University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The Politics Of Scientific Inquiry: The Effects Of The Pluralist Paradigm On Comparative Studies Of Free Inquiry (With A Case Study Of The Politics Of American Cancer Research)

(USC Thesis Other)

The Politics Of Scientific Inquiry: The Effects Of The Pluralist Paradigm On Comparative Studies Of Free Inquiry (With A Case Study Of The Politics Of American Cancer Research)

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content INFORMATION TO USERS
This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While
the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document
have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original
submitted.
The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand
markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction.
1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document
photographed is "Missing Page{s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing
page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages.
This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent
pages to insure you complete continuity.
2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it
is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have
moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a
good image of the page in the adjacent frame.
3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being
photographed the photographer followed a definite method in
"sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper
left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to
right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is
continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until
complete.
4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value,
however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from
"photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver
prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing
the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and
specific pages you wish reproduced.
5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as
received.
Xerox University Microfilms
300 North Zeeb Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106
BLACK, Sharon MacMillan, 1946-
TOE POLITICS OF SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY: THE
EFFECTS OF THE PLURALIST PARADIGM ON
COMPARATIVE STUDIES OF FREE INQUIRY
(WITH A CASE STUDY OF TOE POLITICS OF
AMERICAN CANCER RESEARCH).
University o£ Southern California, Ph.D., 1975
Political Science, general
Xerox University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106
g) Copyright by
Sharon MacMillan Black
1975
THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED.
THE POLITICS OF SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY: THE
EFFECTS OF THE PLURALIST PARADIGM ON
COMPARATIVE STUDIES OF FREE INQUIRY
(WITH A CASE STUDY OF THE POLITICS
OF AMERICAN CANCER RESEARCH)
by
Sharon MacMillan Black
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(Political Science)
June 1975
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY PARK
LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90007
This dissertation, written by
Sharpn MacMillanBlack
under the direction of hGifZ... Dissertation Com
mittee, and approved by all its members, has
been presented to and accepted by The Graduate
School, in partial fulfillm ent of requirements of
the degree of
D O C T O R O F P H I L O S O P H Y
Dean
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART I
INTRODUCTION........................ 2
Chapter
I. A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE TO BE
CHALLENGED........................ 17
II. THE FIRST PROBLEM OF GENERALIZING FROM
THE CASE STUDY.................... 40
III. THE SECOND PROBLEM: THE CONCEPT OF
IDEOLOGICAL THINKING .............. 55
IV. THE THIRD PROBLEM: THE ROLE OF
FORMALISM.......................... 87
PART II
V. INTRODUCTION TO THE CASE STUDY........ 131
The Purpose and Methods of the Case
Study
A Review of Literature on the Lysenko
Case
i
VI. THE CASE STUDY................................159
Introduction
The Orthodox Position
VII. UNORTHODOX CANCER TREATMENTS ................ 204
Introduction
Laetrile
VIII. THEORIES OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CAUSES OF
CANCER AND SUPPRESSION OF RESEARCH..........224
IX. OTHER UNORTHODOX RESEARCH .................. 259
X. ORTHODOX METHODS .......................... 295
Chemo therapy
Radiation Therapy
Surgery
XI. THE BASES OF ORTHODOXY: THE UNORTHODOX
PERSPECTIVE............................... 327
CONCLUSION.........................................345
BIBLIOGRAPHY.............................. 367
• •
xx
PART
INTRODUCTION
The literature of the social sciences has often
contained the statement that there is less freedom of in
quiry in the U.S.S.R. than in the United States. The
purpose of this paper is to question a generalization
which is subsumed under the preceding statement. It is
that there is a more restricted flow of ideas in Russian
scientific communities than in American scientific com
munities because the Russian scientific communities are
more subject to the interference of ideologically
motivated politicians than are their autonomous American
counterparts. It is important that the reader focus
attention on the phrases "more than" and "less than"
which are contained in the preceding sentence. For what
is in question in this paper is the process by which the
authors have supported this comparative statement con
cerning the degree to which the phenomenon "free inquiry"
exists in different nations. The authors who put forth
the comparison have not been concerned with the possi
bility of supporting their assertions that there is
3
indeed a greater degree of the phenomenon existing in one
nation than in another. Rather, they have directed their
efforts toward explaining what they merely assume to be
true. It is important to note that the generalization
contains not only an assertion that there is a more res
tricted flow of ideas in Russian scientific communities
than in American scientific communities, but that these
phenomena are explained by other factors supposedly exist
ing in these societies, the ideologically motivated
Soviet politicians, the non-autonomous Russian scientific
community, and the autonomous American scientific com
munity.
The generalization has not been based on
empirical studies or rigorous analysis; it has often been
treated as though its validity were so obvious that it
required no systematic evidencing. It has been supported
largely through definition and through repetition of the
original generalization in other forms. It is also often
supported through a double standard of documentation,
including selective references to isolated case studies.
Both this highly selective evidencing system and the
generalization itself appear to be based on a set of
pluralist assumptions which will be labeled throughout this
paper the liberal paradigm.
4
The liberal paradigm contains dichotomies which
have been applied in varying degrees of sharpness by
different scholars. Scholars in the post-totalitarian
school have been cautious about drawing sharp dichotomies
between the two political systems. But these scholars
have differed from the totalitarian era scholars mainly
in the degree to which they use the sharp dichotomies in
the explanation of the generalization which they also
merely assume to be true. They do not differ in their
method of evidencing, nor have they rejected the assump
tions of the liberal paradigm. Some of the post-
totalitarian era scholars have written that the emergence
of stronger interest groups and academic communities in
the Soviet Union will be accompanied by an increasing
rationalism and a decreasing restriction on the flow of
ideas. There are several underlying assumptions which
can be seen in the work of these scholars as well as in
the work of the "totalitarian" era scholars. These
assumptions, which constitute what is here labeled the
liberal paradigm, are as follows: (1) there is a dis
tinction between rational and ideological thought and
there are empirically observable phenomena which can be
classified as ideologically motivated behavior and
rationally motivated behavior; (2) formal philosophies of
5
social organizations (liberalism, communism, norms of
science) manifest themselves in different empirically
observable behavior patterns; (3) where liberalism is the
formal philosophy, it will be accompanied by more rational
thought and action among people in the social organization
there will be less rational thought and action among
people in a social organization where communism is the
formal philosophy; (4) scientists are rational thinkers
who base their theories on empirical evidence, while
Communist Party men are ideological thinkers who distort
empirical reality to conform to their ideology; (5) Soviet
Communist Party men have the power necessary to impose
orthodoxies in scholarly disciplines, including the
sciences; conversely, in the United States, the liberal
mechanisms insure the competition of ideas and insure the
absence of a monopoly of power necessary to impose
orthodoxies in scholarly disciplines; (6) there is a clear
distinction between state and private power and it is
state power which is likely to be accompanied by the
imposition of orthodoxies; (7) the norms of the scientific
method to which scientific communities subscribe insure
a free competition of ideas, if these mechanisms are not
hampered by state interference.
As stated above, I will argue that the assumptions
of this liberal paradigm are questionable. In my demon
stration that there is a basis for questioning the
validity of these assumptions, I will use other scholarly
works taken from the fields of psychology, history of
science, economics, political science, and the natural
sciences. I will suggest that the assumptions of the
liberal paradigm are not the obvious truths the authors
seem to think they are. They constitute only one model
depicting reality and there is considerable evidence
which could be used to suggest that the model does not
help us to understand human behavior. The generalization
is so broad that one who operates under a different
paradigm could support its antithesis through the use of
a similarly highly selective evidencing system. Such a
task is not the purpose of this paper. Rather, the pur
pose is to argue that the generalization has not been
systematically supported and that it is based in a set
of assumptions which are questionable.
My critique will be based on three lines of
argumentation. In addition, these three arguments will
be further illustrated by example through an analysis of
the findings of a case study presented in this paper.
This case study concerns cancer research in the United
States.
The first argument is directed against the way in
7
which many scholars support their generalizations through
references to particular well-publicized cases of sup
pression of research and ideas in the Soviet Union. The
Lysenko Affair is a recurring case reference used to
support the generalization; it is often the only case
reference. Apparently the absence of a citation for a
similar case in the United States is also supposed to
support the generalization. Here, there is simply a
violation of the limits of the generalization which
references to particular cases will support.
Secondly, the scholars who use case references in
this way have paid little attention to the problems
inherent in their determination of what constitutes a
case of suppression of research. Their classification
system may be affected by official statements of various
organizations, including those statements presented via
the mass media. It is extremely important for the scholar
to consider the possibility that his whole conceptuali
zation of the problem of free inquiry will be affected
by definitions predominant in his learning environment.
The labeling of particular cases as "suppression of
ideas" or "regulation of criminal activity" may not stem
from a conscious and systematic labeling process the
scholar has struggled to devise.
8
In addition to the problem of classification,
there is a related factor which may affect the way in
which a scholar deals with a generalization concerning
the flow of scientific ideas in two societies. This
factor is publicity, the degree to which particular cases,
potentially definable as "suppression of ideas," are
publicized in one's own society. The amount of publicity
particular cases receive may affect the development of
impressionistic notions which are carried into one's
scholarly writing. The generalization in question in
this paper seems to be based largely in impressionistic
notions.
The potential importance of these factors,
definition and publicity, will be further accentuated when
the case study contained in this paper is related to my
first argument. This case study concerns a case which has
been defined as the "regulation of criminal activity" in
the official statements of an organized American
scientific community. However, those who are being
"regulated" define themselves not as "criminals" but as
scientists with credentials equal to those who promote the
regulation; they do not term the act "regulation," in
stead they call it "suppression of research and ideas."
This case has not been widely publicized in the United
I
9
States as a case of suppression of research.
Suppose we juxtapose to this case a hypothetical
one in the Soviet Union. An official Party statement,
presented in the mass media, has labeled a particular
legal action taken against a scientist, the "regulation
of criminal activity." The scientist defines it as
political suppression of his research and ideas; it is
also defined this way and widely publicized by the mass
media in the United States. The social scientist may
easily express skepticism toward the official Party
definition. However, it may be difficult for him to
reserve a similar skeptical attitude for the statements of
the organized American scientific community. It may
never occur to him to relate the case defined by the
American scientific community to his generalized impres
sion of comparative degrees of the free flow of
scientific ideas in the United States and the U.S.S.R.
He may readily incorporate the Soviet case into these
generalized notions. The situation may present no real
dilemma for him. The purpose of my first argument will
be achieved if I can convince the reader that a dilemma
exists.
My second argument includes some phenomenological
assertions that do not posit a clear distinction between
ideological and scientific approaches to knowledge,
10
either in paradigm choice or in research within the
boundaries of a paradigm. The purpose of this argument
is to point out possible limitations to the assumptions
numbered 1 through 4 in the outline of the liberal
paradigm. From a review of literature containing these
assumptions, I have found that the following character
istics are often used to define the concept of ideological
thinking: (1) dogmatism; (2) legitimization by authority;
(3) logically self-contained systems; (4) inability to
distinguish the cognitive from the evaluative; (5) end
oriented thought system.'*' I will discuss not only the
limitations of the dichotomous classification of
ideological thinking and non-ideological thinking, but
also the rather arbitrary manner in which the defining
characteristics of ideological thinking have been linked
to the thoughts and actions of people who formally sub
scribe to Marxist theory.
The problem of distinguishing between ideological
and scientific approaches to knowledge will be further
emphasized by the case study. Scholars to be cited in
the case study have suggested that the organized
scientific community's statements and actions exhibit
characteristics of ideological motivation; they further
suggest that the scientific community's participation in
11
the imposition of an orthodoxy in a particular area of
research stems in part from the ideological character
istics of the thinking of its members. It is suggested
that the norms of science are often used by the spokes
men for the organized scientific community to legitimize
a position derived more from orthodoxy and economic
motivation than from scientific research. The case study
contains a description of the way in which the norms of
science take on different meanings, depending on whether
a scientist is attempting to legitimize his position or
whether he is attempting to refute his opponents'
position.
We have to question the possibility of relating
formal symbol systems to particular patterns of behavior
which are subsumed under the concept of "suppression of
research and ideas." Can we really discern whether
people will dogmatically defend positions compatible with
their formal philosophy from our identification of a
formal symbol system to which people subscribe, whether
it is liberalism, Marxism, or norms of science? Or are
the symbols of all of these philosophies so vague and
purely symbolic that any position, taken under the
guidance of narrower range paradigms, can be legitimized
by them? Bell notes that the Kremlinologists sometimes
claim that Soviet rulers are governed by ideology in
policy choice and sometimes claim that the Soviet rulers
cynically use the symbols of Marxism to legitimize any
9
policy choice. Which thing the Soviet rulers are doing
at any time seems to depend on which interpretation fits
with the paradigm of the social scientist making the
generalization. This brings us to my third argument
which asserts that social scientists’ excessive con
centration on analyzing the formal philosophies and
structures of organizations has obscured the content of
the problem of human behavior with which they attempt to
deal. Not only has there been an excessive concentration
on formal philosophies and structures, but there has also
been a double standard of description for the ways in
which the formal philosophies and structures manifest
themselves in human behavior.
My third argument is directed against the assump
tions numbered 2, 3, and 5 through 7 in the outline of
the liberal paradigm. The authors whose generalizations
are in question have made some unwarranted theoretical
leaps linking formal structure and formal organizational
philosophies with what they consider to be empirical mani
festations of degrees of free inquiry. The argument is
also directed against the use of double standards in the
selection and interpretation of evidence taken from
formal organizational statements and formal organizational
13
structures. These factors have been skeptically or
literally employed, depending on whether they fit into
the scholars' paradigm.
The case study will help to illustrate the
fallacies of relying on formal organizational philosophies
and structures for analysis of the generalization. In
this case, an orthodoxy in a research area has been im
posed by what the authors who subscribe to the liberal
paradigm would call an autonomous scientific community and
autonomous interest groups. The politics surrounding
testing procedures and the limitations on publicity of
ideas imposed by the scientific community will be focal
points of the case study. This example will be used to
clarify further the argument directed against the
assumptions concerning distinctions between state and
private power.
The first chapter of this paper consists of a
review of the literature containing the generalization
in question and the assumptions of the liberal paradigm
in which the generalization is based. The next three
chapters contain the three arguments outlined above,
where it is asserted that the generalization in question
is unwarranted and insufficiently supported.
The fifth chapter states the purposes and the
14
methods of the case study of this paper. Within this
chapter is a short review of the Lysenko case, the case
often referenced by the scholars who make the generali
zation in question. Although indicators drawn from the
Lysenko case will be used in the analysis of my case
study, this is not a comparative study. The purpose of
the review of the Lysenko case is to determine what con
stitutes a case of suppression of research and ideas in
the minds of the scholars who support the generalization
in question. They often reference the Lysenko case to
support the generalization that there is a more restricted
flow of ideas in Soviet scientific communities because
ideologically motivated politicians can impose ortho
doxies in the scientific communities. It is necessary to
determine what constitutes, in the minds of scholars who
reference the Lysenko case, the following things: the
meaning of "orthodoxy"; an acceptable way to demonstrate
the existence of an orthodoxy; the indicators for an act
of suppression of research and ideas. I will then use
these methods and indicators in my case study of sup
pression of ideas and research. I assume that the
scholars who reference the Lysenko case to support their
generalizations believe these methods and indicators to
be appropriate ones.
15
The second part of the paper, containing the
remaining chapters, constitutes the case study. As stated
above, I will use the case study to illustrate further
the arguments put forth in Chapter II. These arguments
will be summarized in the conclusion.
Footnotes
1. The following works were reviewed.
Giovanni Sartori, "Politics, Ideology, and
Belief Systems," American Political Science Review,
LXIII (June, 1969), 398-412.
Phillip E. Converse, "The Nature of Belief
Systems in Mass Publics," in Ideology and Discontent,
ed. by David E. Apter (Glencoe^ New York: Free Press,
1964), pp. 207-211.
Willard A. Mullins, "On the Concept of Ideology
in Political Science," American Political Science Review
LXVI (June, 1972), pp. 9-12.
Reinhard Bendix, The Age of Ideology; Persis
tent and Changing (Glencoe, New York: Free Press, T9'64),
pp. 2-6“ .
Gustav Bergman, The Metaphysics of Logical
Positivism (Madison, Wisconsin: University or Wisconsin
Fress), pp. 320 and 324-325.
Zbigniew Brzezinski and Samuel P. Huntington,
Political Power USA/USSR (New York: Viking Press, 1968),
pp. 19-26.--------------
16
M. Rejai, W. L. Mason, and D. C. Bellar,
"Empirical Relevance of the Hypothesis of Decline," in
The Decline of Ideology, ed. by M. Rejai (Chicago:
Aldine, Atherton, 1971;.
2. Daniel Bell, The End of Ideology (Glencoe, 111.:
Free Press, 1960).
CHAPTER I
A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
TO BE CHALLENGED
This chapter consists of a review of social
science literature containing the generalization in ques
tion. These works offer no systematic basis of support
for the comparative statement that the phenomenon of
suppression of inquiry exists to a greater extent in the
U.S.S.R. than in the United States. Each of the authors
cited below appears to be working under at least several
of the assumptions I have included in the liberal para
digm. Many times their generalization concerning free
inquiry is presented as though it derives naturally from
these unquestioned assumptions. Sometimes the generali
zation is also supported by references to isolated case
studies or by references to interviews with Soviet
refugees.^- In any case, the assumptions of the liberal
paradigm appear to play a major role in the literature
reviewed in this chapter. For the convenience of the
17
18 s
i
reader, the assumptions of the liberal paradigm are again
listed: (1) there is a distinction between rational
and ideological thought and there are empirically
observable phenomena which can be classified as
ideologically motivated behavior and rationally motivated
behavior; (2) formal philosophies of social organizations
(liberalism, communism, norms of science) manifest
themselves in different empirically observable behavior
patterns; (3) where liberalism is the formal philosophy,
it will be accompanied by more rational thought and
action among people in the social organization; there
will be less rational thought and action among people in
a social organization where communism is the formal
philosophy; (4) scientists are rational thinkers who
base their theories on empirical evidence, while Com
munist Party men are ideological thinkers who distort
i
versions of empirical reality to conform to their
ideology; (5) Soviet Communist Party men have the power
necessary to impose orthodoxies in scholarly disciplines,
including the sciences; conversely, in the United States,
the liberal mechanisms insure the competition of ideas j
S
I
and insure the absence of a monopoly of power necessary to j
impose orthodoxies in scholarly disciplines; (b) there i
|
is a clear distinction between state and private power !
19
and it is state power which is likely to be accompanied
by the imposition of orthodoxies; (7) the norms of the
scientific method to which scientific communities sub
scribe insure a free competition of ideas, if these
mechanisms are not hampered by state interference.
The earlier literature tends to contain more
blatant expressions of these assumptions than does much
of the later 1960's and 1970's literature. However, the
underlying assumptions have survived. The following
review will indicate that the transition in the termin
ology and models used to describe Soviet politics has not
been accompanied by a change in the assumptions of the
liberal paradigm.
A rather sharp dichotomy between ideological and
rational thinking was drawn by Shils in the 1950's. He
wrote that scientists and other intellectuals residing
in nations where Communism is the formal philosophy had
witnessed the triumph of ideological thought. Ideology
"paralyzed the free dialectic of intellectual life."^
Ideology, he continues, is the belief that every sphere
of life, including rule over scientific research and
philosophic thought "should be encompassed by a coherent
and comprehensive set of beliefs." According to Shils,
this belief triumphs not only under Communist and Fascist
20
governments but also in third world countries where
"passionate nationalism and ethnic ideologies continuously
encroach upon rational judgment and reasonable moral
action."^ The area of the world where rationality pre
dominates over passion consists of the "liberal
democratic systems." The separation of the state from
the economy and from society is a major factor contribut-
5
ing to the predominance of rationalism.
Shils apparently believes that there is a dis
tinction between ideological, "passionate" thought and
action and rational thought and action. He also seems to
think that he can see some empirical manifestations of
these types of thought and action. However, there is no
systematic discussion of how he observes these mani
festations or of exactly what phenomena constitute these
manifestations. He connects "rationality" to the formal
philosophy of liberalism, including the formal structural
distinction between state and private sectors. The
limited state is a mechanistic device which guarantees
rational thought and action and the competition of ideas,
the "free dialectic of intellectual life," according
to Shils. He connects Communist philosophy and the Com
munist government with ideological thought and with sup
pression of ideas.
21
The Party was also indicted as the threat to free,
non-ideological inquiry in a 1956 book by Fainsod. While
the latitude for free expression in the Soviet Union
differs with time period and area of inquiry, the boun
daries of free inquiry are always imposed by the Com
munist Party-state, according to Fainsod. The ruling
Party group is attempting to breed a race of people who
find freedom in subordination to the ideological ortho-
£
doxies formulated by the Party leadership, he contends.
Fainsod seems to think that the formal hierarchical struc
ture of the Party and state adequately represent reality,
for the "ruling group" has the ability to impose its
orthodoxies anywhere.^ However, he does not literally
interpret formal provisions for free speech and other
civil liberties in the Soviet Union; he exhibits a large
measure of skepticism for these formal provisions,
8
explaining that the reality is very different. The
reality for Fainsod is that the Communist Party men are
ideological and that the Communist Party men have the
power to impose their ideology,
Inkeles also relies heavily on selective
references to formal structure and philosophy. He
believes that much of the Soviet Union's past has been
Q
characterized by "one man dictatorship." Academic
disciplines are controlled by the "narrow dogmatism of
22
the Soviet Marxist leadership,""^ working through a
system of hierarchical control.Inkeles believes that
this system is "polar to that in those societies general-
12
ly acknowledged to be democratic political systems."
In order to be included in the latter group a nation must
have autonomous interest groups and at least two parties,
13
according to Inkeles. He seems to feel that there is
more free speech in the United States than anywhere
else."^ The United States constitution, he notes,
guarantees it. What of other nations' constitutions
which guarantee it? His answer is simply that "the
United States, no doubt, has gone much further in
15
implementing the principle." Inkeles seems to be sup
porting his generalization that the United States has
more free speech by saying that it has more free speech.
A similar argument is developed by Rasmussen,
who notes that American liberties are traceable to and
protected by the Constitution. But the Constitution is
effective, he writes, only because "it is regarded as an
enforceable set of obligations and limits upon the
government's power." The guarantees in the Soviet Con
stitution, he continues, are meaningless, for they have
not been"implemented."
23
Aside from his argument that there is more free
speech in the United States, which is used to support his
generalization that there is more free speech in the
United States, Inkeles also supports his generalization
through a recounting of the liberal mechanisms, supposed
ly at work in the United States, which produce a climate
of freedom. These mechanisms, described through
characteristics of the United States, are: the state is
limited; groups are autonomous; there is no centralized
planning; the state is separate from the economy
("Americans exercise almost absolute control over in
dustry in their role as consumer11); academic com
munities are autonomous from state control.^ These
features and the absence of an ideological concentration
on an end or purpose defined by a ruling group are
characteristics which are polar to the characteristics of
the Soviet Union. Thus, in the over-all view, Inkeles
says, the Soviet regime "concedes little to the
individual’s desire to be a unique individual, to under
go private, purely personal experiences, in a word, to
be free." Party decisions in areas of free expression,
he continues, are made largely "with regard to furthering
18
the goal of Communism."
That ideological Party men have the desire and
ability to impose orthodoxies in a vast scope of thought j
and action is also the contention of Carter and Herz.
In a 1962 edition of their introductory comparative
politics textbook, they write: j
i
What is startling to Westerners who believe that
scientists must pursue the freest possible in
vestigation and have full independence in reaching
their result is to find that there is also a party j
orthodoxy in the Soviet Union in regard to
scientific conclusions and that this orthodoxy may
be established by Party fiat.
They cite the Lysenko case as "one of the most
20
striking examples" of this phenomenon. Carter and Herz j
i
believe that the ideologically motivated men of the Party-
state apparatus are the threats to free scientific inquiry?
these men have dogmatic views of the world and the power i
necessary to impose these views in a wide range of j
L
activities in their society. Their acceptance of Marxist
theory concerning the control of ideas in the capitalist
system is further evidence of the dogmatic thought patterns
21
of the Soviet leadership, according to Carter and Herz.
Armstrong also writes that the ideological Party
men have the ability to set limits of inquiry for !
22
scholarly disciplines. He relies heavily on references
to formal party decrees and party statements for
23
support. He believes that a relaxation or tightening
of restrictions in any area is a result of Party decisions.
25
More controls were decreed under Stalin. "Following
Stalin's lead, Soviet ideologists extended the categories
of immutable elements to include logic, mathematics, and
with some qualifications, the natural sciences.He
25
cites the Lysenko case as an example of this control.
Laird also believes that ideologically motivated
politicians have the ability "to impose absurd theories
on the sciences." Since the Soviet Communist Party
cannot admit to being wrong, he writes, an officially
sanctioned "falsehood" may reign for years in the
natural sciences.^ Lysenkoism is a prime example of
27
this. The Russian political culture, he contends, has
long been accustomed to such conditions, so the
hierarchical, ideological control can flourish.^®
With the decline of the totalitarian model the
writings of some scholars no longer contained such all-
encompassing estimates of the power of Communist Party
leaders. Nevertheless, the assumptions of the liberal
paradigm remain in the literature. One now finds refer
ences to the power of interest groups in the Soviet
Union. It has become increasingly popular to speculate
about "effects" which will be produced by this emergence
of interest groups. Many writers have suggested that,
with a growing autonomy of interest groups and academic
26
disciplines, there will be a decline in "dogmatism" and
an increase in "rationality." In the views of these
scholars the state remains the potential threat to free
inquiry and the autonomous groups and scientific com
munities remain the guardians of free inquiry. The
Marxist-inspired Party leadership remains as a threat to
free inquiry until the rationalism of the technological
society and its autonomous specialized interest groups
overcome the threat.
An example of such reasoning can be seen in the
works of Barghoorn. He describes the emergence of more
powerful, rational scientific communities in a system
still filled with restraints. He cautiously estimates
the degree of pluralism which is emerging in the Soviet
29
Union. He notes that the continuing limitations on
inquiry imposed by the Party are discouraging to the
Soviet intellectual community, but that changes may be on
the way. These changes are produced by the growth of
"rational and empirical thinking" which challenges Com-
30
munist dogma and orthodoxy.
Thus, according to Barghoorn, intellectuals, and
particularly natural scientists, are becoming objective
and rationalistic, partially because of contacts with the
West. Russian society is beginning to be characterized
27
by a pluralism of autonomous groups and this is produc
ing an emergence from dogmatism.
Parry has also observed the emergence of these
new groups, the "new class," and he notes that the Party
has retreated from any endorsement in the field of
31
medical research as well as in some other fields. He
too describes this phenomenon as the emergence from
dogmatism and he refutes the more dismal projections of
other scholars for the potential power of the "new
class."32
Others who have taken the newer approaches, em
phasizing an analysis of interest group constellations
in the U.S.S.R., have indicated that there is a possi
bility that the nation will "develop" to the stage
already enjoyed in the United States. In this stage
the competition of ideas will become freer, for the
emerging scientific groups require a greater flow of
ideas. This idea can be seen in the works of Aron and
Lodge.
Aron believes that increasing technological
development inclines a society toward pluralism,
rationalism, and increasing demands for individuals to be
33
able to "tell the truth." Thus, there may be a move
away from the dogmatism that has prevailed under Party
28
j :
leadership.^
Lodge rejects the totalitarian model of
hierarchical control; he contends that the post-Stalinist
Soviet system is competitive and is characterized by
Party-specialist group interdependence because the Party
increasingly needs the expertise of the specialized
groups. However, his discussion of the inadequacy of the
totalitarian hierarchical control model for explaining
post-Stalinist politics is encompassed within assumptions
of the liberal paradigm. He believes that the emergence
of more powerful specialist groups in the Soviet political
system is accompanied by a decrease in ideological
orientation. Party power and ideological orientation are
on one end of Lodge's continuum and instrumentalism and
specialist group power are on the other end. The U.S.S.R.
is placed on the ideological end of the continuum while
the United States is placed on the instrumental end.
Wherever interest groups or specialist communities are
autonomous and powerful, the system is instrumental;
wherever Party-state power is stronger than interest
groups and specialized communities, the system is
35
ideological.
Gripp also describes this emergence from dogma
tism in what he terms his structural functional
29
O r
approach. He explains the absence of a rational
Russian Soviet society in the past.
In the USSR political culture is tied up with
ideology more so than in many other political
systems because of the strong theoretical
determinants of modern Soviet Communism. Its
origins rest in historical Russian messianism.
Gripp believes that the political culture of the Soviet
Union is ideological and that it fits relatively
easily into submission to the "theoretical determinants of
Communism." He also notes that Party leaders and
government officials are committed strongly to the
ideology because their personal goals are identified with
38
it. These leaders have the ability to impose their
ideology on the society. When describing dogmatic
Party control, he relies heavily on formal Party state
ments and the formal hierarchical structure of the Pary
39
and state organizations. He also uses one unsupported
generalization to support or explain another unsupported
generalization. For example, he explains his first un
supported generalization, that "in the USSR political
culture is tied up with ideology more so than in many
other political systems," by saying that this is so
"because of the strong theoretical determinants of modern
Soviet Communism."
Other writers who rely heavily on formal philo-
30
sophies, formal hierarchical charts, and who support
one generalization with another unsupported generali
zation are Brzezinski and Huntington. They compare
the "belief system" of the United States, 19th century
liberalism, to the "ideology” of the Soviet Union,
Marxism. The Soviet Union is characterized by dogmatism,
while the "absence of official arbiters and plurality of
current meanings attached to liberalism and democracy
effectively exclude overall dogmatization in the United
States."^ They write that in the Soviet Union ideological
committment is based on a series of basic and absolute
assumptions concerning reality. They are alleged to
provide all-embracing answers to key philosophical
and social questions concerning the nature of man, his
relationship to his environment, forces which cause
historical change, and the ultimate purpose of social
organization.^ This doctrinal component is unchanging
and static and based on the philosophy of Marx and
Engels. Russian leaders are motivated by the goal of
Communist domination of the world while American leaders
are not motivated by any particular goal. End-
oriented thought and action are characteristics of the
Russian overall dogmatization.^
31
American thinking, they contend, accepts conflict
within American society as natural and healthy; it accepts
checks and balances in government, competition between
parties, competition in the economy, and competition
43
among ideas. They explain that the homogeneity in
the belief system of the United States developed naturally
and spontaneously while that in the Soviet Union was
artificially and forcefully developed by ruling elites.^
They explain these generalizations with references to
Russia's authoritarian past and with a recounting of the
American past laden with checks and balances, absence of
strong elites, desires to avoid dogma and persecution.^
In the introductory remarks to their book,
Huntington and Brzezinski expressed their concern about
the effect of their own belief system upon their study.
Even this section contains assumptions which the authors
apparently believe to be above question. They write,
In this volume we aim to keep our own analyses free
of our preference for constitutional democracy. Too
often in the United States people have assumed that
because the American system provides more liberty
and is therefore more desirable, it must also be
stronger.
The assumption that there is indeed more liberty
in the United States was operating at the outset and this
assumption was not even suggested to be related to the
32
value system under which the authors are operating.
Some authors are very specific in their state
ments that the norms of science, operating in an environ
ment of liberal mechanisms, provide a strong fortress
against ideological reigns of orthodoxies. Geertz
observes that it is the business of science to assess the
empirical claims of ideology. He believes that science
provides positive knowledge and the powerful groups in
the liberal system provide competition. These factors
constitute a check against "ideological extremism" and
against power monopolies which are able to impose it.^
Assumptions about the abilities of particular
mechanisms to insure the free flow of ideas can also be
found in Scott Greer and David Lane's works. These books
express a comfortable faith in the ability of the pro
cedural norms of science and the surveillance of the
scientific community to guarantee that ideological
48
considerations will not control the findings of science.
Greer contends that even though the Commissars may con
trol the findings of biological science for a period of
time (the Lysenko case), the state is doomed to eventual
failure because the scientific community demands
empirical evidence and cannot be convinced with
49
ideology. He writes:
33
Outside the pressure cooker of policy-making, out
side the nation state, is a larger scientific com
munity which must be shown, not h a r a n g u d e . 50
The norms of the scientific community which guarantee the
free flow of ideas are that of publicity of ideas and
review of ideas by a jury of fellow scientists; Greer
observes that "this is the reason for the fantastic
proliferation of professional societies, professional
journals, symposiums, and meetings, Another procedural
norm is the constant reversibility of decisions, "no
52
specific issue is ever closed once and for all,"
According to Greer it is the state which is the potential
threat to free inquiry and empirical investigation; it is
the scientific community, through its professional
societies and journals, which is the protector of the
free flow of ideas and empirical investigation0 The
scientific community demands empirical evidence while
the Commissar distorts empirical reality to conform to
his ideological considerations.
This view is also expressed by Rabinowitch. He
notes that although Soviet natural science communities
have been more autonomous than other academic communities,
they also have been hampered by state-imposed orthodoxies.
These orthodoxies had as their purpose the making of
34
scientific theory compatible with dialectical material
ism. A prime example of the imposition of orthodoxy, he
writes, is the Lysenko case, where Stalin's dictatorship
forced an orthodoxy in agreement with dialectical
5 3
materialism upon the scientific community. "
Science policy studies of the Soviet Union, such
as Turkevich's, although milder in terminology, contain
statements comparing the dangers of a Communist "thought
controlling system" with the affluence of ideas in
scientific communities in the United States. He
writes, "The dramatic confrontation of Marxist theory and
genetics (the Lysenko case) epitomized the dangers of
55
Communism as a thought controlling system." Here Com
munism is merely assumed to be the controlling factor as
it is in so many statements of other authors.
According to the authors cited above, the remedy
for immobility in ideas lies in the liberal mechanisms
which guarantee competition and in the triumph of the
rationalism and empiricism of the autonomous academic
communities over the dogmatism of the Communist Party men.
The liberal mechanisms and the rationalism and empiricism
produced by the autonomous scientific communities,
allegedly operate to a much greater extent in the United
States than in the U.S.S.R. Party-state power is the
35
potential threat to free inquiry and is the source of
dogmatism and orthodoxy; autonomous interest groups and
scientific communities are the protectors of rationalism,
empiricism, and the free flow of ideas.
The following three chapters contain the challenge
to the generalizations and assumptions outlined in the
preceding review of literature,, Here, I will argue that
the generalization concerning comparative degrees of free
inquiry has not been sufficiently supported. Further, the
assumptions of the liberal paradigm upon which the
generalization is based are questionable.
In these chapters I will relate to the generali
zation in question, the ideas of some scholars which have
not been specifically associated with the generalization
concerning comparative degrees of free inquiry. The works
of some of these scholars can be used to suggest that the
assumptions of the liberal paradigm are disputable. The
purpose of this endeavor is to show that the generali
zation in question and the assumptions of the liberal
paradigm from which it follows are not the obvious truths
they have so long been represented to be. The assumptions
are merely a set of unsupported or casually supported
generalizations which the authors take for granted.
36
The second chapter concerns the problem of
generalizing from a few case study references. It also
concerns the problem of defining a case of suppression of
research, a problem which has not been vigorously tackled
by the scholars cited in Chapter I. The third and fourth
chapters call into question the assumptions of the
liberal paradigm and the way in which they have been used
to derive, support, and explain the generalization in
question.
Footnotes
1. Raymond Ellsworth, The Soviet State (New York:
Macmillan, 1968), p. 224.
2. Edward A. Shils, "Ideology and Civilization: On
the Politics of the Intellectual, (Sewanee Review 66
(Summer, 1958), p. 450.
3. Ibid., pp. 450-451.
4. Ibid., p. 453.
5. Ibid., p, 4790
6. Merle Fainsod, How Russia is Ruled (Cambridge:
Harvard University Pr., i95b), pp. 320 and 480.
70 Merle Fainsod, How Russia, is Ruled, and Merle
Fainsod, "Terror as a System of Power,” in The Soviet
Crucible, Samuel Hendel, Ed. (Princeton, New Jersey:
Van Nostrand, 1959), pp. 361-383.
8. Fainsod, How Russia is Ruled, pp. 10-11.
37
9. Alex Inkeles, Social Change in Soviet Russia.
(Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard Univ. Pr., 1968),
p. 400.
10. Ibid., p. 414.
11. Ibid., p. 401.
12. Ibid.
13. Ibid., pp. 401-414.
14. Ibid., p. 401.
15. Ibid., p. 401.
16. Jorgan Scott Rasmussen, The Process of Politics:
A Comparative Approach (New York! Atherton Pr., 1969),
p • 31.
17. Inkeles, pp. 401, 404, 416, 414.
18. Alex Inkeles, introduction in The Soviet Society:
A Book of Readings, ed. Alex Inkeles and kent Geiger
(Boston: Houghton M.fflin, 1961), p. 413,
19. Gwendolen M. Carter and John M. Herz, Major
Foreign Powers (New York: Harcourt, Brace, and world,
iw27rp:"™.'
20. Ibid., p. 244.
21. Ibid., pp. 240-241.
22. John Armstrong, The Politics of Totalitarianism:
The Communist Party of the Soviet Union from 1934 to the
Present (New York: Random House, 19blJ, p. 292, and
John A. Armstrong, Ideology, Politics and Government in
the Soviet Union (New York: Praeger, 196/, rev. ed.),
pT~7T.
23. Ibid.
24. Armstrong, Politics of Totalitarianism . . .,
p. 224.
38
25. Ibid.
26. Roy D. Laird, The Soviet Paradigm (New York:
Free Press, 1970), p. 113.
27. Ibid.,pp. 82-83.
28. Ibid., p. 207.
29. Frederick Barhoorn, "Changes In Russia: The
Need for Perspectives," Problems of Communism 15 (May,
June, 1966), pp. 40-42.
30. Ibid.
31. Albert Parry, "Science and Technology Versus
Communism," The Russian Review 25 (July, 1966), p. 236.
32. Ibid., p. 239.
33. Raymon Aron, "Soviet Society in Transition," in
The Soviet Crucible, ed. by Samuel Hendel (Princeton,
New Jersey: Van Nostrand, 1959), pp. 627-635.
34-* Ibid. , p. 634.
35. Milton C. Lodge, "Soviet Elite Participatory
Attitudes in the Post-Stalin Period," American Political
Science Review 62 (September, 1968), ppT 82/, 838, and
837.
36. Richard C. Gripp, Patterns of Soviet Politics,
(Homewood, 111.: Dorsey Pr., 196/J, pp. 328 and 326.
37. Ibid., p. 95.
38. Ibid.
39* Ibid., pp. 180-187, and 191.
40. Brzezinski and Huntington, p. 21.
41. Ibid.
42. Ibid.
43. Ibid., p. 38.
39
44. Ibid., p. 33.
45- Ibid., p. 29-32.
46. Ibid., pp. 4-5.
47. Clifford Geertz, "ideology as a Cultural System,"
in Ideology and Discontent, ed. by David E. Apter
(Glencoe, N. Y.: free Press, 1964), p. 72.
48. . Scott A. Greer, The Logic of Social Inquiry,
(Chicago: Aldine Pub. Co.l 19b9;, pp. /-8, and David
Lane, Politics and Society in the USSR (New York: Random
House, 197l), p. 219.
49. Greer, pp. 7-8.
50. Ibid.
51. Ibid.
52. Eugene Rabinowitch, "A Survey of Russian
Science," in Soviet Society: a Book of Readings, ed. by
Alex Inkeles and Kent Geiger (.Boston: Houghton Mifflin,
1961), pp. 460-468.
53. John Turkevich, "Soviet Science Appraised," in
The Politics of Science, ed. by William R. Nelson (New
York: Oxford Univ. Fr7, 1968), p. 399.
54. Ibid., p. 396.
CHAPTER II
THE FIRST PROBLEM: GENERALIZING FROM
THE CASE STUDY
The first argument is directed against the way in
which many scholars support their generalization through
references to particular well-publicized cases of sup
pression of research and ideas in the Soviet Union. The
references to one or a few cases of suppression of ideas
in the Soviet Union and the absence of references to cases
of suppression of ideas in the United States are often
the only concrete support given for the generalization.
These case references or absence of case references will
not support the generalization the authors make. These
scholars have not avoided the temptation to move toward
grand theory which the case study will not support.
Garson believes this to be a common error.^ He explains
that the scholar who is familiar with a case study will
encounter a limited aspect of a phenomenon which is part
of a complexity of phenomena and which is not a represen-
40
41
tative sampling of all possible cases; the scholar is
tempted to dismiss this problem and to move toward
2
generalizations which are unwarranted.
Thus, anecdotal references to the Lysenko case or
to interviews with Soviet refugees certainly do not
support the generalization that there is a more restricted
flow of ideas in Russian academic communities than in
American academic communities. The scholars cited in
Chapter I should have encountered a major problem before
delving into explanations for their generatlization. The
problem is that we do not know that, indeed, there is a
more restricted flow of ideas in Russian academic com
munities than in American academic communities. Few
scholars have considered this enough of a problem to
attempt to deal with it. Rather, they focus their
efforts on explanations for the generalization which is
accepted as valid. Many explanations are obtained from
the liberal paradigm from which the generalization itself
follows. As noted above, even Huntington and Brzezinski’s
discussion of the influence of their value system upon
their study contained the unquestioned generalization
that there is indeed more freedom of inquiry in the United
States than in the U.S.S.R. Very few efforts have been
directed toward a consideration of the basis for making
42
the generalization or of'the possibility of supporting
such a generalization.
It cannot be supported in the manner of the
authors cited in Chapter I. If one completes or referen
ces several cases concerning the suppression of ideas in
the U.S.S.R. and if one knows of fewer or no similar
cases in the United States, one cannot generalize that
there is more suppression in the U.S.S.R. than in the
United States. Suppose that a second scholar cites an
equal number of cases of suppression of research in the
United States. Does the scholar who supported the orig
inal generalization with references to several cases in
the U.S.S.R. now have to say that there is equal sup
pression in both societies? He might be tempted to say
that the cases represent the norm in the U.S.S.R. and the
3
aberration in the United States but he does not have a
basis for saying this because he does not have a represen
tative sampling of all possible cases.^ Suppose the
second scholar manages to cite additional cases of sup
pression of research in the United States. The scholar
j supporting the generalization in question can think of no
i ' ;
j more cases to cite for the Soviet Union. Does this mean
|
| that there is more suppression in the United States than
I in the Soviet Union? It is quite likely that the original
43
scholar will object to this nonsense at this point. He
should have objected at the beginning.
Many statements concerning comparative degrees of
free inquiry seem to have their only concrete basis in
impressionistic notions gained from reported cases of
suppression of research. This process is similar to the
process of stereotyping.^ If one insists on making
generalizations supported by a few case references, it
seems essential that one would at least consider it
necessary to develop a systematic method for defining and
discovering cases of suppression of research and ideas.
It seems that one would at least inquire into the origins
of the definitions which have been predominant in one’s
learning environment.
It is essential to consider the effects the
scholar's learning environment may have on the development
of his impressionistic notions about comparative degrees
of free inquiry and on his whole conceptualization of
"free inquiry." Very little effort has been put into
this task by the scholars who have made the generalization
in question. It is necessary to consider the possibility
that the labeling of particular cases as suppression of
of research or as some other phenomenon may not be based
on rigorous sets of indicators the scholar has struggled
44
to devise. Rather, the scholar may be working with
labels which have already been attached to particular
cases by official organizational statements, by the mass
media, by previous scholars. To my knowledge, none of
the authors cited in Chapter I have discussed the
potential influences of definitions of cases of suppres
sion of research which have been predominant in their
learning environment or in the mass media.
The authors do not justify their inconsistent
reliance on definitions presented by formal organizational
statements and by the mass media. They do not literally
accept official Soviet definitions of what constitutes a
case of suppression of research. They often mention the
distortions and ideological controls operating in the
ideas to which the Russian population is exposed through
the mass media or the educational system. Why, then, are
they not concerned with the same problem for the
definitions which are publicized in the American mass
media and educational system? The authors have not con
sidered the possibility that there exist cases which one
might label cases of suppression of ideas, if one were to
question the definitions which have been predominant in
one's own society. The authors have not considered the
possibility that there exist cases of suppression of
research and ideas which have not been allowed to surface
or which have been labeled as something other than the
suppression of research by powerful groups in one's own
society. The authors have not considered the possibility
that there are cases which they would never think of
including in their thought processes when they are making
estimates of degrees of free inquiry in a society; they
would not think of including them because the cases have
never been defined as cases of suppression of research by
any source to which the authors have been exposed or by
any source which the authors consider legitimate. In
order not to be troubled by these possibilities one has to:
make a faith assumption that indeed there is free inquiry
in the United States and that there are certain mechanisms
which do not allow these possibilities to arise in the
American system. Further, if one sees no problem in
accepting definitions predominant in one's own society,
one has to assume that well publicized cases, defined as
cases of Communist Party suppression of research, are
merely objectively reported reality and not part of an
image of the enemy campaign in one's own society. Carter
and Herz have given the latter interpretation to the
Marxist scholars' discussion of suppression of ideas in
the United States. Why is this not a possibility in
46
reversed circumstances?
The degree of publicity particular cases receive
could have great impact on the development of impression
istic notions of scholars who proceed to make generali
zations about freedom of inquiry in a nation. If one
hears many news reports about cases of suppression of
research in the Soviet Union and very few or no reports
about cases of suppression of research in the United
States, there are potential explanations for this which
are alternative to the one at which the scholars cited in
Chapter I seem to have arrived. The authors cited in
Chapter I apparently were not worried about the existence
of controls over the publicity of cases in the United
States. If one is to express no concern over this
possibility, it seems that one would have to assume that
cases of suppression of research would become public in
the United States and/or that some operating mechanisms
insure the absence of suppression.
In summary, the authors cited in Chapter I seem
to make a leap from their knowledge of U.S.S.R. cases and
their lack of knowledge of similar cases in the United
States, to the generalization in question. This leap may
be facilitated greatly by the authors' acceptance of the
assumptions of the liberal paradigm. There has been very
47 I
little effort directed toward the problem of defining
cases of suppression of research or toward the problem of
determining how one discovers cases of suppression of
research. That there is a need to direct much more effort
toward these problem areas will be argued further in the
analysis of the case study in this paper.
The case study of this paper is particularly help
ful for illustrating the problems of definition and
publicity of cases of suppression of research. The case
study is done at what may be a period of transition;
ideas which were once and continue to be labeled
"unscientific nonsense," "criminal activity," or
"quackery" by the organized medical community are now
becoming more respectable as ecological issues become
more publicized. Only very recently theories labeled
"quackery" by the organized medical community have been
favorably supported in public statements by researchers
who remain connected with major research institutions.
This has been done through disconnected informational
disclosures on research projects and has not been related
to the concept of a long reign of orthodoxy and suppres
sion of research, in the United States. In the past,
people who have used these theories in connection with
cancer research have often encountered denigration of
reputation, inability to publish in the organized pro
fessional journals, termination of membership from the
organized profession, other restrictions on their speech
and activities, and arrest. These imposed restrictions
have been labeled by the organized medical community,
the "regulation of non-scientific nonsense" and the
regulation of "criminal activity." Scholars cited in
Chapter I often cite a particular case as a "prime
example" of the way in which ideas and research are con
trolled by the Party in the Soviet Union. Following the
logic used by these scholars, the case study contained in
this paper could be similarly cited as a "prime example"
of the way interest groups and a scientific community in
the United States can control ideas and research.
The case study traces the series of punishments
received by those who subscribe to unorthodox theories.
Indicators for an act of suppression of research and ideas
are taken from the studies of the Lysenko affair, the
case the authors cited in Chapter I often reference as
a "prime example" of the way in which the Communist
Party can suppress inquiry. That there exists an
orthodoxy in organized medicine and that this orthodoxy
has been enforced by the organized medical community and
associated interest groups can be documented as sub-
49
stantially as was the existence of an enforced orthodoxy
in the Lysenko affair.
The major problem would appear to be that of
convincing the scholars who are sure that in the Lysenko
affair there was suppression of "scientific theories, " that
there is also suppression of "scientific theories" in the
case examined in this paper. This is a much easier task
in the 1970's than it would have been in earlier decades;
the increasing publicity of ecological theories probably
eases our legitimization of the theories of the
unorthodox actors in the case study who have encountered
harassment in the past few decades. But suppose that the
case study concerned the suppression of theories which
could not be legitimized to the reader so easily because
the theories were so unfamiliar at the time of writing
and because no one had managed to remain employed in a
major research institution and to publish the theories
simultaneously. We might be tempted to dismiss the
theories as the organized scientific community dismissed
them, as non-scientific nonsense, as quackery. We then
move them outside the realm of "science" by defining them
as something else. Thus, scientific theories have not
been suppressed.
For the scholar who wishes to study such things,
there is a tremendous problem in the definition of a case
of suppression of scientific research and ideas. Some
of the authors cited in Chapter I, of course, appear to
be comfortable with their faith in the norms of
scientific procedure to such an extent that this problem
does not arise for them. If we assume merely that the
norms of the scientific procedure under which the
scientific community theoretically operates, guarantee
that only non-scientific nonsense will be thrown out, and
if we assume that the norms of scientific procedure
operating in the scientific community constitute the
guardianship of approximations of empirical reality, and
if we accept whatever definitions the scientific com
munity gives to particular theories at a particular time,
we have removed the generalization from any threat of
invalidation.
There is a problem of definition which should be
of major concern to scholars who are interested in the
concept of "suppression of scientific ideas and research,"
whether they are dealing with cases defined by the Com
munist Party or with cases defined by an organized
scientific community. The case study in this paper traces
the orthodox and unorthodox scientists' opposing accounts
of testing procedures and results, the double standards
of evidencing which one allows for himself and for his
opponent, the use of the norms of science to cover appeals
to legitimization by authority. Charges of quackery are
often supported by references to the credentials of the
charged person by the organized medical associations. The
problem in the case described below is that many of the
"quacks" have credentials equal to those who are promot
ing the regulation of their "quackery." The American
Medical Association advises that since the quacks in this
case have credentials and since their works often appear
to be scientific to the non-expert, the only valid way to
sort out science from quackery is to rely on the judgment
of the organized medical community. From the statements
of the unorthodox men and those of the organized medical
community, it appears that the organized medical com
munity determines whether one is a quack by whether he
accepts orthodox or unorthodox theory. The attack on the
unorthodox theories is presented by the organized medical
community as an attack on "unscientific theories" which
have not gone through the "established channels" where
the norms of scientific inquiry reign. For example, they
52
note that the unorthodox researchers have not published
their theories in the major journals of the professional
association and that many of them are not members of the
professional association. (It will be recalled that
Greer stated that the professional association and its
journals facilitated the operation of the norms of
publicity and review of one’s theories by one's peers.)
Unorthodox theorists contend, however, that their
unorthodox works have not been accepted for publication
in the professional journals and that professional
association memberships have sometimes been terminated
when the member started to delve into the realm of the
unorthodox. The organized medical community also uses
the fact that unorthodox men have been arrested as evi
dence of their quackery. The unorthodox men consider
their arrests to be evidence of the power of the
organized medical community to initiate and control the
legal provisions relating to cancer research. Unorthodox
theorists contend that the organized medical community
and associated interest groups have had a monopoly on the
control of the circulation of ideas relating to the con
tent of medical research. This monopoly extends not only
to the control of ideas taught in medical schools but also
to the control of ideas to which the mass public is ex
53
posed. This orthodoxy, the unorthodox theorists contend,
is not based on scientific research, but rather on
economic motivation and dogma.
If we merely accept the publicized statements of
the organized community of expertise concerning the con
tent of research, we could never investigate a case of
suppression of scientific ideas within the scientific
community until these ideas had been removed from the
realm of "nonscientific nonsense” and placed in the realm
of ’ ’science” by the organized community itself. Doubt
lessly, few scholars would submit that we could not
actually say that the Communist Party had suppressed
scientific ideas until the Party later declared that
indeed these ideas suppressed in an earlier era had been
scientific. But if we already assume that the publicized
statements of the organized scientific community are the
final arbiters of estimations of objective reality, as
scholars cited in Chapter I seem to think, there is no
way to refute their argument. It is safe within the
boundaries of the liberal paradigm.
Even if scholars cited in Chapter I would allow
the case study of this paper to be classified as a ’ ’ prime
example” of suppression of research by an organized
scientific community and autonomous interest groups, it
54
would indicate nothing to support any overall statement
concerning comparative degrees of free inquiry between
national societies. Neither does the Lysenko case. Such
cases might be more helpful in an attempt to grapple with
the problem area concerning the development of
orthodoxies and controls over inquiry if the cases were
not used in the fashion in which the Lysenko case was used
by the authors cited in Chapter I.
Footnotes
1. G. David Garson, Handbook of Political Science
Methods (Boston: Holbrook Pr., 1971), pp. 69-71.
2. Ibid.
3. Daryl J. Bern, Beliefs, Attitudes, and Human
Affairs (Belmont, Ca. : Wadsworth Pub'. Cor, 1970), p. 8
contains a description of the stereotype, and the pro
cesses of dealing with information which does not fit the
stereotype.
4. Garson, pp. 69-71.
5. Bern, p. 8.
CHAPTER III
THE SECOND PROBLEM: THE CONCEPT OF
IDEOLOGICAL THINKING
This chapter contains arguments against the
dichotomous classification of ideological and non-
ideological thought patterns and against the ways in
which these categories have been linked to the philoso
phies of Marxism, norms of science, and liberalism. It
is suggested that these formal symbol systems may have
little to do with the presence or absence of ideologically
motivated reigns of orthodoxy in particular research
areas. Ideological reigns could perhaps better be des
cribed by references to much narrower range paradigms.
I will argue that the scholars cited in Chapter I have
arbitrarily associated a rather unrefined conception of
non-ideological thinking with the thought patterns pre
dominating in autonomous scientific communities and have
associated a similarly unrefined conception of ideologi
cal thinking with the thought patterns of people who
55
56
subscribe to the symbols of Marxism, They have made
extremely broad generalizations which encompass unsupport
ed assumptions about the workings of the human mind and
about a whole range of historical and present workings of
the minds of broad categories of people. Literature
which challenges these assumptions is presented below.
The purpose of the presentation is to show that the
generalization in question is not supportable if one
steps outside the boundaries of the liberal paradigm.
The scholars cited in Chapter I have contrasted the
concept of rational, objective thought with ideological
thought. As stated above, the literature on ideology often
lists several distinguishing characteristics of ideological
thinking. They are as follows: (1) dogmatism (a positive
ness in assertion of opinion based on insufficiently exam
ined premises); (2) legitimization by authority; (3) logi
cally self-contained thought system; (4) inability to dis
tinguish the cognitive from the evaluative; (5) end
9
oriented thought system. Scholars cited in Chapter
I have assumed that, unlike the thought patterns of people
who subscribe to the philosophy of Marxism, the thought
patterns of the autonomous scientific communities are
characterized by rationalism, empiricism, and open com
petition of ideas. Scientists, they assume, base their
theories on observation of empirical data while the
ideological Marxist distorts perceptions of empirical
data to conform to his belief system.
This somewhat positivist dichotomous classifi
cation of thought patterns has raised objections from
scholars who have taken one of the various paths currently
labeled phenomonological. Here, scholars have dis
cussed the inseparable relationship between consciousness
and the world; they have discussed the primacy of theory,
of the subject's intentionality, as opposed to the
positivist assertion of the primacy of empirical data and
testing in the sciences. Strauser writes that the pre
judices of empiricism, objectivism, and scientism can
produce a dogmatic adherence to the idea that empiricism
is "a stream of stimuli from which knowledge arises
automatically."^ Scholars cited in Chapter I have not
considered the effects this positivistic "dogma" may have
had on the development of their generalization.
The scholars have made a debatable distinction
between the cognitive and the affective processes.
Ideological Marxists are assumed to be unable to dis
tinguish between the two. Scientists, of course, can.
However, some psychological research has suggested that
there is an interactive process between the affective and
58
cognitive processes. For example, when a subject's
affect is changed by hypnotic suggestion, he can dis
cover new arguments and data to support his new opinion.
It is suggested by some psychological researchers that
people collect and develop cognitions which will bolster
the beliefs to which they are attached.^ The scholars
cited in Chapter I cite no experimental evidence which
suggests that we can justifiably assert that scientists
and people living in nations where liberalism provides
the formal legitimizing symbols are more immune from
these tendencies than are people who live in social
organizations where Marxism provides the formal
legitimizing symbols.
The remarks of some historians of science also
suggest an alternative view to that of the scholars cited
in Chapter I: this view concerns the dogmatic thought
processes of the members of the scientific community.
For example, Ackerman writes that the popular version of
the process of scientific discovery is very difficult to
support with the data of the history of science. In the
popular version, scientific discovery operates in an
environment "free from authoritarianism, self correcting
through free criticism, revision, and above all, respon-
g
siveness to the nuances of accumulating data.” Ackerman
believes that, to the contrary, a survey of data in the
history of science shows patterns of scientists' aversion
to new theories and data; it shows the scientist as the
protector of dogma.^
Kuhn also describes a process of scientific dis
covery which is somewhat at odds with the ideas of the
scholars cited in Chapter I. In his description we do
not see the scientist's continual adjustment of- his
theories in response to new data. Rather, we see an
inseparability of the scientist's intentionality, of the
paradigm with which he has come to identify, with his
observation of empirical data. We see the reluctance of
scientists to give up the paradigms to which they have
become attached. This reluctance has its basis in a
realm outside the norms of scientific procedure and the
rules for evidencing,
Kuhn writes that the scientist's previous visual
and conceptual experiences greatly determine how he will
see empirical data. The scientist's educational experieu
ce is one which promotes orthodoxy, not acceptance of new
ideas. Kuhn believes that in the process of normal
science there is a tendency for the scientific community
to reject new theories for varying lengths of time. He
60
describes the educational process which scientists encoun
ter. Here, orthodox paradigms play a large role in the
