Tag: cancer

Celebrities Are Not Qualified Health Educators (But Some Can Do a Little Good)

I had a great conversation the other day with a friend about, of all things, guests on “Inside the Actor’s Studio”. She’d been excited to catch up on the episodes on her DVR, she couldn’t wait to see a certain big name celebrity. But it turned out he was a giant boring dud. What a disappointment! But she watched her accumulated episodes and landed on one featuring Jim Carey. She was not a fan, prior to watching this episode, that is. Turns out he was pretty clever on the show, and she wound up liking him.

I know how she feels. I used to dislike Pam Anderson. Even though I knew she was a big animal rights supporter, I just could not tolerate her, so I changed the channel when she came on. Except for the time I didn’t. Much to my chagrin I found out she was not an idiot. She has a lot of heart and speaks quite intelligently about the topic so close to her heart (and it helps it is an issue near and dear to me). I won’t go so far as to say I’m a fan, but I admire her now.

I am a news-politics-pop culture junkie. I swallow stories, current events, and scandals whole. But I’m the kind of addict that sits in the corner making the snarky comments about it all. I am not the type to have any kind of hero worship for celebrities, and certainly not for any politicians. It cracks me up when parents get all outraged and start criticizing the pop tartlet of the moment: “Beyonce/Miley Cyrus/Rihanna should be thinking of their young female fans…they are role models, so they shouldn’t date abusers, act silly, shill for a soda company.”

Puh-leeze what world do you live in? Lots of stars go horribly awry and act out. Johnny Cash? Ray Charles? Names ring any bells, folks? I couldn’t bear to watch the biopics featuring their bad behavior…it was just all the same story. Struggle, get famous, get hooked on drugs, hit bottom, find redemption, make a big comeback. Same old movie, over and over again. Today I see on the news that the Biebs is going down the tubes again. How is this news or even remotely surprising? Repeat after me: these people are not role models I don’t care how nice and upstanding they present at first. They are humans; NOT better than any of us.

So where am I going with this complaint? Well, as with Pam Anderson, I’ve found another one I now begrudgingly admire: Fran Drescher.

I NEVER liked her. I DESPISE her voice and laugh, and I doubt that will change. I find the shows she is on just–unfunny. I never found her funny. As with Pam, I generally changed the channel or turned off the TV is she came on. I was dimly aware of her past with cancer and that she had a book or something about it.

So she was on my TV the other day, promoting something, and mentioned her website/foundation, Cancer Schmancer.

Stop right there. One of the most infuriating things in the world are celebrities who get some illness then suddenly start a foundation, or a campaign to raise funds/awareness/or some other benevolent action. There are those two rocker/country women who I used to sort of be ok with (can’t say I liked their tunes much), who write their own songs, actually singing them live on TV shows (unlike some mentioned above), and play guitars (they are separate solo artists, I do not mean to imply they are a duo). Both women got breast cancer at different times, and they embraced Big Pink.

I no longer like them AT ALL.

Hell, I’m even suspicious of celebrities who shill for prescription drugs. Yeah, that’s gonna make me want your product: and overpaid celebrity, getting paid even more by an obscenely wealthy pharmaceutical company. And don’t get me started on some big name model (sorry, in this case I actually forgot her name) who was in a car accident and went through a long recovery. She is back now and her publicist, manager, or who knows what entity, thinks she needs to make a comeback splash by associating herself with some likable health cause. So she goes on TV and proclaims blood donors saved her life. Granted, she needed the blood, but didn’t the doctors have a hand in it? Yeah, yeah, doctors are rich (so they don’t need a fundraiser), and are not popular enough to warrant fuzzy warm televised shout outs. But how about start a college scholarship fund for poor kids who have an aptitude for science who might become great doctors, or great researchers, if they had enough funds to get to college, or better yet support some of these young geniuses I hear about like Jack Andraka, coming up with better ways to test for cancers, but who had to struggle to get the “established” scientific community to pay attention to his invention?

