Daily Fail article...warning trigger

[Carrie8484]

Breast Cancer is one of my biggest fears, then I go and read this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-4033720/Breast-cancer-cells-start-spreading-parts-body-long-tumour-detected.html



Is it just the mail doing it's usual scaremongering, or is it true? I can't cope knowing this kind of stuff.

[ScaredLizard]

Daily Mail is kind of crap news. It's up there with natural living or whatever that news source is. IT's a....TABLOID! That's what I was looking for! One of those that would run I'm pregnant with an alien type of thing

dailymail.co.uk. is REAL & SATIRE. Daily Mail is considered a tabloid magazine, published daily. ... A “tabloid” magazine is very different from a magazine that uses “tabloid journalism” to obtain high readership.

click bait

[Fishmanpa]

Why post the link if it's a trigger? It's also scare mongering by a somewhat questionable news source.

Positive thoughts

[Stecakes]

daily papers should be viewed strictly as entertainment
just like reality tv

[Catherine S]

I read it because it's quite user friendly online, but some of the articles are ridiculous and need to be taken with a pinch of salt :wacko:

ISB x

[Carrie8484]

Why post the link if it's a trigger? It's also scare mongering by a somewhat questionable news source.

Positive thoughts

i typed trigger warning in the title ... so people open the thread at their own peril.

[Fishmanpa]

i typed trigger warning in the title ... so people open the thread at their own peril.

That's like saying "Don't Google" :lac:

Positive thoughts

[Stecakes]

That's like saying "Don't Google" :lac:

Positive thoughts

:yesyes:

[MyNameIsTerry]

Breast Cancer is one of my biggest fears, then I go and read this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-4033720/Breast-cancer-cells-start-spreading-parts-body-long-tumour-detected.html



Is it just the mail doing it's usual scaremongering, or is it true? I can't cope knowing this kind of stuff.

Carrie,

What has changed for you? People don't always survive even early stages of some cancers, it's important to understand survival rates to show how many do though. And some of the people being discussed here may also have died at later stages where survival rates are lower. These studies may help to save these people as they further research this. For some of these people it just means they were not looking at their cancers in the correct way.

So, what has changed?

Is it valid or is it the DM scaremongering? Well consider the source - Nature, a mag aimed at people in medical science. It doesn't really quote it properly before it moves onto the further study. The further study is in mice and includes more detail.

Are these studies credible? Well Cancer Research UK seem to think so since they have peer reviewed them and gave this statement:

Dr Justine Alford, Cancer Research UK's science information officer, said: 'Breast cancer survival has doubled in the last 40 years in the UK, but some patients' diseases are harder to treat because their cancer has spread.

'This important early study sheds light on how and when this process can happen in mice with a certain type of breast cancer.

'Further studies are needed to see if the same processes happen in people, which one day could help scientists develop better ways to tackle the disease in women whose cancer has spread.'

Surely everyone on here regards them as one of the most credible sources in the UK?

But what you have to remember is that this already happens. Therefore the survival rates still show how effective treatment is at each stage.

[NoraB]

The last time I looked at The Wail was when Imogen Thomas (Ryan Giggs' bit on't side) was snapped doing lunges in the middle of the road wearing skimpy shorts because it's perfectly normal to start lunging in the middle of the road isn't it? That is the level of tabloid we are talking about here. It's Nuts meets Jeremy Kyle.

I suspect some of the 'journalists' still use crayons.

Just clicked on to see if things have improved any...

Theresa May is wearing a red dress. We've moved on from 'those' leather trousers.

Gratuitous Kim Kardashian arse shot in sidebar of shame.

Nope, nothing's changed. Still crap.

[Primula]

HI Carrie how are you doing? How is your throat sensation? Still have mine but I have days when I'm not so aware, so that should tell me something.
Steer clear of the Daily Mail, it is as bad as Dr Google. We can never be 100% sure of anything in life, and that is what us Anxiety people find so hard. These days I just keep saying to my 'what ifs' 'so what!' Seems to help. I'm not out of the woods yet but starting to improve very slowly.

[MyNameIsTerry]

Ah, but lets keep some perspective here. Whilst the DM specialise in poor medical journalism, this particular one comes from a respected publication and has the backing of Cancer Research UK.

I don't regard Cancer Research UK as a scaremongering organisation. They will only give you the facts in the same way the NHS would. To not trust what they say means you have to discount Macmillan, the NHS, etc.

Given this is an important piece, you will probably find it across the media.

Always look at the sources quoted and decide if the DM have snipped anything so it appears too scary!

---------- Post added at 14:16 ---------- Previous post was at 14:00 ----------

As I thought, this is quite a snipped piece. Here is the full article:

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2016-12-reveal-cancer-tumor.html

It's worth noting who the people conducting the studies are. For instance, Mount Sinai Health System in New York, a proper hospital! I would imagine our US members will have heard of it? The other paper was a companion to this study conducted by a university. AND Nature is a peer reviewed publication.

Remember that they are talking about a 5% of people here and the study was looking at a 2-3% with a specific form of breast cancer.

[Magic]

I have just had a gander at the Newspaper article. It is very frightening I know.
More research is needed. It maybe all true.
I am thinking of two particular people. They are not friends of mine. But I know of who have had cancer in the past and it has reared it's ugly head again.
It's tests after test and so on. Then it's a waiting game to see what treatment can be given.

[unsure_about_this]

Daily mail have scared me in the past about bowel cancer under 30 (I am 33 now) so now it under 35. testicular cancer etc etc.

