Home
Gallery
Search
Register
Log in
About Us & RulesMiracle cancer cures? Ask for evidence
NewsFix :: Miscellany :: Miscellany
Page 1 of 1
Miracle cancer cures? Ask for evidence
by Guest Sat Mar 01, 2014 1:33 pm
The UK charity Sense About Science will on Monday issue a new edition of their excellent booklet “I’ve got nothing to lose by trying it” as part of the Ask For Evidence campaign, which aims to empower patients and their families to ask for the scientific evidence behind claims made for treatments and products. We wrote this short piece for their website, looking at some of the “miracle cures” for cancer we’ve encountered. Sense About Science has gathered these stories together and will be sharing them on their website over the course of next week.
At Cancer Research UK, we’re often asked about alternative cancer cures. These are usually circulated on the internet and end up plastered onto our Facebook page (often accompanied by the phrase “they don’t want you to know about it). Just a small selection of the cures we’ve heard about recently includes lemon juice, baking soda, apricot kernels, coffee enemas, tropical fruit, “alkaline” foods (whatever they are…), even bleach. But while there are plenty of ‘miracle cures’ out there, a little investigationshows that there’s very little evidence that any of them actually work.
In some cases – particularly chemicals found in plants and other foodstuffs – there may be lab studies suggesting it has an anti-cancer effect. But many things can kill cancer cells growing in a Petri dish in the lab, and chemicals that seem promising in the lab or even in animal models of tumours can be disappointingly ineffective when faced with the real deal in a cancer patient.
Yet the internet is bursting with anecdotes from patients who have apparently been “cured” by all kinds of pills, lotions and potions. So what should we make of them?
Despite what people may claim, videos and stories are not scientific evidence for the effectiveness of any cancer treatment. When faced with a patient story, it’s impossible to tell whether these patients have been ‘cured’ by a particular treatment or not. We know nothing about their medical diagnosis (did they actually have cancer? If so, what type and how was it confirmed?), the stage and aggressiveness of the disease or their outlook.
Often it turns out that people have had conventional cancer treatments too, yet this may not be mentioned. We don’t know about the chemical composition of the treatment they got – for example, one alternative prostate cancer treatment was found to contain prescription drugs. And we only hear about the success stories – what about the people who have tried alternative therapies and not been cured? People who make bold claims only pick their best cases without presenting the full picture.
This highlights the importance of publishing data from rigorous lab research and well-designed clinical trials in peer-reviewed scientific and medical journals. Conducting proper clinical studies enables researchers to compare like with like, and prove that a prospective cancer treatment is safe and effective. And publishing their data in scientific journals allows doctors around the world to judge for themselves and use the information for the benefit of their patients.
This is the standard to which all conventional cancer treatments are held, and it’s one that alternative treatments should be held to too. Anecdotes and videos prove nothing and benefit no-one – we need reliable, scientific research to judge whether a treatment is effective.
When faced with a diagnosis of cancer, it’s tempting to turn to “Dr Google” to find out more, but we urge patients to check out the evidence behind any alternative treatments they might be thinking of taking and talk it through with a medical professional. Not only are people at risk of wasting their time and money on completely ineffective treatments, there is also the possibility that a therapy might be harmful or interact with conventional treatments.
Through our information services, we’re well aware how distressing this kind of misinformation about ‘cures’ for serious illnesses can be for people. It gives them false hope and can lower their confidence in the treatment they are receiving from their own doctors.
Cancer Research UK’s CancerHelp website provides a wealth of information on a range of alternative and complementary therapies, which is all supported behind-the-scenes by solid scientific research. We’ve also written here on the blog about conspiracy theories, alternative treatments and more.
