Showing posts with label cancer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cancer. Show all posts

Friday, 7 December 2012

Express article 'could potentially cause harm to people with cancer'

Today's Express asks:


Inspired by recent news events, the article by Jane Warren gets the view of an 'expert' on a variety of 'alternative cancer treatments'. The 'expert' in question is billed as:

Dr Alyssa Burns-Hill PhD, a hormone and holistic health specialist with clinics in Harley Street and Jersey.

It adds:

So just what are the alternatives that Dr Burns-Hill believes can assist in the treatment of cancer?

A quick look at the 'about' page of Burns-Hill's website reveals a telling phrase, printed in bold:

For absolute clarity – I am not a medical doctor.

The website also makes clear:

Dr Alyssa Burns-Hill PhD has provided this website for information purposes only. It is not intended as a substitute for advice from your registered physician or healthcare professional.

Last month, a complaint about Burns-Hill and her website was upheld by the Advertising Standards Authority, who ruled:

We told DBH to ensure that she held adequate substantiation for her claims in future, and to ensure she stated that she was not a medically qualified doctor in a clear and prominent qualification positioned close to the first reference to the title Dr Alyssa Burns-Hill PhD.

Given the background of their 'expert', it is perhaps unsurprising that the Express' article has been criticised by both Sense About Science and Cancer Research UK. A response by Kat Arney for the latter said:

This piece contains factual and scientific inaccuracies, as well as misleading information that could potentially cause harm to people with cancer.

For example, the Express mentions the Gerson Treatment and their 'expert' says:

“I was on a 21st-century version of Gerson called Plaskett Therapy. It is a very hard regime to follow and is controversial because it is alternative, not complementary. Success is difficult to quantify as many people turn to Gerson as a last resort."

But Arney points out:

Although the article states that Gerson therapy is controversial, it fails to mention that there is absolutely no solid scientific evidence to show that Gerson therapy can treat cancer, and that it can be very harmful to a patient’s health. Coffee enemas have been linked to serious infections, dehydration, constipation, colitis (inflammation of the colon), and dangerous electrolyte imbalances or even death. The information on Gerson therapy in the article is misleading, inaccurate and potentially harmful for cancer patients.

The Express also discusses homeopathy:

THE THEORY: A natural system for the treatment of disease by highly dilute doses of substances. It works by treating like with like.

OUR EXPERT SAYS: “This is often disregarded because it works in a different way to conventional medicine. It looks past the symptoms to consider the whole person.”

Arney replies:

The reality is that there is no solid medical evidence to prove that homeopathy can treat cancer. 

Arney also tackles other 'treatments' the Express raises, including diet:

there is no good evidence to suggest that any particular foodstuff can really treat cancer.

Sugar:

The article claims that eating a lot of sugar is “feeding any cancer cells”. This is an unhelpful oversimplification of a highly complex area that researchers are only just starting to understand.

And stress:

The article claims that “stress is a factor in cancer” that has been “scientifically substantiated”. This is a bold overstatement of the current state of research in this area. Many people believe that stress can cause cancer, particularly breast cancer. But the evidence for this is lacking.

Cancer Research sent a letter to the Express challenging the article:

Dear Sir,
The Daily Express article “Do cancer alternatives really work?” (Friday December 7th) contains misleading information and several inaccuracies that could cause harm to cancer patients.

We understand that people want to try everything after a cancer diagnosis, but strongly urge anyone considering complementary or alternative therapy to talk to their medical team about their safety.  We go to a lot of trouble to make sure we find out what treatments really work though our research, and cancer patients deserve the best information we have, not dangerous speculation.

There is absolutely no solid evidence that Gerson therapy can treat cancer. In fact this treatment can cause very serious side effects.

Cancer patients searching for accurate, reliable information about alternative and complementary therapies can find it on our CancerHelp UK website or by calling our Cancer Information Nurses on 0808 800 4040 (9am-5pm, Monday to Friday).

Professor Peter Johnson, Cancer Research UK Chief Clinician.

The paper has refused to print it. Arney concludes:

In his recent report, Lord Leveson highlighted the harms to the public from inaccurate and misleading science and health reporting by the press.  We are disappointed that the Express has chosen to print this article about a serious health issue without checking the scientific validity of the claims within it. By failing to do this, they have done a disservice to their readers, cancer patients and their families.

UPDATE (10 Dec): Sense About Science has edited the Express article (pdf).

Saturday, 20 October 2012

The Express and statins (cont.)