formation of the scientist's restricted view of the field
Q
in which he works. Attention is directed toward the
rules for evidencing and toward methodological debates
only when an orthodox paradigm is challenged. Only one
or a few men at first vainly try to usher in novelty when
theory and data no longer match, according to their per
ceptions. The choice between paradigms cannot be settled
through persuasion of one's peers through normal science
processes of evidencing. Differing views of empirical
data accompany the paradigms to which the scientists
subscribe. This is a factor which contributes to the
cross purposes at which differing paradigm schools
operate. Kuhn explains:
When paradigms enter, as they must, into a debate
about paradigm choice, their role is necessarily
circular. Each group uses its own paradigm to argue
in that paradigmYs defense. . . . The status of the
circular argument is only that of persuasion. . . .
It cannot be made logically or even probabilistically
compelling for those who refuse to step into the
circle.
The new group sees new relationships for old concepts and
describes phenomena in a different way. The new group
essentially sees different things than the orthodox group
12
sees. Therefore, he writes,
The transition between competing paradigms cannot
61
be made a step at a time forced by logic and neutral
experience. Like the gestalt switch it must occur
all at once though not necessarily in an instant, or
not at all.13
As much as a generation will sometimes pass before a new
paradigm is accepted, and those who have been in the com-
1 f
munity for a long time may resist change indefinitely.
Ultimately, however, "conversions occur not despite the
fact that scientists are human but because they are."^
There are several factors which give scientists who
work only in the range of normal science somewhat of a
tunnel vision which may contribute to their reluctance to
accept new ideas. The scientists are more insulated from
the scrutiny of those outside the profession. The
scientist's audience "shares his own values and beliefs,
and the scientist can take a single set of standards for
16
granted." His education has usually been based on
textbook recountings which simplify concepts and present
standard paradigms. Also, in these textbooks, the notion
of a linear progress of science is built in by those who
are dominant in the scientific community at the time.^
These factors, which may give the scientist the idea that
his paradigm is the best approximation of "reality" and
which may lead him to an aggressive assertion of this
opinion, regardless of the empirical data involved, are
62
also discussed by some scholars to be cited in the case
study of this paper. Regarding this learning process of
the scientist, Kuhn concludes:
It is a narrow and rigid education, probably more so
than any other except perhaps in orthodox theology. . .
Scientific training is not well designed to produce
the man who will easily discover a fresh a p p r o a c h .18
That scientists are not constantly adjusting their:
theories to fit new data was an idea advanced by Max
Planck. His exposure to hostilities within the scientific
community convinced him that "a new scientific truth
does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making
them see the light but rather because its opponents
eventually die and a new generation grows up that is
familiar with it."^
Thus, some scholars suggest that orthodoxy and
dogma are integral aspects of the thought processes of
men, including the men of the scientific community. The
norms of science are not guarantees against dogmatic
reigns of orthodoxy and do not "govern" the process of
research and the flow of ideas. Kuhn has suggested that
when fresh approaches are resisted in the scientific
community, discussion of the norms of science, of the
relative problem solving ability of paradigms, are often
used as window dressing for a position perpetuated by
63
20
faith in a particular paradigm.
The notion that the scientific testing procedures
form the basis for the scientists' acceptance of theories
is also challenged by Koch. He notes that there has long
been a preoccupation with the idea that rules for pro
cedure govern the scientists' operations. We have
mistakenly assumed, he notes,
that replicability of findings, reliability of pre
diction, and so on, could be purchased only by use
of fixed linkages with objective indicators, which
assumed that elaboration, application, and verifi
cation of a theory must take place in something like
a wholly articulated, wholly stated context of rules.
However, he objects,
for some years now, physicists and biologists,
philosophers of science and historians of science
have been conveying a view of science which emphasizes
the extent to which the scientific process, in prin
ciple, and at all stages, is undetermined by rule.21
That the norms of science and the rules for pro
cedure and testing are not determinants of the daily
thoughts and activities of scientists at work is also
suggested by scholars to be cited in the case study.
That the norms of science are so vague that they can be
used to legitimize any position to which the scientist is
attached will be suggested in the analysis of the case
study of this paper. The case study traces the conflict
ing reports of the procedure and results of tests, the
double standards of evidencing allowed for oneself and for
one's opponent, etc. The difficulty of separating
positions derived from orthodoxy, from dogmatic
legitimization by authority, from positions derived from
an empirical basis, will be illustrated in the case study.
Authors to be cited in the study believe that the follow
ing are factors which produce ideological thinking in the
medical community: specialization which has led to tunnel
vision, tendency to legitimize by authority, and psycho
logical and economic securities found in acceptance of the
orthodox paradigms. They will suggest that, while the
mythological structure is based in references to the need
for empirical demonstration, the term "scientific" has
come to be synonymous with whatever position the organized
community takes, regardless of the number or quality of
the empirical studies used to support orthodox or
unorthodox positions.
While Greer believes that the norms of science
and the proliferation of the scientific journals and pro
fessional societies enhance the open competition of ideas
in the sciences, scholars to be cited in the case study
suggest that the professional association and its journals
have often strengthened ideological reigns of orthodoxy
by putting a stamp of legitimacy on the orthodox position.
They contend that the unorthodox scholars have not been
allowed to publish in the association journal and that
unorthodox scholars have experienced termination of mem
bership in professional societies after they expressed an
interest in unorthodox theory. The organized
association's attack on unorthodox theories then includes
references to the fact that the unorthodox scholars were
not following the norms of publicity by publishing in
major journals and that they did not want the scrutiny of
their peers was also made obvious by the fact that they
did not belong to the professional association. Although
a norm of science is that there should be no appeals to
state authority, the organized association has promoted
the setting up of advisory panels to advise public agencies
on the administration of regulations dealing with the
content of medical research. The association has ini
tiated laws and administrative regulations which affect
the legality of ideas expressed, research performed, and
treatment choice by practitioner and patient. The norms
of science are used to legitimize various positions not
only related to the content of research but also to the
forcible acts of suppression which are admittedly promoted
by the organized association.
That codes of professional ethics are symbolic and
22
superficial has been suggested by Cohen. Formal symbol
66
systems of a social organization, including "norms of
science" may tell us little about the presence or absence
of ideologically motivated reigns of orthodoxies which
occur and which operate under much narrower range para
digms. The works of the scholars cited above suggest
that this may be the case.
This suggestion could possibly be investigated
through case studies in other areas of research. The area
of nuclear power research is a possibility. Dr. John
Goffman, who was commissioned to do a study on nuclear
power plants and human health by the Atomic Energy Com
mission, has made public speeches about the twenty-year
old unchallenged authority of "scientific" reports
emanating from the Commission and from interest groups
with investments in nuclear power. He has described the
consequences which he encountered when he refused to alter
the results of his study to make it compatible with the
perceived needs of certain interest groups: suppression
of reports, cutting of research funds and staff,
23
denigration of reputation, and group pressures. In
another area, Dr. William Hueper, formerly of the National
Cancer Institute, has described the policies he encoun
tered when he refused to change his reports on the effects
of worker exposure to industrial carcinogenic substances.
67
He writes that these policies, initiated by industries,
included an agency censorship decree on all reports with
his name on them, forcible termination of his field
investigations of industrial carcinogens, and personnel
o /
policies with monetary effects. Another case is that
of Dr. Bernice Eddy of the Division of Biologic Standards
who was transferred from her position and whose reports
concerning the biologically harmful potentials of a
particular lot of polio vaccine and the carcinogenic pro-
25
perties of a cold vaccine were suppressed. Another
source which could be used as a starting point for a case
study is the Ralph Nader study group dealing with the
scientific experiments and reports in the Food and Drug
Administration and their remarkable conformance to the
26
wishes of specific industries. Dr. William Smith was
discussing this problem as early as the 1950's. He des
cribed such phenomena as the changing of reports, the
loss of employment by researchers in private industry,
etc., all directed toward the purpose of achieving the
desired goals of private interest groups.
In all of these areas, the role of economic
motivation, the role of orthodoxy perhaps initiated by
economic motivation which then acquires a momentum of its
own, and the role of peer group pressure are suggested to
68
be integral aspects of the process of scientific testing.
Many scholars cited in Chapter I are convinced that
Communist Party men are motivated by orthodoxies to which
they are attached and which they perceive as being
supportive of their social positions. However, the
scholars have given no consideration to the possibility
that scientists could be similarly motivated.
In summary, there are ways of looking at the
process of scientific research which are alternatives to
the way in which it has been viewed by the scholars cited
in Chapter I. Alternative conceptions do not make such
an easy distinction between the ideological and empirical
bases of thought. Nor is the argument supportable in the
minds of some scholars that the guarantee of free inquiry
and non-ideological thought patterns are afforded by the
norms of science.
Aside from the fact that the scholars cited in
Chapter I make a rather hasty assumption that there is a
distinction between ideological thought and non-
ideological thought, and that scientists engage in non-
ideological thought, there is a problem of their rather
arbitrary linkage of ideological thought and action to
the person who subscribes to Marxism, to the Communist
Party member. They give no firm and systematic explana
69
tion for their assumption that people who subscribe to the
symbols of Marxism are ideological thinkers. These
scholars seem to have taken much for granted, for there
are diverging theories in psychology concerning the con
cept of cognitive consistency itself. References were
made to this above, but here I wish to review briefly
some theories in psychology which have relevance for the
possibility of linking a concept of ideological thinking
to a particular category of people, as opposed to other
categories of people. This is part of the argument
against the arbitrary linkage of ideological thought to
people who subscribe to the symbols of Marxism. These
people are supposed to exhibit the characteristics of
dogmatic thinking, legitimization according to authority,
inability to separate the evaluative from the cognitive,
etc. This way of thinking is bound up in a logically
self-contained system of beliefs. The scholars cited in
Chapter I seem to be convinced of the legitimacy of
linking formal philosophies to patterns of thought and
behavior.
However, as mentioned above, there are diverging
theories concerning the concept of cognitive consistency.
Some believe that people strive to maintain coherent
belief systems, to accept, reject, or reinterpret new
70
information on the basis of cognitive consistency.
Others have suggested that individual collections of ideas
are more random and that worry over cognitive consistency
27
may not be a predominant phenomenon. There is also an
area of obscurity concerning the role of attitudes in
28
producing changes in behavior. The scholars cited in
Chapter I have not considered these problems before their
discussion of the relationships between behavior patterns
and thought patterns which are dominant in whole
societies. Nor have they considered the conflicting
literature on the legitimacy of attempting to link a con
cept such as "dogmatism'’ to particular philosophical
systems. The legitimacy of the concept of the
authoritarian personality, a concept which shares some of
the characteristics of "ideological thinking," has been
a point of disagreement. Some studies have attempted to
define the characteristics of authoritarian thinkers but
have come to different conclusions; the conclusions are
greatly affected by the indicators and methods used in
29
the study. In the classic Adorno study, the Com
munists emerged as nonauthoritarian. In 1954 Christie
and Jahoda reacted vehemently to the Adorno study because
the Communists had emerged as nonauthoritarian. They
claimed that the F-scale was not an appropriate measure
and that the authors had failed to see the differences
between liberalism and the "totalitarianism" of Com-
30
munists. A major concern of Christie and Jahoda, per
haps inspired by a cold war paradigm similar to the
31
liberal paradigm, was that Communists had not been
classified as authoritarian personalities. They thought
this was ridiculous since it was obvious that Communists
are hostile towards civil liberties. To evidence this
they made reference to the Stalinist purges. They object'
ed that the F-scale used in the Adorno study had obscured
the similarity of Fascists and Communists and erroneously
made the Communists appear to be the ultimate in non
authoritarianism. An example of the erroneous findings,
they write, can be found in the answers to the questions
about science. These questions obscured the fact that
"for Communists, science is not the discovery of truths
hitherto unknown by an individual scientist working in
the framework of a scientific tradition. It is rather
the corroboration of the truth of the writings of Marx
and Engels."'^
There have been other attempts to deal with the
possibility of linking one's support for freedom with
particular philosophical systems, including Communism.
For example, Rokeach attempted to do this in a content
72 ■
analysis of Lenin’s writings. He found that Lenin
favorably mentioned ’ ’equality” and other values much more
than he mentioned ’ ’freedom.” The ranking of values from
the content analysis were compared to writings of others
33
who subscribed to different philosophies.
Even if the authors had used studies from psycho
logy which are supportive of their position, the studies
still would not support the generalization they make.
There are several problems. First, there remains the
question of how belief systems are related to human
Q i
behavior. More specifically, there remains the problem
of how ideological systems are related to the vast range
of behavior which the scholars cited in Chapter I have
incorporated into their notion of "suppression of ideas”
in a whole society. When expressing their dissatisfaction
with the nonauthoritarian classification of Communists on
the F-scale, Christie and Jahoda contend that attitude
surveys can tell us very little about concrete human
behavior.
There is the additional and related problem of
exactly what an attitude which is supportive of freedom
consists of. Perhaps "equality" and other values cited
by Lenin imply certain kinds of freedom when viewed from
alternative perspectives. Some scholars have written that
the major focus of Marxism is freedom. Schaff notes, in
a work first published in Poland, that everything in
Marxist philosophy is merely a means for achieving the
liberation of man so that, for the first time, he can
develop his individual personality to the fullest extent.
Free development of the individual is a recurring theme
36
in Marxism. In the writings of Lenin, Stalin, and in
Soviet scholarly works and Party statements, one can find
assertions that the constant repetition of symbolic
statements supporting individual freedoms which one
encounters in capitalist societies constitutes a facade
for a severe repression of freedom of the masses. The
men of wealth are the only individuals who can actually
exercise freedoms.^
Lewis explains that, from a mere observation that
these symbols are used frequently in a capitalist society,
we cannot assume that freedom exists. To do so would be to
ignore the conditions necessary to enable a man to
exercise freedom. One is not really free to choose, if
what one might want is absent or is made unavailable by
someone else. Such is the case in bourgeois society, for
the only men capable of exercising freedom are the
wealthy. The rest of us are left with a range of choices
which is dictated by the capitalists' money. This res
traint on freedom includes the realm of scientific en
74
deavor. What is freedom to one man, he continues, is
tyranny to another, depending on which end of the act of
38
"exercised freedom" one is on. From this point of
view, the consistent use of the symbols of "freedom" in
bourgeois society is simply legitimizing propaganda.
Freedom, in this sense, is meaningless, or is actually
oppression for most of the population. The concept of
freedom acquires meaning for most of us only through the
necessary condition, equality. Thus, emphasis on
equality is emphasis on freedom.
That the concept of freedom is relative and that
"freedom" can be used as a symbolic legitimizer for two
opposing actions or positions, is pointed out also be
39
Bern. Many positions can be logically derived from a be
lief in individual freedom, including a position which is
perceived as repressive from the standpoint of another.^
Thus there is not only the problem of deciding what con
stitutes an attitude which is favorable toward freedom,
but there is also the problem of how these attitudes
relate to behavior. We encounter the problem of whether
we can really determine, from a calculation of the amount
of lip service given to particular symbols such as "free
dom" and "equality," what a person's position is likely
75
to be regarding a narrower paradigm, whether he will
dogmatically defend the paradigm and what he is likely to
do in the way of attempting to defeat holders of an
opposing paradigm. A difference in support for the
abstract concept of freedom of expression and for the
concrete situation has been found in attitude surveys
where the situations are purely hypothetical.
Frequent references to the concept of freedom may
be a result of the fact that the concept is part of a
formal symbol system with which the person making the
references has come to identify. The symbols may be very
superficial and part of reflex processes. Again, this
may tell us little about what he is likely to do in a
concrete situation where he perceives a narrower range
paradigm to be threatening to one of his narrow range
paradigms or threatening to some perceived life situation
of his. The relationship between formal symbol systems
and patterns of ideological thought and action is not so
firmly established for some scholars as it is for those
cited in Chapter I. Lewis has suggested that the symbols
of freedom coexist with dogmatism and suppression of
ideas in the bourgeois society. Christie and Jahoda
contend that we cannot determine the degree of dogmatism
and repressive acts which exist in Communist societies
76
from Communists' nonauthoritarian ratings on the F-scale.
Scholars cited above and in the case study of this paper
contend that we cannot determine the degree of dogmatism
and repressive acts which may surround paradigm debates
in the scientific community by reference to the
scientific norms. Mikulak cannot find the relationship
between Marxism and paradigm debates in the Russian
scientific communities. He has traced the rise and fall
of competing schools of thought in the Soviet Union con
cerning the relationship between philosophy and science.
None has ever become an accepted position and there is a
tendency for all of the defenders of particular positions
to denounce dogmatism, to remind others of the partisan
nature of science, or simply to pay lip service to some
/ O
symbols of Marxist philosophy. These Soviet scholars
may be using symbols of Marxism in the same way that
scientists use the norms of science or others use the
symbols of liberalism, freedom and competition. Various
scholars have suggested that formal, vague national and
organizational symbol systems are symbolic and superficial
and can be used to legitimize any position, including a
position which might be seen as dogmatic and repressive
from someone else's perspective.^
77
The preceding paragraphs in this section have im
plied that the scholars cited in Chapter I have no firm
basis for linking the first four characteristics of
ideological thinking with Marxism as opposed to any other
philosophical system. They have also rather arbitrarily
linked the fifth characteristic of ideological thinking,
the concentration on ends, with Marxism and with the
other characteristics of ideological thinking. Some
of the authors cited in the first chapter think that the
ends orientation in the Soviet ideology explains the
limited extent of free inquiry existing there: the end
justifies any means, including suppression of ideas.
Conversely, the American belief system is presumably
more concerned with means and this supposedly manifests
itself in the relative absence of imposed repression by
ideologists.
For example, Inkeles and Huntington and Brzezinski
say that Soviet leaders are motivated by Marxist ends like
world domination and Communism while American leaders are
motivated by no particular goal. This helps to explain
the relative degree of dogmatic thinking and repression.
The perspectives from which one can view this generali
zation are many. First, there are alternative conceptions
of the legitimacy of making a distinction between means
78
and ends.^ One has to assume the validity of something
akin to the positivist fact-value dichotomy in order to
separate value oriented ends from pragmatically cal
culated means. Separating end oriented policies from
means oriented policies becomes a complex, if not
impossible task. Secondly, although some scholars in
comparative politics and some of those in the "end of
ideology" school think that an increase in the free
interchange of ideas and a lessening of ideological
thought accompanies a rise in concentration on techniques,
other scholars have not described this situation in the
same manner. It is this very concentration on means, on
technique rather than purpose, which some scholars blame
for what they think is a decrease in the autonomy of the
t C
individual. Others think that the whole of "manager
ialism," of verbiage about efficiency and means, is just
a modern legitimizer serving specific people who are very
definitely motivated by ends. According to Lasch, the idea
that we are all being moved by technology, governed by
efficiency and pragmatism is an idea promulgated by those
who are in control and who are working toward their own
ends' "managerialism is merely the current version of
4.6
capitalist ideology." He contends that efficiency has
nothing to do with most decisions made (for example,
policies relating to built-in-obsolescence, transportation
79
systems, etc.), if we consider efficiency in relation to
the altruistic legitimizers used continually as these
decisions are made. Cost and efficiency studies obscure
. 47
the fact that we are serving somebody s goals. From
this point of view, a concentration on means is simply
another way of supporting the values of those who wish to
48
maintain the status quo.
Halloran is at odds with the scholars cited in
Chapter I from a slightly different perspective. He
believes that the end justifies any means in the ideology
of the United States. The ideology, now perpetuated by
the mass media, glorifies success, instills the belief
that any kind of act, including any violent act, is all
right so long as the end, winning by the defined good guy,
is reached. It will be recalled that Brzezinski and
Huntington thought that the absence of agreed upon ends
is one factor that prevents dogmatism in the United States
while such agreement promotes dogmatization in the
U.S.S.R. Other scholars, however, cannot find the "agreed
upon" ends and logically self-contained thought system in
the U.S.S.R. which Huntington and Brzezinski found.
Mikulak could not find the agreed upon ends, and Lewis
insists that Marxism is in no way a logically self-contain
ed system, that it contains, instead, working hypotheses
which are constantly subject to modification.^
80
Not only do we have a seemingly insoluble problem
of distinguishing between means and ends, but we have also
the problem of deciding, after we have chosen from the
vast array of positions concerning this question, what
this means in relation to a conception of degrees of free
expression existing in whole societies. The authors
cited in Chapter I have not dealt systematically with
these problems concerning a means-end distinction or with
the problems concerning the other characteristics of
ideological thinking. They have not told us how one can
determine what constitutes a means orientation or an end
orientation; they have not told us specifically how these
categories relate to the categories of dogmatism,
legitimization by authority, etc. They have not told us
how these categories are based in empirical manifestations
in the thought and action patterns of specific groupings
of people; they have only insisted, in very vague and
all-encompassing descriptions, that there are relation
ships between these things. They have made logical leaps
from their prior assumptions.
The scholars cited in Chapter I do not seem to be
concerned with the primacy of their faith assumptions in
their work. They seem to believe that the assumptions are
so far beyond question that no time need be spent in
examining them. They have not considered it a legitimate
possibility that anyone could operate under different
assumptions, generalize in opposite directions concerning
the relative degrees of free inquiry, and still be in the
realm of scholarly activity. Carter and Herz have said
that anyone who makes the Marxist or Leninist assertion
that ideas and research are controlled in a capitalist
society is giving us further evidence of the ideological
nature of his thought patterns. It does not occur to
them that their generalizations concerning the comparative
free flow of ideas could just as well be said to be
evidence of their ideological thought patterns. If dog
matism is the positiveness in assertion of ideas based on
insufficiently examined premises, and if dogmatism is a
characteristic of ideological thinking, then Carter and
Herz and other scholars cited in Chapter I may be
promising candidates for the title which they have given
to Communists.
The primacy of the scholars' other assumptions is
examined in the next chapter, which concludes the argu
ments against the assumptions of the liberal paradigm.
The authors have made some unwarranted theoretical leaps
linking formal structure and formal organizational
philosophies with what they consider to be empirical
82
manifestations of degrees of free inquiry. The argument
is also directed against the use of double standards in
the selection and interpretation of evidence taken from
formal organizational structures and formal organizational
statements. It seems that these things are literally or
skeptically interpreted, depending on whether they fit
into the scholars' liberal paradigm.
Footnotes
1. Webster definition.
2. See Introduction, footnote No. 1.
3. Pierre Thevanaz, What is Phenomenology? in
Quadrangle Books, ed. by James Medre (Chicago: Quadrang
le Books, 1962), p. 47-48. P. B. MacLeod, Phenomenology:
a Challenge to Experimental Psychology," in Phenomenology
and Behaviorism: Contrasting Bases for Modern Psychology,
ed. by T. W. Wann (Univ. of Chicago Pr., I9b4;, pp. 5I-5j.
Wesley Bjur: Contextual Model Building (University of
Southern California, TTTUJZ
4. Stephen Strausser, Phenomenology and the Human
Sciences (Pittsburgh, Pa. : I)uquesne Univ. Pr. , T9F3T7
pT-3UTT
5. Milton J. Rosenberg, "An Analysis of Affective
Cognitive Consciousness," in Attitudes, Organization, and
Change, ed. by Carl Hovlard and Milton J. Rosenberg
(New Haven, Conn.: Yale Univ. Pr., 1968), pp. 70-71.
6. Robert Ackerman, The Philosophy of Science,
(New York: Pegasus, 1970), pp. lb-i/.
7. Ibid.
8. Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific
Revolutions (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Pr., 2nd ed. only,
1970;, pp. 42-48 and 152.
83
9. Ibid.,
10. Ibid.,
11. Ibid.,
12. Ibid.,
13. Ibid.,
14. Ibid.,
15. Ibid.
16. Ibid.,
17. Ibid.,
t —*
00
•
Ibid.,
19. Max Ka Max Karl Ernst Ludwig Planck, Scientific Auto
biography (New York:
20. Kuhn, P. 157.
21. Sigmund Koch, "Psychology and the Emerging Con-
cenption of Knowledge as Unitary, in Behaviorism and
Phenomenology, Contrasting Bases for Modem Psychology,
ed. by T. W? Wann (Chicago: iJniv. Chicago Pr., 1964),
p. 21.
22. Michael Cohen, "Responsibility in the Public Ser
vice," in People in the Public Services, ed. by Robert
T. Colembiewski and Michael Cohen (Itasca, 111. : Peacock
Pub., Inc., 1970), pp. 119-120.
23. John Goffman, interview, California State
University, Long Beach.
24. W. C. Heuper, "Prevention of Occupational Can
cers," speech before the General Meeting of Committee on
Community Services, AFL-CIO, Hotel Statler, Washington,
D.C., May 25, 1959.
84
25. "Ribicoff Says Agency Ignored Vaccine Risk,”
Los Angeles Times, Oct. 15, 1971.
26. James S. Tiimer, The Chemical Feast (New York:
Grossman, 1970).
27. Bern, pp. 4-5.
28. Ibid., pp. 54-69.
29. See Milton Rokeach, The Open and Closed Mind
(New York: Basic Books, Inc~ 1960); Richard Christie
and Marie Jahoda, Studies in the Scope and Method of the
Authoritarian Personality (New York: Free Press, 19541>
T. W. Adorno, Else Frankel-Brunswick, Daniel J. Levinson,
and R. Nevitt Sanford, The Authoritarian Personality
(New York: Harper and Row, 19501; Bern, pp. 22-35.
30. Christie and Jahoda, p. 128.
31. Rokeach, p. 113, suggests that from the stand
point of the sociology of knowledge it is understandable
why some scholars were so eager to redirect the authori
tarian studies toward the left in the 1950's.
32. Christie and Jahoda, p. 28 and 36.
33. Milton Rokeach, Beliefs, Attitudes, and Values
(San Francisco: Jessey-Bass, 1968).
34. Bern, p. 9.
35. Christie and Jahoda, p. 30.
36. Adam Schaff, Marxism and the Human Individual
(Warsaw, Poland, 1965), pp. 183-186; for example, M.
Perfilyav, Soviet Democracy and Bourgeois Sovietology
(Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1970)7 pp• 4-8.
37. V. I. Lenin, from "Letter to American Workers,"
and from "Thesis and Report on Bourgeois," in On the
State Apparatus: Articles and Speeches, compiled by
TTI A. Kashnitskoya and N. N. Surovtseva (Moscow: Progress
Publishing, 1969), pp. 168 and 189-191. Nicos P.
Mouzelis, Organization, Bureaucracy: An Analysis of
Modem Theories (.Chicago: Aidine, 196/). Program of the
85
Communist Party of the Soviet Union (New York: Inter-
national Publishers, 1963;, p. 58. Joseph Stalin,
Selected Writings, On the Draft Constitution of the
US'Sk: (New York: International Publishers, 1942), re
print (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Pr., 1970), p. 395.
38. John Lewis, Marxism and the Open Mind (New York:
Paine Whitman Publishers, 1957), pp. 77-78.
39. Bern, P. 18.
40. Ibid.
41. Samuel Krislov, The Supreme Court and Political
Freedom (New York: Free Press, 1968), p. 39 ff.'
42. Maxim W. Mikulak, "Philosophy and Science," in
The State of Soviet Science, ed. by the editors of Survey:
A Journal of Soviet and feast European Studies (Cambridge,
MAss.: — MIT, 1965), p. 155.------ ------------
43. Cohen. Bern. Reinhold Niebuhr, Children of
Light and Children of Darkness (New York: Scribners Sons,
1944). Harold D. Laswell and Abraham Kaplan, Power and
Society: a Framework for Political Inauiry (New Haven:
Yale Univ. Pr™ 1950), p. 125. Theodore Lowi, The End of
Liberalism (New York: W. W. Norton, 1969), p. 41. Philip
FTI Converse, "The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics,"
in Ideology and Discontent, ed. by David E. Apter (Glen
coe! Free Press, 1964).
44. John Rehfuss, Public Administration as Political
Process (New York: Scribners, 1969), p. 118. Herbert A.
Simon, Administrative Behavior (New York: Free Press,
1945). ;
45. For example, Jacques Ellul, The Technological
Society (New York: Random House, 1964}!
46. Christopher Lasch, "The Social Thought of
Jacques Ellul," in Introducing Ellul, ed. by James Y.
Holloway (Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Pub.
Co., 1970), pp. 63-90. p. 84.
47. Ibid.
48. Rehfuss, pp. 215-216.
86
49. James D. Halloran, "Television Violence," in
The Mass Media, ed. by Otto N. Larsen (New York: Harper
and kow, I9b8).
50. Mikulak and Lewis, p. viii.
CHAPTER IV
THE THIRD PROBLEM: THE ROLE OF FORMALISM
This chapter contains a challenge to the authors'
distinction between state and private power and to their
reliance on formal structural distinctions and formal
organizational philosophies for explaining behavior. The
scholars cited in Chapter I have assumed that in the
Soviet Union, the absence or imposition of orthodoxies
result from Party decisions.'*' The threat that
ideologically inspired orthodoxies may be imposed in any
2
research area remains as long as the Party has power.
The threat remains until there is an emergence of strong
autonomous groups and scientific communities. The
autonomous groups and scientific communities bring with
them a freer competition of ideas which may approximate
the free competition of ideas guaranteed by competing
autonomous groups and autonomous scientific communities
3
in the United States. Thus Party-state power is the
threat to free inquiry, private group power is the
........ 87
88
mechanistic guardian of free inquiry. The next pages
contain an argument against the following assumptions
which have been readily accepted by these authors: the
formal distinction between state and private power; the
pluralistic model for describing United States politics;
the formal hierarchical chain of command model for des
cribing Soviet politics. Following this discussion there
is a discussion of these authors' reliance on formal
philosophical symbol systems to support and explain their
generalizations.
The scholars cited in Chapter I have not examined
systematically the bases for using the formal distinction
between state and private power to describe human behavior.
They do not grapple with the problem of how people are
controlled by ideas and other people; rather, they operate
within the system of the liberal paradigm with its heavy
concentration on formal distinctions. Other scholars
do not believe that the formal distinction between state
and private power can tell one much about reality. Rather,
some think that distinctions between state and private
power may be a survival of the ideology of capitalism,
not the objective reality believed in by the scholars
cited in Chapter I. For example, Lowi believes that the
problem of distinguishing between state and private power
89
is complex and elusive. In tracing the transformation of
capitalist theory to the modem philosophies of pluralism
and interest group liberalism, he notes,
central to capitalist theory is the belief that
power and control are properties of the state and
therefore should be feared and resisted. ... It
says nothing about who controls the state, and it
says nothing about institutions other than the state/
that possess the same property of power and control.
"As capitalist theory became outmoded," he continues, "it
did not suffer extinction but survived in the form of
pluralist assumptions about the automatically regulated
society as opposed to state impositions onto society.
"The pluralist embrace of government turned out to be, in
its own way, as antigoveramental as capitalism."^ Govern
ment is not to be feared so long as it is an extension of
competing interests; no political monopoly is possible
£
when there are strong autonomous groups. Public interest
and equilibrium are achieved through the free interplay of
groups. Therefore, groups have to be accommodated rather
than regulated.^
Lowi's idea that "private institutions" may
possess the same properties of power and control as
"state institutions" is also supported by some of the
elitist school of thought and by other scholars who have
disregarded the assumptions of the liberal paradigm. For
90
example, Galbraith offers views alternative to those of
Inkeles who stated that in the pluralistic United States
the consumer exercises almost complete control over
private business institutions; Inkeles further wrote that
the absence of centralized governmental long-range plan
ning in the United States indicates that competition
rather than control is the predominating characteristic
Q
of the American political system. From another perspec
tive, however, not only to Galbraith but also to con
servatives such as Schumpeter, the extensive planning for
private profit and the extensive use of governmental
subsidies to "private" interests makes a contemporary
Q
distinction between state and private power elusive.
Other scholars have pointed out that the private-state
distinction has been elusive, for industry has always
used the theory of competition and limited government in
a hypocritical manner.^
Apparently the authors cited in Chapter I do not
feel it necessary to analyze the basis of their private-
state power dichotomy on which their statements rest so
heavily. Inkeles1 dismissal of the elitist theory of
American politics is illustrative of their failure to
deal systematically with the basis of their assumptions.
He mentions the elitist theory of Mills, but immediately
91
dismisses it, saying that If Mills were correct, it would
hardly seem likely that the Marshall Plan or American aid
to India and Pakistan could have come about.^
Brzezinski and Huntington similarly dismiss the notion of
control techniques being exercised by business in the
United States. They write that the state cannot overtly
use control techniques as the state in the Soviet Union
uses them; thus, there is much less control exercised in
the United States. They mention the development of
private industrial public relations and advertising cam
paigns in this country but insist that these techniques
of persuasion were the outgrowth of the competitive
system; these techniques led to an increased institutional
sensitivity to the views of the populace, they conclude.
Alternatively, the new technology was harnessed for the
purposes of control in the Soviet Union. Brzezinski and
Huntington conclude:
In the ideological Soviet system, technology was
harnessed to the purposes of control and
manipulation; in the instrumental American system,
it was harnessed to the purposes of stimulation
and persuasion.12
This sweeping generalization is not supported except
through the larger framework of their assumption that the
Soviet Party-state apparatus exercises control and that
such control is impossible in the United States.
92
Apparently, the labeling of a Soviet public institutional
action as "control" and the labeling of an American pri
vate institutional action as "persuasion" is supposed to
close the question. They do not tell us precisely why
they label private advertising techniques as "persuasive"
activities and Soviet media techniques as "control"
activities. They do not deal with any literature on the
effects of the mass media on human psychology. Apparently
we are supposed to accept the generalization of Brzezinski
and Huntington because we have already been told that the
United States has a much more pluralistic institutional
basis than does the Soviet Union. This is so because the
state controls in the Soviet Union and private interests
compete in this country. This is evidenced by generali
zations such as the one above concerning mass media
techniques. This system of evidencing apparently presents
no problem for Brzezinski and Huntington, for they are
merely elaborately describing a set of circumstances
which they assume to be some sort of objective reality;
they accept the assumptions of the liberal paradigm.
Besides failing to deal with the literature of
the elitists and other scholars who reject the assumptions
of the liberal paradigm, the scholars cited in Chapter I
have failed to deal with some contemporary public
93
administration literature which has relevance for the
state-private power distinction. Successful control
of government regulatory agencies by major economic
interest groups has been a recurring theme for some time.
It is in some of these agencies that policies are made
and legitimized by scientific research. From the pluralist
point of view, it is here that competition between the
ideas of men in the autonomous scientific community and
the demands of interest groups contributes to the
pluralistic, nonideological basis of idea exchange and
policy making in the United States. Some scholars have
suggested, however, that there is not free competition,
but rather that monopoly power is exercised by the major
13
clientele groups. The preceding section of this chapter
contained references to scholars who assert that monopoly
control over the publicity of scientific ideas is
1 /
exercised by these groups. Some scholars have sug
gested that this phenomenon results in the monopoly con
trol over lives of mass populations and in the ideas to
which they are exposed. The case study of this paper
contains descriptions of the responsiveness of state
agencies to the lobbying of the American Medical Associ
ation, the pharmaceutical industry, and other busi
ness interest groups in the making of public policy
94
relating to the legality, publicity, and popular avail
ability of the content of medical research and treatment.
These groups exercise monopoly control according to some
scholars. From this point of view, there is no real
competition within an exonomic sphere of interest. The
pluralist can always point, however, that the existence
of plural elites in the United States means that no one
group has a monopoly of control over everything that
affects the lives of the mass of the population. From
this point of view, the conspiratorial elitist theory
would obscure the problem of communications static and
the complexity of issues, not only within the staggering
dimensions of a total society but within its subsystems as
well.
In organizational theory, the formal structures
of hierarchical lines of communications and the scientific
management model, with its hierarchical chain of command,
are models which have been viewed with skepticism for
their ability to depict human behavior for some time.
But if we question the usefulness of these models to
explain human behavior, and if we reject the conspiratorial
elitist theory of American politics by arguing that the
tiny percentage of the population owning a vast share of
the controlling interest in conglomerate industry cannot
95
exercise anything except pluralistic control because of
the problems of communications static and the complexity
of issues--if we reject these models, we must also ques
tion their usefulness for explaining human behavior in
the Soviet Union. Of course this has been done to some
extent in the post-totalitarian era of scholarship, but
there seems to be a reversion to the formal control model
when scholars are discussing comparative degrees of free
inquiry in nations. If we reject the formal control
models' ability to explain human behavior in organizational
theory, we have to question whether it is possible for
there to be anything but plural elites which exercise
control over inquiry in the Soviet Union, even during the
Stalin era. How is it that people formally categorized
as the top of the Party hierarchy were and continue to be
able to impose orthodoxies in research areas wherever
they want in Russian society? When considering the sub
ject of free inquiry within the confines of Communist
nations, it is as though one were entering, through the
literature on the subject, a unique field of organizational
theory where human behavior can be depicted and explained
by reference to formal organizational models, by reference
to Lenin's "scientific management" model, or by Stalin's
formal communications structure. Although the scientific
96
management model is now analyzed in the context of the
scholarly orthodoxies, the economic and social conditions
of the late 19th century which motivated the theories,
the writings of many people analyzing Soviet politics
do not contain such an analysis. Lenin was influenced
by the scientific management movement,^ but his version
of organization theory is taken as a guide to reality.
It is not viewed as the rather humorous product of a
particular era as the American sholars' versions of
scientific management often are. For many, the Soviet
versions of "scientific management" organizational
theories still enjoy much status in relation to their
ability to explain reality. According to scholars cited
in Chapter I, the hierarchical control model enables the
Party to impose ideologically motivated orthodoxies in
any area of research.
One could encounter a problem of logic if he con
nects the generalized problem of free inquiry in whole
societies, as these scholars have defined it, with the
newer organizational theories. Newer organizational theo
ries have stressed the conflict between the generalist and
the specialist, the impossibility of separating politics
from administration and the dilemma faced by the politi
cian if he attempts to sort through information given
97
to him by specialists and if he attempts to break long-
established patterns of communication and socialization
in bureaucracies. We encounter an interesting problem
if we use these tenets and add to them the popular theory
of "monopolies in spheres of interest" (as opposed to the
"control of everything by a few" theory) which is often
used to analyze United States politics. If all of this
is related to the problem of free inquiry, one could
suggest that it would be easier for scientific communities
and particular economic interests in a research area to
control research and publicity of ideas in that area,
than it would be for the extreme generalist, the Com
munist Party man. The above statement is not a thesis
of this paper, since this paper is not a comparative
study. It is mentioned only to illustrate further the
many avenues of generalization that could be suggested for
this extremely general problem of comparative degrees of
free inquiry in total societies which have been set up by
the authors cited in Chapter I.
These authors do not tell us how the Party
actually performs the tremendous task of determining where
and what orthodoxies are going to reign in the many areas
of inquiry. Their arguments and explanations are taken
again from the liberal paradigm and from a few case
98
references. For example, Brzezinski and Huntington, who
explain this more elaborately than many scholars who
simply assert that the reigns of orthodoxy or absence of
reigns of orthodoxy are results of Party decisions,
suggest that the Party can do this because the Party men
are the "official arbiters." This is somewhat like say
ing that the Party has the capability of imposing
orthodoxies whenever it wants because the Party has the
capability of imposing orthodoxies whenever it wants.
Brzezinski tells us that the absence of official arbiters
in the United States exludes the "overall dogmatization"
which is characteristic of the Soviet Union; that the
Soviet Party officials are the legitimizers of particular
interpretations of doctrine and through this position
they spread their dogma throughout society. Several
problems arise from this theory of Brzezinski1s. First,
the Party would encounter obstacles in attempting to
accomplish this feat. If the Party hierarchy is formally
where the buck stops, the Party officials must rely on
sources of information comprising voluminous and complex
data.
Stalin was convinced by a public relations cam-
16
paign of the Lysenkoites and the Party has to rely on
information from various specialized holders of
99
expertise.^ Does this mean that ultimate control is in
the Party or that the most effective persuader in the
various policy-making areas is in control? The scholars
cited in Chapter I think that the increasing reliance of
the Party hierarchy on specialized holders of expertise
will contribute to the pluralistic competition of ideas
and will be accompanied by a decline of dogmatism. But
is there any more basis for this assertion than there is
for the suggestion that the aura of expertise can
legitimize a set of arbiters of doctrine in specific
policy areas? Perhaps these unofficial arbiters would be
able to concentrate more resources into a narrower span
of control than could the Party hierarchy. What prevents
such unofficial arbiters from becoming as entrenched as
Brzezinski thinks the official arbiters are? Some of
those of the elitist school think this has happened in
the United States so that there is not a competition of
groups but rather that organized monopolies in spheres of
interest can focus tremendous resources into policy-
i making areas.
| If some unofficial arbiters, legitimized by the
i
j
| concept of academic expertise, were to attempt to impose
| orthodoxies in a particular research area, perhaps the
I mass membership of their profession would succumb to the
100
imposition more easily than if it were imposed by non
experts, the politician, the Communist Party man. The
case study presented below will cite references which
assert that, in the field of medical research, there are
unofficial arbiters who interpret doctrine, who give
particular positions the stamp of legitimacy by labeling
them scientific, and by publicizing them widely and by
denigrating the reputation of anyone who opposes the
orthodox positions. This authoritative interpretation
finds its way into textbooks and curricula of medical
schools. The authoritative interpretation has vast
consequences for the population, for it determines the
content of health care research and treatment. The
unorthodox men are at a great disadvantage when they find
themselves on the fringes of the scientific community
because they became interested in an unorthodox theory.
The unorthodox theories have revolutionary implications
for popularized myths concerning the "progress" of
Western medicine. The economic interests affected by the
logical implications of the proposals of these unorthodox
scholars are vast. They include, besides the effect on
the organized medical profession, the effect on the
pharmaceutical, petroleum, medical care facilities and
equipment, food processing, chemical, and agricultural
101
industries. In the case study it is suggested that the
interests which profit from the rapidly growing health
care industry have a vested interest in preventing the
popularization of the theories of the unorthodox
researchers. It would be a tremendous task to attempt to
sort out the interests which directly or indirectly
cooperate to maintain the status quo in the areas of
the content of medical research and in the popular
mythology surrouding this content. In this case, the
status quo refers to the orthodox theories which have
been vigorously supported by the organized medical pro
fession, the unofficial arbiters, legitimized by exper
tise.
Perhaps this aura of expertise strikes the social
scientist, also, and produces a deference to the inter
pretations of the unofficial arbiters who claim to speak
for the medical profession and the state of scientific
research at the time. For there has been very little
social science work done in this area. Although it has
become increasingly popular to approach the problem of
medical care organization and cost in terms of an analysis
of the financial interests involved and to approach the
problem with a skeptical attitude toward organizational
statements, including those of organized medicine, there
has been slight attention paid to the mythology surround
ing the content of medical care and the effects of this
on the organization and cost of distribution systems.
For example, Arnold analyzes the economics of health
care distribution but assumes that the problem of build
ing the technology of medicine is one of the past; the
only thing left to cause concern is the distribution of
18
this highly developed content of health care. And
Bendix, even after an analysis of the myths of science
and expertise, also succumbs to the television image of
the progress of Western medicine and the wonders it has
19
done for the world s health statistics. An alternative
myth which can be derived from the work and theories of
the unorthodox researchers, the idea that organized
medicine and its allied industries are contributing to
the rising incidence of degenerative disease rather than
working to alleviate it, does not seem to be given equal
time in the mass media or in the works of social
scientists.
Perhaps we could find unofficial arbiters of
ideology in the area of medical research whose status
would match Brzezinski's or Laird's official Soviet
arbiters. Such might be difficult for these scholars to
accept, because their arbiters of ideology apparently have
to be members of a state or Communist Party apparatus.
103
By their definition, private institutions are competitive;
state institutions are the potential monopolies of con
trol. The United States is, by their definition, a society
of competing private interests.
Brzezinski and Huntington do not consider the
possibility that the state and private institutions could
assume reverse roles as the agents threatening or protect
ing the flow of ideas in scientific inquiry. Brzezinski
and Huntington are pleased that the Party has declined
to legitimize a particular position regarding cancer
research when an appeal was made by one of the disputing
20
scientific factions. They consider this to be a small
step on the road to emergence from dogmatism. They do
not consider the possibility that if the scientific
faction were stronger, it might be able to become the
unofficial arbiter, to maintain state agency responsive
ness to its wishes, in effect, to become a clientele
group with a captive state agency. In this case it
would be able to establish an orthodoxy whereas when the
Party was strong, no imposition of orthodoxy in this area
was imposed. Some have suggested that any serious
threat to the orthodoxy in medical research in the United
States will have to come from the political realm.
Indeed, organized medicine has criticized the courts in
104
the few decisions which have gone in favor of the
unorthodox researchers on trial and it has criticized the
few legislators who have proposed investigations of
medical orthodoxy. Organized medicine calls this the
interference of the state and of the nonexpert into the
affairs of science.
However, organized medicine does not hesitate to
use state agencies to impose its orthodoxy, just as the
Soviet scientific faction did not hesitate to appeal to a
state agency to aid in its attempt to impose on orthodoxy.
Depending on the circumstances, the state or Communist
Party could be seen as the protector of the free flow of
ideas and the strong scientific community faction could be
seen as the potential threat to free inquiry as its
increasing strength gives it the power to impose
orthodoxies, to gain control over curricula to which
young members of the scientific community are exposed,
using state agencies to harass deviant scientists.
Brzezinski and Huntington and other scholars
cited in Chapter I have not considered the host of problems
which arise in their rather simple dichotomous classifi
cation of the potentials of state and private power.
They have not systematically dealt with the possibility
of relating a dichotomy, based on formal institutional
105
labels, to human behavior. They have not told us precise
ly how one can distinguish whether an action is a result
of "private" or "state" power; they have not told us
specifically why it is important for one to spend so much
time analyzing impressionistic views of human behavior
in whole nations in terms of the state-private'dichotomy.
In summary, the scholars seem to be narrowly constricted
by formal structural distinctions that grew out of a set
21
of cold war assumptions.
Accompanying these assumptions are a set of myths
concerning science, progress, and expertise to which the
scholars seem to subscribe. It should be of some interest
to these scholars to consider the possibility that there
may have been "arbiters" of ideology which have affected
the paradigm under which they operate. The scholars
have emphasized whatever fits into the liberal paradigm.
Aspects of the formal control structure and formal dis
tinctions between state and private power which fit the
paradigm are literally interpreted. Elaborate descrip
tions of the Party apparatus are used as evidence of the
control the party exercises. Formal structural dis
tinctions between state and private power, in the form of
checks and balances, competition, and other mechanisms of
106
the liberal or pluralist model are used as support for
their generalization that there is a much freer competi
tion of ideas in the United States.
As noted above, the generalization in question and
many of the assumptions of the liberal paradigm are in
the form of the stereotype; a stereotype is safe if con
flicting information is treated as irrelevant to the
generalization or as a deviation from the norm, or if it
22
is redefined in such a way that it fits the stereotype.
The model of comparative politics to which these scholars
subscribe is safe from the attacks presented here if one
refuses to step outside the boundaries of the liberal
paradigm. As noted above, Brzezinski and Huntington's
model is not threatened by literature suggesting that
private business interests' extensive use of the mass
media greatly enhances their control capabilities. They
simply redefine the situation so that it fits the model.
The mass media are harnessed by private American businesses
for the purposes of persuasion and for keeping in touch
with mass sentiments. The mass media are harnessed by
the Soviet Party-state for the purposes of control.
Another example is the way Groth saves the model of
American democracy from the attacks of those who insist
that powerful interest groups can assume the same func-
107
tions of control as a state institution. For Groth, the
solution is simple. An action taken by a "democratic"
bureaucracy at the behest of an interest group is merely
"responsiveness to citizen demands." An action taken by
the "authoritarian" bureaucracy is taken at the behest of
a "controlling oligarchy." In the United States there is
23
regulation; in the U.S.S.R. there is suppression.
The scholars cited in Chapter I can save their
model in much the same way that part of their model, the
pluralistic basis of American politics, was saVed by
pluralists in the 1960's. In Zeigler's 1964 work, the
emerging concentration on the role of interest groups in
United States politics was incorporated into the idea
that the United States is a democracy. That major
interest groups strongly influence every-day decisions in
bureaucracy does not conflict with the idea of popular
control, for the public does not care about and is not
affected by the narrow range technical decisions; the
public can influence the big decisions, but it is of no
interest to the public "what kind of fertilizer is used
ry j
in the TVA." Here one simply moves the decisions, which
one suspects major clientele groups are making, outside
the realm where we talk about elite versus popular con
trol. Recently, however, some social scientists have
108
questioned this distinction between technical decisions
and major policy decisions. In the light of environ
mental questions the "technical” decisions take on new
dimensions. They become the "big" decisions which affect
the life and lifestyle of mass populations. Of course,
elitist theorists have suggested for some time that the
population does not control even the big decisions which
25
the pluralisms define, through elections. This is of
no concern to the scholars cited in Chapter I, for Inkeles1
and others' descriptions of pluralism and elitism
rest on formal structural distinctions. If one works
within the definitions of the liberal paradigm, one's
generalizations are safe from attack.
Another example of the way in which new infor
mation can be fit into the old model of American democracy
is described by Devine. He notes that some American
scholars had trouble incorporating the new United States
public opinion survey data which suggested popular con
formance in reaction to particular symbolic legitimizers.
This presented a problem for the old notion that
ideological consensus was a characteristic of
totalitarian regimes. But the problem is resolved by
Devine and other scholars by suggesting that the ideolo-
26
gical concnsus is necessary for democracy. Thus
American "democracy" was safe. Brzezinski also saves the
model when he claims that uniformity in the American be
lief system developed "naturally" while the ideological
uniformity in the Soviet Union developed through forcible
27
imposition. This might be a meaningless statement to a
scholar who sees force as the basis for all social
organization or to one who sees consensus as the basis of
all social organization. For Brzezinski, of course,
consensus is the basis of one social organization and
force is the basis of another.
This all-encompassing statement is supported by
the other definitions Brzezinski and Huntington have given
us. The , l natural" development in the United States results
from the absence of a monopoly of power and the forcible
imposition in the Soviet Union results from the existence
of a monopoly of power. Deviations to the Soviet ideology
28
are "suppressed or extirpated." We know that there is a
Soviet ideology to be imposed because there are official
29
texts. We know that the ideology is imposed because
30
there is a history of control; this history of control
has made the climate right for imposition of orthodoxies.
Brzezinski and Hungtington give us no time to rest on any
concrete support, for their support in this case again
consists of another round of generalities, of different
ways to state the same old assumptions. This time we are
110
off on a tour of "historical experience." The American
historical experience was characterized by the absence
of strong elites, the desire to avoid dogma and per
secution, and the predominance of liberal ideas and
limited government. Ideological pluralism did not emerge
in the 19th century because there was no "social need,"
not because there was forcible prevention, as in the
31
Soviet Union. Brzezinski's mixture of references to
formal structure, references to vague historical ethos,
and references to formal organizational philosophies
reinforce each other. He has not only largely ignored
the conflicting ideas presented by other scholars in this
chapter but he has ignored also the elitest interpretation
of the American past. Myers does not agree with
Brzezinski's estimation of the American colonists' desire
to avoid repression. Myers writes that "settlers of
American came into a new domain, but they brought with
them old world ideas of proscription by force of which
the established religion or creed aimed to enforce its
32
code of doctrines and assure its supremacy." While the
American Revolution was legitimized by references to
rights of men and limited government, references which
Brzezinski likes to extract, such things as Shay's
Rebellion were called "cancers on the body politic"
Ill
which needed to be dealt with by force, in order to keep
33
the sanctity of contracts, of property, of the
propertied, of the elites. One could sift through the
literature of the early protestant settlements, the
accounts of the punishment of heretics, or one could sift
through accounts of punishments encountered by non
whites, by 19th and 20th century socialists; one could
make selective references to cases, organizational and
personal statements, etc., to produce a case for an
American historical past laden with violent repression.
Brzezinski, of course, has not done this. He operates
within the boundaries of the liberal paradigm and he
selects and defines information in such a way that it
will fit into the liberal paradigm. He does say that,
although the historical desire to avoid dogma and per
secution of different religious ideas was often violated
in practice, he does not seem to think that this has any
relevance for his grand generalization about the "natural"
development of the United States’ belief system as
opposed to the "forcible" development of the Soviet
Union’s ideology. He rapidly drops his comment on the
violation of the "desire to avoid persecution" in the
United States.
112
He continues, stating that the prevailing anti
persecution sentiment became "an integral part of the
prevailing constitutional myth and eventually set the
religious pattern for the country. In turn, this
tradition created a mental outlook which favored
ideological relativism rather than dogmatic committ-
O/
ment." Here, as elsewhere, in the work of Brzezinski,
a superstructure is being built by putting one un
supported generalization on top of other unsupported
assumptions. He tells us that the American belief system
is not ideological because we have a history of the ab
sence of strong elites, competing social forces, and
liberalism. That it is not ideological is evidenced by
the absence of official texts and interpreters of the
texts. We have an absence of official interpreters of
texts because we have a history of the absence of strong
elites and competing social forces, and liberal philo
sophy. Liberalism is the constitutional myth which
produces a mental outlook which favors ideological
relativism and the absence of strong elites
who are official interpreters of the text shows that the
American belief uniformity was a natural development,
not one imposed by elites. There was simply no "social
113
need" for ideas which were rejected in the United States.
Again, we are not allowed to leave the boundaries of the
liberal paradigm which contains all the formal structural
distinctions needed for support. This circular super
structure of unsupported assumptions also contains
references to formal belief systems, the "official texts"
which exist in the Soviet Union and to the "constitutional
myth" of the United States, the evolving liberal philo
sophy. The remaining pages of this chapter contain
arguments against the way the scholars cited in Chapter I
have used these formal symbol systems to support the
assumptions of the liberal paradigm.
The authors cited in Chapter I do not tell us
precisely how the formal organizational philosophies
(Communism, liberalism, norms of science) manifest them
selves in the generalized behavior patterns subsumed
under the terms "repression" and "freedom." They give us
no systematic justification for their highly selective
references to formal philosophies and organizational
statements and constitutional provisions; they give us
no justification for their literal or skeptical inter
pretations of these things. I will first argue that their
selective interpretations are unjustified. Secondly, I
will argue that their recitation of formal aspects of
114
organizational philosophies and statements does not aid
our understanding of the phenomenon with which they
attempt to deal, the suppression of inquiry.
Shils has simply stated that in Marxist societies,
there is a predominant belief that every sphere of life,
including scientific research, should be encompassed by a
coherent and comprehensive set of beliefs. This
results in a paralysis of the free dialectic of intellec
tual life. He has selected what he believes to be a
tenet of philosophy in societies where Marxism has
"triumphed" (without considering the opposing ideas con
cerning this alleged aspect of Marxist philosophy) and he
has linked this aspect with a behavioral outcome, the
paralysis of free inquiry (also merely assuming that this
latter description is accurate). He has not told us pre
cisely how he discovered the relationship between the
tenet of philosophy and the paralysis of free inquiry.
Nor has he told us why he chooses this particular alleged
aspect of Marxist philosophy to relate to the behavior
patterns subsumed under his phrase, the "paralysis of the
free dialectic of intellectual life." With a similar
lack of concern for precision, Fainsod, Inkeles,
Brzezinski, Rassmussen, and others tell us that the
constitution and constitutional myth development in the
United States is favorable to the maintenance of a climate
which enhances free inquiry. Any constitutional
guarantees regarding civil liberties in the U.S.S.R., the
authors say, are not enforced. Their skeptical or literal
interpretation of constitutional provisions or myths,
which they use to explain behavior, is justified only by
the restatement of their initial generalization, that
there is more free inquiry in the United States than in
the Soviet Union. It appears that any aspects of
Marxist philosophy, any formal statements emanating from
Soviet organizations, any Soviet constitutional provi
sions which do not fit into the authors' paradigm are
subject to being passed over or dismissed as having
nothing to do with reality. On the other hand, con
stitutional guarantees, formal organizational statements,
and aspects of liberal philosophy which fit the authors'
paradigm are likely to be used to support or to explain
the generalization which they already assume to be true.
If we can use formal organizational statements and
philosophical symbol systems to analyze the problem of
free inquiry and if we assume that Marxism is the formal
symbol system in the U.S.S.R., how do we decide which
aspects of philosophy are governing behavior? For
example, if Marxism is the basis of the Soviet doctrine,
as Brzezinski, Gripp, and others contend, why is the
Marxist principle of self actualization not a Soviet
belief which supports a climate favorable to free in
quiry? Why is this aspect of Marxist philosophy not
regarded as an "enforceable set of ideas" as the liberal
tenets on civil liberties are regarded as enforceable in
the United States, according to Rasmussen? Individual
freedom, according to Schaff, was the only end-orient-
ation of Marxist philosophy. All other tenets were
secondary and were only means for achieving the end,
freedom.^
One can find statements in Lenin's writings where
individual civil liberties are proclaimed to be the goal
38
of political action. If some philosophical symbols of
Marxism and official party statements are representative
of the reality of human behavior as it relates to the
suppression of ideas, why does not the Marxist focus on
individual freedom and free expression represent human
behavior accurately? This, of course, would not fit the
original assumptions of the authors. Thus, this aspect
of Marxist philosophy and party statements have to be
categorized as not having been "implemented."
One might also ask whether another tenet of
117
Marxism, the partisan nature of science, would lessen the
tendencies for "dogmatization" in the sciences. If one
considers the phenomenologists’ argument that there is no
such thing as value free science and if one considers the
works of some scholars to be cited in the case study
below, which suggest that monetary and prestige factors
are strongly at work in the process of scientific verifi
cation in scientific communities, one could argue as
follows. If theory, experimentation, and reported
results of research are inevitably "partisan," an open
admission of this reality in the formal legitimizing
philosophical system would encourage more skepticism and
less dogmatism in the sciences. There would be a greater
tendency to develop dogmatism in systems where the
reported results of scientific research carried the awe
inspiring notion of "objectivity."
This is by no means an argument for this
generalization, for this digression is placed within the
larger argument that we cannot choose aspects of formal
organizational philosophies, reason from our literal or
skeptical interpretation of them, and make generalizations
about their relationship to patterns of human behavior
which we think we see. The intention of this digression
is merely to illustrate the great variation available in
the selection and interpretation of "evidence" or
"explanatory factors" which could be used in the same way
the scholars cited in the first chapter have used them,
but to support or explain opposing generalizations.
The authors do not seem to think it necessary to
elaborate the method they have used for establishing
relationships between aspects of a formal organizational