Elsewhere, the American Cancer Society also has an impressive collection of evidence on alternative treatments, and the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Centre maintains a searchable database on herbs and supplements. Finally, Quackwatch has a list of some of the more unusual ‘miracle cures’ and a special message for patients seeking alternative treatments.
http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2013/09/13/miracle-cancer-cures-ask-for-evidence/
At Cancer Research UK, we’re often asked about alternative cancer cures. These are usually circulated on the internet and end up plastered onto our Facebook page (often accompanied by the phrase “they don’t want you to know about it). Just a small selection of the cures we’ve heard about recently includes lemon juice, baking soda, apricot kernels, coffee enemas, tropical fruit, “alkaline” foods (whatever they are…), even bleach. But while there are plenty of ‘miracle cures’ out there, a little investigationshows that there’s very little evidence that any of them actually work.
In some cases – particularly chemicals found in plants and other foodstuffs – there may be lab studies suggesting it has an anti-cancer effect. But many things can kill cancer cells growing in a Petri dish in the lab, and chemicals that seem promising in the lab or even in animal models of tumours can be disappointingly ineffective when faced with the real deal in a cancer patient.
Yet the internet is bursting with anecdotes from patients who have apparently been “cured” by all kinds of pills, lotions and potions. So what should we make of them?
Despite what people may claim, videos and stories are not scientific evidence for the effectiveness of any cancer treatment. When faced with a patient story, it’s impossible to tell whether these patients have been ‘cured’ by a particular treatment or not. We know nothing about their medical diagnosis (did they actually have cancer? If so, what type and how was it confirmed?), the stage and aggressiveness of the disease or their outlook.
Often it turns out that people have had conventional cancer treatments too, yet this may not be mentioned. We don’t know about the chemical composition of the treatment they got – for example, one alternative prostate cancer treatment was found to contain prescription drugs. And we only hear about the success stories – what about the people who have tried alternative therapies and not been cured? People who make bold claims only pick their best cases without presenting the full picture.
This highlights the importance of publishing data from rigorous lab research and well-designed clinical trials in peer-reviewed scientific and medical journals. Conducting proper clinical studies enables researchers to compare like with like, and prove that a prospective cancer treatment is safe and effective. And publishing their data in scientific journals allows doctors around the world to judge for themselves and use the information for the benefit of their patients.
This is the standard to which all conventional cancer treatments are held, and it’s one that alternative treatments should be held to too. Anecdotes and videos prove nothing and benefit no-one – we need reliable, scientific research to judge whether a treatment is effective.
When faced with a diagnosis of cancer, it’s tempting to turn to “Dr Google” to find out more, but we urge patients to check out the evidence behind any alternative treatments they might be thinking of taking and talk it through with a medical professional. Not only are people at risk of wasting their time and money on completely ineffective treatments, there is also the possibility that a therapy might be harmful or interact with conventional treatments.
Through our information services, we’re well aware how distressing this kind of misinformation about ‘cures’ for serious illnesses can be for people. It gives them false hope and can lower their confidence in the treatment they are receiving from their own doctors.
Cancer Research UK’s CancerHelp website provides a wealth of information on a range of alternative and complementary therapies, which is all supported behind-the-scenes by solid scientific research. We’ve also written here on the blog about conspiracy theories, alternative treatments and more.
Elsewhere, the American Cancer Society also has an impressive collection of evidence on alternative treatments, and the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Centre maintains a searchable database on herbs and supplements. Finally, Quackwatch has a list of some of the more unusual ‘miracle cures’ and a special message for patients seeking alternative treatments.
http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2013/09/13/miracle-cancer-cures-ask-for-evidence/
Guest- Guest
Re: Miracle cancer cures? Ask for evidence
by Guest Sat Mar 01, 2014 1:38 pm
great news people will try anything to get better , it still doesn't mean alternative treatments don't work
Guest- Guest
Re: Miracle cancer cures? Ask for evidence
by Guest Sat Mar 01, 2014 1:42 pm
Maine coon lover wrote:great news people will try anything to get better , it still doesn't mean alternative treatments don't work
At Cancer Research UK, we’re often asked about alternative cancer cures. These are usually circulated on the internet and end up plastered onto our Facebook page (often accompanied by the phrase “they don’t want you to know about it). Just a small selection of the cures we’ve heard about recently includes lemon juice, baking soda, apricot kernels, coffee enemas, tropical fruit, “alkaline” foods (whatever they are…), even bleach. But while there are plenty of ‘miracle cures’ out there, a little investigationshows that there’s very little evidence that any of them actually work.
