Cancer is a serious, life-threatening illness that kills more than half a million people every year in the U.S. alone. But you'd never know that if you get most of your information from newspapers and magazines. This is the surprising result of a study that was published this week in the Archives of Internal Medicine.
A group of researchers (of which I was one) examined more than 400 articles about cancer and cancer treatment that appeared in publications with a national and international readership. We looked in magazines like People, Time, and Newsweek, as well as in newspapers like the Chicago Tribune and the New York Times. And what we found surprised us.
For instance, we discovered that although 95 percent reported exclusively on aggressive treatments like chemotherapy, radiation therapy and bone marrow transplants, only 13 percent mentioned that those aggressive treatments can fail. Moreover, less than a third mentioned the adverse effects--like nausea, hair loss, immune suppression, and fatigue--that these treatments can cause.
These results are disappointing, because it's clear that these articles aren't providing readers with the information they need. Imagine if you, or someone you love, have cancer. Now imagine that you're reading one of these articles, looking for advice and guidance about the side effects of treatment. Maybe you want to know if a problem or a symptom is normal. Or maybe you want a sense of what other problems might be lurking around the corner. You're not going to get that information from the articles that we found.
Of course, it's not such a terrible thing if we can't find what we need about cancer in newspapers and magazines. These are just one source of information that's available to us. If we don't find what we're looking for in one of these articles, we can look somewhere else.
That's why the real problem with these articles is not the information that's missing from them, but rather the biased picture that they give of what it's like to have cancer.
For instance, only one percent of these articles focused on palliative interventions like hospice that can improve the quality of life of people with incurable cancer. That's a serious omission because it suggests to readers that these symptoms can't be managed. But that's simply not true. Although cancer may be impossible to cure, pain can always be treated. That's what I tell my patients, and that's what these articles should be telling the public, but they're not.
The most worrisome thing we found in these articles, though, was the way that they carefully avoid mentioning death and dying. In fact, only eight percent mentioned the possibility that people die of their cancer. And of the more than 200 individual patients who were described in these articles, about 80 percent were reported to have survived. That message is unfortunate, because although cure rates are this high for a few cancers, the prognosis for most is much worse.
What's the message that these results offer readers? It's clear: People don't die of cancer. But of course they do. Every day.
Perhaps this bias shouldn't be surprising. It's just one face of the media's hype around hope. We're all scared of getting cancer, and of course we're scared of dying. So these articles play to this fear by reassuring us that there are treatments that work, and that there are cures that are effective. That is, they tell us what we want to hear.
It's unlikely that message is going to change any time soon. People want hope, and newspapers and magazines need to give their readers what they want. That's particularly true today, in this era of shrinking circulations and online competition. So we shouldn't expect a more honest portrayal of cancer anytime soon.
Nevertheless, the future isn't entirely bleak, because we have access to a wide range of other sources of information that can offer a more honest view of what it's like to live (and die) with serious illnesses like cancer. For instance, people are turning to social networking sites like Facebook to stay in touch with friends and family members who are struggling with serious illness. In fact, some sites like CarePages are designed specifically for this purpose. Those sites provide a wealth of facts and feelings and beliefs, raw and unfiltered.
And blogs, of course, are becoming a widely available source of genuine perspectives of real people. Honest, direct, and passionate, many blogs tell it like it is. Like the wonderful blog of Eva Markvoort, a young woman dying of Cystic Fibrosis, who shares what she learns from each day that she has left.
Eva's blog, and many others like it, carry messages of hope, of course. In that regard they're not so different than what we'd get from the New York Times. They tell us what we want to hear.
But they also don't shy away from the realities that people with serious illnesses like cancer face every day. They tell us not only about the good days, but about the bad days, too. They're not just about hope, but also about despair. That is, they're telling us not just what we want to hear, but also what we need to hear.
Ed and Deb Shapiro: When Illness Becomes Your Ally: Release, Restore, Radiate
Michael Weinstein: The Good News Is We All Die
(cancers, too)
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/03/20/david-ayoub-interview-february-2010.aspx
Thank goodness doctors are coming forwad speaking out as Dr. Mercola does.
Many work hard in these blogs for special interest groups & to discredit those like Dr. Mercola because it cuts into the profits of those they work for.
They don't like you receive his free news letters & become educated in matters of importance that could save the lives of your children, family memmbers & friends you love.
Vaccination began as something good & went bad along the way due to greed & too many looking the other way.
Errors must be admitted & corrected. Time to clean house & get back to the original purpose that actually had the well being of our people at heart.
Keep this interview in mind & facts like vaccinations contain traces of mercury & aluminum as you watch this eye opening experiment that gives one the idea of the "point" being made.
Brains, especially babies, are fragile & sensitive matter.
Who's to say how little wouldn't do the same harm in synergy to different degrees, in different children, similar to the extreme reaction in this clip?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7Ilxsu-JlY
I learned from this most informative website that many times cancer in animals begins at the injection site;
http://rimadyldeath.com/Vaccination-STOP-THE-DEATH-TOLL.htm
I never put that fact together with what I experienced with my little chihuahua when he had his booster & passed out. Life saving measures had to be taken to save him but we had to finally have him put to sleep because he began to suffer so much.