statement or philosophy and the behavioral outcomes sub
sumed under the concept of suppression of inquiry in a
nation. Seiler notes that there has been very little
real effort directed toward linking theories of individual
psychological behavior, small group behavior, and
37
organizational behavior. I have mentioned the con
flicting psychological theories concerning the relation
ship of belief patterns and behavior patterns. How can
we merely assume that by reference to formal symbols
systems we can discover or explain individual and group
behavior relating to the complex notion of comparative
degrees of suppression of ideas in entire societies?
Katz and Khan have discussed the fallacy of taking formal
organizational statements literally. This is an error
which they think American social scientists have com-
38
mitted repeatedly. Comparative politics scholars seem
119
to have multiplied the error by selectively describing
either skeptically or literally, aspects of formal
organizational philosophies to relate to human behavior
patterns.
The problem looks more complex when we add the
views of Converse, Lasswell, and others concerning the
way in which ideological symbols are used to justify any
39
position. Some scholars have argued that symbols taken
from 19th century liberalism have been used to justify a
variety of positions, even contradictory ones, depend
ing on the stance of those who are using the legitimizing
symbols at the time.^
Although Brzezinski and Huntington say that the
variety of meanings attached to liberalism exclude over
all dogmatization, they also say that the civil liberties
tenets of liberal philosophy produce a political culture
which is supportive of free expression and non-ideological
thinking. It seems that they should allow for the
possibility, since liberalism has so many meanings, that
the symbol of "competition of ideas" or "free speech" can
be used to justify any position, including that of sup
pression of ideas. If the liberal symbols of competition
and limited government can be used to justify the policies
of those who work to eliminate competition and to use the
120
government to subsidize themselves, as some scholars have
suggested,^ why cannot the symbols concerning the com
petition of ideas be used to legitimize policies which
are suppressive of ideas, from the standpoint of those
whose ideas are being suppressed? Rasmussen, Brzezinski
and Huntington have not said how liberalism, which has so
many meanings attached to it that it precludes overall
dogmatization, can produce a climate which is supportive
of free expression because the civil liberties tenets are
regarded as enforceable and have become part of the
constitional myth.
Marxism suffers from the same inconsistencies in
relation to behavior patterns, in the hands of the
scholars cited in Chapter I. We have seen that some
symbols or constitutional myths are simply not regarded
as enforceable while other symbols constitute the
"theoretical determinants of Communism" which drive the
society toward dogmatization, according to the authors
cited in Chapter I. It seems that if some surveys have
indicated that symbols from formal national philosophical
systems are vague and superficial and can be used to
legitimize any position to the mass population, we should
also allow the same possibility for Marxist philosophy.
The authors seem unwilling to allow for this possibility,
121
however, when they find a symbol or tenet of Marxist
philosophy which they believe to be nonsupportive of free
inquiry. These tenets then become much more than vague
symbols. They become ideological determinants which
motivate leaders, contribute to over-all dogmatization,
etc. I have mentioned that Mikulak and other scholars
have been unable to find the ideological determinants
which the scholars cited in Chapter I insist are there.
Some of the scholars cited in Chapter I also
suggested relationships between the formal symbol system,
the norms of science^ and the behavior patterns subsumed
under the "free competition of ideas." I have referenced
Coben who believes that codes of professional ethics are
symbolic and superficial. My case study illustrates the
ways in which the norms of science can be used to
legitimize a variety of positions. Some historians of
science which I have referenced have suggested that
positions based in orthodoxy are often legitimized by the
norms of science when they are challenged.
If the liberal philosophy, Marxism, and norms of
science, which provide the formal symbol systems for
social organizations, are symbolic and superficial, if any
position can be legitimized under these symbols, including
122
an act of suppression of ideas and research, we should
question the usefulness of attempting to analyze the pro
blem of free inquiry through an intensive focus on these
symbol systems. If one's interest lies in investigating
the area of the human behavior subsumed under the concept
of "suppression of ideas," and if one spends much of
one's efforts analyzing the source of the symbols which
different groups use to legitimize various positions, one
may be obscuring the phenomenon in which his interest
lies. Katz and Kahn suggest that this is often the case
among scholars who insist on concentrating their efforts
on formal organizational statements.
The problem is compounded by the scholars'
arbitrary selective use of this type of information. One
cannot accept literally the organizational statement or
philosophical tenet only when it fits his purposes and
exhibit skepticism toward the formal statement or
philosophical tenet only when they do not fit into the
model under which he operates.
I believe that the major reason the scholars
cited in Chapter I have inconsistently ascribed different
properties to formal philosophical systems is because they
were using them to explain a generalization which they
already assumed to be above question. Since they already
123
believed that, indeed, there is more free inquiry in the
United States than in the Soviet Union, all data used for
explanation or support of the generalization had to be
accommodated to the generalization and to the assumptions
of the liberal paradigm.
Both Bell and Meyer have written that in the 1950's
American social scientists wavered between the idea that
Marxist philosophy was governing Soviet leaders and the
idea that Marxism was used cynically by Soviet leaders to
provide legitimizing symbols for their policies.^ This
wavering, and the subsequent wavering of scholars who
were comparing Soviet and American politics, was probably
necessary in order to make all data fit into the scholars'
paradigm. In 1970 Meyer stated, in an apology for earlier
works on Marxist philosophy, that the basic premises of the
cold war were taken for granted. One wrote about Marxism
only to develop a clearer understanding of the "enemy."
He notes that he had changed some passages in his works
on Marxism upon the advice of a senior professor who was
to recommend the book for publication. Some of the
43
passages were said to be too favorable to Marxism.
Perhaps the liberal paradigm was largely inspired
by the assumptions of the cold war and official images of
the "enemy." Perhaps it was also inspired by what some
scholars in the case study of this paper call the myths
of science, of progress, of technology. What does this
suggest for the assumption that Soviet social sciences,
unlike the American counterparts, are governed by
"official" paradigms. That writers such as Brzezinski,
and Huntington, Meyer, Ulam, Schapiro, are merely duti
fully perpetuating capitalist ideology in their
scholarly works is the contention of M. Perfilyev.^
Perhaps paradigms narrower in range than
"capitalism" were governing in the works of the scholars
cited in Chapter I. But the point is that, when we are
in the area of such a broad range generalization concern
ing the relationships between formal philosophical symbol
systems and restraints on free inquiry, a variety of
generalizations can emerge, one seemingly as supportable
as another. If we choose one of these generalizations and
support it as the scholars cited in Chapter I have done,
we cannot assume that we have captured reality.
Lenin played the same game which have the scholars
cited in Chapter I. He contended that we could not rely
on the formal statements of organizations for explaining
or depicting reality when these statements, supportive of
civil liberties, are emanating from capitalist organiz
ations. This is because they are simply not implemented
125
in capitalist societies; in the Soviet Union they are im
plemented for the first time.^ Few of the scholars
cited in Chapter I have even considered it necessary to
explain why some formal provisions or statements are
"implemented" and others are not. When it was explained,
it was in terms of the original generalization and
assumptions. Lenin's statement could be supported in a
way very similar to the way in which the scholars cited
in Chapter I have supported their generalization. Of
course, Carter and Herz believe that people who accept
the Marxist assertion that research and ideas are sup
pressed in capitalist societies are only giving us further
evidence of their ideological thinking. It will be re
called that they offered as evidence that it is the ideo
logical politician of the Party-state apparatus who con
trols research, the Lysenko case. The case study of this
paper is just as supportive of Lenin's thesis that
economic interests of the profit-making institutions
govern the flow of ideas in the United States as the
Lysenko case is supportive of Carter and Herz's theory.
Of course, it has already been contended above
that the case study will not support these broad theories.
The point is that whether one claims that there is a great
er circulation of ideas in the United States than in the
U.S.S.R, in the post-Stalin era than in the Stalin era,
126
where the scientists predominate rather than the
politicians, in the modern era rather than the pre
industrial eras, or whether one believes the reverse of
any of these generalizations to be true, it is possible
to make an argument, similar to that made by the scholars
cited in Chapter I, for the validity of one's model.
A foremost problem which has been ignored by
many scholars who attempt to support the generalization
in question is that of systematically developing
definitions for cases of "suppression of ideas." The
definitions of suppression of ideas, criminal activity,
etc., which have been predominant in one's learning
environment are difficult obstacles to overcome. Equally
important are the scholar's preconceptions about what
constitutes ideological thinking or what constitutes a
broad range or narrow range of ideas. A common theme
linking all of the scholars cited in the paper who support
the models dealing with "freedom" or "suppression of
inquiry" is that none of the authors themselves are
ideological thinkers governed by paradigms imposed by
official arbiters. The other guy is. Mannheim, of
course, has observed the relative ease with which we can
study the ideological processes of the other person's
46
thought patterns rather than our own.
127
Footnotes
1. For example, refer to footnotes No. 6, 10, 19,
22, 27 in Chapter I.
2. For example, refer to footnotes No. 29, 32, 33,
35, 47, 49, 52 in Chapter I.
3. For example, refer to footnotes No. 29, 32, 33,
35, 47, 49, 52 in Chapter I.
4. Theodore Lowi, The End of Liberalism (New York:
W. W. Norton, 1969), p. 4l.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid., p. 46.
7. Ibid., pp. 47-48.
8. Refer to footnote No. 17 in Chapter I.
9. John Kenneth Galbraith, The New Industrial State
(Boston: Houghton, Mifflin, 196/), and Josen A. Schumpter,
Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy (New York: Harper
aha Row, IWIY.------
10. Luther Harmon Zeigler and Thomas Dye, The Ir°ny
of Democracy (Belmont, Ca.: p. 93). Duane Lockard, Tne
Perverted Priorities of American Politics (New York: Mac
millan, 1971), pp. 42 and 43. Niebuhr.
11. Alex Inkeles, Social Change in Soviet Russia
(Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Pr., 1968), p. 403.
12. Brzezinski and Huntington, p. 127.
13. Lowi and Rehfuss.
14. Turner, Goffman, and William E. Smith, M.D.,
letter to James J. Delaney concerning Delaney committee
hearings on chemical additives Congressional Record, 85th
Congress, February 21, 1957, reprint, Mokelumne Hill,
Ca. : Health Research, 1958.
15. Dwight Waldo, The Administrative State (New York:
Ronald Pr., 1948), p. 53.
128
16. David Joravsky, The Lysenko Affair (Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard Univ. Pr., 1971).
17. Aron, Lodge, etc.
18. Mary F. Arnold, "Education for Administration of
Health Services," Public Administration Review 31 (Sept./
Oct., 1971).
19. Reinhard Bendix, The Age of Ideology: Persis-
tent and Changing (Glencoe: Free Press, 1964), pp. 297-
299 and 323.
20. Brzezinski and Huntington, p. 122.
21. The cold war assumptions as they related to the
study of Marxism are discussed by Alfred C. Myer, Marxism:
The Unity of Theory and Practice (Cambridge: Harvard
Univ. Pr. , 1934, revised and only ed. , 1970), pp. ix-x.
22. Bern, pp. 8-9.
23. Alexander J. Groth, Comparative Politics: A
Distributive Approach (New YorTcl Macmillan, 1971),
pp. 24U-236.---------
24. Luther Harmon Zeigler, Interest Groups in
American Society (New Jersey: Englewood Cliffs, 1964),
pp. 3/-40.
25. C. Wright Mills, The Power Elite (New York:
Oxford Univ. Pr., 1956).
26. Donald J. Devine, The Political Culture of the
United States (Boston: Little, Brown, 19/2), pp. 33-35,
366-367.-----
27. Brzezinski and Huntington, p. 33.
28. Ibid.
29. Ibid., p. 21.
30. Ibid., p. 34.
31. Ibid., pp. 32-33.
129
32. Gustavus Myers, History of Bigotry in the United
States (New York: Random House, 1943), p. 3.
33. Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Papers, No. 28
(New York: New American Library, 1961), p. 1/8.
34. Brzezinski and Huntington, p. 32.
35. Adam Schaff, Marxism and the Human Mind (Warsaw,
Poland, 1965), translated by Olgier Wottasieu (.New York:
McGraw Hill, 1970), pp. 184-186.
36. V. I. Lenin, pp. 189-190.
37. John Seiler, "Toward a Theory of Organization
Congruent with Group Concepts," in The Individual and the
Qrganization, ed. by Donald R. Domm"J Roger Blakeney,
Michael T. Matteson, Robert Scofield (New York: Harper
and Row, 1971), pp. 291-297.
38. Daniel Katz and Robert L. Kahn, The Social
Psychology of Organizations (London: John Wiley and Sons,
1966), p. 16.
39. Lasswell, op. cit. and Converse, op. cit.
40. Lowi, 77, 41, Rheinhold Niebuhr, Niebuhr on
Politics, ed. Harry R. Davis and Robert C. Good (New York:
Charles Scribners and Sons, 1960), pp. 214, 216. Niebuhr,
Children of Light and Children of Darkness, op. cit,
op. cit.,Luther Harmon Zeigler and Dye, op. cit., Gal
braith, op. cit.
41. Ibid.
42. Bell, pp. 327-332 and Meyer, ix-x.
43. Meyer, p. ix.
44. Marat Nikolaevich Perfilyev, Soviet Democracy
and Bourgeois Sovietology, translated by A. Bratev
(Moscow: Progress Publishing, 1970), pp. 6-7.
45. Lenin, pp. 189-190.
46. Karl Mannheim, Ideology and Utopia (New York:
Harcourt, Brace, and WorlcT^ 193b).
130
PART II
CHAPTER V
INTRODUCTION TO THE CASE STUDY
The Purpose and Methods of the Case Study
The purpose of the case study is to illustrate
further the arguments developed in Chapters II, III, and
IV. It will help especially to illustrate the following:
the problem of distinguishing between ideological and non-
ideological patterns of thought; the problems in the as
sumption that the norms of science guarantee free inquiry;
the problem of defining a case of suppression of research;
the problem of relying on formal organizational definitions
and structure for explanation; the problem of distinguish
ing between state and private power; the relativity of the
generalization the scholars cited in Chapter I have made;
the need for a much broader consideration of factors
which may be relevant to problems concerned with the con
cept of free inquiry; the need for a more restricted
range of generalization for the problem of suppression of
131
132
research and ideas. It is also useful for illustrating
that one can support an opposing generalization in the
same way that the authors cited in Chapter I have
supported their generalization, through references to
particular case studies. This is to argue, of course,
that they have not supported their generalization
sufficiently.
This is not a comparative study of the Lysenko
case and the case in medical research in the United
States. The reason for the short review of the Lysenko
case contained in the second section of this chapter, is
that the Lysenko case is often used to illustrate the
scholars' generalization there there is more suppression
of research in the Soviet Union than in the United
States; that it is the ideologically motivated men of
the Party-state apparatus which pose the threat to free
inquiry while the autonomous scientific communities
preserve a climate favorable to free inquiry. I have
already discussed the limitations of the case study for
supporting the generalization which has been made by the
authors cited in Chapter I. But, since the Lysenko case
has been used to support their generalization and since
the definition of the problem of suppression of research
has not been dealt with systematically, I will use the
133
Lysenko case to extract some characteristics defining
a case of suppression of research. Since the Lysenko
case is often cited by the scholars, I assume they would
accept characteristics defining a case of suppression of
research drawn from major studies of the Lysenko case.
I assume also they would accept the investigative methods
used in the Lysenko case for a case of imposed orthodoxy.
In my case study I shall use these methods and indicators
for a case of suppression of research.
I shall use also some of the explanations sug
gested by students of the Lysenko case for the success of
the imposition of orthodoxy. I will use these in the
conclusion in which the case study of this paper is
related to the arguments presented in Chapter II. Besides
the overriding explanatory factor concerning the strength
of the Party-state apparatus, the students of the Lysenko
case, including deviant researchers involved in the case,
offer several secondary explanations for the success of
the imposition of the Lysenko orthodoxy. Factors similar
to these secondary ones will also be offered by students
of the case to be presented below and by the deviant
researchers involved in the case. The major difference
is that the Party-state apparatus assumes the role of the
agent causing the imposition of orthodoxy in the Lysenko
134
case while the organized medical community and associated
interest groups assume that role in the case study of
this paper.
Kuhn and his critics'*" have discussed the problem
of defining a "scientific community." Kuhn has stated
that it consists of practitioners of a scientific spe
cialty who have undergone similar educations and have
2
absorbed the same technical literature. For the pur
poses of this paper, it is necessary to use the concept
of "autonomous scientific community" as it was used by
the scholars whose assumptions are under question. They
have used the terms "organized professional association,"
"autonomous interest groups," and "autonomous scientific
community" rather loosely. The free competition of ideas
was generally assumed to ensue from the autonomous
organized groups, and Greer noted that the professional
associations and journals insure the free flow of ideas
operating under the guidance of the norms of science.
The scholars cited in Chapter I do not distinguish clear
ly between the technician and the scientist. In the
Lysenko case the scientific research was heavily related
to particular human problems, making the distinction
between scientific research and technological research
fuzzy. In the case study below, the scientific research
135
is also related to particular human problems, also making
the distinction between the technician and the scientist
difficult. A factor suggested by students of both cases
to be one explanation for the successful imposition of
orthodoxy is the predominance of technicians over
scientists. Possibly it is difficult to separate
science from technology in any modern scientific community
and this may be a special problem relevant to the problem
of free inquiry. In any case, the scholars cited in
Chapter I have referenced organized scientific and pro
fessional associations which are supposed to exist in the
United States, so I shall assume that the scholars'
notion of an autonomous American scientific community and
an organized professional association would include mem
bers of the medical profession and research teams associat
ed with major research institutions, universities, and in
dustries. I also assume that the other interest groups
which are actors in the case study below, the pharmaceuti
cal and food processing industries, would fall under the
term, "autonomous interest groups" as defined by the
scholars cited in Chapter I.
The authors whose assumptions are under question
and the researchers of the Lysenko case have used official
statements or laws from state and Party organizations in
their determination of the existence of an orthodoxy which
136
is supported by the state and Party organizations. In
the case study below I will utilize the official state
ments emanating from the American Medical Association as
well as laws which the American Medical Association or
its state associations have initiated or supported. I
will also use statements from the American Cancer
Society, Food and Drug administration, and state public
health services, as well as statements from deviant
researchers to determine the existence of an orthodoxy.
Students of the Lysenko era also use the state
ments of the deviant researchers, scientists who en
countered harassment or who simply supported a theory
opposing the orthodox one, in order to describe the
orthodoxy. The term "orthodoxy” will be used in the
same manner as it was used by the scholars; it will be
used to denote those ideas which consistently receive
support from the organization which also officially
opposed deviating ideas. The phrase, "suppression of
deviant ideas" will mean the same thing as it meant in
the Lysenko case; the acts taken by the organization to
denigrate the reputations of the deviant researchers, to
cause economic losses, and arrest for deviant scholars,
to cause legal restrictions to be imposed on the voicing
of particular theories which deviate from the orthodox.
137
The content of the scientific research carried on
by the actors in the case study will be summarized briefly
throughout the study. I feel this is necessary because
of the problem of the definition of "scientific research."
The orthodox community, which claims credit itself for
the suppression of unorthodox researchers, has labeled
the suppressed research as "nonscientific nonsense." Thus
there is no suppression of scientific research, only
regulation of "quackery"; and, since there have been legal
restrictions on research and statements relating to the
content of research, the suppression is termed, the
"regulation of criminal activity." It will be observed
below that many of the "criminals" have credentials equal
to those in the orthodox community. The "quacks," many
of whom have been respected members in the orthodox com
munity before their conversion to unorthodox theories,
claim that it is the orthodox community whose research is
not scientific and that orthodox theory and research is
based on economic motivation and old orthodoxies. Since
the "quacks" have credentials and since their work "sounds
scientific," the orthodox community states that the only
reliable guide for the nonexpert, for the public, is the
word of the organized professional community.
138
Some may think it absurd to suggest that we re
serve the same measure of skepticism for the organized
medical community's definitions of scientific research
as opposed to criminal activity as we reserve for a
Communist Party official's statement that there is no sup
pression of ideas, only the regulation of criminal
activity. I feel this particular case study can help to
illustrate the problem of definition because at the time
of writing, there are "authoritative" sources (that is,
sources which remain with major research institutions)
who are beginning to support the ideas for which there has
been punishment in the past. There are also prestigious
researchers in other countries who have supported the same
theories which have been supported by the unorthodox
American researchers.
The increasing popularization of environmental
questions may provide the familiar context necessary for
us to define as "scientific research" something which we
would have had difficulty defining that way in the first
half of the 20th century. The case study will help to il
lustrate the difficulty of establishing what constitutes
"scientific research" through references to the methods of
science and the rules for testing procedures. It will be
observed that there exists the use of double standards for
139
testing procedures, inconsistent arguments for what
constitutes the scientific norms, and the reporting of
the same laboratory or clinical testing procedure and
results in entirely different ways by the conflicting
scientists in the case study. If we can see the
possibility for what was once and still is considered to
be unscientific nonsense by the organized medical com-
minity to become accepted theory and evidence in the
future, it should help us to maintain a skeptical
attitude toward official definitions of other cases,
whether they come from a Communist Party official or
from a prestigious member of the organized scientific
community.
Unfortunately, historical cases of accepted ideas
previously labeled as absurdities do not seem to have
helped many contemporary authors to maintain a skeptical
attitude. Although in theory this would be at deviance
with the norms of science, we may tend to accept the
idea promulgated by one of the opening statements of
organized medicine in this case study. This statement is
that, while in the past it was difficult to determine
fact from fiction or scientific research from quackery,
the state of scientific development is now at a point
where the organized medical community can. distinguish
140
3
fact from fiction at any time. Although social scien
tists have attempted to uncover economic motivations or
inconsistencies in organized medicine's position on
health care organization, there seems to be a reluctance
to deal in the same manner with organized medicine' s
position on the content of research. As illustrated in
the preceding chapter, even where a more skeptical
attitude about guarantees of science in general is
employed, scholars often succumb to the popular versions
of the elevation of particular natural sciences to a
plane beyond our comprehension; the publicized ideas of
scientists specializing in that area become guides.
What is widely publicized as the state of scientific
research, as presented by spokesmen from the organized
community of expertise, gives the social scientists, as
well as other elements of the population, the definitions
with which they work. If we refuse to step outside the
boundaries imposed by these definitions, if we refuse to
analyze them in the same way that we have analyzed
motivations and statements of members of scientific com
munities in relation to their social ideas, we would
be trapped essentially in the same liberal paradigm with
the scholars cited in Chapter I.
141
The case study literature sources concerning the
content of the alleged orthodoxy are taken from the
journals and publications of the professional associations
and research foundations. Literature from the state
agencies in which the associations’ lobby is used, as
well as literature taken from sources which consider
themselves, and are considered by the professional
associations, to be unorthodox. The orthodox associations
also produce literature concerning the procedures for
scientific testing through channels where norms of the
scientific method theoretically produce certain guaran
tees; this literature is also reviewed.
Records of arrests and court decisions are in
cluded as well as government documents containing lists
of persons under open investigation or with pending dis
ciplinary or criminal action to be taken against them.
Some unsystemized, unstructured interviews were carried
out among both orthodox and unorthodox actors and a few
of the statements are referenced, although their con
tribution is extremely minimal as was that of the
information gained through attendance at the conventions
of, and interviews with members of, a lay association
which publishes a journal about unorthodox theories in
cancer research. A familiarization with this group was
142
necessary since members have been prosecuted and the
state of California recently attempted to prevent it from
making particular statements about cancer theory and
research in its publication. Literature concerning the
alleged economic motivations of the orthodox associations
in the maintenance of the orthodoxy, and the extent to
which the organized professional association has control
over members is examined. Also reviewed is literature
dealing with the role of the research foundation, re
search grants, the drug firms and medical industries in
relation to the communications flow and testing of new
theories in cancer research.
A Review of Literature on the Lysenko
Case
The Lysenko case is the classic case used to
represent the empirically observable behavior which sup
posedly results from an imposition of ideological dicta
from the Soviet political realm onto the scientific
community. Below is a brief review of literature on the
Lysenko case. The authors of these works assess
characteristics of behavior in a situation where ideolo
gically driven men of politics suppress scientific re
search and harass deviant scientists. It is important
143
that attention be focused on what happened to the deviant
scientists and on these authors' suggestions as to why it
happened. These portions of the review, along with the
arguments of the scholars cited in Chapter I, will be
used in the concluding remarks of this paper where it is
contended that the scientific community can assume the
role so often presumed to be the exclusive province of
the Party-state apparatus. The role is that of the
active agent of suppression of scientific research and
ideas.
The review starts with a description of the
setting of the Lysenko case as depicted by students of
the case. This description focuses largely on the over
all explanation given by the authors; the power of the
Party-state apparatus is assumed to be the major causal
factor for the imposition of orthodoxy. The actors in
the case are the men of the ideologically driven Party-
state apparatus and the men of the weak, nonautonomous
scientific community whose members suffer harassment
because their scientific consciences would not allow them
to distort empirical data to conform to the wishes of the
Party men. A faction of the scientific community whose
self-appointed spokesmen was Lysenko rose to predominance
on the wings of the Party endorsement and Lysenkoism
144
became the imposed orthodoxy.
Following the review of the major explanatory
factor, we have a brief review of events and a descrip
tion of harassments encountered by deviant researchers.
Here some scholars suggest additional reasons for the
success of the Lysenkoites in their imposition of ortho
doxy. These are corollaries to the overriding explanation
that the Party-state ideologists simply imposed their
wills on the scientific community. The other reasons are
as follows: the well-organized public relations campaign
of the Lysenkoites; the mediocrity of the scientists in
the Lysenkoite faction, whose major interests lay in de
faming opponents rather than in scientific research; the
prestige and economic motivations of members of the
Lysenko faction; the fear of repercussions if research
was not produced which supported orthodoxy; the system of
funding for research projects; the fact that the young
scientist had to bend to the wishes of the older members
of research groups; the fact that textbooks in the dis
cipline legitimized the Lysenko theories; and the fact
that scientific research projects were geared too closely
to economic problems. These explanatory factors will be
used to analyze the case study regarding the imposition
145
of orthodoxy contained in this paper. Many of these same
factors have been offered as explanations for the success
ful imposition of orthodoxy in medical research in this
country. However, in this case, the strength of the
autonomous interest groups, including the organized
medical community, provides the motivating force.
The description of harassments encountered by
deviant scientists in the Lysenko case will be used also
in the analysis of the case study contained in this paper,
where similar harassments for deviant researchers occurred.
These harassments consist of the following: job loss or
other economic loss; denigration of reputation; termination
of membership in the professional association; inability
to publish in major journals; arrest.
As explained above, the purpose of using the
explanatory factors and describing the harassments en
countered by deviant scientists, which students of the
Lysenko case provide, and the purpose of relating these
events to the analysis of the case study in this paper,
is to illustrate further the arguments developed in
Chapter II.
Descriptions of the Lysenko case usually con
centrate on the interference of the ideologists and
politicians who are uninformed about the specialized
146
scientific discipline and who desire to make scientific
theories conform to their dogma rather than to empirical
data. The Lysenko orthodoxy consisted of what Joravsky
calls Lysenko's pseudo-scientific denial of the "dis
tinction between that which is hereditarily determined
and that which is environmentally determined."^ Lysenko
insisted that the theories and evidence of those who
supported principles of genetics which were popular in
the West were "unscientific."^ Thus, when Lysenko and
his supporters gained the support of the Party, Lysenko-
ism was imposed on the Russian community of biologists
for a number of years. That the reign of scientific
theories rose and fell with the winds of politics in the
Lysenko era is a contention of Joravsky:
Since the thirties large areas of Soviet technology
and science have been barred by the half baked
executive specialist, the man who knows enough of a
subject to play the authority so long as the ^
political and technical authority are confused.
The long hesitation between the endorsement of Lysnko-
ism and the final move to stamp out genetics (1936-
1948) and the rapid abandonment of this final
solution as soon as Stalin died, were silent admis
sions that political chiefs even while claiming to
be supreme judges of scientific truth, were not sure
of themselves.'
That the ideology adopted by the Soviet politi
cians and the requirements of the scientific community
are in continual battle is a recurring theme. Djilas
147
notes that "the proposition that Marxism is a universal
method, a proposition upon which Communists are obliged
to stand, must in practice lead to tyranny in all areas
Q
of intellectual activity." He contends that scientists
suffered the consequences for their heresy because they
based their theories on empirical data and not on the
dogma of Marxism to which Lysenko’s theories conformed.
While the scientific community requires world
views which are adaptable and while the process of
scientific discovery is accompanied by new world views,
the Marxist politicians require only those views which
support the dogma and they label as heresy any view which
9
does not fit into the dogma. He explains:
What can the unfortunate physicists do, if atoms do
not behave according to the Hegelian-Marxist struggle
or according to the uniformity of opposites and their
development into higher forms? What of the astrono
mers, if the cosmos is apathetic to Communist
dialectics: What of the biologists, if plants do not
behave according to the Lysenko-Stalinist theory on
harmony and cooperation of classes in a "socialist"
society? Because it is not possible for these
scientists to lie naturally, they must suffer the con
sequences of their "heresies." To have their dis
coveries accepted they must make discoveries "confirm
ing" the formulas of Marxism-Leninism. Scientists
are in a constant dilemma as to whether their ideas
and discoveries will injure official dogma. They are
therefore forced into opportunism and compromises
with regard to science.10
Thus, the scientists are forced to compromise
their scientific consciences. They are forced to consider
148
not just their empirical data, but also whether the
results of their studies will offend the dogmatic
politician who wields power over the scientific community.
A similar description of the Lysenko era is given
by Julian Huxley. He contends that the major issue at
stake is the "overriding of science by ideological and
political authority"; the truth or falsity of the Lysenko
11
theory is incidental to this central concern. Accord
ing to Huxley, thought and expression in the Soviet Union
have been subordinated to the conscious restrictions im
posed by the Party-state apparatus, as the ideologists
attempt to make the results of intellectual endeavor com
patible with their social philosophy. He maintains that
there must be autonomy for the scientific community in
order that there be a free interchange of ideas, for it
is the state which is the constant threat to the flow of
ideas. He notes that any restrictions which exist in
Western scientific communities are not imposed; instead,
they have developed naturally and are moderate in
extent.^
Thus, students of the Lysenko case freely
attribute the success of the imposition of the Lysenko
orthodoxy to the power of the Party, just as scholars
cited in Chapter I explain their generalization by refer
149
ence to the power of the Party. There are some additional
explanations offered by the students of the Lysenko era.
Their explanations and their descriptions of harassments
encountered by deviant scientists appear in the following
brief description of events of the Lysenko era.
From the Lysenko reign come stories of the
denigration of reputations of previously respected
scholars. Dobzhansky traces the fall of N. I. Vavilov,
who was a professor at the University of Saratov and who
was in charge of the Bureau of Applied Botany in Petro-
grad. He did research in Europe and the United States
and was president of Lenin's All Union Academy of Agricul
tural Sciences and a member of the Academy of Science.
Dobzhansky attributes the success of the Lysenko faction
over men like Vavilov to good public relations techniques.
In 1935 and 1936 there was a stream of magazine and news
paper articles and speeches saying that Western genetics
was tainted with Fascism. There were insinuations that
Vavilov's work on plant and animal improvement had been
hampered by his subscription to these theories. This
supposedly had the effect of slowing down agricultural
13
development. Stalin was purportedly drawn to support
Lysenko because of his fascination with Lysenko's
theories as they were interpreted to have practical
150
application for the agricultural dilemma.^
A Congress of Genetics and Agriculture convened in
1936 to consider Lysenko's charges. Scientists supporting
both sides of the controversy attended the conferences.
Lysenko's followers were well organized and they won at
the convention. More and more articles against Vavilov's
theories appeared. Vavilov was arrested in 1940 and he
was transported to Siberia. His name was dropped from
15
the Russian Academy of Sciences. At the tenth con
vention of the Academy of Agricultural Sciences in 1948
Lysenko announced that the Central Committee of the Party
1 fi
had approved his report dealing with the controversy.
In 1958 several anti-Lysenkoites in the biologi
cal sciences were fired from their posts, according to
Pravda, for violating the "rules of courtesy and pro
priety in scientific discussions."” ^ But with Khrushchev's
rise, many of the scientists who had lost their jobs and
prestigious reputations and who were arrested in earlier
years, were reappointed to their posts. The change came
slowly because Lysenko was still Director of the Institute
of Genetics even after his ouster from the Agricultural
Academy, and he was still on friendly terms in Party
18
circles and with Khrushchev.
After Khrushchev's fall a special meeting of the
151
Academy of Sciences took place. At this meeting were
various scholars making speeches which denounced Lysenko
19
and the textbooks which still showed his influences.
But Joravsky fears that the ouster of Khrushchev did not
end the Lysenko problem, for there remain politicians who
still interfere, though more timidly, in the old contro
versy. He explains:
The more one examines the current situation, the
clearer it becomes that the post-Khrushchev authorities
are not determined on a quick, clean sweep of
Lysenkoism. In this as in other fields, they seem
intent on a mild reform, avoiding dislocations and
upheavals among the "cadres"--in this case, the
people who managed biological research and education
under Lysenko, are still managing t h e m .20
Although it is generally conceded that the ortho
doxy rose under Stalin and declined with his decline, there
is disagreement about the extent of the orthodoxy im
position, even under Stalin. Dobzhansky cautioned in 1947
that it is " as surely not true that all genetic research
has been suppressed in the U.S.S.R. as some writers in
21
American Journals hastily asserted." And recently, more
has been written about the men who opposed Lysenkoism.
For example, Megary writes:
Lysenko’s genetic doctrine did not go unchallenged
in Russia either. The leading biologists and
geneticists in the Soviet Union such as Zhubovsky,
Schmalhausen, Zavadovsky, Alikhanian, Polyakov,
Zhebrok, and others, have opposed the resurgence of
Michurinism championed by Lysenko for many y e a r s . 22
152
Megary and others have expressed a guarded
optimism for the future of the scientists who ' ’ reject
dialectical materialism in favor of the logic of science"
for the diminution of political controls over science
has come not from a changed Soviet system, but from the
23
"necessities of competition with the free world."
The reasons for this guarded optimism fall primarily under
the category of the continued Communist Party power. This
factor, according to the students of the Lysenko case, has
made the other contributing factors possible. For
example, the mediocrity of the Lysenko faction of
scientists, a faction composed mainly of people without a
real interest in scientific research, was a factor which
contributed to the reign of orthodoxy. But this factor
existed because the mediocre faction gained the ear of
the Party-state apparatus. Megary explains the factor
of "mediocrity."
. . . every domain of science has its Lysenko, its
embittered, jealous mediocrity who, driven by envy
of those who had made genuine contributions, con
tinued to obtain administrative power over them by
denouncing them to his fellow mediocrities in the
political opposition.24
. . . after 1948 the level of Soviet biology dropped
sharply as the way was opened "for a large number of
people incapable of real and serious creative work
. . . and with a personal interest in continued
prosecution of genetics and biology, to receive
153
scientific degrees and positions.” A group of
mediocrities adept at intrigue and more concerned
with ideology and defaming their opponents than
with science came to dominate the editorial boards
and research institutes.25
Besides his assertion that the imposition of
orthodoxy was enhanced by the support of a group of
scientists who were really technicians, status seekers,
and organization men, Megary also asserts that another
factor which retards scientific creativity is that the
young scientist must work within the boundaries imposed
by older research groups and the system of research
funding. Megary notes that deviant Soviet scientists
have complained about these factors and that they suggest
that autonomous scientific communities and universities,
such as exist in the West, would prevent the reign of
27
false orthodoxies. Megary agrees.
Reasons for the necessity of maintaining a reserved
optimism regarding the change in the climate for the free
flow of scientific ideas in the Soviet Union are also of
fered by Marshak. He notes that "while improvements have
been made in the Khrushchev and post-Khrushchev eras, he
does not think that the "openness and freedom that charac
terize American scientific life has been duplicated in the
28
Soviet Union." Because of the ever-present threat of the
ideologically motivated Party, the scientific communities
154
and universities do not have the autonomy necessary to
insure a free flow of ideas. He continues, with a des
cription of other factors which have inhibited the free
flow of ideas in the sciences in the Soviet Union:
There were other obstacles in the way of a rapid
renaissance of Soviet science. The bulk of the
basic scientific research was located in the
specialized institutions of the Soviet Academy of
Sciences, not in the universities, which played
primarily a pedagogical role. Yet in the Academy
institutes there was a reluctance to accept young
students because supposedly they would interfere
with the research activities of the senior
scientists--this in contrast to the dominant role
played by American university laboratories in pure
science where the senior scientists pass on the torch
to the young students and where the students, through
their enthusiasm and inventiveness, help to break
down traditional patterns of thought. However, as
soon as the scientific leadership in the Soviet Union
became aware of the wisdom of the American approach,
it undertook to upgrade the research work in Russian
universities and to break down the barriers between
them and the Academy Institutes.29
There were other institutional hangovers from the
Stalin period: two much overplanning of scientific
work, for instance, and too close gearing of theo«
research programs to the state's economic needs.
In summary, students of the Lysenko era and some
scientists who were in Lysenko's opposition tend to em
phasize that the following factors were responsible for
the relative success of the imposition of orthodoxy,:
the ideological considerations of the politicians who sup
ported the imposition of the orthodoxy; the well-organized
public relations campaign of the Lysenkoites; the medio
crity of the scientists in the Lysenko faction whose
major interest lay in defaming opponents rather than in
scientific research; the prestige and economic motiv
ations of the members of the Lysenko faction of scien
tists; the fears of repercussions if a scientist did not
produce research results which supported the orthodoxy;
the system of funding for research projects; the fact
that the young scientist has to bend to the orthodoxies
of the older research scientists; the fact that textbooks
legitimized the Lysenko theories; the fact that scientific
research projects were too closely geared to economic
I
problems.
It will be noted that all of the secondary ex
planations fall under the general explanatory factors of
Party-state power and the absence of autonomy for the
scientific communities. There are frequent references
to the American autonomous scientific communities, the
purported characteristics of these communities providing
the measure for "free exchange of ideas" and the solution
for tahat is assumed to be the Soviet problem of hampered
scientific inquiry. The students of the Lysenko case
also operate under the liberal paradigm assumptions.
As described by the students of the Lysenko case
the scientists who deviated from the Lysenko orthodoxy
156
encountered job loss, economic deprivation, denigration
of reputation, termination of membership in the profession
al associations, inability to publish in major journals,
and arrest. The suppression was not complete, however,
and deviant researchers continued to work throughout the
reign of Lysenkoism.
This completes the review of the literature on
the Lysenko case. The indicators for a case of suppres
sion of research have been extracted. The suggested
explanations for the success of the imposed orthodoxy
have been reviewed. These things will be discussed in
the concluding chapter in relation to the analysis of the
case study which follows this chapter.
Footnotes
1. Kuhn, pp. 176-177 and Dudley Shapere, "Review of
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions," Philosophical
Review LXVIII (1964), pp. 383-394.
2. Kuhn, p. 177.
3. The Cancer Law, 1959-1964, (Sacramento, Ca.:
State Dept” of Public Health, 1965), p. 6.
4. David Joravsky, "The Debacle of Lysenkoism,"
Problems of Communism XIV (November-December, 1965),
pp. 4, b, 9.
5. T. D. Lysenko, "The Situation in Biological
Science," address delivered at the session of the Lenin
Academy of Agricultural Sciences of the USSR, July 31,
1948, Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1953,
p. 15.
157
6. David Joravsky, "Lysenko's Image," from The State
of Soviet Science, edited by the editors of Survey: A
Journal of Soviet and West European Studies (Cambridge,
Hass’ : HIT"Pr., " T9557;'"p7W: ----------
7. Joravsky, "Debacle of Lysenkoism," p. 12.
8. Milovan Djilas, The New Class: An Analysis of
the Communist System (New York: Praeger, 1957), p"i TZ9.
9. Ibid.
10* Ibid., p. 130.
11. Julian Huxley, Soviet Genetics and World Science
(London: Chatle and Windres, 1949}» P^ ix, 151.
12. Ibid.
13. Th. Dobzhansky, "N. I. Vavilov, A Martyr of
Genetics," reprinted from Journal of Heredity, 38:227-232
in Conway Zirkle, Death of a Science in Russia, University
of Pennsylvania Pr” 1949, p. STI
14. David Joravsky, The Lysenko Affair (Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard Univ. Pr., 1971).
15. Dobzhansky, pp. 87, 88, Zirkle, p. 47.
16. Edward Megary, "Lysenkoism and the Stateless
Society," Journal of Politics 15 (May, 1953), p. 217.
17. Joravsky, "Debacle of Lysenkoism," p. 4.
18. R. E. Marshak, "Lysenko's Downfall and the New
Look in Soviet Science," Texas Quarterly 10 (Spring, 1967),
p. 90.
19. Ibid., p. 88.
20. Joravsky, "Debacle of Lysenkoism," p. 4.
21. Dobzhansky, p. 89.
22. Megary, p. 215.
158
23. Lewis Feuer, "The Intelligentsia in Opposition,"
Problems of Communism 19 (November, 1970), p. 16.
24. Ibid., p. 2.
25. Ibid., p. 3.
26. Ibid., p. 4.
27. Ibid., pp. 252 and 6.
28. Marshak, p. 94.
29. Feuer, p. 4.
30. Marshak, p. 95.
CHAPTER VI
THE CASE STUDY
Introduction
The case study of orthodoxy in cancer research
and therapy is concerned with the alleged suppression of
preventive approaches to degenerative diseases; theories
and research concerning the environmental causes of
cancer and therapies which are based upon these theories
have been suppressed. The participants in the politics of
degenerative disease are alleged to be, by those who posit
that a rather severe reign of orthodoxy has existed for
some time, are the following: The American Medical
Association and its specialized and state associations'
lobbies; foundations such as the American Cancer Society;
lobbies of industries producing products for orthodox
medicine; lobbies of industries whose products the
unorthodox scholars claim are carcinogenic products to
which large numbers of consumer and industrial worker
population are exposed on a daily basis; governmental
159
160
agencies which administer policies concerning the legal
status, clinical testing, and interstate shipment of drugs
and chemicals.
Many sources who oppose the present public pol
icies relating to medical research and practice stress the
economic motivations supporting the orthodoxy; also stres
sed is the control of the legal barriers by interest groups
which are based economically in research programs, medical
practice, and profits resulting from the increased
demand for products and services in health care for
degenerative disease. These factors, among others, are
suggested as explanations for the patterns of punishment
encountered by members of the medical profession whose
behavior deviates from the prescribed norms relating to
the investigation and treatment of degenerative disease.
Other factors are suggested as explanations, such as
organized medicine's control over licensing, medical
school curricula and entrances, and hospital practice.
Also believed to be a contributory element to the
ease with which orthodoxies are perpetuated is the fact
that the largest segment of any scientific community con
sists of technicians, codifiers, and promulgators, rather
than scientists. The phenomenon of specialization, with
its specialists' ignorance of environmental factors im-
161
pinging upon that very specialty, is advanced by some as
a causative factor supplementing the factor of economic
motivation. Some of these suggestions will be examined
in the case study in relation to public policy, the
economics of cancer research and treatment, and the
behavior patterns encountered by the deviant scholar.
The first chapter of the study is concerned with
the climate of opinion officially stated by the orthodox
organizations. These organizations have been labeled
"orthodox" by themselves as well as by the unorthodox
scholars. As stated above, the term, "orthodoxy" will be
used to indicate the position supporting theories and
therapies currently legal and approved in official state
ments from the private orthodox associations and govern
mental agencies. The next three chapters deal with
theories and therapies which are illegal and not approved
by the orthodox organizations. Of particular interest is
an investigation into the consequences encountered by the
promoters and users of unorthodox therapies. The next
chapter concerns the orthodox treatments and an examination
into the inconsistencies presented by these treatments to
orthodox positions in relation to their "regulation" of
quackery; parts of this chapter and all of the next chap
ter deal with the unorthodox view of orthodox theories
162
and therapies and with arguments for the financial basis
of orthodoxy. The Conclusion reviews the case study as
it relates to the arguments developed in Chapters II,
III and IV.
The Orthodox Position
In this section an effort is made to determine the
official stances of the American Medical Association, the
Food and Drug Administration, American Cancer Society, and
some state agencies toward cancer research and treatment
and to measure the extent of their concern with the pro
blem of heretics, as expressed in their publications for
public information and in letters returned in answer to
inquiries about their relationship to the subject.
We will find repetition concerning the associ
ations' lists of indications which distinguish a quack
from a reputable scientist or practitioner and in various
other statements about unorthodox medicine. This is
unavoidable for it appears that all of the organizations
take a very similar approach to the subject. This is
one of the phenomena observed by those who postulate
that there exists a forceful reign of orthodoxy in the
medical profession and research communities. Frequently
references will be made to specific treatments which are
163
examined in greater detail in subsequent chapters. The
purpose of this chapter is to determine the climate of
opinion of specific organizations.
The following quotation from the California Cancer
Advisory Council is representative of the assumptions
under which the organizations considered in this chapter
work.
Quackery has figured all too prominently in the
records of medical history. Only in the last cen
tury, as medical science has become increasingly
refined, can the trappings of quackery be dis
tinguished from the proven merits of medical
knowledge.^
Of major interest at this point are (1) the
assumed ability of the organizations to distinguish fact
from fiction and (2) the procedures and criteria pre
scribed for this purpose.
The following statements of the American Medical
Association Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry are also
representative of the philosophy examined below.
Of all the nostrums fraudulently promoted as remedies
or "cures" none is more reprehensible than those
falsely claimed to be effective for the treatment
of cancer. The variety of preparations offered as
remedies for cancer bears eloquent testimony of the
failure of such products to provide a "cure," or
even a sound method of treatment for the disease;
nevertheless, the sale of quack remedies for cancer
continues. Such nonsense is due in part, to the
unscrupulous promoters who are persistent in their
false appeals to the uninformed, and in part to those
164
sufferers who are easily persuaded to forego
scientific examination and treatment for more magical
shortcuts. A less obvious but equally guilty
minority, however, is constituted by a few presumably
qualified physicians who lend unintentional support
to worthless remedies by prescribing or administering
such products with the wishful notion that they may
provide some benefit in the treatment of what is
known to be incurable cancer.2
A public information book published in 1956 by
Charles S. Cameron, M.D., a former Medical and Scientific
Director of the American Cancer Society,was one attempt
to summarize the orthodox outlook on the "quackery"
surrounding the treatment of cancer. In a 1967 printing
of the book, Luther L. Terry, M.D., former Surgeon
General of the United States, wrote an approving foreword
to the volume which is similar to later statements of
Surgeon Generals and publications of the American Cancer
Society and the American Medical Association.
Cameron writes of the need for the public to seek
the advice and treatment of the orthodox medical com
munity, of the untiring dedication of the medical com
munity in the struggle against degenerative disease, and
of the continuing improvements in the statistics relating
to cancer treatment which are a result of this effort.
Then enters the quack, defined as "pretender to medical
skill," who uses the ignorance and fear of the public to
165
his own profit while preventing the patient from benefit-
ting from orthodox therapy. He notes that "bitters,
barks, and berries have given way to 'vaccines,' 'serums,'
and 'scientific diets,' and other flimsy attempts to ride
on the coat tails of modern medical science."^
Quacks can be categorized into the "dumb," the
"deluded," and the "dishonest." The "dumb" variety is
likely to have a brew of herbs which has been worked out
down through the ages perhaps by "an old Indian chief.
For this type Cameron exhibits the tolerance of a colonial
missionary for the heathen native. The deluded quack,
Cameron continues, may have
some background of education and--believe it or not--
he may even have an M.D. degree. But his knowledge of
cancer is faulty, and his understanding of research
methods is limited. His conviction of the value of
his cancer treatment is based on inadequate obser
vations and on equally thin reasoning. A fair pro
portion of these quacks are actually mentally un
hinged. Yet their pseudoscientific jargon makes them
sound plausible to a naive public.®
The above statement is representative of many statements
from the organizations considered in this section, for the
explanation of the phenomenon of the man with credentials
and former good stature in the medical society who turns
"quack" by virtue of using or advocating an unorthodox
therapy.
166
The "dishonest quack" is the most common variety.
Cameron states that
he is a sly, shrewd character, wholly without scruples
and moral sense. He is in the business of treating
cancer for one reason only--to make a killing which he
does both ways. . . . And by kidding the bewildered
or ignorant or frightened patient with curable cancer
into trusting that he can avoid the "dangerous knife"
or the "terrible burns" of x-rays and still be cured,
the quack takes his victim"s life, not as quickly,
but just as surely, as if he had used a bullet instead
of his worthless pastes and pills.?
He states that the cancer quack thinks cancer consists
only of a visible tumor. This is an interesting
criticism because the attack has been directed toward the
orthodox medical community by people urging a systematic
approach rather than the localized symptomatic treatments
of surgery and radiation. Cameron also produces an
essay emphasizing humorous and bizarre natures of cancer
treatments not accepted by the orthodox community. Among
those treatments dismissed are vaccines. "There is no
logical basis at this time for the use of any vaccine in
Q
treating cancer." He scoffs at some factors suggested by
those who advocate a preventive approach to cancer from
an environmental approach. He treats as absurd the idea
that artificial fertilizers, additives, water fluori
dation, overly processed foods, etc., have any connection
with cancer. The unorthodox theories in these areas
167
will be considered in more detail in the following chap
ters.
He refers to a particular case in which he ex
presses bewilderment at "how a Doctor of Medicine becomes
a quack--sometimes after years of respectable, honest,
and professional activity." Again he indicates that for
the answer, "we would need to delve into the deep reaches
of psychiatry."'*'^ The question arises as to what stan
dards Cameron subscribes for the determination of the
point at which one becomes a quack. One indicator is
described in the following reasoning relating to the
formerly reputable physician-turned quack mentioned above.
A reputable physician, a scientist who held a top
post in one of the nation's greatest medical schools,
threw the full weight of his prestige behind a cancer
remedy which has no proven value as a treatment of
cancer in the judgment of the American Medical
Association, the American Cancer Society, the National
Cancer Institute, and the Food and Drug Administration.
Yet, within the past year, when efforts were made to
control the distribution of this questionable drug,
the White House was picketed by men and women who
claimed to be patients, or relatives of patients,
suffering from cancer, whose lives depended on an un
hampered supply of the remedy. Demonstrations like
this, as well as strident calls in the Congress for
"fair" appraisal of a particular controversial method
of treating cancer, should, of themselves, cast doubt
on the method. Solid discoveries do not need public
stampedes.H
Disapproval of the American Medical Association, the
American Cancer Society, the National Cancer Institute,
168
and the Food and Drug Administration, as well as dis
cussion of the treatment outside the channels these
organizations provide appears to be an indication of
quackery.
Another indicator is that quacks disregard the
rules of evidence.
He does not present his evidence freely to his pro
fessional associates for critical evaluation. He
offers his claims to the public at large. This
technique is used by no bona fide scientist or ^
physician engaged in an honest search for truth.
The quack does not use the "approved and
authorized channels of making new medical discoveries
known." The channels are the "medical and scientific
journals where new developments are normally reported."
Another channel consists of the "regularly scheduled
meetings of the doctors and scientists. . . . The sole
purpose of these meetings is to provide a forum where
any qualified person with something worth saying can
13
get up and say it." This is the procedure Greer
mentioned also without considering the possibility
that politics may enter into the selection of articles
and speeches, that the scientific community may be no
more immune from vested interests than other com
munities. It is merely assumed that it is. Cameron
states that anything "worthwhile" gets a hearing.
We must assume that some invisible mechanism determines
the value of scientific theories and research rather than
men. Cameron states that the charge made by some quacks
that they have not been able to use such channels is
absurd. To make his point he mentions that new surgical
methods, radiation, and nitrogen mustard, for example,
have not been suppressed in the treatment of cancer.
(These are orthodox treatments which many unorthodox
researchers have alleged to be relatively ineffective and
even harmful to the patient, but profitable for specific
medical economic interests.)
Another avenue available to any "worthwhile'1
treatment's proponents is the testing by government
agencies, Cameron adds. The politics of testing will be
examined in some sections below.
Cameron concludes,
It all adds up to this: a perfectly sound, honest, and
effective procedure exists for determining the worth
of every new medical discovery and claim. . . . The
quack tactic of accusing the medical profession of
unfairness, collusion, conspiracy, and avarice
strongly suggests that quacks suffer from an emotional
disturbance known as persecution complex.^
Cameron analyzes the psychology of the quack who
is a pathological liar and invariably has a one-track
mind which carries around such absurdities as the belief
that X-ray treatments wear down natural body defenses or
170
that surgery stimulates cancer growth. Another character
istic of the quack is that in determining his fee he will
charge whatever the patient can afford. "His fee has no
relation whatever to the actual cost of the treatment and
its effectiveness."^ Other revealing characteristics are
that the content of the treatment will be kept secret and
that he will not be a member of the official medical
16
society; "if they are, they won't be for long, since
the County Medical Society will not harbor a member guilty
of unethical medical practice."^
The cases where patients claim to have been helped
by the quack and where their records show improvement have
to be one of several types. Either they did not have
cancer in the first place, or if they had been previously
diagnosed as having cancer by an orthodox practitioner,
refused orthodox treatment, and sought the help of the
18
quack, the first diagnosis must have been wrong. Or if
the patient at one time had orthodox treatment and later
went to the quack, any remission is an effect of earlier
19
orthodox treatment.
Cameron pleads a case for more stringent controls
over the quack and approves the efforts of the California
Cancer Commission and State Medical Societies, the
American Medical Association, and the Food and Drug Admin-
171
istration.
Through many years of patient searching for facts,
fostering public education, strengthening laws,
raising ethical standards, and instituting legal
action, these two organizations (American Medical
Association and Food and Drug Administration) have
sought to expose quacks and bring them to bay.20
An American Medical Association pamphlet for
public distribution notes that patients waste millions of
dollars every year on quackery. The cancer quack seeks
to mislead unknowing persons because his treatment has
been found inadequate by "scientific medicine." Any
claims are either based on a false diagnosis or are the
belated improvements resulting from orthodox therapy.
"The medical profession is searching constantly under both
private and governmental programs for better treatments
for cancer patients," the Department of Investigation of
21
the American Medical Association continues.
Dr. David Karnofsky, member of the Sloan-Ketter-
ing Institute for Cancer Research notes that the cancer
quack has updated his nostrum vendor image of the past.
He has made a check list for distinguishing the cancer
quack. The quack emphasizes treatment rather than
analysis of the patient's clinical problem; he will use
nonprescription remedies; he will have a theory which is
not based in science but will impress the unknowledgeable
supported by "the popular idea that men of science fre
172
22
quently disagree." The quack will also have testifying
patients; these patients will either never have had can
cer, have received the belated benefits of orthodox
23
therapy, or will have had spontaneous remission. The
quack may also have a following in the lay community who
innocently are often "active enemies of the scientific
and medical community." The arguments advanced by the
cancer quacks about the medical trust "manage to find
responsive individuals in various segments of the lunatic
fringe. ..." He also classifies the unorthodox prac
titioners :
There are many varieties of cancer quacks--the ig
norant medicine man, the frustrated professor, the
deranged physician--each with his own bizarre
story. . . . There is no need to detail their
stories because though the cast of players changes,
the plot remains the s a m e .24
In order to discourage the hopeless patient from
going to the quack, he recommends that the physician use
palliative X-ray therapy, hormones, nitrogen mustard, and
related substances, so that the patient will feel that
25
something is being done for him.
Alfred J. Cantor, M.D., applauds the educational
work of the American Medical Association Bureau of Inves-
26
tigation in exposing cancer quacks. He fears that
patients will be frightened by the quack's position toward
orthodox treatment. He comments that the fear of X-ray
173
treatment is needless for the ’ ’ temporary burns are a
27
small price to pay for the cure of cancer.” His
proposed solution is education. "The public must be made
to realize that only surgery, X-ray, and radium in the
28
hands of the skilled M.D. will cure cancer,” for the
quack
offers a horrible death in return for the dollars of
the cancer victim. ... I do not favor lynching.
But before God. if men must be lynched, lynch the
cancer quacks.
A public affairs pamphlet from the Public Health
Service, United States Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare in 1957 contained the statement that surgery
and radiation are at present the only two accepted
30
treatments for cancer.
The field has long had a history of quacks, most of
them working on the gullibility of people who do not
want to face the fact that they might have cancer, or
if they suspect they have it, don’t want the long,
possibly expensive process of treatment it entails.
No matter what you hear about a miracular cure,
remember that it is hokum. When an honest cure for
cancer is found, the newspapers of the world will
announce it and broadcasters will proclaim it.
Until then, trying a quack cure may result in post
poning of effective treatment until it is too late,
and in wasting and squandering money your loved
ones need.
A 1964 American Cancer Society pamphlet warns
against the cancer quack and reaffirms that surgery and
radiation are the primary methods of treating cancer
174
32
while advances are being made in orthodox chemotherapy.
Another of its pamphlets published in 1966 and 1971 lists
Krebiozen, the Gerson method, the Beard thesis, Laetrile
33
and Glyoxylide as prime examples of quackery. These
examples will be discussed in detail below.
The American Cancer Society has also developed a
method for recognizing the quack. His treatment is
secret, he uses testimony from patients, he does not
report in reputable scientific journals, he does not
consult with peers in his profession, he instigates legal
proceedings against people who question his methods, he
is supported by lay people, his cases which he claims to
34
have cured were not cancer in the first place.
The authors of another publication of the American
Cancer Society note that
The proponents of new or unproven methods of cancer
management range from ignorant, uneducated, misguided
persons, to highly educated scientists with advanced
degrees who are out of their area of competency in
supporting a particular form of treatment.35
Those quacks who hold an M.D. have certain characteristics
in common. They are estranged from organized medical com
munities. They do not use the journals to report results
or attend professional meetings, they challenge establish
ed theories and attack prominent scientists; their chief
supporters are not experts in the field but tend to be
175
36
politicians, writers, lawyers. (For example, Senator
Paul Douglas wrote an approving introduction for an
unorthodox book.) The nonexpert, no matter what his
credentials, is not capable of judgments on the basis of
reading the various works of authors promoting unorthodox
37
theories. He will only be deluded. It seems that the
only way for the layman to think about medical practice,
according to the publication, is to accept the statements
of the American Medical Association and the American
Cancer Society. The American Cancer Society also stresses
that all the necessary forums for the hearing and testing
of any method are already in existence; they are in the
National Cancer Institute, American Cancer Society,
American Medical Association, Food and Drug Administra
tion, U. S. Public Health Service and "reliable" research
institutes and centers, agencies such as the Memorial
38
Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center.
The American Cancer Society emphasizes its con
tributions to the "control" of unproven cancer therapies
through its massive educational programs for laymen and
doctors which includes a journal on unproven methods for
doctors and literature persuading the doctor of the
necessity of keeping the patient's faith in surgery and
39
radiation. The Food and Drug Administration, in its
176
adminstration of the 1962 Kefauver-Harris amendments to
the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act is cited as a major
contributor in the control of quackery, because the
amendments stipulated that a drug must be proven safe
and effective before it is put on the market.^®
An American Medical Society publication states
the duties of the Association in the control of medical
treatments.
The basic purposes of the American Medical Association
are to promote the science and art of medicine and
the betterment of public health. Combatting health
quackery in all of its forms is a definite part of
AMA's commitment to these purposes. The American
Medical Association Department of Investigation has
a long history of service in this field. Its primary