Guest- Guest
Re: Miracle cancer cures? Ask for evidence
by Guest Sat Mar 01, 2014 1:44 pm
great news they might find out just ho dangerous chemo is..
Guest- Guest
Re: Miracle cancer cures? Ask for evidence
by Guest Sat Mar 01, 2014 1:46 pm
How to Protect Yourself From Cancer Treatment Fraud
When researching cancer treatments, you will likely come across advertisements for products or services that claim to prevent, treat, or cure cancer. The claims made on the Internet and on TV often sound like they are cures for cancer. However, before investing time and money in any of them, it’s important to evaluate the claims carefully and talk with your doctor.
Products that are not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat cancer are unlikely to help, and some may even cause harm or interfere with chemotherapy and other treatments prescribed by your doctor. On the other hand, conventional treatments, such as surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy, have been rigorously tested in clinical trials (research studies in people) and found to be safe and effective. After a treatment has been tested in clinical trials, the FDA must approve it to treat cancer. Learn more about drug development and approval.
When talking about cancer treatment fraud, it is important to distinguish between complementary and alternative therapies. Complementary therapies are treatments used in addition to standard cancer therapy that are backed by evidence that they help treat cancer or improve a person’s quality of life. They include yoga, meditation, acupuncture, art therapy, music therapy, massage, and dietary and herbal supplements. Alternative therapies on the other hand, are treatments used instead of a standard treatment.
Signs of likely fraud
According to the FDA and the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the following often indicate that an advertised “remedy” is a fraud:
The ad says it will cure any type of cancer. No single treatment will work for everyone or for every type of cancer.
The ad uses “personal testimonies” that claim the product works. These people may be paid actors, but even if they aren’t, personal stories are unreliable and unscientific evidence of the product’s effectiveness.
The ad offers a money-back guarantee. Getting money back is not proof of effectiveness.
The wording in the ad sounds technical. The advertiser may expect you to be impressed, but it’s not proof that the product will do what it says.
The ad claims that the product is a “natural” remedy. Many “natural” substances are harmful to people, such as poison ivy, so this claim doesn’t mean it will help or that it won’t harm you.
The ad states that supplies are limited and/or you have to pay in advance.
Other phrases to watch out for are “scientific breakthrough,” “miraculous cure,” “secret ingredient” or “ancient remedy.” These terms may sound impressive, but advertisers can easily use these terms without offering any proof to support their claims
If you see a deceptive ad or think you have been misled by one for a product that claims to treat or cure cancer, find out how to file a complaint. By doing so, you may be helping to protect other people with cancer from a fraudulent product.
Examples of fraud in cancer
Whenever an advertiser claims that a product not approved by the FDA as a cancer treatment will, in fact, treat or cure cancer, the advertiser is committing fraud. Here are some examples:
Hoxsey Therapy. This product consists of two types of herbal mixtures that are taken by mouth and applied to the skin.
The claim: It removes toxins (harmful substances) from the body, strengthens the immune system, and helps the body get rid of tumors.
The facts: There is no scientific evidence that this product is effective in treating cancer, and no clinical trials have been published in medical journals. If taken in large doses, it can burn the skin and cause diarrhea, nausea and vomiting, and rashes. In some cases, it causes cancer to grow. The FDA banned the sale and marketing of this treatment in 1960.
Black salves. Also called escharotics, these are pastes composed of different ingredients that are applied to skin cancers or over the sites of tumors inside the body.
The claim: The salves are said to kill cancer cells and “draw out” cancer from beneath the skin.
The facts: There is no scientific evidence that black salves are effective in treating cancer, and no clinical trials have been published in medical journals. Black salves can burn, eat through, and scar the skin.
Shark cartilage. This tissue is extracted from the heads and fins of sharks. It is usually taken by mouth.