On Thursday, the Express front page claimed 'Statins slash cancer risk':


The paper refers to 'statins' as a 'wonder pill'. On 20 January their front page also reported that 'statins beat cancer' as did a story from 14 September. A couple of weeks ago, statins could 'prevent blindness'. On 4 April they published 'wildly exaggerated' claims that statins could 'halt Alzheimer's'.

Along side all this coverage, the paper has also reported some less positive stories:


The paper has reported on statins causing rashes, raising the risk of diabetes, and causing cataracts, liver damage and kidney failure. As recently as 27 August, the paper mentioned the:

potentially dangerous side-effects of statins.

Some 'wonder pill'.

Thursday's story tells us:

Powerful statins taken to slash the risk of heart disease and stroke are also a potent cancer-buster, new research has found.

The research actually focused specifically on liver cancer and did find:

This meta-analysis suggests a favorable effect of statins on HCC, in the absence, however, of a duration-risk relationship.

However, the final paragraphs of the Express' article were, as usual, telling:

Dr Safia Danovi, Cancer Research UK’s senior science information officer, said: “This is interesting work but it doesn’t mean that cancer patients should start reaching for cholesterol-lowering drugs.

“Scientists, including our own, are asking whether statins could be used to treat cancer but we’re still a long way from a clear answer.”

Thursday, 9 August 2012

Express cancer story 'potentially dangerous'

An article in yesterday's Express stated:


Jo Willey's article said:

Drinking grapefruit juice can dramatically boost the ­effectiveness of cancer drugs, according to scientists.

It means patients might be able to lower their dose of medication while still getting the same benefit as if from a higher one.

But the NHS Behind the Headlines response is that the Express' reporting is not only 'misleading' but also 'potentially dangerous':

The findings of the research do suggest that combining sirolimus with grapefruit juice may achieve a successful “trade-off” between effectiveness and reduced side effects. However, the researchers are clear that further research must be done to develop these preliminary findings.

Therefore, headlines claiming that grapefruit juice "boosts cancer drugs" are both misleading and irresponsible. This was a carefully controlled trial, looking at a single medication, that employed rigorous safety protocols.

Encouraging people to mix grapefruit juice with both prescription and non-prescription drugs could lead to overdoses, which could be dangerous. Cancer patients should not alter their current medication dosages or start drinking grapefruit juice based on this research.  

And:

The media reports failed to give clear warnings about the potential dangers of anyone drinking grapefruit juice while taking certain medications, due to its ability to strengthen the drug’s dose. 

The Express’s headline was particularly misleading as it implied that all cancer drugs would benefit from being combined with grapefruit juice. In fact, the researchers were only looking at a single drug, and even then, this medication is not widely used to treat cancer. 

The reports may lead some cancer patients to think that reaching for the juice is a good or at least harmless idea. However, drinking grapefruit juice while taking medication is potentially dangerous. NHS Choices specifically states that if you are taking immunosuppressant medications such as sirolimus, you should never drink grapefruit juice without consulting your doctor.

Thursday, 12 April 2012

'Wonder jab' story 'over-hyped and misleading'

On Monday 9 April, the Express published its latest 'cancer cure' story:


On 20 January, the paper reported that statins beat cancer:


On 10 March, it was 'new aspirin':


Two days later, it was aspirin:


Now it is a 'wonder jab' that kills '90% of the cancers'.

The Express seems to have picked up the story from the Telegraph, which referred to a 'universal cancer vaccine'.

The Telegraph seems to have got the story from a press release (pdf) issued by the producers of the vaccine in question. It cites unpublished results from just seven patients.

Both articles include a quote from Dr Kat Arney of Cancer Research UK, but both relegate it to the very end. She says:

“There are several groups around the world investigating ­treatments that target MUC1 as it’s a very ­interesting target involved in several types of cancer.

“These are very early results that are yet to be fully published, so there’s a lot more work to be done to prove that this particular vaccine is safe and effective.”

On the Cancer Research UK Science Blog, she wrote more about these stories:
We are concerned that some of the coverage of this story has been over-hyped and misleading.

She added:

It’s important to be cautious about the results from the early-stage trial of ImMucin reported in the media, which are based on data from seven patients (out of ten treated so far) with multiple myeloma – a cancer affecting the immune system.

Furthermore, the team’s results are yet to be published in the scientific literature – the ‘gold standard’ for reliable research. Instead, the results have come directly from a press release from Vaxil Biotherapeutics Ltd, the company that makes the vaccine – something that wasn’t made clear in some of the media coverage of the story...