mission is the collection and dissemination of
authoritative, objective information on quacks,
cultists, health faddists, and various other non-
scientific practitioners. It serves the public as
well as the medical profession.
The Department of Investigation receives in
quiries from federal, state, and municipal health
officials, teachers in schools and colleges, and
many others interested in the health of the public.
Functions of the Department are wholly educational
and not punitive. It also prepares and publishes
authoritative fact pamphlets and from time to time
presents to the public proof of instances of health
quackery.
The AMA Department of Health Education also con
tributes to the fight against health quackery.
Through its publications, it reaches the public with
information designed to assist people to become
intelligent consumers of health products and ser
vices . Through its contacts with educators, it
assists schools and colleges to teach the same com
petencies to children and youth. 4-1
177
The AMA indicates that one is certain to suffer
monetary loss if one turns to the unproven cancer remedy,
and it might detain a person from obtaining surgery,
radiation, and approved chemotherapy which might arrest
42
or cure the disease. Quacks with advanced degrees will
lack scientific knowledge in the specialized area in
which they use their treatment. Also, quacks might have
received degrees from unaccredited colleges or by
correspondence. (The statement does not state specifical
ly that any have received degrees this way, nor is any
study cited for support.) "But," the statement con
tinues, "as is true in every profession, there are a few
physicians who venture into quackery. But the quack is
a pretender to skills he does not possess, so he can be
/ 3
dangerous to your health." One can identify a quack in
that his treatments will be expensive, secret, and he
will either hint or promise a cure; he uses case his
tories, he refuses to use the means guaranteed by the
medical community of subjecting research to the scrutiny
of peers, he claims that his treatment is better than
surgery and X-rays, he claims that organized medicine is
persecuting him.^
The cancer patient who wastes time while being
treated with a worthless remedy may be risking his
life, which could be saved by early diagnosis and
prompt treatment with well proven methods of surgery,
178
radiation, and chemotherapy.^
In one report of 64 cancer patients referred to a
reputable hospital after treatment by quacks, 27
patients died who might have been saved if they had
received proper treatment earlier. Ten patients
were mutilated for life. Only 27 patients were
fortunate enough to have quit using unproven remedies
in time to receive proper medical care and live.^°
References are made frequently to this study in
American Cancer Society pamphlets as well although the
source is not cited. It will be interesting to note
that unorthodox literature often contains statements that
a higher success ratio might have been obtained if the
patient had not been previously mutilated by surgery,
X-ray treatment and approved toxic chemotherapy. This
kind of statement is supposed to be one of the indicators
of quackery, but only when it is directed against
orthodox theory.
The AMA publication finds agreement with the
sources mentioned above in that people who think they have
been helped by the unorthodox either could not have had
cancer in the first place, had spontaneous remission, or
were receiving the belated beneficial effects of the
previous orthodox therapy.^
There is also agreement that the reason some
politicians have supported unproven cancer remedies is
that they are ignorant of the requirements of the scien-
179
tific method of investigation, which it is necessary to
satisfy before a drug or method of treatment is accept
able for medical use. The Gerson treatment, Laetrile,
AQ
and Krebiozen are listed among the quack remedies.
A food and Drug Administration public information
statement concurs with the previous assessments:
Cancer can be cured with early treatment by surgery,
X-ray, radiation. Certain drugs have been found to
be of value in treating some forms of cancer. Aside
from these, however, there are no serums, drugs, or
diets which have been proved to be effective in
curing cancer.^
The surest sign of quackery according to the
publication are the claims that the medical profession
has tried to suppress research, that the remedy is
secret, that it is supported by laymen.^
Upon request to the American Cancer Society, the
American Association for Cancer Research, and the American
Medical Association for information on their evaluation of
the product of Laetrile (an unorthodox substance dis
cussed in a chapter below), all of the associations
sent replies labeling the drug a product of quackery.
The reply of the American Cancer Society also contained a
fact sheet prepared by the Food and Drug Administration
concerning the promotion of theories of the relation of
diet and other environmental factors to degenerative
180
diseases. (Many unorthodox practitioners who have ad
vocated the FDA's testing of Laetrile for as much as
twenty years, also stress that the problem of cancer will
never be solved until the environmental conditions which
are creating it are changed. One of the environmental
conditions is the increasingly toxin-laden, nutritionally
depleted diet of Western civilization.) The FDA public
ation explains the joint program operated by the American
Medical Assocation, the National Better Business Bureau,
and the Food and Drug Administration to expose and pro-
52
secute quackery in this field. The report states
that, "It is not true that the American food supply is
deficient in vitamins, minerals, and other essential
53
nutrients. This is the big lie of nutrition quackery."
The facts are that research has demonstrated that
the nutritional values of crops are not significantly
affected by either the soil or the kind of fertilizer
used. Lack of iodine in soil or water, of course,
has been shown to cause goiter, but this is the only
disease definitely associated with a soil
deficiency.
The positions taken by the Associations on these
problems and their statements asserting what "research
shows" will be analyzed in the chapters below.
The California Medical Society has been particular
ly active in the control of unorthodox treatments as des
cribed by the California Cancer Advisory Council. In
1952, the Cancer Commission of the California Medical
181
Association formally took it upon itself to test and pro
claim the usefulness of treatments for cancer. It per
formed its studies, aided by the Bureau of Investigation
of the American Medical Association and the federal and
state Food and Drug Administrations, the Committee on
Cancer and Diagnosis and Therapy of the National Research
Council. "Facts" concerning all alleged cancer remedies
were then released to the scientific community and the
public through reports in specialized and mass media.
The Cancer Commission "stimulated" the legislative
interest in the ensuing legislation in California.
The Cancer Commission fully believed cancer quackery
could be combatted more expeditiously through the
legal process with definitive action promulgated
against cancer quacks and potentially a higher degree
of public education. The ability of the Cancer Com
mission to actually punish a cancer quack--to put
him out of business and move to penalize him through
legal sanctions -is naturally limited. Only through
a complete legal system could this type of
injustice--which smacks of criminal mischief be
strictly treated.56
California adopted some legislation under which
supplemental prosecutions could take place aside from
the FDA interpretations and recommendations to the
Department of Justice for enforcement of the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act which prohibits distribution
of falsely represented, worthless, or dangerous cures and
medical devices and its 1962 amendments which stipulate
182
that a drug must be proven effective and safe before it is
put on the market in interstate commerce.^ California
was the first state to enact such supplemental legis
lation and its Cancer Law has served as a prototype for
58
similar laws in other states.
A report from the Cancer Advisory Council states
that the legislative considerations were also "stimulated
by physicians and laymen appalled by the quacks' potential
for delaying the "scientifically sound forms of treatment,
59
producing disability and premature death."
The Council reiterates the characteristics of
the quack mentioned above, such as disregard for the
rules of evidence, publicity, surveillance by one's peers,
etc. Also given is the familiar statement that to
understand how a doctor of medicine becomes a quack after
years of respectable, honest professional activity
60
"would take us deep into the reaches of psychiatry."
Another common personality deviation in quacks is dis
honesty, which may be deliberate or "may stem from a
disorder well known to psychiatrists and psychologists;
absence of moral sense. The person cannot distinguish
between truth and falsehood. He believes the truth to be
61
what he wants to believe. ..."
183
The quack tactic of accusing the medical profession
of unfairness, collusion, conspiracy, and avarice
strongly suggests that the quack suffers from an
emotional disturbance known as the persecution
complex.
Those receptive to quackery tend to be
adults in whom childish forms of magical thinking
tend to persist, along with an excessive inner sense
of their own vulnerability and a corresponding
exaggeration of the power of others to harm or to
protect them.63
Sometimes even a well-educated, well-adjusted person can
be deluded, however, if he becomes frightened or emotion
al. There is also a tendency for people who are
generally Manti-establishment" to become deluded by
quackery.^
The following quotations are excerpts from state
ments prepared by the California Department of Public
Health on the recognition of the cancer quack and the
obligation of the state to regulate cancer therapy.
Despite intensive campaigns of public education,
there is a lack of accurate information among the
public with respect to presently proven methods for
the diagnosis, treatment, and cure of cancer.
Various persons in this State have represented and
continue to represent themselves as possessing
medicines, methods, techniques, skills, or devices
for the effective diagnosis, treatment, or cure of
cancer, which representations are misleading to the
public, with the result that large numbers of the
public, relying on such representations, needlessly
die of cancer, and substantial amounts of the savings
of individuals and families relying on such represen
tations are needlessly wasted.
184
It is, therefore, in the public interest that
the public be afforded full and accurate knowledge
as to the facilities and methods for the diagnosis,
treatment, and cure of cancer available in their
State and that to that end there be provided means
for testing and investigating the value or lack there
of of alleged cancer remedies, devices, drugs, or
compounds, and informing the public of the facts
found, and protecting the public from misrepresen
tation in such matters.65
The state has an obligation to protect the lives,
health and welfare of its citizens. By permitting a
quack to prey on a single citizen, the State endorses
his preying on others.
No person has the constitutional right to offer
afflicted persons hope of relief by harmful and
ineffective modes of treatment--any more than he has
the right to offer them hope of financial reward
through fraudulent stock schemes.
Constitutional authority is confirmed by the case
of Dent v. West Virginia, 129 U.S. 114 (1889). The
U. S. Supreme Court declared that "the power of the
state to provide for the general welfare of its people
authorizes it to prescribe all such regulations as
in its judgment will secure or tend to secure them
against the consequences of ignorance and incapacity,
as well as deception and fraud." This case upheld a
system of medical licensing, and determined that NO
ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO PRESCRIBE AN UNPROVED REMEDY.
In a memorandum opinion (U.S. Dist. Ct. for No, D.
Illinois, Eastern Div. No. 65 C354, March 31, 1965),
U.S. District Judge Bernard M. Decker wrote: "it is
clear that no constitutional rights are violated by
laws which regulate the practice of medicine or the
production or use of drugs."°6
Under the California Cancer Quackery Law of 1959,
"materials found of no value (under the means provided
by the law) in diagnosing and treating cancer can be
banned; persons dispensing these materials are legally
fi7
ordered to stop." The publication continues:
185
Quacks can be identified by certain practices
and characteristics:
Quacks prey on persons when they are most vulner
able and fearful, and rob them of a chance for life-
saving treatment and longer life.
Quacks often use exceptional salesmanship and
resourcefulness to take advantage of a person s
inability to accept the present deficiencies of
medical science.
Quacks promote drugs and methods of treatment
that appear to be effective, when actually the
disease is not properly diagnosed as cancer; regular
medical treatment has been or is being given con
currently; the patient dies of his cancer after being
cited as a ’ ’ cured patient."
Quacks provide the magic in which some persons,
especially under strain, tend to believe.
Quacks falsely claim that they can't get a hear
ing from the medical profession.
Whether they are naive, dishonest, or deluded,
quacks are consistent in one respect: they disregard
the rules of evidence, which is the only scientific
basis for establishing the effectiveness and safety
of new therapy.
The economic loss to persons bilked by quack
therapies, great as it is, is small compared to the
loss of life due to the diversion from effective
care. Many millions are being spent each year by
Californians on cancer quackery. Premature loss of
life exerts an even greater financial hardship on
the cancer patient's family and his community.68
Under the California Cancer Law (Health and
Safety Code, Div. 21, Chapter 7, Sections 1700-1721) it
is provided that diagnostic procedures and proposed can
cer treatments be evaluated by a state board. A Cancer
Diagnosis and Therapy Evaluation Unit in the Department
of Health was instituted for investigative purposes which
would make recommendations to the Cancer Advisory Council,
186
composed of licensed California medical practitioners and
representatives of cancer research institues approved by
the National Cancer Institute, and members of faculty
from each of the schools offering degrees in medicine
and surgery which are approved by the State Board of
69
Medical Examiners. (The Board of Medical Examiners
regulates licensing and approval of hospitals for train
ing and internship. Approved are those hospitals which
meet the standards of the American Medical Association,
Council on Medical Education and Hospitals. The Board
also approves faculty and medical schools and a student
cannot receive credit for any work done in any but an
approved school.The advisory Council can make
recommendations to the Public Health Department concern
ing those found guilty of using useless treatments.^
In 1969 a permanent law superceded the old one
placing the burden of proof on the proponent and requir
ing that, in order for treatment to be administered,
prescribed, or otherwise distributed, the treatment must
have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration or
the California State Board of Public Health.^
When a cease and desist order is issued, an
investigation ensues using the facilities and experts of
institutes, schools, and hospitals recognized by the
187
National Cancer Institute. It is considered a mis
demeanor for a person to misrepresent willfully a
treatment as a cure or arresting agent for cancer and
73
and three violations constitute a felony.
The procedure for implementing the Cancer Law as
outlined by the Cancer Advisory Council consists of the
following steps:
1. A report is made of a possible violation of the
Cancer Law or suspected use of a remedy subject
to the Cancer Law. The report may be made to
the Cancer Advisory Council, the State Depart
ment of Public Health, the Governor, etc., by
a private practitioner, a victim, or his sur
vivors, the Better Business Bureau, or a branch
of the American Cancer Society, etc. The Cancer
Advisory Council then authorizes an investigation.
2. Undercover operatives are recruited and given
instructions for gathering evidence.
3. Evidence is obtained through operatives1 visits.
4. Evidence is assembled and indexed, submitted to
the California Attorney General.
5. When deemed adequate by the Attorney General and
with the approval of the Cancer Advisory Council,
an investigatory hearing is held. The proponent
is served with a subpoena, enumerating the samples
and information required.
6. If a proponent fails to produce samples, and denies
use of materials in question, the Department files
an accusation against him. An accusatory hearing, :
before a hearing officer, is offered. A proponent i
may respond by:
a. stipulation to a cease and desist order with
out hearing;
b. demanding a hearing before a hearing officer.
188
If a proponent does produce samples and required
information, the procedures then Include:
a. a literature search for references to the
agent in question, recording and abstracting
all pertinent references;
b. correspondence regarding the agent, and
analytic findings, or actions brought regard
ing it with the National Cancer Institute,
Federal Trade Commission, courts, agent’s
inventor if different from proponent, American
Medical Association, or any state of
California;
c. negotiation of contracts to conduct all
requisite testing, if indicated;
d. analysis of all information and data, pre
paration of a fully documented report, edited
by a member of the Cancer Advisory Council and
the Attorney General;
e. Placement of report before the Cancer Advisory
Council for discussion, approval, modifications.
The Council then recommends for or against
adoption of a prohibitory regulation;
f. referral or report, findings of fact and
recommendations to the State Department of
Public Health, which adopts or rejects them;
g. referral to the State Board of Public Health;
h. scheduling of public hearings before a com
mittee representing the State Board of Public
Health;
i. evaluation of any evidence presented in public
hearings or subsequently during a period of
grace, by committee representing the State
Board of Public Health or by an Ad Hoc com
mittee of the Cancer Advisory Council;
j. submission of committee report to the State
Board of Public Health during a regular meet
ing, where regulation is either adopted or
rejected;
k. if adopted, filing of regulation with the
California Secretary of State;
1. action taken against the proponent(s) using
this agent, under the guidance of the Attorney
General. This action implies a hearing before
a hearing officer, and may result in a cease
and desist order on the basis of prohibitory
regulation or in testimony of expert witnesses
189
in such cases as the treatment of cancer by the
ingestion of grapes or sea water neither of which
require testing; and continuing surveillance to
assure compliance with the o r d e r .74
The behavior patterns surrounding the testing pro
cedures and the ways in which they are interpreted is one
of the most contentious of the diverse mutual accusations
between the orthodox and unorthodox communities. A state
ment from the Cancer Advisory Council summarizes the
formal orthodox position.
Critics have suggested "clinical trials" by the
Department before such actions are taken. The law
and the regulations permit use of any of these agents
by competent investigators in clinical studies or
evaluations. The regulations prohibit their misuse
and use for profit.
The usual scientific procedure for proving the
value of any of these remedies is available to any
proponent of a "remedy" just as it is for others
introducing any new agent for cancer or any other
disease.
It would be impractical for the State to test,
and particularly to undertake to clinically test, all
new agents proposed for treatment of cancer (and
other diseases). Procedures now exist in medical
centers for clinical testing of all new agents pro
posed for cancer treatment that justify such
clinical testing on the basis of animal and other
studies. Furthermore, the Cancer Law provides for
clinical testing when deemed appropriate by the Can
cer Advisory Council. However, mandatory clinical
testing would expose human beings affected by cancer
to experimentation with agents whose value had not
been properly estimated on the basis of animal and
other studies--a clearly unethical procedure. . . .
. . . Prior to the initiation of clinical trials,
the effectiveness of the agent or drug is determined
against a variety of tumors in experimental animals
(e.g., mice, rats, hamsters, etc). Its effective
ness against such an animal screen must be correlated
190
with the toxicity (side effects) and/or physiological
action of the compound. Sometimes an agent or drug
is additionally tested against cancer cells being
grown in a tissue culture. In the event that the
compound shows promise of potential effectiveness
as the result of these types of laboratory studies,
the compound is then considered suitable for
clinical trials, the basic rules for which have been
evolved by the Clinical Branch for Collaborative
Research of the CCNSC. Certain standards with refer
ence to the compound, and regulations regarding the
people who will use the compound (clinical investi
gators), are established by the Federal Food and
Drug Administration; certification for compliance is
required. When these conditions are met, the
clinical investigation proceeds in three types of
sequential studies (Phase I, II, and III), with the
understanding that the investigation may be terminated
at any given time. This is to insure the welfare of
the patient. Phase I studies are concerned with
determining the toxicity, if any, of the compound
when given to cancer patients; small doses are used
initially and gradually increased until signs of
toxicity are obtained. The nature and purpose of the
study is explained to those patients who agree to
participate. Although the patients selected have
advanced or disseminated disease--no longer amenable
to conventional means of therapy (e.g., surgery and
irradiation)--it is essential that they be in other
wise fairly good health and not "terminal.”
Phase II studies are initiated in the event that
the toxic and undesirable effects of the compound
have been demonstrated not to be prohibitive. These
studies are designed to determine effectiveness of
the compound against various types of human cancer.
For those compounds with demonstrated anti-cancer
effects in patients, Phase III studies may be
initiated to compare the effectiveness of a compound
with another anti-tumor compounds or modalities of
therapy of known efficacy which may be used as stan
dards. Thus, Phase III studies are established
preferably on a double blind basis, so that neither
the investigator nor the patient knows the identity
of the compound administered in any given case until
the conclusion of the study. Whereas relatively few
patients (a minimum of 14) are required in Phase I,
many are required in Phase III studies. In the
191
instance of patients with certain types of tumors,
years may be required before an accurate evaluation
can be made--an evaluation which in some cases is
based upon survival.
Were this same procedure applied to obviously
worthless remedies, a cancer quack could continue to
dispense the agent under testing for a number of years
patients used in the test would be deprived of
approved, orthodox treatment for; the quack would be
given license to flourish; and the Cancer Law greatly
weakened in its effectiveness.
The evaluation of an anti-cancer agent requires
measurable reduction in tumor size demonstrated by pal-
patation, radiographic, or visual reduction in size,
onset of calcification or favorable alteration in
76
abnormal blood findings.
After explaining the flexibility and opportunities
for full review the Cancer Law affords to any proponent
of a treatment, the report on the actions of the Cancer
Advisory Council in 1965 states that
while medical technology has made some remarkable
advances in both diagnosis and treatment of cancer,
with few exceptions elucidated below, surgery and
radiation are the treatments most commonly accepted.
They are advocated by qualified medical men and
currently taught in schools of medicine in California
and elsewhere.??
The Department of Public Health reports that
The Department has received pledges of support from
the deans of the schools of medicine in California,
individual physicians and other scientists, State
Boards of Medical and Osteopathic Examiners and other
groups. Support of all practicing physicians and of
all agencies in the state is needed and is earnestly
solicited. This support may taken any or all of the
following forms:
192
1. When treatment of patients with unproven methods
comes to the attention of any physician, society,
bureau or other agency, the local county medical
society, local health officer, or the local branch
of the American Cancer Society should be notified
and requested to pass the information on to the
State Department of Public Health. . . . °
In 1964 the State Department of Public Health
listed as some of its past actions eight cease and desist
orders against M.D.’s, osteopaths and chiropracters and
adoption of regulations prohibiting the administration or
distribution of prescriptions of six cancer therapies
79
and diagnostic tests. By 1967 cease and desist orders
had been issued to twelve M.D.'s, eight D.C.'s, and two
D.O.'s for unorthodox treatments for cancer, including
80
Laetrile, diet, Hoxsey, Lincoln, and Koch treatments.
In 1969 the Department reported that it had made 104 in
vestigations with 36 convictions and 6 cases pending.
Two criminal convictions were appealed to the U. S.
Supreme Court which upheld the findings of the lower
81
court. The convictions included 17 M.D.'s. Louis F.
Saylor, M.D., Director of the State Department of Public
Health concludes,
In a number of investigations conducted on individuals
who were suspected of questionable practices because
of previous complaints, it was not possible to confirm
the complaints. However, 22 of these practitioners
admitted that because of the cancer law, they denied
treatment to cancer patients fearing loss of license
or jail terms. This demonstrates that the law has a
deterrent e f f e c t . 82
193
In 1972 there were 4 criminal convictions in California,
with 10 of the 15 cases investigated in 1972 awaiting
83
court or disciplinary action.
Perhaps the most difficult phenomenon to inves
tigate in a study such as this is the extent to which
fear of excommunication controls the members of the com
munity. Investigation by survey research could be un
reliable, for the admission of positive interest in an
unorthodox and illegal therapy makes one suspect. In the
author's unstructured interviews in selected cases, con
cern was often expressed by the interviewees over the
use of their names and quotations, particularly among
those who had not already been arrested. The above
statement by the Director of Public Health gives some
indications in this direction which the author was unable
to accumulate in a systematized and reportable fashion in
original research.
The California Administrative Code contains pro
hibitions against specific products investigated, stating
that these products are useless and may be harmful in
that their use delays "acceptable modern curative
methods.
In orthodox publications, the American Medical
Association and American Cancer Society have become
synonymous with the ability to determine fact from
194
fiction. In a report made by the California State Assem
bly Interim Study Committee on Public Health, great
importance is placed upon public education as a supple
ment to legal actions. The report notes that the Cancer
Advisory Council was not empowered nor given funds to
conduct public education. One reason for this was that
the American Cancer Society and the American Medical
85
Association already perform this function. For
example, it is stated in this report
in 1965, the American Cancer Society devoted special
efforts to cancer quackery.
1. Educational programs were held with all affiliated
groups of the Business and Professional Women's
Clubs in California: 357 clubs having 14,000
members.
2. Educational programs were staged for approximately
50 other California clubs and organizations.
3. Cancer Quackery, as a subject, was discussed
prominently at 30 meetings of the American Cancer
Society branches.
4. In cooperation with San Diego State College and
other health agencies, a 2-week workshop on
quackery and Medical Fraud was held, reaching 180
persons.
5. Three workshops held for about 300 teachers in the
summer devoted special attention to quackery.
These workshops were sponsored jointly by the
American Cancer Society, the California Medical
Association and other health agencies.
6. Pamphlets on cancer quackery were distributed by
branches of the Society to students, teachers,
and others, reaching about 25,000 Californians.
7. An exhibit concerning Cancer Quackery, developed
in cooperation with the State Department of Public
Health and the California Medical Association, was
mounted at the California State Fair and five
county fairs. An estimated 200,000 persons saw
the exhibit.
195
At this point it can be observed that the
associations being considered in this section have an
intense interest in controlling and dissuading the public
from using unorthodox cancer treatments. Whether it is
because of altruism, as stated by the organizations, or
because of their financial bases, as many unorthodox men
have contended, or some other combination of reasons,
the efforts at "public education" by the interested
groups are broad in scope. In any case, it is suggested
that a more difficult problem is presented for analysis
than that of a simple solution of defining differently the
functions of an organized group of citizens (the interest
group) from control by the state or party machinery so
often described in the studies of Kremlinology and com
parative politics.
The preceding depiction of the atmosphere in
which cancer quackery thrives has found expression in the
media. One example of this is a 1973 Newsweek report on
the meeting of the International Association of Cancer
Victims and Friends, a group which publishes a journal con
cerning unorthodox treatments (which the state of California
recently attempted to prevent from including particular
statements). A major topic of the meeting was the drug
Laetrile (examined below). The report stated:
196
To the recognized cancer expert, the tenth annual
meeting of the International Association of Cancer
Victims and Friends,Inc., last week offered about
as much scientific enlightenment--and much the same
ambiance--as a nineteenth century medicine show in
the style of P. T. Bamum. But to the 1,200 mostly
elderly men and women who crowded the ballroom of
the Los Angeles Marriot Hotel, the meeting was as
spellbinding as a religious revival. Many of them
cancer victims themselves, they paid $7 a head to
hear about scores of bizarre remedies--ranging from
apricot extracts (laetrile) to an electric enema—
diligently touted by their producers as miracle
treatments for this most dreaded of human diseases.
Other "bizarre" remedies were herbal extracts, the
reduction of animal protein intake, and the use of pan
creatic enzymes. Research relating to these elements will
be discussed in the sections below.
This article is accompanied by a picture of lecture
goers with raised hands with no accompanying explanation
of the context of the hand raising. It is apparently a
further development of the ignorant mass religious
revival theme.
Together with a tendency to adopt right-wing causes
and religious fundamentalism, IACVF adherents also
share the belief that "natural," and "non-toxic"
cancer treatments are being kept from the public by
a cabal of major drug companies, manufacturers of
radiotherapy equipment and state and Federal health
agencies. . . .
What bothers qualified cancer experts about the IACVF
meeting ... is the danger that victims of the disease
may be turned away from potentially curative conven
tional treatment by the extravagant claims made for
unproved remedies. "I feel sorry for people who will
delay useful treatment by going for the stuff they
197
heard about at this convention," said Carroll P.
Fronner of the American Cancer Society. They're
literally killing themselves.®'
A striking omission from the article is any refer
ence to some of the speakers at the 1973 and previous
IACVF conventions. These include M.D.'s, Ph.D.'s, and
even a recalcitrant M.D. from the National Institute of
Health who depicts the politics of testing cancer treat
ments substantially differently from the official des
criptions given by the associations considered in this
88
section.
In a 1971 segment of the NBC "First Tuesday" pro
gram, the Surgeon General of the United States proclaimed
that the Gerson therapy, Hoxsey, and Laetrile do not work.
The commentator concluded that there is no scientific
evidence indicating any effectiveness of the unorthodox
89
treatments. A popularly read medical column cited in
1973 an article which stated that Laetrile is useless.
This article was in California Medicine, the journal of
QO
the California Medical Society.
The American Cancer Society, the American Medical
Association, and state agencies appear to be mutually
supportive in their evaluation of what constitutes
present-day quackery and in their formulas for the
determination that quackery exists.
198
The American Medical Association is an advocate
of stronger state control in the area of diagnostic methods
and treatment in cancer research and practice. Diverging
from its arguments for the guarantees afforded by less
state intervention often advanced over issues involving
the costs and structure of service of orthodox treatment,
it opts for the legitimizer of state sponsored public
protection in the case of unorthodox medical practice.
It is the unorthodox medical practice briefly cited in
the above section, to which the study now turns.
Footnotes
1. The Cancer Law, 1959-1964, report to the Governor
on the activity and actions of the State of California
Department of Public Health and the Cancer Advisory Coun
cil, January, 1965, Sacramento: State of California
Department of Public Health, p. 6.
2. AMA Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry, "Cancer
and the Need for Facts," JAMA 139, p. 93.
3. Charles S. Cameron, M.D., The Truth about Cancer,
(New York: Prentice Hall, 1956, Macmillan, 196?}, p. 02.
4. Ibid., p. 133.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid., p. 134.
8. Ibid., p. 97.
199
9. Ibid., pp. 96-97.
10. Ibid., p. 139.
11. Ibid.
12. Ibid., p. 140.
13. Ibid.
14. Ibid., pp. 141-142.
15. Ibid., pp. 143-144.
16. Ibid., p. 144.
17. Ibid.
18. Cameron, pp. 146-147.
19. Ibid.
20. Ibid., pp. 153-154.
21.
Cancer
AMA Department of Investigat:
(Chicago, 111.: AMA, 1968), p.
22. David Karnofsky, "Cancer Quackery: Its Causes,
Recognition, and Prevention," American Journal of Nursing,
59 (April, 1959), p. 497. -------------------------
23. Ibid., p. 497.
24. Ibid., p. 500.
25. Ibid.
26. Alfred J. Cantor, M.D., Cancer Can Be Cured
(New York: Didier, 1966), p. 136.
27. Ibid., pp. 131-133.
28. Ibid., p. 143.
29. Ibid., pp. 135-136.
200
30. Dallas Johnson, The Facts About Cancer, Public
Affairs Pamphlet #38A HEW(Public health Services, 1957),
p. 17.
31. Ibid.
32. American Cancer Society, The Hopeful Side of
Cancer (American Cancer Society, 1964), p. 15.
33. Roald N. Grant, M.D., and Irene Bartlett, B.S.,
Unproven Cancer Remedies--A Primer (New York: American
Cancer Society, 1966 and l9/I).
34. American Cancer Society, Answers to 101 Questions
About Cancer (New York: American Cancer Society, 1964).
35. Grant and Bartlett, p. 3.
36. Ibid., p. 3.
37. Ibid., p. 6.
38. Ibid., p. 13.
39. Ibid., pp. 17-18.
40. Ibid., p. 15.
41. AMA Department of Investigation, Facts on Quacks:
What You Should Know About Health Quackery (.Chicago:
MErTW7Tr^7~3T7“^ ------------------------
42. Ibid., p. 3.
43. Ibid., pp. 1-3.
44. Ibid., pp. 2-3.
45. Ibid., p. 8.
46. Ibid., p. 9.
47. Ibid.
•
00
Ibid., pp. 10-11.
201
49. Food and Drug Administration, Your Money or
Your Life: An FDA Catalog of Fakes and Swindles In the
health Field (U.S. Dept, of HEW, FDA Publications no. 19-A),
p. B-
50. Ibid., p. 27.
51. Hugh J. Creech, Secretary-Treasurer, American
Assoc, for Cancer Research, Inc., Philadelphia, Pa.,
letter to author, June 7, 1974. Louis V. Smith, Program
Associate, Professional Education, American Cancer
Society, Inc., New York, letter to author June 20, 1973.
Oliver Field, Director of Research, Department of
Investigation, American Medical Association, Chicago,
111., letter to author June 13, 1973.
52. Food and Drug Administration, Summary Report on
FDA*s Campaign Agains t Nutri tional Quackery, received
from American Cancer Society as the American Cancer
Society’s position June 20, 1973, pp. 11-12.
53. Ibid., p. 2.
54. Ibid., p. 4.
55. The Cancer Law, 1959-1964, p. 14.
56. Ibid., p. 15.
57. Ibid., p. 1.
58. American Cancer Society, California* s Cancer
Quackery Law, American Cancer Society, California Division
(Sacramento: State Department of Public Health), p. 1.
59. The Cancer Law, 1959-1964, p. 1.
60. Ibid., p. 14.
61. Ibid., p. 16.
62. Ibid.
63. Ibid., pp. 19-20.
64. Ibid.
202
65. Laws and Regulations Relating to the Diagnosis
and Treatment of Cancer, excerpts trom the California
Business and Professional Code, Ca. Health and Safety
Code, Ca. Administrative Code (Berkeley: State of Ca.
Department of Public Health, 1971), pp. 4-5.
66. California Department of Public Health, Cali
fornia's Cancer Law (Berkeley, State Department of Public
Health, 1966,), pp. 14-15.
67. Ibid., p. 2.
68. Ibid., pp. 8-9.
69. Senate Bill No. 194, act to add Section 2378.5
to the California Business and Professions Code and
Chapter 7, Division 2, to the Health and Safety Code,
relating to the creation of a Cancer Advisory Council and
the regulation and control of the diagnosing, treatment,
and cure of cancer.
70. California Administrative Code, Title 16, Pro
fessional and Vocational Regulations, Board of Medical
Examiners. Office of Administrative Procedure, Department
of General Services, Documents Section, Sacramento, Ca.
Register 72, no. 39-9-23-72, 1330, 1336, Register 67,
no. 26-7-1-67, 1343, Register 73, no. 112-3-24-73, 1359,
Register 65, no. 21-11-13-65, 1366, pp. 125-131.
71. Senate Bill No. 194.
72. L. F. Saylor, "California's Cancer Quackery Law,"
California Medicine 112 (1970).
73. Cancer Advisory Council and staff, Cancer
Quackery and the Cancer Law (Berkeley, Ca.: Department of
Public Health, 1966,), p. 5T7
74. Ibid., pp. 52-53.
75. Cancer Advisory Council, Cancer Quackery and the
Cancer Law (Berkeley, Ca.: Department of Public Health,
19/2;, pp. viii-ix, 44-45.
76. The Cancer Law, 1959-1964, p. 27.
77. Ibid., p. 26.
203
78. Malcolm Merrill, "Control of Cancer Quackery,"
California Medicine 101 (September, 1964), pp. 223-224.
79. Ibid., p. 223.
80. Cancer Advisory Council and Staff, Cancer
Quackery and the Cancer Law (1972), pp. 111-113.
81. Saylor, pp. 94-95.
82. Ibid., p. 95.
83. "Cancer Quack Drive Pushed," Los Angeles Times,
March 29, 1973, Part 1, p. 28.
84. For example, California Administrative Code,
Chap. 5, Subchapter 2, Article 2, Sec. 10400.1, "Beta-
Cyanogenetic Glucosides (Laetriles), Agent for Treatment
of Cancer."
85. Interim Study Committee on Public Health, State
of California, Cancer Quackery and the Cancer Law, Cancer
Advisory Council^ Department of Public Health (Berkeley,
1964).
86. "The Cancer Underground," Newsweek, September 17,
1973, p. 57.
87. Ibid., p. 57.
88. See list of speakers for conventions in Cancer
News Journal, Vol. 5 (May, August, 1970), and Cancer
News Journal, Vol. 7 (May-June, 1972), and Program, 10th
Annual Cancer Convention, Los Angeles, California, 1973.
89. "First Tuesday," March 2, 1971.
90. Ban Zinser, "Medicine and You," Southland Sunday,
Long Beach Press Telegram, July 29, 1973, p. 34.
CHAPTER VII
UNORTHODOX CANCER TREATMENTS
Introduction
Several common themes will be observed in the
writers advocating the use of unorthodox cancer therapies.
One is their tendency to believe that surgery and
radiation and highly toxic chemotherapies such as
nitrogen mustard or fluouracil have not been successful
in cancer prevention and control. They believe that
these therapies merely attack the symptoms of a far ad
vanced case where there has been a gradual breakdown of
the defense mechanisms of the body. They believe that
concentrating on the symptom, the tumor or cancer cells,
is doing nothing to prevent the inevitable result, and
that in many cases the treatments themselves add to the
204
205
problem by multiplying the levels of toxicity (chemi-
therapies which are highly toxic), by further wearing
down the natural defense mechanisms with radiation and
sometimes surgery.
Unorthodox researchers and practitioners also
point out that surgery and radiation and approved chemo
therapies are not "proven" at all as labelled by orthodox
medicine, but that there is a political and economic basis
for supporting the adoption and perpetuation of these
therapies. They contend that a person who promotes
skepticism of the orthodox theories finds himself ostra
cized from the medical community, labelled "quack," and
sometimes arrested or otherwise harassed, regardless of
his qualifications.
These generalizations will be examined in more
detail below. Although several suppressed treatments
will be covered, many of them have been developed and
used by people whose theories roughly converge. Many
stress a preventive approach. While claiming merit for
their own treatments, many think that treatment after the
fact is not the role of medicine, as it has become in the
lucrative enterprise of medical care in the United States.
Many think that large sums of money for cancer research
will not solve the cancer problem, for thousands of car-
206
cinogenic substances continue to be introduced into the
environment.
Laetrile
One of the central contemporary controversies
which was in existence when the California Cancer Ad
visory Council was born concerns the drug Laetrile. Many
unorthodox practitioners use the drug which they believe
is non-toxic, to reduce tumors while pursuing other
therapies to rebuild defense mechanisms. The orthodox
arguments against it are, rarely, that it is toxic, but
usually that it is useless.
The developers of Laetrile continued the studies
of Dr. John Beard, who in the early 1900's advanced the
trophoblastic thesis of cancer. ^ The basis of the
theory for the use of the drug Laetrile, or vitamin B17,
is that the chemicals produce a reaction with an enzyme
present in excess in malignant tissue and "as a result
of the reaction nascent hydrogen cyanide is liberated
producing a selective cytotoxic effect on the cancer.
Advocates of the substance claim that it also relieves
pain in the terminal patient, making it possible to
eliminate sedation, thus enabling the patient to lead a
more normal life and eliminating the dangers of hard
207
drugs. According to orthodox claimants, this claim has
3
not been verified.
Laetrile was first experimented with in 1920 in
4
the treatment of cancer by Ernest T. Krebs, Jr., M.D.
It was later manufactured by the John Beard Memorial
Foundation which was privately owned by the Krebs
family.'* The promoters of Laetrile have been attempting
to get the Food and Drug Administration to permit clinical
testing for over thirty years. The FDA policy has been
that there is "no acceptable evidence of therapeutic
effect to justify clinical trials."**
In November of 1961 E. T. Krebs, Jr., and the John
Beard Memorial Foundation were indicted for shipping in
interstate commerce Pangamic Acid or vitamin B15, a com
ponent of Laetrile, suggested for use in various degenera
tive diseases. A fine was fixed at $3,755 and Krebs
was placed on probation for three years.^ There has
been a considerable amount of testing and use of the pro
duct in the Soviet Union with the publication of favorable
results.®
In 1961, proponents of Laetrile agreed to a per
manent injunction against further distribution of the
9
drug.
The Cancer Commission of the California Medical
208
Association was battling Laetrile before the Cancer Ad-
visoty Council came into existence. Its summary of the
evidence indicated that "Laetrile is in no way capable of
. . . nl0
arresting or curing cancer.
In its investigations of 1952, the Cancer Com
mission of the California Medical Association lists as
the basis for its determination that Laetrile is worth
less three studies. These are: a study "at one medical
center in southern California (by an experienced experi
mentalist and pathologist in cancer)," a study by
Dr. C. Griffin of the Stanford University Department of
Chemistry, and a study by Dr. John B. Field, M.D., at
U.S.C. Also indicated in its report were autopsy
reports, advice from the AMA and National Cancer In
stitute, as well as a study of a group appointed from the
Los Angeles County Hospital Committee on Chemotherapeutic
agents. The Krebs Foundation requested that a physician
who was not a member of the attending staff at the hos
pital head the investigating team. The Commission notes
that
The medical director of the hospital properly replied
that such a demand could not be complied with and
emphasized that the fact that such an investigation
should be carried out by completely unbiased
workers.H
In their review of patients who had undergone
209
biopsies confirming cancer, had been treated by proponents
of Laetrile, and who had claimed improvement, had become
ambulatory, or who had tumor regression, it was explained
by the orthodox community that this was either the
placebo effect, that there had been spontaneous remission,
or that it was the result of previous orthodox
12
therapies. The proponents of Laetrile have argued
that the report on studies performed by orthodox men in
the medical journals have not said how long the patients
were treated, do not mention the condition of the patients
at the time Laetrile treatment was begun. They suggest
that the dosage administered was probably far below that
13
required to produce any effect. They also claim that
it was the intent of the Cancer Commission to discredit
Laetrile, not to investigate it.^
In 1961 the Cancer Advisory Council reviewed the
1952-1953 study and former Commission members were asked
to state their opinions as to the current validity of the
study. They reaffirmed the findings of the earlier
study.^
After the establishment of the Cancer Advisory
Council in 1959, it also investigated Laetrile, conclud
ing that there was insufficient evidence in the cases
presented by its proponents, and crediting any favorable
210
results to belated effects of conventional therapy or
16
other reasons stated by the California Medical Society.
Laetrile, it concluded is
of no value in the diagnosis, treatment, alleviation,
or cure of cancer. [It] recommended to the Director
of the State Department of Public Health that the
appropriate action be taken to prohibit their pres
cription, administration, sale, or other
distribution.17
A 1963 Cancer Advisory Council review of records
of patients treated with Laetrile, submitted by pro
ponents, contained comments about all of•the cases.
These comments were usually in the form of phrases such
as "insufficient evidence," "not enough elapsed time to
permit evaluation of Laetrile effect," "evidence totally
inadequate," "no evaluation possible," "patient had al
ready undergone X-ray therapy or surgery," "diagnosis is
in question," "no clear evidence that Laetrile was the
cause of decrease in tumor size," "did not prove that life
18
had been extended." This report was accepted by the
19
Department of Public Health. The results of the
claimed remissions were summarized in the report as being
due only to subjective improvement, spontaneous regression,
delayed effects of orthodox therapy, or inadequate
20
original diagnosis.
In short the clinical observations offered on the
course of patients treated with Laetrile were fre-
211
quently distorted by a lack of appreciation of the
natural history of cancer on the part of the physician
using the agent.21
The 1963 amendments to the Federal Food and Drug
Laws went into effect prohibiting unproven drugs from
being manufactured or distributed in the United States.
Statements from unorthodox researchers and some deviant
bureaucrats in the agencies cited in the chapters to
follow will suggest that the decision of what is "proven”
rests not on the scientific method but upon political
influence.
In 1963 E. T. Krebs, Jr., filed a new drug
application with the Food and Drug Administration for
Laetrile. The application was denied by the FDA because
"the data submitted were inconclusive and insufficient to
22
demonstrate either efficacy or safety."
The American Cancer Society stated in 1963 that it
had found "no acceptable evidence that treatment with
Laetrile results in any objective benefit in the treatment
23
of cancer." An AMA pamphlet notes that "Leading
scientific and government sources have pronounced the
treatment to be worthless and Laetrile is now contraband
in interstate commerce."^
When the FDA gave the release for clinical testing
212
in April of 1970 and then revoked it, its proponents
suspected it did so at the behest of organized medicine.
The FDA claims it was because of the deficiency of the
25
materials submitted. After the release, the FDA
wrote the Foundation asking for additional information in
a letter dated April 28. The Foundation claims that it
received the communication on May 6. The communication
gave the Foundation ten days to reply after receipt. The
Foundation mailed the requested material on May 12 and the
FDA notified the Foundation that the privilege to test had
9 f i
been revoked because of the lack of response. Pre
viously, when the FDA had issued an IND number for a new
drug study as it did to the McNaughton Foundation, the
researcher was automatically free to begin work. Since
the Laetrile controversy, a new regulation has been issued
authorizing the FDA to revoke the number within thirty
days.27
In 1971, a panel of experts convened by the FDA
found "no acceptable evidence of therapeutic effect to
O f t
justify clinical trials of the drug.1'
L. H. Fountain, Chairman, Intergovernmental
Relations Subcommittee, in a speech inserted in the Con
gressional Record, noted the long delay in action on the
application of the McNaughton Foundation for the clinical
213
testing of Laetrile.
An immediate and objective evaluation of the recent
clinical experience with Laetrile, particularly in
Mexico and Germany, is imperative in my judgment
both to give the American people the facts about
this drug and to strengthen public confidence in our
government. Unfortunately the Food and Drug
Administration's handling of this matter as my
letter to Secretary Richardson indicates, has created
the impression in some quarters that our government
is party to a conspiracy to suppress an effective and
inexpensive anti-cancer drug.29
There have been several criminal prosecutions in
California of doctors promoting Laetrile, prescribing, or
distributing it, as well as of lay people promoting it or
transporting cancer patients across the Mexican border
for treatment.^
In an interview with Maurice Kowan, a Los Angeles
M.D., who was arrested twice for treating patients with
Laetrile, he indicated that he had opened the way for his
arrest by taking his clinical case reports on patients to
whom he had administered Laetrile and other unorthodox
treatments before the County Tumor Board for review
because he believed them to be "men of science with open
minds." He is now suspended from treating cancer
*-• 4- 31
patients.
A lay group, the International Association of Can
cer Victims and Friends operates an information center and
has various members who house and transport cancer
214
patients who do not wish to reside in Mexico during their
treatments with Laetrile. As mentioned above some of the
members have been charged with thus promoting the use of
Laetrile. A restraining order was issued by the
California Attorney General to prevent the group from
publishing statements in their journal because of their
alleged promotion of and false representation of Laetrile,
although the journal stated that it does not endorse any
treatment, but merely publishes information about
unorthodox treatments. The defense claimed that the
journal only urged trial of the drug which does not
violate the state code. The court refused to issue the
32
order.
Some arrests or harassment of persons showing films
about Laetrile have been reported in the National Health
Federation Bulletin. For example, George Parsons had
lectured on the subject of unorthodox cancer treatments
in Texas, and after an appearance on a television program
in Arizona he was issued a subpoena requiring him to pro
duce records including a filmstrip which he had used in
33
Texas. Another example concerned Mr. Bruce Butts,
president of a health association in Camp Hill, Penn
sylvania, who showed an IACVF produced film, "Laetrile:
Nature's Answer to Cancer," at a public meeting in 1970
/
215
and was arrested and had criminal charges brought against
him by the Pennsylvania State Department of Public
Health at the urging of the FDA. In 1972 the state
3 ^
dropped the charges.
In 1973 a California Superior Court sentenced
Harvey Howard to prison from one to ten years for selling
35
Laetrile.
Cancer patients have encountered harassment and
seizure of their prescribed Laetrile by customs agents
and have been disallowed from receiving shipments of it
36
prescribed for them in Germany.
Dr. Dean Burk, as head of the cytochemistry
section of the National Institute of Health was on
several occasions a speaker for the International Associ
ation of Cancer Victims and Friends and is considered
to be a deviant in his organization because of his
crusades advocating the testing of Laetrile and be
cause of his denunciation of the politics of drug and
food additive testing. He has stated that the FDA has
been unfair in its handling of the Laetrile testing
application and that it approves many drugs with the
same documentation that Laetrile supporters provided.
Dr. Carl G. Baker, director of the National Cancer Insti
tute, stated that, "Dr. Burk's views and recommendations
do not reflect the position of the Institute at this
216
point; as previously, the Institute does not feel that
there is a scientific, ethical, or legal basis for re-
37
commending the clinical use of Laetrile. . . ."
Burk has done some laboratory studies with Laetrile and
has written that "Laetrile is remarkably non-toxic
pharmaecologically compared to virtually all cancer
chemotherapeutic agents currently studied and employed
clinically with the approval of the Food and Drug Admini-
38
stration." He has made reference to twenty nations
where Laetrile is being used in order to refute the
charge by Robert Q. Marston, Director of the National
Institute of Health, that Laetrile is a product of
quackery which developed entirely outside scientific
39
norms used by the medical community. He has written
to Marston that
One could be more concerned about undue, uninformed,
high-prejudiced forces working to prevent an adequate,
lawful, medical trial of (Laetrile;, and I am con
cerned that your memo pays so little attention to
this aspect, which has a long historical background.
Among others who have opposed the policies of
organized medicine, the American Cancer Society, and the
FDA toward Laetrile, Burk often refers to research in
other nations conducted by men who are considered res
pectable. One is Dr. Hans Nieper, who spoke at the 1970
convention of the International Association of Cancer
217
Victims and Friends. He has worked for the German Re
search Council in the area of degenerative disease and he
has done some clinical testing of Laetrile from which he
has concluded that it is effective in treating cancer.
He has observed,
At first all we know was that patients responded to
the treatment. But it was important to learn why,
and in order to do that we had to learn the mechanisms
of the product's action after it entered the body.
After it reaches the liver it is broken down and then
the active principles of the components are generated;
cyanide, benzaldehyde, thiecyanate. These are the
substances which are aggressive against malignancy.
It is very important to consider, too, that for
the first time in cancer therapy research, this
substance is normal to food and fodder . . . it is
found in 1,200 kinds of food. But the food civilized
man eats does not contain laetrile in sufficient
quantity to make it effective against disease. And
cancer patients, due to evolutionary changes, are not
sufficiently adapted to respond to the breakdown of
the substance--and this capacity has to be--and is--
revived after a short period of time.4-1
Another M.D.sometimes mentioned is Manuel D.
Navarro, who presented reports as early as 1953 before the
Santo Tomas Medical Association and prepared reports in
medical journals concerning his observation of the
effects of Laetrile from clinical experience and in post
mortem examination. He has labeled it an "ideal cancer
drug."
Laetrile therapy seen at post-mortem is not the massive
tissue necrosis sometimes seen in heroic dosages of
2X8
radiation; rather Laetrile leaves a histological pic
ture showing the necrotic involution of specific cells
in a lesion while the functioning or somatic paren-
chynal elements together with their vascularization
and connective tissue investiture remains unimpaired
and capable of regenerative proliferation.^1 *
In another speech read before the International Union
Against Cancer Symposium on Cancer Chemotherapy for the
Pacific Area in 1957, he discusses case histories, proofs
of chemical reactions, etc. ^ He has suggested that
"in early cases of cancer Laetrile may truly be curative
but certainly palliative in far advanced cases.
The drug is legal also in Mexico. An American
Medical Association Department of Investigation pamphlet
states that
In recent years . . . American cancer sufferers have
been attracted across the border into Mexico to be
treated with Laetrile, the Hoxsey method, and other
substances that are contraband in the United States.
A number of "clinics" in Tijuana and other Mexican
border cities offer such discredited "remedies."
Patients who patronize them may be forgoing the ,-
recognized treatments that could save their lives.
The doctor in charge of the major Laetrile dis
pensing clinic in Tijuana, the Hospital del Mar, is
Dr. Ernesto Contreras, former chief pathologist at the
Army General Hospital in Mexico City. The Mexican govern
ment has authorized him to import Laetrile and to use it
clinically and to report his results periodically.^
During an interview with Dr. Contreras in 1972, he ex-
219
pressed the belief that a safe estimate of remission rates
among his patients would be about 30 per cent. This, of
course, is generalized and not broken down into various
stages of progress of the disease at the time of
consultation, etc.^
California's Director of the State Department of
Public Health in 1970 noted that
A Tiajuana clinic was placed under surveillance for
several weeks and it was found that an average of
55 persons per day were seen arriving and entering
the clinic, almost all arriving in cars with
California licenses.^
There has been a slight mellowing in the attacks
made on Laetrile by the orthodox community. The newer
less hostile reports from the orthodox community do not,
however, include the condemnation of surgery, radiation,
and approved chemotherapies but are limited to the
possibility of combining Laetrile treatment with orthodox
therapies.
Dr. Kanamatsu Sugiura of Sloan-Kettering Institute
for Cancer Research recently prepared a report for that
institute which is considered to be the "first positive
results of animal experiments conducted by scientists not
a 9
regarded as Laetrile supporters." They cautioned that
the animal studies were not necessarily relevant
indicators for human treatment.^
It may be that Laetrile itself is not so much of a
2.20
threat as the accompanying ideas which are often promoted
by people who advocate testing of Laetrile. These ideas
concern the preventative approach to degenerative disease,
the alleged contributions of orthodox therapies them
selves to promotion of degenerative disease, and
allegations concerning the economics of orthodox medicine.
All of these ideas will be examined below.
Footnotes
1. Howard H. Beard, Ph.D., A New Approach to the Con
quest of Cancer, Rheumatic, and Heart Disease iWew York;
Pageant Pr., l9±2).
2. Cancer Advisory Council, The Cancer Law, 1959-1964,
pp. 32-33.
3. "The Treatment of Cancer with Laetrile: a Report
to the Cancer Commission of the California Medical
Association, California Medicine 78 (April, 1953).
4. Laetrile, American Cancer Society, 1963, 1971.
5. "Unproven Methods of Cancer Management: Laetrile,"
CA (July-August, 1972), p. 246.
6. HEW News, U. S. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare, Public Health Service, Food and Drug
Administration (Rockville, Md., September 1, 1971), p.l.
7. AMA Department of Investigation, Data Sheet on
Laetrile (Chicago: AMA Press, 1967).
8. Ya. Yu. Shpirt, "Vitamin B15 Pangamic Acid
Indicators for Use and Efficacy in Internal Disease
(Moscow: V. 0. Medexport, 1968), reprinted by the
McNaughton Foundation, Montreal, Canada.
221
9. AMA, Health Quackery: Cancer, p. 7 and FDA Report
on Enforcement and Compliance C September, 1965), pp. 5-6.
10. The Cancer Advisory Council, The Cancer Law, 1959-
1964, p. 34.
11. Ibid., p. 35.
12. "The Treatment of Cancer with Laetrile . .
pp. 321-325.
13. Ibid., p. 323.
14. Glenn D. Kittler, Laetrile: Control for Cancer,
Coronet, 1963, p. 251.
15. "The Treatment of Cancer with Laetriles . . .,"
p. 325.
16. Cancer Advisory Commission, The Cancer Law, 1959-
1964, p. 36.
17. Ibid., pp. 36-39.
18. Ibid.
19. Cancer Advisory Council, "Supplementary Report by
the Cancer Advisory Council on the Treatment of Cancer with
Beta-Cyanogenetic Glucosides ("Laetriles"), Department of
Public Health, Berkeley, 1965, pp. 2-16.
20. Cancer Advisory Council, Treatment of Cancer with
Beta-Cyanogenetic Glucosides ("Laetriles") (Berkeley:
department of Public health, 1963), p. TT
21. Ibid., pp. 10-11.
22. Ibid., p. 12.
23. AMA, Data Sheet on Laetrile, p. 2.
24. Ibid., p. 1.
25. Ibid.,
26. "Cancer Drug," Science News 98:55-56 (July 25, 1970)
p. 55.
222
27. Ibid., p. 56.
28. Independent Press Telegram, October 28, 1973,
p. A-4 and "Unproven Methods of Cancer Management," CA
(July-August, 1972), p. 249.
29. L. H. Fountain, "HEW Should Ascertain if Laetrile
is Effective for Treatment of Cancer," Congressional
Record March 25, 1971, and "Representative Fountain Urges
Review of Laetrile Cases," National Health Federation
Bulletin 28 (January, 1971)"^ pi 7 ~ .
30. Michael T. Bogumill, Supervising Food and Drug
Specialist, Health Fraud Component, California Department
of Public Health, letter to the author, January 30, 1974.
31. Maurice Kowan, M.D., interview Los Angeles, Ca.,
June 13, 1972.
32. State of California v International Association of
Cancer Victims and Friends, National Health Federation
. . . Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Los Angeles,
Ca., May 3, 1971.
33. National Health Federation Bulletin XX (January,
1974), and NPH Bulletin, xvii'i (September, 1972), Charles
Orlando Pratt, "Victory in the Bruce Butts Case, pp. 1-2.
34. Ibid.
35. Los Angeles Times, August 11, 1973, Part 1, p. 19.
36. Interviews with patients in Hospital Del Mar,
Tiajuana Mexico, February 14, 1972, and Newsletter, Inter
national Association of Cancer Victims and Friends,
January 5, 1973.
37. "Cancer Drug," pp. 54-56.
38. Don C. Matchon, "High Politics Blamed for Refusal
to Test Anti-Cancer Agent," from letter by Dean Burk to
HEW Assistant Secretary, Alameda Times Star, July 14,
1970, p. 14; also statements to this effect are contained
in Burk's letter to Elliot Richardson, Secretary, HEW,
March 23, 1971.
39. Ibid.
223
40. Ibid., p. 15.
41. Cancer News Journal V (May-August, 1970), p. 7,
and Cancer News Journal Vi (November-December, 1971), p. 7.
42. Manual D. Navarro, M.D., speech before the Santo
Tomas Medical Association, Manila, Philippines, October 22,
1953, reprinted from the University of Santo Tomas Journal
of Medicine, IX (November, 1954) in Glenn D. Kittler,
p. 158.
43. Manuel D. Navarro, "Five Years Experience with
Laetrile Therapy in Advanced Cancer," in Kittler, pp. 161
and 167.
44. Ibid., p. 176.
45. AMA Health Quackery: Cancer, pp. 7 and 8.
46. William Drummond, "Cancer Victims Cross Border to
be Treated at Tiajuana Clinics," Los Angeles Times,
December 11, 1967.
47. Ernesto Contreras, M.D., interview Tiajuana,
Mexico, February 14, 1972.
48. Louis F. Saylor, M.D., "California's Cancer
Quackery Law," California Medicine 112 (January, 1970),
p. 95.
49. Harry Nelson, "Report Makes New Claims for Banned
Cancer Drug, Laetrile," Los Angeles Times, October 27,
1973, Part II, pp. 1 and 10.
50. Ibid.
CHAPTER VIII
THEORIES OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CAUSES OF
CANCER AND SUPPRESSION OF RESEARCH
Many of the unorthodox men who have advocated
the use of Laetrile have also advocated stringent con
trols on the environment of the cancer patient and have
suggested that such controls could prevent cancer. Max
Gerson, M.D., who received his degree in Germany and was
licensed to practice medicine in New York in 1938, had
advocated this approach for some time and used it on
terminal patients in his New York clinic. He wrote that
physicians were trained to find and treat symptoms rather
than to deal with the deterioration of the metabolism
which is indicated by the symptoms.^ When investigating
the causes and remedies for systemic disease, he believed
that the total environment of man should be taken into
consideration. That medical curricula have omitted en
vironmental considerations and the chemistry of nutrients
in developing the natural defense mechanisms, he believed
225
was one of the explanations for resistance to theories
which were based on such phenomena.
Among other pamphlets which the AMA has published,
9
one is entitled "Merchants of Menace" in which there is
a denunciation of ideas in which depleted soil and
nutritional deterioration are represented as having
something to do with increasing disease rates. It notes
that the American food supply is "rich in nutritional
value" and that one should be on the lookout as are the
FDA, the U. S. Post Office, the Better Business Bureau,
and the American Medical Association, for people who con
tend to the contrary. However, a 1972 survey of medical
school curriculum indicates that
the teaching of nutrition has not generally been
integrated into the curriculum of the medical student.
Where medical students' awareness of nutrition has
become evident, it often has stemmed from factors or
influences outside of the shools--from lay programs
or students' concerns for community responsibility,
especially those involving the economically under
privileged. 3
What Gerson and other researchers cited in
this section are suggesting, however, is that the
nutritional, as well as occupational and other exposures
to environmental carcinogens has been the cause
of the increasing rates of degenerative disease among the
general population. Gerson drew from the theories of
Dr. Otto Warburg, former Director of the Max Planck In-
226
stitute for Cell Physiology in Berlin, who advanced the
idea that active groups of respiratory enzymes were
necessary to the diet to increase the respiration of
metastases and inhibit their fermentation. ^ Gerson sug
gested that medical sciences had eliminated the
totality of the natural biological rules in the human
body, mostly by dividing research and practice into many
specialities. Those engaging in intensive specialized
work forget or become ignorant of bodily relationships
and of man's relationship with his environment.
In all textbooks, we find that the single biological
processes have been studied and overestimated state
ments made about them. The symptoms of a disease
have become the main problem for research, clinical
work, and therapy.5
He contended that
the ideal task of cancer therapy is to restore the
function of the oxidizing systems in the entire
organism. This, of course, is difficult to accom
plish. It involves the following: (1) detoxification
of the whole body (2) providing the essential mineral
contents of the potassium group (3) adding oxidizing
enzymes continuously as long as they are not
reactivated and built in the body. . . . This will
create a near normal condition of the oxidizing system
in the body, to which malignant cells with the fermen
tation system cannot adapt.6
He thought that our highly processed foods which
lack enzymes, vitamins, and which contain carcinogenic
substances in the form of additives, preservatives, stil-
bestrol, pesticide residues, etc., to which the population
227
is exposed daily, provided the conditions for a pre-
morbid disposition, for a "general deterioration of the
O
essential organs, particularly the liver, ensues."
It is a slowly progressive internal adaptation which
the body performs, as each daily poisonous irritation
level is most probably too low to cause a defensive
reaction until a tumor can grow while the body is q
undefended and the poisons continue to accumulate.
His therapy concentrated on restoring defense mechanisms,
working under the concept of totality in the suggested
causes of disease; emotional, nutritional, poisons, in
fections, accidents, and inheritance.1^ He insisted that
the soil and other aspects of man’s environment must be
viewed as the "external metabolism which produces the
basic substances for our internal metabolism," and he
reviewed the work of scientists in the early 1900's who
also accepted this theory. 11 He discussed the danger in
the genetic effects of cumulative doses of radiation and
in its indiscriminate use by orthodox medicine and the
wide use of it to treat cancer. (Further discussion of
orthodox medicine as a contributor to the increase in
degenerative disease will appear in sections below. )
Gerson continued, "my own experiences show that the
majority of patients who had 40-80 deep X-ray treatments,
and in addition 16-40 cobalt treatments could not recover
at all."12
228
It seems to me advisable not to attack the cancer
directly with X-rays, radium, or cobalt and damage
at the same time other parts of the body and its
healing power. The more the whole body is detoxified,
replenished, and activated, the more the cancer is
doomed. - * - 3
His book, A Cancer Therapy, consists of references
to studies supporting his thesis, a discussion of the
exact nature of the therapy and of his experiences in ad
ministering it, and of fifty case histories, including
information about previous diagnosis, treatments, X-rays
14
of tumor formation, etc.
An article in a 1946 issue of the Journal of the
American Medical Association stated that Gerson refused to
give the details of his treatment, although it went on to
ridicule some details of the treatment. It contained a
comment that it was fortunate that the Congressional hear
ings where some of Gerson's patients testified, did not
receive much press coverage. It also condemns the
Robinson Research Foundation which donated money to
Gerson, as a foundation established for tax write-off
purposes which then supported a disreputable cancer
therapy.^ (The unorthodox view of foundations support
ing orthodox research will be explained below.)
A report of the AMA Council on Pharmacy and
Chemistry discusses cancer treatments such as Gerson's,
229
which stress the role of nutrition.
Although reference to the influence of the diet is
frequently included by promoters of cancer nostrums
as a part of some unproved theory of the disease,
perhaps the most notorious adherents to the false
notion that the diet has any specific influence on
the origin or progress of cancer are the food
faddists. . . .
The distributor (of a book on dietary treatment
of cancer) has been cited in a cease and desist order
issued by the Federal Trade Commission that the mis
representations contained in the book be discon
tinued. 16
Dr. Gerson was suspended from his local branch of
the AMA.^
S. J. Haught, a journalist, notes that in an
interview with Gerson, he was shown letters of rejection
for publication of articles about his cancer therapy from
18
medical journals. His study is concerned with such
things as the question of why the New York Academy of
Medicine refused to release publicly the results of its
study of Gerson's records of terminal patients who had
been told they had a few weeks or days to live by
orthodox doctors, and who were alive years afterward,
19
after having sought Gerson s help.
W. C. Heuper, M.D., of the National Cancer Insti
tute, has made himself rather unpopular because of the sub
jects of his investigations and his refusal to change re
ports, etc. He has written about the lax standards and
230
testing of carcinogenic substances which are allowed to
20
be added to the food supply. He has compiled extensive
lists of carcinogenic substances with which the population
comes into contact daily. He includes in this list
several substances to which medical personnel and patients
21
are exposed in the process of medical treatment. He
continues:
Another group of man-made carcinogens, however,
of recent date, is constituted of a rapidly increas
ing number and variety of chemical and physical agents
which are the products of the modern industrial
development. These agents are by far the largest
number of environmental carcinogens of the so-far-
known environmental spectrum. These new industry-
related carcinogens are, in part, highly potent
agents. They are encountered in a considerable
number of occupational activities, are ingredients
