back to article That Public Health study? No, it didn't say 'don't do chemo'

“Chemotherapy kills” was bound to pique our interest, especially since in the best traditions of modern research, its source was a badly-reported scientific study. The screaming headlines were just as you'd expect: “Chemotherapy warning as hundreds die from cancer fighting drugs” from Blighty's The Telegraph; almost the same …

  1. a_yank_lurker

    Chemotherapy

    Often chemotherapy is a balancing act to get the dose that kills the cancer without killing the patient. But when the choice is certain death by cancer or a reasonable shot of being cured, then taking these drugs is an intelligent choice.

    1. Hollerithevo

      Re: Chemotherapy

      Agreed. My partner had a vicious form of breast cancer and the chemo came as close to killing her as I have ever seen (and I have seen people die). She had all the risks explained and, being a scientist, accepted them. She has lasting effects, such as osteoporosis and other goodies. She points out that the alternative was worse. And she would do it again, which speaks volumes for her determination to live and her courage. Let's hope she never has to.

    2. William 3 Bronze badge

      Re: Chemotherapy

      Entirely depends.

      Chemo isn't the panacea it's made out to be by almost every person commenting.

      Some cancers are very resistant to chemo. And the recurrence rate is quite high in all cases.

      And in those cases where it doesn't recur, you're often left with crippling illnesses and a higher chance of getting cancer down the line due to the chemo itself.

      Glossing over the very real issues associated with chemo is equally as bad as demanding people are fools for not giving it a shot.

      1. Robert Carnegie Silver badge

        XKCD (NSFW, language)

        https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/931:_Lanes

      2. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

        Re: Chemotherapy

        Spoken like someone who not only hasn't done the research, but has never had to face the decision personally.

        Chemo sucks balls. Horrible, horrible balls. Chemo is terrible, and awful; it's miserable and it very well might kill you. Anyone any everyone whose been through it, or had a loved one go through it will tell you this.

        But for all chemo's problems, cancer is worse.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Chemotherapy

      I had chemo, and was told that it is killing the cancer a bit quicker than it is killing you. Dosage (which is based on how agressive the cancer is and your body mass) and how long you can take it need to be carefully graduated.

      I had chemo for a month and felt like shit after that.

  2. Mark 85

    This again reaffirms my belief that the media in general hasn't a clue about anything. If someone reads a study like this the way they did and hands it to the media, they'll use what's said to sell themselves. It gets even worse if it's no-brains celeb offering up the "evidence". It's totally irresponsible.

    Which, after the anti-vaccine people's stupidity, if this will lead more than few cancer victims to not undergo chemotherapy?

    1. hardboiledphil

      Time to stop the mainstream reporting on science? Let's face it they actually bring little of benefit to the population with the pathetic misrepresentations they make from any scientific reporting these days.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        "they actually bring little of benefit to the population with the pathetic misrepresentations they make from any reporting these days."

        FTFY

      2. Yesnomaybe

        FTFY

        There:

        "Let's face it they actually bring little of benefit to the population with the pathetic misrepresentations they make..."

        FTFY

    2. SundogUK Silver badge

      "Which, after the anti-vaccine people's stupidity, if this will lead more than few cancer victims to not undergo chemotherapy?"

      This is deliberate. Chemotherapy is expensive; cheaper if people just die.

    3. JohnMurray

      There is also the high probability of a media second-agenda behind the "story".

      Still, when all chemo is stopped because of the "risk", and cancer deaths go through the roof, the media can then start a "why are thousands more dying from cancer in NHS hospitals" story?

      Gotta love the media: Win-win, either way is a winner for them.

      1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
        Unhappy

        "Gotta love the media: Win-win, either way is a winner for them."

        Have you never heard the expression "If it bleeds, it leads" ?

        Ever wondered what it meant?

    4. William 3 Bronze badge

      So your confirming your bias against the media after reading an article in the media that suits your narrative.

      The use of emotive language such as "cancer victim" whilst glossing over the "chemo victims".

      Tragic.

    5. Chris Evans

      Headline writers!

      I frequently read articles and find the headline wasn't just way of the mark but actually the opposite of what the article stated.

  3. wolfetone Silver badge

    I know when my Dad finished his Chemotherapy he told me he'd never go through it again. It does take a lot out of the patient, especially if they're not very strong as a result of other illnesses (like my old man). It made me think a lot what I'd do in a similar situation, but then when Steve Jobs and Robin Gibb both died from cancer after refusing this conventional treatment in favour of "alternatives", it reaffirmed to me that we have these techniques from hundreds of years of trying other things and them failing.

    So yes, Chemo may kill you to kill the cancer but it's surely better to do that than rather die of cancer completely?

    1. wolfetone Silver badge

      1 thumb down? They must really believe that diluted water bullshit actually works.

  4. Filippo Silver badge

    Of course people die from chemo. But if you had a 20% chance of dying of chemo or a 90% chance of dying of cancer, which would you get?

