Blogs and Stories
My Response to My Critics
Matt Sayles / AP Photo
After reading the criticism of her book on cancer cures, including comments from readers on her story in the Daily Beast, Suzanne Somers takes on her detractors, doctor by doctor.
As I read the reactionary response to my piece in The Daily Beast, I feel the need to reply only to shed light on the real truths as opposed to the lies, inaccuracies, and distortions of your so-called experts.
Let's begin with Dr. Wulf Utian, head of the North American Menopause Society. I am the person who exposed him for the paid pharmaceutical shill that he is a couple of years ago on “Larry King.” As he incompetently tried to persuade the global audience that synthetic horse hormones (Premarin, Provera, and Prempro) were no different from bioidentical natural hormones, I pointed out that according to my research and the dozens of doctors I have interviewed, Dr. Utian is dead wrong and there are mountains of literature refuting his position. I pulled out the Google literature on Dr. Utian proving that he is funded by over 250 different pharmaceutical companies with the largest contributor being Wyeth, which makes (surprise) Premarin, the synthetic (so-called) hormone proven in 2002 by the Women’s Health Initiative to give women cancer and often cause death. It is very clear Dr. Utian is paid well to further his drug agenda.
Most of the money raised for the American Cancer Society goes for marketing to raise more money for them to keep Dr. Brawley and others in their cushy offices and lifestyles.
I do not sell hormones or any drug. I have NO agenda other than the health, safety, and quality of life for all people.
Let's now look at my other attacker, Dr. Otis Brawley, head of the American Cancer Society. Here's the joke...all of the well meaning people who have raised money for this bogus “society” have never been told that most of the money raised for the American Cancer Society goes for marketing to raise more money for them to keep Dr. Brawley and others in the ACS in their cushy offices and lifestyles; they categorize it as “overhead.” So much for the health of the people.
• Gerald Posner: Does Suzanne Somers Cause Cancer?
• Suzanne Somers: My War on Cancer Dr. Brawley said, “We are making strides and extending life.” OK Dr. Brawley, billions of dollars... Where's your cure? If this were a military project you'd be fired and drummed out of the field. Extending life? By a couple of months with horrible quality of life? Really, Dr. Brawley? Are you proud of your “success”?
Dr. Keith Black. I don't know why he is involved. He is a surgeon. I feel he was threatened by Dr. Burzynski, who was acquitted after being sued by the FDA, and allowed to continue curing and treating cancer patients; this same Dr. Burzynski is in compliance with the FDA and has completed phase II clinical trials and been approved for phase III clinical trials. Although Dr. Black is skilled at removing brain tumors, Dr. Burzynski is having a 60% success rate at curing these virulent tumors without surgery. How many of Dr. Black’s patients are still alive?
Dr. Black has to send his post surgery patients into the chemo wards and at that point his success rate is dismal. To read between the lines, Dr. Burzynski is a threat not only to Dr. Black, but also to the cancer industry as a whole. Dr. Burzynski is close to a cure and these paid pharmaceutical shills are going to do everything in their power to keep this information from getting to the public. As the messenger, I am being attacked because they have got to silence the opposition.
People...I will say it again...Read between the lines. Connect the dots. The war on cancer has failed. They don't want you to know the big lie. We are the losers to continue trusting in the pharmaceutical model as though our life depends on it. Pharmaceuticals have their place as a last ditch effort. But we have to consider the tipping point. How long can we keep pumping these dangerous chemicals into our bodies and expect to be well? Think about it this way; if someone suggested you swallow a mouthful of rat poison daily to cure your disease, would you do it?
I walk my talk...I have our best interests at heart. No one pays me anything. The choice is yours.
For more of The Daily Beast, become a fan on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at editorial@thedailybeast.com.
How Rich People Smoke Pot
Paul Schrodt is a writer living in New York City. He has contributed to New York magazine, Radar, and Esquire.com.
Justice Clinton?