Until recently reading at that site, I hadn't connected the fact that my dog's first sore that wouldn't heal we had biopsied was right there where he'd been shot.
I was so angry it was like losing him over again. My God people wake up because if it happens to animals it happens to humans.
This is one of the most informative sites on vaccines I've seen. This person has dedicated it to his loving pet that died the same way as mine & many others but it was created for humans to learn from & save themselves & their children.
He uses credible sources & cites. The history of vaccinations is even recorded for posterity there.
Harriet Hall, MD Back Pedals to Get Out of Debate Concerning "Vaccination Scam and Cover Up"
Dr. Hall reneged on debate she had committed to, resulting from two open letters to her and sent to media.
March 19, 2010 - There's been media black out against witnesses & parents of autistic children due to criminally orchestrated efforts to prevent fair debate.
The HHS is complicit due to the message that initiated said blackout, which was delivered by secretary, Kathleen Sebelius & authorized by the president of that office.
Debates will happen and are already in the making. This press release is, in part, to put media on notice that, "We The People" demand equal time along with fair and balanced reporting.
The public is requested to view both open letters written by activist, Marsha McClelland, by going to Dr. Hall's current article "Vaccine refusal: Irrational and immoral"
http://www.pnwlocalnews.com/south_king/aub/lifestyle/87378812.html
Scan the comment section for Mofmars333 where you'll find them both and witness follow up.
Marsha McClelland
330 926-1679
Founder of "We The People United" groups & forums
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WETHEPEOPLE_UNITED/
Umbrella group for owners of all important issues to our people, celebrating our 7th year in activism.
http://www.lowdosenaltrexone.org/ldn_and_cancer.htm It's not rocket science. Check it out. You can also find youtube videos of MD's giving presentations of their cases. And so much more. This drug is also used to stop Crohn's disease, MS, RA, lupus. And Stanford just finished a clinical trial for fibromyalgia and it was a huge success. I challenge everyone here to learn about this. Especially if you say, "It can't do all that."
Yea, actually it can.
The best cure for cancer may be the best prevention. Health researcher Colin T. Campbell, author of the "China Study" wrote in his massive nutritional study (the largest and longest in history) he did not find a single case of cancer in people who had a total cholesterol below 150.
These people didn't take statins, they ate a plant-based diet. That means starches like rice, potatoes, corn, barley or whole wheat and vegetables. Very little meat. No dairy. No processed food. Not the typical American diet!
http://65redroses.livejournal.com/138658.html
We need more honest articles and we need more Evas.
http://www.lowdosenaltrexone.org/ldn_and_cancer.htm It costs less than a dollar a day, is non toxic and has brought terminal cancer pts back. There is much online about this. NIH held a conference on it. This isn't nonsense. It's real. The problem is people think it has to be toxic and expensive and difficult to understand to make a difference. They are wrong.
My niece is 18 today (2 at diagnosis) and the outlook for her is wonderful :)
When my dad was diagnosed with throat and lung cancer, hospice was our only option and it was our first real introduction to hospice care. We were so well served it still amazes me. Dad was able to stay at home and the people who came in were so full of real information and help.
When my mom was diagnosed with brain cancer, there was so little help with what might come. We were unprepared for the drastic changes in her nature and personality. Everything we read was hopeful and it wasn't until after we lost her that I learned that what we faced is actually very common for families of brain cancer patients. The reality is unpleasant so it's not really talked about.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez
Are cancer sufferers Cannabis Deficient?
http://health.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/03/10/are-you-cannabis-deficient/
It is my theory that people who gravitate toward and cannabis and opiates are people who are deficient in their receptor sites.
and the medical society..so uninformed..recently during a regular pa smear..my Ob.Gyn asked which breast cancer I'd had..I said "triple negative"..he immediately said' Oh...that's lucky">....WTF..it IS the deadliest breast cancer out there and take the most aggressive treatment...chemo...radiation..and for me..4 surgergies..lucky? he didn't know WHAT triple negative meant...
The success that people are having with Complementary (NOT Alternative) health care has been phenomenal.
Complementary medicine, like that from a licensed and registered science-trained Naturopathic doctor employs the re-strengthening of the immune system, the weakness of which is the basis of most illness, as well as the emotional part of the patient.
To strictly use chemicals and radiation to treat a body, without employing any of the other important factors is irresponsible, and more and more MDs in Canada are working in concert with complementary health care practitioners such as NDs, as well as chiropractors (to keep the electrical system working smoothly), accupuncturists (to boost both relaxation and the immune system) as well as others and having successful results.
Those who haven't studied any of this in depth, or are threatened by things they don't know about (no matter how much they "know") are always the first to bash it, but, increasingly, anecdotal information (and we are all anecdotes, because weare all different from each other) shows very positive results from employing a "whole person" approach to all illnesses, including cancers.
Amd by the way...Canada is very progressive in this field, as are strong pockets in the US.
Our doctor is a believer in complementary medicine. Her practice and partners are all open minded and are in favor of anything that gives results. I have more confidence in a doctor who isn't closed minded and with this doctor, I know I'm getting the best care. When I decided I didn't want to medicate my migraines, she helped me get biofeedback training and recommended an acupuncturist :) That was over 20 years ago so I think my doctor was on the cutting edge.
http://graciouslivingdaybyday.com/