    1. William 3 Bronze badge

      Depends on the success rate of chemo in curing cancer doesn't it really.

      If chemo only has a 20% chanced of curing your particular cancer (as some cancers are inherently more resistant to chemo than others) . It has just as much chance as killing you as cure you.

      Not so cut and dried as you're implying it is.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Pint

        Total Rubbish

        @William 3

        About 3 years ago I had BEP chemo. I am still alive and well. Without chemo I would not be here to write this.

        It IS absolutely cut and dried.

        Without chemo you will die soon than you would want.

        With chemo you have a massive chance of living a lot longer and in good health as I am doing. And yes I do know the possible side effects of Etoposide, Cysplatin and Bleomycin. It was all explained to me.

        The risks are absolutely worth it as you will realise if you are ever unlucky enough to get the disease.

        A beer because now I am off to my local for a few.

        Cheers... Ishy

        1. Small Furry Animal
          Pint

          Re: Total Rubbish

          @Ishtiaq, I'll join you if I may.

          If I ever have to have Cisplatin infused again, I will think long and hard about it before agreeing (as I most certainly will). The loss of my sense of taste for nearly 5 months was exceedingly unpleasant. One of the other 'poisons' gave me Peripheral Neuropathy which I still have though now much less and slowly improving. My hair has also grown back and, guess what, it's got less grey in it than before.

          So, to all fellow members of the Forlorn Hope, beer!

          BTW You don't have to be in the army to fight in the war.

      2. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

        If I have a 20% chance of chemo curing my cancer and a 90% chance of dying from that cancer then I'm going to take the chemo. That's just rational.

        Woo woo crystals, magic water and the so-called "power of prayer" have exactly a zero percent chance of curing me. The power of the human immune system varied dramatically per person, and given the death rates from cancer do you really want to roll those dice?

        The alternative to chemo or radiation therapy is generally death. And not the nice kind of death.

  5. lglethal Silver badge
    FAIL

    All i can say...

    ... is that it worked for my Dad. It was definitely hard on him, but if he hadn't had the Chemo then he wouldn't be here today.

    Stuff like this I would expect from the Daily Fail and its ilk, but when mainstream media outlets do this, they are just being dangerous. It would be good if the Medical Association sued them to force them to print in the exact same size and headline space "WE LIED!" and "WE DIDNT HAVE A CLUE WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT!". Unfortunately it wont happen though.

    1. 100113.1537

      Re: All i can say...

      Stop blaming the Daily Fail for everything that is wrong in the media - some of the (supposed) quality papers are worse because they pretend that they are not publishing click-bait. The headlines went across the board (Guardian, Telegraph, Times) and all of them got the message wrong. Most went for the "19 NHS trusts investigated for higher rates" because it suits the prevailing meme about the failing NHS.

      In general, health and science are atrociously served in the media - mainstream or otherwise - because journalists either don't have time or don't bother to read the underlying studies (the way that Richard has done here on El Reg). And with all best wishes to his wife, would he really have taken the time to do this if he didn't have some kind of personal interest?

      It is partly because the scientific journals themselves advertise new papers with press releases - which are not written by the scientists involved and often pick out some lurid details just to get a headline. As a scientist myself, I would fight to get these press releases to accurately reflect the main findings, but when the pressure is on from your institution to get more funding, any publicity is good publicity and often you just don't have the final say.

      Remember, the devil is always in the detail - and unless you make a real effort you won' ever see that detail. Bottom line: Don't make health (or lifestyle or nutrition) choices based on what you read in the media.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    It's not only the press

    Essentially this is about side effects of drugs. Death - the side effect - may be impossible to distinguish from death - the end point of disease. The study can still make it as a scientific study if the author concludes that the drugs are to blame for all the deaths. I have worked closely with a person who made a such a PhD thesis and the well-renowned professor who supervised the study.

    So there is poor scientific reporting in academia too.

    1. Small Furry Animal

      Re: It's not only the press

      As one of the few commentards that has received chemotherapy, I feel I may well be suitably qualified to comment. Disclosure: I have Mantle Cell Lymphoma (diagnosed in August 2015) and have received the full range of chemotherapies usually used to (try to) combat the disease - RCOP, R-HD-Ara-C and RDHAP. None of these worked so I was given a monoclonal antibody (Ibrutinib) which seems to be effective. I am now officially in remission and awaiting an allogeneic Stem Cell Transplant.

      My point is that I went through this with my eyes open. At every point in my treatment, I had the risks carefully explained to me and I was given the necessary time to digest them before making a decision. With chemotherapy your body may react adversely and they do everything they can to monitor this. It must be remembered, however, that cancer kills, no ifs no buts; all chemotherapies carry a risk, they're poisons after all. When you weigh the 100% chance of mortality within a year against the <10% chance of the therapy killing you, then I know which way I would jump.