or contaminants of consumer goods (foodstuffs,
cosmetics, household goods, sanitary goods, medicines,
etc.) and are pollutants of the general air, water,
and soil (industrial wastes, residues of pesticides,
radioactive fallout). Human exposure to these
recognized environmental carcinogens occurs thus from
various sources and at numerous opportunities. All
of these contacts to specific carcinogenic load to
which persons and population groups become subjected
to different degrees and for various reasons. . . .22
In 1959 he noted:
. . . It is perhaps symptomatic of the official
attitude toward cancer hazards for the general consumer
of foodstuffs dyed with the just mentioned fat dyes,
yellow AB and OB, that they are now in the process of
being decertified for so-called toxic reasons but not
for the actual and most important carcinogenic reasons.
Through this manipulation the unpleasant and formerly
loudly denied fact can be covered up, that the general
population was fed cancer producing food additives
231
declared formerly as non-carcinogenic and harmless,
in a statement made to the Moss Committee by the
Assistant Secretary of HEW, Mr. Richardson, as an
excuse for suppressing the publication of a scientific
paper on this subject. This is not singular personal
experience in my association with the Public Health
Service. 23
Heuper has also been concerned with the increase
in cancer rates and their relationship to extensive worker
exposure to carcinogenic agents. He has also written
of the difficulties encountered by a researcher in this
area because of the desire of various private industries
ry /
to suppress the research. For example, his field in
vestigation of cancer incidence among several industrial
worker groups was stopped upon the request of the
25
chromate industry. He describes the incident:
My active direction of epidemologic studies on
occupational cancer hazards and cancers in American
industries was forcefully and abruptly brought to a
halt in 1952 by an order of the Surgeon General
following a protest to the Public Health Service by
D. A. Lanza, medical advisor to the chromate-
producing industry, on behalf of his clients. In
this protest, prompted by the industry as an action
of "self defense," it was alleged that my activities
were detrimental to their interests. As the result
of this intervention by a medical consultant of
private industry, I was forbidden to contact there
after State Health Departments and industrial con
cerns on all matters of occupational cancer, to dis
continue all field work on this subject and to
restrict my activities entirely to experimental
research on environmental cancer hazards in the
laboratory. This q^der has not been revoked and thus
is still in force.
232
Later, a censorship decree was issued for any research
paper on cancer incidence data among industrial workers
27
which had Hueper's name on it.
He describes occasions when he was ordered to
change his technical reports and the contents of speeches
he was to make concerning worker exposure to industrial
carcinogens. He was ordered even to delete references to
data which had been collected and replicated for many
28
years in other countries. When he protested, his
papers for promotion were recalled and his superior told
him he had used "bad judgment" in his refusal to change
his testimony before the Delany Committee, to make his
testimony more favorable to the interests of food pro-
29
cessing industries.
He notes that the American Medical Association and
the American Cancer Society have not supported seriously
research in the area of worker and consumer exposure to
30
carcinogenic substances. He observes that medical
school curricula pay scant attention to the health pro
blems created to an increasing degree by industrial
31
activities and products.
Dr. Hueper describes the tactics used by scientists
and physicians employed by industries. Their jobs are to
233
develop arguments, phrased in terms of scientific pro
cedure, which can be used to justify policies which are
compatible with the economic interests of their
industries.
(An) . . . argument increasingly . . . advanced by
industry related scientists and physicians in recent
years in an attempt of scuttling claims of an
occupational causational of cancers, is represented by
denying their existence unless elaborate epidemiologic
evidence in support of such contentions is on hand.
Eckard from Esso expressed recently this obstructive
method in the following words: "In fact, it is
scientifically unsound to attribute a given type of
cancer to an occupation unless it can be established
with statistical significance that the incidence of this
type of cancer among employees is higher than in the
general population, or in employee group comparable
in all other characteristics except the occupation."
Eckardt employs this argument for denying the claim
that occupational and environmental exposures to
ionizing radiations and to benzol have been proven to
cause leukemias and for doubting the existence of
occupational arsenical cancers.
This on the surface rather reasonable appearing
but actually definitely tricky argument reveals on
critical analysis its deceptive, misleading and
scientifically unsound true nature, which results from
abuse and exaggeration of statistical evidence, from
complete disregard of already available epidemiologic
evidence on the lack of uniformity of carcinogenic
exposures for different population groups, and
particularly by a wanton negligence of the time
honored and generally recognized importance of medical
symptomatic evidence in the establishment of the primary
causes of diseases including occupational cancers. In
fact, a historical review of the discovery of
occupational cancers shows readily that most presently
generally recognized occupational cancers received this
recognition including the medicologal one in the ab
sence of any "adequate" evidence of statistical signi
ficance on the incidence rate of the particular type of
cancer among the affected worker group.
Epidemiologic surveys of cancers of different
sites among members of different professional groups
conducted in England and the United States (Kennaway,
Morrison, Mancuso) have, moreover, clearly shown the
existence of marked differences in the cancer rates
for specific sites for such groups, indicating that
environmental and mainly occupational carcinogenic
factors varying in quantity and quality are probably
responsible for such differences. For these reasons
it is particularly impossible to determine a standard
occupational group used for comparative purposes in
the determination of excessive incidence rate. The
results of such comparisons would depend upon the
choice of a particular standard or comparative group.
Similar uncertainties exist concerning the cancer
rates by sites for the general population. There pre
vail not only marked differences in the rates on a
geographic or regional basis but also in regard to
urban and rural population groups indicating again
the existence of definite differences in the type and
degree of exposure to environmental carcinogens be
tween such groups. ... An increasingly industry-
related pollution of the highly urbanized and
industrialized England with effluents from industrial
establishments and exhausts from motorized vehicles
thus has obliterated the former gap between a lung
cancer rate of a specifically exposed population group
and that of the general population. It would be in
correct to assume because of these statistical
relations and developments that the type and degree of
occupational lung cancer hazards for the English coke
oven operator has been reduced or even become non
existent. This example again illustrates the
fundamental fallacy of the purely statistical
criterions arbitrarily set up by Eckard for the
recognition of occupational cancer hazards, in an
attempt to accommodate conveniently and expediently
the interests of industrial management often anxious
to minimize or deny the existence of occupational can
cer hazards.
It is also most astounding that industrial sources
including physicians, can continue to maintain that
arsenicals contacted for industrial reasons in the ore
mining and smelting industries are not carcinogenic,
235
while admittedly the same chemicals used medically
have caused cancers of the skin in patients, and when
ingested or inhaled in the form of insecticides or
insecticide residues have elicited cancer of the skin,
lung, and liver in addition to symptoms of chronic
arsenic poisoning, which in part are of precancerous
character. . . . 3-3
Through this well organized confusion and planned
artificial lack of information, it is made possible to
continue the unfounded claim that only few cancers are
attributable to occupational agents and that, there
fore, occupational carcinogenesis is of little
importance from a public health industrial and
sociolologic viewpoint. This deceitful practice,
moreover, serves the purpose of obscuring the fact
that cancer producing agents are contained in a not
inconsiderable number of consumer goods and environ
mental pollutants and thereby may create potential
cancer hazards to the unsuspecting consumer. Cancers
originating on such an industry-related basis are
considered as a rule for these reasons by the medical
profession to be of so-called 11 spontaneous” origin,
i.e., of unknown causation.34
Very recently, isolated reports on worker exposure
to industrial carcinogens are becoming well published.
For example, the vinyl chloride industry has recently
come under attack in studies suggesting that workers in
the plants were exposed to high levels of carcinogenic
35
substances. A 1974 Wall Street Journal article stated
that the problem in vinyl chloride industries is not an
unusual one, for industries regularly work with toxic
substances. It noted that Dr. Barry Commoner, director
of the Center for Biology of Natural Systems at Washing
ton University in St. Louis, has been particularly con-
236
cemed about widespread exposure to chlorinated hydro
carbons. Widespread exposure to the chlorinated hydro
carbons results from the fact that they are used in
plastics, anaesthetics, insecticides, pharmaceuticals,
etc.36
For some time the orthodox associations have
ridiculed the idea that widely used pharmaceuticals,
pesticides, food additives, etc., were related to cancer
incidence data. Such therapies as Dr. Gerson’s involving
the removal of many suspected carcinogens from the
environment and diet of the cancer patient have been
called "nonscientific nonsense.”
Cameron, who wrote an expose on cancer "quackery"
and who was cited above, describes as absurd the ideas
37
that Gerson was advancing. In 1971, the Surgeon
General stated that there is no basis whatever for
38
linking modem diet to cancer. An AMA publication
ridicules the theory of implication of acid-alkaline
imbalance and highly processed foods containing pesticide
39
residues in the cancer phenomena. The AMA has classi
fied ideas relating to the overprocessing of foods with
the attending inadequacies of enzymes and vitamins,
depleted soils, harmful agricultural chemicals, etc., as
"nutrition nonsense."
237
Although the 1970's have witnessed occasional
reports of "breakthrough" in medical research in refer
ence to the "discovery" of carcinogenic substances in
the environment, organized medicine still regards
theories and therapies such as Gerson's involving cancer
as quackery. By the late 1960's, a research group at the
University of Alabama, directed by Emanuel Cheraskin,
M.D., D.M.D., were issuing results of studies linking
diet, particularly in the area of carbohydrate metabolism,
to cancer. Their studies have been concerned with highly
processed foods which become concentrated carbohydrates
without vitamins, enzymes, etc.^
Certain nutrients in the diet increase the body's
defenses against disease when present in sufficient
amounts and decrease this defense when in short
supply. These nutrients, protein, vitamins, and
minerals, may be termed resistance factors.
Other nutrients, when consumed in large quan
tities, increase the body's proneness to disease,
and when restricted, decrease its likelihood of
becoming diseased. These nutrients, primarily table
sugar and highly processed (refined) carbohydrate
(starch), may be called susceptibility factors.4-1
Cameron had mentioned the preoccupation of some cancer
quacks with the "absurd" idea that refined sugar and
42
flour had some connection with degenerative disease.
Cheraskin contends that the diet of "civilized" man has
moved increasingly toward a displacement of resistance
42
factors by susceptibility factors. A University of
238
Notre Dame research team in 1971 was measuring effects of
44
some environmental carcinogens on laboratory animals,
and the ABC network produced a discussion of the genetic
changes in foods under "modern'’ farming methods,^ another
idea for which Gerson had been ridiculed by organized
medicine. In 1971 a task force was set up by the World
Health organization. It noted a breakthrough by a "world
famous immunologist," Dr. Robert A. Good, concerning the
relationships between protein metabolism and cancer.
Dr. Good was expanding his investigation to look at the
role played by total diet, of vitamins, minerals, and
46
enzymes.
Cameron had also labeled the theories of Gerson
and other "quacks" regarding the relationship of protein
metabolism to cancer as "absued."^
Although are are increasingly more reports
concerning "new" discoveries of the relationship be
tween man-made environmental factors and disease,
the official pronouncements of organized medicine and
the FDA still relegate such theories in relation to
cancer to the categories of "quackery," where no
scientific evidence exists. Dr. Charles C. Edwards
issued an FDA regulation on January 19, 1973, stating
that "mineral nutrients in foods are not significantly
affected by storage, transportation, cooking, and other
239
processing. Vitamin content is not affected by the soils
in which foods are grown, and after December 31, 1974, any
processor who implies such a thing will be guilty of
Ag
false labeling." Gerson and other unorthodox researchers
had used megavitamins therapeutically for degenerative
disease, and in 1973 the FDA reacted to what it considered
a popular trend of people treating themselves with mega
vitamins, by issuing regulations putting some megavitamins
49
under prescription. A Nader study group has investigated
the long campaign by the FDA against natural vitamin
producers and people making any claims about depleted
nutritional content of foods. In commenting on the
reactions of the FDA concerning the proposal, the FDA
noted that
the majority of responses from individual consumers
were opposed to the proposal. In reviewing such
comments, the commissioner is concerned that the
public is not fully aware of the provisions and
medical basis of the proposal.51
52
The AMA supported the regulation.
The Federal Trade Commission has required correct
ive advertising which states that there is no need for
people to take vitamin supplements over the Minimum Daily
Requirement (established by the FDA, and which unorthodox
researchers consider to be extremely low), and that
53
vitamins will not improve health.
240
A 1966 publication reissued in 1971 by the American
Cancer Society deplored the use of unprocessed foods,
megavitamins, detoxification, etc., which were part of
Gerson's therapy. The AMA's Facts on Quacks stated
that
it is not true that the American food supply is
nutritionally deficient. . . . Health foods are a
fraud . . . people who promote them are interested
in their own financial health, not your physical
health* Some are sincere, although they are
duped.
It continues that bread made with processed flour is
"nutritionally superior to most other types of breads in
56
this country and throughout the world." No disease or
abnormality in man, except endemic goiter due to a
deficiency of iodine has been traced to a deficiency in
m 57
the soil.
The Summary Report on the FDA's Campaign against
Nutritional Quackery, furnished the author by the FDA in
1973 upon request for information concerning the FDA's
findings on specific unorthodox cancer therapies, notes
that the use of vitamins and minerals is the "most
expensive form of medical quackery in the country today."
There are quacks making false claims about the relation of
nutrition to diseases which in fact have no relation at
tZQ
all. The FDA uses the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act for the criminal prosecution of people making such
false claims, but
law enforcement, of course, is part of the answer to
quackery. Even more important is helping the public
to understand the facts about nutrition and to warn
people against false claims and theories. To this
end, an educational program against food faddism is
jointly sponsored by the American Medical Association,
the National Better Business Bureau, and the Food and
Drug Administration.^9
The report continues,
It is not true that the American food supply is
deficient in vitamins, minerals, and other essential
nutrients. This is the "big lie" of nutrition
quackery. It is the theme song of a persistent
propaganda campaign to undermine public confidence
in the nutritional adequacy of staple foods, and
thereby to soften up the market for special dietary
products.
The facts are that research has demonstrated that the
nutritional values of our crops are not significantly
affected by either the soil or the kind of fertilizer
used.
F. E. Chidester, Ph.D., wrote in 1944 of studies
done in the 1930's suggesting links between nutritional
deficiencies and vitamin depletions (caused by such
61
things as radiation) and cancer. A World Symposium on
Cancer in Rome in 1956 included summaries by people who
had studied the effects of artificial fertilizers,
preservatives, hormones used as animal fattening agents,
anti-sprouting agents, radioactive substances in food-
62
stuffs, etc., in relation to cancer. W. C. Heuper has
included aluminum cooking utensils in his list of
242
63
carcinogenic agents in 1961. Cameron and other orthodox
researchers in articles on Gerson had proclaimed Gerson*s
prohibition of aluminum cooking utensils for his patients
to be evidence of the obvious absurdity of his theories.
Dr. Roger J. Williams, University of Texas, who
was the biochemist who first identified, isolated, and
synthesized Pantothenic Acid, and pioneered in work with
CA
folic acid has been concerned with environmental factors
in their relation to cancer for some time. He believes
that
medical education which has neglected in a refined
study of nutrition in all its aspects has diverted
attention away from the most promising means of
controlling cancer, namely a nutritional approach
which encompasses the human element--individual
susceptibility.65
A similar argument is developed by Dr. Richard
E. Welch, a doctor practicing in California, in a speech
given in 1965 before the lay and professional association
which publishes information about unorthodox cancer
therapies. He observed,
If we eliminate statistics on all skin cancer and
external cancers, only a relatively small percent
can definitely be considered arrested or cured
regardless of any of the common treatments involved
today. The marvelous techniques of surgery and
radiation are helpless in the face of internal
metastasizing cancer. ...
There will never be a cancer cure which does
violence to the natural defense mechanism of the
243
body. Therefore to pursue toxic destructive sub
stances is futile. Orthodox medicine and research
are largely preoccupied with the treatment of the
end results of disease and because of this many
people will die needlessly. °
He mentions a 1951 report of the Sloan-Kettering Institute
concerning a controlled experiment on rats where one
group was fed a diet containing some of common carcinogenic
substances present in the food supply and diets containing
high amounts of amino acids and B-complex were given
to another group, where significant results in relation
to development of degenerative disease were tabulated.
Yet in the face of this and many other conclusive
evidences, organized medicine is loath to place any
significant connection between liver cancer in rats
and liver cancer in human beings.67
He thinks that orthodox theories place emphasis on the
symptoms existing at a stage far beyond that where the
disease should be treated.
Long before cancer appears as a definite recognizable
pathological entity, characterized by a tumor mass,
there are subtle biochemical changes taking place
within the cells of the body. If this process is
not checked or corrected, cellular function is
altered and impaired. If this reaction is not go
stopped the change rapidly becomes irreversible.
Cole has suggested that the "virulence of a tumor
is entirely dependent upon the resistance (or immunity)
of the host."^
In 1957 Representative James J. Delaney of New York
244
inserted a letter into the Congressional Record from
William E. Smith, M.D,, who had been on the research
staff at Harvard Medical School, Rockefeller Institute
for Medical Research, and Sloan-Kettering Institute for
Cancer Research, and Professor at New York University.
This letter, from which the following excerpts are taken,
concerned the carcinogenic substances added to foods and
the politics surrounding theories concerning environmental
carcinogenics.
. . . the Food and Drug Administration found that
cancer was induced in rats by a pesticide, Aramite,
and issued an order preventing contamination of food
with this substance. This order had to be reversed
upon proceedings initiated by the manufacturer. The
precedent established by this decision creates a
loophole for introduction of so-called safe quantities
of cancer inciting additives into food. This loop
hole seriously impairs the protection consumers might
have expected from the arrangements proposed by all
bills for pretesting of additives upon animals ...
. . . your committee heard testimony from inspectors
of the Food and Drug Administration to the effect
that residues of a cancer-inciting drug,
diethylstilbestrol, are commonly found in marketed
poultry to which this drug is now commonly admini
stered. My colleagues and I have assembled data to
show that this drug is not destroyed by cooking and
that marketed poultry have contained per bird up to
342,000 times the amount of this drug sufficing as
a daily dose to induce cancer in mice. We have for
warded this exhibit for review to the National Cancer
Institute, United States Public Health Service. It
has been reviewed by the National Cancer Institute,
with endorsement of our view that administration of
this drug to food animals constitutes a hazard to
consumers. . .
... In the case of the dye, paradimethylaminoazo-
benzene, formerly used in foods and drugs, quantities
failing to induce cancer in well-fed test animals did
245
induce cancer in animals on less adequate diets. . .
. . . I have induced lung tumors in animals by treat
ing their mothers during pregnancy with urethane, a
drug sometimes used for human beings ...
. . . (the FDA) attempted to prevent contamination of
food by a pesticite (Aramite) through establishing a
zero tolerance for this substance. It is there shown
that a chemical manufacturer thereupon filed a
petition requesting that this decision be reviewed by
an advisory committee and that a tolerance be
established. ... It found that FDA had demonstrated
tumors in the livers of rats fed Aramite, but that
this substance might be safe if fed at some lesser
concentration. Upon this advice, the FDA issued an
order published in the Federal Register, September 30,
1955, page 7301, tolerating residues of Aramite in
apples, blueberries, cantaloups, celery, cucumbers,
grapefruit, grapes, greenbeans, lemons, muskmelons,
oranges, peaches, pears, plums, raspberries, straw
berries, tomatoes, watermelons, and sweet corn but
not forage thereof. ...
Nearly a score of carcinogenic food additives and
contaminants were described in September 1956 issue
of the AMA Archives of Pathology in an article by
Dr. W. C. Hueper, chief, Environmental Cancer Section,
National Cancer Institute (USPHS).
. . . It was long doubted that a few tiny microbes
could propagate in the body and cause disease. Today,
there is much incredulous inertia over the public
health aspects of discoveries that a few tiny molecules
can start a body cell propagating to form cancer. Yet
it is upon this molecular-cellular level that the
phenomena of cancer causation takes place. ...
. . . cancer inciting action of one of the most
dangerous carcinogens was discovered by the staff of
a leading chemical manufacturer, but the senior
scientist who made the discovery promptly lost his
job. For the nearly 20 years that have since elapsed,
manufacture of this substance has continued and it
has been used to make food dyes. ...
. . . there are instances where industry, government,
and university scientists have been fired or had their
research terminated when their studies touched hazards
associated with products of commercial interest.70
In 1944 Chidester cited several examples of
246
doctors who, in the early years of the 20th century, had
linked degenerative diseases to environmental factors.
One was the Food Controller of Denmark during World War I
who at that time attempted to eliminate some of the easy
71
availability of highly processed foods. He also
72
stressed radiation as a causal factor. Other examples
include Dr. L. D. Bulkley who, around 1919
had organized and built up the New York Skin and
Cancer Hospital and he wished to set aside a
department of that hospital for the non-surgical
and dietary treatment of cancer cases. Such
violent opposition arose and so thoroughly was he
discredited that this able physician was forced
out of the hospital. He gave his patients extracts
made from vegetables. ... He was convinced of
the value of potassium in c a n c e r .
He mentions other doctors who had written of 3,000 cases
where detoxification and dietary and environmental con
trols were used successfully without surgery or radiation
treatment.^ He mentions early investigations concerned
with the oxygen supply in relation to cancer, a phenomenon
of interest to Geraon and to some of the unorthodox
75
researchers to be reviewed below.
Dr. Kirstine Nolfi, of Denmark, has been ex
perimenting since the 1940's with a regimen similar to
76
Gerson's methods and for which she claims success.
Lev Medved, Director of the All-Union Research
247
Institute of Hygiene and Toxicology of Pesticides,
Polymers, and Plastics, has noted
. . . data has been gathered on the various morbid
changes in the human organism caused by chemical
substances. Some of them are carcinogenic, i.e.,
cause cancer, others influence heredity. The
number of deformed babies is rising in some
countries as well as the frequency of blood,
allergic, nervous, and other disorders, whose
chemical causes have been adequately proven. '
In 1971 Dr. Joshua Lederberg, professor of genetics at
Stanford Universiby observed
Recent work has also thrown light on the role of
the immune system hitherto thought of mainly in
connection with infectious diseases like smallpox,
polio, or diphtheria. We now theorize that many
incipient cancers are normally eliminated in a
healthy body. However, a weakening of the immune
mechanism may also allow a potential cancer seed to
escape this surveillance and grow to unmanageable
size and virulence.
Some drugs used to suppress the immune reaction
against organ grafts have been associated with a
visibly higher incidence of cancer. . . .
Another line of action is already well founded
in basic work. This is the evaluation of the direct
cancer potential of chemicals used as food additives,
drugs, or otherwise added to the human environment. 78
The role of the drugs and other therapies of orthodox
medicine, in the increase of cancer, from the standpoint
of some unorthodox people, will be further examined in the
section on orthodox therapies. It will be recalled that
such accusations are one of the indicators of quackery,
according to the orthodox associations. Some unorthodox
248
scientists suggest that the agencies which enforce
legislation covering environmental carcinogens are tools
of the major lobbies which have a vested interest in the
continuing release of carcinogens into the environment.
The 1958 Delaney Amendment to the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act stated that
no additive shall be deemed safe if it is found to
induce cancer when injested by man or animal or if
it is found, after tests which are appropriate for
evaluation of the safety of food additives to in
duce cancer in man or animal.
The latitude of interpretation has been great. In 1962,
Hubert Humphrey noted, concerning the Senate investigation
of the FDA,
The more we have examined the handling of the new
drugs by the Food and Drug Administration, the more
we have been surprised, shocked, and disappointed. . .
testing has been going on in a manner which should
have sent shivers down the spine of the medical pro
fession . . . drugs intended for use by victims of
chronic disease . . . day after day, year after
year . . . were released by FDA even before--I repeat--
before chronic toxicity tests had been completed on
animals . . . shocking reports of injuries and deaths
to test patients, as received by drug companies,
have often gone unreported to FDA, or have been down
graded by skillfully contribed half-truths, to FDA,
have been approved which FDA now admits should never
have been approved. Drugs have been kept on the
market long after FDA admits they should have been
eliminated.
The Nader study group on the FDA is also concerned
with the interpretation of terminology, the development of
new classifications, the publication of only selected
249
testing results, etc., in the efforts to make law and
research conform to financial interests in the approval
80
of food additives, drugs, etc. Diethylstibestrol, a
carcinogenic substance long used in meat, was prohibited
only recently by the FDA although studies of its effects
are not recent, and several nations which had banned its
use had refused to import United States meat which had
81
been injected with DES,
As indicated earlier, some researchers think that
there are adequate empirical indicators that the increase
in the rates of degenerative disease are caused by the
rapid and extensive changes in man's environment. The
orthodox position, as stated in journals and pamphlets
of their associations, has been that it is not logical to
assume that one causes the other because these two factors
exist at the same time. Cameron has stated that the only
reason there is an increasing rate of cancer is that
there is better reporting, and people also live long
82
enough to have cancer now. The California Cancer Ad
visory Council has stated that
corners of the world where cancer is not a significant
cause of illness or death among men . . . are spared
either because infectious diseases, pestilence, mal
nutrition, and even wars cut down substantial
population before cancer--or other diseases associated ;
with aging has a c h a n c e .
However, the tribal areas often referred to by
250
those who believe that the environment plays a large role
in the development of cancer are not areas where infec
tious diseases, pestilence, and malnutrition, and wars
exist (where Western civilization has left a changed food
supply). Rather, they are isolated tribes where these
other factors are not present, but where very different
environmental conditions exist which are purported to be
conducive to the development of strong defense mechanisms,
and where the factor of heredity is not ruled out. Gerson
made several references to studies conducted in various
tribal societies which are cancer-free and to the changes
in statistics on degenerative disease which have been
observed by people such as Albert Schweitzer, when
various substances from the Western World are introduced.^
Hueper also noted that there are marked differences in
predominance of degenerative diseases in the Western
85
world and in the rural areas of Africa. Ghidester
cites some studies concerning the transition in the diet
of some Eskimo tribes in relation to disease. Welch
also refers to the tribes of Eskimos and other areas
where diets are or were, before the transition, high in
nitrilosides (Laetriles). He notes that "it has been
estimated that the diet of primitive man contained any
where from 600-1200 milligrams of the nitrilosides daily
whereas the diet of modern man contains probably not
87
more than 1 to 2 milligrams.” He also carried out
controlled laboratory experiments in which he found a
correlation between diets containing the highly pro
cessed foods and the development of degenerative
88
disease. Dr. Denis P. Burkett, an English surgeon, has
also cited statistics gathered from the rural areas of
Africa. He claims that the intake of highly processed
products is responsible for many diseases for which
89
surgery is the current treatment. Senator Charles
Percy visited the isolated tribe called the Hunza, which
has been the object of many investigations because of the
absence of degenerative disease and because of their
extremely long life span. The Hunza diet corresponds
largely to that which has been prescribed by some
90
unorthodox practitioners. Those who refer to the
tribes and to laboratory experiments concerning the en
vironmental causes of degenerative disease feel that this
explains such statistics as, for example, the quadrupling
of age adjusted death rates from leukemia from 1900 to
1945, and its tripling arithmetically from 1930 to
91
I960. As noted by the Soviet researchers cited in this
section, the increase in birth defects and many kinds of
degenerative diseases are often included in this kind of
252
analysis.
E. Raymond Hall, Ph.D., has investigated the pro
blem from the standpoint of what he believes to be the
mythological system concerning the "wonders" of pesti
cides and their contribution to world health statistics.
He notes that "the statement that pesticides are re
quired in order to grow food crops is repeated so often
by employees of the Department of Agriculture that many
92
citizens believe it is true. Those who take the stance
of Hall, including some of the unorthodox men cited in
this case study, believe that "modern" farming methods
have upset natural pest control balances, have lowered
nutritional quality of food products, have depleted
soils, and have produced carcinogenic residues in foods.
They contend that forced production will not solve world
food problems but will contribute to the increase in
degenerative disease.
Footnotes
1. Gerson, Max, M.D., A Cancer Therapy: Results of 50
Cases (New York: Dura Publishers, iy5i3;, pp. xiii-30.
2. A.M.A. , The Merchants of Menace (Chicago, 111.:
A.M.A.
3. A.M.A. Conference Summary. Conference on Guide
lines for Nutritional Education, Medical Schools, and
Post Doctoral Training Programs (Chicago, TIT.: A.M. A.,
June 25-27r"19727r'p. 3.
253
4. Otto Warburg, M.D., "The Prime Cause and Preven
tion of Cancer," speech delivered at the 1966 Annual
Meeting of Nobelists, Germany.
5. Gerson, p. 13.
6. Ibid., p. 7.
7. Ibid., p. 14.
8. Ibid., p. 37.
9. Ibid., pp. 9 and 14.
!0. Ibid.
11. Ibid., pp. 55-58.
12. Ibid., p. 87.
13. Ibid., p. 96.
14. Ibid.
15. A.M.A., "Gerson's Cancer Treatment," JAMA 132
(November 16, 1946), pp. 645-646.
16. A.M.A. Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry, "Cancer
Facts,: JAMA, p. 96.
17. A.M.A. Department of Investigation, Health
Quackery: Cancer, (Chicago, 111.: A.M.A., 1968), p. 12.
18. S. J. Haught, Has Dr. Max Gerson a True Cancer
Cure? (N. Hollywood, Ca.: London Press, 1962), p. 2T.
19. Ibid.
20. W. C. Heuper, M.D., "Prevention of Occupational
Cancers: A Challenge to Public Health Agencies, Industrial
Management, and Organized Labor," speech presented before
the general meeting of the Committee on Community Services,
AFL-CIO, Washington, D.C., May 25, 1959, p. 13.
21. W. C. Heuper, "Carcinogens in the Human Environ
ment," Archives of Pathology, 71 (March, 1961), pp. 355-80.
254
22. Ibid., p. 238.
23. Heuper, "Prevention of Occupational Cancers . . .
p. 3-4.
24. W. C. Heuper, M.C., "Organized Labor and Occupa
tional Cancer Hazards," paper furnished by Heuper to the
author, 1974, p. 20.
t t
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
PP
PP
PP
P*
15-16.
9-10.
10-11.
14.
pp. 15-16.
pp. 23-25.
p. 26.
p. 29.
35. Barry Kramer, "Vinyl Chloride Scare Points Up
Danger of Other Chemicals, Wall Street Journal, XCI,
(Oct. 7, 1974), p. 1.
36. Ibid.
37. "First Tuesday," March 2, 1971.
38. A.M.A. Department of Investigation, Health Quackery:
Cancer, pp. 12-13.
39. A.M.A., The Merchants of Menace.
40. J. I. Rodale and staff, Cancer Facts and Fallacies
(Emmaus, Pa.: Rodale Books, 1969), pp. 289-292.
255
41. Emanuel Cheraskin and W. M. Ringsdorf, New Hope
for Incurable Disease (New York: Arco Publishing Co.,
T*7 7T7 ” "p 7 ”181. -------
42. Cameron, p. 45.
43. Cheraskin, p. 157.
44. Ben Zinser, ’ ’ Medicine and You," Southland Sunday,
February 7, 1971.
45 . "Food: Green Grow the Profits," ABC Closeup,
December 21, 1973.
46. "Diet Used for Inducing Resistance to Cancer,"
Los Angeles Times, Part 1, p. 4, October 21, 1971.
47. Cameron, p. 45.
48. Federal Register, January 19, 1973, p. 2147.
49. Federal Register, August 2, 1973, vol. 38, no. 148,
Part 80,—p. 20738.
50. James S. Turner, The Chemical Feast (New York:
Grossman Publishers, 1970), p. 41,
51. Federal Register, August 2, 1973, vol. 38, no. 148,
Part 3, p7 20723. -----
52. Ibid.
53. "F.T.C. Prohibits Deceptive Vitamin Aids: Re
quires Corrective Advertisements," F.T.C. News Release
^February 22, 1974).
54. Grant and Bartlett.
55. A.M.A. Department of Investigation, Facts on
Quacks, 1967, p. 4.
56. Ibid., p. 12.
57. Ibid., p. 13.
256
58. F.D.A., Summary Report on ^DA*s Campaign Against
Nutritional Quackery, furnished by FDA to the author as
statement on FDA's position, 1973, p. 1.
59. Ibid., p. 2.
60. Ibid., p. 4.
61. F. C. Chidester, Nutrition and Glands in Relation
to Cancer (Milwaukee, Wise.: Lee Foundation for Nutri-
tional Research, 1944), pp. 74-108.
62. John Lear, "Food and Cancer," Natural Food and
Farming, Vol. 3 (February, 1957), p. 67^
63. Heuper, "Carcinogens in the Human Environment
64. Roger S. Williams, Nutrition Against Disease,
(New York: Pittman Publishing Co., 19/I), biographical
data.
65. Richard Morehead, "Diet Called Cancer Preventa
tive," Natural Food and Farming, 8 (July, 1971), p. 27.
66. Richard E. Welch, M.D., lecture before the Second
Lay and Professional Congress on Cancer, San Diego, Ca.,
July 1-3, 1965. p. 2-3 reprinted by International Associ
ation of Cancer Victims and Friends, Monrovia, Ca.,
pp. 2-3,
67. Ibid., p. 3.
68. Ibid., p. 7.
69. W. H. Cole, "Factors Important in the Growth and
Spread of Cancer," in Conceptual Advances in Immunology
and Oncology, ed. by \ f . H. Cole, G. 0. McDonald, S.
Roberts, ana H. W. Southwick (New York: Appleton,
Century, Crofts, 1961), p. 1-20.
70. James J. Delaney, extension of remarks, Congress
ional Record, 85th Congress, February 21, 1957, reprint,
pp. 418608, 61536.
71. Chidester, p. 52.
257
72. Ibid., p. 69.
73. Ibid., p. 55.
74. Ibid., p. 55.
75. Ibid., p. 61.
76. Dr. Kirstine Nolfi, The Raw Food Treatment of
Cancer and Other Diseases (Mokelumne Hill, Ca.": Health
Research,).
77. Lev Medved, "Chemistry and Human Health," Moscow
News, January 30-February 6, 1971, p. 11.
78. Dr. Joshua Lederberg, "Is a Cancer Cure a Proper
National Goal," Los Angeles Times, February 19, 1971,
Sec. F, p. 1.
79. Hubert Humphrey on the Senate Investigation of the
FDA October 3, 1962, in The Findings on the U. S. Food
and Drug Administration (Letchwortn, Hertfordshire,
England: Garden City Press, Ltd., 1968), p. 34.
80. Turner.
81. "Sweden Bans Meat Imported from U.S.A.," National
Health Federal Bulletin 18 (June, 1971), p. 38.
82. Cameron, p. 45.
83. Cancer Advisory Council, "Cancer Quackery and the
Cancer Law, p. 13.
84. Gerson, pp. 14-15.
85. Heuper, "Carcinogens in the Human Environment,"
pp. 237-267.
86. Chidester, p. 56.
87. Welch.
88. Ibid.
89. Alex G. Shulman, "A Surgeon's Theory," Los Angeles
Times, August 27, 1972, Sec. 1, p. 1.
258
90. Parade (News supplement, Long Beach Press Telegram)
February 14, 1974, p. 11.
91. W. C. Heuper and W. D. Conway, Chemical Car-
cinogens in Cancer (Springfield, 111.: C. C. Thomas,
1964?, p p ? ‘ T53-T55.
92. E. Raymond Hall, Ph.D., "Pesticides Not Required,"
Natural Food and Farming 18 (July, 1971), pp. 33-38.
CHAPTER IX
OTHER UNORTHODOX RESEARCH
Numerous practitioners of various unorthodox
therapies have written of the pressures exacted on them
by the organized medical community.^ A few of the cases
are discussed below.
Some of those quoted in the preceding sections
have mentioned a relationship between potassium deficien
cies and degenerative disease and have considered the
potassium deficient soils and diet of modern man.
Potassium iodide was the major ingredient of a product
developed by Harry Hoxsey, a naturopath and not an M.D.
The product also contained various herbal extracts. His
claim to have cured several thousand patients was followed
by an American Medical Association investigation of his
clinic in Dallas, Texas. The clinic was closed in 1960
following legal action by the Food and Drug Administra-
o
tion. Earlier court action closed a clinic using the
3
Hoxsey method in Pennsylvania.
259
260
The special counsel for a Senate investigating
committee in 1953 discussed the Hoxsey method, among
others. The fate of this report will be referred to
below.
Now passing on to another institution, I have very
carefully studied the court records of three cases
tried in the Federal and State courts of Dallas, Tex.
A running fight has been going on between officials,
especially Dr. Morris Fishbein, of the American
Medical Association through the journal of that
organization, and the Hoxsey Cancer Clinic. Dr. Fish
bein contended that the medicines employed by the
Hoxsey Cancer Clinic had no therapeutic value; that it
was run by a quack and a charlatan. (This clinic is
manned by a staff of over 30 employees, including
nurses and physicians.) Reprints and circulation of
several million copies of articles so prepared
resulted in litigation. The Government thereafter
intervened and sought an injunction to prevent the
transmission in interstate commerce of certain
medicines. It is interesting to note that in the trial
court, before Judge Atwell, who had an opportunity to
hear the witnesses in two different trials, it was held
that the so called Hoxsey method of treating cancer was
in some respects superior to that of X-ray, radium,
and surgery and that it did have therapeutic value.
The Circuit Court of Appeals of the Fifth Circuit
decided otherwise. This decision was handed down
during the trial of the libel suit in the District
Court of Dallas, Tex., by Hoxsey against Morris Fish
bein, who admitted that he had never practiced medicine
one day in his life and had never had a private
patient, which resulted in a verdict for Hoxsey against
Morris Fishbien. The defense admitted that Hoxsey
could cure external cancer but contended that his
medicines for internal cancer had no therapeutic value.
The jury, after listening to leading pathologists,
radiologists, physicians, surgeons, and scores of wit
nesses, a great number of whom had never been treated
by any physician or surgeon except the treatment
received at the Hoxsey Cancer Clinic, concluded that
Dr. Fishbein was wrong; that his published statement
261
was false, and that the Hoxsey method of treating can
cer did have therapeutic value.
In this litigation the government of the United
States, as well as Dr. Fishbein, brought to the court
the leading medical scientists, including pathologists
and others skilled in the treatment of cancer. They
came from all parts of the country. It is significant
to note that a great number of these doctors admitted
that X-ray therapy could cause cancer. This view is
supported by medical publications, including a magazine
entitled "Cancer," published by the American Cancer
Society, May issue of 1948.
I am herewith including the names and addresses of
some of the witnesses who testified in the State and
Federal Court, It has been determined by pathology,
in a great many instances by laboratories wholly dis
connected from the Hoxsey Cancer Clinic, that they
were suffering from different types of cancer, both
internal and external, and following treatment they
testified they were cured. . . .
The attention of the committee is invited to the
request made by Senator Elmer Thomas following an
investigation made by the Senator of the Hoxsey Cancer
Clinic under date of February 25, 1947, and addressed
to the Surgeon General, Public Health Department,
Washington, D.C., wherein he sought to enlist the
support of the Federal Government to make an investi
gation and report. No such investigation was made.
In fact, every effort was. made to evade the investiga
tion by the Surgeon General's office. The record will
reveal that this clinic did furnish 62 case histories,
including pathology, names of hospitals, physicians,
etc., in 1945. Again in June 1950, 77 case histories,
which included the names of the patients, pathological
reports in many instances, and in the absence thereof,
the names of the pathologists, hospitals, and phy
sicians who had treated these patients before being
treated at the Hoxsey Cancer Clinic. The Council of
National Cancer Institute, without investigation, in
October 1950, refused to order an investigation. The
record of the Federal Court discloses that this agency
of the Federal Government took sides and sought in
every way to hinder, suppress, and restrict this
institution in their treatment of cancer. (See
testimony of Gilcin Meadors, pp. 1125-1139, transcript
of the record, Case No. 13645, U.S.C.A.).^-
The results of the report on the Hoxsey therapy
262
released in 1954 by the American Medical Association,
Bureau of Investigation stated,
Any person possessing a modicum of knowledge of the
pharmacological action of drugs would know that any
combination of ingredients listed on the current label
of Hoxsey Tonic or in the statement filed over
Mr. Hoxsey's signature in federal court in Dallas,
Texas, is without any therapeutic merit in the treat
ment of cancer. Any such person who would seriously
contend that scientific medicine is under any
obligation to investigate such a mixture or its
promoter is either stupid or dishonest. . . .
There is indication that certain persons, includ
ing a Pennsylvania state senator and several doctors
of medicine, magazine editors, and newspaper editors,
have sought to create in the minds of the public the
idea that organized medicine, particularly the
American Medical Association, will not give Mr. Hox
sey an opportunity to demonstrate his claimed cancer
cure before the world, because it refuses to send
representatives to Dallas, Texas, to investigate. It
is fair to observe that the American Medical
Association or any other association or individual has
no need to go beyond the Hoxsey label to be
convinced. ...
Under the circumstances, the whole picture would
be extremely ludicrous except for the appeal to the
credulous and unreasoning, which can conceivably
result in unnecessary injury, damage, and death to
many persons, not from any overdose of the Hoxsey
Tonic, but by reason of their relying on it instead of
proper, established procedures until their condition
has progressed so far that they cannot be cured.5
Natenberg notes that the Post Office Department was
pressed into service for putting placards warning against
Hoxsey therapy in post offices around the country. The
placards reminded that surgery and radiation were the
£
treatments of choice.
Concerning the original court case against the
263
Hoxsey Clinic In Texas mentioned above, the American
Medical Association has stated that even the courts are
misled at times by testimonials and poor evidence.^ In
1950 a district court in Texas had denied an injunction
against Hoxsey for shipment of drugs to physicians in
other states because of lack of proof that pamphlets ac
companying the drugs were false or misleading. The pam
phlets which were seized by the FDA were allegedly
falsely representing the therapy as having significance
O
for the treatment of cancer. The decision was appealed
in 1952 where it was reversed. It was declared that the
drugs were falsely labeled and that testimony as to the
efficacy of the drugs given previously had no weight,
that it was not necessary that the government prove each
represenation in the pamphlet accompanying the drug
false or misleading. The "competent evidence showed
that the suggestion that the Hoxsey treatment method is
. , 9
an effective treatment is false. The court stated
In approaching this question we are guided by some well
recognized beliefs and experience so universally
entertained and accepted by the practically unanimous
aggregate of medical science that contradiction
thereof does not raise a substantial issue of fact. . .
. . . despite the vast and continuous research which
has been conducted into the cause of, and possible cure
264
for, cancer the aggregate of medical experience and
qualified experts recognize in the treatment of
internal cancer only the methods of surgery, X-ray,
radium and some of the radioactive by-products of
atomic bomb production.”
The California Cancer Advisory Council claims to
have investigated the Hoxsey treatment following the norms
of the scientific method and to have found it worthless.
It has recommended actions which have been adopted by the
State Board of Health against several people using the
Hoxsey therapy.
The California Administrative Code states that
the prescription, administration, sale, or other distri
bution or making of any representation of Hoxsey agents,
"whether singly or in combination, or in any dosage or
guise whatever, in the diagnosis, alleviation, treatment,
or cure of cancer or for treatment of any patient who
believes he has cancer is prohibited."^
An AMA publication of 1968 stated that another
form of quackery is the promotion of vaccines and serums
12
for cancer treatment. One of the serums is Krebiozen.
The California Advisory Council has stated that "Con
viction in the power of Krebiozen cost one man,
Dr. Andrew C. Ivy, a loss in his professional
13
reputation." Ivy, M.D., Ph.D., former vice-president
265
and head of the University of Illinois Medical School, is
the person to whom Cameron referred who obviously must
be emotionally disturbed because, although his list of
credentials and medical society membership are respect
able, he chose to support an unorthodox cancer therapy,
Krebiozen.
Krebiozen was developed by Dr. Stevan Durovic,
former Assistant Professor of Medicine at the University
of Belgrade. It was banned from interstate commerce by
the FDA in 1963. In 1963 Senator Paul Douglas introduced
a resolution
authorizing and directing the National Institutes of
Health to undertake fair, impartial, and controlled
scientific tests and investigation of the drug
Krebiozen; and that the Secretary of Health, Education
and Welfare shall not terminate or issue any notice of
termination of the exemption of the drug, Krebiozen,
for investigational use, until the completion of such
tests and investigations and the issuance of an
evaluation thereof by the National Institutes of
Health; and authorizing to be appropriated to the
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare the sum
of $250,000.14
The resolution did not pass.
The proponents of Krebiozen argued that even in
far advanced cases it could produce a palliative effect.
They based their theories on some research done on spon
taneous regression and natural defense mechanisms, and
claimed that the substance Krebiozen had been isolated as
1 s
a major contributor to spontaneous regression. J -J They
■I £ L
also claim that it is nontoxic. They often pointed out
the results of laboratory Krebiozen experiments conducted
on animals in Argentina, as well as various clinical
cases.^ Ivy states that it is necessary to be very
careful about conclusions for extension of life expectancy
for cancer patients upon an observation of both subjective
and objective indicators of improvement, but "that this
had been used by the Therapeutic Trials Committee of the
AMA and the Committee has stated that a favorable response
to androgens and estrogens in mammary cancer increased
1 8
longevity.” This same evaluation should also apply to
Krebiozen, then, as the Krebiozen study which Ivy
observed, he notes, had a control group whereas the
hormone therapy experiment (orthodox) did not. Ivy
based his conclusions on observations over periods of four
_ 19
to five years.
In 1951 Dr. Ivy arranged for a meeting of cancer
specialists to review data on Krebiozen, and was success
ful in getting permission from the FDA for clinical test-
20
ing at the Krebiozen Research Foundation. Favorable
reports started emanating from the Foundation and Dr. Ivy
said that he had been contacted by a pharmaceutical
company trying to get distribution rights to Krebiozen.
Durovic refused that and all later offers. Ivy then
267
began to experience pressures.
Ivy was asked to report to the Cancer Committee of
the Chicago Medical Society for questioning about the
publicity on Krebiozen in Chicago newspapers. Ivy
claimed that he was not responsible and the Committee
22
took no action. Later in 1951 he was suspended by the
Executive Council of the Chicago Medical Society and the
president of the University of Illinois issued a state
ment forbidding any further research on Krebiozen
23
associated with the university.
Those engaged in research on Krebiozen claimed that
Josiah Moore, M.D., treasurer of the American Medical
Association, threatened them with ruining the reputation
of Ivy and Krebiozen if they did not give up the distri-
r \ #
bution rights. They also believe that the tests the
AMA claimed as the basis for its repudiation of Krebiozen
were not scientific in that Krebiozen was declared worth
less after having given very small doses of it to one
hundred patients extremely close to death. They suggest
that there was pressure exerted on Dr. Reimann, who had
previously issued several favorable reports on Krebiozen
and then later changed his statements, saying that he had
decided that Krebiozen had no value and that he was giving
up experimenting with it, while in private letters he con-
268
25
tinued to support his original statements.
In 1951 the AMA Journal contained the report on
Krebiozen of the AMA Committee on Research, a standing
committee of the Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry. The
report claimed that Krebiozen's ingredients were secret
26
and worthless. A study, the report said, was done by
"sources located in four widely separate regions of the
country" with 100 case studies being reported.
In order to insure that case reports would be evaluated
adequately a committee, experienced in the course and
long-term care of cancer, composed of faculty members
of the medical schools located in Chicago (exclusive
of the University of Illinois) served as a review
board. . . . * • '
Not one of the patients observed has shown any
appreciable alteration in the course of the primary
tumor growth, although two patients showed equivocal,
temporary response (both of which were explained in
other w a y s )
In conclusion, the report contains an explanation
for the discrepancies in various reports on Krebiozen.
The public may wonder at the wide divergences of
opinion between the original report and these published
reports. Possibly a review of the pitfalls to be
avoided in the clinical investigation of a cancer
remedy may disclose how these discrepancies might
occur. The subjective response of the patient is pro
bably the most misleading and undependable single
observation in cancer investigation. To those familiar
with the long term care of cancer patients the
unreliability of subjective response is notorious.
Pain relief, appetite, ambulation, and speech are all
affected by the subjective response of the patient to
269
therapy, and therefore, should not be relied upon as
evidence of therapeutic efficacy. As an illustration
of the dissociation of the feeling tone of the patient
from the actual progress of tumor growth, a recent
study of the effects of cortisone and corticotropin
upon patients in late stages of mammary carcinoma
reported that patients had a remarkable feeling of
well-being and strength accompanied by a relative
freedom from pain and increased appetite and ambulation
which persisted to practically the day of death.
Objectively, these same patients showed acceleration
and dissemination of tumor growth.29
Unorthodox researchers will point out in a section
to follow that cortisone, however, is allowed as an
orthodox palliative therapy, even though much research has
indicated its harmful side effects, and the American
Medical Association in this report has declared it to be
of no objective value.
As mentioned above, supporters of Krebiozen claim
that the tests the AMA used were not scientific and that
twenty-three of the cases were proven under oath in
Senate investigations to be falsified, while the AMA did
30
not consider the many studies with favorable conclusions.
A report prepared by the Krebiozen Research Foun
dation in reply to the American Cancer Society's position
asserts that adequate testing was refused by organized
medicine.
On march 9, 1959. the American Cancer Society released
what it calls a Background Paper on Krebiozen," which
has since been reprinted in the Journal of the American
Medical Association.
270
It would be expected that in addressing the public
on any matter relating to cancer the American Cancer
Society would exercise an exact regard for truth.
Yet this paper is neither honest nor truthful. It
misrepresents the facts, omits much pertinent material
and makes use of half-truths and falsities in order to
discredit Krebiozen and its supporters in the eyes of
the public.
The overall aim of this paper is obviously to
persuade the public by a variety of strategems that
blame for the failure to test Krebiozen rests with
Dr. Ivy and the Krebiozen Research Foundation rather
than with the agencies which have refused such a
test.
As a matter of actual fact, those chiefly con
cerned with Krebiozen experimentation have sought
such a test since 1952.
At that time Dr. Ivy proposed it to the American0
Medical Association as a means of ending the controver
sy over Krebiozen.
In February 1958 in response to public interest
the American Cancer Society invited and the Krebiozen
Research Foundation submitted a proposal for the test
ing of Krebiozen. The American Cancer Society stalled
this proposal for many months and finally rejected it.
Then in August, 1958, Senator Paul H. Douglas in a
Senate speech proposed that the National Cancer Insti
tute undertake substantially the same test the
Krebiozen Foundation had submitted earlier to the
American Cancer Society and remarked: "This is a
fair test. It can do no harm. It might do great
good."
The Senator's proposal was immediately accepted by
Dr. Ivy and the Krebiozen Research Foundation. The
National Cancer Institute and its director, Dr. John
R. Heller, rejected it.
Thus, a fair test to determine once and for all
whether Krebiozen is active against cancer, has been
sought from every responsible agency which could
formally conduct it.
That fact that it has been refused by each in turn
creates a paradox, very costly to the public, which is
not easily explained in view of the extensive search
for potential cancer remedies now being sponsored at
great expense by two of these same organizations--
the American Cancer Society and the National Cancer
Institute. ...
271
The "Background Paper" of the American Cancer
Society is an attempt to rationalize this situation
by an attack on Dr. Ivy, on Krebiozen, and on all
others connected with it. . . .
The American Cancer Society Paper states that,
"The owners and proponents have demanded that the
substance (Krebiozen) be tested according to their
own terms, which are demonstrably unscientific." The
fact is, that we have asked for the most scientific
test possible. The double-blind test is standard in
the laboratory and is the world over accepted as the
best method for evaluating the activity of a drug.
In this connection it should be noted that at one
of the meetings with Senator Douglas between Drs. Ivy
and Durovic and the members of the National Cancer
Institute staff, Dr. Durovic asked Dr. Heller if he
"considered the double-blind test unscientific."
Dr. Heller answered: "No; of course not. It is
our standard of drug evaluation at the National Cancer
Institute."
Nevertheless, he admitted in answer to another
question that, in his capacity as a director of the
American Cancer Society, he had voted a little earlier
that the proposal to evaluate Krebiozen by this method
should be turned down as "unscientific."
This type of inconsistency has been manifest at
every turn in negotiation for a test of Krebiozen.
Yet, neither the American Medical Association, the
American Cancer Society, nor the National Cancer In
stitute has ever stated that the type of test proposed
by the Krebiozen Foundation would not give clear-cut
results as to Krebiozen*s activity, nor could they do
so. From Pasteur on, the double-blind test has been
accepted in science as the most objective and certain
method for evaluating a new therapy, since it rules
out subjective impressions of both the physicians giv
ing the treatment and the patients receiving it. Only
results based on facts count.
Yet, the American Cancer Society and National Can
cer Institute contend for one reason or another that
this method should not be used for Krebiozen. One
reason assigned for refusing the test, for example,
is that its results--under the stipulated conditions--
would "not be acceptable to the scientific
community."31
272
A conflicting evaluation of the situation was
presented in the April 11, 1959 Journal of the AMA, con
taining the following statement:
The American Medical Association, along with the
American Cancer Society and, it is believed, with the
concurrence of all other scientific organizations
expresses the hope that the Krebiozen Research
Foundation will recognize the integrity of the
National Cancer Institute of the U.S. Public Health
Service and proceed to cooperate with this agency
that is endeavoring to scientifically evaluate actual
and alleged cancer therapy. The American Medical
Association believes that in this way the public in
terest would best be served.
The Krebiozen Research Foundation should desist in
its demands for an evaluation of the efficacy of
Krebiozen dictated according to its own terms, rules,
and procedures which are contrary to soundly established
scientific approaches utilized in the evaluation of
substances alleged to be of therapeutic value in malig
nant disease.32
In 1953 Charles W. Tobey, Jr., son of the late
Senator Charles Tobey, who believed that his son had been
helped by an unorthodox cancer therapy and had been
instrumental in promoting the Senate investigation into
cancer research, had inserted into the Congressional
Record the report which his father had intended to insert.
This report, referenced in the pages dealing with the Hox-
sey method, stressed the need for an investigation of
cancer research organizations, including the American Can
cer Society and the American Medical Association and for
an investigation of the
273
facts involving the interstate conspiracy, if any,
engaged in by any individuals, organizations,
associations, and combines of any kind whatsoever,
to hinder, suppress, or restrict the free flow or
transmission of krebiozen, gloxylide, and mucorhicin,
and other drugs, preparations and remedies, and
information, researches, investigations, experiments
and demonstrations relating to the cause, prevention
and methods of diagnosis and treatment of the
disease cancer.33
Benedict Fitzgerald, special counsel to the Senate
Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce when Senator
Tobey was alive, prepared a report on his investigations,
part of which dealt with the Krebiozen controversy. He
wrote,
The controversy is involved and requires further re
search and development. There is reason to believe
that the AMA has been hasty, capricious, arbitrary,
and outright dishonest . . . the alleged
machinations of Dr. J. J. Moore (for the past 10
years the treasurer of the AMA) could involve the
AMA and others in an interstate conspiracy of alarm
ing proportions. . .
Dr. George 0. Stoddard, president of the Univer
sity of Illinois, in assisting in the cessations of
Dr. Ivy's research on cancer, at the University of
Illinois, and in recommending the abolishment of the
latter*s post as vice-president of that institution
has, in my opinion, shown attributes of intolerance
for scientific research in general.34-
Senator Tobey*s son has written that the lobby of
organized medicine was successful in its attempts to stop
the investigation and to discharge Mr. Fitzgerald after
35
his father's death. Fitzgerald, who had previously been
with the Justice Department before going to the Committee,
36
was not rehired.
274
In reaction to Fitzgerald's findings, the American
Medical Association issued a statement charging that his
37
findings were lies.
In 1964 Ivy sought relief in the U.S. District
Court in Illinois from enforcement by the FDA of the pro
hibition against interstate shipment of Krebiozen, claim
ing that it prevented him from collecting further evidence
that Krebiozen is useful in managing cancer, which would
help to defeat the allegations for which he was under
38 39
indictment. (He was later acquitted.) It was denied
on the grounds that it might result in public injury.^
The decision referred to the Court of Appeals decision
in U.S. v. Hoxsey Cancer Clinic, 198F. 2d 273.
. . . the cause, effect, and cure of cancer are so
obscure and indefinite that there obtains in the
entire subject an area of the unknown. It is never
theless the duty of a court in making determination
of questions of such great public moment ... to
give weighty consideration to the experience of the
past and the accepted views and findings of
science. . . .
The court in appraising the statutory and regula
tory outline for the use of drugs during the
investigation period of their utility believes the
steps prescribed by the administration to be clearly
aimed to achieve the desired result of supervised
testing of drugs while in the experimental stage.
This court has not the prerogative to supplant its
judgment for the expertise of the administration so
as to permit an exception in the plaintiff’s
instance, be it only for the interim of the trial.
In Ivy's appeal, the Court of Appeals held that a
275
refusal of a prior trial of the drug for which Ivy was
being prosecuted for distributing did not violate due
process; that the issue of efficacy was beyond the com
prehension of the jury.^
The FDA claims that Krebiozen was not tested
because its regulations which call for submission of data
on a drug before it can be approved for interstate shipment
for laboratory investigation, had not been complied with;
that although the data were filed on June 6, 1963,
/
they were withdrawn on July 12, 1963. The California
Cancer Advisory Council claims that FDA actions are pre
dicated on the situation where the
data and quantity of Krebiozen submitted sporadically
by its sponsors were considered inadequate to justify
an evaluation study, and secondarily, Dr. Ivy
repeatedly insisted that he personally participate in
testing and analyzing its effects and in nominating
of a team involved in testing. The National Cancer
Institute and Dr. Ivy could not reach concurrence. . .
. . . clinical records on 504 patients treated with
Krebiozen were obtained by the National Cancer Insti
tute for review by 22 cancer specialists. Clinical
testing was considered completely unnecessary after
review of both the chemical analysis and clinical
review, for the agent was found to be ineffective as
an anti-cancer drug. Legal action transpired between
Dr. Duvoric and the Federal Government, but the
decision to no longer appraise Krebiozen was held
firmly by the Federal Government.^
The California Advisory Council reviewed the
material from the National Cancer Institute and the
"opinions of all medical experts" and "deans of schools of
276
medicine." On May 27, 1964, the Council concluded its
studies by finding that Krebiozen was of no value in the
diagnosis, treatment, alleviation, or cure of cancer, and
recommended to the Director of the State Department of
Public Health that "appropriate action be taken to pro
hibit its prescription, administration, sale, or other
distribution."^ The recommendation was adopted.^
As mentioned above, several who have researched
the Krebiozen case have suggested that Krebiozen therapy,
which did not directly challenge conventional treatments,
would have been accepted had it not been for the politics
involved in the distribution rights.
In 1919 William F. Koch, M.D., Ph.D., discovered a
substance he called glyoxylide which was injectable and
nontoxic. He claimed that it was a "catalyst which
restores proper oxidation in the cells and converts toxins
to anti-toxins in a chain reaction where dehydrogenation
(removal of a hydrogen atom) initiates oxidation in the
cell and destroys the pathogens integrated with the
cell."^ He used the substance in combination with a
48
strict diet and detoxification program.
The Wayne County, Detroit Medical Society investigated
the treatment in 1919. Several patients certified to
have cancer were to undergo the treatment. The AMA
277
and the California Cancer Advisory Council, in relating
the events of that time, claim that the patients selected
for the evaluation at the hospital were "neglected by
Dr. Koch and gradually left the hospital, whereupon the
4 9
treatment was discontinued." Koch's version of the
testing was that for three weeks he was unable to get the
physicians who were to select the patients for the tests
to certify which patients had been chosen. When Dr. Koch
demanded that the head of the medical society direct the
committee of doctors to do so, so that the study could
proceed, the committee examined one patient. Koch went
ahead and instituted the treatment on the deteriorating
patients and all responded well, whereupon the committee
called off the tests on the grounds that Koch had refused
to cooperate, and then sent the patients home with
warnings against the Koch treatment.
The California Cancer Advisory Council cites a
study in Canada where Koch's theory was proven to be use
less.^ Another source favorably inclined toward the
Koch method cites a different study in Canada where the
52
Koch therapy was found to be effective.
Koch claimed that at a second hearing from his
local medical society which he had arranged with great
difficulty, he presented a number of cases which had been
278
diagnosed as hopeless and in whom he had arrested the
disease, whereupon the committee denied the diagnoses
and the remissions. The following is an example from
Koch's point of view.
In one case a husband testified that his wife had
been cured of Paget's disease after she had refused
an operation to remove the cancer that had spread
from her breast, because it might have meant the
loss of her arms. Her surgeon who examined her
during the course of her recovery acknowledge in
the presence of her husband that she had been cured
of cancer. When he was called upon to testify before
the committee, the surgeon testified that his original
diagnosis had been falsified, and that the woman's
condition had really been a simple ulceration and not
cancer at all. He did not say why he had been willing
to operate so radically on such a mild condition.53
In 1936 the former Director of the AMA Bureau of
Investigation stated that "there were a large number of
deaths" among cancer patients which Koch treated.^ This
is hardly informative, since there are "large numbers of
deaths" of cancer patients treated by orthodox methods.
It is reiterated in the report that "it has been thorough
ly demonstrated that cancer, when taken in early stages,
may be cured by competent surgical treatment and in
55
selected cases by the use of radium and X-ray."
In 1953 the U.S. Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit,
reviewed a cease and desist order of the Federal Trade
Commission against the principals of Koch Laboratories,
Inc. , William F. and Louis G. Koch. The decision up-
279
held the Federal Trade Commission's finding that the des
cription of the product was false and misleading and
that no statements concerning the therapeutic value in
the treatment of any disease would be allowed in con-
56
nection with the Koch methods. The court stated
The finding that the representations were deceptive
and misleading in a material respect is amply sus
tained by the evidence. The fact that petitioners
made the representations in good faith is
immaterial.5'
The burden of proof was on the Commission to es
tablish the material allegations of the complaint.
This burden was successfully carried. The evidence
on issues of fact was largely controverted. However,
the record as a whole supported the finding of the
Commission that the representations were misleading
and false in material matters, that the products have
no therapeutic value, and that the advertisements were
sent both to members of the medical profession and to
lay persons.
Thirty-three physicians and scientists testified
for the Commission to the effect that petitioners'
products had no therapeutic value. Thirty-six wit
nesses, including twenty-nine physicians, testified
on behalf of petitioners . 58
. . . Another doctor who testified as to a number of
claimed cures of cancer by the Koch method said that
he preferred not to use a biopsy because biopsies
cause "traumatism to the growth." This conclusion
is disputed by a number of expert physicians. It is
the weight of medical authority, as shown by this
record, that, while, even in biopsies there is a
margin of error, microscopic examination of the tissue
of a tumor is the most accurate test known for
malignancy.59
(It has been contended for some time among some
unorthodox researchers that there are indicators of
280
malignancy which can be determined by tests on blood and