The claim: Shark cartilage contains proteins that stop angiogenesis, the formation of new blood vessels, which helps tumors to grow.
The facts: Clinical trials of shark cartilage to date have not shown any benefit in treating cancer. It can cause nausea, and, in high doses, hypercalcemia (increased levels of calcium in the blood). The FDA has not approved shark cartilage as a cancer treatment.
Gerson therapy. This plan consists of a vegetarian diet with raw, organic vegetable and fruit juice consumed every hour during the day, along with enemas using coffee and castor oil.
The claim: It cleanses and detoxifies the body by correcting deficiencies and imbalances of nutrients and enzymes, so that the body can “fight off” the cancer.
The facts: There is no scientific evidence that this therapy is effective in treating cancer. It can cause flu-like symptoms and may cause a tumor to grow and become painful. Coffee enemas may cause infections, dehydration, constipation, colitis (inflammation of the colon), electrolyte imbalances (improper levels of important minerals in the body), and possibly death.
Coral calcium. This is calcium that supposedly is extracted from coral reefs in the oceans.
The claim: It “neutralizes” toxins in the body and can reverse and cure all forms of cancer.
The facts: There is no scientific evidence that coral calcium is effective in treating cancer. Coral often contains traces of non-beneficial substances such as manganese, uranium, lead, and mercury.
Essiac tea. This is a mixture of herbs blended together to make a tea.
The claim: It strengthens the immune system, cleanses the blood, promotes cell repair, restores energy levels, and detoxifies the body. Earlier promoters claimed that the tea changes tumors into normal tissue.
The facts: Research by the FDA, the National Cancer Institute, American Cancer Society, and Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center has found no scientific evidence that this tea is effective in treating cancer, and no clinical trials have been published in medical journals. Essiac tea may cause constipation, diarrhea, headaches, low blood sugar, nausea and vomiting, and kidney and liver damage. If injected, it may cause serious complications, and even death.
Other examples of alternative treatments that claim to treat cancer are products that include the following ingredients: bloodroot (a plant), cesium (an element), ellagic acid (a compound from raspberries, strawberries, and walnuts), Cat’s claw (a plant), amygdalin (also called laetrile, a naturally occurring substance in nuts, plants, and some fruits), and various mushrooms. Get a list from the FDA of fake cancer “cures” to avoid.
Ask your doctor first
The most important thing to do when considering any complementary or alternative cancer treatment is to talk with your doctor first. Get this list of questions to ask your doctor about complementary and alternative treatments.
http://www.cancer.net/navigating-cancer-care/cancernet-feature-articles/how-protect-yourself-cancer-treatment-fraud
When researching cancer treatments, you will likely come across advertisements for products or services that claim to prevent, treat, or cure cancer. The claims made on the Internet and on TV often sound like they are cures for cancer. However, before investing time and money in any of them, it’s important to evaluate the claims carefully and talk with your doctor.
Products that are not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat cancer are unlikely to help, and some may even cause harm or interfere with chemotherapy and other treatments prescribed by your doctor. On the other hand, conventional treatments, such as surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy, have been rigorously tested in clinical trials (research studies in people) and found to be safe and effective. After a treatment has been tested in clinical trials, the FDA must approve it to treat cancer. Learn more about drug development and approval.
When talking about cancer treatment fraud, it is important to distinguish between complementary and alternative therapies. Complementary therapies are treatments used in addition to standard cancer therapy that are backed by evidence that they help treat cancer or improve a person’s quality of life. They include yoga, meditation, acupuncture, art therapy, music therapy, massage, and dietary and herbal supplements. Alternative therapies on the other hand, are treatments used instead of a standard treatment.
Signs of likely fraud
According to the FDA and the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the following often indicate that an advertised “remedy” is a fraud:
The ad says it will cure any type of cancer. No single treatment will work for everyone or for every type of cancer.
The ad uses “personal testimonies” that claim the product works. These people may be paid actors, but even if they aren’t, personal stories are unreliable and unscientific evidence of the product’s effectiveness.
