Join me with David Ropeik to discuss Cancer-Phobia on Sustain What at 1 pm Eastern TODAY (4/19) or watch afterward. (I've had my own dealings with the "Emperor of All Maladies" - half a thyroid gland and continual prostate surveillance and would have made different choices if I'd read his book first.) Here are show links: Facebook
Wow, I didn't realize the harm that cancer-phobia could have on our own health. Most of the women from my mother's side of the family have died of breast cancer, resulting in many undergoing frequent mammographies and consider drastic measure like mammary gland removal. Discouraging these behaviors is challenging as they seem counterintuitive at first glance. Moreover, media tends to sensationalize cancer and carcinogens, lengthening even more the process of eliminating this cancer-phobia epidemic.
Oncologists are spreading the fear to sell expensive chemo drugs. The -mab drugs are looking for a disease to treat. Cancer research is fake. The control group is about as random as the audience at a Grateful Dead concert. This article is trying to shift blame to the patients. Bizarre. Who knows what cancer is curable with Retinoic Acid?
As someone that has had to endure two false positive screenings over the last year and had to wait 3-4 months each before we had a final “ no issue” , the anxiety it caused was immense. In canada, test results and follow up exams , ie an ultrasound after a suspicious mammo, take weeks/months.
Read "How We Do Harm" by Dr Otis Bradley. Who decides the ages for screening based in what facts? The WHO, the CDC? OH they are so trustworthy. The ones that, oppsy, decided locking us in our homes for 2 years all while making money off the vaccines was the best fir us??
Sadly...Doc(s), especially since Covid, are more likely seen to be following the crowd or just doing what they are told to do by their medical orgs.
We won't even mention the humongous conflict of interest Oncologists have in making profit off of chemo drugs.
Good article...as for me I will question everything from now on. And the first question will be show me the evidence behind whatever a person is suggesting.
Yes, that is unfortunately a reality. I've learned over the years , I'm 60, we have to be our own advocates and for our families and push for what we need.
Fear not just if cancer but of death seems to me to be the great driver...but to ignore the huge role that profit motives drive much of this and place it on the patients shoulders seems problematic.
Overall, liked the article, but his comment on fluoride gets me. I'm not worried about fluoride causing cancer, I'm frustrated with being hypothyroid and knowing that fluoride is (or historically was) a treatment for hyperthyroidism. So thank you so much, water companies, for trying to medicate me - and the whole population - further into hypothyroidism.
I would say the issue isn’t screening, it’s follow up from physicians. Women aren’t doing mastectomies on themselves, doctors are. A routine mammogram does no real harm, and is only a problem if a doctor decides to go crazy when a patient is anxious. Personally, Ive found that doctors are actually not cancer phobic enough. I had a tumor in my breast for years that was ignored by 4 different doctors. Even after I had a random rib break, no doctor suggested I have a mammogram, despite a tumor. I was young and breastfeeding, so changes in the breast were seen as normal and not important. By the time I finally spoke to an intelligent, dynamic physician who got me in for a diagnostic mammogram the next day, the cancer had already spread to most of my bones, my liver, my lungs, spleen and ovaries. I have 6 young children.
I don’t think the problem is cancer phobia, it’s inappropriate diagnostic criteria for those with cancer. Doctors need to be keen to signs of cancer in people of all ages. Perhaps we overscreen, but if I could go back in time and lop of my breasts myself with a dang kitchen knife I would.
Excellent article and the principles therein should be applied to cardiovascular screening as well. Much of the misunderstanding on the part of the public and the medical profession is due to unrealistic views about what doctors can or should do. Many people believe that doctors should be "promoting health" by pushing certain lifestyle changes despite the fact that there is no evidence of concrete benefit. Aside from some of the infectious diseases, hardly anything is known for certain about the causes of almost anything else. The doctor is trained to differentiate disease from health. The healthy can be reassured and this actually comprises much of what is done in general practice or other primary care disciplines. When disease is found the patient can be presented with treatment options and/or referred to a specialist for further recommendations. It is unrealistic to expect anything else.
Nice piece. One of my guiding doctoring principles is “just because you can, doesn’t mean you should”.