If you are worried about breast cancer with this article the best thing to do is see a GP see a specalist about 50 times.

I wonder most of these times most people writing these reports have no medical knowledge but trying to gain more readership

[MyNameIsTerry]

Daily mail have scared me in the past about bowel cancer under 30 (I am 33 now) so now it under 35. testicular cancer etc etc.

If you are worried about breast cancer with this article the best thing to do is see a GP see a specalist about 50 times.

I wonder most of these times most people writing these reports have no medical knowledge but trying to gain more readership

Same with much of the media, journalists are not qualified other than as journalists. What matters is the detail in them since that comes from people who are qualified, in this case a major cancer charity, a well known hospital, etc but you still have to be careful with how these journalists chop up stuff.

But don't just think DM and think scaremongering and give the other media a free pass as some of the others do it too, but the DM are the most rampant at it by far!

I wouldn't bother seeing a GP about an article, they don't have the time to waste on stuff like this. If you fear breast cancer but have no signs of it, why would you see a GP? And certainly not 50 times, that's 49 other patients' appointments!

[Weasley123]

My feeling is at base yes this is true but it's a mail article so it's presented in the scariest way. It's been known for awhile cancer is not just one disease. Breast cancer is an example some tumors spread before they can be seen on scan or felt and some remain indolent even after discovery. This is why mammograms do not save lives as previously thought and why I won't get one, unless I feel a lump, at least until age 50. I'm in USA. I just posted that I'm scared being a chikdfree women my risk increases. Also I love wine and drink a bottle on Saturday night, over about 6 hrs so I'm tipsy not drun . That raises my risk too though I try to stay in weekly unit guidelines, no more then 14 a week. You can either avoid all pleasures or take risks. My hope is cancer treatments will improve and people with metastasis will survive longer.

[pulisa]

Almost all mice-male and female-succumb to a mammary tumour at some stage in their short lives. I'm not sure that Cancer Research officially endorsed the findings anyway- they merely acknowledged them and noted that this study applied to mice not people. Basically "interesting information" which is based on rodent susceptibility to tumours.

[MyNameIsTerry]

Almost all mice-male and female-succumb to a mammary tumour at some stage in their short lives. I'm not sure that Cancer Research officially endorsed the findings anyway- they merely acknowledged them and noted that this study applied to mice not people. Basically "interesting information" which is based on rodent susceptibility to tumours.

No more of an endorsement than any peer review but the point is that they agreed with the validity hence it not being the usual DM scare story without any credible people being shown to peer review it.

The trouble with not checking out the source can be that it gets represented badly. This included human tissue testing but the DM journalist focused more on the mouse study. Since they were linked studies, Cancer Research UK would have reviewed both

It's a new area of interest for further research. It doesn't alter anything at this stage and if it eventually does, it will be for the better of patients.

[woeisme]

I'm a male with a palpable lump under aereola that i just had an ultrasound on.

It may be breast cancer and this is one of the things that scares me.
People go, "oh well you probably caught it early."
But I know deep down this shit spreads. I've seen people with stage One have it return 2 months later in their liver and now they're stage IV (four). Then people want to say, "oh well that's rare!!" Yea well you said the same about breast cancer under the age of 35, especially in a man. That was supposed to be rare too.

I don't understand the reasoning behind when people say "that's rare". It still happens. The person it happened to was probably told the same thing! Rare =\= impossible to get.

[Kathryn313]

I haven't read the article but I guess it says what we all already know...some people die of cancer and others don't. It is not always possible to know why that is.

The important think is to address health anxiety as an illness so when symptoms present themselves you can deal with them in a rational way.

I know this is easier said than done, I still feel that my throat issues might be more than hyper awareness but I can now at least enjoy most days not over attending the sensations. I will book another appt when I feel it is necessary. I am not missing out on any more life because of these fears. I am not dead yet so I refuse to put my life on hold.

[MyNameIsTerry]

I'm a male with a palpable lump under aereola that i just had an ultrasound on.

It may be breast cancer and this is one of the things that scares me.
People go, "oh well you probably caught it early."
But I know deep down this shit spreads. I've seen people with stage One have it return 2 months later in their liver and now they're stage IV (four). Then people want to say, "oh well that's rare!!" Yea well you said the same about breast cancer under the age of 35, especially in a man. That was supposed to be rare too.

I don't understand the reasoning behind when people say "that's rare". It still happens. The person it happened to was probably told the same thing! Rare =\= impossible to get.

It's of no consolation when it happens to you, I think it's just something people say like "how are you" when they really just mean "hello" and don't expect to hear how you actually are. Something like that. I guess sometimes it's hard to know what to even say. The same with "oh they probably caught it early".

Prior to diagnosis though I can understand it since they are trying to keep someone focussed on the fact they are very unlikely to get something rare. This is a positive really. It's just sadly that some people are the unlucky ones.

My GF's mum was diagnosed with stage IV lung cancer after a very short time with symptoms, it's sadly how it can be with that form of cancer, but she was one of the unlucky ones to hear she had contracted the one most related to smoking...and she had never smoked in her life. Sometimes we just get very very unlucky. In her case they said it could actually open the door to additional forms of treatment if they found it was a genetic issue. So, sometimes rare can mean something different to a medical professional.

Obviously it matters what the doctors are telling you about your health but when it comes to the rare stuff, the odds are really on our side (another phrase) that we won't get what we fear. I hope yours turns out to be something else and easily resolvable by a doctor.