The ad offers a money-back guarantee. Getting money back is not proof of effectiveness.
The wording in the ad sounds technical. The advertiser may expect you to be impressed, but it’s not proof that the product will do what it says.
The ad claims that the product is a “natural” remedy. Many “natural” substances are harmful to people, such as poison ivy, so this claim doesn’t mean it will help or that it won’t harm you.
The ad states that supplies are limited and/or you have to pay in advance.
Other phrases to watch out for are “scientific breakthrough,” “miraculous cure,” “secret ingredient” or “ancient remedy.” These terms may sound impressive, but advertisers can easily use these terms without offering any proof to support their claims
If you see a deceptive ad or think you have been misled by one for a product that claims to treat or cure cancer, find out how to file a complaint. By doing so, you may be helping to protect other people with cancer from a fraudulent product.
Examples of fraud in cancer
Whenever an advertiser claims that a product not approved by the FDA as a cancer treatment will, in fact, treat or cure cancer, the advertiser is committing fraud. Here are some examples:
Hoxsey Therapy. This product consists of two types of herbal mixtures that are taken by mouth and applied to the skin.
The claim: It removes toxins (harmful substances) from the body, strengthens the immune system, and helps the body get rid of tumors.
The facts: There is no scientific evidence that this product is effective in treating cancer, and no clinical trials have been published in medical journals. If taken in large doses, it can burn the skin and cause diarrhea, nausea and vomiting, and rashes. In some cases, it causes cancer to grow. The FDA banned the sale and marketing of this treatment in 1960.
Black salves. Also called escharotics, these are pastes composed of different ingredients that are applied to skin cancers or over the sites of tumors inside the body.
The claim: The salves are said to kill cancer cells and “draw out” cancer from beneath the skin.
The facts: There is no scientific evidence that black salves are effective in treating cancer, and no clinical trials have been published in medical journals. Black salves can burn, eat through, and scar the skin.
Shark cartilage. This tissue is extracted from the heads and fins of sharks. It is usually taken by mouth.
The claim: Shark cartilage contains proteins that stop angiogenesis, the formation of new blood vessels, which helps tumors to grow.
The facts: Clinical trials of shark cartilage to date have not shown any benefit in treating cancer. It can cause nausea, and, in high doses, hypercalcemia (increased levels of calcium in the blood). The FDA has not approved shark cartilage as a cancer treatment.
Gerson therapy. This plan consists of a vegetarian diet with raw, organic vegetable and fruit juice consumed every hour during the day, along with enemas using coffee and castor oil.
The claim: It cleanses and detoxifies the body by correcting deficiencies and imbalances of nutrients and enzymes, so that the body can “fight off” the cancer.
The facts: There is no scientific evidence that this therapy is effective in treating cancer. It can cause flu-like symptoms and may cause a tumor to grow and become painful. Coffee enemas may cause infections, dehydration, constipation, colitis (inflammation of the colon), electrolyte imbalances (improper levels of important minerals in the body), and possibly death.
Coral calcium. This is calcium that supposedly is extracted from coral reefs in the oceans.
The claim: It “neutralizes” toxins in the body and can reverse and cure all forms of cancer.
The facts: There is no scientific evidence that coral calcium is effective in treating cancer. Coral often contains traces of non-beneficial substances such as manganese, uranium, lead, and mercury.
Essiac tea. This is a mixture of herbs blended together to make a tea.
The claim: It strengthens the immune system, cleanses the blood, promotes cell repair, restores energy levels, and detoxifies the body. Earlier promoters claimed that the tea changes tumors into normal tissue.
The facts: Research by the FDA, the National Cancer Institute, American Cancer Society, and Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center has found no scientific evidence that this tea is effective in treating cancer, and no clinical trials have been published in medical journals. Essiac tea may cause constipation, diarrhea, headaches, low blood sugar, nausea and vomiting, and kidney and liver damage. If injected, it may cause serious complications, and even death.