And sensible med has done me a great service to remind me of the Sackett Venn diagram, and the primacy (or at least equivalency) of patient values and preferences Vs scientific evidence.
So on the one hand, I find it abhorrent to push screening that results in “treatments” that provide no outcome benefits, like for some of the cancer cases described here.
OTOH…if it puts their mind at ease…even if it exposes them to complications that could well be worse than the disease….who am I to judge? Cuz another one of my guiding principles is “choices have consequences”.
On the third hand, it’s fine if the tension was simply btw outcome evidence vs pt peace of mind. But there is always the spectre of financial gain…are you offering a treatment of no benefit to appease a pts wishes, or to pay your bills? And on a societal level, how much medical treatment of no outcome benefit can we afford simply for such appeasement?
I have Cancer-phobia. I would rather die than have surgeries & all the types of chemo & other chemicals poison my system ... to be tortured, have the system suck every ounce of my savings & leave my spouse with huge debt (now legislators want our children to incur our debt after we are gone) or to have my family watch me suffer for what, months, years. I have seen too many friends & family suffer unimaginable pain & suffering all while going broke. Nope. I will continue with my Cancer-phobia until I die. Thanks for writing. A layperson.
Its not a phobia if it will affect half of all Americans. It is a real risk. The thing I dont like about this piece is the unstated premise that I dont need to know. That you know better. That I should not even have the right to make a choice that you might not agree with. This is an irresponsible and paternalistic article.
We know how to cure cancers, cases of cancer. Statistically, most cases of cancer are cured. We focus on our failures and ignore our successes - and the result is cancer phobia. Big pharma loves phobias, even those without medical names - because they can be used to sell more "preventatives and treatments that don't cure." Cures decrease fear, and we must not speak about them. Most cancer doctors avoid the word cure and teach coworkers and staff to do the same.
Thanks for this article - as a community we need to get better at helping advise patients about how to live with low-grade or early-stage cancer and the risks of significant preventative surgery. This impacts how we define risk management for cancer Dx.
Join me with David Ropeik to discuss Cancer-Phobia on Sustain What at 1 pm Eastern TODAY (4/19) or watch afterward. (I've had my own dealings with the "Emperor of All Maladies" - half a thyroid gland and continual prostate surveillance and would have made different choices if I'd read his book first.) Here are show links: Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/events/881851757042395
LinkedIn
https://www.linkedin.com/events/7185813848279384066/comments/
YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTY_qC2UkYU
Wow, I didn't realize the harm that cancer-phobia could have on our own health. Most of the women from my mother's side of the family have died of breast cancer, resulting in many undergoing frequent mammographies and consider drastic measure like mammary gland removal. Discouraging these behaviors is challenging as they seem counterintuitive at first glance. Moreover, media tends to sensationalize cancer and carcinogens, lengthening even more the process of eliminating this cancer-phobia epidemic.
Oncologists are spreading the fear to sell expensive chemo drugs. The -mab drugs are looking for a disease to treat. Cancer research is fake. The control group is about as random as the audience at a Grateful Dead concert. This article is trying to shift blame to the patients. Bizarre. Who knows what cancer is curable with Retinoic Acid?
As someone that has had to endure two false positive screenings over the last year and had to wait 3-4 months each before we had a final “ no issue” , the anxiety it caused was immense. In canada, test results and follow up exams , ie an ultrasound after a suspicious mammo, take weeks/months.
Read "How We Do Harm" by Dr Otis Bradley. Who decides the ages for screening based in what facts? The WHO, the CDC? OH they are so trustworthy. The ones that, oppsy, decided locking us in our homes for 2 years all while making money off the vaccines was the best fir us??
Sadly...Doc(s), especially since Covid, are more likely seen to be following the crowd or just doing what they are told to do by their medical orgs.
We won't even mention the humongous conflict of interest Oncologists have in making profit off of chemo drugs.
Good article...as for me I will question everything from now on. And the first question will be show me the evidence behind whatever a person is suggesting.
Yes, that is unfortunately a reality. I've learned over the years , I'm 60, we have to be our own advocates and for our families and push for what we need.
Fear not just if cancer but of death seems to me to be the great driver...but to ignore the huge role that profit motives drive much of this and place it on the patients shoulders seems problematic.