body fluids, thus avoiding the effects of the biopsy.
Organized medicine has recognized only the biopsy, but in
1974 the Food and Drug Administration approved a blood
60
test for certain types of cancer. The court continued:
The testimony of various scientific witnesses
which was introduced into the record by counsel support'
ing the complaint is to the effect that the oxidation
processes have no direct bearing on natural immunity,
that the degenerative diseases and allergies are not
caused by a defect of the oxidation mechanism of the
body, and that although a decline in metabolic pro
cesses may cause more susceptibility to some types of
infection, other forms of pathogenic germ activity
are not dependent on the state of the oxidation
mechanism. . . .
The witnesses testifying in support of the com
plaint have had wide experience in various fields of
medical science, including biochemistry, internal
medicine, pediatrics and communicable diseases,
pathology, diseases of the metabolism, and degenerative
diseases, and they affirm, in substance that
respondent's products, irrespective of the dilution
in which they may be used, are of no value in the
treatment of any disease whatsoever. Although these
witnesses have not prescribed respondents' products or
observed their effects in concrete cases, their broad
knowledge, individually and in the aggregate, respect
ing the fields under inquiry is such that their
testimony should be accorded very great weight. . . .
. . . The improvement in condition apparently mani
fested in some instances following administration of
one of respondents' products undoubtedly was
attributable to such conventional therapeutic treat
ment as was rendered to the patient previously, simul
taneously or subsequently rather than to the effects of
the administration of respondents’ products. In other
instances the particular disease being treated belongs
in that category of disorders the symptoms of which
may be subject to complete or substantial remission
causing them to disappear, perhaps to reappear months
or years later, and in still others the diseases
themselves are self-limiting and/or their symptoms are
of definite duration. . . .
281
Koch had been arrested in 1942 with a $10,000 bail asked,
charged with falsely labeling a product and the Federal
62
Trade Commission had issued the cease and desist order.
In Baldor v. Rogers (1954, Florida), although it
was found that the administering of Koch therapy in
itself did not amount to negligence, the doctor's refusal
to advise the patient to seek another form of treatment
63
for his progressively worsening condition did. As
will be noted below, those practicing orthodox treatment
are not negligent for failing to advise a worsening
patient to seek other therapy.
In the 1960's the California Cancer A.dvisory Coun
cil did a study of Koch's treatment and found it worth-
less.64
The opinions of six deans of medicine and that of
Ralph W. Weilerstein, M.D. , and William A. Atchley, M.D.
were sought. They uniformly concurred "that no value
could be ascribed to the Koch treatment and that medical
teaching did not recognize any of the agents as accept-
65
able to cancer management."
The Council recommended that actions be taken to
"prohibit the prescription, administration, or distri-
bution of the Koch therapy," and a regulation to that
effect was adopted by the State Board of Public Health in
1963.67
282
Koch moved to Brazil to continue research, as an
AMA publication states, "after government inspection of
68
his laboratories." He continued to do clinical studies
and publish results of his treatment based on immunologi
cal, cell oxidation, and nutritional theories. He used
some of the theories of Otto Warburg, director of the
69
Max Planck Institute for Cell Physiology in Berlin.
Warburg believed that the stimuli for cancer come from a
variety of chemical or radioactive substances and that
because of a weakened metabolism the tissue becomes
starved for oxygen, in which case cells attempt to stay
alive by deriving energy not from the oxidation of food
but by fermenting sugar which requires oxygen.^
The therapy developed by Robert E. Lincoln, M.D.,
is the one which Senator Tobey believed had benefited his
son. The treatment consisted of the use of a bacterio
phage and staphlococcal antigen combined with a strict
diet.^ After the statement made in the Senate by
Senator Tobey, the Massachusetts Medical Society in
vestigated his treatment. In previous years his articles
had been refused for publication in the journal because
72
"insufficient evidence was demonstrated."
The California Cancer Advisory Council states that
"after an adverse report on his purported cancer remedy
was made by the Society in 1952, his membership was
283
73
abrogated when he failed to resign.” The Massachusetts
Medical Society reported that it found "superficiality,
rather than precision and thoroughness” when they visited
Dr. Lincoln to examine his records.^ As for the case of
Senator Tobey's son, it states that the surgery and
radiation given before he sought the Lincoln treatment
75
must have been responsible for the arrest of the cancer.
When the California Cancer Advisory Council was
instituted, the Lincoln treatment was in use by some
76
physicians in California. It therefore conducted a
study of the agent with the following results.
The claims of content advanced by Lincoln, Mills and
the literature accompanying the material were found
to be correct; however, no reason for assuming the
agent was of therapeutic benefit in cancer treatment
could be determined from this analysis, nor any
evidence previously collected on its application.
The Council also requested the Deans of the
California Schools of Medicine to discuss current
teaching about cancer diagnosis and treatment, and
requested again the opinions of Ralph W. Weilerstein,
M.D. , and William A. Atchley, M.D., on the merits of
the Lincoln agent. The uniform response that the
Lincoln method was of no value in the treatment of
cancer compounded with the extensive evidence com
piled by laboratory testing, and review of the study
conducted by the Massachusetts Medical Society and the
report of the National Research Council, permitted the
Cancer Advisory Council to recommend that the Lincoln
agent be outlawed in California.
On April 17, 1963, the Cancer Advisory Council
concluded its studies by finding that Lincoln Staphage
Lysate was of no value in the diagnosis, treatment,
alleviation or cure of cancer and recommended to the
Director of the State Department of Public Health that
284
appropriate action be taken to prohibit its pres
cription, administration, sale or other distribution.
After appropriate public hearings, a regulation con
taining those features was adopted by September 20,
1963. . . ,77
The California Administrative Code states that the
Lincoln treatment "might well be dangerous, since treat
ment with acceptable modern curative methods (surgery and
radiation) would thereby be delayed potentially until such
time as metastases had occurred and the cancer therefore
78
might no longer be curable." Orthodox statements
usually associate the danger in using unorthodox
therapies with the delay in using orthodox ones. Karnof-
79
sky notes that most unorthodox therapies are nontoxic.
Virginia Wuerthele-Caspe Livingston, M.D., who had
experimented with the immunological and dietary approach
argues that there is an effort by organized medicine to
control research funds and treatment. "If the doctor
does not conform he can lose hospital privileges. If
the patient does not conform his medical insurance
80
carriers may refuse to pay his insurance."
She notes that the work of Dr. Eleanor Alexander-
Jackson at Columbia University was terminated because of
pressure from the American Cancer Society which pro
claimed that her methods were unproven, without asking to
81
review her records or test her methods. Dr. Livingston
is also skeptical of orthodox treatment. She mentions a
285
study on breast cancer at the Naval Hospital at San Diego
showing that patients receiving surgery and radiation
fared worse than those receiving only surgery, and that
those who received surgery, radiation, and approved chemo-
82
therapy fared the worst.
The development of the theories of an immunological
approach to cancer are slowly reaching the orthodox com
munity. At one time they were considered to be outside
the realm of serious medical research in the United
States. Bjorklund notes that
The immunologic approach to cancer, being more than
six decades old, has been repeatedly interrupted,
particularly when the resources of the basic sciences
have been exhausted. This approach has, in the past,
experienced waves of great popularity, contrasted to
periods when it was unwise for a young scientist to
mention immunology and cancer in the same day.83
Kolmykova, Leykina, and Pandova, in reports presented at
the Conference of the Institute of Experimental Pathology
and Therapy of Cancer, Academy of Medical Sciences, USSR,
indicate an acceptance of the immunological approach in
1957.84
Recently the immunological approach has been
heralded as a new breakthrough resulting from the pains-
85
taking efforts of orthodox cancer research. The other
methods advocated in combination with immunological sub-
stances by unorthodox researchers, particularly the
"concept of totality" as expressed by Gerson, remain in
the category of "quackery." The National Cancer Institute
has announced its intention to test an immunological treat
ment developed by Dr. David Weiss, previously chairman of
the Department of Bacteriology at the University of
California, Berkeley. The product is supposed to
stimulate the defense mechanisms protecting the patient
from the effects of radiation and chemotherapy. His
research was supported by the National Cancer Institute
and a private fund-raising cancer foundation. Weiss had
treated 23 patients with myeloyenous leukemia and a few
others and he says that the elapsed time is so short that
86
conclusions are not possible. It will be recalled that
one of the arguments advanced against the testing of some
substances discussed above was that there was insufficient
evidence of their effectiveness to warrant clinical test
ing. A 1974 Bristol-Meyers sponsored television pro
duction favorably depicting orthodox methods set the new
interest in immunology in the context of an addition to
the orthodox treatments of surgery, radiation, and chemo
therapy, and mentioned the research now aimed at trying
to find ways to offset the depression in the defense sys-
tern caused by orthodox methods, by other drugs to be used
in combination with surgery, radiation, and chemo-
87
therapy.
Footnotes
1. Some actions taken against people who have pres'
cribed these treatments are described in the California
Cancer Advisory Council, The Cancer Law, 1959-1964, and
Arlin J. Brown Information Center, March ol TrutTT~on
Cancer, 7th ed., (Fort Belvoir, Va.l Arlin J. Brown,
T97077
2. Cancer Advisory Council, The Cancer Law, 1959-
1964, p. 28.
3. A.M.A. Department of Investigation, Health
Quackery; Cancer (Chicago, 111.: AMA, 1968), p. 5.
4. Benedict F. Fitzgerald, "A Report to the Senate
Interstate Commerce Committee on the Need for Investiga
tion of Cancer Research Organizations," Congressional
Record (August 3, 1953, appendix), pp. A5151-A5352.
5. A.M.A. Bureau of Investigation, "Cough Medicine
for Cancer?" JAMA 155 (June 12, 1954), pp. 667-668.
6. Maurice Natenberg, The Cancer Blackout,
7. Grant and Bartlett citation of "Hoxsey Method,"
CA 14 (1964).
8. U.S. v. Hoxsey Cancer Clinic et al., December 21,
1950, 94F Supp. 464 (St. Paul, Minn.: West Pub. Co.,
1951).
9. U.S. v. Hoxsey Cancer Clinic, U.S. Court of
Appeals, 5th Circuit (July 31, 1952, 198F, 2d273).
10. Cancer Advisory Council, The Cancer Law, 1959-
1964, pp. 4-5.
288
11. California Administrative Code Title 17, Register
63, no. 17-10-5-63, "Laws and Regulations Relating to the
Diagnosis and Treatment of Cancer, excerpts from the
California Business and Professions Code., CA. Health
and Safety Code (Berkeley: Department of Public Health,
1971), p. 16.
12. A.M.A. Department of Investigation, Health
Quackery: Cancer, p. 5.
13. Cancer Advisory Council, The Cancer Law, 1959-
1964, p. 59.
14. Paul H. Douglas, "A Fair Test for Krebiozen,"
Congressional Record 109 (July 18k 1963), 12222-12227,
and Paul H. Douglas, "Scientific Tests and Investigations
of Krebiozen," amendment Congressional Record 199 (August
17, 1963), 13617.
15. A. C. Ivy, PhD., M.D., John F. Pick, M.D.,
W. F. P. Phillips, M.D., Observations on Krebiozen in
the Management of Cancer (Chicago, 111.: Henry Regnery
Co. , 195b), pp"I 1-6.
16. Ibid.,p. 9
17. Ibid., pp. 10-11.
18. Ibid., pp. 22-23.
19. Ibid., p. 33.
20. Herbert Bailey, Krebiozen--Key to Cancer (New York:
Hermitage House, 1955), pp. 70 and /b.
21. Ibid., pp. 83-103.
22. Ibid., p. 91.
23. Ibid., pp. 128, 219-220.
24. Ibid., pp. 88-89, 93.
25. Ibid., pp. 120-121, 232.
289
26. AMA Committee on Research, "Status Report on
Krebiozen," JAMA 147 (October 27, 1951), p. 864.
27. Ibid.
28. Ibid., p. 870.
29. Ibid., p. 872.
30. In Congressional Record, June 16, 1959, p. 10996
and in Bailey are references to numerous studies conducted
with Krebiozen which reported favorable results.
31. Congressional Record May 20, 1959), pp. 8608-8609
32. "National Cancer Institute Study of Krebiozen,"
JAMA 169 (April 11, 1959), p. 143.
33. Fitzgerald, "A Report to the Senate Interstate Com
merce Committee on the Need for the Investigation of
Cancer Research Organizations," Congressional Record
(August 3, 1953), appendix, p. A5350.
34. Ibid., pp. A5350-A5351.
35. Charles Tobey, Jr., Statement by Charles Tobey,
Jr., (Mokolumne Hill, Ca. : Health Research).
36. Bailey, p. 265.
37. Ibid., p. 266.
38. "Andrew C. Ivy v. Anthony J. Celebreeze, Secretary,
Department of HEW, Foodf Drug, and Cosmetic Law Reporter;
Developments, Court" Decisions, Releases, and Rulings,
1963-196/ (,New York: Commerce Clearing House, 196/,
sec. 40, 179), pp. 40, 445.
39. National Health Federation Bulletin, XX (January,
1974), P:"2i:
40. 64 C2021, U. S. District Court, Northern District
of Illinois, Eastern Division, December 28, 1964.
41. Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law Reporter, 1963-1967,
sec. 40, 197, pp. 40, 448-449.
290
42. Ivy v. Katzenbach, 351F.2d32.
43. Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law Reporter, 1963-1967.
44. The Cancer Advisory Council, The Cancer Law, 1959-
1964, pp. 61-62, 63.
45. Ibid., p. 64.
46. California Administrative Code, Title 17, Register
67, no. 43. 10-28-67, Laws Relating to the Diagnosis and
Treatment of Cancer, excerpts from the California
Business and Professions Code, California Health and
Safety Code (Berkeley: State Dept. of Public Health,
19/1 ).
47. AMA, Health Quackery: Cancer, p. 9, and Arlin J.
Brown, p. 14.
48. Ibid.
49. The Cancer Advisory Council, The Cancer Law, 1959-
1964, pp. 44-45.
50. J. I. Rodale and staff, Cancer Facts and Fallacies
(Emaus, Pa.: Rodale Books, 1969), "p. l4T.
51. Cancer Advisory Council, The Cancer Law, 1959-
1964, p. 44.
52. Rodale, p. 143.
53. Ibid., p. 142.
54. Arthur J. Cramp, M.D., Nostrums, Quackery, and
Pseudo-Medicine (Chicago, 111.: AMA Press, 1 9 3 b } , p. 16.
55. Ibid.
56. • AMA, Health Quackery: Cancer, p. 10.
57. Koch v. Federal Trade Commission, 206F.2d31,
p. 317.
58. Ibid., p. 315.
291
59. Ibid., p. 316.
60. Howard K. Smith News, January 10, 1974. Mal
practice suits have indicated negligence where biopsy is
not performed by physicians. Medical Malpractice: Cases
and Annotations (New York: The Lawyers' Cooperative Pub
lishing House, 1966), p. 65.
62. Rodale.
63. Baldor v. Rogers, 1954, Fla., 81so2d 658, 55 ALR
2d453, Medical Malpractice Cases and Annotations
(San Francisco, Ca. : Bancroft-Whitney Co.), (New York:
The Lawyers' Cooperative Publishing House, 1966), p. 143.
64. Cancer Advisory Council, The Cancer Law, 1959-
1964, p. 44.
65. Ibid., p. 46.
66. Ibid.
67. Ca. Administrative Code, Title 17, Register 67,
"Laws and Regulations relating to the Diagnosis and Treat
ment of Cancer . . .", p. 19.
68. AMA, Health Quackery: Cancer, p. 10 and Rodale,
p. 144.
69. William Frederick Koch, M.D., Ph.D., Neoplastic
and Oral Parasitism: Their Basic Chemistry and Its
Clinical Reversal (Rio de Janiero, Brazil, 1963).
70. Barbara Holmes, Ph.D., Cancer and Scientific Re
search (London: The Sheldon Press, l93l), pi 142.
71. Arlin J. Brown Information Center, p. 99, and
Cancer Advisory Council, The Cancer Law, 1959-1964, p. 48.
72. Cancer Advisory Council, The Cancer Law, 1959-
1964, p. 47.
73* Ibid., p. 46.
74. Ibid., p. 59.
292
75. Ibid., p. 59.
76. Ibid., p. 51.
77* Ibid.
78. California Administrative Code, Title 17, Register
63, no. 17, 10-5-63 (Berkeley: Ca. Dept, of Public
Health, 1971), p. 19.
79. Karnofsky, p. 497.
80. Virginia Wuerthele-Caspe Livingston, M.D., Cancer:
A New Breakthrough (Los Angeles: Nash Publishing Co.,
19/2), pp. 1 0 3 - 1 0 4 .
81. Ibid., p. 104.
82. Ibid., p. 102.
83. Bertril Bjorklund, "Antigenicity in Human Car
cinoma Cells in the Light of an Alternative Conceptual
Approach to Neoplasia, in Conceptual Advances in Immuno
logy and Oncology (New York: harper and Row, 1963),
p . 5 0 3 .
84. V. N. Kolmkova, F. I. Leykina, and S. S. Pankova,
"Possibility of Discovering Antibodies in Cancer," in
Problems of Etiology and Pathogenesis of Tumors, Academy
of Medical Sciences U.S.S.R. Institute of Experimental
Pathology and Therapy of Cancer, reports presented at the
Conference of Experimental Pathology and Therapy of Cancer,
Academy of Medical Sciences, U.S.S.R. (March 14-16), 1957,
(Washington, D.E.: U.S. Public Health Service, 1959),
p. 230.
85. For example, Harry Nelson, "Cancer War Victory Seen
by Year 2,000," Los Angeles Times, April 4, 1971, Section
A, p. 3, or Dr. M. Judah Foikman's statement on immunology
in Cancer Research Team Isolates Chemical that Triggers
Capillary Growth in Tumors," Wall Street Journal (March 28,
1972), p. 4.
293
86. Harry Nelson, "Cancer Institute Plans Trials of a
New Israeli Treatment," Los Angeles Times (June 25, 1973),
Part II, pp. 1-2.
87. "The Killers," KCET March 11, 1974.
CHAPTER X
ORTHODOX METHODS
Public information pamphlets prepared by the ortho
dox associations often contain shock value in stories
about people who rejected the advice of their doctor to
have an amputation, radiation, etc. , in favor of seeking
the "quack" remedy and who then pay exorbitant prices for
the "quack's" services and die. The orthodox societies
and the laws are therefore working to protect the public
from such abuses by regulating the medical practices.*-
Many unorthodox researchers attack orthodox medical
treatment for degenerative disease for having those same
disadvantages; that in the orthodox community there
exist "pretenders to medical knowledge" (the orthodox
definition of a quack), that patients pay high prices for
treatments which do not benefit them, and which, in some
cases, hasten their death or cause them more pain than
their disease causes them.
294
295
Chemotherapy
A major criticism of those who promote unorthodox
treatments is that the orthodox chemotherapies are highly
toxic. The chemotherapies in good standing with the
orthodox community concentrate, as do surgery and radia
tion, upon immediate destruction of the symptom, the
tumor. Holmes notes that the debate over the localized
versus the systemic theory of cancer is an old one. The
localized theory, the idea that cancer only recurs because
some of the tumor was left behind after surgical extrac-
2
tion, grew to predominance after 1865. Some unorthodox
researchers claim that the remnants of this orthodoxy
remain in organized medicine's orthodoxies concerning
cancer.
Although surgery and radiation used to be the only
approved method, in the past few decades, new drugs have
been approved for cancer treatment. The qualities of
these drugs, contend some unorthodox scholars, make the
arguments about protecting public safety by not allowing
testing of unorthodox remedies, incredible. Many of
those who support theories not accepted by organized
medicine suggest that the approval of the drugs depends,
to a large extent, upon the identity of those requesting
FDA approval. They point to the extensive advertisements
296
in the AMA Journal by major drug companies and to the use
of research reports from the drug companies in FDA and AMA
evaluations of the drugs.
All of the chemotherapeutic agents discussed below
are approved by the AMA Council on Drugs for treatment of
some forms of cancer. The AMA publishes recommended steps
in treatment, specifying which drug is adequate for use in
each stage of decline of the patient. Surgery and
3
radiation usually precede the chemotherapies. The AMA
Drug Evaluations explains that all of the chemocherapeutic
elements evaluated
are capable of producing irreversible toxic effects
and death. Therefore, they should be used with
caution and, whenever possible, by or under the
supervision of a physician trained and experienced
in their use.
Suppression of bone marrow activity and reactions
affecting the gastrointestinal tract and skin are
among those that occur with all types of anti-
eoplastic drugs. Toxic reactions affecting the liver
occur principally with the antimetabolic agents and
occasionally with the alkylating drugs. Neurotoxicity
is primarily associated with the plant alkaloids,
vincristine (Oncovin) and vinblastine (Velban).
5-Fluorouracil is a commonly used orthodox chemo
therapeutic agent, the patent rights of which are jointly
owned by the American Cancer Society and Roche Labora
tories.^ In articles concerning the use of this drug,
as with others, there is an expressed concern with the
problem of whether the patient is strong enough to with
stand the effect of the treatment.
297
For example, a Mayo Clinic report on an experiment
combining approved chemotherapy, including 5-Fluorouracil,
concludes that the experiment was a failure, one of the
reasons being that the delayed toxicity of one drug had
prevented the use of the next drug for several weeks and
that several of the patients had deteriorated so badly
that the rest of the sequence of chemotherapy could not be
0
given. Their study was initiated because of the problem:
Single-agent chemotherapy with our current pharma
cological armamentarium has, in the main, produced
disappointing clinical results for gastrointestinal
cancer. Traditional use of multiple drugs in this
case of neoplasm has been to initiate therapy with
a 2nd agent only after the patient has failed to show
objective response to the 1st, or, having showed it,
has later shown escape. With this approach, the
patient is treated with the 2nd agent at a more ad
vanced stage of his disease, when his general con
dition and ability to tolerate chemotherapy have
probably deteriorated, and also when any useful
antineoplastic effect from the initial agent has been
irretrievably dissipated.
Edward S. Greewald, M.D., an orthodox author, sum
marizes some literature on 5-fluorouracil.
Despite the large amount of literature, and great in
terest, 5-fluorouracil is a drug of only slight use
fulness. C. Gordon Zubrod of the National Institutes
of Health evaluated his and other authors1 experiences
with 5-fluorouracil in 1961. He discussed the price
in toxicity that must be paid for the relatively short
remissions, and came to the conclusion that there was
very small, if any, advantage in using the drug.8
Despite this great care in attempting to describe
ob jective response, Zubrod feels that it is a difficult
task. He states that "in reaching the judgment that
drug favorably influences cancer, one is in the case of
298
gastrointestinal neoplasms largely dependent on tumor
size. Unfortunately, because of the anatomical sites
of these tumors, changes in tumor size are always
difficult and often impossible to assess. In other
words, the only available endpoint for decision about
drug activity is rather indeterminate, and thus dif
ferent physicians may reach different conclusions about
the effectiveness of drugs in these diseases.9
Before discussing the dosage and administration of
5-fluorouracil, it is important to discuss selection
of patients for therapy. Ansfield and his group have
studied this problem most extensively. They felt
that there was a group of patients who could not
tolerate sufficient drug for therapeutic response.
They called this group the poor risk group, and did
not treat most of these patients. Certain patients
within this group could be treated with a lower dosage
regimen. These authors as poor risk patients because
of the presence of one or more of the following:
(a) protein loss or impaired protein intake; (b) ex
tensive liver metastases; (c) extensive pelvic
irradiation at any time; (d) extensive pelvic bone
metastases: (e) previous repeated use of alkylating
agents; (f) previous adrenalectomy or hypophysectomy;
(g) advanced physiologic age of 70 or older; (h) signi
ficant infection. Apparently, as their experience
increased, they were able to treat a larger portion of
these poor risk patients, but always using a lower
dose than in the good risk patients. In their latest
article where they used a newer, less toxic regimen,
most poor risk patients were able to receive the drug.
However, even with the newer regimen, poor risk
patients received less of the drug than the good risk
patients.
In addition to the above precautions, it is inad
visable to treat with 5-fluorouracil within thirty
days of a major surgical procedure.10
. . . Certainly, marrow depression from previous radio
therapy, chemotherapy, or the disease itself is an
absolute contraindication to 5-fluorouracil. Marrow
recovery after previous chemotherapy or radiation would
not contraindicate the drug, but should be the signal
for lower than standard dosage until tolerance is
determined.H
299
Toxicity of 5-fluorouracil is apparently an almost
inevitable accompaniment of therapeutic doses. The
trick is to prevent moderate or severe toxicity. Much
has been written about the toxicity of the drug.
Degree and frequency of toxicity depend upon how
aggressive the authors are in using the drug. Most
authors report a 3% to 7% incidence of drug-induced
deaths. - * - 2
Other orthodox chemotherapies include estrogens
and androgens. Some unorthodox theorists have been
13
critical of diethylstibestrol and cortisone, as well as
some other agents which they claim are far from being
proven effective or safe.
Methotrexate, another approved drug, has not been
subject to controlled testing, Greewald notes,
Because of the inadvisability of using untreated con
trols, there have been no studies to prove that
antimetabolites prolong survival in childhood acute
leukemia. All evidence in this area has been gained
by comparing survival statistics from the immediate
pre-chemotherapy era with those of the author using
methotrexate or methotrexate plus corticosteroids.14
Another approved agent, Busulfan, is compared with
radiation for treatment of a particular type of leukemia.
While there may be strong advocates of either mode of
therapy, there is no great advantage of splenic radio
therapy over busulfan or vice versa in the treatment
of C.G.L. (chronic granulocytic leukemia). The choice
is generally made by what is most convenient for the
patient and doctor. The danger of severe bone marrow
depression is less with radiotherapy, but in ex
perienced hands this danger is minimal with busulvan.
Radiotherapy has the disadvantages of expense, and
eventual maximal tolerated dosage.
300
Another orthodox therapeutic agent, nitrogen mus
tard, was promoted for use in cancer patients after
experiments conducted during World War II in the problems
of chemical warfare, when it was found that nitrogen
mustard caused a breakdown of the cell nucleus and a re-
16
arrangement of the chromosomes. Greenwald also compares
radiotherapy and Mechlorethamine (nitrogen mustard).
Mechlorethamine administration into upper extremity
veins is somewhat hazardous with the slowed blood
flow of the superior mediastinal syndrome. Severe
thrombophlebitis has occurred. For these reasons,
radiotherapy alone is the treatment of choice for
thi s syndrome.17
It will be recalled that the AMA warned against the
use of the patient’s subjective relief as a measure of a
drug’s effectiveness for approval for the market.
Greenwald notes that
Mechlorethamine has been used extensively in lung
carcinoma. Although subjective relief has been
reported in a number of patients, almost all patients
who have objective response belong to the small cell
anaplastic (oat cell) variety of lung cancer.18
Systemic toxicity of mechlorethamine lies in two
areas: the nauses and vomiting which occur within
the first day, and the bone marrow toxicity which
is delayed for more than a week. . . .
Because of the severe nausea and vomiting it is best
to hospitalize the patient for mechlorethamine admini
stration. The patient can be heavily sedated (3 to
4% grains of barbiturate or equivalent does of
phenothiazine) and the drug given. ...
Bond marrow depression, although less frequent
than the immediate gastrointestinal disturbance, is
a more formidable problem. The classic article on
301
this aspect of mechlorethamine toxicity appeared in
1946. Little has been added since that time. Other
good discussions of hematopoietic depression due to
mechlorethamine have appeared. The article by
Damoshek is especially recommended.
It should be noted that dangerous bone marrow
depression is uncommon with mechlorethamine if proper
safeguards are taken. Death due to this drug should
occur in less than 1% of cases.19
In summary, mechlorethamine (nitrogen mustard,
mustargen) was the first alkylating agent clinically
available. It is still the most useful chemo
therapeutic agent in Hodkin's disease. It is also
used extensively for palliation of lung cancer, but
has given far from dramatic results. Its intra
cavitary administration for control of malignant
effusions is almost standard therapy, but based on
anecdotal type of studies. The standard dosage is
0.4 mg/dg intravenously, and its major toxicity is
on the bone marrow.20
Gerald 0. McDonald of the University of Illinois
College of Medicine notes that
There have been numerous reports of the palliative
effects of nitrogen mustard, Thie, TEPT, 5-fluoroura-
cil, and many other drugs upon established tumors.
In all instances, even though the tumor may appear to
regress completely, it will eventually recur. . . .
The amount of agent tolerated by the patient host
presents the limiting factor.21
Warren H. Cole, in the same collection of
articles, cites some studies showing regression of tumors
with the administration of cortisone. "However," he
notes, "there are more experimental reports indicating
that cortisone leads to increased growth, particularly of
22
the metasteses."
The AMA Drug Council evaluations refer the physi-
3.02.
cian to the literature of the producing drug company on
newer drugs for which there has been little clinical test
ing. In the descriptions of several newer drugs the AMA
Drug Council includes the following statement.
Time has not yet permitted a review of the available
data on (name of drug), and thus the Council has not
prepared a monograph on the drug. In the interests
of completeness, the following is a brief condensation
of the manufacturer's literature, which should be
consulted before (name of drug) is p r e s c r i b e d .23
A Roche drug in this category in the 1971 evaluations is
Procarbazine Hydrochloride. The company's list of side
effects is presented.
Characteristic adverse reactions are suppression of
hematopoiesis manifested by leukopenia, anemia, and
thrombocytopenia; the latter effect is common and
has caused hemorrhagic tendencies such as petechiae,
purpura, epistaxis, hemoptysis, hematemesis, and
melena. Most common gastrointestinal disturbances
are nausea and vomiting; anorexia, stomatitis, dis-
phagia, diarrhea, and constipation occur less fre
quently. Dermatologic effects such as dermatitis,
pruritus, hyperpigmentation, alopecia, and jaundice
also have been noted. Less commonly, paresthesias,
headache, dizziness, depression, anxiety, hallucina
tions, ataxia, footdrop, depressed reflexes, coma,
and convulsions have occurred. Miscellaneous untoward
effects (e.g., arthralgia, and myalgia, chills and
fever, sweating, fatigue, and lethargy) are noted
frequently. 24-
Shimkin, in a publication of the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, notes that there are
potential dangers of estrogens and X-ray therapy in the
treatment of cancer in that they can promote it as well,
and he mentions that cortisone depresses immune
303
responses.^
In discussing the ways to give highly toxic chemo
therapies in larger quantities by implants, Dr. David M.
Long, Jr., Professor of Surgery at the University of
Illinois mentions that powerful drugs that course through
the entire body now can be given only in limited quan
tities because of their toxic effects.
Shimkin notes that acute toxicity and chronic
toxicity is determined in rats and dogs, and other
animals. Then there is "cautious administration to
patients of a fraction of a dose of material that has been
found to be safe in rats, dogs, and other animals. The
dose is then gradually increased and all appropriate
observations for toxic or beneficial reactions are record
ed and analyzed. At this point the drugs are tried on
patients with very advanced cases who have exhausted the
possibilities of all standard and useful medical
27
measures.
It will be recalled that the AMA opposed allowing
unorthodox therapy on these kinds of cases, theoretically
for the patient's safety. The National Health Federation
claims that it was under AMA pressure that the 1962 bill
requiring written consent of a patient to use experimental
drugs on him, contained the provision that permitted
304
physicians to use experimental drugs without consent of
the patient when the physician thinks it would be better
28
not to inform the patient.
The McNaughton Foundation (advocating testing of
Laetrile) claims that the National Cancer Institute test
ing policies for anti-cancer drugs
are designed basically to evaluate relatively toxic
drugs given in small doses for brief periods and do
not allow for non-toxic vitamin-like materials given
in large doses for long periods of time.29
Various sources from the orthodox scientific com
munity and from within the National Cancer Institute are
cited to support the point of view of the McNaughton
Foundation that the billions allocated to cancer research
through orthodox channels over the years has resulted in
30
very few ideas relevant to successful cancer treatment.
It emphasizes, as did Gerson, that the continued con
centration on laboratory-induced tumors in animals and
the search for ways to destroy the tumors immediately has
provided justification for many funds for research teams
31
but very little in the way of useful knowledge.
As part of a solution it recommends the inter
vention of the politician and the creation of new state
32
agencies not already captives of organized interests.
Unorthodox scholars have for some time suggested that the
305
remedies prescribed by the orthodox community contribute,
among other environmental agents, to the upward spiral
of degenerative disease. Although it is contended that
organized medicine's overall contribution is in terms of
long-term and gradual effects, just as most environmental
stimuli, making it very difficult to prove because of the
impossibility of controlled experimental conditions for
humans for that length of time, they point out that there
is considerable literature illustrating the immediate
adverse effects of much of orthodox medicine, that the
theory used in most instances is that of aggressive attack
on the symptoms rather than restoration and protection of
natural defense mechanisms.
There is skepticism also concerning the prescrip
tion of drugs by physicians which has been expressed by
several lay or consumer groups. For example, the National
Council of Senior Citizens has charged that the drug
industry and doctors promote the use of tranquilizers in
nursing homes indiscriminately. The president of the
organization, Nelson H. Gruikshank, stated that the prac
tice makes bed-ridden patients out of those previously
ambulatory because of the long periods of inaction causingi
the muscles to atrophy. He used as an example of the
promotion of the practice, an advertisement of Roche
306
Laboratories in an issue of the AMA Journal in which a
tranquilizer was praised as being helpful in producing
33
"a less demanding and complaining patient.1' The
Journal of the American Medical Association is laden with
advertisements for tranquilizers for children to senior
citizens, for cortisone for arthritis, etc., as even a
casual examination will attest.
In our era of muckraking there have been some
expose-oriented works, such as that by Morton Mintz,
which claim that many drugs commonly and widely pre
scribed by physicians and approved by governmental
agencies and the AMA, have not been tested sufficiently
at all.^
As noted above, although the most frequent orthodox
arguments against the testing of Laetrile are that while
it is harmless, it is also useless, an occasional refer
ence to toxicity testing is made. The FDA has stated that
one of the reasons clinical trials of Laetrile is inad
visable is because "its non-toxicity has not been proven
in large animal species.
For some time the AMA has, for the education of
the medical community, categorized court decisions relat
ing to the physician's and the drug companies' respon
sibilities for prescribed drugs which have produced
307
deaths. One case included is that of Stottlemire v.
Cawood, a 1963 case which held that a drug company was not
responsible for the drug or warning of the danger of the
drug to the lay public; that it had fulfilled its res
ponsibility by desciring the potential side effects to
the physician. Another is Campbell v. Preston, a 1964
case in which the Missouri Supreme Court held that the
physician is under obligation to explain potential side
effects, but not the composition of the drug or its in-
36
tended effect.
Radiation Therapy
The California Advisory Council provides statistics
and studies showing that surgery and radiation increase
37
the life span of the cancer patient. But there are
skeptics among the unorthodox researchers. Some litera
ture taken from both orthodox and unorthodox sources
does not express the degree of conviction expressed in
the Council's report and in public relations pamphlets
which are published by the AMA and the American Cancer
Society. As mentioned above, many unorthodox researchers
and practitioners are against the use of radiation treat
ment for cancer patients because they feel that it causes
destruction of the natural defense system and that it can
-308
contribute to the degenerated state of the patient. Some,
such as Heuper, have suggested that the wide use of
medical X-rays for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes
may contribute to the development of degenerative disease
in the first place. Heuper lists radiation as well as
several chemical substances used by orthodox medicine as
38
car c mo gem c s ourc e s.
As mentioned above, the persistence of organized
medicine in labeling unorthodox treatments "unproven" as
opposed to their proven ones is opposed by unorthodox
scholars who contend that the orthodox methods are not
"proven."
Dr. Stanley Reimann of Gotham Hospital kept a
record of cancer cases in Pennsylvania over a long period
of time and believed that his records showed that those
who received no treatment lived longer than those who had
received X-ray and surgery. He testified to this effect
before Senator Pepper's Committee on Senate Bill 1875 in
39
1946. Another example is contained in the following
excerpts from a study conducted in 1966 under the auspices
of the Cancer Chemotherapy National Service Center,
National Cancer Institute, and other agencies.
the evidence for prolongation of life by use of
radiation alone is not well established. Reports on
more than 2000 patients by five different groups of
309
investigators indicated that extent of disease and
the natural history determined longevity and that
intensive local radiation did not effect survival.
However, other investigators have claimed a favorable
effect of radiation upon the duration of life. In
all these studies the selection of patients varied
widely and in no instance were contemporary, com- ,q
parable and untreated control subjects studied. . .
. . . The effect of radiation was most evident eight
and nine months after the start of treatment, but
after one year the difference in survival between
the two groups of patients was very small. The
results can be summarized by stating that even
though the difference in survival between the group
given radiation and the control group was statistically
real. Only 4 percent more of the patients who were
given radiation were alive at the end of one year. 4-^
Many researchers, whether or not they are involved
in the cancer controversy, have indicated the potential
dangers of X-ray treatment and use in diagnosis. A
National Academy of Sciences report published in 1956
concluded that the American public, on the average, was
using up about one third of the safety limit in medical
and dental diagnostic X-rays, that the radioactive content
of foods had increased. The safety limit to which they
were referring is over and above background radiation
from natural sources. The report also emphasized the
cumulative nature of radiation and stated that no matter
how small the dose, it shortens life in some degree and
/ 2
causes genetic damage, and that it can cause cancer.
Some unorthodox researchers believe that the dosages used
310
In therapy, which are much larger than those used for
diagnostic purposes, contribute to the deterioration of
the cancer patient, destroy vital organs as well as
tumors, depress immune responses, etc., and are not
necessary.
A paper presented at the Sixteenth Annual Symposium
on Fundamental Cancer Research in 1962 described the
delayed anti-body production in X-irradiated mice.
Another study on effects of radiation discusses the
inadequate data upon which to base statements about
radiation effects on man. It states that radiation
reduces resourcefulness of organisms in maintaining
/ |/|
homeostasis against random environmental attack.
N. A. Krayevskii also discusses the lowered immunological
resistance produced by radiation and notes that
the whole idea of radiation therapy of tumors is
based on the differential sensitivity of the various
tissues, and the main difficulties arise from the
impossibility of exposing only the tissues of the
tumor.
As mentioned earlier, some unorthodox researchers
are not impressed with the ongoing funding of research
involving ways to better direct the radiation at the
tumor site, since, in their opinion, this is only an
attack on the symptom, while radiation effects are
cumulative, and the use of radiation therapy is unneces
311
sary for the treatment of cancer, if not for the main
tenance of some solid economic benefits for certain
interests. (Some statements concerning economic interests
will be reviewed in the next section.)
Another paper presented at the cancer symposium
cited above noted that "It is well known that destruction
of the lymphatic systems with irradiation and cortisone
AC
enhances tumor growth." Other authors have discussed
the genetic hazards, shortening of life span, acceleration
of aging processes, increased susceptibility to infection,
development of neoplasms, etc., in relation to radiation
47
exposures.
William Bainbridge, M.D., former surgeon at the
New York Skin and Cancer Hospital and Surgical Director
of New York City Children's Hospital, noted in 1946, that
while there are some who still believe in the efficacy
of radiation as a cure, my skepticism with regard to
its value is being increasingly substantiated. But
even with the best technique of today, its curative
effect in real cancer is questionable. In 1939 the
great British physiologist, Sir Leonard Hill, wrote,
Large doses (of gamma and hard x-rays) produce
destruction of normal tissue, such as marrow and
lymphoid tissue, leucocytes and epithelial linings
and death ensues.
Bernard Ficaria, in Surgical and Allied Malprac
tice, notes in 1968 that
Little thought has been given in the past to cardio
vascular damage by X-ray radiation. Experimental
evidence has been forthcoming in which severe heart
312
damage has occurred after irradiation of patients
who have cancer on the left side of the chest. With
this knowledge available, future legal responsibility-
wili be incurred by radiologists in the event that
heart damage can be traced directly to the radiation
therapy prescribed.49
50
He notes that there have been no opinions delivered yet.
Previous court opinions relating to radiation have in
dicated that the physician is remiss in his duty if he
fails to make use of all available diagnostic aids
which include X-ray. ^
In the search for palliatives for the side effects
of radiation, two professors of radiology have suggested
that sufficient doses of cortisone can combat radiation
52
sickness from therapeutic radiation. This sort of
therapy, where one harmful substance is used to counteract
another is often deplored by unorthodox researchers. The
inconsistent orthodox arguments are also deplored. One
of the orthodox reasons given for disallowing the use of
unaccepted treatments on terminal patients was that they
would be of no value and might prevent the patient from
receiving the full benefit of any orthodox treatments
left to be given, as well as raising false hopes in the
patients. However, the same objections do not seem to
come to the fore in experiments with orthodox therapies.
For example, two M.D.’s, in a follow up study of patients
exposed to whole body X radiation note
313
In a search for the threshold for serious acute
sequelae to whole body X-radiation, 263 cancer
patients were exposed in the period from 1951-
1956 to normal midline air doses ranging from
15 to 200 r.5J
Certain procedures are recommended for hopeless cases for
palliative purposes or to give the patient the idea that
he is receiving treatment to prevent him from going to
the quack. One such recommendation is that, after surgery
and radiation fail, one can use adranalectomy, which "is
a major operation which finally only achieves palliation.
It also entails the added disadvantage for the patient
of maintenance of cortisone for the rest of her life."~*^
The hypophysectomy, or destruction of the pituitary gland
by insertion of radioactive materials into the gland
55
can also be used as a palliative measure.
Surgery
Several of the unorthodox writers reviewed above
object to surgery for cancer in many cases, because of
the shock effect and because of the danger of dissemina
tion. Cameron ridiculed this idea which is promoted by
Cf-
"quacks." Beard stated that "a malignant tumor should
never be removed surgically. To cut into a malignant
tumor is to invite metastic spread." He was also opposed
to biopsy and preferred a diagnostic test other than
314
biopsy.^ A search of orthodox literature in this area,
as in those above, reveals that the "quack” ideas have
more of an empirical basis than orthodox associations'
public relations pamphlets would have readers believe.
Warren H. Cole, head of the Department of Surgery
of the University of Illinois, in discussing the idea
that surgery increases metastises of cancer, justifies
such risks:
even if this increased growth of cancer following
an operation is truly related to the operation
itself (by reducing the resistance of the patient
to the tumor) it does not detract from the value
of operation for cancer, because we already know
that from the standpoint of all types of tumors
treated by operation, resection of curable tumors
will result in a five year survival rate of about
50%.58
He notes that Selye found, among other things related to
the stress reaction of a major operation, decreased pro
tein anabolism, retention of sodium, chloride, and water,
loss of potassium, nitrogen, and phosphorus and calcium,
59
and a fall in the alkaline serum phosphatase.
Several unorthodox researchers have pointed out
that if one were to eliminate the cases of skin cancer
from the five year survival, which is the orthodox
definition of cure, that there would be a very small per
centage remaining and that many of those will eventually
315
die of cancer. In a charge similar to Dr. Goffman's
concerning the Atomic Energy Commission's setting of stan
dards for radioactive contamination, they contend that
standards and statistics are manipulated for public
relations campaigns, especially during the fund drives by
the American Cancer Society, and that even the manipulated
statistics make a very poor showing for any progress in
. 60
cancer treatment.
An orthodox article in the journal, Surgery,
Gynecology, and Obstetrics in 1951 attempts to develop a
more precise argument concerning measurement. There is a
review of some literature and a discussion concerning the
vagueness and susceptibility to manipulation of cancer
fin
"cure" statistics. The claim made by Cameron that
"cures" of cancer would be much greater if the public would
69
consult their physicians earlier, and the perennial ad
monitions of the American Cancer Society that a check and
a check-up will help to conquer cancer through orthodox
therapy have been questioned by some unorthodox researchers
as to any validity extending past the result of increasing
survival-from-time-of-diagnosis rates by virtue of includ
ing increased amounts of diagnoses at earlier stages of
the disease. The relevance of the early diagnosis cam-
316
paign, upon review of orthodox literature, is not so clear
as it is presented in literature for the public or in
literature of the orthodox associations which deal with
"quackery." Ian MacDonald, Department of Surgery,
School of Medicine, University of Southern California,
wrote in 1951,
The idea that the therapeutic efficiency in the con
trol of cancer is mainly conditioned upon treatment
in the clinical history of the early disease is so
firmly entrenched that the degree of neoplastic
space occupation, as well as the probability of
metastic spread, is generally regarded as being
in direct ratio to the elapsed time since the
recognizable onset of the process. . . .
A critical review of the dogma of early diagnosis
and treatment is of more than theoretical importance.
Over 30 years of effort in education in the pro
fession and the public in the early recognition of
cancer has resulted in a significant increase in
the number of patients treated in a clinically
"early" phase of their disease. For 20 years an
increasingly greater proportion of the population
has been acquiring the services of specialists
competent in cancer therapy, both surgical and
radiological.
He then cites statistics for the increasing age-adjusted
death rate from cancer in the U.S.
The orthodox position toward unorthodox treatments
was that since the proponents of the treatments had not
convinced the scientific community of their usefulness,
the therapies should not be approved for clinical testing.
However, other procedures which are admitted to be
317
ineffective, including palliative surgery, are used. As
will be noted in the following section, some unorthodox
theorists have suggested that a patient will be
particularly likely to have palliative surgery prescribed
if he has a good insurance policy.
Cole discusses some methods which are used on
terminal cases, including surgical procedures and notes
that "unfortunately these regressions last no more than a
65
few months and are never permanent." Greenwald recom
mends palliative operationa such as hypophysectomy and
66
adrenalectomy, as cited above. Recently, a considerable
amount of literature concerning unnecessary surgery has
emerged. In an article concerned with the problems of
health care administration, Faltermayer notes that the
inflated cost of medical care results from doctors' being
paid on a "piecework" basis where more treatment pres
cribed means more money. He discusses the rise of the
large medical insurance companies which pay at a "cost
after" basis. He reviews studies of pre-paid group plans
and finds that they correlate with much lower percentages
of appendectomies, tonsillectomies, and hysterec
tomies.^ An "NBC Reports" segment in 1972 dealt with
unnecessary surgery and noted the higher rates of tonsil-
CO
lectomies for the United States than for Sweden.
318
Dr. Paul R. Hawley, director of the American Col
lege of Surgeons discussed, in an issue of a popular
periodical, the politics of fee splitting, ghost surgery,
and extensive unnecessary surgery for economic profit.
For example, he noted post-operative laboratory examina
tions showing 60-70 percent normal appendixes which had
69
been removed in some hospitals. He noted that the
public is unaware of the practices because "surgery is
dramatic and the patient is impressed that he is getting
something for his money. He discusses waves of
popularity in such operations as tonsillectomies which
have later been subject to skepticism as to their value
71
for health. None of this, however, is related to can
cer therapy by the author, and he largely blames the
general practitioner and recommends regulation of the
practice by the American College of Surgeons, which can
use as a weapon its ability to prevent doctors from using
hospital facilities.^
Aside from economic incentives and peer group pres
sure, previous court decisions involving malpractice have
given physicians incentive to use orthodox therapies. A
section of the Journal of the American Medical Association,
"Laws and Medicine," in 1973, emphasizes that
319
as long as a "respectable minority" of the medical
profession would concur in the method used, within
reasonable limits the physician is protected from
allegations of lack of due care. . .
But a physician who uses a method that is "either unknown
to or disapproved by his peers" can be guilty of negli
gence "if the patient does not improve, particularly if
he did not follow the usual methods of treating the
patient prior to the use of his own innovations."^
It is summarized again that
If a physician treats a patient in accordance with
the customary practice accepted in his community for
dealing with the problem, he is usually not con
sidered remiss in his duty of applying skill and care
and knowledge. ?5
An excerpt from a case is used to support the point. In
a case where a patient sued his physician for bums
resulting from x-ray therapy, the court ruled,
Physicians and surgeons must be allowed a wide range
in the exercise of their judgment and discretion. In
many instances there can be no fixed rule to determine
the duty of a physician, but he must often use his own
best judgment and act accordingly. By reason of that
fact, the law will not hold a physician guilty of
negligence, even though his judgment may prove
erroneous in a given case, unless it can be shown
that the course pursued was clearly against the course
recognized as correct by the profession generally.76
320
Footnotes
1. For example, American Cancer Society, California
Division, California's Cancer Law, California Dept, of
Public Health, or American Medical Association, Health
Quackery: Cancer (Chicago, 111.: AMA, 1968).
2. Barbara Holmes, M.D., Cancer and Scientific Re
search (London: The Sheldon Press, New York, and Toronto:
Macmillan, 1931).
3. AMA Council on Drugs, AMA Drug Evaluations
(Chicago, 111.: AMA, 1971), pp^ 621-oJfo.
4. Ibid., p. 625.
5. Ibid., p. 631.
6. C. G. Moertel, A. J. Schutt, R. J. Reitmier, and
R. G. Hahn, Mayo Clinic "Sequential l-(2-Chloroethye)-3-
Cyclohexyl-1-Nitrosourea (NSC 79037) and 5-Fluouracil
(NSC 19893) Therapy of Gastrointestinal Cancer," Cancer
Research 32 (June, 1972), p. 1282.
7. Ibid., p. 1280.
8. Edward S. Greenwald, M.D., Cancer Chemotherapy,
(New York: Medical Examination Publishing Co., Inc.,
1967), p. 120.
9. Ibid., p. 121 (quotation from C. G. Zubred, "Ef
fects of 5-fluouracil and 5-Fluouro Deoxyuridine on Gastro
intestinal Cancer." Journal of the American Medical
Association (1961), p^ 832.
10. Ibid., p. 122.
11. Ibid., p. 123.
12. Ibid., p. 124.
13. These treatments are approved agents as noted in
Greenwald, p. 159-162.
14. Ibid., p. 94.
321
15• Ibid., p. 59.
16. Baumler, Cancer; A Review of the International
Research, p. 49.
17. Greenwald, p. 40.
18. Ibid., p. 41.
19. Ibid., pp. 44-45.
20. Ibid., p. 48.
21. Gerald O. McDonald, "Experimental Chemotherapeutic
Measures to Control the Dissemination of Cancer," in
Dissemination of Cancer, ed. by Warren H. Cole, Gerald 0.
McDonald, Stuart S. Roberts, Harry W. Southwick (New York:
Appleton, Century Crofts, 1961), p. 339.
22. Warren H. Cole, "Hormones and Cancer," in Dis
semination of Cancer, ed. by Warren H. Cole, Gerald 0.
McDonald, Stuart S. Roberts, and Harry W. Southwick
(New York; Appleton, Century Crofts, 1961), pp. 276-277.
23. AMA Council on Drugs, AMA Drug Evaluations, p. 632.
24. Ibid., p. 633.
25. Michael B. Shimkin, M.D., Science and Cancer
(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare, Public Health Service, 1964), pp. 123, 124,
110.
26. "Medicine Implant Tested Against Cancer," Los An
geles Times, August 29, 1971.
27. Shimkin, pp. 125-126.
28. "Representative Symington Introduces Bill to Re
quire Written Informed Consent in Experimental Drug Use,"
National Health Federation Bulletin XX (January, 1964),
_ _
29. McNaughton Foundation, "The Evaluation of Cancer
Drugs," National Health Federation Bulletin XXVIII (April,
1971), pTTT.
322
30. Ibid., pp. 15-17.
31. Ibid., pp. 18-19.
32. Ibid., p. 20.
33. Newsletter of the Citizens Commission on Human
Rights, Los Angeles, California, reprinted Evening Star
(Washington, D.C.: November 16, 1970).
34. Morton Mintz, By Prescription Only (Boston:
Beacon Press, 1965).
35. HEW News, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare, Public Health Service, FDA (Rockville, Md.:
September 1, 1971).
36. AMA, The Best of Law and Medicine (Chicago, 111.:
AMA, 1968), Stottlemire v. Cawood, 213F Supp 897 and
Campbell v. Preston 379 Sw2d55j, p. 54.
37. Cancer Advisory Council, Cancer Quackery and the
Cancer Law, Dept, of Public Health, revised 1972^
38. Heuper, Carcinogens in the Human Environment,"
reprint from Archives of Pathology (March, 1961), pp. 355-
380, and 71 (April, i9blJ, reprint pp. 13, 17, 19.
39. Congressional Record, August 28, 1953, pp. 5670-
5693.
40. Julius Wolf, M.D., Mary Ellen Patno, Ph.D., Ber
nard Reswit, M.D., and Nicholas Esope, M.D., "Controlled
Study of Survival of Patients with Clinically Inoperable
Lung Cancer Treated with Radiation Therapy," American
Journal of Medicine 40, p. 360.
41. Ibid., p. 365.
42. "Scientists Term Radiation a Peril to the Future
of Man," New York Times, June 13, 1956, pp. 1, 17, 18, 20.
323
43. Michael Feldman, Amiela Globerson, David Nachtigal,
"The Reactivation of the Immune Response in Immunological-
ly Suppressed Animals," in Conceptual Advances in Immuno
logy and Oncology, a collection of papers presented at the
Sixteenth Annual Symposium on Fundamental Cancer Research,
1962, University of Texas, Houston, Texas (New York:
Harper and Row, 1963), p. 429.
44. Alex Comfort, "Natural Aging and Effects of
Radiation," in Radiation Research, Supplement 1, ed. by
Douglas E. Smith (.New York: Academic Pr. , Inc., 1959),
pp. 230-231.
45. N. A. Krayevskii, Studies of the Pathology of
Radiation Disease, translated by A. Lieberman (.London:
Permagen Press, 1965), pp. 174-176, 194.
46. Russell H. Wilson, Ernest H. Byers, Alfred C.
Schram, and William F. Shields, "Host Resistance to
Cancer," in Conceptual Advances in Immunology and Oncology
(New York: harper and Row, 1963,), pp. 521-540, 536.
47. Simon Koletsky, "The Pathological Effects of
Radiation Injury," in Radiation, Biology, and Cancer, a
collection of papers presented at the lzth Annual Sym-
posium on Fundamental Cancer Research, 1958, University
of Texas, Austin, Texas, 1958, and Arthur C. Upton,
"Pathological Effects," in The Biological Basis of
Radiation Therapy, ed. by Emanuel Schwartz, M.D., Philadel
phia: Lippincott, 1966, and Cronkite, Eugene, "Radiation
Injury in Man," in Schwartz, and Howard J. Curtis,
"Biological Mechanisms of Delayed Radiation Damage in Mam
mals," in Current Topics in Radiation Research, Vol. Ill,
ed. by Michael Ebert and Alma Howard, New York: Wiley,
1967, pp. 141-173.
48. Congressional Record, August 28, 1953, pp. 5670-
5693. --- ----------------
49. Bernard J. Ficaria, Surgical and Allied Malprac
tice (Springfield, 111.: Charles C. Thomas, 1968), p. 231.
50. Ibid.
51. Ibid., p. 696.
324
52. Philip Rubin, M.D., and George W. Casarett, Ph.D.,
Clinical Radiation Pathology, Vol. II (Philadelphia:
W. B. Saunders, 1968), p. 749.
53. Lowell S. Miller, M.D., and Gilbert H. Fletcher,
M.D., "Preliminary Follow-up Study of Patients Exposed to
Whole Body X-radiation," in Radiation, Biology and Cancer,
a collection of papers presented at the 12th Annual Sym-
posium on Fundamental Cancer Research. 1958 (Austin,
Texas: University of Texas Pr., 1959).
54. Ralston Paterson, The Treatment of Malignant Dis
ease by Radiotherapy (Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins
Co., I9b3), pp. 167, 310.
55. Ibid., p. 329.
56. Cameron, p. 43.
57. Howard H. Beard, Ph.D., A New Approach to the Con-
quest of Cancer, Rheumatic and Heart Diseases (Mew York:
Pageant Press, 1962), pp. 15-16.
58. Warren H. Cole, "The Role of Stress in the Resis
tance to Cancer," in Dissemination of Cancer, ed. by
Warren H. Cole, Gerald O. McDonald, Stuart S. Roberts,
Harry W. Southwick (New York: Appleton, Century, Crofts,
1961), p. 254.
59. Ibid., pp. 254-255.
60. The continuing increase in cancer death rates has
been widely noted in both orthodox and unorthodox sources:
for example Harry W. Southwick, "The Natural History of
Established Cancer," in Dissemination of Cancer, Cole
et al., eds., p. 21.
61. W. Wallace Park and James C. Lees, "The Absolute
Curability of Cancer of the Breast," Surgery, Gynecology,
and Obstetrics 93 (August, 1951).
62. Cameron, pp. 24-25.
63. Ian MacDonald, M.D., F.A.C.S., "Biological Pre-
determinatinism in Human Cancer," Surgery, Gynecology, and
Obstetrics 92 (April, 1951), pp. 44J-445.
325
64. Ibid.
65. Warren H. Cole, "Factors Important in the Growth
and Spread of Cancer," in Dissemination of Cancer, ed. by
Warren H. Cole, et al., pp“ 8-9.
66. Greenwald, pp. 195-196.
67. Faltermayer, Edmund K., "Our Ailing Health System,"
Time. Inc., 1969, reprinted from Fortune (January, 1970),
pp. 3-5.
68. "NBC Reports," December 19, 1972.
69. Paul R. Hawley, M.D., "Needless Surgery--Doctors
Good and Bad," U.S. News and World Report 34 (February,
1953), p. 49.
70. Ibid.
71• Ibid., p. 50.
72. Ibid., p. 51.
73. "Laws and Medicine" (The Standard of Care),
Journal of the American Medical Association 225 (August 13,
T9737, p." yvr.------------------------------
CHAPTER XI
THE BASES OF ORTHODOXY: THE
UNORTHODOX PERSPECTIVE
One of the indicators of "quackery" developed by
the organized medical community is that of pure economic
motivation, if it is not that of delusion or insanity.
A similar accusation of economic motivation on the part of
organized medicine and research is levied by those who
oppose orthodox therapies and research directions. That
organized medicine, drug industries, other medically
related industries, and research foundations form the
complex of a highly profitable business concern is a
common theme of unorthodox literature, although, many such
as Gerson, have concentrated on explanations involving
psychological insecurities, legitimization by source, and
specialization within the scientific community.
That there is at least a mutual admiration
formally expressed by organized medicine, the drug firms,
326
327
and the American Cancer Society, as well as government
agencies concerned with cancer research has been evidenced
above. In the previous section, reference was made to the
AMA Drug Evaluation Council's recommendation that physi
cians use the data provided by the company producing the
drug, and to the extensive advertisement by drug com
panies in the AMA journal. An article in the Journal of
the California Medical Society contains information on
the contribution of the American Cancer Society.
During the past year the society joined with the
Cancer Commission in arranging 31 Cancer Conferences
for the medical societies of counties remote from
medical teaching centers. The society also gave
financial assistance to 60 consultative tumor
boards which were approved by the Cancer Commission.
In addition to providing speakers and films for
professional meetings, the society sends CA: A
Bulletin of Cancer Progress to 4,300 CaliTcJrnia
physicians in general practice who have requested
it. Each year it distributes at least one monograph,
written by a recognized authority, without charge to
all physicians in the state.
The society's principal effort, however, is in
the fields of cancer research and general public
education. Its program of public education reaches
an annual peak in April, which is proclaimed national
ly as Cancer Control Month. During this period the
society endeavors to impress upon millions of
Americans the seven danger signals of cancer and the
need for prompt recognition and treatment of the
disease.
The funds it collects are used also to maintain
a research program which is the backbone of the
society's activities. Some of the most important
phases of this research program are being carried
out in the institutions of this state.1
328
research grants to universities, drug companies, and
private research firms, and this has been a subject of
investigation by people other than those advocating
2
unorthodox theories relating to cancer research content.
Orthodox research funding is often attacked in the more
expose oriented literature. Shelton writes that in the
drive for money for organizations such as the American
Cancer Society, emotional appeals are prevalent. The aura
of fear and mystery, he contends are purposely perpetuated
as well as is the myth of the patient scientist con
tinuously situated in the high plane of painstaking
3
research into the mystery of cancer.
Richard P. Huemer, M.D., has published an article
in the National Health Federation Bulletin on the politics
of medical research. He writes,
Organized science has always had good press agents.
Writers like the late Paul de Kruif have fashioned
images of clear-eyed, idealistic men overcoming the
dark forces of Nature to deliver miracles to suffering
humanity. Of course, the public's apprehensions about
science have occasionally been personalized in the
archetypal mad scientist, but everyone knows he is a
fictitious character. The true scientist, the real
one, is the clear-eyed fellow in the white coat, with
altruism in his heart, truth in his mind, and
miraculous cures in his outstretched hands.
As one of those men in the white coats, let me
assure you: "it ain't so." For altruism, read self-
interest; for truth, read authority; for miracles,
read minutiae. And you might as well forget about
those cures for suffering humanity. Most of the
research conducted in universities under the guise of
329
"health" (e.g., sponsored by the National Institutes
of Health) has nothing to do with improving human
health.
The scientist is human like the rest of us, and he
deserves censure less for his essential humanity, than
for his hypocrisy. We are all territorial animals,
and the scientist, no less than anyone else, marks
off a territory that he defends against intruders.
In his youth he demarcates an area of Nature which
he studies intensively. He becomes identified with
his "field" and erects theoretical structures therein.
He resists threats to the integrity of his structured
territory. By virtue of his prior occupancy of a
field, younger scientists who wish to enter it must
defer to his judgment. Conversely, he is likely to
encounter difficulties if he should abandon his field
to enter another. It is a fact that new scientific
work is judged meritorious less on its challenges to
authority than on its support of existing theories.
Science is a conservative human activity. . . .
The mediocre practitioners of any profession far
outnumber the star performers.
Men who possess cosmopolitan interests . . . are
relatively rare in science. Most scientists tend
toward over specialization and obsession with details.
Their view of Nature is not holistic, but reduction-
istic. . . .
. . .most physicians have no idea how to do an
experiment. Their medical school training has ill
equipped them to cope with scientific apparatus and
scientific concepts. Furthermore, research is secon
dary to their main (clinical) interests. Indeed,
many M.D.'s in large medical centers conduct research
projects not because they are interested in scientific
discovery,. but because research is a political
expedient that leads to more rapid advancement. In
fact, a research project is "de rigeur" for success
in academic medicine.
The split between fundamental and applied science,
combined with the hauteur of university scientists
and the incompetence of many physician-researchers,
accounts for the lack of relevance of most of today's
biomedical research. The situation is further com
plicated by extensive corruption of the scientific
establishment. The corruption has been concealed by
the good public image that organized science has en
joyed until comparatively recently.
330
The tedious and rather hit-or-miss process of
obtaining a research grant has been clearly reviewed
by Dr. Solomon Garb in his book, Cure for Cancer; A
National Goal (Springer, New York, 1968). The
acquT si tion of a grant is one of two necessities for
the scientist's professional survival; the other is
publication of his manuscripts. Significantly, the
scientific establishment exerts control over the
researcher at both points. Control over grants is
exerted through a variant of the star chamber termed
peer review. . . .
Scientific anonymity plays an important part also
in the evaluation of manuscripts for publication in
journals. Most scientific journals send new manu
scripts to other scientists who read them and submit
anonymous comments through the editor to the author.
The author must usually alter his manuscripts to the
specifications of the unknown reviewers in order to
obtain its publication . . . ./ +
He also discusses the scientific associations, such as
the American Association for the Advancement of Science
and the Federation of American Societies for Experimental
Biology and their lobbying capacities, and in relation
5
to oligarchical tendencies within the groups.
A 1967 publication of the International Association
of Cancer Victims and Friends, the group discussed above,
includes the following analysis of the financial basis of
orthodoxy.
Two hundred and sixty-nine thousand people died of
cancer in 1961, or an average of seven hundred and
forty persons every day of the year. It is a well
known fact that the average cancer patient spends
about $6,000.00 on cancer treatments before he dies,
so the total medical bill comes to about one and
one half billion dollars per day. In addition, the
government appropriated sixty million dollars last
year, and the public donated an additional thirty
331
million to fight cancer. This would seem to put
cancer in the "big business" classification. Under
standably then, if unorthodox treatments are available
that cure cancer for a hundred dollars, then not only
would all of the millions of research donations and
grants be stopped immediately, but the annual income
from cancer patients would be reduced. . . .
Dr. Josephson, M.D. , of New York, claims that
some cancer specialists earn over $100,000.00 annually,
using the orthodox methods of surgery, radium, and
X-rays. He also says that the "omniscient authorities"
vehemently scorn, deny, and reject any other than the
orthodox methods. Incidentally, radium went up 1,000
per cent in price when the medical profession began
using it to treat cancer. He further stated that
cancer associations use most of their money to pay the
salaries of medical bosses and other personnel, for
propaganda, publicity, and advertising for more contri
butions. Fear, hysteria, and phobia are used to keep
the millions of dollars in donations coming in. Each
year a "break-through" seems imminent, but finally
fades out.
A 1971 publication of the same group continues in the same
vein where it is stated that it is not publicized that
orthodox medicine, which almost exclusively advocated
only surgery, radiation, and poison chemicals, pro
duces virtually no recoveries from internal, ,
metastasized cancer. The recovery rate from such
cancer appears to be considerably less than even 1 in
1,000 cases.
The State (California) appears to intentionally
deprive any hopeless cancer patient of any non-toxic
cancer treatment he may wish to use or continue to
use even if he says it has helped him and when ortho
dox medicine says there is nothing they can do to
help him.
It appears that the State takes the position which
reflects the views and desires of organized medicine
regarding cancer because the California Cancer Advisory
Council which initiated the present regulations is
dominated by members of organized medicine--The
American Medical Association, the California Medical
Association, and the American Cancer Society.
332
Organized medicine has for many years opposed the
use of testing of several non-toxic therapies— includ
ing Koch, Krebiozen, Hoxsey, Gerson, and Laetrile.
It appears that the principal reason that organized
medicine maintains this position is because they wish
to protect and perpetuate perhaps the most lucrative
monopoly in medicine today. At a reported average
cost to die of $13,000 for each of the 335,000 cancer
patients that die annually, the cancer business ex
ceeds $4,000,000,000 annually. . . J
(The figure for 1973 is quoted by an orthodox
source as $15 billion.) '
A few sources cited above have made reference to
the mythological aura of cancer research perpetuated by
the orthodox community. The following statements from an
article about the progress in cancer research in a 1971
issue of Newsweek is an example of the sort of campaign
The extensive scope of financial committment for
research is documented not only by unorthodox but by ortho
dox sources as well. "The Killers," a KCET, Bristol
