Foundation for Advancement in Cancer Therapy
Non-Toxic Biological Approaches to the Theories,
Treatments and Prevention of Cancer

Our 53rd Year

Random Notes By Ruth Sackman


Our article on the harmful effects of soy in the last issue of Cancer Forum (VOL. 14, NO. 11/12) created quite a stir.

Much of the current hoopla celebrating soy as a cancer preventative stems from recent research using only six subjects–young females between the ages of 23 and 29. They were given 12 ounces of soy milk with three meals a day for 1 month. The conclusion reached was that something in soy protected them from breast cancer. I decided to reread the research study to see if it was beyond any argument. I have become accustomed to reading research papers and disagreeing, not with the quality of research, but with the conclusions. Too often the people doing the research have too little nutritional knowledge and assume that the one food or one thing in the food is responsible for the results. In nature many foods have similar properties. As an example: vitamin C can be found in citrus, many varieties of cabbage, green pepper, broccoli and other vegetables and fruits.

I have, as usual, come to a different conclusion about soy milk being the right choice to protect against breast cancer. Here is my theory: many breast cancers are caused by elevated estrogen levels. Today there is ample, scientific evidence that the chemicals (weed killers, pesticides and soil enhancers) prevalent in the food supply found in our super markets, mimic estrogen which makes for estrogen dominance or hormonal imbalance. It is quite possible that instead of genestein, which is assumed from the study to be the effective element in the soy that is protecting the subjects, it is, instead, progesterone, a natural hormone, which in turn creates hormonal balance..

Since I am not a scientist, I can only theorize based on my long years of practical experience and information acquired serving as president of FACT that there is a natural progesterone precursor in the soy bean. I suspect there is, because legumes and seeds often contain progesterone precursors. If I am correct, it might be wiser and safer to use legumes and/or seeds because they do not contain the enzyme-inhibiting complications of soy. We know from the work of John R. Lee, M. D. that progesterone precursors, present in many plant foods, have established hormonal balance in patients with high estrogen levels, and thus, helped to protect against cancer. (reference: Natural Progesterone by John R. Lee, M.D.)

As I said in the article in the previous issue of Cancer Forum, it is not of particular consequence if soy is used in small amounts occasionally. It is the exaggerated use of soy as a substitute for meat, milk, cheese or as numerous other substitutes for protein, therefore, consumed on a large scale in our daily life that makes it questionable as a healthful food and certainly as a cancer preventive. Anything that inhibits enzyme activity, as soy does, interferes with the whole metabolic process and that includes cell production.

There are so many other legumes and grains that provide natural progesterone precursors that can be used as a better choice than soy. Though the researchers in this study emphasized the fact. that legume consumption in general may be as protective against cancer as soy, the study would have been more complete if the team had researched a number of other foods to see what the effect was in inhibiting breast cancer. We must also allow for the possibility that the negative effects of soy did not become manifest in the short time of the trial period.

And I would conclude that six subjects for a limited period of time is much too inadequate for anyone to take the study seriously enough to start using soy as a cancer inhibitor. Even the team doing the research leaves the impression that there are variables which could be expanded upon, such as, whether daily consumption of soy is advisable, whether other legumes would have similar results, etc. What this all calls into focus is the need to read these studies competently, rather than simply grab at headlines. The devil, as they say, is in the details.


The constant proliferation of so-called alternative health information through books, media, articles, et al, must overwhelm the cancer patient with confusion in their effort to find a reliable resource to “cure” a deadly disease such as cancer. I have had over 25 years of experience collecting data from the most reliable sources in the United States and other areas of the world as well as getting feedback from thousands of patients worldwide. Without that knowledge it would be impossible to separate the substantially good programs from those that are over dramatized, claimed to cure everything from corns to cancers and promoted primarily by people who have a vested interest in cancer. It is an unconscionable disservice to the cancer patient to disseminate information based on enthusiastic adoption of the vast amount of printed matter and media attention without concrete evidence that the treatment is truly effective. Anything less loses precious time, is costly, and could lead to a dangerous condition that may be irreversible.

The most recent account of a”miraculous” cancer recovery was presented by the wife of the publisher of Penthouse Magazine, Kathy Keeton. Of course it received a huge amount of media attention. She claims that she was cured using an alternative cancer therapy hydrazine sulfate. It has caused quite a stir in people desperately trying to save their lives or the life of a loved one. Someone placed the information on the Internet and added FACT asa resource for additional data. The calls have kept us quite busy.

Let’s look at the facts about hydrazine sulfate. It is a chemical deriVed from rocket fuel. It is actually chemotherapy as it duplicates the physiology of chemotherapy. Hydrazine sulfate blocks an essential element (glucose) from being absorbed by cells, both cancerous and healthy, so cells die. The only reason it is called an “alternative” therapy is because it has no official sanction. Does this treatment offend the host? It certainly does just like any chemotherapy .

FACT was founded by a group of people who were either cancer patients or caring for a family member suffering with the disease. One of the planks of our program was to inform the public of the failure of chemotherapy or radiation as a cure because they do harm to the host. (It needs to be understood that the conventional medical arena is still doing extensive research looking for a cancer cure). Chemotherapy buys time by reducing tumor size, allowing the body to delay being overwhelmed by cancer cells. Sometimes, unfortunately, the chemotherapy causes death before the cancer. FACT chose to offer people biologically safe and sound systems which were available but not necessarily researched or adopted in the United States. These metabolic therapies had a track record and were available in clinics and supervised by qualified practitioners. Over the years, the term “alternative” has become associated with any system that has been rejected officially or ignored by the medical community. FACT’s original concept in using the term was that the therapies it supports focus on restoring the health of the host rather than simply reducing the symptom (the tumor) and therefore, must do no harm. Hydrazine sulfate violates the host by depriving healthy cells of their needed glucose.

About 20 years ago, Sloan Kettering researched hydrazine sulfate at about the same time they were investigating Laetrile. One of the doctors acted as a liaison with FACT so I was quite familiar with their results and in touch with patients who were using it. I wish I could say the results were positive. One case history or a few is not a competent yardstick to conclude the efficacy of a therapy. It should be based on the total number of recoveries in relation to the total number of patients.

In any cancer evaluation, survival years have to be factored into the conclusion. The hallmark of any effective cancer therapy is long-term survival.

It was good to hear that Kathy Keeton benefited from hydrazine sulfate, but it should not be considered the universal cure. As other safer programs with a better track record, unfortunately, might be neglected.