Anybody catch this month's Readers Digest ?

[dancingrosey]

The Pap test for cervical cancer and the fecal occult blood test for colorectal are about the only screening tests shown to decrease mortality from the cancer they target.

I'm sorry but I have a real problem with this statement as well. Where did she get this information. As one who had negative FOB tests for years and then turned up with Stage III rectal cancer (I did finally have that symptom) this notion is mind boggling. It seems they are all turning a blind eye to the fact that catching a polyp before it has the chance to convert is the key and that reason alone is good enough for me. Maybe if I was 90 I wouldn't think so much about it, but people are being done a great disservice by articles like this.

[sun-sparkled waves]

I think the writer of this article should have put more emphasis on the fact that everyone needs to consider their own individual situation. I get pelvic ultrasounds and CA 125 blood test done every 6 months to screen for Lynch Syndrome related tumors, and I am well aware that these tests are not perfect, there can be false positives or negatives.
The positive thing I got from this article was the fact that some cancers come and go. Our body will try to deal with it the best it can.

[klryder02]

Does anyone have her e-mail address? I looked for a second, and didn't find it. I will look again.

Things like this really piss me off.

-Kelly

[Candyys03]

Thanks for the info.I read the article at the online site and I must say that this article seems a little crazy. It talks alot about wasting money.Facts? You can send in a comment or go to ask questions on the blog to give your opinion and there are alot there.You might want to read some of them.I did take a look at the RD online in other countries such as Canada and I did not find this article.
The comentary in Newsweek wasn't as bad as the RD article.I think that it's good to know these things and do what's best for you.When telling my story I would advise tests or screening as it would have helped in my case and hopefully will help my children and grandchild but that's just my opinion.
Candy

[Sally1898]

I got my copy of RD almost 3 weeks ago, and eagerly read the article. Then, I even more eagerly fired off a stern response !! I found it so misleading and irresponsible, surely their article will do more harm than good. Wouldn't you just guess, they NEVER responded to my e-mail ???!!???
Sally

P.S. Here's what I sent them, for what it was worth . . .

Just call me the poster-child for cancer screening. My
cancer was, as many are, completely atypical, and as a result,
left doctors baffled, and scrambling, just to save my life.
At 31, no one 'expected' me to have advanced rectal
cancer. I wasn't anywhere near the recommended age for
screening tests. In other words, I wasn't 'old
enough' statistically to be viewed as being at risk for
the disease. Family history was sketchy, other than
confirmed diagnosis of one parent 2 years earlier, whose
disease was less invasive,and required less agressive
treatment. Not much basis for comparison given our 38-year
age difference. So, I won the treatment trifecta--permanent
colostomy surgery, pelvic radiation, and a year of chemo
treatments. To hell, and back, and then some, for someone
supposedly 'too young' for the disease that 'old
people get'. I share this to get the word out: SCREENING
SAVES LIVES. Your article recommends thinking twice about
screening for those under age 50. This does a real disservice,
in that it supports the myth that cancer does not affect younger
adults.Statistics can lull patients and doctors into a false
sense of control, that they can'beat the odds', when
the data they are relying on is often out of date. Cancer
breaks the very rules we make in trying to establish
prognosis and treatment, every case is individual. Screening
tests are expensive, but consider the alternative. What they spare
a person, compared with the fear and pain brought on by advanced
disease is priceless. Prevention of advanced disease through use
of screening tests should be the rule, not the exception.
Sally Bickerstaff, age 42
Gretna, Louisiana

[MonaL]

Somehow I got a free subscription to Reader's Digest. I read the title on the front cover and then tossed the entire magazine, and that's where the rest of their magazines will go (the recycling actually ).

Similarly, Consumer Reports completely destroyed their credibility in my eyes when they botched their article on Lyme Disease years ago -- I haven't read one since.

[Terry]

WEll, if I would have had a colonoscopy when I was 40, I would probably not be "terminal" and on "palliative" care (my 2nd opinions words exactly):(

I'm sending a letter. My daughter was checked two days ago at age 30. She was clean as a whistle (well as clean as a whistle you can get in that area). If she would have had polyps they would have been taken out and that would have been what. What idiots!

[Surroundedbylove]

I was appalled by this article. Everyone should go to the website and send a comment to the Editor

[Candyys03]

New in the May Readers Digest.
A letter from the American Cancer Society regarding this story.

http://www.rd.com/living-healthy/letter ... 37097.html

Candy

[Dress In Blue Girl]

I read it in my oncologist office and gave it to him I was furious, how could they undo all the advocacy work we all have been trying to do to get people screened. My onc was giving it to the head prevention colon guy at are center to write a rebuttle.
Some ages groups like my moms treat readers digest like the bible ugh!!