Meyers sponsored program of March 11, 1974, which was
highly lauditory of orthodox treatment, noted that more
federal dollars are spent on cancer research than on any
other disease and that the public spent $15 billion in
1973 on cancer treatment. Earlier, Rosenberg discussed
the proliferation of funding for medical research and
predicted a four fold increase in the decade of the 1960's
of government funds to medical research. Rosenberg was
the Chief of the Resources and Analysis Section, Office
of Research Planning, NIH, at the time of the writing of
his article, "Research Planning in the National Institutes
of Health." Another television documentary stated that
the "Health industry is the third largest and one of
the fastest growing industries in the nation, KCET, "The
High Cost of Healing," December 19, 1974.
333
skeptics have condemned.
. . . the war (against cancer) proceeds ever more
encouragingly at almost every tactical salient. . .
in the diagnosticians office, in the radiotherapists
chambers, and above all in the laboratories of the
quiet, patient, and painstaking men whose research
into the mystery of life itself may one day solve the
deathly riddle of the cancer cell that lurks there. . .
While the promising new tools of treatment and
diagnosis are being forged in the laboratory, the
foot soldiering war against cancer is being waged by
the surgeon, the radiotherapist, and the physician with
his drugs. The surgeon can rightly claim credit for
most of today's cures and since a large proportion of
cancer patients end up in the operating room, obviously
the extent of a surgeon's success depends on the
ability to excise all the cancer. Thanks to better
knowledge of physiology and advances in anesthesia,
he can now perform more radical surgery than ever
before.°
The article is accompanied by a chart from the
National Cancer Institute showing percentages of five
year survival rates, "adjusted for normal life expectan
cy." Even this chart (which is an improvement over the
figures some in the unorthodox perspective have cited
after they have demolished what they contend are the
purposive distortions of such figures), shows very poor
results for such things as metasticized stomach cancer
(12 percent five year survival rate), and metasticized
lung cancer (9 per cent five year survival rate).
Another example is the content of the pamphlets
prepared by the American Cancer Society which are laden
with slogans such as "Someday cancer may be a thing of the
334
past. Help that tomorrow come sooner." "A child still
lives today with acute leukemia because people cared
enough to give their money to help sponsor American
Cancer Society Research." "A mother is cured of cancer
because she listened to an educational program of the
American Cancer Society and heeded its advice."
"Research, Education, and Service: Hallmarks of the
American Cancer Society; your contribution helps make
each possible, so give generously so that a final cure
may be found for cancer." Such statements are usually
followed by information such as "Three Ways to Help Your
American Cancer Society: April crusade--make a generous
gift during the annual American Cancer Society Crusade.
Memorial program--a gift may be made as a living memorial
by those who have lost relatives or friends to cancer. An
appropriate memorial card is sent to the family of the
deceased. Legacies--after providing for loved ones,
those drawing up wills may wish to consider the American
Cancer Society. What is bequeathed today can, in future
years, be a gift of life to many . . . all gifts are tax
deductible.
The reported individual contributions to the
American Cancer Society totaled $65 million in 1970.^
The 1968-1969 program budget of the American Cancer
335
Society lists $6,746,725 for fund raising campaigns,
$10,768,055 for public education, $6,185,016 for pro
fessional education, and $21,351,173 for research
. 12
grants.
It will be recalled that one indicator of quackery
listed by organized medicine is public advertisement of a
theory or method of treatment. It seems that the
American Cancer Society, in addition to the educational
programs of the medical society, exerts considerable
effort to advertise orthodox cancer remedies as well as to
support orthodox research from funds collected as a result
of advertising.
Unorthodox sources frequencly emphasize information
which builds a case for the financial basis of orthodoxy,
such as the joint ownership of the patent rights to 5-
fluouracil, the highly toxic chemotherapy which is
approved by orthodox organizations, by the American Cancer
13
Society and Hoffman-LaRoche. An article printed by the
Lee Foundation for Nutritional Research, concentrated on
the interrelationships of the orthodox organizations:
Former Surgeon General Leonard Scheele is now
president of Warner-Lambert, the very drug com
pany of the previously mentioned Mr. Bobst; Dr. I. S.
Ravdin who, as you may recall, is one of the few
who control medical research, is president-elect of
the American Cancer Society; Dr. John R. Heller,
336
former director of the National Cancer Institute, is
now president of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer
Center; James Adams, an international investment
broker (also named by Medical World News as one of
the few in medical research control^, Ts on the
Board of Directors of the American Cancer Society
as well as on the board of Warner-Lambert; Matthew
Rosenhaus, president of Pharmaceuticals, In., is the
prime mover of the newer Eleanor Roosevelt Cancer
Research Foundation; the present chairman of the
AMA council on Food and Drugs, Dr. William C. Spring,
Jr., is a recent employee of Pfizer; Dr. Austin Smith,
president of the Pharmaceutical Manufactures
Association, is a former editor of the Journal of the
American Medical Association; Dr. Richard 6. Schreiber,
a vice president of the Upjohn Company, is a member
of the National Advisory Council; Dr. Alexander M.
Moore of the Parke-Davis Co. is a member of the
Chemistry Panel of the National Cancer Institute;
Dr. Andrew C. Batton, Jr., of Park-Davis is a member
of the Drug Evaluation Panel of the National Cancer
Institute; as is Karl A. Folkes of Merck, Sharpe and
Dohme. This recital only begins to show some of the
relationships that exist. One is reminded of the words
of Justice William 0, Douglas "We have also suffered
a decline in ethics . . . The Pentagon official looks
forward to the day he is vice president of the company
doing business with the Pentagon. The forester looks
forward to the time when he adds to his retirement pay
by getting on the payroll of the lumber company that
he is supposed to keep inbounds while he is an official
of the Forest Service." (The Minority of One. August,
1961)
The people listed above are typical of what that
eminent student of medical history, Paul de Kruif.
calls Big Committee Men ("Life among the Doctors").
In medical research, the Big Committee Men have an
"incestuous" relation with each other and with all of
the wheels on the wagon. But, you may say, is it not
normal for interrelated people in medical research to
be in interchangeable positions? Is there really a
conflict of interests involved? After all, about 1500
former military officers hold positions in the defense :
industry! ...
If one compares the situation in medical research
337
with that in armaments production, the similarities
are indeed striking. Cancer research, and medical
research in general, is a big commercial business like
any other business, and it is controlled and operated
to benefit relatively few people under the guise of
being exclusively for the public’s benefit. Any benefit
the public gets is a by-product just as in other
business endeavors. The only difference is that the
public doesn’t know this and is taught to believe
otherwise. The medical research business had as many
special advantages as the aircraft and missile makers.
The public can't understand too much about the
"scientific" details of what's going on and why.
Management gains great commercial advantages from the
use of taxpayers' money which is expended for research,
the products of which are sold at a profit to the drug
industry and the doctors (the Salk vaccine, et al).
The business's public relations can exploit the
natural desires of all people to end disease and pro
long life just as the armaments industry can wrap
itself in the American flag. All those who interfere
with the established medical research business are
called "quacks," just as all those who question our
progress toward war are called Communists. The
owners" of the business are not subject to public
questioning because they belong to an elite whose
initiation fee is a medical degree, thereby constitut
ing a "closed operation," just like the "security"
protection afforded the armaments industry. But the
crowning asset held by the medical research industry is
the sure knowledge that no citizen in his "right mind"
could possibly believe that doctors don't want to cure
disease as fast as possible! After all don't doctors
and their families get cancer too?-*^
That is why it is necessary to draw a line between
the men "in control" and the anti-disease rank and
file. The rank and file only knows what it is told,
for doctors have a hierarchical system that finds its
only parallel in the military organization. The
general tells the colonel, the colonel tells the
major and so on down the line, so by the time the word
gets to the private--private-practicing physician that
is, he can't tell fact from fiction. He hasn't the
time nor the facilities to find out. He runs the risk
of being "court martialed (expulsion from his medical
338
society, withdrawal of hospital privileges), if he
defies the written or unwritten orders of the
"commander."
There was recently announced a Congressional in
vestigation of the improper use of special information
gained by scientists on government projects for their
own financial gain. It seems a Congressman can under
stand that a missile scientist can use his government
al relationship to know a good common-stock buy; but
who can believe that a scientist might approve or
not approve a drug because of his financial or other
interest? After all, is not health, life and death
involved? ^
Another source mentions the job movement between
the drug industries and the FDA reported in the
Washington Post in 1967.
Dr. Joseph F. Sadusk, Jr., who headed the Food and
Drug Administration's Bureau of Medicine until about
a year ago, has been named Vice President for Medical
Affairs of Parke Davis Co. In January, Dr. Robert
J. Robinson, who had been Dr. Sadusk's Deputy Director
of the Bureau, was named Director of Medical Affairs
for Hoffman-LaRoche, Inc. Last April, Dr. Joseph
M. Pisani, who had preceded Dr. Robinson as Deputy
Director, became Medical Director of the Proprietary
Association, a trade group of makers of non-prescrip
tion drugs.
Gerson and others have stated that the continual
round of repetitive sympton-oriented animal experiments
had led to very little except large grants of research
funds, a statement for which they were ridiculed by
Cameron. Holland and Heidelberger, in an otherwise ortho
dox article, have stated that the large amount of work
done with transplanted rodent tumors may have serious
339
limitations as far as producing any outcome in workable
treatments for metastasizing human cancer.^
Recently some scholars have been concerned with the
success of the AMA in controlling the supply of doctors
through its control of the state boards which control
licensing, medical schools, curricula, and faculty in
18
medical schools. This control is said to aid in the
perpetuation of orthodoxy.
The AMA has explained
The National Board of Medical Examiners is a voluntary
and semi-official examining agency. The purpose of the
organization is to prepare and to administer qualify
ing examinations of such high quality, that legal
agencies governing the practice of medicine within
each state may, at their discretion, grant successful
candidates a license without further examination for
those who have successfully completed the examination
of the National Board; and who have met such other
requirements as the National Board may establish for
certification of its Diplomates.
Certificates in specialties are granted by the examining
and certifying boards in medical specialties and the
examining and certifying boards are approved by the AMA
20
and the Advisors Board for Medical Specialties.
A 1933 issue of the Journal of the American Medical
Association contained a copy of a resolution of a state
medical society concerning the limitation of medical
graduates.
340
Dr. Arthur J. Bedell, New York, presented the follow
ing resolution passed by the house of delegates of
the Medical Society of the State of New York, which
was referred to the Reference Committee on Medical
Education:
Resolved. That the Delegates to the American Medical
Association be instructed to ask for a study to be
made by the Council on Medical Education and Hospitals
of the American Medical Association as to the actual
yearly need of medical men for our country, and if it
finds, from that study, that there are more graduates
yearly than needed, it should use its influence to
bring about a limitation of the number of medical
matriculants, and hence of medical graduates.21
In 1958, in response to the accusation that the AMA was
controlling the supply of doctors, the Journal of the AMA
contained the statement:
The questions which have been posed are obviously
based on a misunderstanding of the role of the American
Medical Association in medical education. Ever since
its establishment, the Council on Medical Education
and Hospitals of the American Medical Association has
worked closely with the Association of American Medical
Colleges in constant efforts to assist in developing
and maintaining the highest possible standards of
medical education in the United States in the interests
of the American public, which the graduates of our
medical schools must serve. These two organizations
have done this through the medium of establishing
sound basic essentials of medical education, consul
tations , advice, survey evaluations, and annual
listings of the approved medical schools by the Council
on Medical Education and Hospitals and through member
ship in the Association of American Medical Colleges.
These two organizations over the years have exerted
great influence in medical education in the United
States. They have cooperated by stimulating and en
couraging new medical schools and assisting in the
improvement of those in existence, where such assist
ance was needed. These two organizations have dis
couraged only the schools that did not have the
341
facilities, finances, or faculty potentials which
promise a reasonably sound educational experience
for medical students. Their objectives have been
straightforward, sincere, and directed toward the
development of physicians well qualified in the
diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of human ail
ments in keeping with progressive scientific
knowledge. Contrary to a common misconception, these
organizations have not endeavored to control the num
ber of physicians graduated by the medical schools.
They have advised against medical schools undertaking
to admit more students than their faculties or
facilities could possibly justify if the students
were to become properly educated.
The answer to the second question concerning
licensure of refugee physicians necessitates an
understanding of the medical licensure mechanism in
this country. Each state has its own medical practice
act and its own board of medical examiners. The basic
regulations concerning licensure requirements are set
up in legislative acts. Whether or not a physician
trained in a foreign medical school is eligible for
licensure depends upon whether or not his training
and other qualifications or requirements make it pos
sible for him to meet the standards of the medical
practice act and the examinations of the particular
examining board in the respective state or states.
These requirements and the examinations utilized by
the various state boards have been devised to insure
that physicians seeking licenses possess the basic
medical knowledge essential to the practice of
medicine. In other words, they are definitely a
safeguard in the interest of the public.22
In this area as in all others, the AMA claims to
pursue policies which are in the "public interest."
AMA lobbying activities in other areas such as
health insurance have received considerable study. That
the organization opposed medicare until it could control
it and profit by raising fees before it went into effect
and by promoting the use of the nursing homes in which
342
many doctors have part ownership is a subject treated by
23
some not concerned with the orthodoxy of treatment.
Others have treated the financing of campaigns or the
lobbying in bureaucracy activities of the AMA, for which
extensive funds are required. Rynack has noted that in
the 19601s about 45 per cent of the AMA’s budget came
24
through advertising by drug companies.
Footnotes
1. "The American Cancer Society: What It Is and What
It Does," California Medicine 78 (April 1, 1953). p. 326.
2. Luch Eisenberg, k , The Politics of Cancer, Harpers
(May-November, 1971), p. 104.
3. Herbert M. Shelton, "Cancer Research," in Is Can
cer Curable (Mokelumne Hill, Ca.: Health Research” 1965).
4. Richard P. Huemer, M.D., "The Medical Research
Game," National Health Federation Bulletin XVII (July,
August,“1971)", mi: ------------------
5. Ibid., p. 20.
6. Emery Dezso, The Sixteen Unorthodox Cancer Treat
ments Story (LaJolla, Ca.: International Association of
Cancer Victims and Friends, 1967), p. 2.
7. Newsletter (Solana Beach, Ca.: International
Association of Cancer Victims and Friends, April 24,
1971).
8. "The War Against Cancer: Progress Report,"
Newsweek LXXVII (February 22, 1971), pp. 84 and 90.
9. Ibid., p. 90.
343
10. American Cancer Society pamphlets, Los Angeles
County Branch Office, Long Beach Harbor District Office.
11. "The War Against Cancer . . .," p. 84.
12. American Cancer Society, American Cancer Society
Annual Budget, 1968 (New York: American Cancer Society,
Inc., I969J, p. 22.
13. Malcolm Lawrence (nom-de-plume) "Medical Research,"
reprinted by Lee Foundation for Nutritional Research
(Milwaukee, Wise.: 1962), pp. 3-4.
14. Ibid., p. 7-8.
15. Ibid., p. 9.
16. "The Findings on the U.S. Food and Drug Administra
tion," from The Washington Post, March 18, 1967.
17. James F. Holland and Charles Heidelberger, "Human
Cancer: The Primary Target," Cancer Research 20 (August,
1960), pp. 975-976.
18. Richard Carter, The Doctor Business (Garden City:
N.Y. : Doubleday and Co."J Inc. , 1955;, pp. 89-95; and
Richard Harrison Shryock, Medical Licensing in America,
1650-1965 (Baltimore, Md.: John Hopkins Pr., 1967), and
California Administrative Code, Title 16, ch 13, Register
/3, no. 43. 10-27-/3 (Sacramento, Ca.: State of
California), pp. 6, 26, 36, 117.
19. AMA, American Medical Directory (Chicago, 111.:
AMA, 1969), part I, 25th ed., p. xi.
20. AMA, American Medical Directory (Chicago, 111.:
AMA), part III 25th ed., pp. xii and xiii.
21. JAMA 101 (July 1, 1933), p. 42.
22. JAMA 166 (February 15, 1958), p. 856.
23. Edmund F. Faltermayer, Better Care at Less Cost
Without Miracles, Time, Inc., reprinted from Fortune
(January, 19/0), pi 86.
344
24. Elton Rayack, Professional Power and American
Medicine; The Economics of the American Medical Associa
tion (New York; World Publishing Co., l9'67), p~^ Hu
CHAPTER XII
CONCLUSION
The case study has illustrated the problem of
defining a case of suppression of scientific research.
It has also illustrated the problem of determining
whether a person's defense of a particular position is
based in orthodoxy or in empirical evidence. In this
case the norms of science, operating in the autonomous
scientific community existing within the liberal
political system of autonomous interest groups, do not
seem to have guaranteed a free flow of ideas.
The literature of the orthodox associations and of
the deviant scholars evidence that certain ideas are
accepted by the orthodox associations while others are
not and that people who promote the unorthodox ideas have
encountered several forms of punishment, including
345
346
denigration of reputation, economic loss, inability to
publish in assocation journals, loss of job, cutting of
research funds, and arrest. According to the organized
medical association, however, this constitutes only the
regulation of non-scientific ideas and quackery. The
question of how one determines which theories are
adequately based in empiricism enough to be classified
as "scientific ideas, arises." There is the assertion
in the orthodox statements that the scientific community,
in the form of those scholars approved by the organized
associations, constitute the only reliable source of
information about medical theory and that the organized
scientific community is now capable of determing "fact
from fiction" in the content of medical theory and
research.
The orthodox statements have advised against the
reading of the unorthodox literature, for a non-expert is
not capable of preventing himself from succumbing to the
clever falsehoods contained in the literature.^ They
suggest that the non-expert must determine which ideas
are "scientific" according to authority rather than to
the content and methods of research. One can do this
because the norms of science rule in the scientific com
347
munity, where there exist "channels" through which any
idea receives the scrutiny of the scientific community
in "recognized" laboratories and clinics. It is necessary
to rely on the word of the organized association also
because the non-expert might be misled by the impressive
credentials of some of the quacks; people with impressive
credentials must be deluded or insane if they subscribe
to unorthodox theory. It is only through the established
channels that the nonscientific ideas can be sorted out.
However, unorthodox scholars have presented a
different version of the pattern of events unfolding in
the established channels; they suggest that politics
rather than the norms of science reign in the channels
where ideas theoretically obtain peer review. Several
unorthodox scholars have contended that those orthodox
scholars who have taken an active part in the suppression
of unorthodox theory are dogmatic, unable to cope with
information apart from source, use logically self-contained
arguments, and cannot separate the cognitive from the
evaluative; they are ideological thinkers, not men whose
ideas are continually adjusted to empirical data.
There are widely divergent interpretations of the
ways in which it is decided that a theory is or is not
348
empirically based. The orthodox association has termed
the theories of which they approve, "proven.” It has been
shown that there is skepticism among unorthodox scholars
with regard to the "proven" nature of orthodox theories.
Some orthodox studies which left room for doubt as to the
"proven" nature of orthodox theories were also cited.
However, the orthodox statements were taken out of con
text and applied to the problem of this paper in order to
demonstrate the inconsistency in argument. The shaky
nature of some orthodox theories and therapies becomes
very firm and "proven" when the organized association is
attempting to discredit unorthodox theories.
It will be recalled that any documentation of
clinical reversal of disease after administration of
unorthodox therapy was explained by the orthodox associ
ations as being either cases of spontaneous remission, in
correct original diagnosis of cancer (even if the original
diagnosis was performed by an orthodox doctor), or that
the clinical reversal was caused by the belated effects of
orthodox therapy.
However, any documentation of clinical reversal of
the disease when orthodox therapy is administered is
interpreted as indicating that the treatment is effica
cious; it is pointed out that spontaneous remission is so
349
rare that it would be foolish not to assume that the un-
o
orthodox treatments are efficacious. There is also an
area of disagreement as to the indicators of the efficacy
of a therapy. Unorthodox scholars have contended that
the massive and immediate tumor destruction which the
organized association uses as an indicator of efficacy is
not an appropriate indicator; they have suggested that
the orthodox goal of immediate tumor destruction is
typical of the orthodox approach of violently suppressing
symptoms of disease and thus contributing to the de
generated state of the patient.
There have been conflicting reports as to the
events surrounding testing procedures. The orthodox
association's denunciations of the unorthodox theories
sometimes contain references to tests which were conducted
and which disproved unorthodox theories. The unorthodox
researchers have claimed that the tests were not done
scientifically, that they were purposely manipulated to
produce the results compatible with the orthodox position.
For example, it was claimed that some of the orthodox
tests involved the administering of the unorthodox therapy
only partially and improperly to patients whose degenerated
conditions were far advanced. There are conflicting
accounts as to why tests were discontinued before they
were completed. There is also disagreement about the
evidence submitted to the FDA for approval of the clinical
testing of therapies. For example, unorthodox researchers,
including some in governmental agencies, have contended
that the quality and quantity of data submitted for
Laetrile is at least equal to that submitted by major
pharmaceutical companies for products which the FDA has
readily approved for clinical testing. The FDA has con
tended for years, however, that there is insufficient
evidence to warrent the clinical testing of Laetrile. The
American Medical Association, American Cancer Society,
and FDA have listed Laetrile as an unscientific therapy
for many years.
There is also an area of disgreement over the
scientific basis for the theories concerning the environ
mental causes of cancer. For many years the orgnized
medical association, the American Cancer Society, and the
FDA have produced much literature which labels these
theories "quackery." There are statements from these
organizations which suggest that the idea that the popula
tion is exposed to many carcinogenic substances on a
daily basis is ridiculous; the idea that food additives,
pharmaceuticals, pesticides, industrial pollutants, etc.,
contained carcinogenic substances which might be related
351
to the rising cancer incidence, was declared to be
unscientific by definition. Dr. Heuper has contended
that there has been ’ ’ well-organized confusion" surround
ing the theories of environmental causes of cancer. For
example, scientists working for industries have effective
ly used the argument that one cannot prove that any
particular substance is contributing to a rise in
degenerative disease among the consuming population.
They contend that laboratory experiments which show that
a substance produces cancer in animals are not valid for
making generalizations about the effect of the substance
on the human population. Because of the impossibility of
doing controlled clinical studies on the effects of
various carcinogenic substances on human health over a
period of years, the industrial scientists can suggest
that a ’ ’ safe" tolerance for any substance be established
by FDA, regardless of the results of laboratory animal
experiments.
Very recently, the environmental theories appear
to be gaining more respectability as researchers who
remain connected with major research institutions suggest
that particular substances are carcinogenic. There have
also been a few televised documentaries on the carcino
genic properties of specific substances to which indus
trial workers and consumers are exposed. The question
352
arises as to why theories and research which were once
labeled "quackery" and "non-scientific nonsense," become,
at a later time, "scientific." According to unorthodox
researchers and also according to my unlearned eye, many
of these earlier studies which were declared to be un
scientific utilized methods similar to those of the
studies which are now sporadically issuing from prestigious
research institutions. The American Medical Association’s
denunciation of Gerson's environmental cancer theory did
not deal directly with his research. Rather, it con
tained remarks about the therapy which was supposed to
discredit it so obviously. For example, it merely
ridiculed his insistence that highly processed food sub
stances containing carcinogenic substances were related to
cancer and that they should be removed from the diet of
the cancer patient. It was presented as though this were
an obviously unscientific idea which could be dismissed
without examination.
Besides the fact that the quack theory will not
have an empirical basis, there are other indicators that a
theory or therapy is based in quackery, according to the
orthodox associations. One is that there would be lay
people supporting it and that it would not have been pro
perly confined within the scientific community until it
had been "proven." Apparently the stricture against
353
appeals to the lay communities does not apply to the
orthodox positions, for there is a great deal of advertis
ing for orthodox theories and therapies in the public
relations campaigns of the American Medical Association and
the American Cancer Society. Also, the orthodox associa
tions have not specifically elaborated upon why this is
an indicator of quackery; there has previously been non
expert support for a theory which was at a later time
accepted by the community of expertise. An example of
this was mentioned in the journal of the organized
medical association, although not in connection with the
arguments over quackery and cancer research. In an
article in JAMA is the following statement:
In spite of the numerous deaths produced by heavy
blood letting, opposition by the medical profession
was surprisingly tardy, mild, and ineffectual. . . .
Opposition by the lay public was earlier and more
vehement and authors and artists were more con
vinced of the futility of blood letting than were
doctors.3
The orthodox associations have contended that politicians
should also stay out of the area of the content of cancer
research. They have noted that politicians who have
initiated investigations into the economics of cancer re
search and who have made statements at times demanding the
testing of particular unorthodox cancer therapies, have
been deluded by such unscientific things as testimonials
354
from cancer patients. However, the California Cancer
Advisory Council notes that one of the crucial factors
included in the California Medical Association's campaign
to get the legislature to set up the Cancer Advisory
Commission was the testimonial of a woman whose sister had
died from cancer.^ Apparently then, we cannot determine
whether a theory is scientific or quackery by observing
whether or not politicians support it; the real determin
ing factor is whether the organized association deems the
politicians which are interfering to be deluded or
enlightened.
Another indicator suggested by the orthodox
associations is that the quack is either a cynical entre
preneur, deluded, or insane. Those who give any credence
to the quack's statements are either deluded or have
personality quirks. The en masse denigration of the
reputation of scholars who support unorthodox cancer
theory is a common approach used in the public relations
literature of the orthodox association. The deluded,
insane, and greedy support unorthodox theories and, if
one supports an unorthodox theory, one is by definition,
deluded, insane, or greedy.
Another indicator that a set of ideas constitute
quackery is that they contain the statement that orthodox
355
therapy contributes to the degenerated state of the cancer
patient and that a higher success ratio could be obtained
with unorthodox treatments if the patients had not pre
viously had orthodox therapy. Although most orthodox
statements regard unorthodox therapies as harmless but
useless, with their principle danger emanating from their
potential to delay orthodox therapy, one statement cited
above noted that an indicator of a quack therapy was
that its recipient could be mutilated for life. Apparent
ly the statement is an indicator of quackery only when it
is applied to orthodox therapy by unorthodox men, while
orthodox men are free to make the same statement about
unorthodox therapy.
Also indicative of their quackery is the fact
that the unorthodox scholars do not publish articles con
cerning their unorthodox therapies in the journals of the
organized association. To the orthodox associations, this
is an indicator of quackery, but to the unorthodox
scholars it is an indicator of suppression by the orthodox
association. Some of the unorthodox scholars have pub
lished articles in the journals of the association until
they supported unorthodox theories. Some had also been
members of the organized medical association before they
became "quacks." Another indicator of quackery was that
356
the person would not be a member of the organized medical
organization. One orthodox essay contained the statement
that if the quack were a member of the organized
association, he would not be for long. Thus, one is
removed from the association and does not get articles
published in the journals of the association because he
is a quack, while some distinguishing characteristics of
the quack are that he does not belong to the organized
association or publish articles in its journals. Some
unorthodox sholars have not expressed the faith of Scott
Greer, a faith in the guarantees afforded to an ever-
widening tolerance of ideas, by virtue of the rise of the
scientific associations and their journals.
Another indicator of quackery, that the content
of the therapies would be kept secret, was not verified
in the case of the therapies investigated in this paper.
Dr. Gerson introduced a book in which his theories and
therapy are described in detail, with the remark that the
only secret of his therapy was that there was no secret.
The California Administrative Code contains lists of the
ingredients of the unorthodox therapies which are pro
hibited.
Another identifying characteristic of a quack,
according to the orthodox associations, is that he will
357
include a tremendous mark-up in the price of his treatment.
If this indicator were applied universally and if we con
sider some studies of the economics of orthodox health
care, much of orthodox medical care would have to fall
under the label of quackery. Some unorthodox scholars
stress economic motivation as a major factor contributing
to the maintenance of orthodoxy.
Another indiciator of quackery is that the quack
offers false hopes to people who are terminal; however,
orthodox articles stress the need to offer the incurable
patient hope through the continuance of various surgical,
radiological, and chemotherapeutic measures.
It has been shown that there are inconsistencies
and double standards in the arguments of the organized
orthodox associations concerning the non-empirical basis
of unorthodox theories as well as in their arguments
concerning the other indiciators of quackery. Many times
the argument is definitional. An example of this is the
argument that anyone who claims that his research has been
suppressed by organized medicine is a quack because this
is an indicator of quackery. It appears that the norms
of science have been used aa vague symbolic legitimizers
for the orthodox position. They have been used, as Bendix
suggests that they are often used in the sciences, as a
358
"means of discrediting an opponent, rather than as a
methodological safeguard." Statements of organized
medicine which are presented in this case study could be
used to suggest that the organized community is interested
in the protection of dogma. The statements appear to fit
more closely into Ackerman's depiction of reigns of
orthodoxy in scientific communities than they fit into
the depiction of the scientific community by scholars
cited in Chapter I. Scholars cited in Chapter I and
Joravsky, an author cited in the Lysenko case, have sug
gested that natural scientists will have little or no
interest in clinging to dogma.
Some of the explanations offered in this case
study for why those men do have an interest in clinging to
dogma parallel some of the secondary explanations offered
by students of the Lysenko case for the successful reign
of orthodoxy in Soviet genetics. Students of the Lysenko
case suggested that those scientists who subscribed to the
Lysenko orthodoxy were really technicians and that they
perceived that their futures were bound up with the
orthodoxy. Some scholars cited in Chapter I suggested
that, aside from the ideological and unscientific thought
patterns of the Communist Party men, the fact that their
personal futures were bound up with the perpetuation of
359
their dogma explains their efforts to impose the ortho
doxy. In this case study, unorthodox scholars, includ
ing two who have occupied positions in testing agencies,
have suggested that financial considerations and the
perception that one's future is bound with the orthodoxy
are motivations affecting the interpretation of what
constitutes adequate evidence, appropriate objective
testing procedures, safety of therapy, indicators of
efficacy, etc. Other unorthodox scholars have explained
the reign of orthodoxy by what they consider to be the
overspecialization in academic communities, which in
fluences the scholar's total outlook and makes him
unreceptive to a wide range of ideas because of his un
familiarity with so many theories which are relevant for
the study of phenomena in his specialized area. Thus,
territorial protection and the rejection of new informa
tion by the specialists perpetuate orthodoxies. For
example, the specialist in radiation therapy cannot be
expected to have an unbiased view of theories and research
which suggest that radiation therapy contributes to the
degenerated state of the cancer patient. Some have sug
gested that a factor which contributes to the maintenance
of orthodoxy is that many people who are called scientists
are really technicians who have no interest in new
360
theories and research or have as a major concern in their
research projects, the acquisition of funds.
The system of funding is also used as an explana
tory factor as it was in the Lysenko case. Some scholars
have suggested that major sources of funds are available
only for orthodox research. Thus, one is much more
likely to obtain research funds and recognition for a
project which is related to the problem of expanding the
length of time a cancer patient may be kept on a highly
toxic orthodox drug before succumbing to the effects of
the treatment, than for a research project dealing with
the carcinogenic properties of particular pharmaceuticals
or food additives.
Some scholars cited in the case study suggest
that the medical educational system contributes to the
maintenance of orthodoxy. The curriculum and textbooks
legitimize the orthodox ideas. Heuper and others have
pointed out that medical school curricula have not in
cluded serious studies of the environmental causes of
cancer. The students of the Lysenko era suggested that
the educational system in which the textbooks carried the
Lysenko orthodoxy was a factor which enhanced the reign
of orthodoxy.
361
*
Students of the Lysenko era also suggested that
the fear of repercussions was enough to make some scholars
act as if they subscribed to the orthodoxy whether or not
they did; this further perpetuated the orthodoxy. The
California Medical Association has conveniently provided
an estimate which suggests that the fear of punishment is
an inducement to many scholars to avoid unorthodox ideas.
Students of the Lysenko era suggest that the well-
organized public relations campaign of the Lysenkoites
also supported the reign of orthodoxy. Scholars cited in
the case study suggest that the well-organized public
relations campaign upon which the American Medical
Association spends such a large portion of its budget, is
a major factor contributing to the maintenance of the
orthodoxy.
All of these secondary factors used to explain the
successful reign of the Lysenko orthodoxy were contained
within the explanation based upon the dichotomous classi
fication of Party-state power versus private group power.
The scholars cited in Chapter I and the students of the
Lysenko case assumed that the Communist Party and state
apparatus were the threats to free inquiry; their remedy
for the impaired flow of ideas lay in the autonomous
scientific community existing within a political system
362
where autonomous interest groups are strong. The case
study has illustrated Lowi1s point that we need to go
beyond the state power-private group power dichotomy in
order to analyze human behavior. The scholars cited in
Chapter I have not considered the possibility that the
autonomous scientific community and autonomous interest
groups can assume the role of the agents impairing the
flow of ideas. They have not asked the question, as Lowi
insists we must, of who initiated any particular forcible
act, of whether a state agency is a captive of private
groups. It has been necessary to ask this question in
the case study of this paper. For example, it will be
recalled that the California Medical Association itself
takes credit for the instigation and continuation of state
action against unorthodox men. And the censorship decrees
imposed on Dr. Heuper's studies of carcinogenic work
environments was imposed by the agency at the request of
private industry.
The scholars cited in Chapter I have been content
to analyze the problem of suppression of inquiry and
ideas in terms of the formal structural distinctions of
the liberal paradigm; a society where autonomous interest
groups are strong is by definition a society where free
inquiry and non-ideological thinking prevail. Their argu-
363
merits become definitional and tautological. Schick has
suggested that the tautological arguments of the plural-
ists, concerning the state power-private group power
dichotomy, remain in the spirit of laissez-faire. The
pluralists thought that they were seeing the emergence
from ideology with the emergence of what they described as
strong autonomous competing groups. But Schick contends
that rather than observing the end of ideology, they were
ushering in an ideology— the ideology of pluralism--a
g
revised and updated ideology to glorify the status quo.
I do not know to what extent the liberal ideology
or the cold war propaganda has controlled the assumptions
of the paradigm under which the scholars cited in
Chapter I operate. But I do not think that our under
standing of the problem of free inquiry would be lessened
if the problem were taken out of the confines of the
liberal paradigm and removed from the attempt to show
that there is more free inquiry within one whole national
society than within another whole national society. Some
of the secondary factors which were used for explanations
of the reign of the Lysenko orthodoxy and some of the
explanations which were suggested in the case study of
this paper and by scholars cited in Chapter III certainly
deserve more attention and investigation than they have
364
been given in the past.- For example, some scholars have
suggested that academic specialization and cognitive
consistency are phenomena which deserve attention in
relation to the problem of the flow of ideas in
scientific communities; they have suggested that men in
the academic specialty may be fearful of the information
which is unfamiliar to them and which they see as
threatening to the concepts and techniques they have
learned in their specialized training. They may be un
aware of many things which affect the very subject matter
of their specialty but which have been put within the
boundaries of another specialty. Caldwell has suggested
that the politics of ecological science policy could per
haps be better understood if we were to spend more time
looking at the phenomenon of specialization; for
environmental questions fall in the area of relationships;
there is a vacuum in this area because specialties have
been organized around objects or phenomena or processes.
He has suggested that "case studies of issues and motives
involved in environmental change could contribute greatly
to this knowledge."^
But in order for social scientists to engage in
this type of study, to investigate the politics of science
and research, there must be a willingness to step outside
365
the boundaries of the liberal paradigm where the auto
nomous specialized scientific communities are merely-
assumed to be the protectors of free inquiry and the only
reliable source which the nonexpert can use to determine
what constitutes "scientific" inquiry. If we merely
assume that the men of the scientific community do indeed
develop and adjust their theories solely on the basis of
the continuous stream of empirical data, if we assume
that the nonexpert can analyze science policy as it
relates to the content of research only by using the
well-publicized statements of scientists which are con
sidered respectable in the scientific community at the
time, we impose serious restrictions upon the study of
science policy and upon the study of the problem of the
suppression of scientific research and ideas.
Footnotes
1. Grant and Bartlett, p. 6.
2. Tilden C. Everson and Warren H. Cole, Spontaneous
Regression of Cancer (Philadelphia, Pa.: W. B. Saunders,
I%6), p. 111.
3. A. Lawrence Abel,
4. The Cancer Law, 1959-1964.
5. Reinhard Bendix, The Age of Ideology: Persistent
and Changing (New York: Free Press of Glencoe, 1964),
pp. 2 9 7 - 2 9 9 7
366
6. Allen Schick, "Administration as Budgetary Pro
cess: Systems Politics and Systems Budgeting," Public
Administration Review (March-April, 1969), pp. 137-151.
7. Lynton Caldwell, "The Biophysical Encironment,"
in Action Under Planning, ed. by Bertram M. Gross
(New York: McGraw HillJ 1967), pp. 91 and 102.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ackerman, Robert. The Philosophy of Science. New York:
Pegasus, 197W.
Adorno, T. W.; Frankel-Brunswick, Else; Levinson, Daniel
J.; and Sanford, R. Nevitt. The Authoritarian
Personality. New York: Harper and Row, 1950.
"The American Cancer Society: What It Is and What It
Does." California Medicine, Vol. 78, April 1,
1953, -------------
American Cancer Society. American Cancer Society Annual
Budget. New York: American Cancer Society, Inc.,
1965.
________. Answers to 101 Questions About Cancer. New
YorTc* American Cancer Society, In., 1%5.
_______ . The Hopeful Side of Cancer. New York:
American Cancer Society, Inc., 1964.
American Medical Association. American Medical Directory.
Chicago: American Medical Association, 1969.
_______ . The Best of Law and Medicine. Chicago:
American Medical Association, T968.
_______ . Conference on Guidelines for Nutritional Educa-
tionT Medical Schools, and Post Doctoral Training
Programs, Conterence Summary, June 25-2/, 19/2.
Chicago: American Medical Association, 19/2.
"Gerson's Cancer Treatment." Journal of the
American Medical Association, Vol” 132, November
16, 1946, pp. 645-646.
367
________. Health Quackery: Cancer. Chicago: American
Medical Association, 1968.
________. The Merchants of Menace. Chicago: American
Medical Association, T9FST
American Medical Association, Bureau of Investigation.
"Cough Medicine for Cancer." Journal of the
American Medical Association, Vol 135, June 12,
1934, pp. 66/-<>fe8.----------
American Medical Association Committee on Research.
"Status Report on Krebiozen." Journal of the
American Medical Association, VoI. 147,
October 2/, I9i>l, pp. 854-8/2.
American Medical Association Council on Drugs. AMA Drug
Evaluations. Chicago: American Medical
Association, 1971.
American Medical Association Council on Pharmacy and
Chemistry, "Cancer and the Need for Facts."
Journal of the American Medical Association,
Vol” ! 3 9,----------------------------------
American Medical Association Department of Investigation.
Data Sheet on Laetrile. Chicago: American
Medical Association, T967.
________. Facts on Quacks: What You Should Know About
Health Quackery. Chicago: American Medical
Association, T967.
________. Health Quackery: Cancer. Chicago: American
Medical Association, 1958.
Argyris, Chris. Personality and Organization: The Con
flict Between the System ana the Individual.
New York: Harper and Row, 19b /.
Armstrong, John A. Ideology, Politics, and Government in
the Soviet Union. New York: Praeger, 195/, rev.’
ed.
________. The Politics of Totalitarianism: The Communist
Party of the Soviet Union from 1984 to the Present
New York: Random House, 1951.
369
Arnold, Mary F. "Education for Administration of Health
Care Systems." Public Administration Review,
Vol. 31, October, 19/1, pp. 33/'-t>4Z.
Aron, Raymond. "Soviet Society in Transition," in
Samuel Hendel, ed., The Soviet Crucible.
Princeton, New Jersey! Van Nostrand, 1959.
Bailey, Herbert. Krebiozen--Key to Cancer. New York:
Hermitage House, I9bb.
Barghoom, Frederich. "Changes in Russia: The Need for
Perspectives." Problems of Communism, Vol. 15,
May/June, 1966, pp. 39-42.
Baumler, Ernst. Cancer: A Review of International Re
search. London: (!jueen Anne Hr., Ltd., 1968.
Beard, Howard H. A New Approach to the Conquest of Can
cer, Rheumatic, and Heart Disease! New York:
Pageant Press, 1912.
Bell, Daniel. The End of Ideology. Glenco, 111.: The
Free Press, I960.
Bern, Daryl J. Beliefs, Attitudes, and Human Affairs.
Belmont, Ca.: Wadsworth Pub. Co., 19/0.
Bergman, Gustav. The Metaphysics of Logical Positivism.
Madison: University of Wisconsin, 1967.
Bendix, Reinhard. The Age of Ideology: Present and
Changing. Glenco, III.: The Free Press, 1964.
Bjorklund, Bertril. "Antigenicity in Human Carcinoma Cells
in the Light of an Alternative Conceptual Approach
to Neoplasia," in Conceptual Advances in Immunology
and Oncology. New York: Harper and Row, 1963.
Biur, Wesley. Contextual Model Building. University of
S outhe rh" "Ca. " , T9707 ---------
Brzezinsky, Zbigniew, and Huntington, Sammuel P.
Political Power U.S.A. - USSR. New York:
Viking, 1968.
Burk, Dean. "On Some Scientific and Moral Issues of
Laetrile." Speech presented at the U.S., Senate
Staffers Seminar, March 11, 1971, reprinted in
National Health Federation Newsletter, April 27,
T T 7 T ~ .---------------------------------
________. Letter to Elliott L. Richardson, Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare, Washington, D.C.,
March 23, 1971.
Caldwell, Lynton. "The Biophysical Environment," in
Gross, Bertram, ed., Action Under Planning.
New York: McGraw HilT^ 196/.
Cameron, Charles S., M.D. The Truth About Cancer.
New York: Macmillan^ 196/.
Cancer Advisory Council. Cancer Quackery and the Cancer
Law. Berkeley: Department ot Bublic Health,
T3F6, 1972.
________. Interim Study Committee on Public Health, State
of California, Cancer Quackery and the Cancer Law.
Berkeley: Department ot Public Health, 1964.
________. Supplementary Report by the Cancer Advisory
Council on Treatment of Cancer with Beta-
Cyanogenetic Glucosides ("Laetriles"). Berkeley:
Department ot Public Health, 1965.
"Cancer Drug." Science News, Vol. 98, July 25, 1970,
pp. 55-5^
The Cancer Law 1959-1964. Sacramento: Department of
Public Health, T965.
"Cancer Quack Drive Pushed." Los Angeles Times, March 29,
1973.----------------- ------ ----------
"Cancer Research Team Isolates Substance that Triggers
Capillary Growth in Tumors." Wall Street Journal,
March 28, 1972, p. 4.
"The Cancer Underground." Newsweek, September 17, 1973.
Canton, Alfred J., M.D. Cancer Can Be Cured. New York:
Didier, 1966.
371
Carter, Gwendolen M., and Herz, John H. Major Foreign
Powers. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World,
1962'.
Carter, Richard. The Doctor Business. Garden City, N.Y.:
Doubleday and Co., In., 195b.
Cheraskin, Emanual, and Ringsdorf, W. M. New Hope for
Incurable Disease. New York: Arco Publishing Co.,
T T 7 T . ------------
Chidester, F. C. Nutrition and Glands in Relation to
Cancer. Milwaukee: tee Foundation tor Nutrition
al Research, 1944.
Christie, Richard, and Jahoda, Marie. Studies in the
Scope and Method of the Authoritarian Personality.
New York: Free Press, 1 9 5 4 .
Cohen, Michael. "Responsibility in the Public Service."
People in the Public Service, ed. Robert Golin-
biewski and Michael Cohen, Itasca, 111.: F. E.
Peacock Publisher, Inc., 1970.
Cole, Warren H. "Factors Important in the Growth and
Spread of Cancer." Dissemination of Cancer, eds.
Warren H. Cole, Gerald 0. McDonald, Stuart
Roberts, Harry W. Southwich. New York: Appleton
Century Crofts, 1961.
_. "Hormones and Cancer." Dissemination of Can
cer, eds. Warren H. Cole, et al.
_. "The Role of Stress in the Resistance to Can
cer," Dissemination of Cancer, eds. Warren H.
Coie, et al.
Comfort, Alex. "Natural Aging and Effects of Radiation."
Radiation Research, Supplement 1, ed. Douglas E.
Smith, New York: Academic Press, Inc., 1959,
pp. 230-231.
Converse, Philip E. "The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass
Publics." Ideology and Discontent, ed. David E.
Apter. Glencoe, N.Y.: The Free Press, 1964.
372
Cramp, Arthur J., M.D. Nostrums, Quackery, and Pseudo-
Medicine. Chicago: American Medical Association,
T O ----
Cronkite, Eugene. "Radiation Injury in Man." The
Biological Basis of Radiation Therapy, ed.
Emanual Schwartz, M.D. Phildeiphia: Lippincott,
1966.
Curtis, Howard J. "Biological Mechanisms of Delayed
Radiation Damage in Mannals." Current Topics of
Radiation Research, Vol. 3, ed. Michael Ebert and
Almo Howard, New York: Wiley, 1973, pp. 141-173.
Devine, Donald J. The Political Culture of the U.S.
Boston: Little Brown, I97Z.
Dezso, Emery. The Sixteen Unorthodox Cancer Treatments
Story. LaJolla, Ca.: international Association
of Cancer Victims and Friends, 1967.
Djilas, Milovan. The New Class: An Analysis of the Com
munist System. New York: Praeger, 1957.
Dobzhansky, Th. "N. I. Vavilov, A Martyr of Genetics."
Death of a Science in Russia. Conway Zirkle,
University of Pennsylvania Rress, 1949.
Douglas, Paul H. "A Fair Test for Krebiozen." Congres-
sional Record, Vol. 109, pp. 12222-12227,
July 18, 1963.
________. "Scientific Tests and Investigation of Krebio
zen." Congressional Record, Vol. 109, August 17,
1963, p. 1361/.
Drummon, William. "Cancer Victims Cross Border to be
Treated at Tiajuana Clinics." Los Angeles Times,
December 11, 1967.
Eisenburg, Lucy. "The Politics of Cancer." Harpers,
May 1971, p. 104.
Ellsworth, Raymond. The Soviet State. New York: Mac
millan, 1968.
Ellul, Jacques. The Technological Society. New York:
Random House, 1964.
"The Evaluation of Cancer Drugs." National Health
Federation Bulletin, Vol. 2/, April, 19/1,
p. 13-20.----------
Everson, Tilden C., and Cole, Warren H. Spontaneous Re-
f
ression of Cancer. Philadelphia: W. B. Saun-
ers, I966.
Fainsod, Merle. How Russia is Ruled. Cambridge: Harvard
Univ. Pr.- ^ 1956.
________. "Terror as a System of Power." In Hendel,
Samuel, ed., The Soviet Crucible. Princeton:
Van Nostrand, 1959.
"F.T.C. Prohibits Deceptive Vitamin Ads: Requires
Corrective Advertisements." F.T.C. News Release,
February 22, 1974.
Faltermeyer, Edmond K. "Our Ailing Health System." Time,
Inc., Reprint from Fortune, January, 1970.
Feldman, Michael; Globerson, Amiela; Nachtigal, David.
"The Reactivation of Immune Response in Immunolo-
gically Suppressed Animals." Conceptual Advances
in Immunology and Oncology. New York: Harper
and Row",' 1953.----------
Feuer, Lewis. "The Intelligentsia in Opposition." Pro
blems of Communism, Vol. 19, November, 1970,
pp. 1-8.
Ficaria, Bernard J. Surgical and Allied Malpractice.
Springfield, IllT: Charles C. Thomas, 1968.
Filtermayer, Edmund K. "Better Care at Less Cost Without
Miracles." Time, Inc., reprinted from Fortune,
January, 1970, p. 81.
"The Findings of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration."
The Washington Post, March 18, 1967.
"First Tuesday," CBS News, March 2, 1971.
374
Fitzgerald, Benedict F. "A Report to the Senate Interstate
Commerce Committee on the Need for Investigation of
Cancer Research." Congressional Record, August 3,
1953, appendix pp. A635I-A5352.
Food and Drug Administration. Summary Report on FDA*s
Campaign Against Nutritional Quackery.
________. Your Money or Your Life: An FDA Catalog of
Facts and Swindles in the Health Field. U7 S.
Department of HEW, FDA publication No. 19-A.
"Food: Green Grow the Profits." ABC Closeup, December 21,
1973.
Fountain, L. H. "HEW Should Ascertain if Laetrile is
Effective for Treatment of Cancer." Congressional
Record, March 25, 1971.
Galbraith, John Kenneth. The New Industrial State.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1968.
Garson, G. David. Handbook of Political Science Methods.
Boston: Holbrook Pr., 19/I.
Geertz, Cliffort. "Ideology as a Cultural System."
Ideology and Discontent, ed. David E. Apter.
Glencoe, N.Y.: The Free Press, 1964.
Gerson, Max, M.D. A Cancer Therapy: Results of 50 Cases.
New York: Dura Publishers, 1958.
Goffman, John, interview, Long Beach, Ca., November, 1971.
Goldman, Leon, M.D.; and Ruckefield, Daniel F., M.D.
"The Effect of Corticotropin Cortisone on the
Development and Progress of Pagmental Nevi."
Journal of the American Medical Association,
Vol. T477 November 3, 1951, pp. 940-943.
Grant, Ronald N, M.D.; and Bartlett, Irene, B.S. Unproven
Cancer Remedies--A Primer. New York: American
Cancer Society, 19667 19/1.
Greenwald, Edward S., M.D. Cancer Chemotherapy. New York:;
Medical Examination Publishing Co., Inc., 1967.
375
Greer, Scott. The Logic of Social Inquiry. New York:
Aldine Pub. Co., l9by.
Gripp, Richard G. Patterns of Soviet Politics. Homewood,
111.: Dorsey Pr., 1967.
Groth, Alexander. Comparative Politics: A Distributive
Approach. New York: Macmillan, 1971.
Hall, E. Raymond, Ph.D. i “Pesticides Not Required."
Natural Food and Farming, Vol. 18, July 1971,
pp. 33-38.
Hamilton, Alexander. Federalist Papers, No. 28. New York:
New American Library, JL9bl.
Haught, S. J. Has Dr. Max Gerson a True Cancer Cure.
N. Hollywood, Ca.: London Press, I9b2.
Hawley, Paul R., M.D. "Needless Surgery--Doctors Good and
Bad." U.S. News and World Report, Vol. 34,
February 20, 1953, pp. 49-51.
HEW News. U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare,
Public Health Services, FDA, Rockville, M.D.,
September 1, 1971.
Heuper, W. C. "Carcinogens in the Human Environment."
Archives of Pathology, Vol. 71, March, 1961,
pp. 355-380.
________. "Organized Labor and Occupational Cancer
Hazards." Paper furnished to author by Heuper,
February, 1974.
________. "Prevention of Occupational Cancers: A
Challenge to Public Health Agencies, Industrial
Management and Organized Labor." Speech presented
before the general meeting of the Committee on
Community Services, Washington, D.C., May 25,
1959.
, and Canway, M.D. Chemical Carcinogens in Can
cer. Springfield, 111.: C. C. Thomas, 19b4.
"The High Cost of Health." KCET, December 19, 1974.
Holland, James F., and Heidelberger, Charles. "Human
Cancer: The Primary Target." Cancer Research,
August, 1960, pp. 975-976.
Holmes, Barbara, M.D. Cancer and Scientific Research.
New York: Macmillan, 19Jl.
"House Subcommittee Holds Hearings on Hosmer Bill."
National Health Federation Bulletin, Vol. 20,
January, 19/4, pp. 4-6.
Huemer, Richard P., M.D. "The Medical Research Game."
National Health Federation Bulletin, Vol. 17,
July-August, 1971, pp. 17-21.
Humphrey, Hubert, on the Senate Investigation of the FDA,
October 3, 1962. The Findings on the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration. Lelchworth, England:
Garden City Press, Ltd., 1968.
Huxley, Julian. Soviet Genetics and World Science. Lon
don : Chatlo and Windres, 1949.
Hrzal, Ladislav and Popov, S. J. "Theories of Social
Structure and Structural Functional Analysis."
Sociologicky Casopis, Vol. 814, 1972, pp. 353-358
Inkles, Alex. Social Change in Soviet Russia. Cambridge
Mass.: Harvard Univ. Pr., 1968.
________, and Geiger Kent, eds. The Soviet Society: a
Book of Readings. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin,
T%E ----
Ivy, A. C., M.D., Ph.D.; Pick, John F., M.D.; and
Phillips, W. F. P., M.D. Observations on
Krebiozen in the Management of Cancen Chicago:
Henry Regency Co., 1956.
Joravsky, David. The Lysenko Affair. Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press, T971.
"The Debacle of Lysenkoism." Problems of Com
munism, Vol. 14. November-December, 1965,
pp. R 2 .
377
________. "Lysenko's Image." The State of Soviet Science,
ed. by the editors of Survey; A Journal of
Soviet and East European Studies. Cambridge:
MlT Press, 1965.
Johnson. Dallas. The Facts About Cancer. Public Affairs
Pamphlet #38A, HEW: Public health Services, 1957.
Kamofsky, David. "Cancer Quackery; Its Causes,
Recognition and Prevention." American Journal of
Nursing, Vol. 59. April, 1959, pp. 496-500.
Katz, Danisland Kahn, Robert. The Social Psychology of
Organizations. New York! John Wiley and Son,
Inc., 1966.
"The Killers; Cancer." KCET, March 11, 1974.
Kittler, Glen D. Laetrile: Control for Cancer. Coronet,
1963.
Koch, Sigmund. "Psychology and the Emerging Conception of
Knowledge as Unitary." In Wann, T. W., ed.,
Behaviorism and Phenomenology; Contrasting Bases
for Modem Psychology. Chicago: Univ. Chicago
Univ. Pr., 1964.
_______ . Neoplastic and Oral Parasitism; Their Basic
Chemistry and Its Clinical 'Reversal. Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil, 1963.
Koletsky, Simon. "The Pathological Effects of Radiation
Injury." Radiation, Biology arid Cancer. Houston:
University of Texas, 1958.
Kolmykova, U. N.; Leykina, F. I.; Pankova, S. S.
"Possibilities of Discovering Antibodies in
Cancer." Problems of Etiology and Pathogenesis
of Tumors, Washington, D.C., U.S. Public Health
Service, 1959.
Kramer, Barry. "Vinyl-Chloride Scare Points Up Dangers of
Other Chemicals." Wall Street Journal. October 7,
1974, p. 1, Vol. 91, No. 69.
Krayevskii, N. A. Studies of the Pathology of Radiation
Disease. Translated by A. Lieberman, London:
Permagon Press, 1965.
378
Krislov, Samuel. The Supreme Court and Political Freedom.
New York: Free Press, 1968.
Kuhn, Thomas S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
Chicago: Univ. ot Chicago Pr., 2nd ed., enl.
1970.
Laird, Roy D. The Soviet Paradigm. New York: Free Press,
1970.
Lasch, Christopher. "The Social Thoughts of Jacques
Ellul. In James Y. Holloway, Introducing Ellul,
Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B~ Eerdmans Pub.
Co., 1970.
Lasswell, Harold D., and Kaplan, Abraham. Power and
Society: A Framework for Political Inquiry.
New Haven, Yale, 1950.
"Law and Medicine (the Standard of Care)." Journal of the
American Medical Association, Vol. 225, August l3,
i973, " p p r T 9r--79, 2- : -------------
Lawrence, Malcolm (nom-de-plume). "Medical Research."
Reprinted by Foundation for Nutritional Research.
Milwaukee: 1962, pp. 3-4.
Laws and Regulations Relating to the Diagnosis and Treat-
ment of Cancer! Berkeley: State of California,
Department of Public Health, 1966.
Lederberg, Dr. Joshua. "Is a Cancer Cure a Proper
National Goal." Los Angeles Times, February 19,
1971, Sec. F., p. 1.
Lenin, V. I. On the State Apparatus: Articles and
Speeches. Compiled by Kashnitskoya, L. A., and
Surovtseva, N. N. Moscoe: Progress Publishers,
1969.
Livingston, Virginia, M.D. Cancer: A New Breakthrough.
Los Angeles: Nash Publishing Co., 1972.
Lodge, Milton C. Soviet Elite Attitudes Since Stalin.
Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merill, 1969.
Lowi, Theodore. The End of Liberalism. New York:
W. W. Norton, 1969.
Lysenko, T. C. Heredity and Its Variability. Translated
by Theodosius Momingside Heights, New York, 1946.
________. "The Situation in Biological Science." Address
delivered at the session of the Lenin Academy of
Agricultural Sciences of USSR, July 31, 1948.
Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1953.
MacDonald, Ivan, M.D. "Biological Predeterminism in
Human Cancer." Surgery, Gynecology, and Obstetrics,
Vol. 92, April 195 , pp. 443-455. ”
MacLeod, R. B. "Phemonology: A Challenge to Experimental
Psychology." In Wann, T. W. , ed., Behaviorism
and Phenomonology: Contrasting Bases for Modern
Psychology. Chicago: Chicago Univ. Pr., 1964.
Mannheim, Karl. Ideology and Utopia. New York: Har-
court, Brace, and World, 1936.
Marshak, R. E. "Lysenko's Downfall and the New Look in
Soviet Science." Texas Quarterly, Vol. 10, Spring,
1966, pp. 88-96.
Matchon, Don C. "High Politics Blamed for Refusal to
Test Anti-Cancer Agent." Alameda Times Star,
July 14, 1970, p. 14.
McDonald, Gerald 0. "Experimental Chemotherapeutic
Measures to Control the Dissemination of Cancer."
Dissemination of Cancer, eds. Warren H. Cole,
et al.
McDonald, Lee C. "Myths, Politics and Political Science."
Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 22* March, 1969,
pp. 141-155.
Medical Malpractice. Cases and Annotations. Richester,
N.Y.: The Lawyers Cooperative Publishing Co.,
1966.
Medved, Lev. "Chemistry and Human Health." Moscow News,
January 30 - February 6, 1971, p. 11.
Megary, Edward N. "Lysenkoism and the Stateless Society."
Journal of Politics, Vol. 15, May, 1953, pp. 21-
’ 3 T T .
Merill, Malcolm. "Control of Cancer Quackery."
California Medicine, Vol. 101, September, 1964,
pP; 223-224'.-------
Meyer, Alfred. Communism. New York: Random House, 1967.
_______. Marxism: The Unity of Theory and Practice.
Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Pr., rev. and enl . ,
ed. 1964.
Mikulak, Maxim W. "Philosophy and Science." The State of
Soviet Science. Cambridge: MIT, 1965.
Miller, Cliton. "Annual Report of the Activities of
N.H.F.'s Legislative Advocate." National Health
Federation Bulletin, Vol. 20, January, 19/4,
Vol. 20, pp. 8-11.
Miller, Lowell, S., M.D., and Fletcher, Gilbert H., M.D.
"Preliminary Follow-up Study of Patients Exposed
to Whole Body X-Radiation." Radiation, Biology,
and Cancer. Austin: University of Texas Press,
1959.
Mills, Charles Wright. The Power Elite. New York:
Oxford Univ. Pr."J 1956.
Mintz, Morton. By Prescription Only. Boston: Beacon
Press, I9b5.
Moertel, C. G.; Schutt, A. J.; Reitemeier, R. J.; and
Hahn, R. G. "Sequential 1 - (2 - Chloroethye) -
3 - Cyclohexyl - 1 - Nitrosourea (NSC 79037) and
5 - Fluouracil (NSC 19893) Therapy of Gastro
intestinal Cancer." Cancer Research, Vol. 32,
June, 1972, pp. 1280-1282.
Morehead, Richard. "Diet Called Cancer Preventative."
Natural Food and Farming, Vol 8, July, 1971,
pp. 27-32.
381
Mouzelis, Nicos P. Organization and Bureaucracy: An
Analysis of Modern Theories. Chicago: Aldine,
TVGT.--------- ---------------
Mullins, Willard A. "On the Concept of Ideology in
Political Science." American Political Science
Review, LXVI, June, 19/2, pp. 1-13.
Myers, Gustavus. History of Bigotry in the United States.
New York: Random House7 1943.
NBC Reports, December 19, 1972.
Natenburg, Maurice. The Cancer Blackout. Chicago:
Regent House, 1959.
"National Cancer Institute Study of Krebiozen." Journal
of the American Medical Association, Vol. 169,
Epril II, 1959.--------------------
Nelson, Harry. "Cancer Institute Plans Trials of a New
Israeli Treatment." Los Angeles Times, July 25,
1973, Part II, pp. 1-T!
________. "Cancer War Victory Seen by Year 2000."
Los Angeles Times, April 4, 1971, Sect. 4, p. 3.
________. "Report Makes New Claim for Banned Cancer
Drug, Laetrile." Los Angeles Times, October 27,
1973, Part II, pp. I-lO.
Newsletter. International Association of Cancer Victims
and Friends, April 24, 1971.
Niebuhr, Rheinhold. The Children of Lightness and the
Children of Darkness.
________. Niebuhr on Politics. Eds. Harry R. Davis and
Robert C, Good. New York: Charles Scribners and
Sons, 1960.
Nolfi, Dr. Kisstine. The Raw Food Treatment of Cancer and
Other Diseases. Mokelumne Hill, Ca.: Health
Research,
Park, W. Wallace, and Lees, Jane C. "The Absolute
Curability of Cancer of the Breast." Surgery,
Gynecology, and Obstetrics, Vol. 93, August, 1951,
382
pp. 129-152
Parry, Albert. ’ ’Science and Technology Versus Communism.’ ’
The Russian Review, Vol. 25, July, 1966, pp. 227-
241.
Paterson, Ralston. The Treatment of Malignant Disease by
Radio therapy! Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins
U5:,T%-3. "
Perfilyev, Marat Mikolaevich. Soviet Democracy and Bour-
eois Sovietology. Moscow: Progress Publishers,
TKT. -----
Planck, Max., K.E.L. Scientific Autobiography and Other
Papers. New York: Greenwood Press, 1949.
Pondoev, G. S. Notes of a Soviet Doctor. London: Chap
man and Mall, 1959. "
Preston, William. ”IWW: The Ideology and Techniques of
Repression." American Radicals, ed. Harry Golden-
berg, Monthly Review Press, 1957, pp. 239-265.
Program of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.
New York: International Publishers, 1963.
Rabinowitch, Eugene. "A Survey of Russian Science," in
Inles, Alex, and Geiger, Kent, eds., Soviet
Society: a Book of Readings. Boston! Houghton,
Mifflin! 1961.----------*-
Rajai, M.; Mason, W. L.; and Bellar, D. C. "Empirical
Relevance of the Hypothesis of Decline. In
Raiai, M., ed. The Decline of Idology? Chicago:
Aldine, Atherton, 1971. --------
Rasmussen, Jorgan Scott. The Process of Politics: a
Com
TVS
7 - - - Q — - « — • — - — - w V ~ — W '
Comparative Approach. New York: Atherton Pr,
Rayack, Elton. Professional Power and American Medicine:
The Economics ot the American Medical Association.
New York: World Publishing Co., 1967.
383
Rohfull, John. Public Administration as Political Pro
cess . New York: Scribners Sons, l9fo9.
"Representative Symington Introduces Bill to Require
Written Informed Consent in Experimental Drug
Use." National Health Federation Bulletin,
Vol. 20"^ January, l9b4, p. 13.
Ribicoff Says Agency Ignored Vaccine Risk." Los Angeles
Times, October 15, 1971.
Rodale, J. I. Cancer Facts and Fallacies. Emaus, Pa.:
Rodale Books, 1969.
Rokeach, Milton. Beliefs, Attitudes and Values.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, l9b8.
________. The Open and Closed Mind. New York: Basic
Books, Inc., 19b0.
Rosenberg, Milton J. "An Analysis of Affective Cognitive
Consciousness," in Hovlard, Carl J. and Rosenberg,
Milton J., eds., Attitudes Organization, and
Change. New Haven: Vale Univ. Pr., l9b8.
Rubin, Phillip, M.D., and Casarett, George W. , Ph.D.
Clinical Radiation and Pathology, Vol. II,
Philadelphia: W. R. Saunders,1968.
Sartori, Giovanni. "Politics, Ideology and Belief
Systems." American Political Science Review,
Vol. 63, June 19b9, pp. 398-412.
Saylor, Louis F., M.D. "California’s Cancer Quackery Law."
California Medicine, Vol. 112, pp. 94-95.
Schaff, Adam. Marxism and the Human Individual. Warsaw,
Poland, 1965, translated by Wattasiew, Olgierd.
New York: McGraw Hill, 1970.
Schick, Allen. "Administration as Budgetary Process:
Systems Politics and Systems Budgeting." Public
Administration Review, (March-April, 1969),
pp. 13/-151.
"Scientists Term Radiation a Peril to the Future of Man."
New York Times, June 13, 1956, pp. 17,18,20.
Seiler, John A. "Toward a Theory of Organization Con
gruent with Group Concepts." The Individual and
the Organization, eds. Donald R. Domm, koger
Blakeney, Michael T. Matteson, Robert Scofield.
New York: Harper and Row, 1971, pp. 291-297.
Shapiro, Dudley. "Review of The Structure of Scientific
Revolutions." Philosophical Review, Vol. 68.
383-394, 1964.
Shelton, Herbert M. "Cancer Research," Is Cancer
Curable. Mokelumne Hill, Ca. : Health' Research,
TVET. —
Shimkin, Michael B., M.D. Science and Cancer. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare, Public Health Service, 1964.
Shpirt, Ya Yu. Vitamin B 15 Pangamic Acid Indicators for
Use and Efficacy in Internal Disease. Moscow:
V. O. Medexport, 1968.
Shulam, Alex G. "A Surgeon's Theory." Los Angeles Times ,
August 27, 1972, Sect. 1, P. 1.
Southwich, Harry W. "The Natural History of Established
Cancer. Dissemination of Cancer, eds. Warren
H. Cole, et al.
Stalin, Joseph. Selected Writings. New York: Inter
national Publishers, 1942, reprint, Westport,
Conn.: Greenwood Pr., 1970.
Strausser, Stephan. Phenomenology and the Human Sciences.
Pittsburgh, Pa.: Duquesne Univ. Pr., 1963.
"Sweden Bans Meat Imported from USA." National Health.
Federation Bulletin, Vol. 18, June, 19/1, p. 38.
Tobey, Charles, Jr. Statement by Charles Tobey, Jr.,
Mokelumne Hill, Ca.: health Research,
Thevanaz, Pierre. "What is Phenomenology?" ed. by
Jdmes M. Edie. Chicago: Quadrantle Books, 1962.
"The Treatment of Cancer with Laetrile: A Report to the
Cancer Commission of the California Medical
Association." California Medicine, Vol. 78,
April 1953, pp. 320-335.
Turkevich, John. "Soviet Science Appraised." In
Nelson, William R., ed., The Politics of Science.
New York: Oxford Univ. Pr., 1968.
Turner, James S. The Chemical Feast. New York: Gross
man Publishers, 19/0.
"Unproven Methods of Cancer Management: Laetrile."
CA, July-August, 1972, p. 246.
Upton, Arthur C. "Pathological Effects." The Biological
Basis of Radiation Therapy. Ed. Emanuel
Schwartz, M.D. PhiladeIphia: Lippincott, 1966.
Waldo, Dwight. The Administrative State. New York:
Ronald Pr., 1948.
"The War Against Cancer: Progress Report." Newsweek,
February 22, 1971, pp. 84-90.
Welch, Richard E., M.D., lecture before the Second Lay and
Professional Congress on Cancer, San Diego,
California, July 13, 1965, reprinted by the
International Association of Cancer Victims and
Friends, Monrovia, Ca. , pp. 2-3.
Williams, Roger S. Nutrition Against Disease. New York:
Pittman Publishing Co7, 1971.
Wilson, Russell H.; Byers, Ernest H.; Schram, Alfred C.;
and Shields, William F. "Host Resistance to
Cancer." Conceptual Advances in Immunology and
Oncology. Hew York: Harper and Row, l9b3,
pp. 521-540.
386
Wolf, Julius, M.D.; Patno, Mary Ellen, Ph.D.; Roswit,
Bernard, M.D.; and Esopo, Nicholas, M.D.
"Controlled Study of Survival of Patients with
Clinically Inoperable Lung Cancer Treated with
Radiation Therapy." American Journal of
Medicine, Vol. 40, March, 1966, pp. 360-365.
Zeigler, Luther Harmon. Interest Groups in American
Society. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Fren-
tice teall, 1964.
______ , and Dye, Thomas. The Irony of Democracy.
Belmont, Ca.: 1970.
Zinser, Ben. "Medicine and You." Southland Today,
Long Beach Press Telegram, July 29, 19/3.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Annulling Crimes: A Hegelian Theory Of Retribution

