A new study finds that cholesterol-lowering statins can lower the risk of breast cancer by up to 30% for women who were on the drugs for more than five years. (See http://www.ajc.com/health/content/shared-auto/healthnews/drug/518552.html.) Surely, these findings are preliminary; it is only one study and surely there are holes that can be poked in the methodology. However, to me, this positive news seems much more relevant than anything the anti-breast cancer activists are talking about. So why are the activists getting all the attention, and why, as usual, have they become the darlings of public opinion?
To find out what in fact the activists are talking about, I Googled "Risk factors for breast cancer." At first, all seemed well: the ACSH tome on the topic was the #2 result, and the top result was an American Cancer Society report (see http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_4_2X_What_are_the_risk_factors_for_breast_cancer_5.asp?sitearea), counter to popular opinion (but consistent with the findings of ACSH and the scientific community), says, "Currently, research does not show a clear link between breast cancer risk and exposure to environmental pollutants, such as the pesticide DDE (chemically related to DDT), and PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls)."
So at first it appeared the truth is getting out. But then I realized that I searched under _our_ terminology — scientifically appropriate language, not activist language such as "chemicals which cause breast cancer." So I searched for that phrase — and sure enough, the top result was http://www.breastcancerfund.org/action.htm — which contradicts the scientific community by stating emphatically that "Alarming research shows that man-made TOXIC chemicals are contributing to the epidemic rates of breast and other cancers. These chemicals are in our food, our water and the air we breathe. Now, they are in all of us. Every child on earth is born with these synthetic chemicals in his or her body. Only a small percentage of these chemicals have been adequately tested. For the most part, we rely on chemical companies to vouch for the safety of their products. That's like relying on the tobacco industry to assess the risk of tobacco."
In fact, there is no "epidemic" of breast or any other cancer, and there is a complete lack of evidence for any association between cancer and any environmental chemical. Too bad, since the Breast Cancer Fund sounds like a group that would actually help women. But if the Breast Cancer Fund people really have the goal of reducing breast cancer risk, shouldn't they be focusing on promoting more widespread study of statins? Or since they seem to like preliminary data, shouldn't they be urging all women to start taking statins _today_, "just in case"?
After all, they believe "it is better to be safe than sorry" — not that ACSH generally endorses this "precautionary principle." But shouldn't the more risk-averse folks at the Breast Cancer Fund be marching on the FDA to urge immediate approval of Evista for breast cancer prevention (rather than just for treatment)? As ACSH President Dr. Elizabeth Whelan wrote, "Evista is similar to another drug, tamoxifen (Nolvadex), which has already been approved to treat breast cancer and reduce risk in high-risk women. The evidence is mounting that Evista reduces breast cancer risk by as much as 84% (PubMed count: 246 articles), apparently with fewer side effects than tamoxifen." But the FDA forbids the pharmaceutical companies from even talking about this because the FDA has not yet approved it for this purpose (studies are still pending).
So we have some very promising news about pharmaceutical approaches to reducing the incidence of breast cancer — and a lot of nonsense about alleged causes. Why is it that the wrong items are getting all the attention? Isn't it time we held the activists accountable?