      As it is, the allogeneic SCT carries a risk of 20% mortality within a year from either infection (they kill off your whole immune system) or Graft versus Host Disease. Given the fact that it could extend my life by over 10 years, I have made my decision.

      BTW @Richard Chirgwin, my heart goes out both to your wife and to you. Cancers affect the whole family, not just the patient.

      1. Baldy50

        Re: It's not only the press

        I helped look after my father after finding out suddenly without any warning that he was diagnosed with cancer, lining the lungs and a large tumour on his liver.

        He just was in serious pain one day out of the blue, like I said no warning signs at all and the scariest bit of all.

        The therapy went on for more than a year and the cancer was just about beaten, his health and weight suffered and looked a lot older than before but the prognosis was good and would have to endure two or three more treatments before a review and probable remission.

        He wasn't able to have the next treatment but instead had a blood transfusion and told to rest for now, eat well etc.

        The next month he started the last phase of chemotherapy and unknowing to us had become weary of the after effects, drinking loads of water and taking the after medication to flush out the chemicals.

        Well he was fed up with going the loo for a pee all night and had stopped taking them.

        We'd all got into a routine over the course of time and never thought he would be so stubborn like this.

        So basically when his abdomen bloated and he was in pain a trip to A&E and telling the doctor what his condition was, his first question was about the after medication.

        He confessed what he had done and we had to tell him his liver and kidneys were gone, three days later so was he.

        So chemotherapy is very hard on the body we'd all agree but how many deaths are the result of the patient being stubborn?

        I don't know but could have had my father around for many more years, I think he just got tired of it all.

        When the oncology department rang up a few months later to schedule an appointment and check up were very surprised to hear the news, I told them what had happened, thanked them for their help and they said this does happen sometimes, it's not your fault.

        The article the reg reports on could do a massive amount of harm and suffering, he was originally given weeks to live and without the treatment would have had no chance at all.

  7. EricM

    Big Data...

    Working in "Big Data" applications myself I find the blind belief most people hold for results generated from data of often variable quality that was aggregated over multiple levels disturbing. Even in much more simple commercial settings. Aggregation over millions of datasats is done quickly today. However, each aggregation must always be followed by careful interpretation, to clarify what the aggregated numbers actually really mean, if they mean anything at all or if they are just artifacts stemming from suboptimal data quality of some or all sources. This second and more important step is of course often ommitted and also not openly communicated by vendors, many of whom instead pitch their systems as magical "crystal balls" who pretend to "answer" all questions.

  8. Chris G

    Irresponsible

    This kind of reporting unfortunately carries no penalty for misrepresenting to the public or for the damage it can potentially cause. So many journalists write an article with an ' As I understand it' approach that is strongly coloured by the will it sell papers question. I gave up buyind and reading newspapers years ago and see no reason to change.

    I wonder how many people now could live shorter more painful lives as a result of this appalling journalism.

    As for the Reg article, thankyou for a well considered and written piece.

    1. Francis Boyle Silver badge

      Re: Irresponsible

      "As for the Reg article, thankyou for a well considered and written piece."

      Seconded. This stuff is important. Keep at it.

  9. Wupspups
    Trollface

    UK Big Data boffins not up to the task?

    What intrigues me is why is some Aussie academic and not a UK one is crunching NHS data. Arent our big data boffins up to the task?

    1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      Re: UK Big Data boffins not up to the task?

      Maybe some things are best done from a safe distance.

    2. John 110

      Re: UK Big Data boffins not up to the task?

      @Wupspups

      I had to think before replying to this one because I didn't want to take away from the emotive and important message about cancer treatment that the Reg is putting across here.

      Anyway...

      Certain groups of UK medical researchers have shown that they are perfectly capable of manipulating the data in their studies to make claims about treatment that are not shown to be valid when the data used to support those claims is examined by other interested parties.

      Further, certain reputable UK journals have colluded in this both explicitly by publishing misleading findings (and releasing press releases which publicize those findings) and implicitly by not calling out the perpetrators.

      The details are a bit long and convoluted for here but looking here https://jcoynester.wordpress.com/ and here http://www.virology.ws/2015/10/22/trial-by-error-ii/ and searching out "PACE trial" with your engine of choice will give a bit of background.

      This sort of scandal is sadly not rare and our press is willing to pull any interpretation out of trial write-ups that will up the reading figures and further their own political agenda (see current NHS reporting for examples).

      What I'm trying to convey here is that I've personally lost faith in all science reporting, both in the media (who seem to go out of their way to get it wrong) and the journals.

    3. Richard Chirgwin (Written by Reg staff)

      Re: UK Big Data boffins not up to the task?

      Hi Wupspups - actually, the answer is simple: I work in The Register's Australian bureau, and Dr Saunders' work was already known to me. So I picked up the phone and called him!

      Richard Chirgwin

      The Register

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like