerson Mary L skc:, Bobst and the ACS °iwf,,,.~to other advertising specialist ~~ m Foote, the Elmer Bobst :Albert Lasker- were prime movers behind the legisla- .~t Mary Lasker azis began :o apply so- [ion establis ting [he "War on Cance: "; phtsticated fundraising tec hZiques . "•. _ ACS even helped to lobby the ;~ubfic, rilli fllh which included "churning out matea pacngu page advertisements in te using every medium, including 'New York Times and other newspapers ,~S'Mary Lasker and Albert ~: iadio commerctals.". attacking the opponents of the le;isia- +{~ ~ Zasker, the ' father of mod- tion. Ultimate3y, the cancer war was ne problem w3s cwat the word approved by Congress with a single ;c''ern advertising. ".Nary, well- l- cancer" could not be mentioned dissenting vote 'in the Senate, and on radio; even newspaper obituar.es of signed into law by President Nixon in cancer victims used the euphemism December, 1971. In his autobiograohy, •'died after a long illness." Seizing the Bobst brags, "My ideas became the auible for passa;e of the -offensive, however, Bobst and the (Nixon) administration's Conquest o° p War on Cancer" legislation. ~,Laskers enlisted Bob Hope and other Cancer Act," `-_The unprecedented 1K~ !zswc s , popular entertainers to help eliminate cancer war split NCI from the Na- ~~SLk.,it~ ;. . this taboo; in a move rerniniscent of tional Institute of Health, created twc the Kotex ampaign, the Reader's Di- special politically=appointed panels to gesr was prevailed upon to"publish a oversee the war (dominated by people series of articles on cancer. And in a in the Lasker-ACS orbit), and unquest- c 1- stroke of promotional genius Bobst ionably cemented ACS influence in the had the idea one day over lur.ch for the conduct of all national caarr policy. { 4yr~ , . ; . _ . E~lTWElTJWRXLIllYITtfTi z 0 0 v i- ~~~ ?,r s s +~' eonnected with the social and - rpolitical elite, was Albert's ~M~u`-third wife. Working for the C~.~'ACS, they were mainly re- l..~. • - y s .. - ....~;f c>