While MUC1 is certainly an important target in cancer and the results from the handful of myeloma patients in the ImMucin trial look promising, it’s a far cry from being a “wonder jab” that “kills 90% of all cancers”.

Finally, Arney noted that following the publication of these stories, Cancer Research UK had been contacted by concerned patients asking about the treatment:

We’ve already been contacted by cancer patients wondering how to get access to this “wonder jab” as a result of the news coverage. As we’ve said before, over-hyped stories like this only serve to raise false hopes in people suffering from cancer and mislead the public.

Every day cancer researchers in labs and hospitals around the world are making huge strides against this terrible disease, and their progress and successes deserve to be reported to the public. But misrepresenting and over-selling their early baby-steps isn’t helpful to anyone, most of all cancer patients and their families.

Perhaps Cancer Research UK should forward these calls to the Telegraph's Richard Gray and the Express' Paul Broster. 

Monday, 6 February 2012

Dacre, the Mail and cancer

In his evidence to the Leveson Inquiry today, Mail editor Paul Dacre said it was a 'caricature' that his paper wrote lots of stories about things that can give you cancer.

This claim came as he was being asked about the Mail story 'Cancer danger from that night-time trip to the toilet', which was dimissed as an 'eye-catching fabrication' by the University of Leicester, whose research was being reported.

Inevitably, there was a 'x causes cancer' story in the Mail today, based on soon-to-be-aired Government ads on drinking:


It begins:

Just two glasses of wine or two strong pints of beer a day can treble the risk of mouth cancer, ministers warn.

The news that two pints of beer could treble the risk of mouth cancer may come as a surprise to some Mail readers who saw this story two days ago:


This article included the claim that:

We have long been told that a glass of red wine is good for our health, but now an increasing number of clinical studies show that beer can have even greater benefits...

‘It needn’t be an expensive beer – just don’t drink so much you cancel out any of the benefits,’ adds Dr Philliskirk. ‘This means no more than a pint a day for a woman and between one and two pints, depending on the beer’s strength, for a man.’

Dr Philliskirk is, incidentally, from the Institute of Brewing and Distillery:

a members organisation dedicated to the education and training needs of brewers & distillers and those in related industries.

He might just be considered to be someone with an interest in promoting the benefits of alcohol.

But there it is: two pints of beer a day might be good for you or it might increase your risk of mouth cancer, depending on whether you read the Mail on the 4th or the 6th.

Just like last year, indeed, when a glass or two of red wine was reported by the Mail (and Express) to both prevent and increase the risk of breast cancer.

Similarly, the Mail reported that drinking wine with an evening meal was a 'deadly risk' that increases the risk of cancer (29 August 2011) and a good way to be 'free of the ills of oldage', including cancer (7 September 2011).

Dacre told the Inquiry:

I categorically dispute that we adopt an irresponsible stance on medical stories.

Wednesday, 7 September 2011

The dangers/benefits of 'wine with dinner'

Last week, the Daily Mail reported:


The article by Daniel Martin explained the 'deadly risk' of 'wine over dinner':

Couples who share a bottle of wine over dinner are putting their lives at risk, according to a report.

The middle classes are unwittingly becoming ‘risky drinkers’ by regularly having wine with their evening meal, significantly increasing their susceptibility to conditions such as cancer and stroke.

These ‘suburban tipplers’ rarely get drunk, never binge drink and are not heavily dependent on alcohol, but they are still putting their lives in jeopardy.

And because women’s alcohol tolerance is lower than men’s, they are at greater risk than their partner if they each drink half of a bottle of wine.

Today, just over one week later, the Mail reports something rather different:


Now the paper explains:

A glass or two of alcohol in middle age could help women enjoy a happy and healthy retirement.

Those in their 50s who regularly have a little wine with their dinner are more likely to be free of the ills of old age, from cancer to heart disease, than those who are teetotal or drink to excess.

So wine with dinner is, apparently, bad for the middle class, but good for the middle-aged.

Advice for people who are middle-aged and middle class will, presumably, follow next week...

Friday, 15 July 2011

Mail: 'One in four' = 42%

On page 25 of yesterday's Mail, and on their website, was a story about a Macmillan Cancer Support press release that claimed 42% of Britons will suffer with cancer at some point in their life.

The Mail can not resist a cancer story, of course, but didn't get the figures right:


Technically, the article by Sophie Borland is right - 42% is 'more than one in four'. But it's not clear why anyone thought one in four is the same as 42%.

Almost two days after the story first appeared, the Mail website have now corrected the figures to 'four in ten'.