Overall, liked the article, but his comment on fluoride gets me. I'm not worried about fluoride causing cancer, I'm frustrated with being hypothyroid and knowing that fluoride is (or historically was) a treatment for hyperthyroidism. So thank you so much, water companies, for trying to medicate me - and the whole population - further into hypothyroidism.
I would say the issue isn’t screening, it’s follow up from physicians. Women aren’t doing mastectomies on themselves, doctors are. A routine mammogram does no real harm, and is only a problem if a doctor decides to go crazy when a patient is anxious. Personally, Ive found that doctors are actually not cancer phobic enough. I had a tumor in my breast for years that was ignored by 4 different doctors. Even after I had a random rib break, no doctor suggested I have a mammogram, despite a tumor. I was young and breastfeeding, so changes in the breast were seen as normal and not important. By the time I finally spoke to an intelligent, dynamic physician who got me in for a diagnostic mammogram the next day, the cancer had already spread to most of my bones, my liver, my lungs, spleen and ovaries. I have 6 young children.
I don’t think the problem is cancer phobia, it’s inappropriate diagnostic criteria for those with cancer. Doctors need to be keen to signs of cancer in people of all ages. Perhaps we overscreen, but if I could go back in time and lop of my breasts myself with a dang kitchen knife I would.
My Question is whether the author himself opted to never get a PSA and if he ever did get it himself, then that sais it all. Hypocrisy!
Just wondering…
Excellent article and the principles therein should be applied to cardiovascular screening as well. Much of the misunderstanding on the part of the public and the medical profession is due to unrealistic views about what doctors can or should do. Many people believe that doctors should be "promoting health" by pushing certain lifestyle changes despite the fact that there is no evidence of concrete benefit. Aside from some of the infectious diseases, hardly anything is known for certain about the causes of almost anything else. The doctor is trained to differentiate disease from health. The healthy can be reassured and this actually comprises much of what is done in general practice or other primary care disciplines. When disease is found the patient can be presented with treatment options and/or referred to a specialist for further recommendations. It is unrealistic to expect anything else.
Nice piece. One of my guiding doctoring principles is “just because you can, doesn’t mean you should”.
And sensible med has done me a great service to remind me of the Sackett Venn diagram, and the primacy (or at least equivalency) of patient values and preferences Vs scientific evidence.
So on the one hand, I find it abhorrent to push screening that results in “treatments” that provide no outcome benefits, like for some of the cancer cases described here.
OTOH…if it puts their mind at ease…even if it exposes them to complications that could well be worse than the disease….who am I to judge? Cuz another one of my guiding principles is “choices have consequences”.
On the third hand, it’s fine if the tension was simply btw outcome evidence vs pt peace of mind. But there is always the spectre of financial gain…are you offering a treatment of no benefit to appease a pts wishes, or to pay your bills? And on a societal level, how much medical treatment of no outcome benefit can we afford simply for such appeasement?
I have Cancer-phobia. I would rather die than have surgeries & all the types of chemo & other chemicals poison my system ... to be tortured, have the system suck every ounce of my savings & leave my spouse with huge debt (now legislators want our children to incur our debt after we are gone) or to have my family watch me suffer for what, months, years. I have seen too many friends & family suffer unimaginable pain & suffering all while going broke. Nope. I will continue with my Cancer-phobia until I die. Thanks for writing. A layperson.
Its not a phobia if it will affect half of all Americans. It is a real risk. The thing I dont like about this piece is the unstated premise that I dont need to know. That you know better. That I should not even have the right to make a choice that you might not agree with. This is an irresponsible and paternalistic article.
We know how to cure cancers, cases of cancer. Statistically, most cases of cancer are cured. We focus on our failures and ignore our successes - and the result is cancer phobia. Big pharma loves phobias, even those without medical names - because they can be used to sell more "preventatives and treatments that don't cure." Cures decrease fear, and we must not speak about them. Most cancer doctors avoid the word cure and teach coworkers and staff to do the same.
Thanks for this article - as a community we need to get better at helping advise patients about how to live with low-grade or early-stage cancer and the risks of significant preventative surgery. This impacts how we define risk management for cancer Dx.