As vice chairman of Public Strategies and president of Maverick Media, Mark McKinnon has helped meet strategic challenges for candidates, corporations and causes, including George W. Bush, John McCain, Governor Ann Richards, Charlie Wilson, Lance Armstrong, and Bono. McKinnon is co-chair of Arts & Labs, a collaboration between technology and creative communities that have embraced today's rich Internet environment to deliver innovative and creative digital products to consumers.
Jessica150
Suzanne,
When you can run a SCIENTIFIC STUDY that is properly constructed and controlled that demonstrates the truth of any of your claims, then I will listen to you. Until then, you are just another snake-oil salesman.
People go to medical school and get their PhDs in biological sciences to absorb the depth and complexity of these issues, and to learn how to ask and answer questions about how to treat disease. It is insulting to medical and research professionals that your claims get so much attention.
To me, this is just a reflection of how little our society values real education.
piktor
Jessica,
Maybe people believe in magic. Maybe people that listen to Ms. Somers are desperate. There are many people from the U.S. that travel to northern Mexico for a cancer "cure". Steve McQueen went there and died anyway.
Farrah Fawcett went to a German clinic, even though her American doctors told her she was terminal.
You have to be told you have cancer to really know how you will react and who and what you will listen to.
Maybe Ms. Somers is selling magic and for many people magic is their last hope.
hithere3
Irrationality is never preferable to rationality.
Ever.
Human beings really need to understand how to cope with our fear of death. It is a ridiculous weakness in our species.
It's good that some people want to fight their illnesses, rather than simply give up, but when reason instructs them their time is (particularly) limited, it is best they make peace with that, not fear death, and live out their days in the most fruitful way possible. Every minute spent chasing Somers' snake oil wagon is a minute that could have been spent with a child, or parent, or friend.
piktor
Rationality might work for some people. Death brings to the front such strong emotions I would not stop anyone from making their path to the end.
hithere3
Sort of my point.
Fear of death is the problem, and as far as I know, no major cultural institution on Earth is doing anything at all to prepare people for the inevitable... certainly not the world's religions, which ironically compel fear of death even while attempting to answer the question of what happens to us when we die.
Jessica150
Magic may be their last hope, but if that's the case, then they need to give up hope BEFORE they start believing in magic and spending their (and their families) accumulated wealth on treatments that are not going to prolong their life. I know that it's rational, and people have a hard time with that, but there it is.
As for cultural organizations that deal with Death and Dying, check out Buddhism. They offer more than most and, although their thinking tends to end in reincarnation (which is also irrational), people would benefit from examining their feelings surrounding death.
Another great source of information on death and dying is your local hospice, which is focused on improving quality of life when the end is near, as it will be for all of us eventually.
However, under no circumstances do I accept the argument that an irrational approach to anything is ever better than the rational. Rationality is what separates man from beast, and is ever our strength.
dailywackos
I heart Suzanne.
hithere3
your comment and username go together perfectly.
mododavid
Susanne,
I am a PhD chemist. Just because you can't find a real acting job to help pay for your unfortunate problem with CA wildfires, does not make YOU an expert in chemistry....in case you don't know, chemistry is the field that studies the structure and function of molecules like the drugs you've discussed. Your statements are foolish because you know that you are making shit up, and your complete and utter ignorance of fundamental chemistry, though understandable since that's my job and not yours, does not make you an expert in this field. I agree with Jessica; you are a snake oil saleswoman, and you should be ashamed of yourself. I wish for you all the "goodness" that will come from the advice you give. We reap what we sew, I wish you would reap it in spades. -David
hithere3
You're a c-list actress, not a "researcher." If you want us to take you seriously, go get a Ph.D. in biology or an M.D.-Ph.D. pharmaceutical medicine.
opedanderson
What about Gerald Posner? You didnt mention him......
He attacked you pretty hard here on TDB and I am sure is going over this article with a fine toothed comb at this very moment.
Beware, however. Look into him carefully. He has taken many "establishment" viewpoints in the past and is very suspect in my opinion.