Other examples of alternative treatments that claim to treat cancer are products that include the following ingredients: bloodroot (a plant), cesium (an element), ellagic acid (a compound from raspberries, strawberries, and walnuts), Cat’s claw (a plant), amygdalin (also called laetrile, a naturally occurring substance in nuts, plants, and some fruits), and various mushrooms. Get a list from the FDA of fake cancer “cures” to avoid.
Ask your doctor first
The most important thing to do when considering any complementary or alternative cancer treatment is to talk with your doctor first. Get this list of questions to ask your doctor about complementary and alternative treatments.
http://www.cancer.net/navigating-cancer-care/cancernet-feature-articles/how-protect-yourself-cancer-treatment-fraud
Guest- Guest
Re: Miracle cancer cures? Ask for evidence
by Guest Sat Mar 01, 2014 1:53 pm
Medical News: How to Know If It's Accurate
Medical news can change often; one week, a new "breakthrough" is discovered, only to be disputed the next week. As a result, it is difficult to know what news to believe and whether a person should change a practice or specific habit. Finding answers to the following questions may help you better evaluate medical news.
Does the news story represent an entire area of research, or is it just reporting on one study?
Typically, news articles explaining only one study cannot adequately describe the risks or benefits of a new treatment or finding, nor do they examine the long-term effects of the research. Most doctors don't recommend changing your health habits based on one study. Talk with your doctor or a member of your health care team if you have questions about a particular study.
How does this new information fit within the larger body of research on the topic?
Health care professionals usually do not change their standard of care based on one study. Although scientific papers are written at each step of the research process, it generally takes years of research, with many different studies performed at different institutions, before there is enough evidence to adopt a new therapy or change current practice.
Where was the news article reported?
Established news outletsâsuch as national and large regional newspapers and network television stationsâusually have science and medical reporters on staff. In general, these reporters are experienced in analyzing medical information and strive to cover the news as accurately as possible, putting the information in context with previous research. Smaller news outlets may pick up stories after they have been run nationally. Although many of these outlets provide quality reporting, some of them may cut important information to save space or time.
If the news article is based on a research study, where was the study originally published?
The most prestigious medical journals—including the New England Journal of Medicine, the Journal of the American Medical Association, The Lancet, Science, the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, and the Journal of Clinical Oncology—use a rigorous, peer-review process that requires articles submitted for publication to be reviewed by others working in the same field. Those experts evaluate the studies for accuracy, importance, and the ability to reproduce the results. However, just because the medical article was published in a leading journal doesn't mean you should assume the research changes standard practices.
What phase was the research?
If the research was done with tissue cultures or animals, there is no reason to apply the findings to your daily life just yet. Tissue cultures and animals are used as models to better understand how a treatment may work, but they aren't reliable substitutes for how a treatment works in people. A research study involving people is called a clinical trial.
There are distinct phases of clinical trials. The goal of a phase I clinical trial is to prove that a new drug or treatment, which has proven to be safe for use in animals, may also be given safely to humans. A phase II clinical trial is designed to provide more detailed information about the safety of the treatment, in addition to evaluating whether the new treatment is effective for a specific cancer. The goal of a phase III clinical trial is to take a new treatment that has shown promising results when used to treat a small number of patients with a particular disease and compare it with the current standard of care for that specific disease.
Information from a phase III clinical trial may change current health care practice, but results from phase I and phase II clinical trials are preliminary. Learn more about the phases of clinical trials.
What type of statistics does the news article report?
Most research studies highlight relative risk rates, although absolute rates provide a clearer picture of the actual health risk. Relative risk specifies the level of risk in a group of people with a particular risk factor, compared with those who do not have that risk factor. Absolute risk is the chance (usually measured as a percentage) that a person will develop a disease during a given time.
Both relative risk and absolute risk are useful in understanding whether an individual's risk is higher or lower than the general population. However, most studies report relative risk, which makes the results seem more important than they are. Learn more about risk and risk factors for cancer.
What type of health result does the news article report?