(Hat-tip to Kat Arney)

Friday, 21 May 2010

Your headline has not been recognised...please try again

A WHO report on the risk of brain tumours from mobile phones was reported on like this:

Guardian - Mobile phone study finds no solid link to brain tumours.
BBC - No proof of mobile cancer risk, major study concludes.
Independent - Mobile phones do not raise risk of brain tumours, say scientists.
Daily Mirror - 'No proof' of mobile phone cancer link.

And, like this:

Mail - Long conversations on mobile phones can increase risk of cancer, suggests 10-year study.
Telegraph - Half an hour of mobile use a day 'increases brain cancer risk'.

And yes, they're all about the same study.

So who is right? Well, would you believe a cancer scare story in the Mail?

From NHS Behind the Headlines:

Some newspapers have selectively quoted a few results in this research that suggest a significant link, but this is misleading in the context of the overall results. The researchers themselves explain these few anomalous results, and conclude that there are no conclusive signs of an increased risk of brain tumours.

Overall, this study does not provide evidence that mobile phones cause cancer, a finding echoed by the majority of studies on the matter, although sadly not by most newspapers.

And from the Director of the International Agency for Research on Cancer, which published the report:

'An increased risk of brain cancer is not established from the data from Interphone'.

Anton has more.

When not trying to frighten people about getting cancer from phones or from turning on lights at night, the papers love a good 'miracle cure' story.

Last week the Mail ran: 'Holy Grail' cancer vaccine that blasts tumours in weeks hailed as huge leap in fighting disease. The Express went with Cancer scientists hail ‘huge’ leap towards jab that targets tumours.

But these weren't quite right either. According to Cancer Research UK:

Not only are these headlines overhyped and misleading, but the stories themselves are slightly confusing, combining the launch of a clinical trial with newly published results from a completely different area of research...

While cancer vaccines and immunotherapy are very exciting areas of research that we’re actively involved in funding, this story itself does not represent a ‘huge leap’ forwards.

Using such language is at best misleading and at worst cruelly raises false hopes in cancer patients and their families.

Tuesday, 27 April 2010

Mail cancer scare is 'fabrication' shock

Two weeks ago, the Daily Mail added a ludicrous new item to its list of things that give you cancer: turning a light on when you go to the toilet at night.

Yes, really:


This stupid, incorrect article began:

Simply turning on a light at night for a few seconds to go to the toilet can cause changes that might lead to cancer, scientists claim.

The University of Leicester, which was involved in the original reseach, dismissed the Mail's spin:

There is no connection between illuminated, nocturnal calls of nature and cancer, despite what certain newspapers are claiming...

Professor Kyriacou and Dr Ben-Shlomo suggest in their conclusion, that the chronic exposure of shift workers to extended light schedules during what should be their ‘night’, may also misregulate these cell cycle genes, and could conceivably contribute to the elevated levels of tumours seen in this population.

But nowhere in their paper, which is published in the journal Cancer Genetics and Cytogenetics, do they mention trips to the toilet or anything even vaguely similar.

In addition, Professor Kyriacou told AOL Health:

'The 'switching on of lights causes cancer when you go to the bathroom at night' is an eye-catching fabrication of the press.'

What a surprise. But you didn't really need to be a professor to think that might be the case.

Monday, 15 March 2010

Raising false hopes with cancer coverage

After recent front page headlines about toxic juice and dodgy slimming pills, the Express newspapers reverted to a 'miracle cure' for cancer on Sunday 7 March.

Cancer 'code' is cracked, it said. The 'greatest discovery since chemotherapy' it suggested.

If it was, you might have expected it to be on the front of others newspapers.

But a clue is in the sub-head:

New theory could be 'greatest discovery since chemotherapy'.

'Theory'? 'Could'? Not quite so convincing, is it?

Lucy Johnston's article continues:

researchers believe they have, against the odds, succeeded in halting the spread of advanced cancer.

And the researchers focused on ovarian cancer.

Of course, any research that may help the fight against cancer is a good thing. But in reality, this is preliminary data about stopping the growth of ovarian cancer.

Indeed, in a Sydney Morning Herald article a couple of weeks before (yes, the Express is on the ball, as ever) research team leader Prof Michael Quinn was quoted saying:

'The tumours have stopped growing - that's all we had hoped for. I don't think this is the magic bullet yet but it's certainly enough for us to continue our work.'

Which isn't exactly evidence of the cancer code being 'cracked'.