So I finally made my way over to the Cancer Schmancer website. I have not yet had a long enough opportunity to explore it fully, but from what I did manage to see (thanks crappy internet connections that keep cutting out every time I want to go to a new page), looks like the stuff I believe in. Lots of info about the unhealthy additives in the products we use, info about environmental causes of cancer. Sigh, of course, there are still places to click that say “shop” or “what you can do”–as in how to avoid buying products with harmful ingredients, which are more prominent than the links telling us how to pressure industry from putting them in products at all (remember, it is up to the individual–so if you get cancer it is YOUR fault–yes I’m being sarcastic), pushing the concept that early detection saves lives, and we in (breast) cancer world know that some cancers, no matter how early they are caught will stubbornly be fatal, and my favorite–how to “prevent” cancer through diet and exercise…as if that info were not available everywhere else in cancerworld.

So, yes, I now admire Fran Drescher, because she is doing something intelligent and useful, unlike ABC news and/or Brooke Burke-Charvet with their stupid confusion of the words “prevention” and “early detection” (yes I will keep picking on them until they figure out the differences in these concepts and stop spreading lies to viewers). I will be happy to point the uninitiated-to-cancer to her website. Best of all, her website is a “gateway website”, leading to websites like Breast Cancer Fund (it takes a little searching, but I’ve seen the link), which features more heavy hitting info, and a staff of non-celebrities, who work it in the trenches everyday to do their part to fight cancer. They may not be famous celebrities, but their contributions are more important.

The Antidote

A/N: Most of this is meant to be tongue in cheek, humorous, albeit a little sarcastic, but not all of it. Hint, the parts about the music are meant to tickle your funny bone, but I am sincere in my thought that we all need to find our own ways to ward off stress, there is no one way fits all.–anotheronewiththecancer/cancer curmudgeon

Image

Great post today over at myeyesareuphere called “I Can’t Believe I’m Not Freaking Out“, giving advice about mindful meditation methods and other ways to fend off cancer-induced AND Bieber-induced stress. She includes an anecdote about her daughter singing a Justin Bieber song, changing the lyrics to reflect her dislike for the song (or so it sounds, I gather, from the replacement lyrics). Some songs, especially the annoying ones, are like that-they get stuck in the mind. My personal demon of 2012? Carly Rae Jespen’s “Call Me Maybe”. Hate it so much that now I like it, turn it up in the car. Top contender for 2013 is shaping up to be “Thrift Shop” by Macklemore & Ryan Lewis, a song with the most annoying hook ever, but a great lyrical ideal: shopping on the cheap at thrift stores!

People, or rather celebrities, say silly things like there are no guilty pleasures, we should never feel guilty about pleasure. Um, no, as a long time punk fan, I will always feel guilty for singing along to Jespen’s earworm.

The post got me thinking about how I combat two of the most evil powers of the universe: Bieber and cancer stress. The answer is easy (for me), simple, but quite long. Here is part of it:

The Ramones
The Clash
The Sex Pistols
Jimi Hendrix
Red Hot Chili Peppers
Iggy Pop
Sonic Youth
Rage Against the Machine
Tupac
Public Enemy
Eminem
Nine Inch Nails
Nirvana

Image

The Ramones

These are only a fraction of my favorite bands, but I only listed these because they are LOUD, which is nice for obliterating the Beibs and cancer worries (of course I love the Beatles, but try pumping your fist and scream-singing “Let It Be”–unsatisfying). Better still, it is nice to turn them up on my car radio as I fly down the road, because I know my fellow travellers would enjoy them too (sorry, my twisted sense of humor at play again).

OK, OK, I’ll serious up now. Myeyesareuphere recommends a few meditation books/cds to help implement practices that could help alleviate the stressors that come with having cancer. I need not enumerate those, I think.

I’ve tried a little Tai Chi and similar practices, a little yoga, a lot of walking (that is a professional hazard, as a dog walker). So far, most have not been so good for me. Any exercise that involves moving the left arm in one way and the right leg another way (or vice versa), I’m kind of screwed because I might be the most uncoordinated person on the planet. What usually happens, as I struggle to keep up with the class or the video clip, is that I wind up more stressed, for not being able to do it!

I will eventually try meditation, maybe. But right now, I kind of like how my mind speeds up and spins, so fast that my mouth can’t keep up when talking, or my fingers can’t type fast enough when writing. Cancer treatment slowed my mind so much, and it took me about a year from the last day of radiation for my brain to “get back up to speed”. I missed the speed of my brain, and the mass of thoughts swirling around in there. I don’t want to clear it, not just yet. I know it can help me relax, develop compassion, patience, etc. But I’m feeling better finally, I have some energy back, and I want to do things, I wanna do them now, not be patient, not relax!

For now, I do the things I can do to relieve my stress–ranting, via blog to get it off my chest, and cranking up my tunes. So what if it’s a little unorthodox in breast cancer world, but I don’t care because it works for me. Good luck as you find your method, or enjoy the one you have already found. Feel free to share it…even here on this post if you want.

And remember, it does not have to be the yoga or meditation variety, although that is perfectly OK too! Hey, normal or outrageous, as long as it gets the job done.

To comply with the follow your own bliss aspect of this post, have a picture of rock icon Iggy Pop

Image

Reliable Information Sources

My kingdom, my kingdom for someone who can provide me with a real answer, an answer I can trust.

During my recent electronic devices/internet connection woes, I learned that it is damn near impossible to get a straight answer, or talk to someone with some knowledge, or, in short, get actual useful information that would solve a problem. This is especially true in the world of electronics, apps, internet, and all that crap.

Actually, back up, that was true before. Several weeks ago I had an issue right here on WordPress. As I understand it, if there is a new post from a blog I follow, it should appear in my “reader” both on my laptop and in my phone’s app. I checked the blogs I followed and saw all these recent posts, whereas the most recent post in my reader was 2 days old. Trying to resolve the issue only led me, repeatedly, to the WordPress forum, where I was to post my issue and hope someone would answer.

No one ever did.

Luckily, the issue resolved itself, mostly. As I’ve struggled to regain all the apps I had on my toilet-drowned old phone onto my replacement piece, I’ve run into numerous problems, but I’m never sure where to turn. Do I contact the phone maker, or the app maker/service, or the phone service provider? And how do I contact, like, any of them?

Oh no, I must go to the forum.

I’m not knocking forums; actually I have seen some useful info on forums. But if what I need involves my account information, or if I simply do not possess knowledge of the jargon related to the problem (“what happens if I tap the house shaped button, second from the left..”, I actually once wrote those words, see it would be easier if I knew the name of the damn button), I need a real person, paid by the company.

As frustrating as all that it, it is not nearly as sickening as a couple of cancer-related (mis)information pieces I’ve read.

First, while trying ot hunt down some completely different information, I came across a tidbit on the website for my local TV news. The article referred to information from something called HealthDay News and it stated that “many ovarian cancer patients (are) denied by-the-book care”. Unfortunatley, due to either faulty info from the local news source or my ongoing internet connectivity woes, I could not access the original article. The gist of the article is that about 2/3 of ovarian cancer patients “don’t receive recommended treatment that could extend their lives”. If these patients do not get the care recommended by National Comprehensive Cancer Network’s guidelines, they risk dying within five years. Who is most likely to fall into this trap? Patients at low-volume hospitals, like in rural areas, you know, like where I live. Best of all, the article recommends that the patients themselves check out the National Comprehensive Cancer Network clinical practice guidelines on their own.

In essence, treat yourself. Granted, many of us when first diagnosed hit the internet despite all the advice to the contrary, and found out what we could. But I for one, did not do that thinking that the doctor was not giving me all the information I was supposed to have, was not following treatment guidelines.

Then, I see Scorchy’s post Me and My Shadow in which she talks about some information presented to her, and when she actually read the report provided by her doctor, he left quite a few things out.

So, let me see if I have this right. Buy the tech support, still have to send silly laptop back. Get cancer, but don’t get the recommended treatment, or the full story about the diagnoses. What are we paying these doctors for, exactly?

Image

Update on earlier post

In the comments on my post Somebody Needs to Buy These Media People a Dictionary, it was suggested I contact Good Morning America or ABC about the difference between prevention and early detection. I did, that Friday, and have heard nothing.

Granted, I am a “nobody” to them, with no special knowledge of the story. And they’ve drawn a little fire for their coverage of the Ohio rape verdict, although not as much as CNN, so they might have their hands full right now.

But they could not be more wrong. I am not a nobody with no special knowledge of that story.  I am a viewer/consumer, maybe just one consumer, but I obviously have no problems pointing out their failure, and I hope others out there in tumorville who agree with me have no problem spreading the word when the media so blatantly gets it wrong. And no, I don’t have “special” knowledge of cancer, or of words like prevention and early detection. I do have common sense & the ability to read.

Attention all media outlets: stop insulting your audience. I’m holding you accountable.

Attention to those of you who agree with me, send complaints to media stories you know to be wrong, complain on you blog, do what you can. To paraphrase the Beastie Boys, “make some noise if you’re with me”

Cancer as PMS

I used to say this about PMS: things that I griped about when I had PMS bothered me all the time, it is just that when I had PMS, I was more likely to tell you about it.

I’ve found the same to be true of my post-cancer lack of patience, really. As in, I have none at all. So, it may appear more things irk me these days that did not irk me before I got sick. Nope! All this stuff always pissed me off…I’m just faster to start complaining about it, and I do it louder than ever, in a completely obnoxious manner (I used to be more polite).

And I am soooo OK with that!

I’m making this fact part of my new normal (man, I’m starting to hate that little Cancerville phrase too–but that’s a whole other post).

Changing the Meaning

“You see us as you want to see us: in the simplest terms, in the most convenient definitions.”

123046__breakfast_club_l

I will continue posting the story of my decision to not get nipple reconstruction, but to instead get a funky tattoo, a source of much joy for me, in the next few days. I had to interrupt posts on that story because of this other cool post I read.

There was recently a great post at Regrounding about the word victim and its use in Cancerland and a few other communities. I’ve always had much trouble with some language in Cancerland—the words warrior, survivor, hope, awareness, fight, acceptance, healing—all have made me at least uncomfortable, sometimes downright angry. I had not given much thought to the word victim, although I rarely if ever used it to refer to myself, until I read Lori’s post and the comments that went with it. The tweeters in the post’s anecdote, and many of those who commented, outright rejected the word victim, although the meaning of the word fits. Part of me wants to say, yeah, I am a victim, because cancer happened to me through no fault of my own, just like a hurricane or some other natural disaster. As the post pointed out, we have no problem saying, “I am a victim of the most recent hurricane.” But you know, we could place blame on those folks too, couldn’t we? Who told those “victims” to live near the ocean, or near the fault line, or in a tornado-magnet trailer park? Who told you to get fat and not have children so you would get cancer? See my point?

So I am kind of afraid to identify as a victim of cancer. While I do not view myself as weak, I will be perceived that way; judging from that post. One person cannot change the meaning of a word or symbol in society just by proclaiming the word/symbol to have another meaning. Let me explain in an anecdotal example.

Once upon a time, before I got cancer, I got involved in an on air radio discussion. Topic of the day: some folks flying the Confederate flag at a local 4th of July parade (and we are just barely in The South, we never seceded, but yes this area was slaveholding, and our butts were immediately whipped at the start of the war). This rock station’s DJs were a bit conservative, touting individual freedom in order to support the people who displayed the flag. The common agreement was the flag represents state’s rights, and no one should be criticized for displaying it. I called in to discuss this issue, pointing out that 1) everyone has the right to free expression and 2) even the swastika’s origin is Hindu, and once had positive meaning, like being good or your higher self, but it doesn’t mean that now! The DJs misconstrued my comments as supportive. Actually I do support freedom of expression; everyone has the right to make an ass of themselves! (I do it every day.)

Image

But my larger point is this. If I wore clothes with swastikas all over it —even with the little extra dots around it like the Hindu version—I would be perceived as a Nazi, a racist. I could say until I was blue in the face, “no, it’s Hindu for good, being my higher self,” and I probably would just get a lot of funny looks. Bottom line, in today’s society, the swastika means racism and Nazism, Hitler bastardized it, and it will take hundreds of years to change that. The stars and bars mean Confederacy, the losing side of the Civil War, and racism. Even the phrase “state’s rights” was used to really mean the right to own slaves. If you display the rebel flag, especially with the words heritage or pride, you may think you are just showing off your redneck status—or a really misguided devotion to “The Dukes of Hazzard” television show—but you are pretty much going to be perceived as a racist. Yammer on all you want that you are not a racist, that you are just showing pride and heritage, not many will listen or believe you. Sorry folks, that is just how it is, deal with it. (Here is a great opportunity to prove me wrong readers…please!)

These symbols, and words that become symbolic, are societal shorthand to judge each other, to put others into little stereotypical boxes in our minds. See a guy or girl with long hair, sandals, and tie dye t-shirt? Hippie, follower of the Grateful Dead, probably too stoned to be a productive member of society. See a dude with a pocket protector, glasses? Geek, nerd, can probably fix my computer. Hear a breast cancer patient identify as victim? She is weak and helpless. See a bald woman decked out in pink with the ribbon all over? She is a warrior, and she is gonna beat this thing, personally. All of this is just absurd, and not always true.

I do not know how to change how society perceives these symbols. I do know that just me alone, standing here in my corner of the internet saying “I am a victim of cancer, and that is not negative and I am not helpless and weak,” will not change the symbolic language. I could go on all day, picking apart why I dislike all those other words (warrior, hope, survivor), not sure it would get me anywhere. I guess the key is that all of us, not just here in Cancerland should stop judging others.

But the sad question is, can we? Last night for the millionth time, I watched The Breakfast Club (the remote was all the way across the room and I was too lazy to get it), a great film making me nostalgic for my pre-teen and teen years. Ultimately, I am glad for this laziness inspired turn of events. I forgot how brutal the kids are to each other in the beginning. Their judgments and assumptions of each other based on how each kid self-identified by style of dress & choice of friends, was cruel and astounding.  Worst part? Nothing has changed, we are all still living on high school terms! The film is nearly 30 years old, and this quote from it still rings true:

“You see us as you want to see us: in the simplest terms, in the most convenient definitions.”

My challenge to society, especially breast cancer society is this: can we change, stop making assumptions about others based on how we self-identify, etc? For example, online, my blog, can tend to be negative. I can be a positive person in real (not cancer related) life, I do tend to be Pollyanna, always looking on the bright side, I just tend to use my blog & cancer support group as a place to vent. There is a reason for that, but that is a whole other post. Wanna know another secret about me? I may call myself a cancer victim, but I do not have the victim mentality, it has nothing to do with who or how I was before cancer. I came from a poor, uneducated family background. I was the first grandchild on my mother’s side to go to college, and I paid for it MYSELF and I am very proud of that. It would have been easy for me to live out the expected stereotype for my background: redneck, pregnant before 20, etc. and blaming my parents or family for how my life turned out (which is what we think those with a victim mentality do, don’t we?). But I changed my situation because I could. Hell, the fact I look at that as a bad situation shows I am a stereotypin’ jackass my own self!

I cannot change that cancer happened to me.

Now what?

I am a Cancer Victim

Wow, great post, great discussion. I love anything that causes thought provoking discussion.

I am fascinated by the knee-jerk rejection of the word victim. Based on the definition in the beginning of this post, being a victim is nothing to be ashamed of, really. It is not like I actively “asked for it”; I did not sit around, cigarette dangling out of my mouth, beer in one hand, fatty chicken leg in the other going “come and get me cancer!” I did not cause my cancer. And I think there is something to be explored when you say “I wonder if our visceral anger when hearing ‘cancer victim’ isn’t about our not having completely, deeply shaken the notion of blaming the cancer victim.” The message that one can prevent cancer by eating right, exercising, abstaining from smoke an alcohol is ubiquitous and the way I interpret it, I am being blamed for getting cancer. I see many comments about empowering oneself and choosing to do all these right things, and I wonder if that is about helping the patient feel back in control. I pose this question: if we desire to empower ourselves and exert control by doing all these right things, and reject the notion of victimhood, then if cancer returns, are we willing to accept blame?

The word victim seems to be another troubling—for me—piece of the confusing language of cancer. I do not generally call myself a victim, but after this post I might. If I remember correctly, rejection of the word started when breast cancer activism began borrowing from AIDS activism, as patients began to identify as activists, and then blew up when the Komen/Livestrong warrior language (wish I could remember the places I read this, so I could site it). I have so much trepidation regarding these words: awareness, survivor, victim, warrior, acceptance, battle, fight, hope. I am coming to terms with identifying as survivor but I may never be comfortable with the warrior talk. I did not battle cancer; I made logical, informed decisions to go to a doctor, learn my options, and engage in treatment. It wasn’t as dramatic as gearing up for a firefight in Iraq or something, but I do not consider myself passive either; that would’ve been choosing to not get treated and let cancer kill me. To me hope is the most passive word in the bunch, but that is the one slathered all over breast cancer awareness ads, and usually embraced in the community. I don’t like it. Sounds like we are just supposed to wait like good little patients, and hope someone finds a cure. Bleh, no thanks.

It is odd to me that there is discussion about victim mentality; if anything, the example you presented seems to indicate the opposite. Sounds like specifically in this instance there was almost peer pressure to reject victimhood and so forth. I do not think it is a symptom of victimhood mentality, or a failure to move forward by recognizing that cancer had a major impact on my life. Obviously it did, or I would not be blogging about it, or reading other blogs and commenting on them.

Lori's avatarregrounding

vic·tim  [vik-tim] noun

1. a person who suffers from a destructive or injurious action or agency: a victim of an automobile accident.

2. a person who is deceived or cheated, as by his or her own emotions or ignorance, by the dishonesty of others, or by some impersonal agency: a victim of misplaced confidence; the victim of a swindler; a victim of an optical illusion.

(from dictionary.com)

This one is going to rankle some feathers, and I look forward to a brisk dialogue in the comments section!

View original post 579 more words

Wrong

Let me start by saying bullying is horrible.

But I am questioning today how it is being confronted.

Watching another stupid morning show and for the second time this week I hear about some non-profit that pays for plastic surgery for kids who are bullied for some aspect of their physical appearance. Right now I am seeing a girl with larger-than-normal ears, and earlier this week I saw a segment about a girl with a larger-than-normal nose. The news reporters do a before and after, interviewing and showing close-ups the girls in both stages.

Can we list all the things wrong with this phenomenon?

  • Granted, I am writing in knee-jerk mode right now and have not researched this issue, but BOTH segments feature GIRLS who feel the need to change their appearance. I need not say more, do I?
  • How many times must I repeat the phrase “blaming the victim”? By getting surgery to rid the problematic physical feature, the bullied is getting modified, when it is the perpetrators that need serious behavior modification to make them less reprehensible human beings.
  • What about those bullied for aspects of themselves that cannot be changed….uh can anyone say sexual orientation? The message I hear is if you are bullied, change what it is about you that is the source of the bullying, and if it cannot be changed, you are shit outta luck.
  • This last one is harsh and cruel, but it needs to be said: a non-profit to pay for kids who cannot pay for plastic surgery, REALLY? Tons of people struggle with medical bills for life-threatening illness on a daily, boring—as in not featured in a news story on TV—basis, and no one cares, no one gives money. I remember being so angry and guilty for that anger this summer upon hearing about how hospitals were treating financially challenged victims of the midnight movie shooting spree free of charge. So, if you are poor and you are lucky enough to get harmed in a life threatening way that is newsworthy, you don’t have to worry about medical costs? But if you are an everyday American, say with cancer, struggling in an unfair medical system, too bad, so sad? If I get cancer again, it will be catastrophic for me financially. If I die, I will just be another casualty of our fucked up health care system, and there will be no non-profit, no news story.

Maybe that should be a news story. Here’s my number Anderson Cooper, call me maybe.

 

It’s So Simple

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. –Albert Einstein

So all these researchers that study links between obesity/alcohol/exercise and cancer over and over and over are one of two things:

Option 1: If they expect different results, according to Einstein, they are insane.

Option 2: If they expect the same results, they are wasting time and money.