The rate of overall survival is the result of most interest in research studies. However, it can take a long time to learn that result, so researchers may use a substitute measurement, such as tumor response (whether the tumor shrinks in response to treatment) and disease-free survival (the length of time after treatment during which a person survives with no sign of the disease). When these substitute measurements are used, remember that positive findings may not translate into an actual improvement in overall survival. In addition, a study may report on the statistical significance of a new treatment, although it may not be medically important. For example, a benefit of a new treatment may be statistically significant if it improves five-year survival from 50% to 51% in a large clinical trial. However, this statistical difference may not be a medically important difference if the new treatment causes severe side effects.
Other Tips
In addition to these questions, consider these warning signs that a news article may be overplaying a medical study.
The news story uses the word "breakthrough." The process of scientific exploration usually happens in small steps, not giant leaps. Breakthroughs in medicine are rare.
The study promises a “magic bullet.” Unfortunately, magic bulletsâtreatments that prevent or cure a diseaseâare few and far between. The invention of penicillin to treat bacterial infections and the creation of the polio vaccine are examples of magic bullets. However, it is unlikely that a complex disease such as cancer, which is actually many different diseases, will be cured with a single treatment.
The article is one-sided. A news article should be balanced and present the benefits and risks of the topic. A new cancer treatment rarely helps all patients.
The best way to learn whether a cancer news story is relevant to you is to talk with your doctor or another member of your health care team. He or she can help you put the new study in the context of your situation.
http://www.cancer.net/research-and-advocacy/introduction-cancer-research/medical-news-how-know-if-its-accurate
Medical news can change often; one week, a new "breakthrough" is discovered, only to be disputed the next week. As a result, it is difficult to know what news to believe and whether a person should change a practice or specific habit. Finding answers to the following questions may help you better evaluate medical news.
Does the news story represent an entire area of research, or is it just reporting on one study?
Typically, news articles explaining only one study cannot adequately describe the risks or benefits of a new treatment or finding, nor do they examine the long-term effects of the research. Most doctors don't recommend changing your health habits based on one study. Talk with your doctor or a member of your health care team if you have questions about a particular study.
How does this new information fit within the larger body of research on the topic?
Health care professionals usually do not change their standard of care based on one study. Although scientific papers are written at each step of the research process, it generally takes years of research, with many different studies performed at different institutions, before there is enough evidence to adopt a new therapy or change current practice.
Where was the news article reported?
Established news outletsâsuch as national and large regional newspapers and network television stationsâusually have science and medical reporters on staff. In general, these reporters are experienced in analyzing medical information and strive to cover the news as accurately as possible, putting the information in context with previous research. Smaller news outlets may pick up stories after they have been run nationally. Although many of these outlets provide quality reporting, some of them may cut important information to save space or time.
If the news article is based on a research study, where was the study originally published?
The most prestigious medical journals—including the New England Journal of Medicine, the Journal of the American Medical Association, The Lancet, Science, the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, and the Journal of Clinical Oncology—use a rigorous, peer-review process that requires articles submitted for publication to be reviewed by others working in the same field. Those experts evaluate the studies for accuracy, importance, and the ability to reproduce the results. However, just because the medical article was published in a leading journal doesn't mean you should assume the research changes standard practices.
What phase was the research?
If the research was done with tissue cultures or animals, there is no reason to apply the findings to your daily life just yet. Tissue cultures and animals are used as models to better understand how a treatment may work, but they aren't reliable substitutes for how a treatment works in people. A research study involving people is called a clinical trial.
There are distinct phases of clinical trials. The goal of a phase I clinical trial is to prove that a new drug or treatment, which has proven to be safe for use in animals, may also be given safely to humans. A phase II clinical trial is designed to provide more detailed information about the safety of the treatment, in addition to evaluating whether the new treatment is effective for a specific cancer. The goal of a phase III clinical trial is to take a new treatment that has shown promising results when used to treat a small number of patients with a particular disease and compare it with the current standard of care for that specific disease.
Information from a phase III clinical trial may change current health care practice, but results from phase I and phase II clinical trials are preliminary. Learn more about the phases of clinical trials.
What type of statistics does the news article report?