PDF

The drivers of economic change: Technology, globalization, and demography

PDF

A comparative study of costs and quality between case managed and non-case managed hospitals

PDF

The Interventionist State Revisited: The Political Economy Of State-Business Relations In India

PDF

An empirical investigation of industry conduct under information sharing: The case of the gypsum industry

PDF

Paradigms Of Soviet Foreign Policy

PDF

The Political And Social Impact Of Aircraft Noise On Four Urban Communities

PDF

Two essays in political economy of education and economics of immigration

PDF

The political economy of the state and development strategies: A case study of Turkey, 1930-1980

PDF

The price of oil and OPEC behavior: A utility maximization model

PDF

A reappraisal of the concept, potentialities and limitations of fiscal policy in the American economy

PDF

The advisability of trade between the United States and Czechoslovakia

PDF

An Application of the Global Monetarist-Wedge model to post-1973 Chilean economic policies and the effects of these policies on macroeconomic, social and political variables

PDF

A multidimensional analysis of regional integration and cooperation: The case of the Economic Community of West African States

PDF

Studies of behavioral axioms for comparative statics under under uncertainty

PDF

Technical Assistance Programs Of The United Nations And Of The United States: A Comparative Study

PDF

The politico-economic determinants of ASEAN regional economic cooperation

PDF

The effects of financial constraints on entry

PDF

Policy formulation for the politico-economy of Greece: A system dynamics simulation

PDF

Some Administrative Relations Of The Indian States And Union, 1950-1956

Asset Metadata

Creator Black, Sharon Macmillan (author)

Core Title The Politics Of Scientific Inquiry: The Effects Of The Pluralist Paradigm On Comparative Studies Of Free Inquiry (With A Case Study Of The Politics Of American Cancer Research)

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Political Science

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest,political science, general

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor [illegible] (committee chair), [Creme], Thomas H. (committee member), [Wesch] (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c20-551067

Unique identifier UC11225762

Identifier 7528613.pdf (filename),usctheses-c20-551067 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 7528613.pdf

Dmrecord 551067

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Black, Sharon Macmillan

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA