When Its Not News!

But you think it is. Yesterday I was cruising through the Health section of cnn.com, reading an article here, and another there. At the bottom of each article were links to more articles. I was reading titles, clicking, and reading some more.

I always look at the cancer one, in case they have discovered a cure and I missed it while sleeping or something. The one I saw yesterday was called "Chemotherapy Game-Changer for Stage IV Cancer". Immediately intrigued, I clicked the link and landed here.

Its looks like a lovely article on chemotherapy and stage IV cancer patients. ITS NOT! Its a paid ad or blog post or whatever.

A week or so ago, I was also cruising around the health section of cnn.com and found this article on inflammation which I found barely interesting and biased. It was titled "Chronic Inflammation is the Fuse for Cancer" and it also was an ad. And from the same website, Envita.com, which is the website for a bunch of medical centers.

I felt duped. I found a link on cnn.com and thought I was reading articles, not ads. I did some more poking around and found that it seems there are always more ads linked in among the true articles.

The third article down on the left is titled 'The Secret to Sleeping Throughout the Night". Its basically an ad as well. You will note the source - Simple Skin Care.

I don't think CNN is trying to scam us. I think the stores at the bottom are found by search engines and compiled there - which is why when you go back to the article, chances are the list is different. Its the advertisers who are trying to fool the search engines into thinking they are news and not a load of propaganda.

So the moral of the story is basically 'buyer beware'. Just because you think its news doesn't mean it is.

Here's a surprise!

Researchers lie exaggerate benefits and play down side effects in describing their results. I am SHOCKED I tell you, shocked! And I'm sure its not just for breast cancer drugs.

A recent study in the Annals of Oncology (which you can't read online unless you pay big bucks) found this. I found this describing it:


"Reports on Breast-Cancer Drugs Are Often Biased, Research Finds

Researchers often exaggerate the benefits and play down the potentially toxic side-effects of breast-cancer drugs in clinical trials, according to a new study published in the Annals of Oncology. One way they do this is by emphasizing some secondary benefit of the drug, even if it failed to achieve the primary objective (such as, say, lengthening the life of the patient). High toxicity findings frequently go unmentioned in abstracts and conclusions—perhaps, the authors suggest, “to make the results more attractive.”

The researchers looked at 164 randomized clinical trials from 1995 to 2011 and found evidence of bias in reporting toxicity in 67 percent of those trials. While they note that the pharmaceutical industry is “increasingly influential” in the sponsorship of such trials, they didn’t find any association between industry involvement and bias.

So what do the authors propose be done? Journal editors, regulators, and reviewers should apply “a critical eye to trial reports” to ferret out instances of bias, they say—implying that they have been failing in that responsibility up to now."

Well is anyone else shocked here? First we must insist researchers take lie detector tests. Next markers are not allowed to put their spin on any results. Finally, editors, regulators and reviewers should smarten up.

Doh! Really. This does not surprise me at all. I don't put blame on editors, regulators and reviewers. I am sure they are working with what is presented to them. Is it their job to decipher research? Unless they are scientists I am not sure they are qualified. No the onus goes back to the researchers who run the studies to make sure the data is presented correctly.

The rise and fall of Lance

Lance Armstrong dealt with a pretty nasty cancer diagnosis and then turned it into something good by creating the Livestrong Foundation. However, it turns out he built his athletic career on steroids and his house of cards has collapsed. I had always admired his athletic feats but now feel like he lied to all of us.

Allow me to clarify. He won 7 Tour De France races. He won an Olympic medal. He was Mr. Clean. He told us for years that he never took performance enhancing drugs. And it turns out he lied to all of us.

This summer when he told the world he was going to stop fighting the charges, I think we started to become aware that there might be some truth to the claim. Now it has all come out that there was a secret system of performance enhancing drugs in the US cycling team. Lance has now stepped down from his world famous charity, he has lost his endorsements, will probably be stripped of his medals, and banned from all future competitions.





Earlier this year we watched another famous charity, the Komen Foundation (for the Cure) suffer a significant setback with the Planned Parenthood debacle. It would be a shame if another big charity, the Livestrong Foundation, also suffered as the result of the lies told by its founder.

It is also a shame that the dishonesty of one man will impact the lives of so many others. We have lost a hero who was a symbol of hope for many that you can return after cancer and exceed your previous expectations.

It might be time for Lance to step back from the limelight and let those who do not lie to shine. Honesty is always the best policy and its time he realized that.

Cancer myths

There are more myths about breast cancer and all other cancers. You know the ones - you can get breast cancer from wearing deodorant, underwire bras, living near power lines, blah, blah, blah. If anyone tells you they know how you got your cancer, just like if they tell you their 'cure' for cancer, they are full of you know what. And you can tell them (as politely as you want) to go take a hike.

One myth I think is overwhelmingly stupid. 1 in 8 is not your chance of getting breast cancer in your lifetime. 1 in 8 is the chance you will get breast cancer when you are 85. The stupidity that allows this one never ceases to amaze me. If anyone says it, I would reply 'liar, liar, pants on fire'.

But there is one myth that is still a myth unfortunately. That is that breast cancer is preventable.


'Alas, no. Although it is possible to identify risk factors (such as family history and inherited gene mutations) and make lifestyle changes that can lower your risk (reducing or eliminating alcohol consumption, losing weight, getting regular exercise and screenings, and quitting smoking), roughly 70% of women diagnosed with breast cancer have no identifiable risk factors, meaning that the disease occurs largely by chance and according to as-yet-unexplained factors.'

You can try as much as you might but you can not eliminate the risk of breast or any other cancer in your life. This is the one myth I would like to see proven.