Most research studies highlight relative risk rates, although absolute rates provide a clearer picture of the actual health risk. Relative risk specifies the level of risk in a group of people with a particular risk factor, compared with those who do not have that risk factor. Absolute risk is the chance (usually measured as a percentage) that a person will develop a disease during a given time.
Both relative risk and absolute risk are useful in understanding whether an individual's risk is higher or lower than the general population. However, most studies report relative risk, which makes the results seem more important than they are. Learn more about risk and risk factors for cancer.
What type of health result does the news article report?
The rate of overall survival is the result of most interest in research studies. However, it can take a long time to learn that result, so researchers may use a substitute measurement, such as tumor response (whether the tumor shrinks in response to treatment) and disease-free survival (the length of time after treatment during which a person survives with no sign of the disease). When these substitute measurements are used, remember that positive findings may not translate into an actual improvement in overall survival. In addition, a study may report on the statistical significance of a new treatment, although it may not be medically important. For example, a benefit of a new treatment may be statistically significant if it improves five-year survival from 50% to 51% in a large clinical trial. However, this statistical difference may not be a medically important difference if the new treatment causes severe side effects.
Other Tips
In addition to these questions, consider these warning signs that a news article may be overplaying a medical study.
The news story uses the word "breakthrough." The process of scientific exploration usually happens in small steps, not giant leaps. Breakthroughs in medicine are rare.
The study promises a “magic bullet.” Unfortunately, magic bulletsâtreatments that prevent or cure a diseaseâare few and far between. The invention of penicillin to treat bacterial infections and the creation of the polio vaccine are examples of magic bullets. However, it is unlikely that a complex disease such as cancer, which is actually many different diseases, will be cured with a single treatment.
The article is one-sided. A news article should be balanced and present the benefits and risks of the topic. A new cancer treatment rarely helps all patients.
The best way to learn whether a cancer news story is relevant to you is to talk with your doctor or another member of your health care team. He or she can help you put the new study in the context of your situation.
http://www.cancer.net/research-and-advocacy/introduction-cancer-research/medical-news-how-know-if-its-accurate
Guest- Guest
Similar topics» The internet is full of nonsense ‘cures’ for cancer. Don’t be taken in
» cancer cures are killing people who just work with them...
» These 'Miracle' Twin Baby Girls Were Born With Different Skin Colors
» Amazon Pulls Book That Claims Bathing in Bleach Cures Autism
» Prof proves 100-year-old medical test cures infertility after mum tells him: 'That's how you were born!'
» cancer cures are killing people who just work with them...
» These 'Miracle' Twin Baby Girls Were Born With Different Skin Colors
» Amazon Pulls Book That Claims Bathing in Bleach Cures Autism
» Prof proves 100-year-old medical test cures infertility after mum tells him: 'That's how you were born!'
NewsFix :: Miscellany :: Miscellany
Page 1 of 1
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
» TOTAL MADNESS Great British Railway Journeys among shows flagged by counter terror scheme ‘for encouraging far-right sympathies
» Interesting COVID figures
» HAPPY CHRISTMAS.
» The Fight Over Climate Change is Over (The Greenies Won!)
» Trump supporter murders wife, kills family dog, shoots daughter
» Quill
» Algerian Woman under investigation for torture and murder of French girl, 12, whose body was found in plastic case in Paris
» Wind turbines cool down the Earth (edited with better video link)
» Saying goodbye to our Queen.
» PHEW.
» And here's some more enrichment...
» John F Kennedy Assassination
» Where is everyone lately...?
» London violence over the weekend...
» Why should anyone believe anything that Mo Farah says...!?
» Liverpool Labour defends mayor role poll after turnout was only 3% and they say they will push ahead with the option that was least preferred!!!
» Labour leader Keir Stammer can't answer the simple question of whether a woman has a penis or not...
» More evidence of remoaners still trying to overturn Brexit... and this is a conservative MP who should be drummed out of the party and out of parliament!
» R Kelly 30 years, Ghislaine Maxwell 20 years... but here in UK...