Magic Bullet, anyone? (inside joke. Gerald knows what I mean by that)
cloyd42
Suzanne,
Your ad hominem attacks on people who have invested their lives and skills proves how weak your case is. You are a much larger threat to those too scared and sick to think about your complete lack of credentials or understanding of statistics, chemistry and biology. Do I like Pharma? No. Would I put my life in a scientist's hands before a whack job? Yes.
wonderbread403
Hey, all you did was just attack your critics and not defend your own claims. How does that make me believe you anymore?
jarussell
"No one pays me anything."
Except the money you get for appearances, acting jobs, selling your products and theories..........
Every time you appear on the screen, be it a tv or computer monitor, you ring up the register and your bank account m,oves up.
If you lie about one thing, you'll lie about anything.
mightymouth
Dear Suzanne,
I give you a lot of credit for finding your own way and thinking outside the box. Especially when being stricken with such a deadly disease. Most people can barely get themselves to a doctor and their 'treatments' when ill, let alone having the courage to question the status quo when you are being told 'take it or you will die'. Your example helped me pursue alternative treatment to deal with my issues with great success. Our Dr's are trained by the pharmaceutical industry and nothing is going to change there. I would love to see you set up a foundation to do the research. Totally impartial. You must have like-minded friends who would join/support you in this. I am sick of the no reasearch saw--I have buried to many family members and friends who bought in to 'tested' & 'studied' pharmaceuticals. How about it?
BooneCountyGirl
You Go Suzanne. Yes, modern medicine has done some great things - but they also have gotten rich on the misery of others and even CAUSED more harm than good in many cases. Take the pushing of horse hormones on menopausal women - breast cancer rates have dropped dramatically in a very short period of time as women have stopped taking these uneccessary drugs. (http://medicineworld.org/stories/lead/2-2009/hormone-replacement-therapy-i ndicted-again.html) Or how about prescribing anti-depressants for teens with immature brains/nervous systems which can actually cause suicide rates to RISE? I for one do not think doctors are God an am prepared to question authority and do what I feel is right for my body. There are worse things than death. Trust me.
Jessica150
You're contradicting yourself here--you applaud Suzanne, and then complain about the medical community pushing unnecessary and damaging drugs, but what Suzanne recommends is that you take dozens of untested and unproven supplements and hormones.
You're absolutely right about hormone replacement and psychoactive pharmeceuticals, but wrong about Suzanne. She's doing more harm than good.
pharmdoc
Ms. Somers incorrectly classifies Provera (medroxyprogesterone acetate) as a synthetic horse hormone. She couldn't be more wrong. It is derived from Mexican Yams and has no relationship to Premarin (equine conjugated estrogens). Please, Ms. Somers, start with an accredited education before you start your medical practice.
painter
Having just passed through the cancer condition, surgery,chemotherapy and radiation for colon cancer, i have a new perception of cancer and how it is treated. As a patient at a Veterans Hospital i also have a clear picture of the future if we continue towards health care reform with the VAH as a model. To much emphasis is placed on unreliable tests and numbers from those tests. Even my oncologist admitted blood tests for Cancer are not reliable.The myths about cancer abound . Each individual needs assessment for treatment that is not bound to conventional treatment alone .The Cancer Doctors factor patient survival in terms of recurrence not cure. A patients 'numbers' are evaluated and they make a prediction on a 5 year timeline weather cancer will return. When i asked the oncologist what my chances were if i had no treatment he said 50%, with chemo,radiation, 60 to 70%. Suzanne Sommers puts forth an alternative that has merit. i know people who have dealt with cancer both ways.Open your minds to reality about Cancer.
cuppingmaster
I work in cancer. I have personally researched Dr. Burzynski's and Dr. Gonzalez's claims of the superiority of their regimens. They are false. In Dr. Gonzalez's response to the HHS regarding the study recently published in JCO, he argues based on procedure, not on scientific validity. Read them for yourself:
http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/detrm_letrs/YR08/jun08a.pdf
http://www.dr-gonzalez.com/letter_to_ohrp_6_08.pdf
Some people, both in standard and alternative medicine circles, are out to make a buck and that's it. That Dr. Utian is a crock says nothing about the thousands of oncologists personally treating cancer patients. That Dr. Brawley is employed by the ACS (which massively funds basic and clinical cancer research in this country, BTW) says nothing about his abilities as a physician or his knowledge.
