The
New York Times article about drinking and breast cancer in the NYT “Well”
Department this morning is so annoying.
But
first, let me say that all cancer coverage being hyped in the news these days
is annoying. Take for instance a recent Jennifer Aniston ad. She wants us to
buy a T-Shirt because, she says in the beginning of the ad, the money will help
find a cure for cancer. But at the end of the ad, she says “100% of the money
will go to fighting cancer”.
Fighting
cancer and finding a cancer cure are two different things. Fighting cancer is
giving money to pharmaceuticals for their chemo drugs, giving money to huge
hospitals for radiation therapy, giving money to huge hospitals to fund their
testing and technology departments.
Fighting
cancer is not about finding a cure for cancer…far from it. Fighting cancer is
about funding all the people and hospitals and doctors who are making a living
off of cancer. Not that there is anything intrinsically wrong with that, but
it’s not the same as devoting energy and technology to finding a cancer cure.
And ignoring the difference or exploiting the difference in confusing ways is
unconscionable.
This
morning, we read in the NYT that a new study at the Harvard Medical School has
been “looking at the habits of more than
100,000 women over 30 years” which “adds to a long line of studies linking
alcohol consumption of any kind” to breast cancer risk. The study has concluded
that if a woman has more than three drinks a week of alcohol of any kind, she’s
at risk for breast cancer.
The article has a few caveats. For instance,
it says: “Like much of the previous research on alcohol’s risk and benefits,
the new study was observational and lacked a control group, and it drew from
self-reports, which can be unreliable. Nor was it able to determine whether
changing one’s drinking habits over time – drinking a lot early on, for
example, and then stopping at age 50 – made any difference.”
Another red light re the reliability of the
study was: “Among the factors women will have to consider, experts say, are
family history of heart disease and cancer, as well as their use of hormone
therapies like estrogen. Alcohol may increase the risk of breast cancer in part
by raising a woman’s levels of estrogen, the authors said.”
Translation in layman’s language: THE STUDY
IS FLAWED.
This study is like saying 100,000 women ate
pickles three times a week for 30 years and two-thirds of the women have
developed colon cancer; we think there may be a connection but we’re not sure
how many of the women were being treated for colon diseases or had a family
history of cancer; however, we conclude that eating any kind of pickle puts
women at risk for colon cancer.
How about if the women in the Harvard Study started
drinking because their doctors put them on estrogen therapy and the side
effects were causing angst and depression? How about if there is no connection
between booze and breast cancer but all the women in the study drank moderately
and had a family history of cancer? How about if many of the women didn’t tell
the truth and there was no way of checking their veracity?
How about if researchers exercised some caution
and restraint before publishing conclusions that are suspect?
No comments:
Post a Comment