Cancer Research UK, in their blogpost 'Cancer code cracked'? Not just yet, have pointed out some factual inaccuracies in the Sunday Express' article and dismissed their presentation of the research:

Sadly the story is actually only based on an idea rather than on concrete scientific evidence.

And:

It will be interesting to see the detailed, published results of the trial once it is completed.

But until then, it’s impossible to say whether this is a significant advance in treatment for the disease.

And:

Unfortunately this story doesn’t present any hard data, and it is too early to say whether the researchers’ theory will hold up in more detailed tests with a larger sample of patients.

'Breakthrough' is simply too strong to describe this work and it’s certainly not 'the most exciting development since the introduction of chemotherapy in the Fifties'.

The only real development here is the raising of false hopes for people with cancer and their families.

That last point is the most important. Bad reporting is a given at the Express newspapers.

But it is irresponsible for them (and other tabloids) to continue to run these misleading 'miracle cure' stories, which raise 'false hopes' for the sake of an eye-catching headline.

Thursday, 8 October 2009

Another day, another Express cancer scare/miracle cure (delete as applicable)

For three of the last five days, the Express newspapers have had front page headlines containing the word 'cancer'. On Sunday, it was their ridiculous claim that the HPV vaccine was 'as deadly as cancer', which has prompted a complaint to the PCC.

Following that health scare was the 'miracle cure' story on Monday: 'Breast cancer secrets cracked'. The article began:
Thousands of women suffering from breast cancer could benefit from new treatments to tackle recurring tumours after a major breakthrough.

Good news. But then buried in the story, the voice of reason:

Dr Helen George, Cancer Research UK’s head of science information, said: “This research is important because it offers an explanation of why some breast cancers can spread and return. But it is a very new theory, so more work is needed before we will know if it can be used to improve breast cancer treatment.”

Yes. Cancer Research's press release called it a:

provocative new theory...[that] is already stimulating international discussion.

Raising the hopes of cancer sufferers with a theory, when there are no therapies or drugs yet produced to work along the lines of that theory, is highly irresponsible. But the Express doesn't do responsible these days.

Two days later, the Express was back in 'we're all gonna die!' mode with 'Killer bug in most chickens'. Turns out, this bug is in most chickens, long has been, but cooking chicken thoroughly kills said bug.

So hold the front page with that exclusive: don't undercook your chicken.

Today, the Express was back to cancer. 'Anti-age creams cancer danger' relies on one expert from the Cancer Prevention Coalition. The scare begins:

Anti-ageing creams regularly used by millions of Britons could increase the risk of cancer, a top expert warned yesterday.

The theory is that anti-ageing creams contain Alpha Hydroxy Acids (AHAs) which speed up exfoliation and thus leave people's skin more exposed to 'toxins and sun damage'.

The Express writes:

In America, however, the ingredient was considered dangerous enough to prompt the US Food and Drug Administration to warn consumers that AHAs “could destroy the upper layers of skin, causing severe burns, swelling and pain”.

But read this section of the FDA website on AHAs and a rather different picture emerges. Such as:

studies also indicated that this increase in sensitivity is reversible and does not last long after discontinuing use of the AHA cream. One week after the treatments were halted, researchers found no significant differences in UV sensitivity among the various skin sites.

At the end of the story, the Express writes:

A spokeswoman for the Cosmetics, Toiletries and Perfumeries Association, said cosmetic firms were not required to warn consumers if their products contained AHAs but only if they contained these ingredients at such high levels they could be dangerous. She added: “There is a legal requirement for these products to be safe.”

But the CTPA have issued a statement saying:

CTPA has been misquoted by some of the media; we did not say that AHAs could be used in cosmetics at such high levels that they could be dangerous. This is simply not the case. It is known that at high concentrations irritation and peeling can occur, this is why such levels are not used in cosmetic products.

Yes it is Breast Cancer Awareness Month, and news about the HPV vaccine mean such stories are going to seem of interest. But why not publish some reliable, informative stories on the subject rather than raising false hopes, or pushing bogus scares?

Thursday, 5 February 2009

Selling your cancer story

Big Brother racist and general ignoramus Jade Goody has, you may have heard, got cancer. While we can feel sympathy for anyone suffering from this disease, especially one so young and with two kids, there is something very unsavoury about what appears to be daily updates on her condition and treatment. It seems intrusive and unnecessary.

But then we see news her cancer has spread on the front page of The Sun and see quotes from Max Clifford popping up in these stories and you come to the uncomfortable conclusion that the papers are paying for her latest medical update. While you could argue she's earning money for the future of her kids, it seems a rather tacky and unpleasant way of doing it.