Unfortunately, despite the best efforts, there is no magic bullet for cancer. All cancers are pathologically and biologically distinct. The idea that one- treatment-fits-all is viable is ludicrous on its face.
Troothseeker
Interesting:
http://open.salon.com/blog/retroalitytv/2009/11/12/john_ritter_question ed_suzanne_somers_cancer_she_lies
drjonathan
Suzanne: Thank you for this very articulate, and well-researched article (especially for a lay-person, my goodness!). I know you are in show-business, but please don't let the condescending, and downright rude comments of so many others here upset you. It is obvious that you have done your flat-out best to review the scientific research (how many of the obnoxious contributors above can say the same?), and to follow your own personal convictions for both treating and advocating to others treatment for a disease which the medical community is an abysmal failure in curing (though they promise EVERY MONTH that if they just have more billions of our dollars, a cure is just around the corner).
To the rude individuals who say you are doing this for increased exposure in the media and that is horrible, I say they can rot. EVERY medical 'expert' who goes on TV or radio and advocates their treatment is nothing but a salesperson trying to sell their latest therapy... which not only do they con millions of americans into paying for, but they have already attracted BILLIONS in tax-payer money in the form of research grants... all of this when the benefits of their supposed therapies are dangerous, questionable, and at the very least difficult to justify for the enormous price tag (how many MORE lives would be saved if the same money they rake in for risky drug therapies was instead put towards making exercise and good nutrition more affordable for americans?)
And to the NUTS who claim you need 'sound science' before you advocate your therapies: Get a clue you twits! Science has ALWAYS been and is always twisted to serve profit. There is no such thing as objective science: scientists do research to 'prove' benefits for the therapies that pay the bills. unlike politics, there is no adversarial system of checks and balances... it is Peer-Reviewed (a.k.a. Reviewed by other guys who stand to make money off of the same system).
Science has its place, but its only one tool. And this is clearly an issue that involves scientists who stand to make a LOT of money if their therapies are adopted. Ms Sommers has reviewed them, and does for herself what she has found the best result from. AND she has found a way to increase some personal exposure for herself in the experience.
Way to go girl!
This doesn't exclude the fact that I don't particualrly find the same confidence in the therapy she advocates. I don't. But that is another story.
Veronicaxy
Word.
I've sure seen it happen: 98 pieces of data say 'no', go with the 2 that say 'yes'.
We have given pharmaceuticals the ability to advertise directly to us, we're completely uneducated. SS took it upon herself to study *others valid research* and she's arguing against the accepted wisdom.
Can't think of anything more American then that.
Unless the critics here have studied this and know she's off base, the attacks are just weird.
cuppingmaster
Or, it could be -- get this -- that the educated scientists are right and Ms. Somers (who has no medical or scientific training) is wrong. Just because you take on "the man" doesn't mean that you're right.
You're right, though -- every so often the majority are proven wrong and a small vocal minority is right. The idea of prions in Alzheimer's was laughable for several years, but the one guy who proved it was right. This, however, is an exception! What's more, this prion scientist was still an educated scientist, not some bimbo actress.
I say again, this is a crock.
Jessica150
All of that support for Suzanne, and then you don't advocate her therapy? So what exactly do you think you're supporting? Her ability to make specious claims that are not based on empirical evidence?
Yes, science and statistics can be twisted in the hands of irresponsible researchers, but that doesn't mean you should throw the baby out with the bathwater. If you don't agree that running a research study is the way to find out whether or not a treatment is effective, then what do you think we should do? Pray to some totem somewhere for answers?
Sad.
Santafe
Cancer is a big money maker for the medical industry.
That's why they gave Max Gerson M.D. such a hard time ... he had such a high success rate ... even with terminal cancer patients that allopathic medicine had given up on he had a 50% success rate.
Suzanne is right to encourage people to question and educate themselves on all this suff.
simplicity
Kudos to my fellow posters who understand fully the difference between a statistical study and an ABPM... approach, (always be promoting me).
Please consider this ... along with so many others, "no sale."
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.