Anybody catch this month's Readers Digest ?

[EBMJ]

I was getting my chemo today and reading Reader's Digest. The cover story is about the dangers of early screening for cancer. As someone who would have greatly benefited from early screening for CRC, I found the article to be offensive to me, and bordering on irresponsible journalism. The one example of CRC they gave was of a doctor in his 60's who refuses to get a colonoscopy because he has no family history, and he figures the risks of the colonoscopy outweigh the potential of there really being a problem. Examples like that set our mission back, and give the general public a false sense of security. I realize I am probably hypersensitive to this issue, but it sure rubbed me the wrong way. So I was wondering if anyone else read this and what their reaction was ?

Jim

[live2jett]

I have not read this article. It makes me sad to think a Doctor would comment in this negative way. I wonder how many Colon Cancer patients have slipped thru his hands:( THis Doc. is lucky tht he does not have to deal Colon Cancer. I had no family history and 45 years young have Colon Cancer.. Thank GOD my Doc sent me to a Gastro doc.

[KellyBelle]

Maybe everyone here should send a letter to the editor? I read part of the article at the dentist's office yesterday and had the same reaction as you. This is a good opportunity for us to band together!

[EBMJ]

I've already sent my email to the editors.

Jim

[helen098]

I read the article and I was quite surprised I thought Readers Digest was more
conservation in there thinking.
I also thought it was irresponsible actually it made me very mad here we are trying to get people screened and this article (since it’s in readers digest a lot of people take it as if it was the bible) says the risks of the procedure out weight what you will find.
I know my colonoscopy at 42 saved my life even if I had waited till 50 my stage 3 would have been stage 4 and maybe untreatable.
Maybe we should email them our stories and see what they say
Anyone have there email address?
People in my office were passing it around and a lot thought it was a good idea as they don’t like to get a mamo ( the horrible pain) or a colonoscopy (I am so embarrassed and the prep is so bad) I went around like a crazy woman saying no no no you have to get tested but most thought the article was good and we do too much testing
I think the article set so back a few years

[Kathleen808]

Jim,
I've subscribed to Reader's Digest for 20 years and I had the same reaction as you. I am disheartened and ticked off that they printed that article. I feel it was careless journalism and I can't help but think that insurance companies are behind it. I will be writing a letter as well. My husband's 9cm tumor (98% blockage) was found during a routine colonoscopy at age 51. He's stage IIIc. Thank goodness he had the scope.
Aloha,
Kathleen

[Gaelen]

o.m.g.
Set screening campaigns (not just ours) back a decade, at least. What the heck is *wrong* with these people?
http://www.rd.com/living-healthy/cancer ... 22134.html

[salysue]

I also have subscribed to Reader's Digest for years and I, too, was appalled by this article. Don't understand the logic behind publishing this type of article in such a respected magazine.

[ihavecancer]

I was getting my chemo today and reading Reader's Digest. The cover story is about the dangers of early screening for cancer. As someone who would have greatly benefited from early screening for CRC, I found the article to be offensive to me, and bordering on irresponsible journalism. The one example of CRC they gave was of a doctor in his 60's who refuses to get a colonoscopy because he has no family history, and he figures the risks of the colonoscopy outweigh the potential of there really being a problem. Examples like that set our mission back, and give the general public a false sense of security. I realize I am probably hypersensitive to this issue, but it sure rubbed me the wrong way. So I was wondering if anyone else read this and what their reaction was ?

Jim

Agree. Such an article should have never been published because it's dangerous advice.

[wendy1]

I saw the magazine in the store the other day and almost bought it to read the article, but than I saw the price. That made me change my mind, I thought the price was insane. Now that I hear what all of you have to say about the article, I'm so glad I didn't pay the price. For a doctor to say he hasn't been tested because he has no family history is just insanity!!! I have no family history, and if I didn't get tested I probably wouldn't be here now! I think thats irresponsible for a magazine of that magnitude to print something so utterly ridiculous!

[JAIN DB]

My neighbour is the CEO of RD in India. I have posted a letter and link to this forum and requested him to personally speak to the Editor in this regard. Hope they will make amends and suggest otherwise.

ritu

[Mitu]

This looks like the article -- without the cover price! Is it?

http://www.rd.com/living-healthy/cancer ... 22134.html

There's a similar piece in this week's Newsweek, though it is billed as a commentary rather than an informational article. The auther, Sharon Begley, raises some interesting points but overall, her premise could probably be easily refuted. There is a difference between "cutting mortality" and "saving lives."

http://www.newsweek.com/id/191428

Mitu

[JAIN DB]

Just got a mail from the Indian Editor of RD

"[color=#BF00BF]I understand your friend's concern, but this appeared only in the US edition in April. Not our Indian edition.

I don't run such articles unless I consult Indian doctors and groups like Ritu's beforehand, because there's a big difference as regards current medical wisdom in India and the US.

I'll forward the letter to the concerned editor in the US. Thanks for this heads-up.[/color]

[AugustWest]

this is what caught my eye;

"As for colonoscopy: It allows the doctor to remove polyps, growths that can turn into cancer. The best estimates suggest that colonoscopy can cut the risk of death from colon cancer by as much as 60 percent. (We don't know for sure if it reduces the risk of death, because those studies haven't been done.)"

- proven fact that early detection saves lives - a colonoscopy is the tool for early detection -

"Sixty percent sounds great, until you realize that the chances of dying of colon cancer aren't all that big to start with. The average woman has a 2.1 percent risk of dying of colorectal cancer. (So of all the things that can kill her, this will be the culprit about 2.1 percent of the time.) The average man's risk is a little higher, about 2.3 percent. Knocking a 2.3 percent risk down by 60 percent means it drops to 0.9 percent -- a benefit, yes, but not necessarily big enough to outweigh all other considerations."


wtf?
serious?
does having someone in the US dx'd what, every 3 minutes (of every hour of every day of every month)
with CRC, "not necessarily big enough to outweigh all other considerations"

number 2 cause of cancer death in the US, Ms. Brownlee.
and since she likes numbers...what pray tell, are the odds of someone having a "harmful" colonoscopy
in relation to how many people have pre-cancerous polyps removed or have an stage 1 dx?

[RonH]

I read this article while my wife was in pre-op preparation. I was horrified. This can only be a devious effort to find ways to lower cost now so that when they force natioanal healthcare on us taxes will not go up 80%. Just 50%.