‘False information about Cancer has become a significant public health concern’ : Experts warn

Patients around the world are dying needlessly by abandoning proper treatment and opting for ‘cures’ and ‘myths’ peddled on the Internet.

  • SHARE
  • FOLLOW
‘False information about Cancer has become a significant public health concern’ : Experts warn


Cancer patients around the world are increasingly neglecting proper medical care and are rather opting for unverified and unscientific ‘cures’ on the Internet such as coffee enemas and raw juice diets. As a result, thousands of patients are ‘needlessly’ dying as misinformation surrounding cancer goes unchecked and rampant on the internet, especially on social media. These concerts were raised at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (Asco) — world’s largest cancer conference held in Chicago. 

The Study

Dr Fumiko Chino, a cancer researcher and assistant professor at MD Anderson Cancer Centre in Houston, Texas, co-authored a paper titled “Cancer misinformation and trust in doctors and scientists among cancer survivorsthat explores the rising misinformation and its harmful effects on the patients’ behaviour. The paper presented in Chicago said cancer misinformation had “acutely worsened in the past decade”. As the number of diagnosed people rises in the aging global population, misleading or false information surrounding cancer and its ‘magical’ treatments has become a very significant public health concern, the study adds. Although most people from the response groups trusted doctors for information related to cancer, more than half of those surveyed said experts seemed to contradict one another. One in 20 had no trust in scientists to provide cancer information. This loss of trust creates a vacuum within the patients and is filled by the amount of ‘convincing’ myths peddled on social media by self proclaimed experts.

Dr Julie Gralow, Asco’s chief medical officer, said: “Several of my patients desire for an all-natural treatment approach after I explain my treatment recommendations to them. They go to the internet and search for something natural and they find a clinic in Mexico promising an all natural treatment for cancer, which includes caffeine colonics, vitamin C infusions and other things.”

Rather than forcing patients for surgery, radiotherapy or chemotherapy, Gralow said she tries to win the trust of her patients with constant support and empathy.

Also Read: Meet Kuwar Amritbir Singh, The Fitness Icon Who Conquered 33 World Records Without a Gym

1 (10)

A vulnerable patient population

Increasingly many online ‘articles’ have suggested, without any scientific evidence, that high-dose infusions of vitamin C are able to treat cancer. Few others, rather outlandishly, claim that baking soda cures prostate cancer or and that cannabis oil may be a magic cure for breast or lung cancer. Experts have been long warning of the devastating effects of the misinformation surrounding critical diseases like cancer. The barrage of misinformation around cancer treatment and prevention is still studied underwhelming, but researchers have already begun to raise alarms about the deadly harm that comes with unscientific and in some cases toxic remedies.

The Future?

A big focus in the field, then, is now: “how to prevent or mitigate the harm through better physician–patient communication”. In one new study scientists focused on how health care providers can discredit a source of disinformation. Although physicians have pursued some good strategies, the study found that consistently highlighting a source’s low expertise was among the most effective ways to reduce that source’s future credibility. Dr Skyler Johnson, MD, an assistant professor of radiation oncology at the University of Utah’s Huntsman Cancer Institute in Salt Lake City, has created a stoplight model of physician–patient communication to further explore best practices around handling online misinformation. A green-light response validates a patient’s information seeking. A subtype dubbed green arrow validates the information gathering while directing patients to credible websites. A yellow light cautions patients to proceed carefully when seeking out the information. A red light, by contrast, nixes discussion around misinformation and discourages patients from seeking online information at all.

Read Next

Smoking Increases Risk of Upper Respiratory Infections: Expert Explains Early Signs

Disclaimer