Either way, they need to stop or lose their jobs and funding. Make way for researchers with some original ideas!

Dear Medical Researchers, Philanthropists, and All Media

What has set me off this fine Monday morning? I had the local news on for the morning infusions of doom and gloom and fluffy stories. One of the health headlines: a new study linking alcohol to cancer deaths. According to the segment, this study was done by the American Journal of Public Health, and it is the “first comprehensive study of alcohol connected cancer deaths in 30 years.” Note it says “connected” not caused. The report fails to explain how alcohol consumption makes cells turn into cancer. In fact it only says that number crunchers analyzed how many people died of cancer who also drank alcohol. That is all. According to the study, alcohol accounts for 3.5% of cancer deaths, with 45 to 60% being people who had more than 3 drinks per day, and 30% being those who had about 1.5 drinks per day.

I went to the American Journal of Public Health website and did not see this report in any of the headlines, it may have been in one of the monthly journals but my lame computer skills seem to prevent me from being able to read them. It is possible this news is a few months old and my rural local news station is just now “getting around to it”. At any rate, as I am unable to read the report, I only have the local news video as my source of info. One issue that I’d like to know more about is how the conclusions were reached. The news video indicated that number crunchers simply took info about every person who died of cancer in 2009, and decided if they drank alcohol each day, then that is why they had cancer and died. There was no indication that other factors were considered, such as if the person lived near a factory that puts carcinogens in the environment.  I really hope they did consider other factors, because my understanding from the segment I saw makes me think that these analysts simply looked at alcohol intake and said “oh, that’s it right there, the reason why they got cancer and died”, and just flushed all other potential causes down some mental toilet.

Two other tidbits that irk me beyond reason:

First comprehensive study in 30 years? Really? Then why is it every damn time I absorb information from TV, internet, or print media, I see some item linking alcohol to cancer. I swear the information is now burned into my brain.  And until I read the report or hear more information filtered by someone who can effectively translate science jargon into understandable English, I have my doubts about this comprehensiveness.

And the stats—please–3.5% in my cancer experience is a really small number. Everything for a breast cancer patient is geared to the majority, such as using mammography as the standard for finding cancer, when 20% get false negatives. In spite of my false negative history, my doctor still is anxious to take my away from having annual MRIs which I trust a bit more than mammograms, so I guess we in that 20% don’t matter. Or how about the fact that most breast cancer patients are post-menopausal and even though there are standards in place requiring doctors to talk about fertility with younger patients, it rarely happens (I cannot remember actual stats on this, not being the maternal kind, and I’m too angry to be patient enough to find the percent, I only know it was rare). In cancer, majority rules, so why are panties in a twist about 3.5%?!!

My message is REAL simple today:

Medical Scientists:

Stop studying alcohol and cancer. The links have been established, and since I see “limit alcohol intake” every time I read about how to lower risk of breast cancer, I think this issue is drained. All those doing research, please talk to each other, acknowledge this fact collectively and find another potential cancer cause to study preferably one that cannot be turned around to be the fault of the cancer patient.

People Giving Money to Fund Studies Linking Alcohol to Cancer:

I don’t know if y’all just a bunch of teetotalers or what, but this issue is done and proven, it does NOT need further study and proof. If you don’t like alcohol that is too bad, stop punishing those of us who do.

Image

To Both Of The Above: Your fixation with this issue is preventing real investigation on other causes. We need to move forward. A percent like 3.5% means that if all the alcohol in the world disappeared overnight, cancer would still happen. In fact, maybe I wish all alcohol would just disappear, it would force you to study something else.

All Members of the Media (and Advertisers):

Stop reporting this. If I had a dollar for every time I heard it I could pay my cancer-related medical bills. So that means I no longer listen (except today, because I went off), indeed I change the channel/navigate away from the page/throw away the newspaper every time I see this kind of information, meaning I am not seeing advertisements placed by your major funding sources, and am not visiting or using these businesses. I’m trying to hit you in your wallet; maybe that will make you pay attention.

Do I really think my little rant will make a difference? No, not if I am the only one who feels this way. I hope others can see my point of view too.